Chapter 26

The City's petition to parliament, 6 Feb., 1646.A petition was accordingly presented to the House of Commons by alderman Fowke on the 6th February.720The petition set out at considerable length all the proceedings that had taken place since the question of the militia was first submitted to Charles. It compared the attitude of the city towards parliament in the late civil war with the part played by the citizens in a previous civil war, viz., the war of[pg 232]the Barons, when (according to the petitioners) the Barons were eventually beaten out of the field owing to the citizens of London staying at home! The petitioners proceeded to show the necessity of the City being empowered to raise militia in the adjacent counties for the purpose of keeping open a passage for victualling the city in times of danger; that since the militia of the suburbs had been under the command of the City good service had been rendered to the parliamentary cause, and notably in the relief of Gloucester; that if it were now removed from the jurisdiction of the City the suburban forts might be seized and both the city and parliament might be threatened; and that it was for the better preservation of parliament, and not for the purpose of rendering the city militia independent of parliament, that the petitioners appeared before the House. Finally, Alderman Fowke, who acted as spokesman, declared himself authorised to state that if the militia of the city and kingdom were not settled by the king and parliament there would be no course left open to the city authorities but to act according to their conscience and to abide by their covenant. A similar petition was presented to the House of Lords (7 Feb.). A week later (14 Feb.) a counter-petition was addressed to the Commons by the inhabitants of the Tower Hamlets, Westminster and Southwark,721and on the 13th March a committee was appointed to arrange, if possible, a compromise.722Ordinance establishing Presbyterianism, March, 1646.Before this question was settled another had arisen to widen the breach between parliament and[pg 233]the city in the shape of an ordinance for establishing a system of Presbyterianism throughout England.723One clause of this ordinance—clause 14—was particularly objectionable as introducing the authority of the State into matters of Church government. Commissioners were to be appointed, of whom nothing was known, to regulate the Church in each province. The Common Council, being urged by inhabitants of the city to oppose a measure so opposed to the Word of God,724presented petitions to both Houses (to the Lords first, they having not yet assented to clause 14) praying that no officers might be appointed to exercise any Church censures contrary to the Scriptures, and that their appointment might be in accordance with the Word of God.725The petitions were so badly received by both Houses that the municipal authorities took fright, and asked that they might be withdrawn and expunged from the Journals of Parliament. Their request was acceded to, but only on condition that the petitions were likewise expunged from the City's Records.726Public thanksgiving in the city for defeat of royalists, 2 April.Entertainment at Grocers' Hall.The reconciliation between parliament and the city was followed by an interchange of courtesies. The royalist army under Hopton had recently surrendered to Fairfax in the west of England (14 March), and had been disbanded; and the last hope of Charles had vanished in the defeat of Astley's troops after a sharp engagement at Stow-on-the-Wold (22 March). "You have now done your work" were the parting words of the veteran commander to his[pg 234]soldiers, "and may go play, unless you will fall out among yourselves."727On the 26th March a deputation from both Houses waited on the Common Council, and invited the mayor, aldermen and council, as "the representative body of the city," to attend a public thanksgiving service to be held that day week (2 April) at Christ Church, Newgate Street. The invitation was graciously accepted, and the City returned the compliment by asking both Houses to dine the same day at Grocers' Hall.728Letter of Charles to the City, 19 May.The City's remonstrance to parliament, 26 May.On the 19th May, whilst virtually a prisoner in the hands of the Scots, Charles wrote to the City729declaring his readiness to concur in settling truth and peace, his desire to have all things speedily concluded to that end, and his hope that his return to his ancient city might be to the satisfaction of parliament and his people. The Commons were angry with the civic authorities for opening the king's letter without their leave, and returned a curt answer to a remonstrance presented to them by the City calling upon them to suppress heresy, to unite with the Scots and to come to a speedy arrangement with the king.730The Lords, to whom a similar remonstrance had been presented, expressed themselves more graciously. They acknowledged the fidelity and constant services of the City to parliament. They were satisfied with the resolutions of the citizens to settle the Protestant religion and to preserve the rights and privileges of parliament, the liberties of the kingdoms and the person and authority[pg 235]of his majesty. As for their lord mayor (Thomas Adams), whose character the petitioners had declared to have been aspersed by certain members of the Commons (for opening the king's letter without leave?), they (the Lords) held him in high esteem, and declared that nothing had been said or done in their House to his prejudice. As soon as they should be informed of the nature of his grievance they would be found ready in a parliamentary way to do him right.731The Common Council received a formal address of thanks for presenting this remonstrance from a large body of "citizens of the best rank and qualitie," as well as from the General Assembly of Scotland.732Disaffected citizens and the remonstrance.On the other hand an attempt was made to minimise the effect of the remonstrance by getting up a counter-petition on the pretext that the remonstrance had not fairly represented the wishes of the majority of the citizens. This counter-petition, which is said to have been backed up with 5,000 or 6,000 signatures, was duly presented to the Commons, who by a small majority passed a vote of thanks to the petitioners (2 June).733The City's reply to the king's letter, 3 July, 1646.In the meanwhile the king's letter of the 19th May remained unanswered. At last, on the 3rd July, an answer—or "petition"—was drafted and submitted to the Common Council for approval. After acknowledging the special favour of receiving a letter direct from the king, the citizens expressed their desire to[pg 236]assure his majesty and the whole world of the continuance of their loyalty in accordance with the terms of their protestation and covenant. They prayed him to comply with the propositions for the settlement of religion and peace and the maintenance of the union of the two nations which parliament was about to send him, and they expressed an earnest hope to see him return to his ancient city with honour and joy.734The leave of parliament asked before despatching the City's answer, 4 July, 1646.The city fathers were too wary to despatch their petition without first obtaining leave from parliament. On the following day (4 July), therefore, a deputation of aldermen and members of the council, with Alderman Sir Thomas Foote at its head, presented itself before the House of Lords to ask their leave to despatch the City's answer to the king. After perusing the petition the Lords declared their approval of its being sent to the king, and courteously acknowledged the action of the citizens in first submitting it to the judgment of their lordships.735It was otherwise with the Commons, who again returned a churlish reply. The deputation was given to understand that the House had been put to some inconvenience in giving them an audience, being busily engaged at the time in pressing business. The petition, however, was of importance, and would receive their consideration at a convenient time.736The Commons refuse leave, 11 July.On Friday the 10th the Commons were pressed for an answer, but they again put the matter off on the plea of pressure of business. The next day the deputation again waited on the House, attended by[pg 237]the city members of parliament, and about four o'clock in the afternoon received a message from the Commons that the City's petition was not to be forwarded to the king, and that "in convenient time" they would send and inform the Common Council of their further pleasure. Accordingly two of the city's members, Sir Thomas Soame and Samuel Vassall, appeared before the council on the 15th, when Vassall declared that he had been commanded by the House to make an explanation. In order to avoid mistakes he would read the message he was to deliver. The message was to the effect that inasmuch as the propositions which had been despatched to the king by parliament on the 13th June embraced the city of London as well as the whole kingdom, the House could not approve of the city's petition being forwarded to his majesty. Being desired by the council to leave the paper with them, Vassall declared that he had no authority to do so.737In the meantime, the House had appointed a committee to enquire "concerning the first principal contrivers and framers of the city remonstrance, and concerning such as have or do labour to disaffect the people and the city from the parliament";738but