The question of discontinuing the city guard of the trained bands referred, 13 Dec.It was thought that a saving might be effected by the discontinuance of the trained bands in their duty of guarding the city. They were known to be very remiss in their duties, piling their arms and leaving them in charge of some few of their number whilst the others went away and amused themselves. They had thus become a laughing-stock to the better disciplined soldiers of the army, and brought discredit on the city. The question was eventually left to the discretion of the Militia Committee to continue the guards or not as it might think fit.914Pay demanded for soldiers quartered in the city, 6 Jan., 1649.In spite, however, of every effort the money demanded by Fairfax was not forthcoming, and the maintenance of his troops quartered in the city[pg 297]became an intolerable burden. On Saturday, the 6th January, 1649, a fortnight's pay, or, £19,000, was due to the soldiers, and unless the money was found within four days Fairfax threatened to quarter his whole army upon the city. A house-to-house visitation for getting in arrears was organised. A short extension of time for payment to the army was asked for and obtained. Ministers were charged to exhort their parishioners on the intervening Sunday to pay up their arrears. The money was eventually advanced by the Treasurers at War on the personal security of the aldermen and wealthier inhabitants of each ward.915Ordinances of parliament touching elections to the Common Council, 18 and 20 Dec.The feeling of detestation for the army and of inclination towards the king had in the meanwhile been growing stronger in the city day by day. A royalist lord mayor, in the person of Abraham Reynardson, had recently been elected, and it was feared by parliament—or the Rump, as it came to be called—that the same royalist proclivities would show themselves in the elections to the Common Council which were to take place on St. Thomas's day (21 Dec.). An ordinance was accordingly passed on the 18th against the election of "malignants" to the city council. This ordinance was amended two days later (20 Dec.) in such a way as to exclude every citizen who had subscribed to an engagement for a personal treaty with the king.916It was in vain that representation was made to parliament of the difficulty of getting a council together under such a[pg 298]restriction. The House was inflexible and ordered the election to be at once proceeded with. The election accordingly took place, but when the members came to take their seats the mayor forbade them unless they were prepared to take the oath of allegiance, which had not yet been abolished. This action on the part of Reynardson being reported to the House, it directed him (5 Jan., 1649) to forthwith summon the Common Council together, but to suspend the taking of oaths until further order.917It at the same time gave orders for the city chains to be removed and stored in the Leadenhall, the easier to put down any disturbance that might arise in consequence of the recent elections.918The effect of the "purge" thus administered to the city's parliament was soon to be seen.Proceedings of the court of Common Council, 13 Jan., 1649.On the 13th January, by which day a High Court of Justice had been especially established for the king's trial and all royalists had been banished the city by order of Fairfax,919the new Common Council began to assert itself. The court had been summoned to meet at eight o'clock in the morning (not an unusually early hour in those days), but the mayor did not put in an appearance until eleven, and then was only accompanied by two aldermen, the number necessary to form a court. It was soon seen that there was something wrong. The mayor refused to acknowledge the authority of the council or to allow the minutes of the last court to be read in[pg 299]accordance with custom. The council took but little notice of this and passed on to the next business. This was a petition to the House of Commons, drawn up and approved by a committee,920asking the House to execute justice impartially and vigorously "upon all the grand and capital authors, contrivers of and actors in the late wars against parliament and kingdom, from the highest to the lowest," and to take steps, as the supreme power of the nation, for the preservation of peace and the recovery of trade and credit.921Such a petition was so diametrically opposed to the sentiments of the royalist lord mayor and his brother aldermen that they got up and left the court rather than allow the petition to be sanctioned by their presence. Strictly speaking there was no longer any court. Nevertheless an attempt was made to get the Common Sergeant and then the Town Clerk922to put the question, but they refused to do so in the absence of the mayor and aldermen, and they too got up and left the council chamber. Thus left to themselves the members of the court voted Colonel Owen Rowe into the chair. The petition was then three times read, and after due deliberation unanimously agreed to, twenty members of the council being nominated to carry it up to the House, together with[pg 300]a narrative of the proceedings that had taken place that day in court.923Petition to parliament by the "commons of the city," 15 Jan., 1649.In submitting the petition to the Commons on the 15th January, Colonel Robert Tichborne, a member of the council, explained the reason why the petition varied in title from other petitions from the city, purporting, as it did, to come from the commons of the city alone, and not from the mayor, aldermen and commons, and with the petition presented a narrative of the proceedings that had taken place in the council two days before.924The House readily accepted the explanation (as was only to be expected), and declared that the petition and narrative might and should of right be entered on the records of the Common Council. "As to the Common Council of the city of London, and so