Chapter 31

Parliament looks to the City for protection, 19 May, 1648.On the 19th a deputation of Lords and Commons waited on the Common Council and informed them that both Houses had assented to their wishes. In return for this favour parliament expected that the City would secure them from tumult and insurrections, and "did now put themselves really and truly into the hands of the city." The court was at the same time assured that parliament meditated no alteration of the fundamental government of the kingdom by king, lords and commons, that it was resolved to stand by the solemn league and covenant and preserve the treaties between England and Scotland.864The City master of the situation.Determined to stand by parliament, 19 May.Once more at an important crisis in England's history all depended upon the attitude of the city of London. "The key of the situation was in the hands of the city, which had it in its power to paralyse the army by simply maintaining an attitude of passive resistance."865But great as was the detestation in which the army was held by the majority of citizens, their distrust of the royalists, should they regain the upper hand, was greater. Under the circumstances the City resolved to maintain its attitude of standing by parliament, and gave its assurance to both Houses that it was ready "to live and die[pg 280]with them according to the solemn league and covenant."866Petition for release of Recorder and others, 23 May.Four days later (23 May) the City presented a petition to both Houses in which, after acknowledging the joy and comfort they had derived from the recent announcement made to them that parliament was resolved to make no constitutional change in the government of the kingdom by king, lords and commons, and other matters conducive to peace, the citizens prayed that the Houses would release their Recorder, the aldermen and the rest of the citizens that were still imprisoned in the Tower. The Commons replied by at once ordering the release of Glyn and nine other prisoners, and promised to take into consideration the release of the aldermen, which was a more serious business, in a week's time.867A royalist rising in Kent, 21 May, 1648.Parliament was the more anxious to conciliate the City inasmuch as a royalist rising had already taken place in Kent (21 May). On the 26th May a deputation from the Commons waited on the Common Council with a request for an immediate advance of £6,000. A portion of the money was to be devoted to the payment of Fairfax's soldiers, "to enable them to march out," and give place to the city's own force under Colonel West. The money was at once voted,868and Fairfax, after giving orders for securing Southwark, proceeded to occupy Blackheath, the place appointed for the rendezvous of the insurgents.[pg 281]The royalist party in the city.Whilst Fairfax was engaged in putting down the rising in Kent the royalist party in the city was not inactive. On the 30th May a petition was presented to the Common Council, purporting to emanate from "divers well affected citizens and other inhabitants" of the city, desiring the court to approach parliament with the view (inter alia) of bringing about a personal treaty with the king and appeasing the Kentish insurgents "by way of accommodation and not by any engagement in blood."869Contrary to its usual practice the court consented to forward the petition to both Houses, which it did on the 1st June, with the result that a deputation from parliament waited on the court that same afternoon with a verbal reply. The precise terms of the reply are not recorded. We are only told that after a "full and large declaration" made by the parliamentary members, the council expressed itself as completely satisfied.870An appeal for a Common Hall to be summoned refused, 3 June, 1648.An appeal was made the same day (1 June) by a certain section of the inhabitants of the city for a Common Hall to be summoned. The appeal was made to the Common Council. The court took time to consider the matter. After consulting the law-officers it was eventually agreed not to accede to the request, on the plea that, although it was in the power of the court to assemble the livery for the election of public officers and other purposes as might be necessary for the public good of the city, it was neither fit nor convenient to summon them at the present juncture on account of the present distraction and distempers of the city and places adjacent.871[pg 282]The insurgents approaching London, 3 June, 1648.Impeachments abandoned and aldermen released from prison.Two days later (3 June), when a deputation from parliament again appeared before the Common Council with the news that the insurgents were making their way to Blackheath under the leadership of the Earl of Norwich, otherwise known as "Lord Goring," and asked that the Militia Committee might speedily raise what force it could for the protection of parliament and the city, the opportunity was again taken of pressing the Houses for the release of the aldermen, an act which they were assured "would give good satisfaction to the city and very much quiet their minds."872That same afternoon the Commons resolved to proceed no further with the impeachments of the aldermen, and on the 6th they were set free by order of the House of Lords.873Feeling in the city.Parliament could not well have done otherwise, unless they wished to lose their main support—the support of the City; for although the Earl of Norwich found the city's gates shut against him, as was to be expected with Warner occupying the mayoralty chair and Skippon in command of the trained bands, there was, as we have seen, a considerable party in the city who favoured the royalist cause and would gladly have trusted Charles if they dared.The Common Council desire that the king may come to London, 22 June.Nor were the municipal authorities themselves adverse to the restoration of the king, but such restoration must be effected on their own terms. Again and again they called upon parliament to open a personal treaty with Charles. On the 22nd June the Common Council directed a petition to both[pg 283]Houses to be drafted, thanking them for setting the aldermen at liberty, and praying them to allow the king to come to some house near parliament where negotiations might be carried on.874The petition was submitted to both Houses on the 27th June, and was well received.875The Commons, in reply, declared that they were using their best endeavours in the interest of peace, and they had already appointed a committee to consider what further offers could be made to the king, as well as of "time, place and other circumstances for convenience of address to be made to his majesty."876Petition to parliament by officers of the trained bands, 5 July.A week later (5 July) the Common Council introduced to the House of Lords another petition, in