Parliament and the Test Act, 1673.The war, which was chiefly remarkable for the noble stand made by the Dutch under the young William, Prince of Orange, Charles's own nephew and afterwards King of England, soon drained the king's resources, and once more he had to face a parliament. The parliament, which met on the 4th February, 1673, showed itself willing to vote a subsidy of £70,000 a month for a period of eighteen months, but only on its own terms. These were (1) the repeal of the Declaration of Indulgence which Charles, who was beginning to show signs of favouring the Roman Church, had by a stretch of prerogative recently caused to be issued, and (2) the passing of a Test Act which should bind all public officers to take the oaths of supremacy and allegiance, receive the sacrament, and abjure the doctrine of transubstantiation. By this means parliament hoped to maintain the supremacy of the Church.The City in arrears with assessments.The assessments which the City was now called upon to pay were far beyond its powers, seeing that many merchants and traders who had left the city at the time of the Plague and Fire refused to return, preferring to live in the suburbs, and thus a large number of the houses that had recently been re-built were left unoccupied. Every exertion was made to get some remission of the burden, but although the king signified his intention of making some abatement, little appears to have been done.1393[pg 447]Cardonel's proposals for raising money by annuities.In March of this year (1673) an individual named Philip De Cardonel came forward with a scheme for raising money by way of annuities to be granted by the city to every subscriber of £20 or more.1394The matter was in the first instance brought before the Court of Aldermen, who, upon consideration, declared that the proposal appeared to them "very faire and reasonable, and in all likelihood of very great advantage to the city," and forthwith resolved themselves into a committee of the whole court to treat with Cardonel and take such further proceedings as might be thought requisite.1395In the following month (11 April) the same proposals were submitted to the Common Council, where they met with similar favour. The court also appointed a committee to take them into further consideration, promising in the meantime that no advantage should be taken or benefit derived from the scheme without the special leave and consent of the proposer.1396Although the committee reported favourably on the scheme1397it was allowed to drop.The City's petition to parliament for relief, Feb., 1674.By February of the next year (1674) trade had become so bad that a number of the inhabitants of the city petitioned the Common Council (13 Feb.) to seek some relief from parliament. An address[pg 448]was accordingly drawn up, setting forth the miserable state to which the city had been reduced by the ravages of the plague and the fire, the increase of new buildings in the suburbs, which not only injured the trade of the city, but afforded a retreat for disorderly persons, and excessive taxation (the city being called upon to pay the same amount of taxes as in its most prosperous days), and praying the Commons to apply some timely remedy. The address was to have been laid before the house on Monday, the 23rd February,1398but no mention of it appears in the Commons Journal. On the 24th the House was prorogued.The question of aldermanic veto again raised, Sept., 1674.In September (1674) the old question again cropt up as to the power of the Court of Aldermen to veto matters ordained by the Common Council. The question had arisen, it will be remembered, in January, 1649,1399when Reynardson, the mayor, got up and left the Common Council, followed by the aldermen, and the court, instead of breaking up according to custom, proceeded to pass measures in their absence. Its action on this occasion was reported to parliament, and the house signified its approval of the court's proceedings and passed an ordinance which practically deprived the Court of Aldermen of all control over the Common Council. Since that time the matter had remained dormant, until jealousy between the two bodies was again excited by the Common Council passing an Act (17 Sept., 1674) for compelling the aldermen to reside within the city[pg 449]under the penalty of a fine of £500.1400Against the passing of any such Act the Recorder, on behalf of the Court of Aldermen, formally reported their protest to the Common Council, and the Commons as formerly protested against that protest (13 Nov.).1401It was not that the mayor and aldermen were not fully conscious of the mischief arising from their own non-residence in the city, for they themselves passed an order for every alderman to return with his family into the city before the following Easter on pain of heavy penalty,1402but they objected to the court of Common Council presuming to dictate to them.Report to Court of Aldermenreveto, 20 Oct., 1674.In the meantime the Court of Aldermen had appointed a committee (24 Sept.) to examine the question of the right of veto, and this committee had reported (20 Oct.) in favour of the court.1403"We find," said the committee, "that the court of Common Council hath always consisted, and still it doth, of three distinct degrees of persons, viz., of the lord mayor in the first place as the chefe magistrate, and secondly of the aldermen as subordinate magistrates, and thirdly of the commons, or of a select number of the commons representing all the commoners of the said city as now is, and for a long time before hath been used." In this respect the committee proceeded to say, "the Common Councill of the city doth much resemble the constitution of the Common Council of the