owned by this House"—the Speaker went on to say—"they take notice of the extraordinary affections long since and often expressed by many particular persons, if not by every member of your present body, especially of that true and publick principle which carried you on to the framing of this petition, and to your going through with it, notwithstanding the opposition and withdrawing of your mayor and aldermen." The Speaker assured the deputation that the House fully approved of the members continuing to sit as a Common Council in the absence or dissent of the mayor or aldermen, or both together, and concluded by saying that both the[pg 301]petition and narrative would receive speedy consideration.925£4,000 still due to the army, 23 Jan.On the 23rd January two officers from the army waited upon the Court of Aldermen and informed the members that the sum of £4,000 out of the £19,000 formerly demanded for the army was still in arrear. The money was in the hands of the Treasurers at War, but they refused to pay it over until they had received their security from the wards according to agreement. Fairfax pressed for an immediate payment, otherwise he would be under the necessity of quartering troops of horse and foot upon those wards which had failed to give the promised security for arrears of assessments. Rather than this should happen the aldermen themselves engaged to be security to the treasurers for payment of the money.926The trial and execution of the king, Jan., 1649.In the meanwhile the special tribunal established for the trial of the king had commenced its work. At its head sat John Bradshaw, a sergeant-at-law and sometime a judge of the sheriffs' court of the Wood Street compter in the city.927Five aldermen were placed on the commission, viz., Isaac Pennington, Thomas Andrews, Thomas Atkins, Rowland Wilson and John Fowke;928but only the first two named took any active part in the trial, and Wilson absolutely declined to serve. Not one of them affixed his signature to the king's death-warrant. Among the rest of the commissioners were, however, two citizens of[pg 302]repute, viz., Robert Tichborne, afterwards an alderman,929and Owen Rowe, both of whom took an active part in the trial and both signed the warrant for the king's execution. When put upon his trial in October, 1660, for the part he now took, Tichborne pleaded that what he had done was through ignorance, and that had he known more he would sooner have entered a "red hot oven" than the room in which the warrant was signed.930His penitence saved his life, and he, like Pennington, spent the remainder of his days in confinement.The proceedings of the trial were unreasonably short and sharp. On Friday, the 19th January, Charles was brought from Windsor to London. On the following day he made his first appearance before his judges. On that day week—Saturday, the 27th—sentence was pronounced, and three days later (30 Jan.) it was carried out before the king's own banquetting-house at Whitehall.
The question of discontinuing the city guard of the trained bands referred, 13 Dec.It was thought that a saving might be effected by the discontinuance of the trained bands in their duty of guarding the city. They were known to be very remiss in their duties, piling their arms and leaving them in charge of some few of their number whilst the others went away and amused themselves. They had thus become a laughing-stock to the better disciplined soldiers of the army, and brought discredit on the city. The question was eventually left to the discretion of the Militia Committee to continue the guards or not as it might think fit.914Pay demanded for soldiers quartered in the city, 6 Jan., 1649.In spite, however, of every effort the money demanded by Fairfax was not forthcoming, and the maintenance of his troops quartered in the city[pg 297]became an intolerable burden. On Saturday, the 6th January, 1649, a fortnight's pay, or, £19,000, was due to the soldiers, and unless the money was found within four days Fairfax threatened to quarter his whole army upon the city. A house-to-house visitation for getting in arrears was organised. A short extension of time for payment to the army was asked for and obtained. Ministers were charged to exhort their parishioners on the intervening Sunday to pay up their arrears. The money was eventually advanced by the Treasurers at War on the personal security of the aldermen and wealthier inhabitants of each ward.915Ordinances of parliament touching elections to the Common Council, 18 and 20 Dec.The feeling of detestation for the army and of inclination towards the king had in the meanwhile been growing stronger in the city day by day. A royalist lord mayor, in the person of Abraham Reynardson, had recently been elected, and it was feared by parliament—or the Rump, as it came to be called—that the same royalist proclivities would show themselves in the elections to the Common Council which were to take place on St. Thomas's day (21 Dec.). An ordinance was accordingly passed on the 18th against the election of "malignants" to the city council. This ordinance was amended two days later (20 Dec.) in such a way as to exclude every citizen who had subscribed to an engagement for a personal treaty with the king.916It was in vain that representation was made to parliament of the difficulty of getting a council together under such a[pg 298]restriction. The House was inflexible and ordered the election to be at once proceeded with. The election accordingly took place, but when the members came to take their seats the mayor forbade them unless they were prepared to take the oath of allegiance, which had not yet been abolished. This action on the part of Reynardson being reported to the House, it directed him (5 Jan., 1649) to forthwith summon the Common Council together, but to suspend the taking of oaths until further order.917It at the same time gave orders for the city chains to be removed and stored in the Leadenhall, the easier