before the committee could take steps to carry out its instructions, circumstances had arisen which made it advisable to let the matter drop and not to widen the breach between the city and parliament.The king's answer to the propositions for peace, 12 Aug., 1646.On the 30th July the parliamentary commissioners arrived in Newcastle for the purpose of laying before Charles propositions for peace. Charles had already[pg 238]become possessed of a copy, and had long since made up his mind to reject them. The commissioners had received positive orders to allow the king ten days to give his assent, and if he failed to give his assent within that time after their arrival they were at once to return.739The only reply which Charles condescended to give was contained in a letter which he handed to the commissioners on the 1st August. The letter was read before the House on the 12th. It contained little more than vague promises and a request that he might be allowed to come to London to discuss the propositions at length.740A loan of £200,000 to be raised to get rid of the Scottish army, Sept., 1646.The same day that the king's answer was read before the Lords a letter from the Scottish commissioners was produced, in which they offered to withdraw their forces from England upon payment of expenses already incurred.741After a considerable amount of haggling the Scots consented to take the sum of £400,000 in full discharge of all claims, a moiety to be paid to them before leaving England and the remainder by instalments at specified dates.742It only remained for parliament to raise the sum of £200,000 needed for the first payment, and to whom was it more natural that application should first be made than to the City? A large deputation from the Commons, including Cromwell himself, accordingly waited on the Common Council (7 Sept.) to ask it to consider ways and means for raising the money. The committee to whom the matter was[pg 239]referred lost no time. On the 9th it reported to the court a scheme for raising the money on the security of the excise and sale of the Bishops' lands, the security to extend to previous loans. Parliament accepted these terms, on the understanding that "Bishops' lands" were not to comprise impropriations and advowsons.743City petitions to both Houses for redress of grievances, 19 Dec., 1646.On the 10th December there was presented to the Common Council "an humble representacon of the pressinge grievances and important desires of the well affected freemen and covenant engaged cittizens of the cittie of London," with a request that it might be laid before parliament.744This document, after being revised by a committee appointed for the purpose, was laid before the Commons on the 19th December, together with a petition from the civic authorities themselves, who similarly addressed themselves to the House of Lords. The chief points on which stress was laid were the disbandment of the army, the suppression of heresy, the union of the two kingdoms, the free election of members of parliament, and the City's government of its own militia. As for the "bringing home of his majesty," that was left to the wisdom of both Houses, with the confidence that they would preserve his majesty's royal person and authority in defence of the true religion and liberties of the kingdom according to the covenant.745Both Houses thanked the City and promised to take the matter into their consideration.746City petitions for disbandment of army, 17 Mar., 1647.In the spring of the following year (1647) a new terror presented itself to the Presbyterians at home in[pg 240]the absolute supremacy of the army under Fairfax, although that general had given his word that the army should not come within twenty-five miles of London.747The City petitioned both Houses that it might be disbanded, and that the Common Council might have authority to make annual election of the members of the city's militia. To those petitions gracious answers were returned, the Lords declaring that they had considered already a measure touching the city's militia and had transmitted it to the Commons.748Dispute between the Presbyterians in parliament and the army, March, 1647.The army would in all probability have been disbanded in due course, and all might have gone well but for the high-handed treatment it received from the Commons. It was proposed to ask the soldiers after disbandment to volunteer for service in Ireland. There were, however, considerable arrears of pay due to them, and neither officers nor men would volunteer until they had received some assurance from parliament that they would be paid all that was due to them. Instead of doing this parliament contented itself with voting a sum of £200,000, not for satisfying arrears of pay, but "for the service of England and Ireland."749The soldiers were about to petition parliament with the sanction of their officers, but such a course was declared by both Houses to be highly improper.750A city loan of £200,000, April, 1647.It was easier for parliament to vote a sum of £200,000 than to raise that amount. Application was[pg 241]as usual made to the City (6 April).751The zeal of the citizens was excited by the Commons at length passing the ordinance sent down to them by the Lords for a new militia committee (16 April).752On the following day (17 April) the Common Council was prepared with a scheme to be submitted to parliament for raising the money. Like other schemes that had gone before, it proposed that subscribers to certain former loans should add arrears of interest, and by making a further advance equivalent to the sum total should have the whole secured on the sale of lands of bishops and delinquents.753Parliament hesitated at first to allow the lands of delinquents and compositions paid by them to the committee sitting at Goldsmiths' Hall to form part of the security for the loan, but afterwards consented to a moiety of all such compositions being added to the security.754Nomination of the new militia committee, 27 April, 1647.The appointment of the new militia committee was made a solemn business by the citizens. Tuesday, the 27th April, was fixed for the nomination, which was preceded by prayer and a sermon in the church of St. Laurence Jewry, and a formal renewal of the covenant by all present. Thirty-one persons, the number prescribed by the ordinance, were nominated, all of them Presbyterians. Of these seven were aldermen. On the 4th May both Houses signified their approval of the city's nominees, and ordained that any nine of them, whereof three were to be[pg 242]aldermen and six to be commoners, should thenceforth constitute a committee for the militia to order and direct the same according to the true meaning and intent of the ordinance recently passed.755One of the first acts of the new committee was to ask leave of parliament to raise an additional sum of £20,000 to satisfy the arrears due to the city's forces that had been engaged in guarding the Houses of Parliament, the Tower and forts within the lines of communication around the city. Parliament only consented, however, to the sum of £12,000 being raised for this purpose.756Parliament beset by disbanded soldiers, 7 June, 1647.The re-modelling of the city force to the exclusion of everyone tainted with independency only served to increase the discontent of the army. It was bad enough to find the Presbyterians in parliament joining hands with the Presbyterians in the city against the army; it was worse if the city trained bands were to receive their arrears of pay whilst the army was left out in the cold. An attempt was made to bring pressure to bear on parliament by a mob of reformadoes or disbanded soldiers besetting the House of Commons on the 7th June. These men clamoured for their arrears of pay and refused to go away unless the sum of £10,000 should be voted for them.City petition to parliament, 8 June.On the following day (8 June) the City presented another petition to parliament praying that the army might be paid off as speedily as possible; that the king, who had recently been carried off from Holmby House by a troop of cavalry under Joyce, might be[pg 243]disposed of in such a way as to allow the parliaments of England and Scotland free access to him; and thirdly that, seeing the danger of the times, an ordinance of the 17th January, 1645, authorising the City to raise cavalry in their own defence and to apprehend disaffected persons, might be revived. The House, which was guarded at the time by a city regiment, could scarcely do otherwise than comply with the prayer of the petitioners.757Letter from the army to the city, 11 June, 1647.Three days later (11 June) a letter was brought to the city by "two messengers that looked like soldiers," signed by Fairfax and twelve others, informing the civic authorities of the army's approach to London.758The City was asked to believe that such action on the part of the army was only directed against those who were endeavouring to engage the kingdom in a new war. As Englishmen, if not as soldiers, the writers desired only "the peace of the kingdom and liberty of the subject, according to the votes and declarations of parliament." They desired no alteration of the civil government, nor to hinder Presbyterianism. When once the State had settled a matter there was nothing for it but to submit or suffer; they only wished that every good citizen and every peaceful man might be allowed to enjoy liberty. "These, in brief," continued the writers, "are our desires, and the things for which we