Letter from the king touching election of Common Council, 13 Dec., 1661.When St. Thomas's day [21 Dec]—the day for the election of a new Common Council—was approaching, the king took occasion himself to write to the Court of Aldermen warning them to "take special care and give strict orders in your several wards that a peaceable and quiet election be made, and that the choice be of such persons as are every way well affected to the established Government, both in Church and State"—otherwise he would be forced to make a change in such elections.1242Order for expurgation of city's records. 26 Feb., 1662.That the new council was favourable to the king is shown by the court passing a resolution (26 Feb., 1662) for expunging out of the city's records all acts, orders and other matters passed, made or registered either in the court of Common Council or the Court of Aldermen since the beginning of the late troubles "which savour of the disloyalty of those times and may continue the sad remembrance of them to posterity to the reproach and dishonour of this city."1243This resolution was made on the king's own suggestions, but although a committee was at once appointed to carry it out, it remained a dead letter for twenty years.[pg 399]Demand of a loan of £200,000, 7 Feb., 1662.The Common Council had previously (7 Feb.) shown its compliance by acceding to a demand for a loan of £200,000.1244But although the security offered was undeniably good, and every effort was made to get the inhabitants of the city to subscribe, no more than £60,000 or £61,000 at the most was collected by the 14th March,1245and a month later scarcely £100,000 had been subscribed. The king made no attempt to disguise his annoyance, and ordered the mayor to call a Common Council and request them to take steps for the collection of the whole sum.1246City gift to Queen Catharine, 3 June, 1662.According to Pepys, who got his information from a city alderman, the finances of the Corporation were at such a low ebb that considerable difficulty was experienced in raising so small a sum as 1,000 gold pieces and the price of a gold cup to be presented to Catharine of Braganza on her arrival in England "and that they were fain to call two or three aldermen to raise fines to make up the amount."1247The Hearth or Chimney tax, 1662.Whilst the civic authorities were vainly struggling to raise the last loan for the king, the House of Commons came to his assistance and voted him a tax of two shillings upon every chimney.1248The inquisitorial nature of the tax made it very offensive.[pg 400]Returns were to be made of the number of hearths and stoves in each dwelling by the end of May. As they did not come in as quickly as was desired an extension of time was granted until Midsummer Assizes.1249Even when sent in many of the returns were manifestly untrue. The returns made for the city of London and Bills of Mortality drew forth a remonstrance from Charles, who refused to attribute it to anything else but gross negligence or deceit.1250He was afraid lest the ill example set by London should influence the rest of the kingdom. He expressed himself as willing to bear the expense of finding two or three honest persons in each ward, if required, to join the constable in an "ocular view." But in spite of every precaution fraudulent returns continued to flow in, and the collection of the tax to be slow and precarious.1251The Act of Uniformity, 1662.The passing of the Uniformity Act1252which condemned every minister to lose his benefice unless he signified his assent to everything contained in the book of common prayer by the 24th August (1662) caused great dissatisfaction in the city—always a stronghold of Presbyterianism—and many a sad scene was witnessed in city churches on Sunday the 17th as ministers took farewell of their congregations.1253Driven from the national Church, the Presbyterians,[pg 401]like the Baptists, the Quakers and other "dissenters" formed a separate community, happy if only they were granted toleration. Many of the inhabitants of the city were already suffering confinement for attending "unlawful assemblies." On the occasion of the queen's first visit to Westminster the king gave directions to the mayor and sheriffs to release those Quakers and others who were in gaol in London and Middlesex for having been present at such assemblies, provided they professed allegiance and had not been ringleaders or preachers, "hoping thereby to reduce them to a better conformity."1254Sir John Robinson elected mayor. Michaelmas, 1662.When lord mayor's day came round Charles again viewed the pageant from a house in Cheapside. This time he was accompanied by the queen. The City supplied the royal party with refreshments as before.1255The new mayor, Sir John Robinson,1256had been a promoter of the king's restoration, and in return for his services received an augmentation of arms.1257He was a nephew of the late Archbishop Laud, and full of his own self-importance "a talking, bragging, buffle-headed fellow," Pepys calls him—boasting of his powers over his brother aldermen, but nevertheless attentive to the wants of the city.1258The reception of the Russian ambassador, 27 Nov., 1662.A few weeks latter (27 Nov.) the streets of the city again presented a gala appearance, the occasion being the reception of the Russian ambassador. For the last three winters there had been, we are told,[pg 402]scarce any frost, and the opening of the year 1662 had been so exceptionally mild as to cause apprehension of dearth and disease.1259But now, on the very day that the Russian ambassador was to pass through the city from Tower wharf, where he had landed, he was reminded of his own country by seeing the roofs of the houses covered with snow.1260At eight o'clock in the morning 500 men "apparelled in velvet coats with chains of gold, well mounted on horseback," from the several livery companies made their way to Tower Hill to escort the ambassador.1261The streets were lined with the city trained bands and the king's Lifeguards. Pepys was there of course; he rarely missed any sight. He had been disappointed at not getting a better view of Sir Harry Vane's execution, which had taken place in June.1262This time he was more fortunate. The ambassador to be sure was late, but Pepys beguiled the time with dinner. "And after I had dined"—he records in his diary1263—"I walked to the conduit in the quarrefowr, at the end of Gracious Street and Cornhill and there (the spouts thereof running very near me, upon all the people that were under it) I saw them pretty well, go by." He failed to catch sight of the ambassador himself, but was struck with the handsome appearance of the ambassador's attendants, most of whom carried hawks on their "fists" as a present to Charles. The strangeness of this sight caused the mob to jeer, upon which the diarist characteristically remarks, "but lord! to see the absurd nature of Englishmen that[pg 403]cannot forbear laughing and jeering at every thing that looks strange." Later on he makes a note of having seen the ambassador's retinue at York House engaged in a manner that does not speak well for their habits of cleanliness.1264Grant of the Inspeximus Charter by Charles II, 24 June, 1663.On the 2nd February, 1663, thefiatwent forth for the confirmation of the City's charter, "they having fulfilled the required condition of displacing four or five of the aldermen."1265The charter itself bears date the 24th June.1266It is of all the City's charters the most ample, reciting and confirming as it does the entireInspeximusCharter of Charles I, as well as the latter king's letters patent, granted in the 16th year of his reign, confirming to the mayor and citizens the offices of package and scavage.City loan of £50,000, Sept., 1663.Notwithstanding the supplies voted to him by parliament, the advances made to him by the City, and the handsome dowry he received with his wife, Charles was continually in want of money. In November, 1662, he had sold Dunkirk to the French king for £200,000, much to the disgust of the English nation. Nevertheless, his extravagance soon reduced him to want, and by the following September (1663) he was in such straits that he sent to the City to borrow the comparatively small sum of £50,000. Seeing that the City had so recently received a confirmation of its charter, it could not refuse; and the money was raised among the aldermen as being[pg 404]a speedier way than applying to the Common Council.1267The king's return to London after a progress, Oct., 1663.On the occasion of the king's return from a "great progress" in October, he was met by the mayor and aldermen and 500 members of the several livery companies, well and substantially horsed and apparelled in velvet coats and chains of gold according to custom.1268The French ambassador insulted at the lord mayor's banquet. 29 Oct., 1663.On the 29th October the new lord mayor, Sir Anthony Bateman, entered upon his mayoralty,1269with the customary procession and pageant, followed by a banquet at the Guildhall. The banquet was made the occasion of what appears on the face of it to have been a studied insult offered—not by the municipal authorities, but by the lord chancellor, the bishops and lords of the council—to the French ambassador. Whether the lord chancellor and other high officers of state arrived at the Guildhall before their time, or the French ambassador came late, one cannot say. But, however that may have been, it appears that on the latter's arrival the others had already commenced dinner, with the exception of the mayor himself and the municipal authorities, who had not yet taken their places. On the ambassador approaching the table where the lords sat at dinner, intending, as he informed the French king by letter,1270to rally them on their[pg 405]good appetite, he met with such a cold reception that he left the hall to go home and dine by himself, in spite of every endeavour on the part of the civic officials to smooth matters over. Two hours later the sheriffs presented themselves at the ambassador's house, accompanied by a deputation from the Common Council, for the purpose of offering excuses for the recentcontretemps. The excuses they had to offer were, however, of the lamest character, as the ambassador took care to show. Firstly, they said they had been taken by surprise. This was manifestly false, as the ambassador attended at the Guildhall upon invitation. They next pleaded ignorance and incapacity in receiving one of so high degree, when the ambassador reminded them that they had recently done honour to the Spanish ambassador; and lastly they endeavoured to throw the whole of the blame upon the master of the ceremonies. This excuse, however, like the others, was easily shown to be false, inasmuch as that official was personally engaged in escorting the ambassador to the Guildhall and had nothing to do with the banquet. The deputation thereupon withdrew, being all the more discomforted by the excess of courtesy shown to them by the ambassador, who himself insisted on escorting them to the door (je leur dis que je voulois passer plus avant, et payer un assez mauvais traitement par une civilité extraordinaire).State visit of the lord mayor to the French ambassador, 11 Nov.On the 11th November the lord mayor went in state to pay a visit to the ambassador and to beg his forgiveness. Not being able to speak French himself, he took with him an interpreter, who explained to the ambassador on his behalf that unless he (the[pg 406]ambassador) would set the example of forgiveness eternal shame would rest upon the citizens and they would incur the displeasure of the king and nation. Thereupon the ambassador showed himself satisfied and attended the lord mayor to his carriage with marked courtesy.1271War declared, against the Dutch, 22 Feb., 1665.In view of a war with the Dutch, which seemed inevitable, owing to their interference with English trade, Charles began taking steps to replenish his exhausted exchequer. In June and again in October (1664) he borrowed from the city sums of £100,000.1272In November the Commons voted him a sum of two millions and a half, a larger supply than any that had ever yet been granted to a king of England, and the thanks of both Houses were tendered to the city for its assistance.1273On the 22nd February, 1665, war was formally declared. Two heralds, in their coats of arms, with four mace-bearers, nine trumpeters and two troops of horse, assembled at Westminster, where the trumpet sounded and the declaration was read amid shouts of joy. "Thence they went to Temple Bar, where the lord mayor and aldermen, in scarlet gowns on horse-back, conducted them to Temple Gate over against Chancery[pg 407]Lane, where it was read with more acclamation than before, the Horseguards drawing their swords and clattering them; then again in Cheapside and before the Royal Exchange with great demonstration of joy and sounding of trumpets, after which many nobles of the court came into the city to dine with the lord mayor."1274A day for a public fast was appointed to invoke the Almighty's blessing upon the ignominious war about to commence, and all commercial intercourse with the States was interdicted.1275The loss of the ship "The London."At this juncture an unfortunate accident occurred which deprived the fleet of one of its most valuable ships—the ship known as "The London," in which Sir John Lawson was about to put to sea—and caused the death of nearly 300 seamen. "The London" was being brought round from Chatham to the Hope, where she was to take on board her commander, when for some unaccountable reason she blew up and became a total wreck, all her ordnance, numbering 80 brass pieces, going to the bottom. The news of the disaster caused much excitement in the city.1276The City's offer to replace her.The Common Council (17 March) immediately offered its services to the king, and engaged to build another ship of the same tonnage to supply the place of the one that was lost. The king gladly availed himself of the offer of the City, promising "to retain the same in memory for the advantage of this royal chamber upon all occasions."1277Pepys's acquaintance[pg 408]with the jobbery of the day, more especially in connection with naval matters, had his misgivings about the City's offer. It was a handsome offer he acknowledged, "and if well managed might be done," but he had his fears lest the work should be put into ill hands.1278The work was put out to tender, but the final selection of a contractor was left to the king.1279Precepts were issued to the livery companies to "excite and persuade" their members in every possible way to subscribe to the undertaking.1280The money, however, was very slow in coming in, no more than £4,200 having been subscribed by May, 1666, when at least £10,000 was estimated to be required.1281Nor is this to be wondered at when it was a matter of public notoriety that the money voted expressly by parliament for fitting out a navy had been uselessly squandered. It was said at the time, although not credited by all, that many showed a willingness to advance a large sum of money if the Duke of York would guarantee its being employed on the navy by himself becoming treasurer of the fund; the Duke declined and the offers fell through.1282The "Loyal London" launched, 10 June, 1666.Pepys's misgivings about the City's new ship, called after its predecessor "Loyal London," appear to have been justified. The ship had to be launched[pg 409]in an unfinished state, and when her guns came to be tried every one of them burst. And yet the vessel was commended by Sir William Coventry, a navy commissioner and secretary to the Duke of York, admiral of the fleet, as "the best in the world, large and small."1283The Duke of York's victory over the Dutch fleet, 3 June, 1665.At the outset of the war the British fleet was not unattended with success. On the 3rd June, 1665, the Duke of York gained a signal victory over Opdam, admiral of the Dutch fleet, in an action fought off the coast of Suffolk. The report of the guns could be frequently heard on the Thames and caused much excitement in the city,1284to allay which the king caused a letter to be despatched to the lord mayor as soon as possible, giving details of the engagement and the losses on either side, and assuring the citizens of the safety of the Duke of York.1285Tuesday the 20th was appointed a day of public thanksgiving.1286Precautions against the plague, 1663-1664.Such a victory at another time would have been hailed with unbounded joy. As it was the enthusiasm of the citizens was damped by the presence among them of the most awful scourge that had ever yet visited the city. Towards the close of 1663 there had been rumours of an outbreak of plague on the continent, and more especially at Amsterdam and Hamburgh. The king communicated with the lord[pg 410]mayor to learn what measures had formerly been taken in like case to prevent the spread of infection. It was suggested by the Court of Aldermen that, after the custom of other countries, vessels coming from infected parts should perform quarantine at Gravesend or the neighbourhood, where a lazaretto should be established. The proposal was accepted,1287and to these precautions, taken on the instigation of the city authorities, was largely due the immunity from infection which the city enjoyed