to put down any disturbance that might arise in consequence of the recent elections.918The effect of the "purge" thus administered to the city's parliament was soon to be seen.Proceedings of the court of Common Council, 13 Jan., 1649.On the 13th January, by which day a High Court of Justice had been especially established for the king's trial and all royalists had been banished the city by order of Fairfax,919the new Common Council began to assert itself. The court had been summoned to meet at eight o'clock in the morning (not an unusually early hour in those days), but the mayor did not put in an appearance until eleven, and then was only accompanied by two aldermen, the number necessary to form a court. It was soon seen that there was something wrong. The mayor refused to acknowledge the authority of the council or to allow the minutes of the last court to be read in[pg 299]accordance with custom. The council took but little notice of this and passed on to the next business. This was a petition to the House of Commons, drawn up and approved by a committee,920asking the House to execute justice impartially and vigorously "upon all the grand and capital authors, contrivers of and actors in the late wars against parliament and kingdom, from the highest to the lowest," and to take steps, as the supreme power of the nation, for the preservation of peace and the recovery of trade and credit.921Such a petition was so diametrically opposed to the sentiments of the royalist lord mayor and his brother aldermen that they got up and left the court rather than allow the petition to be sanctioned by their presence. Strictly speaking there was no longer any court. Nevertheless an attempt was made to get the Common Sergeant and then the Town Clerk922to put the question, but they refused to do so in the absence of the mayor and aldermen, and they too got up and left the council chamber. Thus left to themselves the members of the court voted Colonel Owen Rowe into the chair. The petition was then three times read, and after due deliberation unanimously agreed to, twenty members of the council being nominated to carry it up to the House, together with[pg 300]a narrative of the proceedings that had taken place that day in court.923Petition to parliament by the "commons of the city," 15 Jan., 1649.In submitting the petition to the Commons on the 15th January, Colonel Robert Tichborne, a member of the council, explained the reason why the petition varied in title from other petitions from the city, purporting, as it did, to come from the commons of the city alone, and not from the mayor, aldermen and commons, and with the petition presented a narrative of the proceedings that had taken place in the council two days before.924The House readily accepted the explanation (as was only to be expected), and declared that the petition and narrative might and should of right be entered on the records of the Common Council. "As to the Common Council of the city of London, and so owned by this House"—the Speaker went on to say—"they take notice of the extraordinary affections long since and often expressed by many particular persons, if not by every member of your present body, especially of that true and publick principle which carried you on to the framing of this petition, and to your going through with it, notwithstanding the opposition and withdrawing of your mayor and aldermen." The Speaker assured the deputation that the House fully approved of the members continuing to sit as a Common Council in the absence or dissent of the mayor or aldermen, or both together, and concluded by saying that both the[pg 301]petition and narrative would receive speedy consideration.925£4,000 still due to the army, 23 Jan.On the 23rd January two officers from the army waited upon the Court of Aldermen and informed the members that the sum of £4,000 out of the £19,000 formerly demanded for the army was still in arrear. The money was in the hands of the Treasurers at War, but they refused to pay it over until they had received their security from the wards according to agreement. Fairfax pressed for an immediate payment, otherwise he would be under the necessity of quartering troops of horse and foot upon those wards which had failed to give the promised security for arrears of assessments. Rather than this should happen the aldermen themselves engaged to be security to the treasurers for payment of the money.926The trial and execution of the king, Jan., 1649.In the meanwhile the special tribunal established for the trial of the king had commenced its work. At its head sat John Bradshaw, a sergeant-at-law and sometime a judge of the sheriffs' court of the Wood Street compter in the city.927Five aldermen were placed on the commission, viz., Isaac Pennington, Thomas Andrews, Thomas Atkins, Rowland Wilson and John Fowke;928but only the first two named took any active part in the trial, and Wilson absolutely declined to serve. Not one of them affixed his signature to the king's death-warrant. Among the rest of the commissioners were, however, two citizens of[pg 302]repute, viz., Robert Tichborne, afterwards an alderman,929and Owen Rowe, both of whom took an active part in the trial and both signed the warrant for the king's execution. When put upon his trial in October, 1660, for the part he now took, Tichborne pleaded that what he had done was through ignorance, and that had he known more he would sooner have entered a "red hot oven" than the room in which the warrant was signed.930His penitence saved his life, and he, like Pennington, spent the remainder of his days in confinement.The proceedings of the trial were unreasonably short and sharp. On Friday, the 19th January, Charles was brought from Windsor to London. On the following day he made his first appearance before his judges. On that day week—Saturday, the 27th—sentence was pronounced, and three days later (30 Jan.) it was carried out before the king's own banquetting-house at Whitehall.