stand, beyond which we shall not go; and for obtaining these things we are drawing near your city, professing sincerely from our hearts we intend not[pg 244]evil toward you; declaring with all confidence and assurance that if you appear not against us in these our just desires to assist that wicked party that would embroil us and the kingdom, nor we nor our soldiers shall give you the least offence." It was true, they went on to say, that a rich city like London offered a tempting bait for poor hungry soldiers, but the officers would protect it with their last drop of blood from the soldiery provided no provocation were offered by the citizens themselves. Their men valued their own high character above any wealth, and the citizens would act like fellow subjects and brethren by using their influence with parliament on their behalf. On the other hand, "if after all this you, or a considerable part of you, be seduced to take up arms in opposition to or hindrance of these our just undertakings, we hope by this brotherly premonition, to the sincerity thereof we call God to witness, we have freed ourselves from all that ruin which may befall that great and populous city, having thereby washed our hands thereof."A new Committee of Safety, 11 June, 1647.This letter was laid before the House with a request that it would endeavour to prevent Fairfax quartering his army on the city, thereby enhancing the price of provisions, and this request was acceded to. At the same time a new committee of safety, composed of members of both Houses, was appointed to join the reformed Committee of Militia of the city in taking all necessary steps to secure "the safety of the parliament and the city."759The committee established itself at the Guildhall and commenced[pg 245]preparing lists of disbanded officers willing to serve the parliament.The City's answer to the letter from the army, 12 June, 1647.The City in the meantime drafted a reply760of its own, and this was despatched to the army on the 12th, after receiving the approval of the House. In it the City disavowed any animosity towards the army. The citizens had only put themselves into a state of defence against unlawful violence. So far were they from opposing the just demands of the army, they had themselves presented a humble address to parliament that these might be granted. If the officers would only keep the army at a distance of thirty miles from London, and so give no occasion for disorder or rise in the price of victuals in the city, it would go far to prove the sincerity of the intentions expressed in their letter.Answer from Fairfax and his council of war at St. Albans, 15 June, 1647.This letter found the army at St. Albans. The deputation that carried it thither returned with two missives, one addressed to the commissioners of the city of London and the other to the mayor, aldermen and Common Council.761In the first Fairfax and the "council of war" declared the utter impossibility of removing the army to a distance of thirty miles from London so long as enlistments were being made in the city and suburbs in addition to the usual trained bands and auxiliaries. A stop must be put to this, otherwise the army would have to take the matter in hand. In the second the officers informed the civic authorities that the movements of the army would greatly depend upon the action parliament took[pg 246]with respect to certain "papers" now to be submitted to it.The Declaration of the Armyand theChargeagainst eleven members of the House, 15 and 16 June.By "papers" the writers were referring to a document styledThe Declaration of the Army, which had that morning been placed in the hands of the parliamentary commissioners to be forwarded to the Lords.762This declaration sought to establish the right of the army to speak in the name of the English people, and demanded the banishment from office of all who spoke ill of it. To this was added a further demand, viz., the expulsion from the House of those who had proved themselves unworthy of their seats. This last demand was followed by a formal charge laid in the name of the army against eleven members of the House of Commons (of whom Glyn, the city's Recorder, was one) of having prejudiced the liberties of the subject, misrepresented the army and raised forces for a new war.Ineffectual attempt to call out the trained bands, 12 June.As matters turned out the army had little cause to fear the enlistments that had taken place in the city. An attempt had, it is true, been made to increase the number of the militia, but it had met with poor success. When it became known in the city that the army was moving southward from Royston something like a panic prevailed. The trained bands were called out on pain of death and shops ordered to be shut, Sir John Gayer, the lord mayor, being especially active. But when the companies appeared on parade they were found to be lamentably deficient in numbers, "not ten men of some companies appeared, and many companies none[pg 247]at all but officers."763The whole affair was treated as a farce by the on-lookers, who jeered at the troops as they passed; and those who had shut up their shops at the mayor's command soon opened them again. It was clear that the citizens had no intention of being engaged in a "new war." Parliament, finding this to be the case, annulled the order for enlistments and resolved that "the city might upon occasion send letters to the army, so as they did first present them to the House for their approbation."764Letter from the City to Fairfax and the council of war, 18 June, 1647.By the 18th June the City was ready with its reply to the last letters of Fairfax and the council of war. This reply had after some hesitation received the sanction of the Commons, and the City was to be thenceforth permitted to correspond with the army on its own responsibility, and without submitting its letters first to parliament.765It entirely disavowed any privity or consent of the Common Council in connection with the recent enlistments other than those of the trained bands and auxiliaries. All such enlistments Fairfax was assured had now been stopped, the civic authorities having intervened as requested. The City's readiness to conform to the wishes of the army would, it was hoped, draw forth a fuller assurance that the army intended no prejudice either to parliament or to the city, which had expended so much[pg 248]blood and treasure in its defence, and that it would remove its quarters farther from London.766Reply of Fairfax and council of war, 21 and 22 June, 1647.This reply did not give unqualified satisfaction. It was impossible, wrote Fairfax and the council of war (21 June),767to remove the army farther from London until parliament should have given a satisfactory reply to theHumble Representation of the dissatisfaction of the Army, theDeclaration of the Army, and theChargemade against eleven members of the House of Commons. That the City had done its part in stopping enlistments they readily acknowledged, but information had reached them of underhand workings still going on to enlist men, as a "foundation for a new armie and a new warre." The letter concluded with a reiteration of the writers' intention to do nothing prejudicial to the parliament or the city, for which they professed "a most tender regard." To this letter a postscript was added the following day (22 June) to the effect that since writing the above they had heard that parliament had been again threatened by a mob of reformadoes. It was therefore more necessary than ever to preserve the remnant of liberty that attached to the House.Commissioners from the city to remain at headquarters, 24 and 25 June.On the 23rd another letter768was despatched desiring that some representatives of the city might take up permanent quarters with the army until matters became more settled. Accordingly, on the following day (24 June) the Common Council appointed Alderman Warner, Deputy Pack and[pg 249]Colonel Player to go to Fairfax and the army and remain with them until further orders. They were to give his excellency and the council of war an account of the true state of affairs respecting enlistments, and assure them that the City would take good care that both Houses should be allowed to conduct their affairs in peace and quiet.769The army moved to Uxbridge, 25 June, 1647.As soon as the commissioners arrived in camp they were informed that the army was about to change its quarters to Uxbridge. On the 25th Fairfax again took occasion in a letter to the City, dated from Berkhampstead,770to enlarge upon the danger that was likely to arise from continued attempts to raise forces in Wales, "besides underhand workings in your city," and from parliament being threatened by the presence of reformadoes. It could not be expected that the kingdom would be safe, or justice done, so long as the accused members sat as judges. "We have written this to you," the letter concluded, "for your satisfaction that so nothing may be done without giving you a perfect account of our intentions and ends, and still to continue our assurance to you that should necessity bring us nearer to the city our former faith given you shall be observed inviolably, there being nothing more (next the good of the kingdom) in our thoughts and desires than the prosperity of your city." It was six o'clock in the evening when this letter was brought to the Common Council, so that there was only time to acknowledge its receipt in a letter,[pg 250]which was on the point of being despatched to the army.771

