The birth of Prince Charles, afterwards Charles II, 29 May, 1630.In the midst of the general gloom one bright spot appeared, namely, the birth of an heir to the crown (29 May, 1630), an event which the king lost no time[pg 110]in communicating to the mayor and Common Council of the city—his "principal city and chamber."353On the occasion of the christening of the infant prince the bells of the city churches were set ringing,354and he was presented with a fair large standing cup of gold with cover, weighing nearly 300 ounces, and enclosed in a case of crimson velvet, the cost of the whole exceeding £1,000.355Two years later, when the prince was carried into the city to witness the pageants on lord mayor's day, the Court of Aldermen were so gratified with this unexpected mark of royal favour that they forthwith voted the babe a gift of £500.356Loss of the queen's plate and jewels, 1631.The year following the birth of Prince Charles the queen was robbed of a great part of her plate and jewels. As the thieves were likely to dispose of their booty among the goldsmiths of the city, a precept was issued to the master and wardens of the Goldsmiths' Company to try and recover it.357The goldsmiths had long ago begun to leave Goldsmiths' Row in Cheapside, and to set up shops in different parts of the city, and in 1623 they had been ordered to resume their old quarters, which in the meantime had been given up to poor petty trades.358It was easier to trace lost property when all the goldsmiths were congregated together in one spot. This order, however, was so ineffectually carried out that another order was issued[pg 111]by the lords of the council ten years later directing all goldsmiths to find shops for themselves either in Cheapside or Lombard Street within the next six months, inasmuch as the practice of setting up their shops in obscure places in different parts of the city offered facilities for abuses, and more especially "in passing away of stolen plate."359City gifts to king and queen, May-June, 1633.On the occasion of the king's departure for Scotland in May, 1633, the Court of Aldermen voted him a present of £2,000 "in two severall purses of velvett or sattin," as a pledge of the City's true loyalty, love and obedience to his majesty.360After he had gone the mayor and aldermen proceeded in State to Richmond to pay their respects to the queen and to offer her a bason and ewer of gold of the value of £800, with her arms engraved thereon.361Christening of the Duke of York, Nov., 1633.In the following November the Duke of York was christened, the ceremony being attended by the mayor, aldermen and sheriffs, as well as the chief officers of the City. The infant prince was presented with a gilt cup and cover weighing sixty ounces, and containing the sum of £500 in gold. Similar fees were paid to the midwife, nurse and "rockers" to those paid on the occasion of the baptism of his elder brother.362During the absence of the mayor and aldermen at St. James', where the ceremony took place, a double watch was ordered to be kept in the city.363Demand for ship money, Oct., 1634.Five years had now elapsed since the dissolution of the last parliament, during which time the country[pg 112]had submitted to the personal government of Charles. Matters might have continued on the same footing for some time longer had not Charles conceived the idea of claiming the sovereignty of the seas as a pretext for raising a fleet. The difficulty then arose as to how to equip a fleet without summoning a parliament. It had been the custom ever since the time of the Plantagenets to call upon maritime towns to furnish ships ready manned for the defence of the realm at a time of threatened invasion. This custom had been rendered sufficiently elastic to comprise the port of London, and the City had frequently been called upon to furnish a contingent of vessels in time of war. Occasionally a protest may have been made against such demands, but they were seldom, if ever, altogether refused. On the 20th October, 1634, writs were issued calling upon the city of London and various port towns and places along the coast to furnish a certain number of ships of war, and to have them ready at Portsmouth by the 1st March, 1635. In many cases it was impossible to supply ships of the size required, and in these the king offered to supply ships of his own on condition that the port towns should equip and man them. London was called upon to supply seven ships varying in size from 300 to 900 tons, with an equipment of from 150 to 350 men.Search to be made for precedents, Nov., 1634.The Court of Aldermen appointed (13 Nov.) a committee to consider this writ to the City as well as another sent to the borough of Southwark, and to learn what had formerly been done in like case. The City's records were to be consulted with the view of ascertaining how far it was exempt from such charges,[pg 113]and the City's Solicitor was to attend them on that behalf.364The law officers had previously been directed (6 Nov.) to consult together on the matter, and the Town Clerk had received orders to translate the writs into English and make copies of the same.365Petition of Common Council against demand for ships, 2 Dec., 1634.When the matter came before the Common Council that body, after serious consideration, decided (2 Dec.) to present a petition to his majesty setting forth that, by ancient privileges, grants and Acts of Parliament, which were ready to be produced, the City was exempt from any such obligation as that contained in the writ, and praying that the City's privileges might be upheld.366The City forced to submit.The only effect of this petition was to cause another writ to be issued a week later (9 Dec.) enjoining specific performance of the former writ.367Finding that there was no way of escape the mayor, Sir Robert Parkhurst, began to take the necessary steps for raising £30,000, the sum required from the different wards.368On Sunday, the 14th December, Robert Mason, who had recently been appointed Recorder in succession to Littleton, on the king's own recommendation (although the election is recorded as having been according to "antient custom and freedom of election"!),369appeared before the lords of the council with an account of the progress made in the city in the matter of the ships, with which Charles was well pleased, and the Recorder was ordered to attend the[pg 114]council every Sunday afternoon with a similar account "untill the worke be perfected."370On the 19th the Court of Aldermen appointed a committee to fit out the ships as required, but they were limited in expenditure to the sum of £30,000.371On the 17th February, 1635, the committee reported to the court that his majesty had resolved that two of the City's ships should be assigned to the admiral and vice-admiral of the fleet, and that they should be fitted out by the care and oversight of officers of the navy. For this purpose the sum of £11,475, out of the £30,000 already voted, was ordered to be paid to the treasurer of the navy, whilst the committee proceeded with the business of the other five ships.372A fresh writ for ship money, 4 Aug., 1635.Hitherto all had promised well, but on the 4th August Charles thought fit to issue another writ calling upon the nation at large, and not only port and maritime towns, to furnish ship money, on the ground that as all were concerned in the mutual defence of one another, so all might contribute towards the defence of the realm.373The City found itself called upon to provide two more vessels of 800 tons apiece.374The authorities, however, were so slow in executing this further order that the Sheriffs were made to[pg 115]appear every Sunday before the lords of the council to report what progress was being made.375Richard Chambers and ship money, 1636.In June, 1636, Richard Chambers, a merchant, who had previously displayed a bold front against the king's demand of tonnage and poundage, for which the Star Chamber had condemned him to a term of imprisonment (1628-1629), again came to the fore, and carried the question of the king's right to levy ship money to the Court of King's Bench. The judges, however, refused to allow the question to be argued. "There was a rule of law and a rule of government"—said Justice Berkeley, scarce realising the true import of his words—"and many things which might not be done by the rule of law might be done by the rule of government." Chambers was again committed for contempt, but was afterwards liberated from prison upon payment of the £10 at which he had been assessed. He contented himself with bringing an action in the King's Bench against the mayor, who had made the assessment on the ground of some technical informality.376The City's forfeiture of its Irish estate, 1635-1638.Other matters had arisen lately—"great and important businesses"—all tending towards an estrangement of the City from the king. Early in 1635 the City had been condemned by the Court of Star Chamber to a fine of £70,000 and the loss of its Irish estate for having, as was alleged, broken the terms of the charter under which their Irish estate[pg 116]was held. One of the charges against the city and the companies was that they continued to employ the "mere Irish" on their estates instead of relegating them to the narrow limits reserved for them, there to perish of disease or starvation.377There were differences too touching the Royal Contract, differences as to the City's rights to estreated recognisances, as to pretended encroachments and other matters. It was felt that there would be no peace until some arrangement could be made with Charles on all the matters in question, and for this purpose a committee was appointed in May, 1636, to see what could be done. A schedule of "thinges desired by the cittie of London" was drawn up, and an offer was made to the king of the sum of £100,000, to be paid by annual instalments of £20,000, if he would make the concessions desired.378The king's commissioners, who had the business in hand, refused the offer. They informed the committee that not only would the City have to surrender certain valuable fisheries and other privileges in Ireland, as well as the castle of Culmore, but it would have to provide an allowance of £5,000 to Sir Thomas Philips. Instead of £100,000 it would have moreover to pay £120,000.379Negotiations continued for two years. Eventually a compromise was effected in June, 1638, and the city was fain to accept a pardon on surrendering its Irish estates and payment of the comparatively small sum of £12,000,380of which the queen happened at that time to stand in[pg 117]need. The patents of the Irish Society and of the companies were not however actually surrendered until 1639.381Other grievances of the City.In the meantime Charles had given umbrage to the City in other matters, more especially in the measures he had taken for regulating trade and the institution of corporate monopolies. An order restricting the use of coaches and carts, and forbidding anyone to keep a carriage unless he was also prepared to keep four sufficient horses or geldings for the king's service, weighed heavily upon the mayor and aldermen of the city, who were for the most part men advanced in years and whose duties carried them a good deal abroad. They therefore petitioned the king for an exception to be made in their favour. The petition was granted, but only after long delay.382Corporation of tradesmen, etc., created, 1636.The civic authorities were not better pleased with the king for his having (1636), in spite of all protest, created a new corporation which embraced all tradesmen and artificers in the city and suburbs, and thus threatened to be a formidable rival to the ancient corporation.383A third writ for ship money, Oct., 1636.In the midst of a growing feeling of dissatisfaction at the existing state of things, a third writ for ship money appeared (9 Oct., 1636). It raised such a storm of opposition in every quarter, however, that Charles once more appealed to the judges for a formal acknowledgment of his right. Their opinion proving[pg 118]favourable,384the work went on and the City was called upon (Sept., 1637) to furnish two ships each of 700 tons.385In the following year, after Hampden's case had been decided, Charles continued to levy ship money, and the City was told to furnish a ship of 500 tons (5 Nov., 1638). The cost was estimated at £1,000. The usual precept was issued (26 Nov.) to the alderman of each ward for the purpose of ascertaining how best that sum could be raised.386The returns must have been unfavourable, for on the 29th January (1639) the Court of Aldermen appointed a committee to wait upon the lord high admiral and explain to him that the City was not in a position to fit out another ship.387The money was eventually raised by the twelve principal livery companies, seven of which contributed £100 apiece and the other five £60.388Charter of Charles to the City, 18 Oct., 1638.In the meantime troubles had arisen in Scotland through Charles's ill-advised and bigoted attempt to impose upon his northern subjects a Book of Common Prayer. By midsummer (1638) he was preparing for war and would shortly be under the necessity of applying to the city for money and men. It was probably with this end in view that he granted (18 Oct., 1638) to the citizens an ample inspeximus charter, confirming to them their ancient privileges and franchises. Negotiations for a new charter had[pg 119]been going on since the preceding March389(if not earlier), and it was only now conceded on payment of a sum of £12,000.390Disorders in Scotland, 1639.At the opening of the new year (4 Jan., 1639) Charles applied by letter under his hand to the City for a liberal contribution and assistance towards putting down the disorders in Scotland, notifying at the same time the fact that he had called upon the peers of the realm to attend in person at York by the 1st April. The letter was read to the court of Common Council on the 12th February, but the matter seemed of so great importance that further consideration of it was adjourned to the 16th, when it was agreed to issue a precept to the alderman of each ward to take steps for raising a free and liberal contribution.391A month elapsed, and notwithstanding every effort of the aldermen, less than £5,000 was got together. The aldermen were directed to renew their efforts, but this only resulted in increasing the amount by £200 or £220.392The whole amount was so small that it was contemptuously refused. At the beginning of April Charles found himself at York with an indifferent army, and with little prospect of being in a position to maintain even that army beyond a very limited period.Demand for a loan of £100,000, June, 1639.In June he caused another application to be made to the City.393On the 7th the lord mayor, who[pg 120]had been summoned to appear before the lords of the council, appeared with so few of his brother aldermen that he was ordered to go back and to return on the 10th with the whole court. When they at last made their appearance they were told that the king expected from them no less a sum than £100,000. The war was, if possible, more unpopular in the city than in the country. The memory of the recent confiscation of their Irish estates had not been obliterated from the minds of the citizens by the subsequent grant of a charter. The mayor and aldermen replied that it was impossible to find the money. The council told them that it must be done, one of the lords declaring that they ought to have sold their chains and gowns before making such a reply. They were ordered to appear once more on the 12th June with a final answer.394The trained bands called out.A warrant had in the meantime been issued for raising 3000 men from the trained bands of the city for service in Scotland.395Although it does not appear that this demand was acceded to,396seeing that the trained bands were a force especially intended for the defence of the city, greater activity was shown in making the city's troops as perfect in their drill as circumstances permitted.397Boys from Christ's Hospital and Bridewell were taught to play the drum and fife, weapons were marked, and musters held in[pg 121]Goodman's Fields and elsewhere under the eye of Captain John Fisher, recently appointed muster-master.398The City's free gift of £10,000, 31 July, 1639.That the citizens were not indisposed to assist the king, if left to themselves and not subjected to threats and intimidation, is shown by the fact that, in anticipation of the return of Charles from the North, the Common Council voted him (31 July, 1639) the sum of £10,000 as a free gift in consideration that the City had not contributed anything to his majesty on his setting out, as had been required, "albeit the counties and private personnes both nobles and others had done the same."399Even this small sum could not be raised without resorting to sheriffs' fines, no less than sixteen individuals being mulcted for refusing to serve as sheriff in less than two months.400It was no difficult task to find men unwilling to serve such a thankless office at so critical a time.The "short parliament," 1640.Before the close of the year (1639) the country was agreeably surprised at the news that it was the king's intention to summon a parliament. Parliament opened on the 13th April (1640). Few of its members could have served in the last parliament of eleven