for the next fifteen months. In June, 1664, the lords of the council adopted similar precautions as their own and wrote to the lord mayor, in view of the increase of the plague in the Netherlands, desiring him "by all waies and meanes possible to be careful that no person or persons, goods or merchandises whatsoever be permitted to be received or harboured within the citty of London which come from Holland, Zealand or any other places infected with the plague, without certificates from the farmers of the customs or their officers that they have performed their quarantain."1288The Plague of 1665.The plague made its first appearance in the city in June, 1665. The atmosphere had been very sultry—the 7th June being recorded by Pepys as the hottest day he had ever felt in his life—and the heat caused the infection to spread among the crowded population of the city with amazing rapidity. Many[pg 411]followed the example set by the king and court and fled to the country.1289The lord mayor, however, stuck to his post, and the aldermen were forbidden to leave the city without giving notice of some reasonable cause, those who had already absented themselves being ordered to return.1290The good example thus set was unhappily not followed by the city rectors. Many of them, to their shame, forsook their cures in abject fear, leaving their parishioners to die without the consolations of the Church, whilst their pulpits were seized upon by Presbyterian ministers, who embraced the opportunity of publicly declaiming against the sins of the court and the ill usage to which they had been compelled to submit.1291The first Wednesday of every month was appointed to be kept as a solemn fast day of humiliation until it should please God to put an end to the sickness.1292Schools were closed and inns and taverns kept open only for citizens. The streets were cleansed and kept free from vagrant dogs—always suspected of spreading infection. Nevertheless, the death rate rapidly increased. Pest-houses or hospitals were opened and the best medical aid supplied, whilst subscriptions were set on foot for the benefit of the poor.1293The last week of August claimed 700 victims within the city's walls, whilst in the week ending the 19th September no less than 1,189—the highest number[pg 412]recorded perished within the same limited area.1294The number of deaths that occurred outside the city, but within its liberties, was often three or four times larger than of those within the city's walls. Thus for the week last mentioned the number of deaths from the plague alone in parishes outside the city, but within its liberties, is returned in the Bills of Mortality as having exceeded 3,000.1295The continued increase in the number of deaths in the first half of September was a matter of surprise, for cold weather had set in and the lord mayor had caused fires to be lighted in the open thoroughfares for the benefit of the poor that lay starving in the streets, as well as (perhaps) with the view of purifying the atmosphere.1296When the plague was at its height deaths followed in such rapid succession that the work of burying its victims had to be carried on night and day. Even then there was only time to huddle the corpses together in afosse commune, and to cover them with a scanty supply of earth. Small wonder if complaints were made to the Court of Aldermen of noisome smells arising from the churchyard of St. Mary's Bethlem. The court immediately (5 Sept.) gave orders for remedying the evil. No more pits were to be dug, but each corpse was to occupy a separate grave, fresh mould was to be laid over places complained of, and bones and coffin-boards found above ground were to be interred in the middle of the churchyard.1297[pg 413]The worst was now over. From the middle of September the number of deaths in the city began to decrease almost as rapidly as they had risen. In the first week in November there was a sudden increase on the return of the previous week, but in the following week there was again a fall, and this continued until in the first week of December the deaths in the city numbered only twenty-four. Nevertheless it was thought advisable to prohibit the usual entertainments which took place after the wardmote elections on St. Thomas's day, in order to minimise the risk of infection.1298The mayor was justified in taking this precaution, for the very next week the number of deaths more than doubled itself (57). That the city of London was at this time one of the healthiest places in the kingdom is shown by the fact that just as it was one of the last places attacked by the plague, so it was one of the first to become free, in spite of its having been made "the receptacle of all the people from all infected places."1299The total number of victims in the city proper during the twelve month ending the 19th December, 1665, is officially given as 9,887. When we consider that the entire population within the city walls—comprising an area of one square mile, more or less—could scarcely have reached 100,000,1300the extent[pg 414]of the calamity becomes appalling; the city was literally decimated.Naval engagement with the Dutch, June, 1666.A city loan of £100,000.Whilst the plague was raging the English fleet had remained in the Thames, leaving the Dutch masters of the sea. The opening of the new year (1666) found England engaged in a war with France, as well as with the Dutch. Louis, however, was content to leave the English and the Dutch to settle matters between themselves at sea. On the 1st June a desperate naval battle commenced off the North Foreland and continued for four days, at the end of which neither party could claim a victory. Both fleets withdrew for repairs. It was at this crisis that the "Loyal London" was hastily launched and application made to the city for a loan of £100,000. The money was readily voted, contrary to expectations.1301The Fire of London, Sept., 1666.When the last instalment (£1,500) of the loan was paid into the exchequer, the Guildhall and its surroundings were being threatened with destruction by the Great Fire,1302which, breaking out on the night of Saturday, 1st September, 1666, or early on Sunday morning, at a baker's shop in Pudding Lane, within five days reduced the greater part of the city to ashes. The king had long ago anticipated such a calamity, arising from the narrowness of the streets and the overhanging houses built for the most part of wood. More than a year before (11 April, 1665) he had written to the mayor, recorder and aldermen of the city1303warning them of the danger and recommending a[pg 415]more diligent execution of the Act for the repair of highways and sewers. He authorised them to imprison such persons as, after due warning, continued to erect buildings in contravention of the Act, and to pull the buildings down. He further desired them to open Temple Bar and the passage and gatehouse of Cheapside in St. Paul's Churchyard, as mentioned in the Act, and he would himself inspect what progress was being made in carrying out these improvements. He concluded by declaring that he had made the city his royal residence,1304and had received from it such marks of loyalty and affection as would ever make him concerned for its wealth, trade, reputation, beauty and convenience.The outbreak of the fire at first caused no uneasiness, such sights being only too common. But when no less than 300 houses had been destroyed within a few hours, and the flames, carried by a strong east wind that prevailed, threatened others, the inhabitants began to take alarm. The mayor, Sir Thomas Bludworth, was early on the scene, but he lacked decision of character and failed to keep his head. He endeavoured to carry out the king's orders by pulling down houses to prevent the fire spreading, but as often as not he was overtaken by the flames. "Lord, what can I do?" he lack-a-daisically exclaimed in answer to a message from the king; "I am spent; people will not obey me. I have been pulling down houses; but the fire overtakes us faster than we can do it."1305The inhabitants were[pg 416]too busy removing their furniture and effects to a place of safety to render much assistance to the mayor, but he found willing hands in the soldiers supplied by the king and the Duke of York, both of whom displayed great personal energy. "The Duke of York," wrote an eye-witness of the mournful scene,1306"hath wonn the hearts of the people wthhis continuall and indefatigable paynes day and night in helping to quench the fire, handing bucketts of water with as much diligence as the poorest man that did assist; if the lord maior had done as much his example might have gone far towards saveing the citty."
Letter from the king touching election of Common Council, 13 Dec., 1661.When St. Thomas's day [21 Dec]—the day for the election of a new Common Council—was approaching, the king took occasion himself to write to the Court of Aldermen warning them to "take special care and give strict orders in your several wards that a peaceable and quiet election be made, and that the choice be of such persons as are every way well affected to the established Government, both in Church and State"—otherwise he would be forced to make a change in such elections.1242Order for expurgation of city's records. 26 Feb., 1662.That the new council was favourable to the king is shown by the court passing a resolution (26 Feb., 1662) for expunging out of the city's records all acts, orders and other matters passed, made or registered either in the court of Common Council or the Court of Aldermen since the beginning of the late troubles "which savour of the disloyalty of those times and may continue the sad remembrance of them to posterity to the reproach and dishonour of this city."1243This resolution was made on the king's own suggestions, but although a committee was at once appointed to carry it out, it remained a dead letter for twenty years.[pg 399]Demand of a loan of £200,000, 7 Feb., 1662.The Common Council had previously (7 Feb.) shown its compliance by acceding to a demand for a loan of £200,000.1244But although the security offered was undeniably good, and every effort was made to get the inhabitants of the city to subscribe, no more than £60,000 or £61,000 at the most was collected by the 14th March,1245and a month later scarcely £100,000 had been subscribed. The king made no attempt to disguise his annoyance, and ordered the mayor to call a Common Council and request them to take steps for the collection of the whole sum.1246City gift to Queen Catharine, 3 June, 1662.According to Pepys, who got his information from a city alderman, the finances of the Corporation were at such a low ebb that considerable difficulty was experienced in raising so small a sum as 1,000 gold pieces and the price of a gold cup to be presented to Catharine of Braganza on her arrival in England "and that they were fain to call two or three aldermen to raise fines to make up the amount."1247The Hearth or Chimney tax, 1662.Whilst the civic authorities were vainly struggling to raise the last loan for the king, the House of Commons came to his assistance and voted him a tax of two shillings upon every chimney.1248The inquisitorial nature of the tax made it very offensive.[pg 400]Returns were to be made of the number of hearths and stoves in each dwelling by the end of May. As they did not come in as quickly as was desired an extension of time was granted until Midsummer Assizes.1249Even when sent in many of the returns were manifestly untrue. The returns made for the city of London and Bills of Mortality drew forth a remonstrance from Charles, who refused to attribute it to anything else but gross negligence or deceit.1250He was afraid lest the ill example set by London should influence the rest of the kingdom. He expressed himself as willing to bear the expense of finding two or three honest persons in each ward, if required, to join the constable in an "ocular view." But in spite of every precaution fraudulent returns continued to flow in, and the collection of the tax to be slow and precarious.1251The Act of Uniformity, 1662.The passing of the Uniformity Act1252which condemned every minister to lose his benefice unless he signified his assent to everything contained in the book of common prayer by the 24th August (1662) caused great dissatisfaction in the city—always a stronghold of Presbyterianism—and many a sad scene was witnessed in city churches on Sunday the 17th as ministers took farewell of their congregations.1253Driven from the national Church, the Presbyterians,[pg 401]like the Baptists, the Quakers and other "dissenters" formed a separate community, happy if only they were granted toleration. Many of the inhabitants of the city were already suffering confinement for attending "unlawful assemblies." On the occasion of the queen's first visit to Westminster the king gave directions to the mayor and sheriffs to release those Quakers and others who were in gaol in London and Middlesex for having been present at such assemblies, provided they professed allegiance and had not been ringleaders or preachers, "hoping thereby to reduce them to a better conformity."1254Sir John Robinson elected mayor. Michaelmas, 1662.When lord mayor's day came round Charles again viewed the pageant from a house in Cheapside. This time he was accompanied by the queen. The City supplied the royal party with refreshments as before.1255The new mayor, Sir John Robinson,1256had been a promoter of the king's restoration, and in return for his services received an augmentation of arms.1257He was a nephew of the late Archbishop Laud, and full of his own self-importance "a talking, bragging, buffle-headed fellow," Pepys calls him—boasting of his powers over his brother aldermen, but nevertheless attentive to the wants of the city.1258The reception of the Russian ambassador, 27 Nov., 1662.A few weeks latter (27 Nov.) the streets of the city again presented a gala appearance, the occasion being the reception of the Russian ambassador. For the last three winters there had been, we are told,[pg 402]scarce any frost, and the opening of the year 1662 had been so exceptionally mild as to cause apprehension of dearth and disease.1259But now, on the very day that the Russian ambassador was to pass through the city from Tower wharf, where he had landed, he was reminded of his own country by seeing the roofs of the houses covered with snow.1260At eight o'clock in the morning 500 men "apparelled in velvet coats with chains of gold, well mounted on horseback," from the several livery companies made their way to Tower Hill to escort the ambassador.1261The streets were lined with the city trained bands and the king's Lifeguards. Pepys was there of course; he rarely missed any sight. He had been disappointed at not getting a better view of Sir Harry Vane's execution, which had taken place in June.1262This time he was more fortunate. The ambassador to be sure was late, but Pepys beguiled the time with dinner. "And after I had dined"—he records in his diary1263—"I walked to the conduit in the quarrefowr, at the end of Gracious Street and Cornhill and there (the spouts thereof running very near me, upon all the people that were under it) I saw them pretty well, go by." He failed to catch sight of the ambassador himself, but was struck with the handsome appearance of the ambassador's attendants, most of whom carried hawks on their "fists" as a present to Charles. The strangeness of this sight caused the mob to jeer, upon which the diarist characteristically remarks, "but lord! to see the absurd nature of Englishmen that[pg 403]cannot forbear laughing and jeering at every thing that looks strange." Later on he makes a note of having seen the ambassador's retinue at York House engaged in a manner that does not speak well for their habits of cleanliness.1264Grant of the Inspeximus Charter by Charles II, 24 June, 1663.On the 2nd February, 1663, thefiatwent forth for the confirmation of the City's charter, "they having fulfilled the required condition of displacing four or five of the aldermen."1265The charter itself bears date the 24th June.1266It is of all the City's charters the most ample, reciting and confirming as it does the entireInspeximusCharter of Charles I, as well as the latter king's letters patent, granted in the 16th year of his reign, confirming to the mayor and citizens the offices of package and scavage.City loan of £50,000, Sept., 1663.Notwithstanding the supplies voted to him by parliament, the advances made to him by the City, and the handsome dowry he received with his wife, Charles was continually in want of money. In November, 1662, he had sold Dunkirk to the French king for £200,000, much to the disgust of the English nation. Nevertheless, his extravagance soon reduced him to want, and by the following September (1663) he was in such straits that he sent to the City to borrow the comparatively small sum of £50,000. Seeing that the City had so recently received a confirmation of its charter, it could not refuse; and the money was raised among the aldermen as being[pg 404]a speedier way than applying to the Common Council.1267The king's return to London after a progress, Oct., 1663.On the occasion of the king's return from a "great progress" in October, he was met by the mayor and aldermen and 500 members of the several livery companies, well and substantially horsed and apparelled in velvet coats and chains of gold according to custom.1268The French ambassador insulted at the lord mayor's banquet. 