kingdom, and we further find that the order of[pg 450]proceeding in the making of lawes for the good government of the citty doth imitate the paterne sett them by the High Court of Parliament, in making lawes for the government of the nation, in regard that noe ordinance made in the Common Councell of this city can be a binding law to any without the joint consent and concurrence of the Lord Mayor, Court of Aldermen and commoners in Common Councell assembled, they having a joynt power and equal authority in making of lawes. So that the mayor and aldermen cannot impose upon the commoners, nore converso; each degree having a power to dissent or assent as to them seems best."The committee next pointed out how Bills for the better government of the city had formerly originated for the most part with the mayor and aldermen, and had been by them transmitted to the Common Council, where, after being read in two several courts (and not twice in one court) and assented to, they became complete acts and binding laws. Such had been the usual and salient practice. Nevertheless, the committee had found that sometimes the Common Council had petitioned the Court of Aldermen for redress of certain grievances and the latter had complied with such petitions, "and so sometimes Acts of Common Council have been made at the desire of the lord mayor and aldermen signifyed to the commons by the Recorder." The conclusion that the committee arrived at was that "the lord mayor and aldermen have negative votes as the commoners also have, and contrary to this order of proceeding in making Acts of Common Council wee cannot find any presedent."[pg 451]On the 13th November a joint Committee of Aldermen and Commoners was appointed by the Common Council to search the city's Records as to "the respective privileges of the lord mayor and aldermen and of the commons in Common Council assembled, and of the most ancient and decent method in making laws within this citty," and to report thereon.1404Four days later (17 Nov.) the Court of Aldermen instructed their committee to make further search on the question.1405The conduct of Jeffreys the Common Sergeant, 12 March, 1675.Ordered to be suspended from office.Matters were brought to a crisis on the 12th March, 1675, when the mayor and aldermen, dissatisfied with the proceedings of the court of Common Council, got up and left the court. The Common Sergeant—the notorious George Jeffreys—refusing to follow the example set by the Common Sergeant in 1649, remained behind, and went so far as to put a question to the court of which the mayor and aldermen had previously disapproved. For this he was shortly afterwards called to account. His defence was that he only obeyed the wishes of the majority; but this being deemed unsatisfactory, the Court of Aldermen ordered him to be suspended from office.1406Offers an apology which is deemed unsatisfactory, 23 March.The matter referred to the king.He afterwards (23 March) offered an apology to the Court of Aldermen for his conduct, confessing "that the question by him put at the last Common Council after the lord mayor was out of the chair was altogether irregular," and asked pardon. His apology, so far as it went, was accepted in good part by the court, but upon some explanation being asked of him as to his not refusing to put a question when[pg 452]commanded to refuse, and his offering to put another question at the request of some members of the council, he desired to be allowed time before he made answer.1407Meanwhile the dispute between the Aldermen and Common Council had been brought to the notice of the king,1408who, with his brother the Duke of York, had recently received the freedom of the City.1409Jeffreys questioned by the king, 29 March, 1675.The king recommends his restoration to office.A week later (30 March) the Recorder, John Howell, reported to the Court of Aldermen1410that he and the Common Sergeant had by command appeared before his majesty the previous day touching the unhappy difference existing between the Aldermen and the Common Council; that the Common Sergeant being asked to whom it devolved to put the question on a debate in council, had in the Recorder's hearing replied to the effect "that the question had always been used to be put by the lord mayor or by his lordship's appointment and not otherwise, so far as he had observed," and he had never known the matter disputed; that he had then likewise declared to his majesty that he was "sorry for his deportment at the last Common Council, saying that what he did was a sudden act and rashly done without any intention to make any disturbance, and that he would freely acknowledge the same wheresoever his majesty should command him"; that therefore his majesty had commanded the Recorder to acquaint the court that the best expedient he could suggest, as the case[pg 453]stood, for a settlement of the difficulty, was that the old order of things should be re-established, that (among other things) the suspension of the Common Sergeant should be removed, and that the books and records of the city should be searched by six such aldermen as the lord mayor should appoint, and six such commoners as the Common Council should appoint, in order to satisfy themselves of the respective privileges of the lord mayor and aldermen and commons in Common Council assembled, and to settle the same in a quiet and peaceable manner if they could. Failing this his majesty would appoint a judge to arbitrate in the matter.Jeffreys restored, 30 March, 1675.The court followed the king's suggestion so far as related to the Common Sergeant, and having listened to his expressions of regret for his late conduct, and his assurances that he would always endeavour to "promote the