years before, but although so long a time had elapsed since the Commons had met, they had not forgotten their old constitutional claims to have the country's grievances redressed before proceeding to grant[pg 122]supplies. An offer to relinquish ship money proved insufficient, and after three weeks the "short parliament" was dissolved (5 May, 1640).Attempt to force a city loan of £100,000, April-May, 1640.For some days before parliament was dissolved every effort had been made by the king to get the mayor and aldermen to lend him £100,000. This being found impossible, the mayor, Henry Garway, or Garraway, was directed to make out a list of the wealthiest commoners. After several attempts to negotiate with the aldermen individually, they were summoned to appear in a body on Sunday, the 11th April. Charles himself then told them that his necessity at the time was so great that he must borrow £100,000 of the City; that he must not be denied; the money he must have at once, as it would benefit him more then than twenty subsidies granted by parliament afterwards. After the king had finished speaking the Lord Privy Seal401addressed them, setting forth that a similar sum had been advanced by the City to King James; that he himself, being Recorder at the time, had lent £3,000 towards it, and that the money had been repaid with interest. The City, he continued, was rather beholden to his majesty for taking the money and repaying it with interest, than the king beholden to the City for lending it. He further instanced the case of the City having lent King Henry III a sum of £100,000 rather than allow that monarch to pledge his crown and jewels to the merchants of the Steelyard, and it was truly repaid. To this the aldermen were not permitted to[pg 123]make any reply, but were sent away to advise together how the sum should be raised.402On Thursday, the 7th May, the mayor and aldermen were again summoned before the council, when they were told that, having failed to provide the sum previously asked for, they would now have to find £200,000. If the latter sum was not forthcoming the king threatened to "have £300,000 of the city." They were to come again on the following Sunday (10 May) and bring with them a list of the rich men of the wards.Four aldermen committed to prison, 1640.On the day appointed they came, but brought with them a petition to be excused making such a list as that required. The excuse was not allowed. Strafford is recorded as having lost his temper at the obstinacy of the aldermen. "Sir," said he, addressing the king, "you will never do good to these citizens of London till you have made examples of some of the aldermen," and recommended Charles, in his own "thorough" way, to hang a few of them.403Charles did not take the advice offered. He would have made, however, the mayor resign his sword and collar then and there but for the intercession of the bystanders, and actually committed four of the aldermen to prison, viz., Nicholas Rainton, John Gayre, Thomas Soame and Thomas Atkins, for refusing to make a list of those inhabitants of their respective wards who were able to lend from £50 upwards.404One of them, Alderman Soame, gave particular offence. "I was an[pg 124]honest man whilst I was a commoner," he told the king to his face, "and I would continue to be so now I am an alderman." The other aldermen professed their readiness to give in the names of the richer citizens, but objected to rate them according to their means.Impeachment of Sir Thomas Gardiner, Recorder, 1642.Both Garway and Sir Thomas Gardiner, the Recorder, favoured the king. The latter was particularly anxious that the City should lend the £100,000 originally requested, and did his best to get the money advanced. For his zeal on this occasion, and for "other high crimes and misdemeanours," he was afterwards (1642) impeached.405Riot at Lambeth, 11 May, 1640.The aldermen were not long kept in confinement. Even before their committal the city was in a ferment, and a placard had appeared posted up in the Exchange inviting all who were lovers of liberty to assemble in St. George's Fields in Southwark early on Monday morning (11 May). Archbishop Laud was a special object of hatred to the citizens, and against him the mob directed their attack. As soon as the trained bands, which kept order during the day, had retired for the evening, the rabble marched to Lambeth. Laud, however, had been warned in time, and had made good his escape across the river to Whitehall. The rioters finding themselves baulked of their prey retired with threats of returning to burn down the palace. For the next few days the city was under martial law. A double watch was kept in its streets. The companies looked to their store of powder and match. A strict guard was kept over servants and[pg 125]apprentices, and a warrant issued for raising 1,000 men of the trained bands, or as many more as the lord mayor should think necessary "to suppress, slay, kill, destroy and apprehend all such as should be tumultuously assembled in or about Southwark, Lambeth, Blackheath or elsewhere in parts adjacent."406The aldermen released, 15 May, 1640.If the royal warrant was to be effectually and loyally carried out some concession to the citizens was necessary, and accordingly, on the same day (15 May) that the warrant appeared, the four aldermen were released.Collection of ship money in the city enforced, June, 1640.Pending the negotiations for a loan, payment of ship money had not been strictly enforced; but now that threats and entreaties had failed to open the purse-strings of the citizens Charles made a desperate effort to exact ship money. On the 9th June, 1640, the lord mayor and both the sheriffs were summoned to attend the council to give an account of the ship money due from the city. Why had it not been paid in? The mayor replied that he had sent his officers to collect, but few or none would pay.407Upon the king telling him that he should have distrained, the mayor remarked that one of his predecessors in office, Sir Edward Bromfield, was still a defendant in a suit in the King's Bench brought against him by Richard Chambers for acting in that manner, and was likely to be cast. "No man," said Charles peremptorily, "shall suffer for obeying my commands." Thus encouraged the mayor himself[pg 126]made a house-to-house visit the next day, accompanied by the sheriffs, for the purpose of collecting the money. Throughout the whole city, however, only one man was found ready and willing to pay. When the mayor ordered the sheriffs to distrain they refused on the plea that it was the mayor's business, not theirs. Entering a draper's shop the mayor attempted to seize a piece of linen cloth; the owner set about measuring it, and naming the price told the mayor that if he persisted in taking it he should esteem it a purchase and put it to his lordship's account.408Demand for a city force of 4,000 men for service in the North, 11 June, 1640.On the 11th June the Common Council took into consideration two letters—one from Charles, dated the 17th March, and another from the lords of the council, of the 31st May—asking for a city force of 4,000 men (but none to be taken out of the trained bands) for service in the north of England, and directing the mayor to see that coat and conduct money was at once raised for the purpose.409The court declined to come to an immediate decision; but on the 15th the lord mayor issued his precept for the necessary funds to be levied on the wards.410Application to the Common Council for a loan of £200,000 renewed, 23 July, 1640.On the 19th July news arrived from the North that the Scots were about to seize Newcastle—a very serious matter to the Londoners, as they would thereby be cut off from their supply of coal. Charles took advantage of this, writes Dr. Gardiner,411and sent Lord Cottington and Sir Henry Vane to the Common Council—specially summoned to meet on the 23rd by[pg 127]the king's order412—to assure them that if the long-desired loan of £200,000 were granted the citizens would hear nothing more of the project recently promulgated of debasing the coinage, a project which, if carried out, would have worked great mischief to the London merchant and tradesman. "Leaving the Common Council to discuss the demand, the privy councillors amused themselves by strolling through the Cloth Exchange at Blackwell Hall. The owners of cloth gathered quickly round them. They hoped, they said, that they were not to be compelled to sell for copper goods for which sterling silver had been paid. After a debate of an hour and a half Cottington and Vane were re-admitted, to be informed that the Common Council had no power to dispose of the money of the citizens."
The birth of Prince Charles, afterwards Charles II, 29 May, 1630.In the midst of the general gloom one bright spot appeared, namely, the birth of an heir to the crown (29 May, 1630), an event which the king lost no time[pg 110]in communicating to the mayor and Common Council of the city—his "principal city and chamber."353On the occasion of the christening of the infant prince the bells of the city churches were set ringing,354and he was presented with a fair large standing cup of gold with cover, weighing nearly 300 ounces, and enclosed in a case of crimson velvet, the cost of the whole exceeding £1,000.355Two years later, when the prince was carried into the city to witness the pageants on lord mayor's day, the Court of Aldermen were so gratified with this unexpected mark of royal favour that they forthwith voted the babe a gift of £500.356Loss of the queen's plate and jewels, 1631.The year following the birth of Prince Charles the queen was robbed of a great part of her plate and jewels. As the thieves were likely to dispose of their booty among the goldsmiths of the city, a precept was issued to the master and wardens of the Goldsmiths' Company to try and recover it.357The goldsmiths had long ago begun to leave Goldsmiths' Row in Cheapside, and to set up shops in different parts of the city, and in 1623 they had been ordered to resume their old quarters, which in the meantime had been given up to poor petty trades.358It was easier to trace lost property when all the goldsmiths were congregated together in one spot. This order, however, was so ineffectually carried out that another order was issued[pg 111]by the lords of the council ten years later directing all goldsmiths to find shops for themselves either in Cheapside or Lombard Street within the next six months, inasmuch as the practice of setting up their shops in obscure places in different parts of the city offered facilities for abuses, and more especially "in passing away of stolen plate."359City gifts to king and queen, May-June, 1633.On the occasion of the king's departure for Scotland in May, 1633, the Court of Aldermen voted him a present of £2,000 "in two severall purses of velvett or sattin," as a pledge of the City's true loyalty, love and obedience to his majesty.360After he had gone the mayor and aldermen proceeded in State to Richmond to pay their respects to the queen and to offer her a bason and ewer of gold of the value of £800, with her arms engraved thereon.361Christening of the Duke of York, Nov., 1633.In the following November the Duke of York was christened, the ceremony being attended by the mayor, aldermen and sheriffs, as well as the chief officers of the City. The infant prince was presented with a gilt cup and cover weighing sixty ounces, and containing the sum of £500 in gold. Similar fees were paid to the midwife, nurse and "rockers" to those paid on the occasion of the baptism of his elder brother.362During the absence of the mayor and aldermen at St. James', where the ceremony took place, a double watch was ordered to be kept in the city.363Demand for ship money, Oct., 1634.Five years had now elapsed since the dissolution of the last parliament, during which time the country[pg 112]had submitted to the personal government of Charles. Matters might have continued on the same footing for some time longer had not Charles conceived the idea of claiming the sovereignty of the seas as a pretext for raising a fleet. The difficulty then arose as to how to equip a fleet without summoning a parliament. It had been the custom ever since the time of the Plantagenets to call upon maritime towns to furnish ships ready manned for the defence of the realm at a time of threatened invasion. This custom had been rendered sufficiently elastic to comprise the port of London, and the City had frequently been called upon to furnish a contingent of vessels in time of war. Occasionally a protest may have been made against such demands, but they were seldom, if ever, altogether refused. On the 20th October, 1634, writs were issued calling upon the city of London and various port towns and places along the coast to furnish a certain number of ships of war, and to have them ready at Portsmouth by the 1st March, 1635. In many cases it was impossible to supply ships of the size required, and in these the king offered to supply ships of his own on condition that the port towns should equip and man them. London was called upon to supply seven ships varying in size from 300 to 900 tons, with an equipment of from 150 to 350 men.Search to be made for precedents, Nov., 1634.The Court of Aldermen appointed (13 Nov.) a committee to consider this writ to the City as well as another sent to the borough of Southwark, and to learn what had formerly been done in like case. The City's records were to be consulted with the view of ascertaining how far it was exempt from such charges,[pg 113]and the City's Solicitor was to attend them on that behalf.364The law officers had previously been directed (6 Nov.) to consult together on the matter, and the Town Clerk had received orders to translate the writs into English and make copies of the same.365Petition of Common Council against demand for ships, 2 Dec., 1634.When the matter came before the Common Council that body, after serious consideration, decided (2 Dec.) to present a petition to his majesty setting forth that, by ancient privileges, grants and Acts of Parliament, which were ready to be produced, the City was exempt from any such obligation as that contained in the writ, and praying that the City's privileges might be upheld.366The City forced to submit.The only effect of this petition was to cause another writ to be issued a week later (9 Dec.) enjoining specific performance of the former writ.367Finding that there was no way of escape the mayor, Sir Robert Parkhurst, began to take the necessary steps for raising £30,000, the sum required from the different wards.368On Sunday, the 14th December, Robert Mason, who had recently been appointed Recorder in succession to Littleton, on the king's own recommendation (although the election is recorded as having been according to "antient custom and freedom of election"!),369appeared before the lords of the council with an account of the progress made in the city in the matter of the ships, with which Charles was well pleased, and the Recorder was ordered to attend the[pg 114]council every Sunday afternoon with a similar account "untill the worke be perfected."370On the 19th the Court of Aldermen appointed a committee to fit out the ships as required, but they were limited in expenditure to the sum of £30,000.371On the 17th February, 1635, the committee reported to the court that his majesty had resolved that two of the City's ships should be assigned to the admiral and vice-admiral of the fleet, and that they should be fitted out by the care and oversight of officers of the navy. For this purpose the sum of £11,475, out of the £30,000 already voted, was ordered to be paid to the treasurer of the navy, whilst the committee proceeded with the business of the other five ships.372A fresh writ for ship money, 4 Aug., 1635.Hitherto all had promised well, but on the 4th August Charles thought fit to issue another writ calling upon the nation at large, and not only port and maritime towns, to furnish ship money, on the ground that as all were concerned in the mutual defence of one another, so all might contribute towards the defence of the realm.373The City found itself called upon to provide two more vessels of 800 tons apiece.374The authorities, however, were so slow in executing this further order that the Sheriffs were made to[pg 115]appear every Sunday before the lords of the council to report what progress was being made.375Richard Chambers and ship money, 1636.In June, 1636, Richard Chambers, a merchant, who had previously displayed a bold front against the king's demand of tonnage and poundage, for which the Star Chamber had condemned him to a term of imprisonment (1628-1629), again came to the fore, and carried the question of the king's right to levy ship money to the Court of King's Bench. The judges, however, refused to allow the question to be argued. "There was a rule of law and a rule of government"—said Justice Berkeley, scarce realising the true import of his words—"and many things which might not be done by the rule of law might be done by the rule of government." Chambers was again committed for contempt, but was afterwards liberated from prison upon payment of the £10 at which he had been assessed. He contented himself with bringing an action in the King's Bench against the mayor, who had made the assessment on the ground of some technical