29 Oct., 1663.On the 29th October the new lord mayor, Sir Anthony Bateman, entered upon his mayoralty,1269with the customary procession and pageant, followed by a banquet at the Guildhall. The banquet was made the occasion of what appears on the face of it to have been a studied insult offered—not by the municipal authorities, but by the lord chancellor, the bishops and lords of the council—to the French ambassador. Whether the lord chancellor and other high officers of state arrived at the Guildhall before their time, or the French ambassador came late, one cannot say. But, however that may have been, it appears that on the latter's arrival the others had already commenced dinner, with the exception of the mayor himself and the municipal authorities, who had not yet taken their places. On the ambassador approaching the table where the lords sat at dinner, intending, as he informed the French king by letter,1270to rally them on their[pg 405]good appetite, he met with such a cold reception that he left the hall to go home and dine by himself, in spite of every endeavour on the part of the civic officials to smooth matters over. Two hours later the sheriffs presented themselves at the ambassador's house, accompanied by a deputation from the Common Council, for the purpose of offering excuses for the recentcontretemps. The excuses they had to offer were, however, of the lamest character, as the ambassador took care to show. Firstly, they said they had been taken by surprise. This was manifestly false, as the ambassador attended at the Guildhall upon invitation. They next pleaded ignorance and incapacity in receiving one of so high degree, when the ambassador reminded them that they had recently done honour to the Spanish ambassador; and lastly they endeavoured to throw the whole of the blame upon the master of the ceremonies. This excuse, however, like the others, was easily shown to be false, inasmuch as that official was personally engaged in escorting the ambassador to the Guildhall and had nothing to do with the banquet. The deputation thereupon withdrew, being all the more discomforted by the excess of courtesy shown to them by the ambassador, who himself insisted on escorting them to the door (je leur dis que je voulois passer plus avant, et payer un assez mauvais traitement par une civilité extraordinaire).State visit of the lord mayor to the French ambassador, 11 Nov.On the 11th November the lord mayor went in state to pay a visit to the ambassador and to beg his forgiveness. Not being able to speak French himself, he took with him an interpreter, who explained to the ambassador on his behalf that unless he (the[pg 406]ambassador) would set the example of forgiveness eternal shame would rest upon the citizens and they would incur the displeasure of the king and nation. Thereupon the ambassador showed himself satisfied and attended the lord mayor to his carriage with marked courtesy.1271War declared, against the Dutch, 22 Feb., 1665.In view of a war with the Dutch, which seemed inevitable, owing to their interference with English trade, Charles began taking steps to replenish his exhausted exchequer. In June and again in October (1664) he borrowed from the city sums of £100,000.1272In November the Commons voted him a sum of two millions and a half, a larger supply than any that had ever yet been granted to a king of England, and the thanks of both Houses were tendered to the city for its assistance.1273On the 22nd February, 1665, war was formally declared. Two heralds, in their coats of arms, with four mace-bearers, nine trumpeters and two troops of horse, assembled at Westminster, where the trumpet sounded and the declaration was read amid shouts of joy. "Thence they went to Temple Bar, where the lord mayor and aldermen, in scarlet gowns on horse-back, conducted them to Temple Gate over against Chancery[pg 407]Lane, where it was read with more acclamation than before, the Horseguards drawing their swords and clattering them; then again in Cheapside and before the Royal Exchange with great demonstration of joy and sounding of trumpets, after which many nobles of the court came into the city to dine with the lord mayor."1274A day for a public fast was appointed to invoke the Almighty's blessing upon the ignominious war about to commence, and all commercial intercourse with the States was interdicted.1275The loss of the ship "The London."At this juncture an unfortunate accident occurred which deprived the fleet of one of its most valuable ships—the ship known as "The London," in which Sir John Lawson was about to put to sea—and caused the death of nearly 300 seamen. "The London" was being brought round from Chatham to the Hope, where she was to take on board her commander, when for some unaccountable reason she blew up and became a total wreck, all her ordnance, numbering 80 brass pieces, going to the bottom. The news of the disaster caused much excitement in the city.1276The City's offer to replace her.The Common Council (17 March) immediately offered its services to the king, and engaged to build another ship of the same tonnage to supply the place of the one that was lost. The king gladly availed himself of the offer of the City, promising "to retain the same in memory for the advantage of this royal chamber upon all occasions."1277Pepys's acquaintance[pg 408]with the jobbery of the day, more especially in connection with naval matters, had his misgivings about the City's offer. It was a handsome offer he acknowledged, "and if well managed might be done," but he had his fears lest the work should be put into ill hands.1278The work was put out to tender, but the final selection of a contractor was left to the king.1279Precepts were issued to the livery companies to "excite and persuade" their members in every possible way to subscribe to the undertaking.1280The money, however, was very slow in coming in, no more than £4,200 having been subscribed by May, 1666, when at least £10,000 was estimated to be required.1281Nor is this to be wondered at when it was a matter of public notoriety that the money voted expressly by parliament for fitting out a navy had been uselessly squandered. It was said at the time, although not credited by all, that many showed a willingness to advance a large sum of money if the Duke of York would guarantee its being employed on the navy by himself becoming treasurer of the fund; the Duke declined and the offers fell through.1282The "Loyal London" launched, 10 June, 1666.Pepys's misgivings about the City's new ship, called after its predecessor "Loyal London," appear to have been justified. The ship had to be launched[pg 409]in an unfinished state, and when her guns came to be tried every one of them burst. And yet the vessel was commended by Sir William Coventry, a navy commissioner and secretary to the Duke of York, admiral of the fleet, as "the best in the world, large and small."1283The Duke of York's victory over the Dutch fleet, 3 June, 1665.At the outset of the war the British fleet was not unattended with success. On the 3rd June, 1665, the Duke of York gained a signal victory over Opdam, admiral of the Dutch fleet, in an action fought off the coast of Suffolk. The report of the guns could be frequently heard on the Thames and caused much excitement in the city,1284to allay which the king caused a letter to be despatched to the lord mayor as soon as possible, giving details of the engagement and the losses on either side, and assuring the citizens of the safety of the Duke of York.1285Tuesday the 20th was appointed a day of public thanksgiving.1286Precautions against the plague, 1663-1664.Such a victory at another time would have been hailed with unbounded joy. As it was the enthusiasm of the citizens was damped by the presence among them of the most awful scourge that had ever yet visited the city. Towards the close of 1663 there had been rumours of an outbreak of plague on the continent, and more especially at Amsterdam and Hamburgh. The king communicated with the lord[pg 410]mayor to learn what measures had formerly been taken in like case to prevent the spread of infection. It was suggested by the Court of Aldermen that, after the custom of other countries, vessels coming from infected parts should perform quarantine at Gravesend or the neighbourhood, where a lazaretto should be established. The proposal was accepted,1287and to these precautions, taken on the instigation of the city authorities, was largely due the immunity from infection which the city enjoyed for the next fifteen months. In June, 1664, the lords of the council adopted similar precautions as their own and wrote to the lord mayor, in view of the increase of the plague in the Netherlands, desiring him "by all waies and meanes possible to be careful that no person or persons, goods or merchandises whatsoever be permitted to be received or harboured within the citty of London which come from Holland, Zealand or any other places infected with the plague, without certificates from the farmers of the customs or their officers that they have performed their quarantain."1288The Plague of 1665.The plague made its first appearance in the city in June, 1665. The atmosphere had been very sultry—the 7th June being recorded by Pepys as the hottest day he had ever felt in his life—and the heat caused the infection to spread among the crowded population of the city with amazing rapidity. Many[pg 411]followed the example set by the king and court and fled to the country.1289The lord mayor, however, stuck to his post, and the aldermen were forbidden to leave the city without giving notice of some reasonable cause, those who had already absented themselves being ordered to return.1290The good example thus set was unhappily not followed by the city rectors. Many of them, to their shame, forsook their cures in abject fear, leaving their parishioners to die without the consolations of the Church, whilst their pulpits were seized upon by Presbyterian ministers, who embraced the opportunity of publicly declaiming against the sins of the court and the ill usage to which they had been compelled to submit.1291The first Wednesday of every month was appointed to be kept as a solemn fast day of humiliation until it should please God to put an end to the sickness.1292Schools were closed and inns and taverns kept open only for citizens. The streets were cleansed and kept free from vagrant dogs—always suspected of spreading infection. Nevertheless, the death rate rapidly increased. Pest-houses or hospitals were opened and the best medical aid supplied, whilst subscriptions were set on foot for the benefit of the poor.1293The last week of August claimed 700 victims within the city's walls, whilst in the week ending the 19th September no less than 1,189—the highest number[pg 412]recorded perished within the same limited area.1294The number of deaths that occurred outside the city, but within its liberties, was often three or four times larger than of those within the city's walls. Thus for the week last mentioned the number of deaths from the plague alone in parishes outside the city, but within its liberties, is returned in the Bills of Mortality as having exceeded 3,000.1295The continued increase in the number of deaths in the first half of September was a matter of surprise, for cold weather had set in and the lord mayor had caused fires to be lighted in the open thoroughfares for the benefit of the poor that lay starving in the streets, as well as (perhaps) with the view of purifying the atmosphere.1296When the plague was at its height deaths followed in such rapid succession that the work of burying its victims had to be carried on night and day. Even then there was only time to huddle the corpses together in afosse commune, and to cover them with a scanty supply of earth. Small wonder if complaints were made to the Court of Aldermen of noisome smells arising from the churchyard of St. Mary's Bethlem. The court immediately (5 Sept.) gave orders for remedying the evil. No more pits were to be dug, but each corpse was to occupy a separate grave, fresh mould was to be laid over places complained of, and bones and coffin-boards found above ground were to be interred in the middle of the churchyard.1297[pg 413]The worst was now over. From the middle of September the number of deaths in the city began to decrease almost as rapidly as they had risen. In the first week in November there was a sudden increase on the return of the previous week, but in the following week there was again a fall, and this continued until in the first week of December the deaths in the city numbered only twenty-four. Nevertheless it was thought advisable to prohibit the usual entertainments which took place after the wardmote elections on St. Thomas's day, in order to minimise the risk of infection.1298The mayor was justified in taking this precaution, for the very next week the number of deaths more than doubled itself (57). That the city of London was at this time one of the healthiest places in the kingdom is shown by the fact that just as it was one of the last places attacked by the plague, so it was one of the first to become free, in spite of its having been made "the receptacle of all the people from all infected places."1299The total number of victims in the city proper during the twelve month ending the 19th December, 1665, is officially given as 9,887. When we consider that the entire population within the city walls—comprising an area of one square mile, more or less—could scarcely have reached 100,000,1300the extent[pg 414]of the calamity becomes appalling; the city was literally decimated.Naval engagement with the Dutch, June, 1666.A city loan of £100,000.Whilst the plague was raging the English fleet had remained in the Thames, leaving the Dutch masters of the sea. The opening of the new year (1666) found England engaged in a war with France, as well as with the Dutch. Louis, however, was content to leave the English and the Dutch to settle matters between themselves at sea. On the 1st June a desperate naval battle commenced off the North Foreland and continued for four days, at the end of which neither party could claim a victory. Both fleets withdrew for repairs. It was at this crisis that the "Loyal London" was hastily launched and application made to the city for a loan of £100,000. The money was readily voted, contrary to expectations.1301The Fire of London, Sept., 1666.When the last instalment (£1,500) of the loan was paid into the exchequer, the Guildhall and its surroundings were being threatened with destruction by the Great Fire,1302which, breaking out on the night of Saturday, 1st September, 1666, or early on Sunday morning, at a baker's shop in Pudding Lane, within five days reduced the greater part of the city to ashes. The king had long ago anticipated such a calamity, arising from the narrowness of the streets and the overhanging houses built for the most part of wood. More than a year before (11 April, 1665) he had written to the mayor, recorder and aldermen of the city1303warning them of the danger and recommending a[pg 415]more diligent execution of the Act for the repair of highways and sewers. He authorised them to imprison such persons as, after due warning, continued to erect buildings in contravention of the Act, and to pull the buildings down. He further desired them to open Temple Bar and the passage and gatehouse of Cheapside in St. Paul's Churchyard, as mentioned in the Act, and he would himself inspect what progress was being made in carrying out these improvements. He concluded by declaring that he had made the city his royal residence,1304and had received from it such marks of loyalty and affection as would ever make him concerned for its wealth, trade, reputation, beauty and convenience.The outbreak of the fire at first caused no uneasiness, such sights being only too common. But when no less than 300 houses had been destroyed within a few hours, and the flames, carried by a strong east wind that prevailed, threatened others, the inhabitants began to take alarm. The mayor, Sir Thomas Bludworth, was early on the scene, but he lacked decision of character and failed to keep his head. He endeavoured to carry out the king's orders by pulling down houses to prevent the fire spreading, but as often as not he was overtaken by the flames. "Lord, what can I do?" he lack-a-daisically exclaimed in answer to a message from the king; "I am spent; people will not obey me. I have been pulling down houses; but the fire overtakes us faster than we can do it."1305The inhabitants were[pg 416]too busy removing their furniture and effects to a place of safety to render much assistance to the mayor, but he found willing hands in the soldiers supplied by the king and the Duke of York, both of whom displayed great personal energy. "The Duke of York," wrote an eye-witness of the mournful scene,1306"hath wonn the hearts of the people wthhis continuall and indefatigable paynes day and night in helping to quench the fire, handing bucketts of water with as much diligence as the poorest man that did assist; if the lord maior had done as much his example might have gone far towards saveing the citty."