The City's petition to parliament, 6 Feb., 1646.

A petition was accordingly presented to the House of Commons by alderman Fowke on the 6th February.720The petition set out at considerable length all the proceedings that had taken place since the question of the militia was first submitted to Charles. It compared the attitude of the city towards parliament in the late civil war with the part played by the citizens in a previous civil war, viz., the war of[pg 232]the Barons, when (according to the petitioners) the Barons were eventually beaten out of the field owing to the citizens of London staying at home! The petitioners proceeded to show the necessity of the City being empowered to raise militia in the adjacent counties for the purpose of keeping open a passage for victualling the city in times of danger; that since the militia of the suburbs had been under the command of the City good service had been rendered to the parliamentary cause, and notably in the relief of Gloucester; that if it were now removed from the jurisdiction of the City the suburban forts might be seized and both the city and parliament might be threatened; and that it was for the better preservation of parliament, and not for the purpose of rendering the city militia independent of parliament, that the petitioners appeared before the House. Finally, Alderman Fowke, who acted as spokesman, declared himself authorised to state that if the militia of the city and kingdom were not settled by the king and parliament there would be no course left open to the city authorities but to act according to their conscience and to abide by their covenant. A similar petition was presented to the House of Lords (7 Feb.). A week later (14 Feb.) a counter-petition was addressed to the Commons by the inhabitants of the Tower Hamlets, Westminster and Southwark,721and on the 13th March a committee was appointed to arrange, if possible, a compromise.722