informality.376The City's forfeiture of its Irish estate, 1635-1638.Other matters had arisen lately—"great and important businesses"—all tending towards an estrangement of the City from the king. Early in 1635 the City had been condemned by the Court of Star Chamber to a fine of £70,000 and the loss of its Irish estate for having, as was alleged, broken the terms of the charter under which their Irish estate[pg 116]was held. One of the charges against the city and the companies was that they continued to employ the "mere Irish" on their estates instead of relegating them to the narrow limits reserved for them, there to perish of disease or starvation.377There were differences too touching the Royal Contract, differences as to the City's rights to estreated recognisances, as to pretended encroachments and other matters. It was felt that there would be no peace until some arrangement could be made with Charles on all the matters in question, and for this purpose a committee was appointed in May, 1636, to see what could be done. A schedule of "thinges desired by the cittie of London" was drawn up, and an offer was made to the king of the sum of £100,000, to be paid by annual instalments of £20,000, if he would make the concessions desired.378The king's commissioners, who had the business in hand, refused the offer. They informed the committee that not only would the City have to surrender certain valuable fisheries and other privileges in Ireland, as well as the castle of Culmore, but it would have to provide an allowance of £5,000 to Sir Thomas Philips. Instead of £100,000 it would have moreover to pay £120,000.379Negotiations continued for two years. Eventually a compromise was effected in June, 1638, and the city was fain to accept a pardon on surrendering its Irish estates and payment of the comparatively small sum of £12,000,380of which the queen happened at that time to stand in[pg 117]need. The patents of the Irish Society and of the companies were not however actually surrendered until 1639.381Other grievances of the City.In the meantime Charles had given umbrage to the City in other matters, more especially in the measures he had taken for regulating trade and the institution of corporate monopolies. An order restricting the use of coaches and carts, and forbidding anyone to keep a carriage unless he was also prepared to keep four sufficient horses or geldings for the king's service, weighed heavily upon the mayor and aldermen of the city, who were for the most part men advanced in years and whose duties carried them a good deal abroad. They therefore petitioned the king for an exception to be made in their favour. The petition was granted, but only after long delay.382Corporation of tradesmen, etc., created, 1636.The civic authorities were not better pleased with the king for his having (1636), in spite of all protest, created a new corporation which embraced all tradesmen and artificers in the city and suburbs, and thus threatened to be a formidable rival to the ancient corporation.383A third writ for ship money, Oct., 1636.In the midst of a growing feeling of dissatisfaction at the existing state of things, a third writ for ship money appeared (9 Oct., 1636). It raised such a storm of opposition in every quarter, however, that Charles once more appealed to the judges for a formal acknowledgment of his right. Their opinion proving[pg 118]favourable,384the work went on and the City was called upon (Sept., 1637) to furnish two ships each of 700 tons.385In the following year, after Hampden's case had been decided, Charles continued to levy ship money, and the City was told to furnish a ship of 500 tons (5 Nov., 1638). The cost was estimated at £1,000. The usual precept was issued (26 Nov.) to the alderman of each ward for the purpose of ascertaining how best that sum could be raised.386The returns must have been unfavourable, for on the 29th January (1639) the Court of Aldermen appointed a committee to wait upon the lord high admiral and explain to him that the City was not in a position to fit out another ship.387The money was eventually raised by the twelve principal livery companies, seven of which contributed £100 apiece and the other five £60.388Charter of Charles to the City, 18 Oct., 1638.In the meantime troubles had arisen in Scotland through Charles's ill-advised and bigoted attempt to impose upon his northern subjects a Book of Common Prayer. By midsummer (1638) he was preparing for war and would shortly be under the necessity of applying to the city for money and men. It was probably with this end in view that he granted (18 Oct., 1638) to the citizens an ample inspeximus charter, confirming to them their ancient privileges and franchises. Negotiations for a new charter had[pg 119]been going on since the preceding March389(if not earlier), and it was only now conceded on payment of a sum of £12,000.390Disorders in Scotland, 1639.At the opening of the new year (4 Jan., 1639) Charles applied by letter under his hand to the City for a liberal contribution and assistance towards putting down the disorders in Scotland, notifying at the same time the fact that he had called upon the peers of the realm to attend in person at York by the 1st April. The letter was read to the court of Common Council on the 12th February, but the matter seemed of so great importance that further consideration of it was adjourned to the 16th, when it was agreed to issue a precept to the alderman of each ward to take steps for raising a free and liberal contribution.391A month elapsed, and notwithstanding every effort of the aldermen, less than £5,000 was got together. The aldermen were directed to renew their efforts, but this only resulted in increasing the amount by £200 or £220.392The whole amount was so small that it was contemptuously refused. At the beginning of April Charles found himself at York with an indifferent army, and with little prospect of being in a position to maintain even that army beyond a very limited period.Demand for a loan of £100,000, June, 1639.In June he caused another application to be made to the City.393On the 7th the lord mayor, who[pg 120]had been summoned to appear before the lords of the council, appeared with so few of his brother aldermen that he was ordered to go back and to return on the 10th with the whole court. When they at last made their appearance they were told that the king expected from them no less a sum than £100,000. The war was, if possible, more unpopular in the city than in the country. The memory of the recent confiscation of their Irish estates had not been obliterated from the minds of the citizens by the subsequent grant of a charter. The mayor and aldermen replied that it was impossible to find the money. The council told them that it must be done, one of the lords declaring that they ought to have sold their chains and gowns before making such a reply. They were ordered to appear once more on the 12th June with a final answer.394The trained bands called out.A warrant had in the meantime been issued for raising 3000 men from the trained bands of the city for service in Scotland.395Although it does not appear that this demand was acceded to,396seeing that the trained bands were a force especially intended for the defence of the city, greater activity was shown in making the city's troops as perfect in their drill as circumstances permitted.397Boys from Christ's Hospital and Bridewell were taught to play the drum and fife, weapons were marked, and musters held in[pg 121]Goodman's Fields and elsewhere under the eye of Captain John Fisher, recently appointed muster-master.398The City's free gift of £10,000, 31 July, 1639.That the citizens were not indisposed to assist the king, if left to themselves and not subjected to threats and intimidation, is shown by the fact that, in anticipation of the return of Charles from the North, the Common Council voted him (31 July, 1639) the sum of £10,000 as a free gift in consideration that the City had not contributed anything to his majesty on his setting out, as had been required, "albeit the counties and private personnes both nobles and others had done the same."399Even this small sum could not be raised without resorting to sheriffs' fines, no less than sixteen individuals being mulcted for refusing to serve as sheriff in less than two months.400It was no difficult task to find men unwilling to serve such a thankless office at so critical a time.The "short parliament," 1640.Before the close of the year (1639) the country was agreeably surprised at the news that it was the king's intention to summon a parliament. Parliament opened on the 13th April (1640). Few of its members could have served in the last parliament of eleven years before, but although so long a time had elapsed since the Commons had met, they had not forgotten their old constitutional claims to have the country's grievances redressed before proceeding to grant[pg 122]supplies. An offer to relinquish ship money proved insufficient, and after three weeks the "short parliament" was dissolved (5 May, 1640).Attempt to force a city loan of £100,000, April-May, 1640.For some days before parliament was dissolved every effort had been made by the king to get the mayor and aldermen to lend him £100,000. This being found impossible, the mayor, Henry Garway, or Garraway, was directed to make out a list of the wealthiest commoners. After several attempts to negotiate with the aldermen individually, they were summoned to appear in a body on Sunday, the 11th April. Charles himself then told them that his necessity at the time was so great that he must borrow £100,000 of the City; that he must not be denied; the money he must have at once, as it would benefit him more then than twenty subsidies granted by parliament afterwards. After the king had finished speaking the Lord Privy Seal401addressed them, setting forth that a similar sum had been advanced by the City to King James; that he himself, being Recorder at the time, had lent £3,000 towards it, and that the money had been repaid with interest. The City, he continued, was rather beholden to his majesty for taking the money and repaying it with interest, than the king beholden to the City for lending it. He further instanced the case of the City having lent King Henry III a sum of £100,000 rather than allow that monarch to pledge his crown and jewels to the merchants of the Steelyard, and it was truly repaid. To this the aldermen were not permitted to[pg 123]make any reply, but were sent away to advise together how the sum should be raised.402On Thursday, the 7th May, the mayor and aldermen were again summoned before the council, when they were told that, having failed to provide the sum previously asked for, they would now have to find £200,000. If the latter sum was not forthcoming the king threatened to "have £300,000 of the city." They were to come again on the following Sunday (10 May) and bring with them a list of the rich men of the wards.Four aldermen committed to prison, 1640.On the day appointed they came, but brought with them a petition to be excused making such a list as that required. The excuse was not allowed. Strafford is recorded as having lost his temper at the obstinacy of the aldermen. "Sir," said he, addressing the king, "you will never do good to these citizens of London till you have made examples of some of the aldermen," and recommended Charles, in his own "thorough" way, to hang a few of them.403Charles did not take the advice offered. He would have made, however, the mayor resign his sword and collar then and there but for the intercession of the bystanders, and actually committed four of the aldermen to prison, viz., Nicholas Rainton, John Gayre, Thomas Soame and Thomas Atkins, for refusing to make a list of those inhabitants of their respective wards who were able to lend from £50 upwards.404One of them, Alderman Soame, gave particular offence. "I was an[pg 124]honest man whilst I was a commoner," he told the king to his face, "and I would continue to be so now I am an alderman." The other aldermen professed their readiness to give in the names of the richer citizens, but objected to rate them according to their means.Impeachment of Sir Thomas Gardiner, Recorder, 1642.Both Garway and Sir Thomas Gardiner, the Recorder, favoured the king. The latter was particularly anxious that the City should lend the £100,000 originally requested, and did his best to get the money advanced. For his zeal on this occasion, and for "other high crimes and misdemeanours," he was afterwards (1642) impeached.405Riot at Lambeth, 11 May, 1640.The aldermen were not long kept in confinement. Even before their committal the city was in a ferment, and a placard had appeared posted up in the Exchange inviting all who were lovers of liberty to assemble in St. George's Fields in Southwark early on Monday morning (11 May). Archbishop Laud was a special object of hatred to the citizens, and against him the mob directed their attack. As soon as the trained bands, which kept order during the day, had retired for the evening, the rabble marched to Lambeth. Laud, however, had been warned in time, and had made good his escape across the river to Whitehall. The rioters finding themselves baulked of their prey retired with threats of returning to burn down the palace. For the next few days the city was under martial law. A double watch was kept in its streets. The companies looked to their store of powder and match. A strict guard was kept over servants and[pg 125]apprentices, and a warrant issued for raising 1,000 men of the trained bands, or as many more as the lord mayor should think necessary "to suppress, slay, kill, destroy and apprehend all such as should be tumultuously assembled in or about Southwark, Lambeth, Blackheath or elsewhere in parts adjacent."406The aldermen released, 15 May, 1640.If the royal warrant was to be effectually and loyally carried out some concession to the citizens was necessary, and accordingly, on the same day (15 May) that the warrant appeared, the four aldermen were released.Collection of ship money in the city enforced, June, 1640.Pending the negotiations for a loan, payment of ship money had not been strictly enforced; but now that threats and entreaties had failed to open the purse-strings of the citizens Charles made a desperate effort to exact ship money. On the 9th June, 1640, the lord mayor and both the sheriffs were summoned to attend the council to give an account of the ship money due from the city. Why had it not been paid in? The mayor replied that he had sent his officers to collect, but few or none would pay.407Upon the king telling him that he should have distrained, the mayor remarked that one of his predecessors in office, Sir Edward Bromfield, was still a defendant in a suit in the King's Bench brought against him by Richard Chambers for acting in that manner, and was likely to be cast. "No man," said Charles peremptorily, "shall suffer for obeying my commands." Thus encouraged the mayor himself[pg 126]made a house-to-house visit the next day, accompanied by the sheriffs, for the purpose of collecting the money. Throughout the whole city, however, only one man was found ready and willing to pay. When the mayor ordered the sheriffs to distrain they refused on the plea that it was the mayor's business, not theirs. Entering a draper's shop the mayor attempted to seize a piece of linen cloth; the owner set about measuring it, and naming the price told the mayor that if he persisted in taking it he should esteem it a purchase and put it to his lordship's account.408Demand for a city force of 4,000 men for service in the North, 11 June, 1640.On the 11th June the Common Council took into consideration two letters—one from Charles, dated the 17th March, and another from the lords of the council, of the 31st May—asking for a city force of 4,000 men (but none to be taken out of the trained bands) for service in the north of England, and directing the mayor to see that coat and conduct money was at once raised for the purpose.409The court declined to come to an immediate decision; but on the 15th the lord mayor issued his precept for the necessary funds to be levied on the wards.410Application to the Common Council for a loan of £200,000 renewed, 23 July, 1640.On the 19th July news arrived from the North that the Scots were about to seize Newcastle—a very serious matter to the Londoners, as they would thereby be cut off from their supply of coal. Charles took advantage of this, writes Dr. Gardiner,411and sent Lord Cottington and Sir Henry Vane to the Common Council—specially summoned to meet on the 23rd by[pg 127]the king's order412—to assure them that if the long-desired loan of £200,000 were granted the citizens would hear nothing more of the project recently promulgated of debasing the coinage, a project which, if carried out, would have worked great mischief to the London merchant and tradesman. "Leaving the Common Council to discuss the demand, the privy councillors amused themselves by strolling through the Cloth Exchange at Blackwell Hall. The owners of cloth gathered quickly round them. They hoped, they said, that they were not to be compelled to sell for copper goods for which sterling silver had been paid. After a debate of an hour and a half Cottington and Vane were re-admitted, to be informed that the Common Council had no power to dispose of the money of the citizens."