Letter from the king touching election of Common Council, 13 Dec., 1661.When St. Thomas's day [21 Dec]—the day for the election of a new Common Council—was approaching, the king took occasion himself to write to the Court of Aldermen warning them to "take special care and give strict orders in your several wards that a peaceable and quiet election be made, and that the choice be of such persons as are every way well affected to the established Government, both in Church and State"—otherwise he would be forced to make a change in such elections.1242Order for expurgation of city's records. 26 Feb., 1662.That the new council was favourable to the king is shown by the court passing a resolution (26 Feb., 1662) for expunging out of the city's records all acts, orders and other matters passed, made or registered either in the court of Common Council or the Court of Aldermen since the beginning of the late troubles "which savour of the disloyalty of those times and may continue the sad remembrance of them to posterity to the reproach and dishonour of this city."1243This resolution was made on the king's own suggestions, but although a committee was at once appointed to carry it out, it remained a dead letter for twenty years.[pg 399]Demand of a loan of £200,000, 7 Feb., 1662.The Common Council had previously (7 Feb.) shown its compliance by acceding to a demand for a loan of £200,000.1244But although the security offered was undeniably good, and every effort was made to get the inhabitants of the city to subscribe, no more than £60,000 or £61,000 at the most was collected by the 14th March,1245and a month later scarcely £100,000 had been subscribed. The king made no attempt to disguise his annoyance, and ordered the mayor to call a Common Council and request them to take steps for the collection of the whole sum.1246City gift to Queen Catharine, 3 June, 1662.According to Pepys, who got his information from a city alderman, the finances of the Corporation were at such a low ebb that considerable difficulty was experienced in raising so small a sum as 1,000 gold pieces and the price of a gold cup to be presented to Catharine of Braganza on her arrival in England "and that they were fain to call two or three aldermen to raise fines to make up the amount."1247The Hearth or Chimney tax, 1662.Whilst the civic authorities were vainly struggling to raise the last loan for the king, the House of Commons came to his assistance and voted him a tax of two shillings upon every chimney.1248The inquisitorial nature of the tax made it very offensive.[pg 400]Returns were to be made of the number of hearths and stoves in each dwelling by the end of May. As they did not come in as quickly as was desired an extension of time was granted until Midsummer Assizes.1249Even when sent in many of the returns were manifestly untrue. The returns made for the city of London and Bills of Mortality drew forth a remonstrance from Charles, who refused to attribute it to anything else but gross negligence or deceit.1250He was afraid lest the ill example set by London should influence the rest of the kingdom. He expressed himself as willing to bear the expense of finding two or three honest persons in each ward, if required, to join the constable in an "ocular view." But in spite of every precaution fraudulent returns continued to flow in, and the collection of the tax to be slow and precarious.1251The Act of Uniformity, 1662.The passing of the Uniformity Act1252which condemned every minister to lose his benefice unless he signified his assent to everything contained in the book of common prayer by the 24th August (1662) caused great dissatisfaction in the city—always a stronghold of Presbyterianism—and many a sad scene was witnessed in city churches on Sunday the 17th as ministers took farewell of their congregations.1253Driven from the national Church, the Presbyterians,[pg 401]like the Baptists, the Quakers and other "dissenters" formed a separate community, happy if only they were granted toleration. Many of the inhabitants of the city were already suffering confinement for attending "unlawful assemblies." On the occasion of the queen's first visit to Westminster the king gave directions to the mayor and sheriffs to release those Quakers and others who were in gaol in London and Middlesex for having been present at such assemblies, provided they professed allegiance and had not been ringleaders or preachers, "hoping thereby to reduce them to a better conformity."1254Sir John Robinson elected mayor. Michaelmas, 1662.When lord mayor's day came round Charles again viewed the pageant from a house in Cheapside. This time he was accompanied by the queen. The City supplied the royal party with refreshments as before.1255The new mayor, Sir John Robinson,1256had been a promoter of the king's restoration, and in return for his services received an augmentation of arms.1257He was a nephew of the late Archbishop Laud, and full of his own self-importance "a talking, bragging, buffle-headed fellow," Pepys calls him—boasting of his powers over his brother aldermen, but nevertheless attentive to the wants of the city.1258The reception of the Russian ambassador, 27 Nov., 1662.A few weeks latter (27 Nov.) the streets of the city again presented a gala appearance, the occasion being the reception of the Russian ambassador. For the last three winters there had been, we are told,[pg 402]scarce any frost, and the opening of the year 1662 had been so exceptionally mild as to cause apprehension of dearth and disease.1259But now, on the very day that the Russian ambassador was to pass through the city from Tower wharf, where he had landed, he was reminded of his own country by seeing the roofs of the houses covered with snow.1260At eight o'clock in the morning 500 men "apparelled in velvet coats with chains of gold, well mounted on horseback," from the several livery companies made their way to Tower Hill to escort the ambassador.1261The streets were lined with the city trained bands and the king's Lifeguards. Pepys was there of course; he rarely missed any sight. He had been disappointed at not getting a better view of Sir Harry Vane's execution, which had taken place in June.1262This time he was more fortunate. The ambassador to be sure was late, but Pepys beguiled the time with dinner. "And after I had dined"—he records in his diary1263—"I walked to the conduit in the quarrefowr, at the end of Gracious Street and Cornhill and there (the spouts thereof running very near me, upon all the people that were under it) I saw them pretty well, go by." He failed to catch sight of the ambassador himself, but was struck with the handsome appearance of the ambassador's attendants, most of whom carried hawks on their "fists" as a present to Charles. The strangeness of this sight caused the mob to jeer, upon which the diarist characteristically remarks, "but lord! to see the absurd nature of Englishmen that[pg 403]cannot forbear laughing and jeering at every thing that looks strange." Later on he makes a note of having seen the ambassador's retinue at York House engaged in a manner that does not speak well for their habits of cleanliness.1264Grant of the Inspeximus Charter by Charles II, 24 June, 1663.On the 2nd February, 1663, thefiatwent forth for the confirmation of the City's charter, "they having fulfilled the required condition of displacing four or five of the aldermen."1265The charter itself bears date the 24th June.1266It is of all the City's charters the most ample, reciting and confirming as it does the entireInspeximusCharter of Charles I, as well as the latter king's letters patent, granted in the 16th year of his reign, confirming to the mayor and citizens the offices of package and scavage.City loan of £50,000, Sept., 1663.Notwithstanding the supplies voted to him by parliament, the advances made to him by the City, and the handsome dowry he received with his wife, Charles was continually in want of money. In November, 1662, he had sold Dunkirk to the French king for £200,000, much to the disgust of the English nation. Nevertheless, his extravagance soon reduced him to want, and by the following September (1663) he was in such straits that he sent to the City to borrow the comparatively small sum of £50,000. Seeing that the City had so recently received a confirmation of its charter, it could not refuse; and the money was raised among the aldermen as being[pg 404]a speedier way than applying to the Common Council.1267The king's return to London after a progress, Oct., 1663.On the occasion of the king's return from a "great progress" in October, he was met by the mayor and aldermen and 500 members of the several livery companies, well and substantially horsed and apparelled in velvet coats and chains of gold according to custom.1268The French ambassador insulted at the lord mayor's banquet. 29 Oct., 1663.On the 29th October the new lord mayor, Sir Anthony Bateman, entered upon his mayoralty,1269with the customary procession and pageant, followed by a banquet at the Guildhall. The banquet was made the occasion of what appears on the face of it to have been a studied insult offered—not by the municipal authorities, but by the lord chancellor, the bishops and lords of the council—to the French ambassador. Whether the lord chancellor and other high officers of state arrived at the Guildhall before their time, or the French ambassador came late, one cannot say. But, however that may have been, it appears that on the latter's arrival the others had already commenced dinner, with the exception of the mayor himself and the municipal authorities, who had not yet taken their places. On the ambassador approaching the table where the lords sat at dinner, intending, as he informed the French king by letter,1270to rally them on their[pg 405]good appetite, he met with such a cold reception that he left the hall to go home and dine by himself, in spite of every endeavour on the part of the civic officials to smooth matters over. Two hours later the sheriffs presented themselves at the ambassador's house, accompanied by a deputation from the Common Council, for the purpose of offering excuses for the recentcontretemps. The excuses they had to offer were, however, of the lamest character, as the ambassador took care to show. Firstly, they said they had been taken by surprise. This was manifestly false, as the ambassador attended at the Guildhall upon invitation. They next pleaded ignorance and incapacity in receiving one of so high degree, when the ambassador reminded them that they had recently done honour to the Spanish ambassador; and lastly they endeavoured to throw the whole of the blame upon the master of the ceremonies. This excuse, however, like the others, was easily shown to be false, inasmuch as that official was personally engaged in escorting the ambassador to the Guildhall and had nothing to do with the banquet. The deputation thereupon withdrew, being all the more discomforted by the excess of courtesy shown to them by the ambassador, who himself insisted on escorting them to the door (je leur dis que je voulois passer plus avant, et payer un assez mauvais traitement par une civilité extraordinaire).State visit of the lord mayor to the French ambassador, 11 Nov.On the 11th November the lord mayor went in state to pay a visit to the ambassador and to beg his forgiveness. Not being able to speak French himself, he took with him an interpreter, who explained to the ambassador on his behalf that unless he (the[pg 406]ambassador) would set the example of forgiveness eternal shame would rest upon the citizens and they would incur the displeasure of the king and nation. Thereupon the ambassador showed himself satisfied and attended the lord mayor to his carriage with marked courtesy.1271War declared, against the Dutch, 22 Feb., 1665.In view of a war with the Dutch, which seemed inevitable, owing to their interference with English trade, Charles began taking steps to replenish his exhausted exchequer. In June and again in October (1664) he borrowed from the city sums of £100,000.1272In November the Commons voted him a sum of two millions and a half, a larger supply than any that had ever yet been granted to a king of England, and the thanks of both Houses were tendered to the city for its assistance.1273On the 22nd February, 1665, war was formally declared. Two heralds, in their coats of arms, with four mace-bearers, nine trumpeters and two troops of horse, assembled at Westminster, where the trumpet sounded and the declaration was read amid shouts of joy. "Thence they went to Temple Bar, where the lord mayor and aldermen, in scarlet gowns on horse-back, conducted them to Temple Gate over against Chancery[pg 407]Lane, where it was read with more acclamation than before, the Horseguards drawing their swords and clattering them; then again in Cheapside and before the Royal Exchange with great demonstration of joy and sounding of trumpets, after which many nobles of the court came into the city to dine with the lord mayor."1274A day for a public fast was appointed to invoke the Almighty's blessing upon the ignominious war about to commence, and all commercial intercourse with the States was interdicted.1275The loss of the ship "The London."At this juncture an unfortunate accident occurred which deprived the fleet of one of its most valuable ships—the ship known as "The London," in which Sir John Lawson was about to put to sea—and caused the death of nearly 300 seamen. "The London" was being brought round from Chatham to the Hope, where she was to take on board her commander, when for some unaccountable reason she blew up and became a total wreck, all her ordnance, numbering 80 brass pieces, going to the bottom. The news of the disaster caused much excitement in the city.1276The City's offer to replace her.The Common Council (17 March) immediately offered its services to the king, and engaged to build another ship of the same tonnage to supply the place of the one that was lost. The king gladly availed himself of the offer of the City, promising "to retain the same in memory for the advantage of this royal chamber upon all occasions."1277Pepys's acquaintance[pg 408]with the jobbery of the day, more especially in connection with naval matters, had his misgivings about the City's offer. It was a handsome offer he acknowledged, "and if well managed might be done," but he had his fears lest the work should be put into ill hands.1278The work was put out to tender, but the final selection of a contractor was left to the king.1279Precepts were issued to the livery companies to "excite and persuade" their members in every possible way to subscribe to the undertaking.1280The money, however, was very slow in coming in, no more than £4,200 having been subscribed by May, 1666, when at least £10,000 was estimated to be required.1281Nor is this to be wondered at when it was a matter of public notoriety that the money voted expressly by parliament for fitting out a navy had been uselessly squandered. It was said at the time, although not credited by all, that many showed a willingness to advance a large sum of money if the Duke of York would guarantee its being employed on the navy by himself becoming treasurer of the fund; the Duke declined and the offers fell through.1282The "Loyal London" launched, 10 June, 1666.Pepys's misgivings about the City's new ship, called after its predecessor "Loyal London," appear to have been justified. The ship had to be launched[pg 409]in an unfinished state, and when her guns came to be tried every one of them burst. And yet the vessel was commended by Sir William Coventry, a navy commissioner and secretary to the Duke of York, admiral of the fleet, as "the best in the world, large and small."1283The Duke of York's victory over the Dutch fleet, 3 June, 1665.At the outset of the war the British fleet was not unattended with success. On the 3rd June, 1665, the Duke of York gained a signal victory over Opdam, admiral of the Dutch fleet, in an action fought off the coast of Suffolk. The report of the guns could be frequently heard on the Thames and caused much excitement in the city,1284to allay which the king caused a letter to be despatched to the lord mayor as soon as possible, giving details of the engagement and the losses on either side, and assuring the citizens of the safety of the Duke of York.1285Tuesday the 20th was appointed a day of public thanksgiving.1286Precautions against the plague, 1663-1664.Such a victory at another time would have been hailed with unbounded joy. As it was the enthusiasm of the citizens was damped by the presence among them of the most awful scourge that had ever yet visited the city. Towards the close of 1663 there had been rumours of an outbreak of plague on the continent, and more especially at Amsterdam and Hamburgh. The king communicated with the lord[pg 410]mayor to learn what measures had formerly been taken in like case to prevent the spread of infection. It was suggested by the Court of Aldermen that, after the custom of other countries, vessels coming from infected parts should perform quarantine at Gravesend or the neighbourhood, where a lazaretto should be established. The proposal was accepted,1287and to these precautions, taken on the instigation of the city authorities, was largely due the immunity from infection which the city enjoyed