Ordinance establishing Presbyterianism, March, 1646.

Before this question was settled another had arisen to widen the breach between parliament and[pg 233]the city in the shape of an ordinance for establishing a system of Presbyterianism throughout England.723One clause of this ordinance—clause 14—was particularly objectionable as introducing the authority of the State into matters of Church government. Commissioners were to be appointed, of whom nothing was known, to regulate the Church in each province. The Common Council, being urged by inhabitants of the city to oppose a measure so opposed to the Word of God,724presented petitions to both Houses (to the Lords first, they having not yet assented to clause 14) praying that no officers might be appointed to exercise any Church censures contrary to the Scriptures, and that their appointment might be in accordance with the Word of God.725The petitions were so badly received by both Houses that the municipal authorities took fright, and asked that they might be withdrawn and expunged from the Journals of Parliament. Their request was acceded to, but only on condition that the petitions were likewise expunged from the City's Records.726

Public thanksgiving in the city for defeat of royalists, 2 April.

Entertainment at Grocers' Hall.

The reconciliation between parliament and the city was followed by an interchange of courtesies. The royalist army under Hopton had recently surrendered to Fairfax in the west of England (14 March), and had been disbanded; and the last hope of Charles had vanished in the defeat of Astley's troops after a sharp engagement at Stow-on-the-Wold (22 March). "You have now done your work" were the parting words of the veteran commander to his[pg 234]soldiers, "and may go play, unless you will fall out among yourselves."727On the 26th March a deputation from both Houses waited on the Common Council, and invited the mayor, aldermen and council, as "the representative body of the city," to attend a public thanksgiving service to be held that day week (2 April) at Christ Church, Newgate Street. The invitation was graciously accepted, and the City returned the compliment by asking both Houses to dine the same day at Grocers' Hall.728

Letter of Charles to the City, 19 May.

The City's remonstrance to parliament, 26 May.

On the 19th May, whilst virtually a prisoner in the hands of the Scots, Charles wrote to the City729declaring his readiness to concur in settling truth and peace, his desire to have all things speedily concluded to that end, and his hope that his return to his ancient city might be to the satisfaction of parliament and his people. The Commons were angry with the civic authorities for opening the king's letter without their leave, and returned a curt answer to a remonstrance presented to them by the City calling upon them to suppress heresy, to unite with the Scots and to come to a speedy arrangement with the king.730The Lords, to whom a similar remonstrance had been presented, expressed themselves more graciously. They acknowledged the fidelity and constant services of the City to parliament. They were satisfied with the resolutions of the citizens to settle the Protestant religion and to preserve the rights and privileges of parliament, the liberties of the kingdoms and the person and authority[pg 235]of his majesty. As for their lord mayor (Thomas Adams), whose character the petitioners had declared to have been aspersed by certain members of the Commons (for opening the king's letter without leave?), they (the Lords) held him in high esteem, and declared that nothing had been said or done in their House to his prejudice. As soon as they should be informed of the nature of his grievance they would be found ready in a parliamentary way to do him right.731The Common Council received a formal address of thanks for presenting this remonstrance from a large body of "citizens of the best rank and qualitie," as well as from the General Assembly of Scotland.732

Disaffected citizens and the remonstrance.

On the other hand an attempt was made to minimise the effect of the remonstrance by getting up a counter-petition on the pretext that the remonstrance had not fairly represented the wishes of the majority of the citizens. This counter-petition, which is said to have been backed up with 5,000 or 6,000 signatures, was duly presented to the Commons, who by a small majority passed a vote of thanks to the petitioners (2 June).733

The City's reply to the king's letter, 3 July, 1646.

In the meanwhile the king's letter of the 19th May remained unanswered. At last, on the 3rd July, an answer—or "petition"—was drafted and submitted to the Common Council for approval. After acknowledging the special favour of receiving a letter direct from the king, the citizens expressed their desire to[pg 236]assure his majesty and the whole world of the continuance of their loyalty in accordance with the terms of their protestation and covenant. They prayed him to comply with the propositions for the settlement of religion and peace and the maintenance of the union of the two nations which parliament was about to send him, and they expressed an earnest hope to see him return to his ancient city with honour and joy.734

The leave of parliament asked before despatching the City's answer, 4 July, 1646.