The birth of Prince Charles, afterwards Charles II, 29 May, 1630.In the midst of the general gloom one bright spot appeared, namely, the birth of an heir to the crown (29 May, 1630), an event which the king lost no time[pg 110]in communicating to the mayor and Common Council of the city—his "principal city and chamber."353On the occasion of the christening of the infant prince the bells of the city churches were set ringing,354and he was presented with a fair large standing cup of gold with cover, weighing nearly 300 ounces, and enclosed in a case of crimson velvet, the cost of the whole exceeding £1,000.355Two years later, when the prince was carried into the city to witness the pageants on lord mayor's day, the Court of Aldermen were so gratified with this unexpected mark of royal favour that they forthwith voted the babe a gift of £500.356Loss of the queen's plate and jewels, 1631.The year following the birth of Prince Charles the queen was robbed of a great part of her plate and jewels. As the thieves were likely to dispose of their booty among the goldsmiths of the city, a precept was issued to the master and wardens of the Goldsmiths' Company to try and recover it.357The goldsmiths had long ago begun to leave Goldsmiths' Row in Cheapside, and to set up shops in different parts of the city, and in 1623 they had been ordered to resume their old quarters, which in the meantime had been given up to poor petty trades.358It was easier to trace lost property when all the goldsmiths were congregated together in one spot. This order, however, was so ineffectually carried out that another order was issued[pg 111]by the lords of the council ten years later directing all goldsmiths to find shops for themselves either in Cheapside or Lombard Street within the next six months, inasmuch as the practice of setting up their shops in obscure places in different parts of the city offered facilities for abuses, and more especially "in passing away of stolen plate."359City gifts to king and queen, May-June, 1633.On the occasion of the king's departure for Scotland in May, 1633, the Court of Aldermen voted him a present of £2,000 "in two severall purses of velvett or sattin," as a pledge of the City's true loyalty, love and obedience to his majesty.360After he had gone the mayor and aldermen proceeded in State to Richmond to pay their respects to the queen and to offer her a bason and ewer of gold of the value of £800, with her arms engraved thereon.361Christening of the Duke of York, Nov., 1633.In the following November the Duke of York was christened, the ceremony being attended by the mayor, aldermen and sheriffs, as well as the chief officers of the City. The infant prince was presented with a gilt cup and cover weighing sixty ounces, and containing the sum of £500 in gold. Similar fees were paid to the midwife, nurse and "rockers" to those paid on the occasion of the baptism of his elder brother.362During the absence of the mayor and aldermen at St. James', where the ceremony took place, a double watch was ordered to be kept in the city.363Demand for ship money, Oct., 1634.Five years had now elapsed since the dissolution of the last parliament, during which time the country[pg 112]had submitted to the personal government of Charles. Matters might have continued on the same footing for some time longer had not Charles conceived the idea of claiming the sovereignty of the seas as a pretext for raising a fleet. The difficulty then arose as to how to equip a fleet without summoning a parliament. It had been the custom ever since the time of the Plantagenets to call upon maritime towns to furnish ships ready manned for the defence of the realm at a time of threatened invasion. This custom had been rendered sufficiently elastic to comprise the port of London, and the City had frequently been called upon to furnish a contingent of vessels in time of war. Occasionally a protest may have been made against such demands, but they were seldom, if ever, altogether refused. On the 20th October, 1634, writs were issued calling upon the city of London and various port towns and places along the coast to furnish a certain number of ships of war, and to have them ready at Portsmouth by the 1st March, 1635. In many cases it was impossible to supply ships of the size required, and in these the king offered to supply ships of his own on condition that the port towns should equip and man them. London was called upon to supply seven ships varying in size from 300 to 900 tons, with an equipment of from 150 to 350 men.Search to be made for precedents, Nov., 1634.The Court of Aldermen appointed (13 Nov.) a committee to consider this writ to the City as well as another sent to the borough of Southwark, and to learn what had formerly been done in like case. The City's records were to be consulted with the view of ascertaining how far it was exempt from such charges,[pg 113]and the City's Solicitor was to attend them on that behalf.364The law officers had previously been directed (6 Nov.) to consult together on the matter, and the Town Clerk had received orders to translate the writs into English and make copies of the same.365Petition of Common Council against demand for ships, 2 Dec., 1634.When the matter came before the Common Council that body, after serious consideration, decided (2 Dec.) to present a petition to his majesty setting forth that, by ancient privileges, grants and Acts of Parliament, which were ready to be produced, the City was exempt from any such obligation as that contained in the writ, and praying that the City's privileges might be upheld.366The City forced to submit.The only effect of this petition was to cause another writ to be issued a week later (9 Dec.) enjoining specific performance of the former writ.367Finding that there was no way of escape the mayor, Sir Robert Parkhurst, began to take the necessary steps for raising £30,000, the sum required from the different wards.368On Sunday, the 14th December, Robert Mason, who had recently been appointed Recorder in succession to Littleton, on the king's own recommendation (although the election is recorded as having been according to "antient custom and freedom of election"!),369appeared before the lords of the council with an account of the progress made in the city in the matter of the ships, with which Charles was well pleased, and the Recorder was ordered to attend the[pg 114]council every Sunday afternoon with a similar account "untill the worke be perfected."370On the 19th the Court of Aldermen appointed a committee to fit out the ships as required, but they were limited in expenditure to the sum of £30,000.371On the 17th February, 1635, the committee reported to the court that his majesty had resolved that two of the City's ships should be assigned to the admiral and vice-admiral of the fleet, and that they should be fitted out by the care and oversight of officers of the navy. For this purpose the sum of £11,475, out of the £30,000 already voted, was ordered to be paid to the treasurer of the navy, whilst the committee proceeded with the business of the other five ships.372A fresh writ for ship money, 4 Aug., 1635.Hitherto all had promised well, but on the 4th August Charles thought fit to issue another writ calling upon the nation at large, and not only port and maritime towns, to furnish ship money, on the ground that as all were concerned in the mutual defence of one another, so all might contribute towards the defence of the realm.373The City found itself called upon to provide two more vessels of 800 tons apiece.374The authorities, however, were so slow in executing this further order that the Sheriffs were made to[pg 115]appear every Sunday before the lords of the council to report what progress was being made.375Richard Chambers and ship money, 1636.In June, 1636, Richard Chambers, a merchant, who had previously displayed a bold front against the king's demand of tonnage and poundage, for which the Star Chamber had condemned him to a term of imprisonment (1628-1629), again came to the fore, and carried the question of the king's right to levy ship money to the Court of King's Bench. The judges, however, refused to allow the question to be argued. "There was a rule of law and a rule of government"—said Justice Berkeley, scarce realising the true import of his words—"and many things which might not be done by the rule of law might be done by the rule of government." Chambers was again committed for contempt, but was afterwards liberated from prison upon payment of the £10 at which he had been assessed. He contented himself with bringing an action in the King's Bench against the mayor, who had made the assessment on the ground of some technical informality.376The City's forfeiture of its Irish estate, 1635-1638.Other matters had arisen lately—"great and important businesses"—all tending towards an estrangement of the City from the king. Early in 1635 the City had been condemned by the Court of Star Chamber to a fine of £70,000 and the loss of its Irish estate for having, as was alleged, broken the terms of the charter under which their Irish estate[pg 116]was held. One of the charges against the city and the companies was that they continued to employ the "mere Irish" on their estates instead of relegating them to the narrow limits reserved for them, there to perish of disease or starvation.377There were differences too touching the Royal Contract, differences as to the City's rights to estreated recognisances, as to pretended encroachments and other matters. It was felt that there would be no peace until some arrangement could be made with Charles on all the matters in question, and for this purpose a committee was appointed in May, 1636, to see what could be done. A schedule of "thinges desired by the cittie of London" was drawn up, and an offer was made to the king of the sum of £100,000, to be paid by annual instalments of £20,000, if he would make the concessions desired.378The king's commissioners, who had the business in hand, refused the offer. They informed the committee that not only would the City have to surrender certain valuable fisheries and other privileges in Ireland, as well as the castle of Culmore, but it would have to provide an allowance of £5,000 to Sir Thomas Philips. Instead of £100,000 it would have moreover to pay £120,000.379Negotiations continued for two years. Eventually a compromise was effected in June, 1638, and the city was fain to accept a pardon on surrendering its Irish estates and payment of the comparatively small sum of £12,000,380of which the queen happened at that time to stand in[pg 117]need. The patents of the Irish Society and of the companies were not however actually surrendered until 1639.381Other grievances of the City.In the meantime Charles had given umbrage to the City in other matters, more especially in the measures he had taken for regulating trade and the institution of corporate monopolies. An order restricting the use of coaches and carts, and forbidding anyone to keep a carriage unless he was also prepared to keep four sufficient horses or geldings for the king's service, weighed heavily upon the mayor and aldermen of the city, who were for the most part men advanced in years and whose duties carried them a good deal abroad. They therefore petitioned the king for an exception to be made in their favour. The petition was granted, but only after long delay.382Corporation of tradesmen, etc., created, 1636.The civic authorities were not better pleased with the king for his having (1636), in spite of all protest, created a new corporation which embraced all tradesmen and artificers in the city and suburbs, and thus threatened to be a formidable rival to the ancient corporation.383A third writ for ship money, Oct., 1636.In the midst of a growing feeling of dissatisfaction at the existing state of things, a third writ for ship money appeared (9 Oct., 1636). It raised such a storm of opposition in every quarter, however, that Charles once more appealed to the judges for a formal acknowledgment of his right. Their opinion proving[pg 118]favourable,384the work went on and the City was called upon (Sept., 1637) to furnish two ships each of 700 tons.385In the following year, after Hampden's case had been decided, Charles continued to levy ship money, and the City was told to furnish a ship of 500 tons (5 Nov., 1638). The cost was estimated at £1,000. The usual precept was issued (26 Nov.) to the alderman of each ward for the purpose of ascertaining how best that sum could be raised.386The returns must have been unfavourable, for on the 29th January (1639) the Court of Aldermen appointed a committee to wait upon the lord high admiral and explain to him that the City was not in a position to fit out another ship.387The money was eventually raised by the twelve principal livery companies, seven of which contributed £100 apiece and the other five £60.388Charter of Charles to the City, 18 Oct., 1638.In the meantime troubles had arisen in Scotland through Charles's ill-advised and bigoted attempt to impose upon his northern subjects a Book of Common Prayer. By midsummer (1638) he was preparing for war and would shortly be under the necessity of applying to the city for money and men. It was probably with this end in view that he granted (18 Oct., 1638) to the citizens an ample inspeximus charter, confirming to them their ancient privileges and franchises. Negotiations for a new charter had[pg 119]been going on since the preceding March389(if not earlier), and it was only now conceded on payment of a sum of £12,000.390Disorders in Scotland, 1639.At the opening of the new year (4 Jan., 1639) Charles applied by letter under his hand to the City for a liberal contribution and assistance towards putting down the disorders in Scotland, notifying at the same time the fact that he had called upon the peers of the realm to attend in person at York by the 1st April. The letter was read to the court of Common Council on the 12th February, but the matter seemed of so great importance that further consideration of it was adjourned to the 16th, when it was agreed to issue a precept to the alderman of each ward to take steps for raising a free and liberal contribution.391A month elapsed, and notwithstanding every effort of the aldermen, less than £5,000 was got together. The aldermen were directed to renew their efforts, but this only resulted in increasing the amount by £200 or £220.392The whole amount was so small that it was contemptuously refused. At the beginning of April Charles found himself at York with an indifferent army, and with little prospect of being in a position to maintain even that army beyond a very limited period.Demand for a loan of £100,000, June, 1639.In June he caused another application to be made to the City.393On the 7th the lord mayor, who[pg 120]had been summoned to appear before the lords of the council, appeared with so few of his brother aldermen that he was ordered to go back and to return on the 10th with the whole court. When they at last made their appearance they were told that the king expected from them no less a sum than £100,000. The war was, if possible, more unpopular in the city than in the country. The memory of the recent confiscation of their Irish estates had not been obliterated from the minds of the citizens by the subsequent grant of a charter. The mayor and aldermen replied that it was impossible to find the money. The council told them that it must be done, one of the lords declaring that they ought to have sold their chains and gowns before making such a reply. They were ordered to appear once more on the 12th June with a final answer.394The trained bands called out.A warrant had in the meantime been issued for raising 3000 men from the trained bands of the city for service in Scotland.395Although it does not appear that this demand was acceded to,396seeing that the trained bands were a force especially intended for the defence of the city, greater activity was shown in making the city's troops as perfect in their drill as circumstances permitted.397Boys from Christ's Hospital and Bridewell were taught to play the drum and fife, weapons were marked, and musters held in[pg 121]Goodman's Fields and elsewhere under the eye of Captain John Fisher, recently appointed muster-master.398The City's free gift of £10,000, 31 July, 1639.That the citizens were not indisposed to assist the king, if left to themselves and not subjected to threats and intimidation, is shown by the fact that, in anticipation of the return of Charles from the North, the Common Council voted him (31 July, 1639) the sum of £10,000 as a free gift in consideration that the City had not contributed anything to his majesty on his setting out, as had been required, "albeit the counties and private personnes both nobles and others had done the same."399Even this small sum could not be raised without resorting to sheriffs' fines, no less than sixteen individuals being mulcted for refusing to serve as sheriff in less than two months.400It was no difficult task to find men unwilling to serve such a thankless office at so critical a time.The "short parliament," 1640.Before the close of the year (1639) the country was agreeably surprised at the news that it was the king's intention to summon a parliament. Parliament opened on the 13th April (1640). Few of its members could have served in the last parliament of eleven