which the officers of the trained bands of the city made a similar request for a personal treaty to be made with the king in London, and not only repeated a former request made by the City itself that the London regiments might be associated with those of the adjacent counties, but asked that the force thus formed might be furnished with a contingent of cavalry. To all these requests the Lords gave a ready assent.877The Commons, however, to whom a similar petition was presented the same day, whilst signifying their assent to the amalgamation of the trained bands, left the other matters for further consideration, and[pg 284]appointed a committee to confer with the Common Council and the officers of the trained bands the following afternoon.878The City engages to guard the king against violence if brought to London.The question to be considered was the steps to be taken for the security of the king's person in the event of his taking up his quarters in London for the purpose of negotiating. The Common Council, for their part, undertook in such an event to venture their lives and fortunes in defending his majesty against all violence according to the covenant, and appointed a committee to confer with the parliamentary committee and with the military officers as to the best means of enabling them to carry out this engagement.879Negotiations for a personal treaty with the king.By the 11th July the committee was in a position to report to the Common Council the result of the conference so far as it had gone.880The parliamentary committee had propounded seven questions bearing upon the terms of the City's engagement to protect the king against violence pending negotiations, and its intentions as to the king's person in the event of such negotiations falling through. To these the city committee had made replies (now submitted to the council for approval), and had added certain propositions to the parliamentary committee to enable the City the better to carry out its engagement. The first two of these related to the amalgamation and increase of the militia; the third asked that, pending negotiations, no force should be allowed to come within thirty miles of London, and that riot and[pg 285]tumult raised in the city during that period after proclamation made should be met with a death penalty; and the last that if parliament so willed no one who had ever taken up arms against it should be allowed within thirty miles of London without leave. Both the answers and proposals of the city committee were alike approved by the council, and a house-to-house visitation was organised for the purpose of getting names subscribed to the city's engagement.The Speaker insulted by a member of the city militia, 8 July 1648.The demand for a death penalty on rioters in the city was not unwarranted. There were not wanting signs of disaffection even in the ranks of the city's militia. So recently as Saturday, the 8th July, the Speaker himself, whilst being escorted to his coach by a company of soldiers, had been insulted by one in the ranks, who cried out to the surrounding mob "that now he was out of their charge they [the mob] should tear him in pieces."881A few days later (12 July) some prisoners of war were rescued in the streets of London by the mob, and the lord mayor received a sharp reprimand for not keeping better order in the city.882The Commons, in consequence, resolved that no more prisoners should be brought to London.883Petition to parliament, 12 July.The Speaker's reply to the petitioners.It was known that about this time secret enlistments were being carried on in the city, and that horses were being despatched out of the city by twos and threes to assist the royalists. It was also reported that an attempt was about to be made to seize the Tower.884The majority of the inhabitants,[pg 286]nevertheless, remained faithful to parliament, and the Speaker took the opportunity of a petition addressed to both Houses (12 July) from "divers well-affected magistrates, citizens, ministers and other inhabitants" of the city and parts adjacent, praying them to enter into no treaty without proper assurances for the maintenance of the covenant,885to compliment the aldermen and great magistrates of the city on their courage and fidelity. It was a petition—the Speaker said, addressing the deputation—for peace, and such peace as the House and all honest men desired. It had come at a most seasonable time, when parliament was the object of much abuse and men dared not own their true opinions. The petition was the more valuable from the quality of the petitioners—"divers aldermen and great magistrates of the city of London, many reverend ministers, who have always held close to the cause, and others, the gentlemen of birth and quality that have less valued their blood than the hazard and loss of so noble an undertaking." On behalf of the Commons he returned them real and hearty thanks, assuring them that the House approved of the petition and the matter thereof, and that in prosecuting the peace it would take care to preserve the religion, laws and liberties of all those who have been constant to these ends.886Another petition to Parliament for amalgamation of militia, 18 July, 1648.On the 18th July the City caused two petitions to be presented to both Houses, one of which asked for an impost to be laid on Newcastle coals, and the other repeated the old request for an amalgamation of the[pg 287]city's militia with that of the neighbouring counties. To the first no answer was vouchsafed. To the second the Commons replied that the matter had already been referred to a committee; whilst the Lords directed an ordinance to be drawn up pursuant to the wishes of the petitioners. The petition relative to the militia was met by a counter-petition from "divers well-affected citizens of London and inhabitants in and about the same," the authors of which the Common Council wished to discover.887The City desires Skippon's commission revoked, 22 July, 1648.In the meantime enlistments of horse and foot had been to such an extent carried on clandestinely in the city, under pretext of the parliamentary powers granted to Skippon, that the municipal authorities began to get nervous. Servants and apprentices were reported to have enlisted one another at all hours of the night, and to have issued spurious commissions. Against the continuation of such proceedings, which threatened the city with danger, the authorities petitioned both Houses (22 July). The Lords consented to revoke a commission granted to Skippon to raise a troop of cavalry for the protection of parliament, independently of the Committee of Militia; the Commons, on the other hand, determined to let the order stand.888The civic authorities thereupon yielded to the entreaties of the inhabitants of the city, and resolved (27 July) to raise a troop of horse on their own account