The city fathers were too wary to despatch their petition without first obtaining leave from parliament. On the following day (4 July), therefore, a deputation of aldermen and members of the council, with Alderman Sir Thomas Foote at its head, presented itself before the House of Lords to ask their leave to despatch the City's answer to the king. After perusing the petition the Lords declared their approval of its being sent to the king, and courteously acknowledged the action of the citizens in first submitting it to the judgment of their lordships.735It was otherwise with the Commons, who again returned a churlish reply. The deputation was given to understand that the House had been put to some inconvenience in giving them an audience, being busily engaged at the time in pressing business. The petition, however, was of importance, and would receive their consideration at a convenient time.736

The Commons refuse leave, 11 July.

On Friday the 10th the Commons were pressed for an answer, but they again put the matter off on the plea of pressure of business. The next day the deputation again waited on the House, attended by[pg 237]the city members of parliament, and about four o'clock in the afternoon received a message from the Commons that the City's petition was not to be forwarded to the king, and that "in convenient time" they would send and inform the Common Council of their further pleasure. Accordingly two of the city's members, Sir Thomas Soame and Samuel Vassall, appeared before the council on the 15th, when Vassall declared that he had been commanded by the House to make an explanation. In order to avoid mistakes he would read the message he was to deliver. The message was to the effect that inasmuch as the propositions which had been despatched to the king by parliament on the 13th June embraced the city of London as well as the whole kingdom, the House could not approve of the city's petition being forwarded to his majesty. Being desired by the council to leave the paper with them, Vassall declared that he had no authority to do so.737In the meantime, the House had appointed a committee to enquire "concerning the first principal contrivers and framers of the city remonstrance, and concerning such as have or do labour to disaffect the people and the city from the parliament";738but before the committee could take steps to carry out its instructions, circumstances had arisen which made it advisable to let the matter drop and not to widen the breach between the city and parliament.

The king's answer to the propositions for peace, 12 Aug., 1646.

On the 30th July the parliamentary commissioners arrived in Newcastle for the purpose of laying before Charles propositions for peace. Charles had already[pg 238]become possessed of a copy, and had long since made up his mind to reject them. The commissioners had received positive orders to allow the king ten days to give his assent, and if he failed to give his assent within that time after their arrival they were at once to return.739The only reply which Charles condescended to give was contained in a letter which he handed to the commissioners on the 1st August. The letter was read before the House on the 12th. It contained little more than vague promises and a request that he might be allowed to come to London to discuss the propositions at length.740

A loan of £200,000 to be raised to get rid of the Scottish army, Sept., 1646.

The same day that the king's answer was read before the Lords a letter from the Scottish commissioners was produced, in which they offered to withdraw their forces from England upon payment of expenses already incurred.741After a considerable amount of haggling the Scots consented to take the sum of £400,000 in full discharge of all claims, a moiety to be paid to them before leaving England and the remainder by instalments at specified dates.742It only remained for parliament to raise the sum of £200,000 needed for the first payment, and to whom was it more natural that application should first be made than to the City? A large deputation from the Commons, including Cromwell himself, accordingly waited on the Common Council (7 Sept.) to ask it to consider ways and means for raising the money. The committee to whom the matter was[pg 239]referred lost no time. On the 9th it reported to the court a scheme for raising the money on the security of the excise and sale of the Bishops' lands, the security to extend to previous loans. Parliament accepted these terms, on the understanding that "Bishops' lands" were not to comprise impropriations and advowsons.743

City petitions to both Houses for redress of grievances, 19 Dec., 1646.

On the 10th December there was presented to the Common Council "an humble representacon of the pressinge grievances and important desires of the well affected freemen and covenant engaged cittizens of the cittie of London," with a request that it might be laid before parliament.744This document, after being revised by a committee appointed for the purpose, was laid before the Commons on the 19th December, together with a petition from the civic authorities themselves, who similarly addressed themselves to the House of Lords. The chief points on which stress was laid were the disbandment of the army, the suppression of heresy, the union of the two kingdoms, the free election of members of parliament, and the City's government of its own militia. As for the "bringing home of his majesty," that was left to the wisdom of both Houses, with the confidence that they would preserve his majesty's royal person and authority in defence of the true religion and liberties of the kingdom according to the covenant.745Both Houses thanked the City and promised to take the matter into their consideration.746

City petitions for disbandment of army, 17 Mar., 1647.

In the spring of the following year (1647) a new terror presented itself to the Presbyterians at home in[pg 240]the absolute supremacy of the army under Fairfax, although that general had given his word that the army should not come within twenty-five miles of London.747The City petitioned both Houses that it might be disbanded, and that the Common Council might have authority to make annual election of the members of the city's militia. To those petitions gracious answers were returned, the Lords declaring that they had considered already a measure touching the city's militia and had transmitted it to the Commons.748

Dispute between the Presbyterians in parliament and the army, March, 1647.

The army would in all probability have been disbanded in due course, and all might have gone well but for the high-handed treatment it received from the Commons. It was proposed to ask the soldiers after disbandment to volunteer for service in Ireland. There were, however, considerable arrears of pay due to them, and neither officers nor men would volunteer until they had received some assurance from parliament that they would be paid all that was due to them. Instead of doing this parliament contented itself with voting a sum of £200,000, not for satisfying arrears of pay, but "for the service of England and Ireland."749The soldiers were about to petition parliament with the sanction of their officers, but such a course was declared by both Houses to be highly improper.750

A city loan of £200,000, April, 1647.