years before, but although so long a time had elapsed since the Commons had met, they had not forgotten their old constitutional claims to have the country's grievances redressed before proceeding to grant[pg 122]supplies. An offer to relinquish ship money proved insufficient, and after three weeks the "short parliament" was dissolved (5 May, 1640).Attempt to force a city loan of £100,000, April-May, 1640.For some days before parliament was dissolved every effort had been made by the king to get the mayor and aldermen to lend him £100,000. This being found impossible, the mayor, Henry Garway, or Garraway, was directed to make out a list of the wealthiest commoners. After several attempts to negotiate with the aldermen individually, they were summoned to appear in a body on Sunday, the 11th April. Charles himself then told them that his necessity at the time was so great that he must borrow £100,000 of the City; that he must not be denied; the money he must have at once, as it would benefit him more then than twenty subsidies granted by parliament afterwards. After the king had finished speaking the Lord Privy Seal401addressed them, setting forth that a similar sum had been advanced by the City to King James; that he himself, being Recorder at the time, had lent £3,000 towards it, and that the money had been repaid with interest. The City, he continued, was rather beholden to his majesty for taking the money and repaying it with interest, than the king beholden to the City for lending it. He further instanced the case of the City having lent King Henry III a sum of £100,000 rather than allow that monarch to pledge his crown and jewels to the merchants of the Steelyard, and it was truly repaid. To this the aldermen were not permitted to[pg 123]make any reply, but were sent away to advise together how the sum should be raised.402On Thursday, the 7th May, the mayor and aldermen were again summoned before the council, when they were told that, having failed to provide the sum previously asked for, they would now have to find £200,000. If the latter sum was not forthcoming the king threatened to "have £300,000 of the city." They were to come again on the following Sunday (10 May) and bring with them a list of the rich men of the wards.Four aldermen committed to prison, 1640.On the day appointed they came, but brought with them a petition to be excused making such a list as that required. The excuse was not allowed. Strafford is recorded as having lost his temper at the obstinacy of the aldermen. "Sir," said he, addressing the king, "you will never do good to these citizens of London till you have made examples of some of the aldermen," and recommended Charles, in his own "thorough" way, to hang a few of them.403Charles did not take the advice offered. He would have made, however, the mayor resign his sword and collar then and there but for the intercession of the bystanders, and actually committed four of the aldermen to prison, viz., Nicholas Rainton, John Gayre, Thomas Soame and Thomas Atkins, for refusing to make a list of those inhabitants of their respective wards who were able to lend from £50 upwards.404One of them, Alderman Soame, gave particular offence. "I was an[pg 124]honest man whilst I was a commoner," he told the king to his face, "and I would continue to be so now I am an alderman." The other aldermen professed their readiness to give in the names of the richer citizens, but objected to rate them according to their means.Impeachment of Sir Thomas Gardiner, Recorder, 1642.Both Garway and Sir Thomas Gardiner, the Recorder, favoured the king. The latter was particularly anxious that the City should lend the £100,000 originally requested, and did his best to get the money advanced. For his zeal on this occasion, and for "other high crimes and misdemeanours," he was afterwards (1642) impeached.405Riot at Lambeth, 11 May, 1640.The aldermen were not long kept in confinement. Even before their committal the city was in a ferment, and a placard had appeared posted up in the Exchange inviting all who were lovers of liberty to assemble in St. George's Fields in Southwark early on Monday morning (11 May). Archbishop Laud was a special object of hatred to the citizens, and against him the mob directed their attack. As soon as the trained bands, which kept order during the day, had retired for the evening, the rabble marched to Lambeth. Laud, however, had been warned in time, and had made good his escape across the river to Whitehall. The rioters finding themselves baulked of their prey retired with threats of returning to burn down the palace. For the next few days the city was under martial law. A double watch was kept in its streets. The companies looked to their store of powder and match. A strict guard was kept over servants and[pg 125]apprentices, and a warrant issued for raising 1,000 men of the trained bands, or as many more as the lord mayor should think necessary "to suppress, slay, kill, destroy and apprehend all such as should be tumultuously assembled in or about Southwark, Lambeth, Blackheath or elsewhere in parts adjacent."406The aldermen released, 15 May, 1640.If the royal warrant was to be effectually and loyally carried out some concession to the citizens was necessary, and accordingly, on the same day (15 May) that the warrant appeared, the four aldermen were released.Collection of ship money in the city enforced, June, 1640.Pending the negotiations for a loan, payment of ship money had not been strictly enforced; but now that threats and entreaties had failed to open the purse-strings of the citizens Charles made a desperate effort to exact ship money. On the 9th June, 1640, the lord mayor and both the sheriffs were summoned to attend the council to give an account of the ship money due from the city. Why had it not been paid in? The mayor replied that he had sent his officers to collect, but few or none would pay.407Upon the king telling him that he should have distrained, the mayor remarked that one of his predecessors in office, Sir Edward Bromfield, was still a defendant in a suit in the King's Bench brought against him by Richard Chambers for acting in that manner, and was likely to be cast. "No man," said Charles peremptorily, "shall suffer for obeying my commands." Thus encouraged the mayor himself[pg 126]made a house-to-house visit the next day, accompanied by the sheriffs, for the purpose of collecting the money. Throughout the whole city, however, only one man was found ready and willing to pay. When the mayor ordered the sheriffs to distrain they refused on the plea that it was the mayor's business, not theirs. Entering a draper's shop the mayor attempted to seize a piece of linen cloth; the owner set about measuring it, and naming the price told the mayor that if he persisted in taking it he should esteem it a purchase and put it to his lordship's account.408Demand for a city force of 4,000 men for service in the North, 11 June, 1640.On the 11th June the Common Council took into consideration two letters—one from Charles, dated the 17th March, and another from the lords of the council, of the 31st May—asking for a city force of 4,000 men (but none to be taken out of the trained bands) for service in the north of England, and directing the mayor to see that coat and conduct money was at once raised for the purpose.409The court declined to come to an immediate decision; but on the 15th the lord mayor issued his precept for the necessary funds to be levied on the wards.410Application to the Common Council for a loan of £200,000 renewed, 23 July, 1640.On the 19th July news arrived from the North that the Scots were about to seize Newcastle—a very serious matter to the Londoners, as they would thereby be cut off from their supply of coal. Charles took advantage of this, writes Dr. Gardiner,411and sent Lord Cottington and Sir Henry Vane to the Common Council—specially summoned to meet on the 23rd by[pg 127]the king's order412—to assure them that if the long-desired loan of £200,000 were granted the citizens would hear nothing more of the project recently promulgated of debasing the coinage, a project which, if carried out, would have worked great mischief to the London merchant and tradesman. "Leaving the Common Council to discuss the demand, the privy councillors amused themselves by strolling through the Cloth Exchange at Blackwell Hall. The owners of cloth gathered quickly round them. They hoped, they said, that they were not to be compelled to sell for copper goods for which sterling silver had been paid. After a debate of an hour and a half Cottington and Vane were re-admitted, to be informed that the Common Council had no power to dispose of the money of the citizens."
The birth of Prince Charles, afterwards Charles II, 29 May, 1630.In the midst of the general gloom one bright spot appeared, namely, the birth of an heir to the crown (29 May, 1630), an event which the king lost no time[pg 110]in communicating to the mayor and Common Council of the city—his "principal city and chamber."353On the occasion of the christening of the infant prince the bells of the city churches were set ringing,354and he was presented with a fair large standing cup of gold with cover, weighing nearly 300 ounces, and enclosed in a case of crimson velvet, the cost of the whole exceeding £1,000.355Two years later, when the prince was carried into the city to witness the pageants on lord mayor's day, the Court of Aldermen were so gratified with this unexpected mark of royal favour that they forthwith voted the babe a gift of £500.356Loss of the queen's plate and jewels, 1631.The year following the birth of Prince Charles the queen was robbed of a great part of her plate and jewels. As the thieves were likely to dispose of their booty among the goldsmiths of the city, a precept was issued to the master and wardens of the Goldsmiths' Company to try and recover it.357The goldsmiths had long ago begun to leave Goldsmiths' Row in Cheapside, and to set up shops in different parts of the city, and in 1623 they had been ordered to resume their old quarters, which in the meantime had been given up to poor petty trades.358It was easier to trace lost property when all the goldsmiths were congregated together in one spot. This order, however, was so ineffectually carried out that another order was issued[pg 111]by the lords of the council ten years later directing all goldsmiths to find shops for themselves either in Cheapside or Lombard Street within the next six months, inasmuch as the practice of setting up their shops in obscure places in different parts of the city offered facilities for abuses, and more especially "in passing away of stolen plate."359City gifts to king and queen, May-June, 1633.On the occasion of the king's departure for Scotland in May, 1633, the Court of Aldermen voted him a present of £2,000 "in two severall purses of velvett or sattin," as a pledge of the City's true loyalty, love and obedience to his majesty.360After he had gone the mayor and aldermen proceeded in State to Richmond to pay their respects to the queen and to offer her a bason and ewer of gold of the value of £800, with her arms engraved thereon.361Christening of the Duke of York, Nov., 1633.In the following November the Duke of York was christened, the ceremony being attended by the mayor, aldermen and sheriffs, as well as the chief officers of the City. The infant prince was presented with a gilt cup and cover weighing sixty ounces, and containing the sum of £500 in gold. Similar fees were paid to the midwife, nurse and "rockers" to those paid on the occasion of the baptism of his elder brother.362During the absence of the mayor and aldermen at St. James', where the ceremony took place, a double watch was ordered to be kept in the city.363Demand for ship money, Oct., 1634.Five years had now elapsed since the dissolution of the last parliament, during which time the country[pg 112]had submitted to the personal government of Charles. Matters might have continued on the same footing for some time longer had not Charles conceived the idea of claiming the sovereignty of the seas as a pretext for raising a fleet. The difficulty then arose as to how to equip a fleet without summoning a parliament. It had been the custom ever since the time of the Plantagenets to call upon maritime towns to furnish ships ready manned for the defence of the realm at a time of threatened invasion. This custom had been rendered sufficiently elastic to comprise the port of London, and the City had frequently been called upon to furnish a contingent of vessels in time of war. Occasionally a protest may have been made against such demands, but they were seldom, if ever, altogether refused. On the 20th October, 1634, writs were issued calling upon the city of London and various port towns and places along the coast to furnish a certain number of ships of war, and to have them ready at Portsmouth by the 1st March, 1635. In many cases it was impossible to supply ships of the size required, and in these the king offered to supply ships of his own on condition that the port towns should equip and man them. London was called upon to supply seven ships varying in size from 300 to 900 tons, with an equipment of from 150 to 350 men.Search to be made for precedents, Nov., 1634.The Court of Aldermen appointed (13 Nov.) a committee to consider this writ to the City as well as another sent to the borough of Southwark, and to learn what had formerly been done in like case. The City's records were to be consulted with the view of ascertaining how far it was exempt from such charges,[pg 113]and the City's Solicitor was to attend them on that behalf.364The law officers had previously been directed (6 Nov.) to consult together on the matter, and the Town Clerk had received orders to translate the writs into English and make copies of the same.365Petition of Common Council against demand for ships, 2 Dec., 1634.When the matter came before the Common Council that body, after serious consideration, decided (2 Dec.) to present a petition to his majesty setting forth that, by ancient privileges, grants and Acts of Parliament, which were ready to be produced, the City was exempt from any such obligation as that contained in the writ, and praying that the City's privileges might be upheld.366The City forced to submit.The only effect of this petition was to cause another writ to be issued a week later (9 Dec.) enjoining specific performance of the former writ.367Finding that there was no way of escape the mayor, Sir Robert Parkhurst, began to take the necessary steps for raising £30,000, the sum required from the different wards.368On Sunday, the 14th December, Robert Mason, who had recently been appointed Recorder in succession to Littleton, on the king's own recommendation (although the election is recorded as having been according to "antient custom and freedom of election"!),369appeared before the lords of the council with an account of the progress made in the city in the matter of the ships, with which Charles was well pleased, and the Recorder was ordered to attend the[pg 114]council every Sunday afternoon with a similar account "untill the worke be perfected."370On the 19th the Court of Aldermen appointed a committee to fit out the ships as required, but they were limited in expenditure to the sum of £30,000.371On the 17th February, 1635, the committee reported to the court that his majesty had resolved that two of the City's ships should be assigned to the admiral and vice-admiral of the fleet, and that they should be fitted out by the care and oversight of officers of the navy. For this purpose the sum of £11,475, out of the £30,000 already voted, was ordered to be paid to the treasurer of the navy, whilst the committee proceeded with the business of the other five ships.372A fresh writ for ship money, 4 Aug., 1635.Hitherto all had promised well, but on the 4th August Charles thought fit to issue another writ calling upon the nation at large, and not only port and maritime towns, to furnish ship money, on the ground that as all were concerned in the mutual defence of one another, so all might contribute towards the defence of the realm.373The City found itself called upon to provide two more vessels of 800 tons apiece.374The authorities, however, were so slow in executing this further order that the Sheriffs were made to[pg 115]appear every Sunday before the lords of the council to report what progress was being made.375Richard Chambers and ship money, 1636.In June, 1636, Richard Chambers, a merchant, who had previously displayed a bold front against the king's demand of tonnage and poundage, for which the Star Chamber had condemned him to a term of imprisonment (1628-1629), again came to the fore, and carried the question of the king's right to levy ship money to the Court of King's Bench. The judges, however, refused to allow the question to be argued. "There was a rule of law and a rule of government"—said Justice Berkeley, scarce realising the true import of his words—"and many things which might not be done by the rule of law might be done by the rule of government." Chambers was again committed for contempt, but was afterwards liberated from prison upon payment of the £10 at which he had been assessed. He contented himself with bringing an action in the King's Bench against the mayor, who had made the assessment on the ground of some technical