The question of discontinuing the city guard of the trained bands referred, 13 Dec.It was thought that a saving might be effected by the discontinuance of the trained bands in their duty of guarding the city. They were known to be very remiss in their duties, piling their arms and leaving them in charge of some few of their number whilst the others went away and amused themselves. They had thus become a laughing-stock to the better disciplined soldiers of the army, and brought discredit on the city. The question was eventually left to the discretion of the Militia Committee to continue the guards or not as it might think fit.914Pay demanded for soldiers quartered in the city, 6 Jan., 1649.In spite, however, of every effort the money demanded by Fairfax was not forthcoming, and the maintenance of his troops quartered in the city[pg 297]became an intolerable burden. On Saturday, the 6th January, 1649, a fortnight's pay, or, £19,000, was due to the soldiers, and unless the money was found within four days Fairfax threatened to quarter his whole army upon the city. A house-to-house visitation for getting in arrears was organised. A short extension of time for payment to the army was asked for and obtained. Ministers were charged to exhort their parishioners on the intervening Sunday to pay up their arrears. The money was eventually advanced by the Treasurers at War on the personal security of the aldermen and wealthier inhabitants of each ward.915Ordinances of parliament touching elections to the Common Council, 18 and 20 Dec.The feeling of detestation for the army and of inclination towards the king had in the meanwhile been growing stronger in the city day by day. A royalist lord mayor, in the person of Abraham Reynardson, had recently been elected, and it was feared by parliament—or the Rump, as it came to be called—that the same royalist proclivities would show themselves in the elections to the Common Council which were to take place on St. Thomas's day (21 Dec.). An ordinance was accordingly passed on the 18th against the election of "malignants" to the city council. This ordinance was amended two days later (20 Dec.) in such a way as to exclude every citizen who had subscribed to an engagement for a personal treaty with the king.916It was in vain that representation was made to parliament of the difficulty of getting a council together under such a[pg 298]restriction. The House was inflexible and ordered the election to be at once proceeded with. The election accordingly took place, but when the members came to take their seats the mayor forbade them unless they were prepared to take the oath of allegiance, which had not yet been abolished. This action on the part of Reynardson being reported to the House, it directed him (5 Jan., 1649) to forthwith summon the Common Council together, but to suspend the taking of oaths until further order.917It at the same time gave orders for the city chains to be removed and stored in the Leadenhall, the easier to put down any disturbance that might arise in consequence of the recent elections.918The effect of the "purge" thus administered to the city's parliament was soon to be seen.Proceedings of the court of Common Council, 13 Jan., 1649.On the 13th January, by which day a High Court of Justice had been especially established for the king's trial and all royalists had been banished the city by order of Fairfax,919the new Common Council began to assert itself. The court had been summoned to meet at eight o'clock in the morning (not an unusually early hour in those days), but the mayor did not put in an appearance until eleven, and then was only accompanied by two aldermen, the number necessary to form a court. It was soon seen that there was something wrong. The mayor refused to acknowledge the authority of the council or to allow the minutes of the last court to be read in[pg 299]accordance with custom. The council took but little notice of this and passed on to the next business. This was a petition to the House of Commons, drawn up and approved by a committee,920asking the House to execute justice impartially and vigorously "upon all the grand and capital authors, contrivers of and actors in the late wars against parliament and kingdom, from the highest to the lowest," and to take steps, as the supreme power of the nation, for the preservation of peace and the recovery of trade and credit.921Such a petition was so diametrically opposed to the sentiments of the royalist lord mayor and his brother aldermen that they got up and left the court rather than allow the petition to be sanctioned by their presence. Strictly speaking there was no longer any court. Nevertheless an attempt was made to get the Common Sergeant and then the Town Clerk922to put the question, but they refused to do so in the absence of the mayor and aldermen, and they too got up and left the council chamber. Thus left to themselves the members of the court voted Colonel Owen Rowe into the chair. The petition was then three times read, and after due deliberation unanimously agreed to, twenty members of the council being nominated to carry it up to the House, together with[pg 300]a narrative of the proceedings that had taken place that day in court.923Petition to parliament by the "commons of the city," 15 Jan., 1649.In submitting the petition to the Commons on the 15th January, Colonel Robert Tichborne, a member of the council, explained the reason why the petition varied in title from other petitions from the city, purporting, as it did, to come from the commons of the city alone, and not from the mayor, aldermen and commons, and with the petition presented a narrative of the proceedings that had taken place in the council two days before.924The House readily accepted the explanation (as was only to be expected), and declared that the petition and narrative might and should of right be entered on the records of the Common Council. "As to the Common Council of the city of London, and so