It was easier for parliament to vote a sum of £200,000 than to raise that amount. Application was[pg 241]as usual made to the City (6 April).751The zeal of the citizens was excited by the Commons at length passing the ordinance sent down to them by the Lords for a new militia committee (16 April).752On the following day (17 April) the Common Council was prepared with a scheme to be submitted to parliament for raising the money. Like other schemes that had gone before, it proposed that subscribers to certain former loans should add arrears of interest, and by making a further advance equivalent to the sum total should have the whole secured on the sale of lands of bishops and delinquents.753Parliament hesitated at first to allow the lands of delinquents and compositions paid by them to the committee sitting at Goldsmiths' Hall to form part of the security for the loan, but afterwards consented to a moiety of all such compositions being added to the security.754

Nomination of the new militia committee, 27 April, 1647.

The appointment of the new militia committee was made a solemn business by the citizens. Tuesday, the 27th April, was fixed for the nomination, which was preceded by prayer and a sermon in the church of St. Laurence Jewry, and a formal renewal of the covenant by all present. Thirty-one persons, the number prescribed by the ordinance, were nominated, all of them Presbyterians. Of these seven were aldermen. On the 4th May both Houses signified their approval of the city's nominees, and ordained that any nine of them, whereof three were to be[pg 242]aldermen and six to be commoners, should thenceforth constitute a committee for the militia to order and direct the same according to the true meaning and intent of the ordinance recently passed.755

One of the first acts of the new committee was to ask leave of parliament to raise an additional sum of £20,000 to satisfy the arrears due to the city's forces that had been engaged in guarding the Houses of Parliament, the Tower and forts within the lines of communication around the city. Parliament only consented, however, to the sum of £12,000 being raised for this purpose.756

Parliament beset by disbanded soldiers, 7 June, 1647.

The re-modelling of the city force to the exclusion of everyone tainted with independency only served to increase the discontent of the army. It was bad enough to find the Presbyterians in parliament joining hands with the Presbyterians in the city against the army; it was worse if the city trained bands were to receive their arrears of pay whilst the army was left out in the cold. An attempt was made to bring pressure to bear on parliament by a mob of reformadoes or disbanded soldiers besetting the House of Commons on the 7th June. These men clamoured for their arrears of pay and refused to go away unless the sum of £10,000 should be voted for them.

City petition to parliament, 8 June.

On the following day (8 June) the City presented another petition to parliament praying that the army might be paid off as speedily as possible; that the king, who had recently been carried off from Holmby House by a troop of cavalry under Joyce, might be[pg 243]disposed of in such a way as to allow the parliaments of England and Scotland free access to him; and thirdly that, seeing the danger of the times, an ordinance of the 17th January, 1645, authorising the City to raise cavalry in their own defence and to apprehend disaffected persons, might be revived. The House, which was guarded at the time by a city regiment, could scarcely do otherwise than comply with the prayer of the petitioners.757

Letter from the army to the city, 11 June, 1647.

Three days later (11 June) a letter was brought to the city by "two messengers that looked like soldiers," signed by Fairfax and twelve others, informing the civic authorities of the army's approach to London.758The City was asked to believe that such action on the part of the army was only directed against those who were endeavouring to engage the kingdom in a new war. As Englishmen, if not as soldiers, the writers desired only "the peace of the kingdom and liberty of the subject, according to the votes and declarations of parliament." They desired no alteration of the civil government, nor to hinder Presbyterianism. When once the State had settled a matter there was nothing for it but to submit or suffer; they only wished that every good citizen and every peaceful man might be allowed to enjoy liberty. "These, in brief," continued the writers, "are our desires, and the things for which we stand, beyond which we shall not go; and for obtaining these things we are drawing near your city, professing sincerely from our hearts we intend not[pg 244]evil toward you; declaring with all confidence and assurance that if you appear not against us in these our just desires to assist that wicked party that would embroil us and the kingdom, nor we nor our soldiers shall give you the least offence." It was true, they went on to say, that a rich city like London offered a tempting bait for poor hungry soldiers, but the officers would protect it with their last drop of blood from the soldiery provided no provocation were offered by the citizens themselves. Their men valued their own high character above any wealth, and the citizens would act like fellow subjects and brethren by using their influence with parliament on their behalf. On the other hand, "if after all this you, or a considerable part of you, be seduced to take up arms in opposition to or hindrance of these our just undertakings, we hope by this brotherly premonition, to the sincerity thereof we call God to witness, we have freed ourselves from all that ruin which may befall that great and populous city, having thereby washed our hands thereof."

A new Committee of Safety, 11 June, 1647.

This letter was laid before the House with a request that it would endeavour to prevent Fairfax quartering his army on the city, thereby enhancing the price of provisions, and this request was acceded to. At the same time a new committee of safety, composed of members of both Houses, was appointed to join the reformed Committee of Militia of the city in taking all necessary steps to secure "the safety of the parliament and the city."759The committee established itself at the Guildhall and commenced[pg 245]preparing lists of disbanded officers willing to serve the parliament.

The City's answer to the letter from the army, 12 June, 1647.

The City in the meantime drafted a reply760of its own, and this was despatched to the army on the 12th, after receiving the approval of the House. In it the City disavowed any animosity towards the army. The citizens had only put themselves into a state of defence against unlawful violence. So far were they from opposing the just demands of the army, they had themselves presented a humble address to parliament that these might be granted. If the officers would only keep the army at a distance of thirty miles from London, and so give no occasion for disorder or rise in the price of victuals in the city, it would go far to prove the sincerity of the intentions expressed in their letter.