honour and government of the city," it removed his suspension.City Records defective.As regards the real issue between the two Courts of Aldermen and Common Council, matters remained much as they were before. Although the Court of Aldermen gave orders (12 April) that the proceedings relative to the dispute between the two courts should be faithfully recorded, the minutes of the Common Council at this period are particularly lacking in information as well on this as on other matters in which the City was concerned.1411[pg 454]Standing counsel for the Court of Aldermen.One result of thecontretempswhich had occurred in the court of Common Council of the 12th March was that the Court of Aldermen resolved to retain certain counsel to advise them as occasion should arise on the question of their rights and privileges, and to create a fund by subscription among themselves to meet the necessary expenses.1412Further search to be made amongst the city's archives touching rights of mayor and aldermen.In April the Town Clerk and the four clerks of the outer court (i.e.mayor's court) were instructed to search the books and records of the city on the question whether or not it was the province of the lord mayor (1) to direct and put the question in the Common Council, (2) to name committees, and (3) to nominate persons to be put in election to any office.1413This last point especially affected the right claimed by the mayor to nominate (if not to elect) one of the sheriffs by virtue of his prerogative—a claim which had already been more than once canvassed and which was destined shortly to bring the City and the Crown into violent opposition.The opinion of counsel on the question of aldermanic veto, 1675-1678.On the 7th September, 1675, the Court of Aldermen directed that the opinion of counsel should be taken on the power of the mayor and aldermen to put their veto on matters passed by the Common Council.1414After the lapse of fifteen months the opinions of Sir William Jones, the attorney-general, Sir Francis Winnington, solicitor-general, Sir John Maynard and Sir Francis Pemberton, sergeants-at-law, and of "Mr. William Steele" (nota former Recorder of that name as some have supposed1415) were presented[pg 455]to the court (5 Dec., 1676);1416and with the exception of the last mentioned, all the lawyers declared in favour of the mayor and aldermen. There the matter was allowed to rest for a year or more until in February, 1678, the opinions of Sir William Dolben, not long since appointed the city's Recorder, and of Jeffreys, the Common Sergeant, who was destined in a few months to succeed Dolben on the latter's promotion to the bench, were taken and found to coincide with the opinions already delivered with the exception of that of William Steele.1417A cry for war against France, 1678.A City loan of £100,000, afterwards raised to £150,000.Parliamentary vote of £200,000 for disbandment of the army, 4 June.Peace of Nimeguen, 31 July, 1678.In the meantime Charles had concluded a separate treaty with the Dutch (19 Feb., 1674), who continued to struggle manfully against the French king, with such assistance as they derived from the emperor and the German states. The Commons were fearful of entrusting the king with either money or troops lest he should employ them against the Dutch, or against their own liberties. The successes of Louis at length provoked a general cry for war against France, and the Commons went so far as to pass a bill (8 March, 1678) imposing a poll tax as part of the supply.1418Charles lost no time in applying to the City for the sum of £100,000 on the security of this tax, and the court of Common Council signified its readiness to advance the money (9 April).1419Finding that parliament hesitated to furnish the supplies it had voted, and without which he assured the members he would have to lay up the fleet and disband some of the newly raised forces, Charles applied to the City for[pg 456]another £50,000. This, too, was granted (14 May);1420and Charles, in order to show his displeasure with the Commons, resorted to his usual tactics and prorogued parliament, but only for ten days.1421A few days after the Commons had again met they resolved (27 May) that if the king would declare war against France they would give him their hearty support, otherwise they would at once proceed to take into consideration the speedy disbandment of the army.1422The king refusing to declare war, parliament proceeded (4 June) to carry out its threat and voted the sum of £200,000 for the disbandment of all the forces that had been raised since the 29th September, 1677.1423The disbandment did not take place, however, but in its stead a force was despatched to Holland. Scarcely had it arrived before the peace of Nimeguen was signed.The Popish plot, 1678.Just when the war was brought so unexpectedly to an end Charles signified his desire for another loan by the City to the extent of £200,000. The matter was brought to the notice of the Common Council on the last day of July, and on the 1st August the lord mayor issued his precept to the aldermen of the several wards to invite subscriptions.1424For what purpose the money was required we are not told. It was generally feared that the king meditated a suppression of the[pg 457]liberties of his subjects by the introduction of foreign troops. This fear was enhanced by the knowledge that if Charles died the crown would fall to his brother, an uncompromising Catholic. The public mind became so unhinged that every breath or rumour created the greatest trepidation. Within a fortnight after the City had signified its assent to the last loan the nation was suddenly surprised by some words let drop by Dr. Tonge, the weak and credulous rector of