to be subject to the orders of the Militia Committee alone. On the 29th they again petitioned the Commons.889[pg 288]That day being Saturday the House appointed a committee to confer with the Common Council on the following Monday afternoon, and undertook to put a stop to irregular enlistments in the future.890A deputation from parliament attends the Common Council, 31 July, 1648.When Monday came a deputation from the Commons duly appeared and explained the reasons for continuing Skippon's commission and the measures that were to be taken to prevent irregular enlistments. Several letters were read for the purpose of demonstrating the dangers with which the country was still threatened, among them being one from a royalist agent in London, in which the writer informed his correspondent of the progress of the royalist cause in the city. "We are in this city," he declared, "generally right; only Skippon makes some disturbance by listing horse and foot, which, though inconsiderable to what we have listed for us, yet we hope not only to null his listing, but out him from his being general of this city. The Lords have already done something, but wait for some further encouragement from hence, to which purpose the Common Council are about framing a petition."891The reading of this letter appears to have had a diametrically opposite effect upon the members of the council than was anticipated, for they still insisted upon the withdrawal of Skippon's authority under which the irregular enlistments were carried on. The Commons, however, refused to be moved from their former resolution.[pg 289]Letter and declaration of the Prince of Wales sent to the City, 29 July, 1648.On the 2nd August a letter from the Prince of Wales, who had recently arrived with a fleet off Yarmouth, was read to the Common Council. The letter had been forwarded to its destination by the company of merchant adventurers, and contained a copy of the prince's declaration to the effect that he was approaching the shores of England to settle religion in accordance with the terms of the agreement between his father and the Scots, to restore the king to his throne, and to bring about an act of oblivion and the disbandment of all armies.892He had recently seized several merchantmen in the Downs—one alone being valued at £20,000—and he asked the Common Council to pay him that sum to assist him in his enterprise, promising on receipt of the money to set the vessels free.893The City ordered by parliament to send no reply, 3 Aug.On hearing this letter and declaration read the council forthwith appointed a committee to draw up a petition to parliament, in which they repeated their request for a speedy personal treaty with the king so as to put an end to the present troubles and miseries. After sending for the original letter the Commons directed (3 Aug.) the City to make no reply to the prince until the House took further order, and the next day declared all who aided the prince, by sea or by land, to be traitors and rebels.894The prince accepts the Scottish terms, 16 Aug.Disappointed at the way in which the news of the arrival of his fleet had been received by the City, the prince lent a more ready ear to proposals from[pg 290]Scotland, and on the 16th August declared his acceptance of the terms offered. It was still believed by many that as soon as he should raise his standard in the north the Presbyterians in the city would openly avow themselves in his favour, and rumour had gone so far as to name the commanders of their forces. "The lords and the city," wrote one of Rupert's correspondents, "understand each other, as also the reformadoes, that are considerable—8,000 in number."895Change of feeling in the city, 31 Aug., 1648.On the 29th August the City was asked by a committee of the House of Commons to send money, corn or biscuit to the value of £20,000 for the relief of the army in the north, and to take active measures for getting in all arrears of assessments due for the army of Fairfax.896But although the City so far acceded to this request as to take immediate steps for getting in arrears of assessments, recent events—and notably the successes of Cromwell and Fairfax at Preston and Colchester, as well as the seizure of London ships and interference with London trade—had rendered the citizens anxious that parliament should come to an understanding with the army.897A city loan of £10,000 towards carrying out negotiations with the king, 4 Sept.On the 4th September a deputation from parliament appeared before the Common Council and asked for a loan of £10,000, to be paid by weekly instalments of £2,000, to enable the House to proceed with negotiations with the king. The nature of the[pg 291]security to be given for the loan was practically left in the hands of the city provided it lay within the power of parliament. The request was unanimously granted, bonds under the city's seal being offered as security to those willing to make advances.898Petition by the London "Levellers" against negotiating with the king.The prospect of negotiations being opened at all with the king was distasteful to the radical party or "Levellers" in the city, and a petition was laid before the Commons on the 11th September calling upon them as the supreme authority in the realm to shake off all control exercised over them by the House of Lords, and to render kings, queens, nobles and all persons alike subject to the law of the land. The petitioners finally asked the House to consider seriously "whether the justice of God be likely to be satisfied or His yet continuing wrath appeased by an Act of Oblivion."899Opening of the Treaty of Newport, 18 Sept., 1648.This petition had little effect upon the House, and preparations were rapidly pushed forward. Fifteen commissioners were appointed, of whom Glyn, the Recorder, was one,900to go to Newport in the Isle of Wight for the purpose of opening negotiations with Charles, who was allowed to take up his quarters in that little town on parole. The commission held its first sitting on the 18th September, it being understood that negotiations were to continue for forty days and no more. They, however, continued to be carried on long after the allotted time.