owned by this House"—the Speaker went on to say—"they take notice of the extraordinary affections long since and often expressed by many particular persons, if not by every member of your present body, especially of that true and publick principle which carried you on to the framing of this petition, and to your going through with it, notwithstanding the opposition and withdrawing of your mayor and aldermen." The Speaker assured the deputation that the House fully approved of the members continuing to sit as a Common Council in the absence or dissent of the mayor or aldermen, or both together, and concluded by saying that both the[pg 301]petition and narrative would receive speedy consideration.925£4,000 still due to the army, 23 Jan.On the 23rd January two officers from the army waited upon the Court of Aldermen and informed the members that the sum of £4,000 out of the £19,000 formerly demanded for the army was still in arrear. The money was in the hands of the Treasurers at War, but they refused to pay it over until they had received their security from the wards according to agreement. Fairfax pressed for an immediate payment, otherwise he would be under the necessity of quartering troops of horse and foot upon those wards which had failed to give the promised security for arrears of assessments. Rather than this should happen the aldermen themselves engaged to be security to the treasurers for payment of the money.926The trial and execution of the king, Jan., 1649.In the meanwhile the special tribunal established for the trial of the king had commenced its work. At its head sat John Bradshaw, a sergeant-at-law and sometime a judge of the sheriffs' court of the Wood Street compter in the city.927Five aldermen were placed on the commission, viz., Isaac Pennington, Thomas Andrews, Thomas Atkins, Rowland Wilson and John Fowke;928but only the first two named took any active part in the trial, and Wilson absolutely declined to serve. Not one of them affixed his signature to the king's death-warrant. Among the rest of the commissioners were, however, two citizens of[pg 302]repute, viz., Robert Tichborne, afterwards an alderman,929and Owen Rowe, both of whom took an active part in the trial and both signed the warrant for the king's execution. When put upon his trial in October, 1660, for the part he now took, Tichborne pleaded that what he had done was through ignorance, and that had he known more he would sooner have entered a "red hot oven" than the room in which the warrant was signed.930His penitence saved his life, and he, like Pennington, spent the remainder of his days in confinement.The proceedings of the trial were unreasonably short and sharp. On Friday, the 19th January, Charles was brought from Windsor to London. On the following day he made his first appearance before his judges. On that day week—Saturday, the 27th—sentence was pronounced, and three days later (30 Jan.) it was carried out before the king's own banquetting-house at Whitehall.
The question of discontinuing the city guard of the trained bands referred, 13 Dec.It was thought that a saving might be effected by the discontinuance of the trained bands in their duty of guarding the city. They were known to be very remiss in their duties, piling their arms and leaving them in charge of some few of their number whilst the others went away and amused themselves. They had thus become a laughing-stock to the better disciplined soldiers of the army, and brought discredit on the city. The question was eventually left to the discretion of the Militia Committee to continue the guards or not as it might think fit.914Pay demanded for soldiers quartered in the city, 6 Jan., 1649.In spite, however, of every effort the money demanded by Fairfax was not forthcoming, and the maintenance of his troops quartered in the city[pg 297]became an intolerable burden. On Saturday, the 6th January, 1649, a fortnight's pay, or, £19,000, was due to the soldiers, and unless the money was found within four days Fairfax threatened to quarter his whole army upon the city. A house-to-house visitation for getting in arrears was organised. A short extension of time for payment to the army was asked for and obtained. Ministers were charged to exhort their parishioners on the intervening Sunday to pay up their arrears. The money was eventually advanced by the Treasurers at War on the personal security of the aldermen and wealthier inhabitants of each ward.915Ordinances of parliament touching elections to the Common Council, 18 and 20 Dec.The feeling of detestation for the army and of inclination towards the king had in the meanwhile been growing stronger in the city day by day. A royalist lord mayor, in the person of Abraham Reynardson, had recently been elected, and it was feared by parliament—or the Rump, as it came to be called—that the same royalist proclivities would show themselves in the elections to the Common Council which were to take place on St. Thomas's day (21 Dec.). An ordinance was accordingly passed on the 18th against the election of "malignants" to the city council. This ordinance was amended two days later (20 Dec.) in such a way as to exclude every citizen who had subscribed to an engagement for a personal treaty with the king.916It was in vain that representation was made to parliament of the difficulty of getting a council together under such a[pg 298]restriction. The House was inflexible and ordered the election to be at once proceeded with. The election accordingly took place, but when the members came to take their seats the mayor forbade them unless they were prepared to take the oath of allegiance, which had not yet been abolished. This action on the part of Reynardson being reported to the House, it directed him (5 Jan., 1649) to forthwith summon the Common Council together, but to suspend the taking of oaths until further order.917It at the same time gave orders for the city chains to be removed and stored in the Leadenhall, the easier