St. Michael's, Wood Street, and the tool of the infamous Titus Oates. A Popish plot was, he said, on foot and the king's life in danger, in proof of which he produced documentary evidence. Oates, the prime mover in starting the idea of a plot, was ready in the most shameless way with depositions to corroborate all that Tonge had said. These depositions he made before a Middlesex magistrate, Sir Edmondesbury Godfrey. The next morning Godfrey's corpse was found lying in a ditch near Primrose Hill. All London was wild with excitement and jumped to the conclusion that the Middlesex Justice had met a violent death for listening to Oates's evidence, although there is reason for believing him to have fallen by his own hands. The cry against Papists continued unabated for years.1425The city presented the appearance of a state of siege with its gates kept closed, its streets protected with posts and chains, and an armed watch kept by night and day.1426In October, when according to custom the king was to be invited to the lord mayor's banquet, the Recorder was instructed to congratulate his majesty upon his recent escape and to make[pg 458]arrangements for a deputation to wait upon him in person.1427The dissolution of the Cavalier Parliament, 24 Jan., 1679.When parliament met on the 21st of this month it passed a new Test Act rigidly excluding all Catholics from both Houses. Five Catholic peers were committed to the Tower, and Coleman, the secretary of the Duchess of York, was tried and executed for having in his possession papers betraying a design for forcing the Roman Catholic religion on the nation. It next proceeded to impeach Danby for having been concerned in certain money transactions between Charles and the king of France. Knowing the danger likely to arise from such an investigation, Charles dissolved (24 Jan., 1679) the parliament, which had now sat for more than seventeen years.The first short parliament, 6 March-27 May, 1679.When the elections for the new parliament were over it was found that the opposition to the king was greater than ever. Of the city members who had sat in the last parliament only one—Alderman Love—was returned, the remaining seats being taken by Alderman Sir Robert Clayton, Sir Thomas Player, the city chamberlain, and Thomas Pilkington, afterwards elected alderman of the ward of Farringdon Without. This second parliament—the first of a series of short parliaments—in Charles's reign met on the 6th March, 1679, but was suddenly dissolved on the 27th May in order to stop the progress of an Exclusion Bill depriving the Duke of York of his right of succession[pg 459]to the crown.1428It left its mark, however, on the statute book by passing the Habeas Corpus Act. It also voted a sum exceeding £200,000 for disbandment of the forces raised since Michaelmas, 1677.1429Just a week before parliament dissolved the Court of Aldermen was asked (20 May) to forward an address thanking both Houses for their care in securing the personal safety of the king and maintaining the Protestant religion. The address was referred back in order to include the king in the vote of thanks, and was then submitted (23 May) to the Common Council for approval. That body made a further amendment by adding the words: "The Protestant religion according to the doctrine and discipline of the Church of England as it is now established by law."1430The king's illness and recovery, Aug.-Sept., 1679.In August the king was confined to his bed with a fever so violent that it was deemed advisable to send for his brother the Duke of York. He recovered however; and on the 11th September a deputation of city aldermen waited on him to learn when the court might come in person to congratulate him on his convalescence.1431On the 17th the mayor issued his precept for bells to be set ringing and bonfires to be lighted in the city in honour of his majesty's return from Windsor to Whitehall after his late indisposition.1432The Duke of York did not return to England until February, 1680, when a special Court of Aldermen sat[pg 460]to make arrangements for presenting their congratulations to him and the duchess.1433Proclamation against "tumultuous petitions," 12 Dec., 1679.The elections for a fresh parliament which had taken place in the meantime having gone against the court party, parliament no sooner met (17 Oct.) than it was prorogued; and in consequence of repeated prorogations never sat again for a whole twelvemonth (21 Oct., 1680).1434Nor would it in all probability have been allowed to meet even then, had it not been for a constant succession of petitions addressed to the king insisting upon a session being held. So annoyed was Charles with this demonstration of popular feeling in favour of parliament that he issued a proclamation (12 Dec., 1679) prohibiting such "tumultuous petitions."1435Petitioners and Abhorrers.This led to the presentation of a number of counter-addresses to the king, expressing the greatest confidence in his majesty's wisdom, the most dutiful submission to his prerogative, andabhorrenceof those who had dared to encroach upon it by petitions. The two parties thus became distinguished asPetitionersandAbhorrers; names which were subsequently replaced by Whigs and Tories.The petition of Common Hall, 29 July, 1680.The citizens werePetitioners. On the 29th July (1680) the Livery assembled in Common Hall for the election of sheriffs took the opportunity of desiring Sir Robert Clayton, the lord mayor, to beseech his majesty on their behalf, that for the preservation of his royal person and government and the Protestant[pg 461]religion he would graciously please to order that parliament, his great council, might assemble and sit to take measures against the machinations of