[pg 292]Dispute in Common Council as to efficiency of guard supplied to parliament by the City, 4 Nov., 1648.Early in November parliament was again pressed for money and was forced to apply to the City for a further loan of £4,000 to enable it to proceed with the "Treaty." It at the same time complained of the inadequate guard provided by the City for the protection of the Houses. The guard, it was said, consisted of hired men, and not citizens, who often quitted their posts when on duty. The subject led to an acrimonious debate in the Common Council. As soon as Alderman Gibbs, who was a member of the Militia Committee, began to suggest a remedy for the evil, he was interrupted by Philip Chetwyn, whose plain speaking had once before created trouble, and who now boldly charged the alderman and others with telling "many long stories to put the city in fear without cause." He declared that at a former council the alderman had acted in a similar way, "pretending that the city was in great danger of having their throats cut whereas there was no such cause." This speech brought other members of the council on their legs in defence of the alderman, who declared that this was not the first time that Chetwyn had done him wrong, and asked the court to right him. What he had said at a former council about the danger the city was in was nothing more than what the Militia Committee had authorised him to say, and this statement was corroborated by other members of the committee then present. Certain questions were thereupon put to the vote, when it was decided (1) that Chetwyn had done the alderman a wrong by his speech, (2) that what the alderman had spoken at a former council was warranted by the Militia Committee, and (3) that the action by the committee on[pg 293]that occasion had been for the safety of the city, which was then in danger.901On the 27th November the Militia Committee reported to the council the steps taken to satisfy parliament that better protection would be afforded to the Houses in the future.902A declaration from the army, 30 Nov., 1648.Before the end of November the army, now at Windsor, had entirely lost patience both with king and parliament, and on the last day of the month issued a declaration to the effect that it was about to appeal "unto the extraordinary judgment of God and good people." The existing parliament must be dissolved to give place to a succession of reformed parliaments. Those members who agreed with the army were invited to leave the House and join the army to form a kind of provisional government until elections for a new parliament could take place, when the army would willingly disband.Letter from Fairfax. Is coming to London, and demands the sum of £40,000, 30 Nov.That same night (30 Nov.) whilst the mayor was going the rounds inspecting the city watches a letter was put into his hands by a trumpeter of Fairfax, addressed to the lord mayor, aldermen and common council.903Strictly speaking, the mayor had no right to open a letter thus addressed. Reynardson, however, who had not long been in the mayoralty chair, and who afterwards displayed strong royalist proclivities, thought otherwise and broke the seal; a proceeding which received the approval of the Common Council specially summoned for the next day (1 Dec.)904The letter announced the general's intention of quartering his army on London, and demanded a sum of £40,000[pg 294]out of the arrears of assessment to be paid to the soldiers by the following night.905The letter of Fairfax laid before Parliament, 1 Dec, 1648.The council at once decided to lay the letter before both Houses, and in the meantime took steps for the immediate payment of an instalment of £10,000 to Fairfax, to whom a deputation was despatched to assure him that the City would do its utmost to execute his commands.906Both Houses assented to Fairfax being provided with the money demanded, the Commons giving the City liberty to communicate direct with the general by committee or letter as they should think fit.907The army returns to London, 2 Dec.In spite of a request by the Commons that he would keep at a distance, lest his approach should involve danger, Fairfax entered London with his troops on Saturday, the 2nd December, and took up his quarters at Whitehall. On Wednesday, the 6th—the day on which Colonel Pride administered his famous "purge" to the House of Commons—a letter from the general was read in the Common Council in which he desired that 3,800 beds might be sent to Whitehall by ten o'clock the next morning for the use of the soldiers, and also sufficient furniture for lodging. The beds and furniture were to be afterwards returned.908The City's reply to the demands of Fairfax, 6 Dec.The Common Council immediately nominated a committee to go to Fairfax and to beg him to excuse the City furnishing the beds as desired. The committee was further instructed to inform his lordship that if he would obtain a warrant from the Committee of the[pg 295]Army to the Treasurers at War for the payment of £10,000, the City would be prepared to pay over the whole sum of £40,000 (which ought to have been already paid over) by the next day (7 Dec). There was one other matter. A rumour had reached the city that it was intended to arrest Major-General Browne, who at the time was serving as one of the sheriffs of London, and the committee were directed to point out to his excellency the "inconveniences" likely to arise from such a proceeding.909Arrest of Major-General Browne, one of the sheriffs, 12 Dec, 1648.Fairfax paid little regard to what might or might not be convenient for the City, and on the 12th Browne was arrested, together with Waller, Massey and others, on the charge of having joined in an invitation to the Scots to invade England, although it was difficult to find evidence against them. The Court of Aldermen immediately interested themselves in endeavouring to obtain Browne's release, guaranteeing to Fairfax, if he would set the sheriff free, to produce him whenever required, and vouching for his "civil and quiet deportment" in the city.910Fairfax seizes the treasury at Weavers' Hall, 8 Dec, 1648.Finding that the money (£40,000) which he had ordered the City to furnish was not forthcoming on the day appointed, Fairfax notified the Common Council by letter (8 Dec.) that he had given orders for seizing the treasury at Goldsmiths' Hall and Weavers' Hall. The sum of £27,400 was accordingly seized at the latter Hall; and this sum Fairfax intended to keep until the £40,000 should be paid. When that was done he would withdraw his troops, and not before. On learning this the Common Council sent a[pg 296]deputation to inform his excellency that, if certain concessions were made, the City itself would be responsible for repayment of the money seized, and that arrears should be got in as speedily as possible. At the same time Fairfax was asked to withdraw his troops from the city.911Soldiers to be withdrawn from the city on payment of arrears within 14 days, 9 Dec., 1648.To these proposals Fairfax replied by letter the same day,912that if the City would cause all the money charged on the City for the army up to the 25th March next ensuing, and still in arrear, to be brought in within fourteen days, he would repay the money taken from Weavers' Hall and would withdraw his troops. Their presence in the city he affected to conceive would facilitate the collection of the money. On the receipt of this letter the civic authorities renewed their exertions to hasten the getting in of assessments.913