for the next fifteen months. In June, 1664, the lords of the council adopted similar precautions as their own and wrote to the lord mayor, in view of the increase of the plague in the Netherlands, desiring him "by all waies and meanes possible to be careful that no person or persons, goods or merchandises whatsoever be permitted to be received or harboured within the citty of London which come from Holland, Zealand or any other places infected with the plague, without certificates from the farmers of the customs or their officers that they have performed their quarantain."1288The Plague of 1665.The plague made its first appearance in the city in June, 1665. The atmosphere had been very sultry—the 7th June being recorded by Pepys as the hottest day he had ever felt in his life—and the heat caused the infection to spread among the crowded population of the city with amazing rapidity. Many[pg 411]followed the example set by the king and court and fled to the country.1289The lord mayor, however, stuck to his post, and the aldermen were forbidden to leave the city without giving notice of some reasonable cause, those who had already absented themselves being ordered to return.1290The good example thus set was unhappily not followed by the city rectors. Many of them, to their shame, forsook their cures in abject fear, leaving their parishioners to die without the consolations of the Church, whilst their pulpits were seized upon by Presbyterian ministers, who embraced the opportunity of publicly declaiming against the sins of the court and the ill usage to which they had been compelled to submit.1291The first Wednesday of every month was appointed to be kept as a solemn fast day of humiliation until it should please God to put an end to the sickness.1292Schools were closed and inns and taverns kept open only for citizens. The streets were cleansed and kept free from vagrant dogs—always suspected of spreading infection. Nevertheless, the death rate rapidly increased. Pest-houses or hospitals were opened and the best medical aid supplied, whilst subscriptions were set on foot for the benefit of the poor.1293The last week of August claimed 700 victims within the city's walls, whilst in the week ending the 19th September no less than 1,189—the highest number[pg 412]recorded perished within the same limited area.1294The number of deaths that occurred outside the city, but within its liberties, was often three or four times larger than of those within the city's walls. Thus for the week last mentioned the number of deaths from the plague alone in parishes outside the city, but within its liberties, is returned in the Bills of Mortality as having exceeded 3,000.1295The continued increase in the number of deaths in the first half of September was a matter of surprise, for cold weather had set in and the lord mayor had caused fires to be lighted in the open thoroughfares for the benefit of the poor that lay starving in the streets, as well as (perhaps) with the view of purifying the atmosphere.1296When the plague was at its height deaths followed in such rapid succession that the work of burying its victims had to be carried on night and day. Even then there was only time to huddle the corpses together in afosse commune, and to cover them with a scanty supply of earth. Small wonder if complaints were made to the Court of Aldermen of noisome smells arising from the churchyard of St. Mary's Bethlem. The court immediately (5 Sept.) gave orders for remedying the evil. No more pits were to be dug, but each corpse was to occupy a separate grave, fresh mould was to be laid over places complained of, and bones and coffin-boards found above ground were to be interred in the middle of the churchyard.1297[pg 413]The worst was now over. From the middle of September the number of deaths in the city began to decrease almost as rapidly as they had risen. In the first week in November there was a sudden increase on the return of the previous week, but in the following week there was again a fall, and this continued until in the first week of December the deaths in the city numbered only twenty-four. Nevertheless it was thought advisable to prohibit the usual entertainments which took place after the wardmote elections on St. Thomas's day, in order to minimise the risk of infection.1298The mayor was justified in taking this precaution, for the very next week the number of deaths more than doubled itself (57). That the city of London was at this time one of the healthiest places in the kingdom is shown by the fact that just as it was one of the last places attacked by the plague, so it was one of the first to become free, in spite of its having been made "the receptacle of all the people from all infected places."1299The total number of victims in the city proper during the twelve month ending the 19th December, 1665, is officially given as 9,887. When we consider that the entire population within the city walls—comprising an area of one square mile, more or less—could scarcely have reached 100,000,1300the extent[pg 414]of the calamity becomes appalling; the city was literally decimated.Naval engagement with the Dutch, June, 1666.A city loan of £100,000.Whilst the plague was raging the English fleet had remained in the Thames, leaving the Dutch masters of the sea. The opening of the new year (1666) found England engaged in a war with France, as well as with the Dutch. Louis, however, was content to leave the English and the Dutch to settle matters between themselves at sea. On the 1st June a desperate naval battle commenced off the North Foreland and continued for four days, at the end of which neither party could claim a victory. Both fleets withdrew for repairs. It was at this crisis that the "Loyal London" was hastily launched and application made to the city for a loan of £100,000. The money was readily voted, contrary to expectations.1301The Fire of London, Sept., 1666.When the last instalment (£1,500) of the loan was paid into the exchequer, the Guildhall and its surroundings were being threatened with destruction by the Great Fire,1302which, breaking out on the night of Saturday, 1st September, 1666, or early on Sunday morning, at a baker's shop in Pudding Lane, within five days reduced the greater part of the city to ashes. The king had long ago anticipated such a calamity, arising from the narrowness of the streets and the overhanging houses built for the most part of wood. More than a year before (11 April, 1665) he had written to the mayor, recorder and aldermen of the city1303warning them of the danger and recommending a[pg 415]more diligent execution of the Act for the repair of highways and sewers. He authorised them to imprison such persons as, after due warning, continued to erect buildings in contravention of the Act, and to pull the buildings down. He further desired them to open Temple Bar and the passage and gatehouse of Cheapside in St. Paul's Churchyard, as mentioned in the Act, and he would himself inspect what progress was being made in carrying out these improvements. He concluded by declaring that he had made the city his royal residence,1304and had received from it such marks of loyalty and affection as would ever make him concerned for its wealth, trade, reputation, beauty and convenience.The outbreak of the fire at first caused no uneasiness, such sights being only too common. But when no less than 300 houses had been destroyed within a few hours, and the flames, carried by a strong east wind that prevailed, threatened others, the inhabitants began to take alarm. The mayor, Sir Thomas Bludworth, was early on the scene, but he lacked decision of character and failed to keep his head. He endeavoured to carry out the king's orders by pulling down houses to prevent the fire spreading, but as often as not he was overtaken by the flames. "Lord, what can I do?" he lack-a-daisically exclaimed in answer to a message from the king; "I am spent; people will not obey me. I have been pulling down houses; but the fire overtakes us faster than we can do it."1305The inhabitants were[pg 416]too busy removing their furniture and effects to a place of safety to render much assistance to the mayor, but he found willing hands in the soldiers supplied by the king and the Duke of York, both of whom displayed great personal energy. "The Duke of York," wrote an eye-witness of the mournful scene,1306"hath wonn the hearts of the people wthhis continuall and indefatigable paynes day and night in helping to quench the fire, handing bucketts of water with as much diligence as the poorest man that did assist; if the lord maior had done as much his example might have gone far towards saveing the citty."
Letter from the king touching election of Common Council, 13 Dec., 1661.When St. Thomas's day [21 Dec]—the day for the election of a new Common Council—was approaching, the king took occasion himself to write to the Court of Aldermen warning them to "take special care and give strict orders in your several wards that a peaceable and quiet election be made, and that the choice be of such persons as are every way well affected to the established Government, both in Church and State"—otherwise he would be forced to make a change in such elections.1242Order for expurgation of city's records. 26 Feb., 1662.That the new council was favourable to the king is shown by the court passing a resolution (26 Feb., 1662) for expunging out of the city's records all acts, orders and other matters passed, made or registered either in the court of Common Council or the Court of Aldermen since the beginning of the late troubles "which savour of the disloyalty of those times and may continue the sad remembrance of them to posterity to the reproach and dishonour of this city."1243This resolution was made on the king's own suggestions, but although a committee was at once appointed to carry it out, it remained a dead letter for twenty years.[pg 399]Demand of a loan of £200,000, 7 Feb., 1662.The Common Council had previously (7 Feb.) shown its compliance by acceding to a demand for a loan of £200,000.1244But although the security offered was undeniably good, and every effort was made to get the inhabitants of the city to subscribe, no more than £60,000 or £61,000 at the most was collected by the 14th March,1245and a month later scarcely £100,000 had been subscribed. The king made no attempt to disguise his annoyance, and ordered the mayor to call a Common Council and request them to take steps for the collection of the whole sum.1246City gift to Queen Catharine, 3 June, 1662.According to Pepys, who got his information from a city alderman, the finances of the Corporation were at such a low ebb that considerable difficulty was experienced in raising so small a sum as 1,000 gold pieces and the price of a gold cup to be presented to Catharine of Braganza on her arrival in England "and that they were fain to call two or three aldermen to raise fines to make up the amount."1247The Hearth or Chimney tax, 1662.Whilst the civic authorities were vainly struggling to raise the last loan for the king, the House of Commons came to his assistance and voted him a tax of two shillings upon every chimney.1248The inquisitorial nature of the tax made it very offensive.[pg 400]Returns were to be made of the number of hearths and stoves in each dwelling by the end of May. As they did not come in as quickly as was desired an extension of time was granted until Midsummer Assizes.1249Even when sent in many of the returns were manifestly untrue. The returns made for the city of London and Bills of Mortality drew forth a remonstrance from Charles, who refused to attribute it to anything else but gross negligence or deceit.1250He was afraid lest the ill example set by London should influence the rest of the kingdom. He expressed himself as willing to bear the expense of finding two or three honest persons in each ward, if required, to join the constable in an "ocular view." But in spite of every precaution fraudulent returns continued to flow in, and the collection of the tax to be slow and precarious.1251The Act of Uniformity, 1662.The passing of the Uniformity Act1252which condemned every minister to lose his benefice unless he signified his assent to everything contained in the book of common prayer by the 24th August (1662) caused great dissatisfaction in the city—always a stronghold of Presbyterianism—and many a sad scene was witnessed in city churches on Sunday the 17th as ministers took farewell of their congregations.1253Driven from the national Church, the Presbyterians,[pg 401]like the Baptists, the Quakers and other "dissenters" formed a separate community, happy if only they were granted toleration. Many of the inhabitants of the city were already suffering confinement for attending "unlawful assemblies." On the occasion of the queen's first visit to Westminster the king gave directions to the mayor and sheriffs to release those Quakers and others who were in gaol in London and Middlesex for having been present at such assemblies, provided they professed allegiance and had not been ringleaders or preachers, "hoping thereby to reduce them to a better conformity."1254Sir John Robinson elected mayor. Michaelmas, 1662.When lord mayor's day came round Charles again viewed the pageant from a house in Cheapside. This time he was accompanied by the queen. The City supplied the royal party with refreshments as before.1255The new mayor, Sir John Robinson,1256had been a promoter of the king's restoration, and in return for his services received an augmentation of arms.1257He was a nephew of the late Archbishop Laud, and full of his own self-importance "a talking, bragging, buffle-headed fellow," Pepys calls him—boasting of his powers over his brother aldermen, but nevertheless attentive to the wants of the city.1258The reception of the Russian ambassador, 27 Nov., 1662.A few weeks latter (27 Nov.) the streets of the city again presented a gala appearance, the occasion being the reception of the Russian ambassador. For the last three winters there had been, we are told,[pg 402]scarce any frost, and the opening of the year 1662 had been so exceptionally mild as to cause apprehension of dearth and disease.1259But now, on the very day that the Russian ambassador was to pass through the city from Tower wharf, where he had landed, he was reminded of his own country by seeing the roofs of the houses covered with snow.1260At eight o'clock in the morning 500 men "apparelled in velvet coats with chains of gold, well mounted on horseback," from the several livery companies made their way to Tower Hill to escort the ambassador.1261The streets were lined with the city trained bands and the king's Lifeguards. Pepys was there of course; he rarely missed any sight. He had been disappointed at not getting a better view of Sir Harry Vane's execution, which had taken place in June.1262This time he was more fortunate. The ambassador to be sure was late, but Pepys beguiled the time with dinner. "And after I had dined"—he records in his diary1263—"I walked to the conduit in the quarrefowr, at the end of Gracious Street and Cornhill and there (the spouts thereof running very near me, upon all the people that were under it) I saw them pretty well, go by." He failed to catch sight of the ambassador himself, but was struck with the handsome appearance of the ambassador's attendants, most of whom carried hawks on their "fists" as a present to Charles. The strangeness of this sight caused the mob to jeer, upon which the diarist characteristically remarks, "but lord! to see the absurd nature of Englishmen that[pg 403]cannot forbear laughing and jeering at every thing that looks strange." Later on he makes a note of having seen the ambassador's retinue at York House engaged in a manner that does not speak well for their habits of cleanliness.1264Grant of the Inspeximus Charter by Charles II, 24 June, 1663.On the 2nd February, 1663, thefiatwent forth for the confirmation of the City's charter, "they having fulfilled the required condition of displacing four or five of the aldermen."1265The charter itself bears date the 24th June.1266It is of all the City's charters the most ample, reciting and confirming as it does the entireInspeximusCharter of Charles I, as well as the latter king's letters patent, granted in the 16th year of his reign, confirming to the mayor and citizens the offices of package and scavage.City loan of £50,000, Sept., 1663.Notwithstanding the supplies voted to him by parliament, the advances made to him by the City, and the handsome dowry he received with his wife, Charles was continually in want of money. In November, 1662, he had sold Dunkirk to the French king for £200,000, much to the disgust of the English nation. Nevertheless, his extravagance soon reduced him to want, and by the following September (1663) he was in such straits that he sent to the City to borrow the comparatively small sum of £50,000. Seeing that the City had so recently received a confirmation of its charter, it could not refuse; and the money was raised among the aldermen as being[pg 404]a speedier way than applying to the Common Council.1267The king's return to London after a progress, Oct., 1663.On the occasion of the king's return from a "great progress" in October, he was met by the mayor and aldermen and 500 members of the several livery companies, well and substantially horsed and apparelled in velvet coats and chains of gold according to custom.1268The French ambassador insulted at the lord mayor's banquet. 