to put down any disturbance that might arise in consequence of the recent elections.918The effect of the "purge" thus administered to the city's parliament was soon to be seen.Proceedings of the court of Common Council, 13 Jan., 1649.On the 13th January, by which day a High Court of Justice had been especially established for the king's trial and all royalists had been banished the city by order of Fairfax,919the new Common Council began to assert itself. The court had been summoned to meet at eight o'clock in the morning (not an unusually early hour in those days), but the mayor did not put in an appearance until eleven, and then was only accompanied by two aldermen, the number necessary to form a court. It was soon seen that there was something wrong. The mayor refused to acknowledge the authority of the council or to allow the minutes of the last court to be read in[pg 299]accordance with custom. The council took but little notice of this and passed on to the next business. This was a petition to the House of Commons, drawn up and approved by a committee,920asking the House to execute justice impartially and vigorously "upon all the grand and capital authors, contrivers of and actors in the late wars against parliament and kingdom, from the highest to the lowest," and to take steps, as the supreme power of the nation, for the preservation of peace and the recovery of trade and credit.921Such a petition was so diametrically opposed to the sentiments of the royalist lord mayor and his brother aldermen that they got up and left the court rather than allow the petition to be sanctioned by their presence. Strictly speaking there was no longer any court. Nevertheless an attempt was made to get the Common Sergeant and then the Town Clerk922to put the question, but they refused to do so in the absence of the mayor and aldermen, and they too got up and left the council chamber. Thus left to themselves the members of the court voted Colonel Owen Rowe into the chair. The petition was then three times read, and after due deliberation unanimously agreed to, twenty members of the council being nominated to carry it up to the House, together with[pg 300]a narrative of the proceedings that had taken place that day in court.923Petition to parliament by the "commons of the city," 15 Jan., 1649.In submitting the petition to the Commons on the 15th January, Colonel Robert Tichborne, a member of the council, explained the reason why the petition varied in title from other petitions from the city, purporting, as it did, to come from the commons of the city alone, and not from the mayor, aldermen and commons, and with the petition presented a narrative of the proceedings that had taken place in the council two days before.924The House readily accepted the explanation (as was only to be expected), and declared that the petition and narrative might and should of right be entered on the records of the Common Council. "As to the Common Council of the city of London, and so owned by this House"—the Speaker went on to say—"they take notice of the extraordinary affections long since and often expressed by many particular persons, if not by every member of your present body, especially of that true and publick principle which carried you on to the framing of this petition, and to your going through with it, notwithstanding the opposition and withdrawing of your mayor and aldermen." The Speaker assured the deputation that the House fully approved of the members continuing to sit as a Common Council in the absence or dissent of the mayor or aldermen, or both together, and concluded by saying that both the[pg 301]petition and narrative would receive speedy consideration.925£4,000 still due to the army, 23 Jan.On the 23rd January two officers from the army waited upon the Court of Aldermen and informed the members that the sum of £4,000 out of the £19,000 formerly demanded for the army was still in arrear. The money was in the hands of the Treasurers at War, but they refused to pay it over until they had received their security from the wards according to agreement. Fairfax pressed for an immediate payment, otherwise he would be under the necessity of quartering troops of horse and foot upon those wards which had failed to give the promised security for arrears of assessments. Rather than this should happen the aldermen themselves engaged to be security to the treasurers for payment of the money.926The trial and execution of the king, Jan., 1649.In the meanwhile the special tribunal established for the trial of the king had commenced its work. At its head sat John Bradshaw, a sergeant-at-law and sometime a judge of the sheriffs' court of the Wood Street compter in the city.927Five aldermen were placed on the commission, viz., Isaac Pennington, Thomas Andrews, Thomas Atkins, Rowland Wilson and John Fowke;928but only the first two named took any active part in the trial, and Wilson absolutely declined to serve. Not one of them affixed his signature to the king's death-warrant. Among the rest of the commissioners were, however, two citizens of[pg 302]repute, viz., Robert Tichborne, afterwards an alderman,929and Owen Rowe, both of whom took an active part in the trial and both signed the warrant for the king's execution. When put upon his trial in October, 1660, for the part he now took, Tichborne pleaded that what he had done was through ignorance, and that had he known more he would sooner have entered a "red hot oven" than the room in which the warrant was signed.930His penitence saved his life, and he, like Pennington, spent the remainder of his days in confinement.The proceedings of the trial were unreasonably short and sharp. On Friday, the 19th January, Charles was brought from Windsor to London. On the following day he made his first appearance before his judges. On that day week—Saturday, the 27th—sentence was pronounced, and three days later (30 Jan.) it was carried out before the king's own banquetting-house at Whitehall.