Answer from Fairfax and his council of war at St. Albans, 15 June, 1647.

This letter found the army at St. Albans. The deputation that carried it thither returned with two missives, one addressed to the commissioners of the city of London and the other to the mayor, aldermen and Common Council.761In the first Fairfax and the "council of war" declared the utter impossibility of removing the army to a distance of thirty miles from London so long as enlistments were being made in the city and suburbs in addition to the usual trained bands and auxiliaries. A stop must be put to this, otherwise the army would have to take the matter in hand. In the second the officers informed the civic authorities that the movements of the army would greatly depend upon the action parliament took[pg 246]with respect to certain "papers" now to be submitted to it.

The Declaration of the Armyand theChargeagainst eleven members of the House, 15 and 16 June.

By "papers" the writers were referring to a document styledThe Declaration of the Army, which had that morning been placed in the hands of the parliamentary commissioners to be forwarded to the Lords.762This declaration sought to establish the right of the army to speak in the name of the English people, and demanded the banishment from office of all who spoke ill of it. To this was added a further demand, viz., the expulsion from the House of those who had proved themselves unworthy of their seats. This last demand was followed by a formal charge laid in the name of the army against eleven members of the House of Commons (of whom Glyn, the city's Recorder, was one) of having prejudiced the liberties of the subject, misrepresented the army and raised forces for a new war.

Ineffectual attempt to call out the trained bands, 12 June.

As matters turned out the army had little cause to fear the enlistments that had taken place in the city. An attempt had, it is true, been made to increase the number of the militia, but it had met with poor success. When it became known in the city that the army was moving southward from Royston something like a panic prevailed. The trained bands were called out on pain of death and shops ordered to be shut, Sir John Gayer, the lord mayor, being especially active. But when the companies appeared on parade they were found to be lamentably deficient in numbers, "not ten men of some companies appeared, and many companies none[pg 247]at all but officers."763The whole affair was treated as a farce by the on-lookers, who jeered at the troops as they passed; and those who had shut up their shops at the mayor's command soon opened them again. It was clear that the citizens had no intention of being engaged in a "new war." Parliament, finding this to be the case, annulled the order for enlistments and resolved that "the city might upon occasion send letters to the army, so as they did first present them to the House for their approbation."764

Letter from the City to Fairfax and the council of war, 18 June, 1647.

By the 18th June the City was ready with its reply to the last letters of Fairfax and the council of war. This reply had after some hesitation received the sanction of the Commons, and the City was to be thenceforth permitted to correspond with the army on its own responsibility, and without submitting its letters first to parliament.765It entirely disavowed any privity or consent of the Common Council in connection with the recent enlistments other than those of the trained bands and auxiliaries. All such enlistments Fairfax was assured had now been stopped, the civic authorities having intervened as requested. The City's readiness to conform to the wishes of the army would, it was hoped, draw forth a fuller assurance that the army intended no prejudice either to parliament or to the city, which had expended so much[pg 248]blood and treasure in its defence, and that it would remove its quarters farther from London.766

Reply of Fairfax and council of war, 21 and 22 June, 1647.

This reply did not give unqualified satisfaction. It was impossible, wrote Fairfax and the council of war (21 June),767to remove the army farther from London until parliament should have given a satisfactory reply to theHumble Representation of the dissatisfaction of the Army, theDeclaration of the Army, and theChargemade against eleven members of the House of Commons. That the City had done its part in stopping enlistments they readily acknowledged, but information had reached them of underhand workings still going on to enlist men, as a "foundation for a new armie and a new warre." The letter concluded with a reiteration of the writers' intention to do nothing prejudicial to the parliament or the city, for which they professed "a most tender regard." To this letter a postscript was added the following day (22 June) to the effect that since writing the above they had heard that parliament had been again threatened by a mob of reformadoes. It was therefore more necessary than ever to preserve the remnant of liberty that attached to the House.

Commissioners from the city to remain at headquarters, 24 and 25 June.

On the 23rd another letter768was despatched desiring that some representatives of the city might take up permanent quarters with the army until matters became more settled. Accordingly, on the following day (24 June) the Common Council appointed Alderman Warner, Deputy Pack and[pg 249]Colonel Player to go to Fairfax and the army and remain with them until further orders. They were to give his excellency and the council of war an account of the true state of affairs respecting enlistments, and assure them that the City would take good care that both Houses should be allowed to conduct their affairs in peace and quiet.769

The army moved to Uxbridge, 25 June, 1647.

As soon as the commissioners arrived in camp they were informed that the army was about to change its quarters to Uxbridge. On the 25th Fairfax again took occasion in a letter to the City, dated from Berkhampstead,770to enlarge upon the danger that was likely to arise from continued attempts to raise forces in Wales, "besides underhand workings in your city," and from parliament being threatened by the presence of reformadoes. It could not be expected that the kingdom would be safe, or justice done, so long as the accused members sat as judges. "We have written this to you," the letter concluded, "for your satisfaction that so nothing may be done without giving you a perfect account of our intentions and ends, and still to continue our assurance to you that should necessity bring us nearer to the city our former faith given you shall be observed inviolably, there being nothing more (next the good of the kingdom) in our thoughts and desires than the prosperity of your city." It was six o'clock in the evening when this letter was brought to the Common Council, so that there was only time to acknowledge its receipt in a letter,[pg 250]which was on the point of being despatched to the army.771

Back to Index Next