Parliament looks to the City for protection, 19 May, 1648.

On the 19th a deputation of Lords and Commons waited on the Common Council and informed them that both Houses had assented to their wishes. In return for this favour parliament expected that the City would secure them from tumult and insurrections, and "did now put themselves really and truly into the hands of the city." The court was at the same time assured that parliament meditated no alteration of the fundamental government of the kingdom by king, lords and commons, that it was resolved to stand by the solemn league and covenant and preserve the treaties between England and Scotland.864

The City master of the situation.

Determined to stand by parliament, 19 May.

Once more at an important crisis in England's history all depended upon the attitude of the city of London. "The key of the situation was in the hands of the city, which had it in its power to paralyse the army by simply maintaining an attitude of passive resistance."865But great as was the detestation in which the army was held by the majority of citizens, their distrust of the royalists, should they regain the upper hand, was greater. Under the circumstances the City resolved to maintain its attitude of standing by parliament, and gave its assurance to both Houses that it was ready "to live and die[pg 280]with them according to the solemn league and covenant."866

Petition for release of Recorder and others, 23 May.

Four days later (23 May) the City presented a petition to both Houses in which, after acknowledging the joy and comfort they had derived from the recent announcement made to them that parliament was resolved to make no constitutional change in the government of the kingdom by king, lords and commons, and other matters conducive to peace, the citizens prayed that the Houses would release their Recorder, the aldermen and the rest of the citizens that were still imprisoned in the Tower. The Commons replied by at once ordering the release of Glyn and nine other prisoners, and promised to take into consideration the release of the aldermen, which was a more serious business, in a week's time.867

A royalist rising in Kent, 21 May, 1648.

Parliament was the more anxious to conciliate the City inasmuch as a royalist rising had already taken place in Kent (21 May). On the 26th May a deputation from the Commons waited on the Common Council with a request for an immediate advance of £6,000. A portion of the money was to be devoted to the payment of Fairfax's soldiers, "to enable them to march out," and give place to the city's own force under Colonel West. The money was at once voted,868and Fairfax, after giving orders for securing Southwark, proceeded to occupy Blackheath, the place appointed for the rendezvous of the insurgents.

The royalist party in the city.

Whilst Fairfax was engaged in putting down the rising in Kent the royalist party in the city was not inactive. On the 30th May a petition was presented to the Common Council, purporting to emanate from "divers well affected citizens and other inhabitants" of the city, desiring the court to approach parliament with the view (inter alia) of bringing about a personal treaty with the king and appeasing the Kentish insurgents "by way of accommodation and not by any engagement in blood."869Contrary to its usual practice the court consented to forward the petition to both Houses, which it did on the 1st June, with the result that a deputation from parliament waited on the court that same afternoon with a verbal reply. The precise terms of the reply are not recorded. We are only told that after a "full and large declaration" made by the parliamentary members, the council expressed itself as completely satisfied.870

An appeal for a Common Hall to be summoned refused, 3 June, 1648.

An appeal was made the same day (1 June) by a certain section of the inhabitants of the city for a Common Hall to be summoned. The appeal was made to the Common Council. The court took time to consider the matter. After consulting the law-officers it was eventually agreed not to accede to the request, on the plea that, although it was in the power of the court to assemble the livery for the election of public officers and other purposes as might be necessary for the public good of the city, it was neither fit nor convenient to summon them at the present juncture on account of the present distraction and distempers of the city and places adjacent.871

The insurgents approaching London, 3 June, 1648.

Impeachments abandoned and aldermen released from prison.

Two days later (3 June), when a deputation from parliament again appeared before the Common Council with the news that the insurgents were making their way to Blackheath under the leadership of the Earl of Norwich, otherwise known as "Lord Goring," and asked that the Militia Committee might speedily raise what force it could for the protection of parliament and the city, the opportunity was again taken of pressing the Houses for the release of the aldermen, an act which they were assured "would give good satisfaction to the city and very much quiet their minds."872That same afternoon the Commons resolved to proceed no further with the impeachments of the aldermen, and on the 6th they were set free by order of the House of Lords.873

Feeling in the city.

Parliament could not well have done otherwise, unless they wished to lose their main support—the support of the City; for although the Earl of Norwich found the city's gates shut against him, as was to be expected with Warner occupying the mayoralty chair and Skippon in command of the trained bands, there was, as we have seen, a considerable party in the city who favoured the royalist cause and would gladly have trusted Charles if they dared.

The Common Council desire that the king may come to London, 22 June.

Nor were the municipal authorities themselves adverse to the restoration of the king, but such restoration must be effected on their own terms. Again and again they called upon parliament to open a personal treaty with Charles. On the 22nd June the Common Council directed a petition to both[pg 283]Houses to be drafted, thanking them for setting the aldermen at liberty, and praying them to allow the king to come to some house near parliament where negotiations might be carried on.874The petition was submitted to both Houses on the 27th June, and was well received.875The Commons, in reply, declared that they were using their best endeavours in the interest of peace, and they had already appointed a committee to consider what further offers could be made to the king, as well as of "time, place and other circumstances for convenience of address to be made to his majesty."876

Petition to parliament by officers of the trained bands, 5 July.