informality.376The City's forfeiture of its Irish estate, 1635-1638.Other matters had arisen lately—"great and important businesses"—all tending towards an estrangement of the City from the king. Early in 1635 the City had been condemned by the Court of Star Chamber to a fine of £70,000 and the loss of its Irish estate for having, as was alleged, broken the terms of the charter under which their Irish estate[pg 116]was held. One of the charges against the city and the companies was that they continued to employ the "mere Irish" on their estates instead of relegating them to the narrow limits reserved for them, there to perish of disease or starvation.377There were differences too touching the Royal Contract, differences as to the City's rights to estreated recognisances, as to pretended encroachments and other matters. It was felt that there would be no peace until some arrangement could be made with Charles on all the matters in question, and for this purpose a committee was appointed in May, 1636, to see what could be done. A schedule of "thinges desired by the cittie of London" was drawn up, and an offer was made to the king of the sum of £100,000, to be paid by annual instalments of £20,000, if he would make the concessions desired.378The king's commissioners, who had the business in hand, refused the offer. They informed the committee that not only would the City have to surrender certain valuable fisheries and other privileges in Ireland, as well as the castle of Culmore, but it would have to provide an allowance of £5,000 to Sir Thomas Philips. Instead of £100,000 it would have moreover to pay £120,000.379Negotiations continued for two years. Eventually a compromise was effected in June, 1638, and the city was fain to accept a pardon on surrendering its Irish estates and payment of the comparatively small sum of £12,000,380of which the queen happened at that time to stand in[pg 117]need. The patents of the Irish Society and of the companies were not however actually surrendered until 1639.381Other grievances of the City.In the meantime Charles had given umbrage to the City in other matters, more especially in the measures he had taken for regulating trade and the institution of corporate monopolies. An order restricting the use of coaches and carts, and forbidding anyone to keep a carriage unless he was also prepared to keep four sufficient horses or geldings for the king's service, weighed heavily upon the mayor and aldermen of the city, who were for the most part men advanced in years and whose duties carried them a good deal abroad. They therefore petitioned the king for an exception to be made in their favour. The petition was granted, but only after long delay.382Corporation of tradesmen, etc., created, 1636.The civic authorities were not better pleased with the king for his having (1636), in spite of all protest, created a new corporation which embraced all tradesmen and artificers in the city and suburbs, and thus threatened to be a formidable rival to the ancient corporation.383A third writ for ship money, Oct., 1636.In the midst of a growing feeling of dissatisfaction at the existing state of things, a third writ for ship money appeared (9 Oct., 1636). It raised such a storm of opposition in every quarter, however, that Charles once more appealed to the judges for a formal acknowledgment of his right. Their opinion proving[pg 118]favourable,384the work went on and the City was called upon (Sept., 1637) to furnish two ships each of 700 tons.385In the following year, after Hampden's case had been decided, Charles continued to levy ship money, and the City was told to furnish a ship of 500 tons (5 Nov., 1638). The cost was estimated at £1,000. The usual precept was issued (26 Nov.) to the alderman of each ward for the purpose of ascertaining how best that sum could be raised.386The returns must have been unfavourable, for on the 29th January (1639) the Court of Aldermen appointed a committee to wait upon the lord high admiral and explain to him that the City was not in a position to fit out another ship.387The money was eventually raised by the twelve principal livery companies, seven of which contributed £100 apiece and the other five £60.388Charter of Charles to the City, 18 Oct., 1638.In the meantime troubles had arisen in Scotland through Charles's ill-advised and bigoted attempt to impose upon his northern subjects a Book of Common Prayer. By midsummer (1638) he was preparing for war and would shortly be under the necessity of applying to the city for money and men. It was probably with this end in view that he granted (18 Oct., 1638) to the citizens an ample inspeximus charter, confirming to them their ancient privileges and franchises. Negotiations for a new charter had[pg 119]been going on since the preceding March389(if not earlier), and it was only now conceded on payment of a sum of £12,000.390Disorders in Scotland, 1639.At the opening of the new year (4 Jan., 1639) Charles applied by letter under his hand to the City for a liberal contribution and assistance towards putting down the disorders in Scotland, notifying at the same time the fact that he had called upon the peers of the realm to attend in person at York by the 1st April. The letter was read to the court of Common Council on the 12th February, but the matter seemed of so great importance that further consideration of it was adjourned to the 16th, when it was agreed to issue a precept to the alderman of each ward to take steps for raising a free and liberal contribution.391A month elapsed, and notwithstanding every effort of the aldermen, less than £5,000 was got together. The aldermen were directed to renew their efforts, but this only resulted in increasing the amount by £200 or £220.392The whole amount was so small that it was contemptuously refused. At the beginning of April Charles found himself at York with an indifferent army, and with little prospect of being in a position to maintain even that army beyond a very limited period.Demand for a loan of £100,000, June, 1639.In June he caused another application to be made to the City.393On the 7th the lord mayor, who[pg 120]had been summoned to appear before the lords of the council, appeared with so few of his brother aldermen that he was ordered to go back and to return on the 10th with the whole court. When they at last made their appearance they were told that the king expected from them no less a sum than £100,000. The war was, if possible, more unpopular in the city than in the country. The memory of the recent confiscation of their Irish estates had not been obliterated from the minds of the citizens by the subsequent grant of a charter. The mayor and aldermen replied that it was impossible to find the money. The council told them that it must be done, one of the lords declaring that they ought to have sold their chains and gowns before making such a reply. They were ordered to appear once more on the 12th June with a final answer.394The trained bands called out.A warrant had in the meantime been issued for raising 3000 men from the trained bands of the city for service in Scotland.395Although it does not appear that this demand was acceded to,396seeing that the trained bands were a force especially intended for the defence of the city, greater activity was shown in making the city's troops as perfect in their drill as circumstances permitted.397Boys from Christ's Hospital and Bridewell were taught to play the drum and fife, weapons were marked, and musters held in[pg 121]Goodman's Fields and elsewhere under the eye of Captain John Fisher, recently appointed muster-master.398The City's free gift of £10,000, 31 July, 1639.That the citizens were not indisposed to assist the king, if left to themselves and not subjected to threats and intimidation, is shown by the fact that, in anticipation of the return of Charles from the North, the Common Council voted him (31 July, 1639) the sum of £10,000 as a free gift in consideration that the City had not contributed anything to his majesty on his setting out, as had been required, "albeit the counties and private personnes both nobles and others had done the same."399Even this small sum could not be raised without resorting to sheriffs' fines, no less than sixteen individuals being mulcted for refusing to serve as sheriff in less than two months.400It was no difficult task to find men unwilling to serve such a thankless office at so critical a time.The "short parliament," 1640.Before the close of the year (1639) the country was agreeably surprised at the news that it was the king's intention to summon a parliament. Parliament opened on the 13th April (1640). Few of its members could have served in the last parliament of eleven years before, but although so long a time had elapsed since the Commons had met, they had not forgotten their old constitutional claims to have the country's grievances redressed before proceeding to grant[pg 122]supplies. An offer to relinquish ship money proved insufficient, and after three weeks the "short parliament" was dissolved (5 May, 1640).Attempt to force a city loan of £100,000, April-May, 1640.For some days before parliament was dissolved every effort had been made by the king to get the mayor and aldermen to lend him £100,000. This being found impossible, the mayor, Henry Garway, or Garraway, was directed to make out a list of the wealthiest commoners. After several attempts to negotiate with the aldermen individually, they were summoned to appear in a body on Sunday, the 11th April. Charles himself then told them that his necessity at the time was so great that he must borrow £100,000 of the City; that he must not be denied; the money he must have at once, as it would benefit him more then than twenty subsidies granted by parliament afterwards. After the king had finished speaking the Lord Privy Seal401addressed them, setting forth that a similar sum had been advanced by the City to King James; that he himself, being Recorder at the time, had lent £3,000 towards it, and that the money had been repaid with interest. The City, he continued, was rather beholden to his majesty for taking the money and repaying it with interest, than the king beholden to the City for lending it. He further instanced the case of the City having lent King Henry III a sum of £100,000 rather than allow that monarch to pledge his crown and jewels to the merchants of the Steelyard, and it was truly repaid. To this the aldermen were not permitted to[pg 123]make any reply, but were sent away to advise together how the sum should be raised.402On Thursday, the 7th May, the mayor and aldermen were again summoned before the council, when they were told that, having failed to provide the sum previously asked for, they would now have to find £200,000. If the latter sum was not forthcoming the king threatened to "have £300,000 of the city." They were to come again on the following Sunday (10 May) and bring with them a list of the rich men of the wards.Four aldermen committed to prison, 1640.On the day appointed they came, but brought with them a petition to be excused making such a list as that required. The excuse was not allowed. Strafford is recorded as having lost his temper at the obstinacy of the aldermen. "Sir," said he, addressing the king, "you will never do good to these citizens of London till you have made examples of some of the aldermen," and recommended Charles, in his own "thorough" way, to hang a few of them.403Charles did not take the advice offered. He would have made, however, the mayor resign his sword and collar then and there but for the intercession of the bystanders, and actually committed four of the aldermen to prison, viz., Nicholas Rainton, John Gayre, Thomas Soame and Thomas Atkins, for refusing to make a list of those inhabitants of their respective wards who were able to lend from £50 upwards.404One of them, Alderman Soame, gave particular offence. "I was an[pg 124]honest man whilst I was a commoner," he told the king to his face, "and I would continue to be so now I am an alderman." The other aldermen professed their readiness to give in the names of the richer citizens, but objected to rate them according to their means.Impeachment of Sir Thomas Gardiner, Recorder, 1642.Both Garway and Sir Thomas Gardiner, the Recorder, favoured the king. The latter was particularly anxious that the City should lend the £100,000 originally requested, and did his best to get the money advanced. For his zeal on this occasion, and for "other high crimes and misdemeanours," he was afterwards (1642) impeached.405Riot at Lambeth, 11 May, 1640.The aldermen were not long kept in confinement. Even before their committal the city was in a ferment, and a placard had appeared posted up in the Exchange inviting all who were lovers of liberty to assemble in St. George's Fields in Southwark early on Monday morning (11 May). Archbishop Laud was a special object of hatred to the citizens, and against him the mob directed their attack. As soon as the trained bands, which kept order during the day, had retired for the evening, the rabble marched to Lambeth. Laud, however, had been warned in time, and had made good his escape across the river to Whitehall. The rioters finding themselves baulked of their prey retired with threats of returning to burn down the palace. For the next few days the city was under martial law. A double watch was kept in its streets. The companies looked to their store of powder and match. A strict guard was kept over servants and[pg 125]apprentices, and a warrant issued for raising 1,000 men of the trained bands, or as many more as the lord mayor should think necessary "to suppress, slay, kill, destroy and apprehend all such as should be tumultuously assembled in or about Southwark, Lambeth, Blackheath or elsewhere in parts adjacent."406The aldermen released, 15 May, 1640.If the royal warrant was to be effectually and loyally carried out some concession to the citizens was necessary, and accordingly, on the same day (15 May) that the warrant appeared, the four aldermen were released.Collection of ship money in the city enforced, June, 1640.Pending the negotiations for a loan, payment of ship money had not been strictly enforced; but now that threats and entreaties had failed to open the purse-strings of the citizens Charles made a desperate effort to exact ship money. On the 9th June, 1640, the lord mayor and both the sheriffs were summoned to attend the council to give an account of the ship money due from the city. Why had it not been paid in? The mayor replied that he had sent his officers to collect, but few or none would pay.407Upon the king telling him that he should have distrained, the mayor remarked that one of his predecessors in office, Sir Edward Bromfield, was still a defendant in a suit in the King's Bench brought against him by Richard Chambers for acting in that manner, and was likely to be cast. "No man," said Charles peremptorily, "shall suffer for obeying my commands." Thus encouraged the mayor himself[pg 126]made a house-to-house visit the next day, accompanied by the sheriffs, for the purpose of collecting the money. Throughout the whole city, however, only one man was found ready and willing to pay. When the mayor ordered the sheriffs to distrain they refused on the plea that it was the mayor's business, not theirs. Entering a draper's shop the mayor attempted to seize a piece of linen cloth; the owner set about measuring it, and naming the price told the mayor that if he persisted in taking it he should esteem it a purchase and put it to his lordship's account.408Demand for a city force of 4,000 men for service in the North, 11 June, 1640.On the 11th June the Common Council took into consideration two letters—one from Charles, dated the 17th March, and another from the lords of the council, of the 31st May—asking for a city force of 4,000 men (but none to be taken out of the trained bands) for service in the north of England, and directing the mayor to see that coat and conduct money was at once raised for the purpose.409The court declined to come to an immediate decision; but on the 15th the lord mayor issued his precept for the necessary funds to be levied on the wards.410Application to the Common Council for a loan of £200,000 renewed, 23 July, 1640.On the 19th July news arrived from the North that the Scots were about to seize Newcastle—a very serious matter to the Londoners, as they would thereby be cut off from their supply of coal. Charles took advantage of this, writes Dr. Gardiner,411and sent Lord Cottington and Sir Henry Vane to the Common Council—specially summoned to meet on the 23rd by[pg 127]the king's order412—to assure them that if the long-desired loan of £200,000 were granted the citizens would hear nothing more of the project recently promulgated of debasing the coinage, a project which, if carried out, would have worked great mischief to the London merchant and tradesman. "Leaving the Common Council to discuss the demand, the privy councillors amused themselves by strolling through the Cloth Exchange at Blackwell Hall. The owners of cloth gathered quickly round them. They hoped, they said, that they were not to be compelled to sell for copper goods for which sterling silver had been paid. After a debate of an hour and a half Cottington and Vane were re-admitted, to be informed that the Common Council had no power to dispose of the money of the citizens."