29 Oct., 1663.On the 29th October the new lord mayor, Sir Anthony Bateman, entered upon his mayoralty,1269with the customary procession and pageant, followed by a banquet at the Guildhall. The banquet was made the occasion of what appears on the face of it to have been a studied insult offered—not by the municipal authorities, but by the lord chancellor, the bishops and lords of the council—to the French ambassador. Whether the lord chancellor and other high officers of state arrived at the Guildhall before their time, or the French ambassador came late, one cannot say. But, however that may have been, it appears that on the latter's arrival the others had already commenced dinner, with the exception of the mayor himself and the municipal authorities, who had not yet taken their places. On the ambassador approaching the table where the lords sat at dinner, intending, as he informed the French king by letter,1270to rally them on their[pg 405]good appetite, he met with such a cold reception that he left the hall to go home and dine by himself, in spite of every endeavour on the part of the civic officials to smooth matters over. Two hours later the sheriffs presented themselves at the ambassador's house, accompanied by a deputation from the Common Council, for the purpose of offering excuses for the recentcontretemps. The excuses they had to offer were, however, of the lamest character, as the ambassador took care to show. Firstly, they said they had been taken by surprise. This was manifestly false, as the ambassador attended at the Guildhall upon invitation. They next pleaded ignorance and incapacity in receiving one of so high degree, when the ambassador reminded them that they had recently done honour to the Spanish ambassador; and lastly they endeavoured to throw the whole of the blame upon the master of the ceremonies. This excuse, however, like the others, was easily shown to be false, inasmuch as that official was personally engaged in escorting the ambassador to the Guildhall and had nothing to do with the banquet. The deputation thereupon withdrew, being all the more discomforted by the excess of courtesy shown to them by the ambassador, who himself insisted on escorting them to the door (je leur dis que je voulois passer plus avant, et payer un assez mauvais traitement par une civilité extraordinaire).State visit of the lord mayor to the French ambassador, 11 Nov.On the 11th November the lord mayor went in state to pay a visit to the ambassador and to beg his forgiveness. Not being able to speak French himself, he took with him an interpreter, who explained to the ambassador on his behalf that unless he (the[pg 406]ambassador) would set the example of forgiveness eternal shame would rest upon the citizens and they would incur the displeasure of the king and nation. Thereupon the ambassador showed himself satisfied and attended the lord mayor to his carriage with marked courtesy.1271War declared, against the Dutch, 22 Feb., 1665.In view of a war with the Dutch, which seemed inevitable, owing to their interference with English trade, Charles began taking steps to replenish his exhausted exchequer. In June and again in October (1664) he borrowed from the city sums of £100,000.1272In November the Commons voted him a sum of two millions and a half, a larger supply than any that had ever yet been granted to a king of England, and the thanks of both Houses were tendered to the city for its assistance.1273On the 22nd February, 1665, war was formally declared. Two heralds, in their coats of arms, with four mace-bearers, nine trumpeters and two troops of horse, assembled at Westminster, where the trumpet sounded and the declaration was read amid shouts of joy. "Thence they went to Temple Bar, where the lord mayor and aldermen, in scarlet gowns on horse-back, conducted them to Temple Gate over against Chancery[pg 407]Lane, where it was read with more acclamation than before, the Horseguards drawing their swords and clattering them; then again in Cheapside and before the Royal Exchange with great demonstration of joy and sounding of trumpets, after which many nobles of the court came into the city to dine with the lord mayor."1274A day for a public fast was appointed to invoke the Almighty's blessing upon the ignominious war about to commence, and all commercial intercourse with the States was interdicted.1275The loss of the ship "The London."At this juncture an unfortunate accident occurred which deprived the fleet of one of its most valuable ships—the ship known as "The London," in which Sir John Lawson was about to put to sea—and caused the death of nearly 300 seamen. "The London" was being brought round from Chatham to the Hope, where she was to take on board her commander, when for some unaccountable reason she blew up and became a total wreck, all her ordnance, numbering 80 brass pieces, going to the bottom. The news of the disaster caused much excitement in the city.1276The City's offer to replace her.The Common Council (17 March) immediately offered its services to the king, and engaged to build another ship of the same tonnage to supply the place of the one that was lost. The king gladly availed himself of the offer of the City, promising "to retain the same in memory for the advantage of this royal chamber upon all occasions."1277Pepys's acquaintance[pg 408]with the jobbery of the day, more especially in connection with naval matters, had his misgivings about the City's offer. It was a handsome offer he acknowledged, "and if well managed might be done," but he had his fears lest the work should be put into ill hands.1278The work was put out to tender, but the final selection of a contractor was left to the king.1279Precepts were issued to the livery companies to "excite and persuade" their members in every possible way to subscribe to the undertaking.1280The money, however, was very slow in coming in, no more than £4,200 having been subscribed by May, 1666, when at least £10,000 was estimated to be required.1281Nor is this to be wondered at when it was a matter of public notoriety that the money voted expressly by parliament for fitting out a navy had been uselessly squandered. It was said at the time, although not credited by all, that many showed a willingness to advance a large sum of money if the Duke of York would guarantee its being employed on the navy by himself becoming treasurer of the fund; the Duke declined and the offers fell through.1282The "Loyal London" launched, 10 June, 1666.Pepys's misgivings about the City's new ship, called after its predecessor "Loyal London," appear to have been justified. The ship had to be launched[pg 409]in an unfinished state, and when her guns came to be tried every one of them burst. And yet the vessel was commended by Sir William Coventry, a navy commissioner and secretary to the Duke of York, admiral of the fleet, as "the best in the world, large and small."1283The Duke of York's victory over the Dutch fleet, 3 June, 1665.At the outset of the war the British fleet was not unattended with success. On the 3rd June, 1665, the Duke of York gained a signal victory over Opdam, admiral of the Dutch fleet, in an action fought off the coast of Suffolk. The report of the guns could be frequently heard on the Thames and caused much excitement in the city,1284to allay which the king caused a letter to be despatched to the lord mayor as soon as possible, giving details of the engagement and the losses on either side, and assuring the citizens of the safety of the Duke of York.1285Tuesday the 20th was appointed a day of public thanksgiving.1286Precautions against the plague, 1663-1664.Such a victory at another time would have been hailed with unbounded joy. As it was the enthusiasm of the citizens was damped by the presence among them of the most awful scourge that had ever yet visited the city. Towards the close of 1663 there had been rumours of an outbreak of plague on the continent, and more especially at Amsterdam and Hamburgh. The king communicated with the lord[pg 410]mayor to learn what measures had formerly been taken in like case to prevent the spread of infection. It was suggested by the Court of Aldermen that, after the custom of other countries, vessels coming from infected parts should perform quarantine at Gravesend or the neighbourhood, where a lazaretto should be established. The proposal was accepted,1287and to these precautions, taken on the instigation of the city authorities, was largely due the immunity from infection which the city enjoyed for the next fifteen months. In June, 1664, the lords of the council adopted similar precautions as their own and wrote to the lord mayor, in view of the increase of the plague in the Netherlands, desiring him "by all waies and meanes possible to be careful that no person or persons, goods or merchandises whatsoever be permitted to be received or harboured within the citty of London which come from Holland, Zealand or any other places infected with the plague, without certificates from the farmers of the customs or their officers that they have performed their quarantain."1288The Plague of 1665.The plague made its first appearance in the city in June, 1665. The atmosphere had been very sultry—the 7th June being recorded by Pepys as the hottest day he had ever felt in his life—and the heat caused the infection to spread among the crowded population of the city with amazing rapidity. Many[pg 411]followed the example set by the king and court and fled to the country.1289The lord mayor, however, stuck to his post, and the aldermen were forbidden to leave the city without giving notice of some reasonable cause, those who had already absented themselves being ordered to return.1290The good example thus set was unhappily not followed by the city rectors. Many of them, to their shame, forsook their cures in abject fear, leaving their parishioners to die without the consolations of the Church, whilst their pulpits were seized upon by Presbyterian ministers, who embraced the opportunity of publicly declaiming against the sins of the court and the ill usage to which they had been compelled to submit.1291The first Wednesday of every month was appointed to be kept as a solemn fast day of humiliation until it should please God to put an end to the sickness.1292Schools were closed and inns and taverns kept open only for citizens. The streets were cleansed and kept free from vagrant dogs—always suspected of spreading infection. Nevertheless, the death rate rapidly increased. Pest-houses or hospitals were opened and the best medical aid supplied, whilst subscriptions were set on foot for the benefit of the poor.1293The last week of August claimed 700 victims within the city's walls, whilst in the week ending the 19th September no less than 1,189—the highest number[pg 412]recorded perished within the same limited area.1294The number of deaths that occurred outside the city, but within its liberties, was often three or four times larger than of those within the city's walls. Thus for the week last mentioned the number of deaths from the plague alone in parishes outside the city, but within its liberties, is returned in the Bills of Mortality as having exceeded 3,000.1295The continued increase in the number of deaths in the first half of September was a matter of surprise, for cold weather had set in and the lord mayor had caused fires to be lighted in the open thoroughfares for the benefit of the poor that lay starving in the streets, as well as (perhaps) with the view of purifying the atmosphere.1296When the plague was at its height deaths followed in such rapid succession that the work of burying its victims had to be carried on night and day. Even then there was only time to huddle the corpses together in afosse commune, and to cover them with a scanty supply of earth. Small wonder if complaints were made to the Court of Aldermen of noisome smells arising from the churchyard of St. Mary's Bethlem. The court immediately (5 Sept.) gave orders for remedying the evil. No more pits were to be dug, but each corpse was to occupy a separate grave, fresh mould was to be laid over places complained of, and bones and coffin-boards found above ground were to be interred in the middle of the churchyard.1297[pg 413]The worst was now over. From the middle of September the number of deaths in the city began to decrease almost as rapidly as they had risen. In the first week in November there was a sudden increase on the return of the previous week, but in the following week there was again a fall, and this continued until in the first week of December the deaths in the city numbered only twenty-four. Nevertheless it was thought advisable to prohibit the usual entertainments which took place after the wardmote elections on St. Thomas's day, in order to minimise the risk of infection.1298The mayor was justified in taking this precaution, for the very next week the number of deaths more than doubled itself (57). That the city of London was at this time one of the healthiest places in the kingdom is shown by the fact that just as it was one of the last places attacked by the plague, so it was one of the first to become free, in spite of its having been made "the receptacle of all the people from all infected places."1299The total number of victims in the city proper during the twelve month ending the 19th December, 1665, is officially given as 9,887. When we consider that the entire population within the city walls—comprising an area of one square mile, more or less—could scarcely have reached 100,000,1300the extent[pg 414]of the calamity becomes appalling; the city was literally decimated.Naval engagement with the Dutch, June, 1666.A city loan of £100,000.Whilst the plague was raging the English fleet had remained in the Thames, leaving the Dutch masters of the sea. The opening of the new year (1666) found England engaged in a war with France, as well as with the Dutch. Louis, however, was content to leave the English and the Dutch to settle matters between themselves at sea. On the 1st June a desperate naval battle commenced off the North Foreland and continued for four days, at the end of which neither party could claim a victory. Both fleets withdrew for repairs. It was at this crisis that the "Loyal London" was hastily launched and application made to the city for a loan of £100,000. The money was readily voted, contrary to expectations.1301The Fire of London, Sept., 1666.When the last instalment (£1,500) of the loan was paid into the exchequer, the Guildhall and its surroundings were being threatened with destruction by the Great Fire,1302which, breaking out on the night of Saturday, 1st September, 1666, or early on Sunday morning, at a baker's shop in Pudding Lane, within five days reduced the greater part of the city to ashes. The king had long ago anticipated such a calamity, arising from the narrowness of the streets and the overhanging houses built for the most part of wood. More than a year before (11 April, 1665) he had written to the mayor, recorder and aldermen of the city1303warning them of the danger and recommending a[pg 415]more diligent execution of the Act for the repair of highways and sewers. He authorised them to imprison such persons as, after due warning, continued to erect buildings in contravention of the Act, and to pull the buildings down. He further desired them to open Temple Bar and the passage and gatehouse of Cheapside in St. Paul's Churchyard, as mentioned in the Act, and he would himself inspect what progress was being made in carrying out these improvements. He concluded by declaring that he had made the city his royal residence,1304and had received from it such marks of loyalty and affection as would ever make him concerned for its wealth, trade, reputation, beauty and convenience.The outbreak of the fire at first caused no uneasiness, such sights being only too common. But when no less than 300 houses had been destroyed within a few hours, and the flames, carried by a strong east wind that prevailed, threatened others, the inhabitants began to take alarm. The mayor, Sir Thomas Bludworth, was early on the scene, but he lacked decision of character and failed to keep his head. He endeavoured to carry out the king's orders by pulling down houses to prevent the fire spreading, but as often as not he was overtaken by the flames. "Lord, what can I do?" he lack-a-daisically exclaimed in answer to a message from the king; "I am spent; people will not obey me. I have been pulling down houses; but the fire overtakes us faster than we can do it."1305The inhabitants were[pg 416]too busy removing their furniture and effects to a place of safety to render much assistance to the mayor, but he found willing hands in the soldiers supplied by the king and the Duke of York, both of whom displayed great personal energy. "The Duke of York," wrote an eye-witness of the mournful scene,1306"hath wonn the hearts of the people wthhis continuall and indefatigable paynes day and night in helping to quench the fire, handing bucketts of water with as much diligence as the poorest man that did assist; if the lord maior had done as much his example might have gone far towards saveing the citty."