The question of discontinuing the city guard of the trained bands referred, 13 Dec.
The question of discontinuing the city guard of the trained bands referred, 13 Dec.
The question of discontinuing the city guard of the trained bands referred, 13 Dec.
It was thought that a saving might be effected by the discontinuance of the trained bands in their duty of guarding the city. They were known to be very remiss in their duties, piling their arms and leaving them in charge of some few of their number whilst the others went away and amused themselves. They had thus become a laughing-stock to the better disciplined soldiers of the army, and brought discredit on the city. The question was eventually left to the discretion of the Militia Committee to continue the guards or not as it might think fit.914
Pay demanded for soldiers quartered in the city, 6 Jan., 1649.
Pay demanded for soldiers quartered in the city, 6 Jan., 1649.
Pay demanded for soldiers quartered in the city, 6 Jan., 1649.
In spite, however, of every effort the money demanded by Fairfax was not forthcoming, and the maintenance of his troops quartered in the city[pg 297]became an intolerable burden. On Saturday, the 6th January, 1649, a fortnight's pay, or, £19,000, was due to the soldiers, and unless the money was found within four days Fairfax threatened to quarter his whole army upon the city. A house-to-house visitation for getting in arrears was organised. A short extension of time for payment to the army was asked for and obtained. Ministers were charged to exhort their parishioners on the intervening Sunday to pay up their arrears. The money was eventually advanced by the Treasurers at War on the personal security of the aldermen and wealthier inhabitants of each ward.915
Ordinances of parliament touching elections to the Common Council, 18 and 20 Dec.
Ordinances of parliament touching elections to the Common Council, 18 and 20 Dec.
Ordinances of parliament touching elections to the Common Council, 18 and 20 Dec.
The feeling of detestation for the army and of inclination towards the king had in the meanwhile been growing stronger in the city day by day. A royalist lord mayor, in the person of Abraham Reynardson, had recently been elected, and it was feared by parliament—or the Rump, as it came to be called—that the same royalist proclivities would show themselves in the elections to the Common Council which were to take place on St. Thomas's day (21 Dec.). An ordinance was accordingly passed on the 18th against the election of "malignants" to the city council. This ordinance was amended two days later (20 Dec.) in such a way as to exclude every citizen who had subscribed to an engagement for a personal treaty with the king.916It was in vain that representation was made to parliament of the difficulty of getting a council together under such a[pg 298]restriction. The House was inflexible and ordered the election to be at once proceeded with. The election accordingly took place, but when the members came to take their seats the mayor forbade them unless they were prepared to take the oath of allegiance, which had not yet been abolished. This action on the part of Reynardson being reported to the House, it directed him (5 Jan., 1649) to forthwith summon the Common Council together, but to suspend the taking of oaths until further order.917It at the same time gave orders for the city chains to be removed and stored in the Leadenhall, the easier to put down any disturbance that might arise in consequence of the recent elections.918The effect of the "purge" thus administered to the city's parliament was soon to be seen.
Proceedings of the court of Common Council, 13 Jan., 1649.
Proceedings of the court of Common Council, 13 Jan., 1649.
Proceedings of the court of Common Council, 13 Jan., 1649.