A week later (5 July) the Common Council introduced to the House of Lords another petition, in which the officers of the trained bands of the city made a similar request for a personal treaty to be made with the king in London, and not only repeated a former request made by the City itself that the London regiments might be associated with those of the adjacent counties, but asked that the force thus formed might be furnished with a contingent of cavalry. To all these requests the Lords gave a ready assent.877The Commons, however, to whom a similar petition was presented the same day, whilst signifying their assent to the amalgamation of the trained bands, left the other matters for further consideration, and[pg 284]appointed a committee to confer with the Common Council and the officers of the trained bands the following afternoon.878

The City engages to guard the king against violence if brought to London.

The question to be considered was the steps to be taken for the security of the king's person in the event of his taking up his quarters in London for the purpose of negotiating. The Common Council, for their part, undertook in such an event to venture their lives and fortunes in defending his majesty against all violence according to the covenant, and appointed a committee to confer with the parliamentary committee and with the military officers as to the best means of enabling them to carry out this engagement.879

Negotiations for a personal treaty with the king.

By the 11th July the committee was in a position to report to the Common Council the result of the conference so far as it had gone.880The parliamentary committee had propounded seven questions bearing upon the terms of the City's engagement to protect the king against violence pending negotiations, and its intentions as to the king's person in the event of such negotiations falling through. To these the city committee had made replies (now submitted to the council for approval), and had added certain propositions to the parliamentary committee to enable the City the better to carry out its engagement. The first two of these related to the amalgamation and increase of the militia; the third asked that, pending negotiations, no force should be allowed to come within thirty miles of London, and that riot and[pg 285]tumult raised in the city during that period after proclamation made should be met with a death penalty; and the last that if parliament so willed no one who had ever taken up arms against it should be allowed within thirty miles of London without leave. Both the answers and proposals of the city committee were alike approved by the council, and a house-to-house visitation was organised for the purpose of getting names subscribed to the city's engagement.

The Speaker insulted by a member of the city militia, 8 July 1648.

The demand for a death penalty on rioters in the city was not unwarranted. There were not wanting signs of disaffection even in the ranks of the city's militia. So recently as Saturday, the 8th July, the Speaker himself, whilst being escorted to his coach by a company of soldiers, had been insulted by one in the ranks, who cried out to the surrounding mob "that now he was out of their charge they [the mob] should tear him in pieces."881A few days later (12 July) some prisoners of war were rescued in the streets of London by the mob, and the lord mayor received a sharp reprimand for not keeping better order in the city.882The Commons, in consequence, resolved that no more prisoners should be brought to London.883

Petition to parliament, 12 July.

The Speaker's reply to the petitioners.

It was known that about this time secret enlistments were being carried on in the city, and that horses were being despatched out of the city by twos and threes to assist the royalists. It was also reported that an attempt was about to be made to seize the Tower.884The majority of the inhabitants,[pg 286]nevertheless, remained faithful to parliament, and the Speaker took the opportunity of a petition addressed to both Houses (12 July) from "divers well-affected magistrates, citizens, ministers and other inhabitants" of the city and parts adjacent, praying them to enter into no treaty without proper assurances for the maintenance of the covenant,885to compliment the aldermen and great magistrates of the city on their courage and fidelity. It was a petition—the Speaker said, addressing the deputation—for peace, and such peace as the House and all honest men desired. It had come at a most seasonable time, when parliament was the object of much abuse and men dared not own their true opinions. The petition was the more valuable from the quality of the petitioners—"divers aldermen and great magistrates of the city of London, many reverend ministers, who have always held close to the cause, and others, the gentlemen of birth and quality that have less valued their blood than the hazard and loss of so noble an undertaking." On behalf of the Commons he returned them real and hearty thanks, assuring them that the House approved of the petition and the matter thereof, and that in prosecuting the peace it would take care to preserve the religion, laws and liberties of all those who have been constant to these ends.886

Another petition to Parliament for amalgamation of militia, 18 July, 1648.

On the 18th July the City caused two petitions to be presented to both Houses, one of which asked for an impost to be laid on Newcastle coals, and the other repeated the old request for an amalgamation of the[pg 287]city's militia with that of the neighbouring counties. To the first no answer was vouchsafed. To the second the Commons replied that the matter had already been referred to a committee; whilst the Lords directed an ordinance to be drawn up pursuant to the wishes of the petitioners. The petition relative to the militia was met by a counter-petition from "divers well-affected citizens of London and inhabitants in and about the same," the authors of which the Common Council wished to discover.887

The City desires Skippon's commission revoked, 22 July, 1648.

In the meantime enlistments of horse and foot had been to such an extent carried on clandestinely in the city, under pretext of the parliamentary powers granted to Skippon, that the municipal authorities began to get nervous. Servants and apprentices were reported to have enlisted one another at all hours of the night, and to have issued spurious commissions. Against the continuation of such proceedings, which threatened the city with danger, the authorities petitioned both Houses (22 July). The Lords consented to revoke a commission granted to Skippon to raise a troop of cavalry for the protection of parliament, independently of the Committee of Militia; the Commons, on the other hand, determined to let the order stand.888The civic authorities thereupon yielded to the entreaties of the inhabitants of the city, and resolved (27 July) to raise a troop of horse on their own account to be subject to the orders of the Militia Committee alone. On the 29th they again petitioned the Commons.889[pg 288]That day being Saturday the House appointed a committee to confer with the Common Council on the following Monday afternoon, and undertook to put a stop to irregular enlistments in the future.890

A deputation from parliament attends the Common Council, 31 July, 1648.