Letter from the king touching election of Common Council, 13 Dec., 1661.
Letter from the king touching election of Common Council, 13 Dec., 1661.
Letter from the king touching election of Common Council, 13 Dec., 1661.
When St. Thomas's day [21 Dec]—the day for the election of a new Common Council—was approaching, the king took occasion himself to write to the Court of Aldermen warning them to "take special care and give strict orders in your several wards that a peaceable and quiet election be made, and that the choice be of such persons as are every way well affected to the established Government, both in Church and State"—otherwise he would be forced to make a change in such elections.1242
Order for expurgation of city's records. 26 Feb., 1662.
Order for expurgation of city's records. 26 Feb., 1662.
Order for expurgation of city's records. 26 Feb., 1662.
That the new council was favourable to the king is shown by the court passing a resolution (26 Feb., 1662) for expunging out of the city's records all acts, orders and other matters passed, made or registered either in the court of Common Council or the Court of Aldermen since the beginning of the late troubles "which savour of the disloyalty of those times and may continue the sad remembrance of them to posterity to the reproach and dishonour of this city."1243This resolution was made on the king's own suggestions, but although a committee was at once appointed to carry it out, it remained a dead letter for twenty years.
Demand of a loan of £200,000, 7 Feb., 1662.
Demand of a loan of £200,000, 7 Feb., 1662.
Demand of a loan of £200,000, 7 Feb., 1662.
The Common Council had previously (7 Feb.) shown its compliance by acceding to a demand for a loan of £200,000.1244But although the security offered was undeniably good, and every effort was made to get the inhabitants of the city to subscribe, no more than £60,000 or £61,000 at the most was collected by the 14th March,1245and a month later scarcely £100,000 had been subscribed. The king made no attempt to disguise his annoyance, and ordered the mayor to call a Common Council and request them to take steps for the collection of the whole sum.1246
City gift to Queen Catharine, 3 June, 1662.
City gift to Queen Catharine, 3 June, 1662.
City gift to Queen Catharine, 3 June, 1662.
According to Pepys, who got his information from a city alderman, the finances of the Corporation were at such a low ebb that considerable difficulty was experienced in raising so small a sum as 1,000 gold pieces and the price of a gold cup to be presented to Catharine of Braganza on her arrival in England "and that they were fain to call two or three aldermen to raise fines to make up the amount."1247
The Hearth or Chimney tax, 1662.
The Hearth or Chimney tax, 1662.
The Hearth or Chimney tax, 1662.
Whilst the civic authorities were vainly struggling to raise the last loan for the king, the House of Commons came to his assistance and voted him a tax of two shillings upon every chimney.1248The inquisitorial nature of the tax made it very offensive.[pg 400]Returns were to be made of the number of hearths and stoves in each dwelling by the end of May. As they did not come in as quickly as was desired an extension of time was granted until Midsummer Assizes.1249Even when sent in many of the returns were manifestly untrue. The returns made for the city of London and Bills of Mortality drew forth a remonstrance from Charles, who refused to attribute it to anything else but gross negligence or deceit.1250He was afraid lest the ill example set by London should influence the rest of the kingdom. He expressed himself as willing to bear the expense of finding two or three honest persons in each ward, if required, to join the constable in an "ocular view." But in spite of every precaution fraudulent returns continued to flow in, and the collection of the tax to be slow and precarious.1251
The Act of Uniformity, 1662.
The Act of Uniformity, 1662.
The Act of Uniformity, 1662.
The passing of the Uniformity Act1252which condemned every minister to lose his benefice unless he signified his assent to everything contained in the book of common prayer by the 24th August (1662) caused great dissatisfaction in the city—always a stronghold of Presbyterianism—and many a sad scene was witnessed in city churches on Sunday the 17th as ministers took farewell of their congregations.1253Driven from the national Church, the Presbyterians,[pg 401]like the Baptists, the Quakers and other "dissenters" formed a separate community, happy if only they were granted toleration. Many of the inhabitants of the city were already suffering confinement for attending "unlawful assemblies." On the occasion of the queen's first visit to Westminster the king gave directions to the mayor and sheriffs to release those Quakers and others who were in gaol in London and Middlesex for having been present at such assemblies, provided they professed allegiance and had not been ringleaders or preachers, "hoping thereby to reduce them to a better conformity."1254
Sir John Robinson elected mayor. Michaelmas, 1662.
Sir John Robinson elected mayor. Michaelmas, 1662.
Sir John Robinson elected mayor. Michaelmas, 1662.
When lord mayor's day came round Charles again viewed the pageant from a house in Cheapside. This time he was accompanied by the queen. The City supplied the royal party with refreshments as before.1255The new mayor, Sir John Robinson,1256had been a promoter of the king's restoration, and in return for his services received an augmentation of arms.1257He was a nephew of the late Archbishop Laud, and full of his own self-importance "a talking, bragging, buffle-headed fellow," Pepys calls him—boasting of his powers over his brother aldermen, but nevertheless attentive to the wants of the city.1258
The reception of the Russian ambassador, 27 Nov., 1662.
The reception of the Russian ambassador, 27 Nov., 1662.
The reception of the Russian ambassador, 27 Nov., 1662.
A few weeks latter (27 Nov.) the streets of the city again presented a gala appearance, the occasion being the reception of the Russian ambassador. For the last three winters there had been, we are told,[pg 402]scarce any frost, and the opening of the year 1662 had been so exceptionally mild as to cause apprehension of dearth and disease.1259But now, on the very day that the Russian ambassador was to pass through the city from Tower wharf, where he had landed, he was reminded of his own country by seeing the roofs of the houses covered with snow.1260At eight o'clock in the morning 500 men "apparelled in velvet coats with chains of gold, well mounted on horseback," from the several livery companies made their way to Tower Hill to escort the ambassador.1261The streets were lined with the city trained bands and the king's Lifeguards. Pepys was there of course; he rarely missed any sight. He had been disappointed at not getting a better view of Sir Harry Vane's execution, which had taken place in June.1262This time he was more fortunate. The ambassador to be sure was late, but Pepys beguiled the time with dinner. "And after I had dined"—he records in his diary1263—"I walked to the conduit in the quarrefowr, at the end of Gracious Street and Cornhill and there (the spouts thereof running very near me, upon all the people that were under it) I saw them pretty well, go by." He failed to catch sight of the ambassador himself, but was struck with the handsome appearance of the ambassador's attendants, most of whom carried hawks on their "fists" as a present to Charles. The strangeness of this sight caused the mob to jeer, upon which the diarist characteristically remarks, "but lord! to see the absurd nature of Englishmen that[pg 403]cannot forbear laughing and jeering at every thing that looks strange." Later on he makes a note of having seen the ambassador's retinue at York House engaged in a manner that does not speak well for their habits of cleanliness.1264
Grant of the Inspeximus Charter by Charles II, 24 June, 1663.
Grant of the Inspeximus Charter by Charles II, 24 June, 1663.
Grant of the Inspeximus Charter by Charles II, 24 June, 1663.
On the 2nd February, 1663, thefiatwent forth for the confirmation of the City's charter, "they having fulfilled the required condition of displacing four or five of the aldermen."1265The charter itself bears date the 24th June.1266It is of all the City's charters the most ample, reciting and confirming as it does the entireInspeximusCharter of Charles I, as well as the latter king's letters patent, granted in the 16th year of his reign, confirming to the mayor and citizens the offices of package and scavage.
City loan of £50,000, Sept., 1663.
City loan of £50,000, Sept., 1663.
City loan of £50,000, Sept., 1663.
Notwithstanding the supplies voted to him by parliament, the advances made to him by the City, and the handsome dowry he received with his wife, Charles was continually in want of money. In November, 1662, he had sold Dunkirk to the French king for £200,000, much to the disgust of the English nation. Nevertheless, his extravagance soon reduced him to want, and by the following September (1663) he was in such straits that he sent to the City to borrow the comparatively small sum of £50,000. Seeing that the City had so recently received a confirmation of its charter, it could not refuse; and the money was raised among the aldermen as being[pg 404]a speedier way than applying to the Common Council.1267
The king's return to London after a progress, Oct., 1663.
The king's return to London after a progress, Oct., 1663.
The king's return to London after a progress, Oct., 1663.
On the occasion of the king's return from a "great progress" in October, he was met by the mayor and aldermen and 500 members of the several livery companies, well and substantially horsed and apparelled in velvet coats and chains of gold according to custom.1268
The French ambassador insulted at the lord mayor's banquet. 29 Oct., 1663.
The French ambassador insulted at the lord mayor's banquet. 29 Oct., 1663.
The French ambassador insulted at the lord mayor's banquet. 29 Oct., 1663.
On the 29th October the new lord mayor, Sir Anthony Bateman, entered upon his mayoralty,1269with the customary procession and pageant, followed by a banquet at the Guildhall. The banquet was made the occasion of what appears on the face of it to have been a studied insult offered—not by the municipal authorities, but by the lord chancellor, the bishops and lords of the council—to the French ambassador. Whether the lord chancellor and other high officers of state arrived at the Guildhall before their time, or the French ambassador came late, one cannot say. But, however that may have been, it appears that on the latter's arrival the others had already commenced dinner, with the exception of the mayor himself and the municipal authorities, who had not yet taken their places. On the ambassador approaching the table where the lords sat at dinner, intending, as he informed the French king by letter,1270to rally them on their[pg 405]good appetite, he met with such a cold reception that he left the hall to go home and dine by himself, in spite of every endeavour on the part of the civic officials to smooth matters over. Two hours later the sheriffs presented themselves at the ambassador's house, accompanied by a deputation from the Common Council, for the purpose of offering excuses for the recentcontretemps. The excuses they had to offer were, however, of the lamest character, as the ambassador took care to show. Firstly, they said they had been taken by surprise. This was manifestly false, as the ambassador attended at the Guildhall upon invitation. They next pleaded ignorance and incapacity in receiving one of so high degree, when the ambassador reminded them that they had recently done honour to the Spanish ambassador; and lastly they endeavoured to throw the whole of the blame upon the master of the ceremonies. This excuse, however, like the others, was easily shown to be false, inasmuch as that official was personally engaged in escorting the ambassador to the Guildhall and had nothing to do with the banquet. The deputation thereupon withdrew, being all the more discomforted by the excess of courtesy shown to them by the ambassador, who himself insisted on escorting them to the door (je leur dis que je voulois passer plus avant, et payer un assez mauvais traitement par une civilité extraordinaire).