The birth of Prince Charles, afterwards Charles II, 29 May, 1630.
The birth of Prince Charles, afterwards Charles II, 29 May, 1630.
The birth of Prince Charles, afterwards Charles II, 29 May, 1630.
In the midst of the general gloom one bright spot appeared, namely, the birth of an heir to the crown (29 May, 1630), an event which the king lost no time[pg 110]in communicating to the mayor and Common Council of the city—his "principal city and chamber."353On the occasion of the christening of the infant prince the bells of the city churches were set ringing,354and he was presented with a fair large standing cup of gold with cover, weighing nearly 300 ounces, and enclosed in a case of crimson velvet, the cost of the whole exceeding £1,000.355Two years later, when the prince was carried into the city to witness the pageants on lord mayor's day, the Court of Aldermen were so gratified with this unexpected mark of royal favour that they forthwith voted the babe a gift of £500.356
Loss of the queen's plate and jewels, 1631.
Loss of the queen's plate and jewels, 1631.
Loss of the queen's plate and jewels, 1631.
The year following the birth of Prince Charles the queen was robbed of a great part of her plate and jewels. As the thieves were likely to dispose of their booty among the goldsmiths of the city, a precept was issued to the master and wardens of the Goldsmiths' Company to try and recover it.357The goldsmiths had long ago begun to leave Goldsmiths' Row in Cheapside, and to set up shops in different parts of the city, and in 1623 they had been ordered to resume their old quarters, which in the meantime had been given up to poor petty trades.358It was easier to trace lost property when all the goldsmiths were congregated together in one spot. This order, however, was so ineffectually carried out that another order was issued[pg 111]by the lords of the council ten years later directing all goldsmiths to find shops for themselves either in Cheapside or Lombard Street within the next six months, inasmuch as the practice of setting up their shops in obscure places in different parts of the city offered facilities for abuses, and more especially "in passing away of stolen plate."359
City gifts to king and queen, May-June, 1633.
City gifts to king and queen, May-June, 1633.
City gifts to king and queen, May-June, 1633.
On the occasion of the king's departure for Scotland in May, 1633, the Court of Aldermen voted him a present of £2,000 "in two severall purses of velvett or sattin," as a pledge of the City's true loyalty, love and obedience to his majesty.360After he had gone the mayor and aldermen proceeded in State to Richmond to pay their respects to the queen and to offer her a bason and ewer of gold of the value of £800, with her arms engraved thereon.361
Christening of the Duke of York, Nov., 1633.
Christening of the Duke of York, Nov., 1633.
Christening of the Duke of York, Nov., 1633.
In the following November the Duke of York was christened, the ceremony being attended by the mayor, aldermen and sheriffs, as well as the chief officers of the City. The infant prince was presented with a gilt cup and cover weighing sixty ounces, and containing the sum of £500 in gold. Similar fees were paid to the midwife, nurse and "rockers" to those paid on the occasion of the baptism of his elder brother.362During the absence of the mayor and aldermen at St. James', where the ceremony took place, a double watch was ordered to be kept in the city.363
Demand for ship money, Oct., 1634.
Demand for ship money, Oct., 1634.
Demand for ship money, Oct., 1634.
Five years had now elapsed since the dissolution of the last parliament, during which time the country[pg 112]had submitted to the personal government of Charles. Matters might have continued on the same footing for some time longer had not Charles conceived the idea of claiming the sovereignty of the seas as a pretext for raising a fleet. The difficulty then arose as to how to equip a fleet without summoning a parliament. It had been the custom ever since the time of the Plantagenets to call upon maritime towns to furnish ships ready manned for the defence of the realm at a time of threatened invasion. This custom had been rendered sufficiently elastic to comprise the port of London, and the City had frequently been called upon to furnish a contingent of vessels in time of war. Occasionally a protest may have been made against such demands, but they were seldom, if ever, altogether refused. On the 20th October, 1634, writs were issued calling upon the city of London and various port towns and places along the coast to furnish a certain number of ships of war, and to have them ready at Portsmouth by the 1st March, 1635. In many cases it was impossible to supply ships of the size required, and in these the king offered to supply ships of his own on condition that the port towns should equip and man them. London was called upon to supply seven ships varying in size from 300 to 900 tons, with an equipment of from 150 to 350 men.
Search to be made for precedents, Nov., 1634.
Search to be made for precedents, Nov., 1634.
Search to be made for precedents, Nov., 1634.
The Court of Aldermen appointed (13 Nov.) a committee to consider this writ to the City as well as another sent to the borough of Southwark, and to learn what had formerly been done in like case. The City's records were to be consulted with the view of ascertaining how far it was exempt from such charges,[pg 113]and the City's Solicitor was to attend them on that behalf.364The law officers had previously been directed (6 Nov.) to consult together on the matter, and the Town Clerk had received orders to translate the writs into English and make copies of the same.365
Petition of Common Council against demand for ships, 2 Dec., 1634.
Petition of Common Council against demand for ships, 2 Dec., 1634.
Petition of Common Council against demand for ships, 2 Dec., 1634.
When the matter came before the Common Council that body, after serious consideration, decided (2 Dec.) to present a petition to his majesty setting forth that, by ancient privileges, grants and Acts of Parliament, which were ready to be produced, the City was exempt from any such obligation as that contained in the writ, and praying that the City's privileges might be upheld.366
The City forced to submit.
The City forced to submit.
The City forced to submit.
The only effect of this petition was to cause another writ to be issued a week later (9 Dec.) enjoining specific performance of the former writ.367Finding that there was no way of escape the mayor, Sir Robert Parkhurst, began to take the necessary steps for raising £30,000, the sum required from the different wards.368On Sunday, the 14th December, Robert Mason, who had recently been appointed Recorder in succession to Littleton, on the king's own recommendation (although the election is recorded as having been according to "antient custom and freedom of election"!),369appeared before the lords of the council with an account of the progress made in the city in the matter of the ships, with which Charles was well pleased, and the Recorder was ordered to attend the[pg 114]council every Sunday afternoon with a similar account "untill the worke be perfected."370On the 19th the Court of Aldermen appointed a committee to fit out the ships as required, but they were limited in expenditure to the sum of £30,000.371On the 17th February, 1635, the committee reported to the court that his majesty had resolved that two of the City's ships should be assigned to the admiral and vice-admiral of the fleet, and that they should be fitted out by the care and oversight of officers of the navy. For this purpose the sum of £11,475, out of the £30,000 already voted, was ordered to be paid to the treasurer of the navy, whilst the committee proceeded with the business of the other five ships.372
A fresh writ for ship money, 4 Aug., 1635.
A fresh writ for ship money, 4 Aug., 1635.
A fresh writ for ship money, 4 Aug., 1635.
Hitherto all had promised well, but on the 4th August Charles thought fit to issue another writ calling upon the nation at large, and not only port and maritime towns, to furnish ship money, on the ground that as all were concerned in the mutual defence of one another, so all might contribute towards the defence of the realm.373The City found itself called upon to provide two more vessels of 800 tons apiece.374The authorities, however, were so slow in executing this further order that the Sheriffs were made to[pg 115]appear every Sunday before the lords of the council to report what progress was being made.375
Richard Chambers and ship money, 1636.
Richard Chambers and ship money, 1636.
Richard Chambers and ship money, 1636.
In June, 1636, Richard Chambers, a merchant, who had previously displayed a bold front against the king's demand of tonnage and poundage, for which the Star Chamber had condemned him to a term of imprisonment (1628-1629), again came to the fore, and carried the question of the king's right to levy ship money to the Court of King's Bench. The judges, however, refused to allow the question to be argued. "There was a rule of law and a rule of government"—said Justice Berkeley, scarce realising the true import of his words—"and many things which might not be done by the rule of law might be done by the rule of government." Chambers was again committed for contempt, but was afterwards liberated from prison upon payment of the £10 at which he had been assessed. He contented himself with bringing an action in the King's Bench against the mayor, who had made the assessment on the ground of some technical informality.376
The City's forfeiture of its Irish estate, 1635-1638.
The City's forfeiture of its Irish estate, 1635-1638.
The City's forfeiture of its Irish estate, 1635-1638.
Other matters had arisen lately—"great and important businesses"—all tending towards an estrangement of the City from the king. Early in 1635 the City had been condemned by the Court of Star Chamber to a fine of £70,000 and the loss of its Irish estate for having, as was alleged, broken the terms of the charter under which their Irish estate[pg 116]was held. One of the charges against the city and the companies was that they continued to employ the "mere Irish" on their estates instead of relegating them to the narrow limits reserved for them, there to perish of disease or starvation.377There were differences too touching the Royal Contract, differences as to the City's rights to estreated recognisances, as to pretended encroachments and other matters. It was felt that there would be no peace until some arrangement could be made with Charles on all the matters in question, and for this purpose a committee was appointed in May, 1636, to see what could be done. A schedule of "thinges desired by the cittie of London" was drawn up, and an offer was made to the king of the sum of £100,000, to be paid by annual instalments of £20,000, if he would make the concessions desired.378The king's commissioners, who had the business in hand, refused the offer. They informed the committee that not only would the City have to surrender certain valuable fisheries and other privileges in Ireland, as well as the castle of Culmore, but it would have to provide an allowance of £5,000 to Sir Thomas Philips. Instead of £100,000 it would have moreover to pay £120,000.379Negotiations continued for two years. Eventually a compromise was effected in June, 1638, and the city was fain to accept a pardon on surrendering its Irish estates and payment of the comparatively small sum of £12,000,380of which the queen happened at that time to stand in[pg 117]need. The patents of the Irish Society and of the companies were not however actually surrendered until 1639.381
Other grievances of the City.
Other grievances of the City.
Other grievances of the City.
In the meantime Charles had given umbrage to the City in other matters, more especially in the measures he had taken for regulating trade and the institution of corporate monopolies. An order restricting the use of coaches and carts, and forbidding anyone to keep a carriage unless he was also prepared to keep four sufficient horses or geldings for the king's service, weighed heavily upon the mayor and aldermen of the city, who were for the most part men advanced in years and whose duties carried them a good deal abroad. They therefore petitioned the king for an exception to be made in their favour. The petition was granted, but only after long delay.382
Corporation of tradesmen, etc., created, 1636.
Corporation of tradesmen, etc., created, 1636.
Corporation of tradesmen, etc., created, 1636.