When Monday came a deputation from the Commons duly appeared and explained the reasons for continuing Skippon's commission and the measures that were to be taken to prevent irregular enlistments. Several letters were read for the purpose of demonstrating the dangers with which the country was still threatened, among them being one from a royalist agent in London, in which the writer informed his correspondent of the progress of the royalist cause in the city. "We are in this city," he declared, "generally right; only Skippon makes some disturbance by listing horse and foot, which, though inconsiderable to what we have listed for us, yet we hope not only to null his listing, but out him from his being general of this city. The Lords have already done something, but wait for some further encouragement from hence, to which purpose the Common Council are about framing a petition."891The reading of this letter appears to have had a diametrically opposite effect upon the members of the council than was anticipated, for they still insisted upon the withdrawal of Skippon's authority under which the irregular enlistments were carried on. The Commons, however, refused to be moved from their former resolution.

Letter and declaration of the Prince of Wales sent to the City, 29 July, 1648.

On the 2nd August a letter from the Prince of Wales, who had recently arrived with a fleet off Yarmouth, was read to the Common Council. The letter had been forwarded to its destination by the company of merchant adventurers, and contained a copy of the prince's declaration to the effect that he was approaching the shores of England to settle religion in accordance with the terms of the agreement between his father and the Scots, to restore the king to his throne, and to bring about an act of oblivion and the disbandment of all armies.892He had recently seized several merchantmen in the Downs—one alone being valued at £20,000—and he asked the Common Council to pay him that sum to assist him in his enterprise, promising on receipt of the money to set the vessels free.893

The City ordered by parliament to send no reply, 3 Aug.

On hearing this letter and declaration read the council forthwith appointed a committee to draw up a petition to parliament, in which they repeated their request for a speedy personal treaty with the king so as to put an end to the present troubles and miseries. After sending for the original letter the Commons directed (3 Aug.) the City to make no reply to the prince until the House took further order, and the next day declared all who aided the prince, by sea or by land, to be traitors and rebels.894

The prince accepts the Scottish terms, 16 Aug.

Disappointed at the way in which the news of the arrival of his fleet had been received by the City, the prince lent a more ready ear to proposals from[pg 290]Scotland, and on the 16th August declared his acceptance of the terms offered. It was still believed by many that as soon as he should raise his standard in the north the Presbyterians in the city would openly avow themselves in his favour, and rumour had gone so far as to name the commanders of their forces. "The lords and the city," wrote one of Rupert's correspondents, "understand each other, as also the reformadoes, that are considerable—8,000 in number."895

Change of feeling in the city, 31 Aug., 1648.

On the 29th August the City was asked by a committee of the House of Commons to send money, corn or biscuit to the value of £20,000 for the relief of the army in the north, and to take active measures for getting in all arrears of assessments due for the army of Fairfax.896But although the City so far acceded to this request as to take immediate steps for getting in arrears of assessments, recent events—and notably the successes of Cromwell and Fairfax at Preston and Colchester, as well as the seizure of London ships and interference with London trade—had rendered the citizens anxious that parliament should come to an understanding with the army.897

A city loan of £10,000 towards carrying out negotiations with the king, 4 Sept.

On the 4th September a deputation from parliament appeared before the Common Council and asked for a loan of £10,000, to be paid by weekly instalments of £2,000, to enable the House to proceed with negotiations with the king. The nature of the[pg 291]security to be given for the loan was practically left in the hands of the city provided it lay within the power of parliament. The request was unanimously granted, bonds under the city's seal being offered as security to those willing to make advances.898

Petition by the London "Levellers" against negotiating with the king.

The prospect of negotiations being opened at all with the king was distasteful to the radical party or "Levellers" in the city, and a petition was laid before the Commons on the 11th September calling upon them as the supreme authority in the realm to shake off all control exercised over them by the House of Lords, and to render kings, queens, nobles and all persons alike subject to the law of the land. The petitioners finally asked the House to consider seriously "whether the justice of God be likely to be satisfied or His yet continuing wrath appeased by an Act of Oblivion."899

Opening of the Treaty of Newport, 18 Sept., 1648.

This petition had little effect upon the House, and preparations were rapidly pushed forward. Fifteen commissioners were appointed, of whom Glyn, the Recorder, was one,900to go to Newport in the Isle of Wight for the purpose of opening negotiations with Charles, who was allowed to take up his quarters in that little town on parole. The commission held its first sitting on the 18th September, it being understood that negotiations were to continue for forty days and no more. They, however, continued to be carried on long after the allotted time.

Dispute in Common Council as to efficiency of guard supplied to parliament by the City, 4 Nov., 1648.