Rome.1436Clayton showed himself very willing to comply with the wishes of Common Hall, but pointed out at the same time that he had reason to believe that parliament was to meet in November. "If that be so," said he, "I hope your great concern for that matter might have been spared, being anticipated by his majesties gracious intention. However, I shall not be wanting with all humility to lay the whole matter before him." In spite of Jeffreys, the Recorder, having ruled that such a petition bordered on treason, and in spite of a warning received from the lord chancellor, Clayton insisted on presenting a petition, and for doing so was rewarded with the grateful thanks of the Common Council on his quitting the mayoralty.1437Jeffreys on the other hand was compelled to resign the recordership.1438The City's address to the king, 12 Nov., 1680.The king's reply.When parliament was at last allowed to meet the City lost no time in presenting a dutiful address1439to Charles acknowledging his majesty's favour and their own satisfaction. They besought him to lend a ready ear to the humble advice tendered by his great council for the safety of his royal person and the preservation of[pg 462]the true Protestant religion, and promised to be ready at all times to promote his majesty's ease and prosperity, and to stand by him against all dangers and hazards whatsoever. Had Charles accepted this address in the spirit with which it was made matters might have gone better with him, and the Stuart family might never have been driven from the throne; but he was in no mood to accept advice either from parliament or the city, and the only answer he vouchsafed to the citizens was to tell them to mind their own business. He knew what he had to do, without their advice.1440The second short parliament, 1680-1681.As soon as the House met it commenced an attack upon Papists. The Exclusion Bill was again passed, but was thrown out by the Lords. Thus baulked the Commons revived the impeachment of the Catholic lords. During the trial of Stafford on a charge of a design to murder the king, more than ordinary precautions had to be taken by the mayor to maintain order and prevent too great a crowd assembling at Westminster.1441Being condemned to death, the king was ready to spare Stafford the grosser indignities attached to a felon's execution, but the royal act of clemency was not allowed to pass unchallenged by the sheriffs of London on the ground that if the king could dispense with some part of the execution why not of all?1442The House had passed a vote of thanks to the City for its "manifest loyalty to the king" and its care and vigilance for the preservation of his majesty's person and of the Protestant religion,[pg 463]and had got as far as the second reading of a Bill for repealing the Corporation Act of 1661 when it found itself suddenly prorogued from the 10th January to the 20th.1443The City's petition to the king for parliament to be allowed to sit, 13 Jan., 1681.During the interval a petition was drawn up by the Common Council (13 Jan.) and presented to the king, in which the petitioners expressed their surprise at the late prorogation "whereby the prosecution of the public justice of the kingdom ... have received an interruption," and after referring to the action taken by parliament for the defence of his majesty's person and the preservation of the Protestant religion, prayed that the House might be allowed to resume its session on the day to which parliament had been prorogued as being "the only means to quiet the minds and extinguish the fears of your Protestant subjects."1444This petition, and more especially that part of it which spoke of the interruption of justice, was highly resented by Charles, and was one of the causes which led to the issue of the writ ofQuo Warrantoagainst the city in the following year. In the meanwhile it served only to make the king more determined than ever to dissolve the parliament, which he did by proclamation on the 18th January. A new parliament was summoned for the 21st March; it was not however to sit in London, but in the royalist city of Oxford.1445
Parliament and the Test Act, 1673.The war, which was chiefly remarkable for the noble stand made by the Dutch under the young William, Prince of Orange, Charles's own nephew and afterwards King of England, soon drained the king's resources, and once more he had to face a parliament. The parliament, which met on the 4th February, 1673, showed itself willing to vote a subsidy of £70,000 a month for a period of eighteen months, but only on its own terms. These were (1) the repeal of the Declaration of Indulgence which Charles, who was beginning to show signs of favouring the Roman Church, had by a stretch of prerogative recently caused to be issued, and (2) the passing of a Test Act which should bind all public officers to take the oaths of supremacy and allegiance, receive the sacrament, and abjure the doctrine of transubstantiation. By this means parliament hoped to maintain the supremacy of the Church.The City in arrears with assessments.The assessments which the City was now called upon to pay were far beyond its powers, seeing that many merchants and traders who had left the city at the time of the Plague and Fire refused to return, preferring to live in the suburbs, and thus a large number of the houses that had recently been re-built were left unoccupied. Every exertion was made to get some remission of the burden, but although the king signified his intention of making some abatement, little appears to have been done.1393[pg 447]Cardonel's proposals for raising money by annuities.In March of this year (1673) an individual named Philip De Cardonel came forward with a scheme for raising money by way