The civic authorities were not better pleased with the king for his having (1636), in spite of all protest, created a new corporation which embraced all tradesmen and artificers in the city and suburbs, and thus threatened to be a formidable rival to the ancient corporation.383
A third writ for ship money, Oct., 1636.
A third writ for ship money, Oct., 1636.
A third writ for ship money, Oct., 1636.
In the midst of a growing feeling of dissatisfaction at the existing state of things, a third writ for ship money appeared (9 Oct., 1636). It raised such a storm of opposition in every quarter, however, that Charles once more appealed to the judges for a formal acknowledgment of his right. Their opinion proving[pg 118]favourable,384the work went on and the City was called upon (Sept., 1637) to furnish two ships each of 700 tons.385
In the following year, after Hampden's case had been decided, Charles continued to levy ship money, and the City was told to furnish a ship of 500 tons (5 Nov., 1638). The cost was estimated at £1,000. The usual precept was issued (26 Nov.) to the alderman of each ward for the purpose of ascertaining how best that sum could be raised.386The returns must have been unfavourable, for on the 29th January (1639) the Court of Aldermen appointed a committee to wait upon the lord high admiral and explain to him that the City was not in a position to fit out another ship.387The money was eventually raised by the twelve principal livery companies, seven of which contributed £100 apiece and the other five £60.388
Charter of Charles to the City, 18 Oct., 1638.
Charter of Charles to the City, 18 Oct., 1638.
Charter of Charles to the City, 18 Oct., 1638.
In the meantime troubles had arisen in Scotland through Charles's ill-advised and bigoted attempt to impose upon his northern subjects a Book of Common Prayer. By midsummer (1638) he was preparing for war and would shortly be under the necessity of applying to the city for money and men. It was probably with this end in view that he granted (18 Oct., 1638) to the citizens an ample inspeximus charter, confirming to them their ancient privileges and franchises. Negotiations for a new charter had[pg 119]been going on since the preceding March389(if not earlier), and it was only now conceded on payment of a sum of £12,000.390
Disorders in Scotland, 1639.
Disorders in Scotland, 1639.
Disorders in Scotland, 1639.
At the opening of the new year (4 Jan., 1639) Charles applied by letter under his hand to the City for a liberal contribution and assistance towards putting down the disorders in Scotland, notifying at the same time the fact that he had called upon the peers of the realm to attend in person at York by the 1st April. The letter was read to the court of Common Council on the 12th February, but the matter seemed of so great importance that further consideration of it was adjourned to the 16th, when it was agreed to issue a precept to the alderman of each ward to take steps for raising a free and liberal contribution.391A month elapsed, and notwithstanding every effort of the aldermen, less than £5,000 was got together. The aldermen were directed to renew their efforts, but this only resulted in increasing the amount by £200 or £220.392The whole amount was so small that it was contemptuously refused. At the beginning of April Charles found himself at York with an indifferent army, and with little prospect of being in a position to maintain even that army beyond a very limited period.
Demand for a loan of £100,000, June, 1639.
Demand for a loan of £100,000, June, 1639.
Demand for a loan of £100,000, June, 1639.
In June he caused another application to be made to the City.393On the 7th the lord mayor, who[pg 120]had been summoned to appear before the lords of the council, appeared with so few of his brother aldermen that he was ordered to go back and to return on the 10th with the whole court. When they at last made their appearance they were told that the king expected from them no less a sum than £100,000. The war was, if possible, more unpopular in the city than in the country. The memory of the recent confiscation of their Irish estates had not been obliterated from the minds of the citizens by the subsequent grant of a charter. The mayor and aldermen replied that it was impossible to find the money. The council told them that it must be done, one of the lords declaring that they ought to have sold their chains and gowns before making such a reply. They were ordered to appear once more on the 12th June with a final answer.394
The trained bands called out.
The trained bands called out.
The trained bands called out.
A warrant had in the meantime been issued for raising 3000 men from the trained bands of the city for service in Scotland.395Although it does not appear that this demand was acceded to,396seeing that the trained bands were a force especially intended for the defence of the city, greater activity was shown in making the city's troops as perfect in their drill as circumstances permitted.397Boys from Christ's Hospital and Bridewell were taught to play the drum and fife, weapons were marked, and musters held in[pg 121]Goodman's Fields and elsewhere under the eye of Captain John Fisher, recently appointed muster-master.398
The City's free gift of £10,000, 31 July, 1639.
The City's free gift of £10,000, 31 July, 1639.
The City's free gift of £10,000, 31 July, 1639.
That the citizens were not indisposed to assist the king, if left to themselves and not subjected to threats and intimidation, is shown by the fact that, in anticipation of the return of Charles from the North, the Common Council voted him (31 July, 1639) the sum of £10,000 as a free gift in consideration that the City had not contributed anything to his majesty on his setting out, as had been required, "albeit the counties and private personnes both nobles and others had done the same."399Even this small sum could not be raised without resorting to sheriffs' fines, no less than sixteen individuals being mulcted for refusing to serve as sheriff in less than two months.400It was no difficult task to find men unwilling to serve such a thankless office at so critical a time.
The "short parliament," 1640.
The "short parliament," 1640.
The "short parliament," 1640.
Before the close of the year (1639) the country was agreeably surprised at the news that it was the king's intention to summon a parliament. Parliament opened on the 13th April (1640). Few of its members could have served in the last parliament of eleven years before, but although so long a time had elapsed since the Commons had met, they had not forgotten their old constitutional claims to have the country's grievances redressed before proceeding to grant[pg 122]supplies. An offer to relinquish ship money proved insufficient, and after three weeks the "short parliament" was dissolved (5 May, 1640).
Attempt to force a city loan of £100,000, April-May, 1640.
Attempt to force a city loan of £100,000, April-May, 1640.
Attempt to force a city loan of £100,000, April-May, 1640.
For some days before parliament was dissolved every effort had been made by the king to get the mayor and aldermen to lend him £100,000. This being found impossible, the mayor, Henry Garway, or Garraway, was directed to make out a list of the wealthiest commoners. After several attempts to negotiate with the aldermen individually, they were summoned to appear in a body on Sunday, the 11th April. Charles himself then told them that his necessity at the time was so great that he must borrow £100,000 of the City; that he must not be denied; the money he must have at once, as it would benefit him more then than twenty subsidies granted by parliament afterwards. After the king had finished speaking the Lord Privy Seal401addressed them, setting forth that a similar sum had been advanced by the City to King James; that he himself, being Recorder at the time, had lent £3,000 towards it, and that the money had been repaid with interest. The City, he continued, was rather beholden to his majesty for taking the money and repaying it with interest, than the king beholden to the City for lending it. He further instanced the case of the City having lent King Henry III a sum of £100,000 rather than allow that monarch to pledge his crown and jewels to the merchants of the Steelyard, and it was truly repaid. To this the aldermen were not permitted to[pg 123]make any reply, but were sent away to advise together how the sum should be raised.402
On Thursday, the 7th May, the mayor and aldermen were again summoned before the council, when they were told that, having failed to provide the sum previously asked for, they would now have to find £200,000. If the latter sum was not forthcoming the king threatened to "have £300,000 of the city." They were to come again on the following Sunday (10 May) and bring with them a list of the rich men of the wards.
Four aldermen committed to prison, 1640.
Four aldermen committed to prison, 1640.
Four aldermen committed to prison, 1640.
On the day appointed they came, but brought with them a petition to be excused making such a list as that required. The excuse was not allowed. Strafford is recorded as having lost his temper at the obstinacy of the aldermen. "Sir," said he, addressing the king, "you will never do good to these citizens of London till you have made examples of some of the aldermen," and recommended Charles, in his own "thorough" way, to hang a few of them.403Charles did not take the advice offered. He would have made, however, the mayor resign his sword and collar then and there but for the intercession of the bystanders, and actually committed four of the aldermen to prison, viz., Nicholas Rainton, John Gayre, Thomas Soame and Thomas Atkins, for refusing to make a list of those inhabitants of their respective wards who were able to lend from £50 upwards.404One of them, Alderman Soame, gave particular offence. "I was an[pg 124]honest man whilst I was a commoner," he told the king to his face, "and I would continue to be so now I am an alderman." The other aldermen professed their readiness to give in the names of the richer citizens, but objected to rate them according to their means.
Impeachment of Sir Thomas Gardiner, Recorder, 1642.
Impeachment of Sir Thomas Gardiner, Recorder, 1642.
Impeachment of Sir Thomas Gardiner, Recorder, 1642.
Both Garway and Sir Thomas Gardiner, the Recorder, favoured the king. The latter was particularly anxious that the City should lend the £100,000 originally requested, and did his best to get the money advanced. For his zeal on this occasion, and for "other high crimes and misdemeanours," he was afterwards (1642) impeached.405
Riot at Lambeth, 11 May, 1640.
Riot at Lambeth, 11 May, 1640.
Riot at Lambeth, 11 May, 1640.
The aldermen were not long kept in confinement. Even before their committal the city was in a ferment, and a placard had appeared posted up in the Exchange inviting all who were lovers of liberty to assemble in St. George's Fields in Southwark early on Monday morning (11 May). Archbishop Laud was a special object of hatred to the citizens, and against him the mob directed their attack. As soon as the trained bands, which kept order during the day, had retired for the evening, the rabble marched to Lambeth. Laud, however, had been warned in time, and had made good his escape across the river to Whitehall. The rioters finding themselves baulked of their prey retired with threats of returning to burn down the palace. For the next few days the city was under martial law. A double watch was kept in its streets. The companies looked to their store of powder and match. A strict guard was kept over servants and[pg 125]apprentices, and a warrant issued for raising 1,000 men of the trained bands, or as many more as the lord mayor should think necessary "to suppress, slay, kill, destroy and apprehend all such as should be tumultuously assembled in or about Southwark, Lambeth, Blackheath or elsewhere in parts adjacent."406
The aldermen released, 15 May, 1640.
The aldermen released, 15 May, 1640.
The aldermen released, 15 May, 1640.
If the royal warrant was to be effectually and loyally carried out some concession to the citizens was necessary, and accordingly, on the same day (15 May) that the warrant appeared, the four aldermen were released.
Collection of ship money in the city enforced, June, 1640.
Collection of ship money in the city enforced, June, 1640.
Collection of ship money in the city enforced, June, 1640.
Pending the negotiations for a loan, payment of ship money had not been strictly enforced; but now that threats and entreaties had failed to open the purse-strings of the citizens Charles made a desperate effort to exact ship money. On the 9th June, 1640, the lord mayor and both the sheriffs were summoned to attend the council to give an account of the ship money due from the city. Why had it not been paid in? The mayor replied that he had sent his officers to collect, but few or none would pay.407Upon the king telling him that he should have distrained, the mayor remarked that one of his predecessors in office, Sir Edward Bromfield, was still a defendant in a suit in the King's Bench brought against him by Richard Chambers for acting in that manner, and was likely to be cast. "No man," said Charles peremptorily, "shall suffer for obeying my commands." Thus encouraged the mayor himself[pg 126]made a house-to-house visit the next day, accompanied by the sheriffs, for the purpose of collecting the money. Throughout the whole city, however, only one man was found ready and willing to pay. When the mayor ordered the sheriffs to distrain they refused on the plea that it was the mayor's business, not theirs. Entering a draper's shop the mayor attempted to seize a piece of linen cloth; the owner set about measuring it, and naming the price told the mayor that if he persisted in taking it he should esteem it a purchase and put it to his lordship's account.408
Demand for a city force of 4,000 men for service in the North, 11 June, 1640.
Demand for a city force of 4,000 men for service in the North, 11 June, 1640.
Demand for a city force of 4,000 men for service in the North, 11 June, 1640.
On the 11th June the Common Council took into consideration two letters—one from Charles, dated the 17th March, and another from the lords of the council, of the 31st May—asking for a city force of 4,000 men (but none to be taken out of the trained bands) for service in the north of England, and directing the mayor to see that coat and conduct money was at once raised for the purpose.409The court declined to come to an immediate decision; but on the 15th the lord mayor issued his precept for the necessary funds to be levied on the wards.410
Application to the Common Council for a loan of £200,000 renewed, 23 July, 1640.
Application to the Common Council for a loan of £200,000 renewed, 23 July, 1640.
Application to the Common Council for a loan of £200,000 renewed, 23 July, 1640.
On the 19th July news arrived from the North that the Scots were about to seize Newcastle—a very serious matter to the Londoners, as they would thereby be cut off from their supply of coal. Charles took advantage of this, writes Dr. Gardiner,411and sent Lord Cottington and Sir Henry Vane to the Common Council—specially summoned to meet on the 23rd by[pg 127]the king's order412—to assure them that if the long-desired loan of £200,000 were granted the citizens would hear nothing more of the project recently promulgated of debasing the coinage, a project which, if carried out, would have worked great mischief to the London merchant and tradesman. "Leaving the Common Council to discuss the demand, the privy councillors amused themselves by strolling through the Cloth Exchange at Blackwell Hall. The owners of cloth gathered quickly round them. They hoped, they said, that they were not to be compelled to sell for copper goods for which sterling silver had been paid. After a debate of an hour and a half Cottington and Vane were re-admitted, to be informed that the Common Council had no power to dispose of the money of the citizens."