On the 13th January, by which day a High Court of Justice had been especially established for the king's trial and all royalists had been banished the city by order of Fairfax,919the new Common Council began to assert itself. The court had been summoned to meet at eight o'clock in the morning (not an unusually early hour in those days), but the mayor did not put in an appearance until eleven, and then was only accompanied by two aldermen, the number necessary to form a court. It was soon seen that there was something wrong. The mayor refused to acknowledge the authority of the council or to allow the minutes of the last court to be read in[pg 299]accordance with custom. The council took but little notice of this and passed on to the next business. This was a petition to the House of Commons, drawn up and approved by a committee,920asking the House to execute justice impartially and vigorously "upon all the grand and capital authors, contrivers of and actors in the late wars against parliament and kingdom, from the highest to the lowest," and to take steps, as the supreme power of the nation, for the preservation of peace and the recovery of trade and credit.921Such a petition was so diametrically opposed to the sentiments of the royalist lord mayor and his brother aldermen that they got up and left the court rather than allow the petition to be sanctioned by their presence. Strictly speaking there was no longer any court. Nevertheless an attempt was made to get the Common Sergeant and then the Town Clerk922to put the question, but they refused to do so in the absence of the mayor and aldermen, and they too got up and left the council chamber. Thus left to themselves the members of the court voted Colonel Owen Rowe into the chair. The petition was then three times read, and after due deliberation unanimously agreed to, twenty members of the council being nominated to carry it up to the House, together with[pg 300]a narrative of the proceedings that had taken place that day in court.923
Petition to parliament by the "commons of the city," 15 Jan., 1649.
Petition to parliament by the "commons of the city," 15 Jan., 1649.
Petition to parliament by the "commons of the city," 15 Jan., 1649.
In submitting the petition to the Commons on the 15th January, Colonel Robert Tichborne, a member of the council, explained the reason why the petition varied in title from other petitions from the city, purporting, as it did, to come from the commons of the city alone, and not from the mayor, aldermen and commons, and with the petition presented a narrative of the proceedings that had taken place in the council two days before.924The House readily accepted the explanation (as was only to be expected), and declared that the petition and narrative might and should of right be entered on the records of the Common Council. "As to the Common Council of the city of London, and so owned by this House"—the Speaker went on to say—"they take notice of the extraordinary affections long since and often expressed by many particular persons, if not by every member of your present body, especially of that true and publick principle which carried you on to the framing of this petition, and to your going through with it, notwithstanding the opposition and withdrawing of your mayor and aldermen." The Speaker assured the deputation that the House fully approved of the members continuing to sit as a Common Council in the absence or dissent of the mayor or aldermen, or both together, and concluded by saying that both the[pg 301]petition and narrative would receive speedy consideration.925
£4,000 still due to the army, 23 Jan.
£4,000 still due to the army, 23 Jan.
£4,000 still due to the army, 23 Jan.
On the 23rd January two officers from the army waited upon the Court of Aldermen and informed the members that the sum of £4,000 out of the £19,000 formerly demanded for the army was still in arrear. The money was in the hands of the Treasurers at War, but they refused to pay it over until they had received their security from the wards according to agreement. Fairfax pressed for an immediate payment, otherwise he would be under the necessity of quartering troops of horse and foot upon those wards which had failed to give the promised security for arrears of assessments. Rather than this should happen the aldermen themselves engaged to be security to the treasurers for payment of the money.926
The trial and execution of the king, Jan., 1649.
The trial and execution of the king, Jan., 1649.
The trial and execution of the king, Jan., 1649.
In the meanwhile the special tribunal established for the trial of the king had commenced its work. At its head sat John Bradshaw, a sergeant-at-law and sometime a judge of the sheriffs' court of the Wood Street compter in the city.927Five aldermen were placed on the commission, viz., Isaac Pennington, Thomas Andrews, Thomas Atkins, Rowland Wilson and John Fowke;928but only the first two named took any active part in the trial, and Wilson absolutely declined to serve. Not one of them affixed his signature to the king's death-warrant. Among the rest of the commissioners were, however, two citizens of[pg 302]repute, viz., Robert Tichborne, afterwards an alderman,929and Owen Rowe, both of whom took an active part in the trial and both signed the warrant for the king's execution. When put upon his trial in October, 1660, for the part he now took, Tichborne pleaded that what he had done was through ignorance, and that had he known more he would sooner have entered a "red hot oven" than the room in which the warrant was signed.930His penitence saved his life, and he, like Pennington, spent the remainder of his days in confinement.
The proceedings of the trial were unreasonably short and sharp. On Friday, the 19th January, Charles was brought from Windsor to London. On the following day he made his first appearance before his judges. On that day week—Saturday, the 27th—sentence was pronounced, and three days later (30 Jan.) it was carried out before the king's own banquetting-house at Whitehall.