of annuities to be granted by the city to every subscriber of £20 or more.1394The matter was in the first instance brought before the Court of Aldermen, who, upon consideration, declared that the proposal appeared to them "very faire and reasonable, and in all likelihood of very great advantage to the city," and forthwith resolved themselves into a committee of the whole court to treat with Cardonel and take such further proceedings as might be thought requisite.1395In the following month (11 April) the same proposals were submitted to the Common Council, where they met with similar favour. The court also appointed a committee to take them into further consideration, promising in the meantime that no advantage should be taken or benefit derived from the scheme without the special leave and consent of the proposer.1396Although the committee reported favourably on the scheme1397it was allowed to drop.The City's petition to parliament for relief, Feb., 1674.By February of the next year (1674) trade had become so bad that a number of the inhabitants of the city petitioned the Common Council (13 Feb.) to seek some relief from parliament. An address[pg 448]was accordingly drawn up, setting forth the miserable state to which the city had been reduced by the ravages of the plague and the fire, the increase of new buildings in the suburbs, which not only injured the trade of the city, but afforded a retreat for disorderly persons, and excessive taxation (the city being called upon to pay the same amount of taxes as in its most prosperous days), and praying the Commons to apply some timely remedy. The address was to have been laid before the house on Monday, the 23rd February,1398but no mention of it appears in the Commons Journal. On the 24th the House was prorogued.The question of aldermanic veto again raised, Sept., 1674.In September (1674) the old question again cropt up as to the power of the Court of Aldermen to veto matters ordained by the Common Council. The question had arisen, it will be remembered, in January, 1649,1399when Reynardson, the mayor, got up and left the Common Council, followed by the aldermen, and the court, instead of breaking up according to custom, proceeded to pass measures in their absence. Its action on this occasion was reported to parliament, and the house signified its approval of the court's proceedings and passed an ordinance which practically deprived the Court of Aldermen of all control over the Common Council. Since that time the matter had remained dormant, until jealousy between the two bodies was again excited by the Common Council passing an Act (17 Sept., 1674) for compelling the aldermen to reside within the city[pg 449]under the penalty of a fine of £500.1400Against the passing of any such Act the Recorder, on behalf of the Court of Aldermen, formally reported their protest to the Common Council, and the Commons as formerly protested against that protest (13 Nov.).1401It was not that the mayor and aldermen were not fully conscious of the mischief arising from their own non-residence in the city, for they themselves passed an order for every alderman to return with his family into the city before the following Easter on pain of heavy penalty,1402but they objected to the court of Common Council presuming to dictate to them.Report to Court of Aldermenreveto, 20 Oct., 1674.In the meantime the Court of Aldermen had appointed a committee (24 Sept.) to examine the question of the right of veto, and this committee had reported (20 Oct.) in favour of the court.1403"We find," said the committee, "that the court of Common Council hath always consisted, and still it doth, of three distinct degrees of persons, viz., of the lord mayor in the first place as the chefe magistrate, and secondly of the aldermen as subordinate magistrates, and thirdly of the commons, or of a select number of the commons representing all the commoners of the said city as now is, and for a long time before hath been used." In this respect the committee proceeded to say, "the Common Councill of the city doth much resemble the constitution of the Common Council of the kingdom, and we further find that the order of[pg 450]proceeding in the making of lawes for the good government of the citty doth imitate the paterne sett them by the High Court of Parliament, in making lawes for the government of the nation, in regard that noe ordinance made in the Common Councell of this city can be a binding law to any without the joint consent and concurrence of the Lord Mayor, Court of Aldermen and commoners in Common Councell assembled, they having a joynt power and equal authority in making of lawes. So that the mayor and aldermen cannot impose upon the commoners, nore converso; each degree having a power to dissent or assent as to them seems best."The committee next pointed out how Bills for the better government of the city had formerly originated for the most part with the mayor and aldermen, and had been by them transmitted to the Common Council, where, after being read in two several courts (and not twice in one court) and assented to, they became complete acts and binding laws. Such had been the usual and salient practice. Nevertheless, the committee had found that sometimes the Common Council had petitioned the Court of Aldermen for redress of certain grievances and the latter had complied with such petitions, "and so sometimes Acts of Common Council have been made at the desire of the lord mayor and aldermen signifyed to the commons by the Recorder." The conclusion that the committee arrived at was that "the lord mayor and aldermen have negative votes as the commoners also have, and contrary to this order of proceeding in making Acts of Common Council wee cannot find any presedent."