State visit of the lord mayor to the French ambassador, 11 Nov.
State visit of the lord mayor to the French ambassador, 11 Nov.
State visit of the lord mayor to the French ambassador, 11 Nov.
On the 11th November the lord mayor went in state to pay a visit to the ambassador and to beg his forgiveness. Not being able to speak French himself, he took with him an interpreter, who explained to the ambassador on his behalf that unless he (the[pg 406]ambassador) would set the example of forgiveness eternal shame would rest upon the citizens and they would incur the displeasure of the king and nation. Thereupon the ambassador showed himself satisfied and attended the lord mayor to his carriage with marked courtesy.1271
War declared, against the Dutch, 22 Feb., 1665.
War declared, against the Dutch, 22 Feb., 1665.
War declared, against the Dutch, 22 Feb., 1665.
In view of a war with the Dutch, which seemed inevitable, owing to their interference with English trade, Charles began taking steps to replenish his exhausted exchequer. In June and again in October (1664) he borrowed from the city sums of £100,000.1272In November the Commons voted him a sum of two millions and a half, a larger supply than any that had ever yet been granted to a king of England, and the thanks of both Houses were tendered to the city for its assistance.1273On the 22nd February, 1665, war was formally declared. Two heralds, in their coats of arms, with four mace-bearers, nine trumpeters and two troops of horse, assembled at Westminster, where the trumpet sounded and the declaration was read amid shouts of joy. "Thence they went to Temple Bar, where the lord mayor and aldermen, in scarlet gowns on horse-back, conducted them to Temple Gate over against Chancery[pg 407]Lane, where it was read with more acclamation than before, the Horseguards drawing their swords and clattering them; then again in Cheapside and before the Royal Exchange with great demonstration of joy and sounding of trumpets, after which many nobles of the court came into the city to dine with the lord mayor."1274A day for a public fast was appointed to invoke the Almighty's blessing upon the ignominious war about to commence, and all commercial intercourse with the States was interdicted.1275
The loss of the ship "The London."
The loss of the ship "The London."
The loss of the ship "The London."
At this juncture an unfortunate accident occurred which deprived the fleet of one of its most valuable ships—the ship known as "The London," in which Sir John Lawson was about to put to sea—and caused the death of nearly 300 seamen. "The London" was being brought round from Chatham to the Hope, where she was to take on board her commander, when for some unaccountable reason she blew up and became a total wreck, all her ordnance, numbering 80 brass pieces, going to the bottom. The news of the disaster caused much excitement in the city.1276
The City's offer to replace her.
The City's offer to replace her.
The City's offer to replace her.
The Common Council (17 March) immediately offered its services to the king, and engaged to build another ship of the same tonnage to supply the place of the one that was lost. The king gladly availed himself of the offer of the City, promising "to retain the same in memory for the advantage of this royal chamber upon all occasions."1277Pepys's acquaintance[pg 408]with the jobbery of the day, more especially in connection with naval matters, had his misgivings about the City's offer. It was a handsome offer he acknowledged, "and if well managed might be done," but he had his fears lest the work should be put into ill hands.1278The work was put out to tender, but the final selection of a contractor was left to the king.1279Precepts were issued to the livery companies to "excite and persuade" their members in every possible way to subscribe to the undertaking.1280The money, however, was very slow in coming in, no more than £4,200 having been subscribed by May, 1666, when at least £10,000 was estimated to be required.1281Nor is this to be wondered at when it was a matter of public notoriety that the money voted expressly by parliament for fitting out a navy had been uselessly squandered. It was said at the time, although not credited by all, that many showed a willingness to advance a large sum of money if the Duke of York would guarantee its being employed on the navy by himself becoming treasurer of the fund; the Duke declined and the offers fell through.1282
The "Loyal London" launched, 10 June, 1666.
The "Loyal London" launched, 10 June, 1666.
The "Loyal London" launched, 10 June, 1666.
Pepys's misgivings about the City's new ship, called after its predecessor "Loyal London," appear to have been justified. The ship had to be launched[pg 409]in an unfinished state, and when her guns came to be tried every one of them burst. And yet the vessel was commended by Sir William Coventry, a navy commissioner and secretary to the Duke of York, admiral of the fleet, as "the best in the world, large and small."1283
The Duke of York's victory over the Dutch fleet, 3 June, 1665.
The Duke of York's victory over the Dutch fleet, 3 June, 1665.
The Duke of York's victory over the Dutch fleet, 3 June, 1665.
At the outset of the war the British fleet was not unattended with success. On the 3rd June, 1665, the Duke of York gained a signal victory over Opdam, admiral of the Dutch fleet, in an action fought off the coast of Suffolk. The report of the guns could be frequently heard on the Thames and caused much excitement in the city,1284to allay which the king caused a letter to be despatched to the lord mayor as soon as possible, giving details of the engagement and the losses on either side, and assuring the citizens of the safety of the Duke of York.1285Tuesday the 20th was appointed a day of public thanksgiving.1286
Precautions against the plague, 1663-1664.
Precautions against the plague, 1663-1664.
Precautions against the plague, 1663-1664.
Such a victory at another time would have been hailed with unbounded joy. As it was the enthusiasm of the citizens was damped by the presence among them of the most awful scourge that had ever yet visited the city. Towards the close of 1663 there had been rumours of an outbreak of plague on the continent, and more especially at Amsterdam and Hamburgh. The king communicated with the lord[pg 410]mayor to learn what measures had formerly been taken in like case to prevent the spread of infection. It was suggested by the Court of Aldermen that, after the custom of other countries, vessels coming from infected parts should perform quarantine at Gravesend or the neighbourhood, where a lazaretto should be established. The proposal was accepted,1287and to these precautions, taken on the instigation of the city authorities, was largely due the immunity from infection which the city enjoyed for the next fifteen months. In June, 1664, the lords of the council adopted similar precautions as their own and wrote to the lord mayor, in view of the increase of the plague in the Netherlands, desiring him "by all waies and meanes possible to be careful that no person or persons, goods or merchandises whatsoever be permitted to be received or harboured within the citty of London which come from Holland, Zealand or any other places infected with the plague, without certificates from the farmers of the customs or their officers that they have performed their quarantain."1288
The Plague of 1665.
The Plague of 1665.
The Plague of 1665.
The plague made its first appearance in the city in June, 1665. The atmosphere had been very sultry—the 7th June being recorded by Pepys as the hottest day he had ever felt in his life—and the heat caused the infection to spread among the crowded population of the city with amazing rapidity. Many[pg 411]followed the example set by the king and court and fled to the country.1289The lord mayor, however, stuck to his post, and the aldermen were forbidden to leave the city without giving notice of some reasonable cause, those who had already absented themselves being ordered to return.1290The good example thus set was unhappily not followed by the city rectors. Many of them, to their shame, forsook their cures in abject fear, leaving their parishioners to die without the consolations of the Church, whilst their pulpits were seized upon by Presbyterian ministers, who embraced the opportunity of publicly declaiming against the sins of the court and the ill usage to which they had been compelled to submit.1291The first Wednesday of every month was appointed to be kept as a solemn fast day of humiliation until it should please God to put an end to the sickness.1292Schools were closed and inns and taverns kept open only for citizens. The streets were cleansed and kept free from vagrant dogs—always suspected of spreading infection. Nevertheless, the death rate rapidly increased. Pest-houses or hospitals were opened and the best medical aid supplied, whilst subscriptions were set on foot for the benefit of the poor.1293The last week of August claimed 700 victims within the city's walls, whilst in the week ending the 19th September no less than 1,189—the highest number[pg 412]recorded perished within the same limited area.1294The number of deaths that occurred outside the city, but within its liberties, was often three or four times larger than of those within the city's walls. Thus for the week last mentioned the number of deaths from the plague alone in parishes outside the city, but within its liberties, is returned in the Bills of Mortality as having exceeded 3,000.1295The continued increase in the number of deaths in the first half of September was a matter of surprise, for cold weather had set in and the lord mayor had caused fires to be lighted in the open thoroughfares for the benefit of the poor that lay starving in the streets, as well as (perhaps) with the view of purifying the atmosphere.1296When the plague was at its height deaths followed in such rapid succession that the work of burying its victims had to be carried on night and day. Even then there was only time to huddle the corpses together in afosse commune, and to cover them with a scanty supply of earth. Small wonder if complaints were made to the Court of Aldermen of noisome smells arising from the churchyard of St. Mary's Bethlem. The court immediately (5 Sept.) gave orders for remedying the evil. No more pits were to be dug, but each corpse was to occupy a separate grave, fresh mould was to be laid over places complained of, and bones and coffin-boards found above ground were to be interred in the middle of the churchyard.1297
The worst was now over. From the middle of September the number of deaths in the city began to decrease almost as rapidly as they had risen. In the first week in November there was a sudden increase on the return of the previous week, but in the following week there was again a fall, and this continued until in the first week of December the deaths in the city numbered only twenty-four. Nevertheless it was thought advisable to prohibit the usual entertainments which took place after the wardmote elections on St. Thomas's day, in order to minimise the risk of infection.1298The mayor was justified in taking this precaution, for the very next week the number of deaths more than doubled itself (57). That the city of London was at this time one of the healthiest places in the kingdom is shown by the fact that just as it was one of the last places attacked by the plague, so it was one of the first to become free, in spite of its having been made "the receptacle of all the people from all infected places."1299
The total number of victims in the city proper during the twelve month ending the 19th December, 1665, is officially given as 9,887. When we consider that the entire population within the city walls—comprising an area of one square mile, more or less—could scarcely have reached 100,000,1300the extent[pg 414]of the calamity becomes appalling; the city was literally decimated.
Naval engagement with the Dutch, June, 1666.
Naval engagement with the Dutch, June, 1666.
Naval engagement with the Dutch, June, 1666.
A city loan of £100,000.
A city loan of £100,000.
A city loan of £100,000.
Whilst the plague was raging the English fleet had remained in the Thames, leaving the Dutch masters of the sea. The opening of the new year (1666) found England engaged in a war with France, as well as with the Dutch. Louis, however, was content to leave the English and the Dutch to settle matters between themselves at sea. On the 1st June a desperate naval battle commenced off the North Foreland and continued for four days, at the end of which neither party could claim a victory. Both fleets withdrew for repairs. It was at this crisis that the "Loyal London" was hastily launched and application made to the city for a loan of £100,000. The money was readily voted, contrary to expectations.1301
The Fire of London, Sept., 1666.
The Fire of London, Sept., 1666.
The Fire of London, Sept., 1666.
When the last instalment (£1,500) of the loan was paid into the exchequer, the Guildhall and its surroundings were being threatened with destruction by the Great Fire,1302which, breaking out on the night of Saturday, 1st September, 1666, or early on Sunday morning, at a baker's shop in Pudding Lane, within five days reduced the greater part of the city to ashes. The king had long ago anticipated such a calamity, arising from the narrowness of the streets and the overhanging houses built for the most part of wood. More than a year before (11 April, 1665) he had written to the mayor, recorder and aldermen of the city1303warning them of the danger and recommending a[pg 415]more diligent execution of the Act for the repair of highways and sewers. He authorised them to imprison such persons as, after due warning, continued to erect buildings in contravention of the Act, and to pull the buildings down. He further desired them to open Temple Bar and the passage and gatehouse of Cheapside in St. Paul's Churchyard, as mentioned in the Act, and he would himself inspect what progress was being made in carrying out these improvements. He concluded by declaring that he had made the city his royal residence,1304and had received from it such marks of loyalty and affection as would ever make him concerned for its wealth, trade, reputation, beauty and convenience.
The outbreak of the fire at first caused no uneasiness, such sights being only too common. But when no less than 300 houses had been destroyed within a few hours, and the flames, carried by a strong east wind that prevailed, threatened others, the inhabitants began to take alarm. The mayor, Sir Thomas Bludworth, was early on the scene, but he lacked decision of character and failed to keep his head. He endeavoured to carry out the king's orders by pulling down houses to prevent the fire spreading, but as often as not he was overtaken by the flames. "Lord, what can I do?" he lack-a-daisically exclaimed in answer to a message from the king; "I am spent; people will not obey me. I have been pulling down houses; but the fire overtakes us faster than we can do it."1305The inhabitants were[pg 416]too busy removing their furniture and effects to a place of safety to render much assistance to the mayor, but he found willing hands in the soldiers supplied by the king and the Duke of York, both of whom displayed great personal energy. "The Duke of York," wrote an eye-witness of the mournful scene,1306"hath wonn the hearts of the people wthhis continuall and indefatigable paynes day and night in helping to quench the fire, handing bucketts of water with as much diligence as the poorest man that did assist; if the lord maior had done as much his example might have gone far towards saveing the citty."