Early in November parliament was again pressed for money and was forced to apply to the City for a further loan of £4,000 to enable it to proceed with the "Treaty." It at the same time complained of the inadequate guard provided by the City for the protection of the Houses. The guard, it was said, consisted of hired men, and not citizens, who often quitted their posts when on duty. The subject led to an acrimonious debate in the Common Council. As soon as Alderman Gibbs, who was a member of the Militia Committee, began to suggest a remedy for the evil, he was interrupted by Philip Chetwyn, whose plain speaking had once before created trouble, and who now boldly charged the alderman and others with telling "many long stories to put the city in fear without cause." He declared that at a former council the alderman had acted in a similar way, "pretending that the city was in great danger of having their throats cut whereas there was no such cause." This speech brought other members of the council on their legs in defence of the alderman, who declared that this was not the first time that Chetwyn had done him wrong, and asked the court to right him. What he had said at a former council about the danger the city was in was nothing more than what the Militia Committee had authorised him to say, and this statement was corroborated by other members of the committee then present. Certain questions were thereupon put to the vote, when it was decided (1) that Chetwyn had done the alderman a wrong by his speech, (2) that what the alderman had spoken at a former council was warranted by the Militia Committee, and (3) that the action by the committee on[pg 293]that occasion had been for the safety of the city, which was then in danger.901On the 27th November the Militia Committee reported to the council the steps taken to satisfy parliament that better protection would be afforded to the Houses in the future.902

A declaration from the army, 30 Nov., 1648.

Before the end of November the army, now at Windsor, had entirely lost patience both with king and parliament, and on the last day of the month issued a declaration to the effect that it was about to appeal "unto the extraordinary judgment of God and good people." The existing parliament must be dissolved to give place to a succession of reformed parliaments. Those members who agreed with the army were invited to leave the House and join the army to form a kind of provisional government until elections for a new parliament could take place, when the army would willingly disband.

Letter from Fairfax. Is coming to London, and demands the sum of £40,000, 30 Nov.

That same night (30 Nov.) whilst the mayor was going the rounds inspecting the city watches a letter was put into his hands by a trumpeter of Fairfax, addressed to the lord mayor, aldermen and common council.903Strictly speaking, the mayor had no right to open a letter thus addressed. Reynardson, however, who had not long been in the mayoralty chair, and who afterwards displayed strong royalist proclivities, thought otherwise and broke the seal; a proceeding which received the approval of the Common Council specially summoned for the next day (1 Dec.)904The letter announced the general's intention of quartering his army on London, and demanded a sum of £40,000[pg 294]out of the arrears of assessment to be paid to the soldiers by the following night.905

The letter of Fairfax laid before Parliament, 1 Dec, 1648.

The council at once decided to lay the letter before both Houses, and in the meantime took steps for the immediate payment of an instalment of £10,000 to Fairfax, to whom a deputation was despatched to assure him that the City would do its utmost to execute his commands.906Both Houses assented to Fairfax being provided with the money demanded, the Commons giving the City liberty to communicate direct with the general by committee or letter as they should think fit.907

The army returns to London, 2 Dec.

In spite of a request by the Commons that he would keep at a distance, lest his approach should involve danger, Fairfax entered London with his troops on Saturday, the 2nd December, and took up his quarters at Whitehall. On Wednesday, the 6th—the day on which Colonel Pride administered his famous "purge" to the House of Commons—a letter from the general was read in the Common Council in which he desired that 3,800 beds might be sent to Whitehall by ten o'clock the next morning for the use of the soldiers, and also sufficient furniture for lodging. The beds and furniture were to be afterwards returned.908

The City's reply to the demands of Fairfax, 6 Dec.

The Common Council immediately nominated a committee to go to Fairfax and to beg him to excuse the City furnishing the beds as desired. The committee was further instructed to inform his lordship that if he would obtain a warrant from the Committee of the[pg 295]Army to the Treasurers at War for the payment of £10,000, the City would be prepared to pay over the whole sum of £40,000 (which ought to have been already paid over) by the next day (7 Dec). There was one other matter. A rumour had reached the city that it was intended to arrest Major-General Browne, who at the time was serving as one of the sheriffs of London, and the committee were directed to point out to his excellency the "inconveniences" likely to arise from such a proceeding.909

Arrest of Major-General Browne, one of the sheriffs, 12 Dec, 1648.

Fairfax paid little regard to what might or might not be convenient for the City, and on the 12th Browne was arrested, together with Waller, Massey and others, on the charge of having joined in an invitation to the Scots to invade England, although it was difficult to find evidence against them. The Court of Aldermen immediately interested themselves in endeavouring to obtain Browne's release, guaranteeing to Fairfax, if he would set the sheriff free, to produce him whenever required, and vouching for his "civil and quiet deportment" in the city.910

Fairfax seizes the treasury at Weavers' Hall, 8 Dec, 1648.

Finding that the money (£40,000) which he had ordered the City to furnish was not forthcoming on the day appointed, Fairfax notified the Common Council by letter (8 Dec.) that he had given orders for seizing the treasury at Goldsmiths' Hall and Weavers' Hall. The sum of £27,400 was accordingly seized at the latter Hall; and this sum Fairfax intended to keep until the £40,000 should be paid. When that was done he would withdraw his troops, and not before. On learning this the Common Council sent a[pg 296]deputation to inform his excellency that, if certain concessions were made, the City itself would be responsible for repayment of the money seized, and that arrears should be got in as speedily as possible. At the same time Fairfax was asked to withdraw his troops from the city.911

Soldiers to be withdrawn from the city on payment of arrears within 14 days, 9 Dec., 1648.

To these proposals Fairfax replied by letter the same day,912that if the City would cause all the money charged on the City for the army up to the 25th March next ensuing, and still in arrear, to be brought in within fourteen days, he would repay the money taken from Weavers' Hall and would withdraw his troops. Their presence in the city he affected to conceive would facilitate the collection of the money. On the receipt of this letter the civic authorities renewed their exertions to hasten the getting in of assessments.913

Back to Index Next