[pg 451]On the 13th November a joint Committee of Aldermen and Commoners was appointed by the Common Council to search the city's Records as to "the respective privileges of the lord mayor and aldermen and of the commons in Common Council assembled, and of the most ancient and decent method in making laws within this citty," and to report thereon.1404Four days later (17 Nov.) the Court of Aldermen instructed their committee to make further search on the question.1405The conduct of Jeffreys the Common Sergeant, 12 March, 1675.Ordered to be suspended from office.Matters were brought to a crisis on the 12th March, 1675, when the mayor and aldermen, dissatisfied with the proceedings of the court of Common Council, got up and left the court. The Common Sergeant—the notorious George Jeffreys—refusing to follow the example set by the Common Sergeant in 1649, remained behind, and went so far as to put a question to the court of which the mayor and aldermen had previously disapproved. For this he was shortly afterwards called to account. His defence was that he only obeyed the wishes of the majority; but this being deemed unsatisfactory, the Court of Aldermen ordered him to be suspended from office.1406Offers an apology which is deemed unsatisfactory, 23 March.The matter referred to the king.He afterwards (23 March) offered an apology to the Court of Aldermen for his conduct, confessing "that the question by him put at the last Common Council after the lord mayor was out of the chair was altogether irregular," and asked pardon. His apology, so far as it went, was accepted in good part by the court, but upon some explanation being asked of him as to his not refusing to put a question when[pg 452]commanded to refuse, and his offering to put another question at the request of some members of the council, he desired to be allowed time before he made answer.1407Meanwhile the dispute between the Aldermen and Common Council had been brought to the notice of the king,1408who, with his brother the Duke of York, had recently received the freedom of the City.1409Jeffreys questioned by the king, 29 March, 1675.The king recommends his restoration to office.A week later (30 March) the Recorder, John Howell, reported to the Court of Aldermen1410that he and the Common Sergeant had by command appeared before his majesty the previous day touching the unhappy difference existing between the Aldermen and the Common Council; that the Common Sergeant being asked to whom it devolved to put the question on a debate in council, had in the Recorder's hearing replied to the effect "that the question had always been used to be put by the lord mayor or by his lordship's appointment and not otherwise, so far as he had observed," and he had never known the matter disputed; that he had then likewise declared to his majesty that he was "sorry for his deportment at the last Common Council, saying that what he did was a sudden act and rashly done without any intention to make any disturbance, and that he would freely acknowledge the same wheresoever his majesty should command him"; that therefore his majesty had commanded the Recorder to acquaint the court that the best expedient he could suggest, as the case[pg 453]stood, for a settlement of the difficulty, was that the old order of things should be re-established, that (among other things) the suspension of the Common Sergeant should be removed, and that the books and records of the city should be searched by six such aldermen as the lord mayor should appoint, and six such commoners as the Common Council should appoint, in order to satisfy themselves of the respective privileges of the lord mayor and aldermen and commons in Common Council assembled, and to settle the same in a quiet and peaceable manner if they could. Failing this his majesty would appoint a judge to arbitrate in the matter.Jeffreys restored, 30 March, 1675.The court followed the king's suggestion so far as related to the Common Sergeant, and having listened to his expressions of regret for his late conduct, and his assurances that he would always endeavour to "promote the honour and government of the city," it removed his suspension.City Records defective.As regards the real issue between the two Courts of Aldermen and Common Council, matters remained much as they were before. Although the Court of Aldermen gave orders (12 April) that the proceedings relative to the dispute between the two courts should be faithfully recorded, the minutes of the Common Council at this period are particularly lacking in information as well on this as on other matters in which the City was concerned.1411[pg 454]Standing counsel for the Court of Aldermen.One result of thecontretempswhich had occurred in the court of Common Council of the 12th March was that the Court of Aldermen resolved to retain certain counsel to advise them as occasion should arise on the question of their rights and privileges, and to create a fund by subscription among themselves to meet the necessary expenses.1412Further search to be made amongst the city's archives touching rights of mayor and aldermen.In April the Town Clerk and the four clerks of the outer court (i.e.mayor's court) were instructed to search the books and records of the city on the question whether or not it was the province of the lord mayor (1) to direct and put the question in the Common Council, (2) to name committees, and (3) to nominate persons to be put in election to any office.1413This last point especially affected the right claimed by the mayor to nominate (if not to elect) one of the sheriffs by virtue of his prerogative—a claim which had already been more than once canvassed and which was destined shortly to bring the City and the Crown into violent opposition.The opinion of counsel on the question of aldermanic veto, 1675-1678.On the 7th September, 1675, the Court of Aldermen directed that the opinion of counsel should be taken on the power of the mayor and aldermen to put their veto on matters passed by the Common Council.1414After the lapse of fifteen months the opinions of Sir William Jones, the attorney-general, Sir Francis Winnington, solicitor-general, Sir John Maynard and Sir Francis Pemberton, sergeants-at-law, and of "Mr. William Steele" (nota former Recorder of that name as some have supposed1415) were presented[pg 455]to the court (5 Dec., 1676);1416and with the exception of the last mentioned, all the lawyers declared in favour of the mayor and aldermen. There the matter was allowed to rest for a year or more until in February, 1678, the opinions of Sir William Dolben, not long since appointed the city's Recorder, and of Jeffreys, the Common Sergeant, who was destined in a few months to succeed Dolben on the latter's promotion to the bench, were taken and found to coincide with the opinions already delivered with the exception of that of William Steele.1417A cry for war against France, 1678.A City loan of £100,000, afterwards raised to £150,000.Parliamentary vote of £200,000 for disbandment of the army, 4 June.Peace of Nimeguen, 31 July, 1678.In the meantime Charles had concluded a separate treaty with the Dutch (19 Feb., 1674), who continued to struggle manfully against the French king, with such assistance as they derived from the emperor and the German states. The Commons were fearful of entrusting the king with either money or troops lest he should employ them against the Dutch, or against their own liberties. The successes of Louis at length provoked a general cry for war against France, and the Commons went so far as to pass a bill (8 March, 1678) imposing a poll tax as part of the supply.1418Charles lost no time in applying to the City for the sum of £100,000 on the security of this tax, and the court of Common Council signified its readiness to advance the money (9 April).1419Finding that parliament hesitated to furnish the supplies it had voted, and without which he assured the members he would have to lay up the fleet and disband some of the newly raised forces, Charles applied to the City for[pg 456]another £50,000. This, too, was granted (14 May);1420and Charles, in order to show his displeasure with the Commons, resorted to his usual tactics and prorogued parliament, but only for ten days.1421A few days after the Commons had again met they resolved (27 May) that if the king would declare war against France they would give him their hearty support, otherwise they would at once proceed to take into consideration the speedy disbandment of the army.1422The king refusing to declare war, parliament proceeded (4 June) to carry out its threat and voted the sum of £200,000 for the disbandment of all the forces that had been raised since the 29th September, 1677.1423The disbandment did not take place, however, but in its stead a force was despatched to Holland. Scarcely had it arrived before the peace of Nimeguen was signed.The Popish plot, 1678.Just when the war was brought so unexpectedly to an end Charles signified his desire for another loan by the City to the extent of £200,000. The matter was brought to the notice of the Common Council on the last day of July, and on the 1st August the lord mayor issued his precept to the aldermen of the several wards to invite subscriptions.1424For what purpose the money was required we are not told. It was generally feared that the king meditated a suppression of the[pg 457]liberties of his subjects by the introduction of foreign troops. This fear was enhanced by the knowledge that if Charles died the crown would fall to his brother, an uncompromising Catholic. The public mind became so unhinged that every breath or rumour created the greatest trepidation. Within a fortnight after the City had signified its assent to the last loan the nation was suddenly surprised by some words let drop by Dr. Tonge, the weak and credulous rector of St. Michael's, Wood Street, and the tool of the infamous Titus Oates. A Popish plot was, he said, on foot and the king's life in danger, in proof of which he produced documentary evidence. Oates, the prime mover in starting the idea of a plot, was ready in the most shameless way with depositions to corroborate all that Tonge had said. These depositions he made before a Middlesex magistrate, Sir Edmondesbury Godfrey. The next morning Godfrey's corpse was found lying in a ditch near Primrose Hill. All London was wild with excitement and jumped to the conclusion that the Middlesex Justice had met a violent death for listening to Oates's evidence, although there is reason for believing him to have fallen by his own hands. The cry against Papists continued unabated for years.1425The city presented the appearance of a state of siege with its gates kept closed, its streets protected with posts and chains, and an armed watch kept by night and day.1426In October, when according to custom the king was to be invited to the lord mayor's banquet, the Recorder was instructed to congratulate his majesty upon his recent escape and to make[pg 458]arrangements for a deputation to wait upon him in person.1427The dissolution of the Cavalier Parliament, 24 Jan., 1679.When parliament met on the 21st of this month it passed a new Test Act rigidly excluding all Catholics from both Houses. Five Catholic peers were committed to the Tower, and Coleman, the secretary of the Duchess of York, was tried and executed for having in his possession papers betraying a design for forcing the Roman Catholic religion on the nation. It next proceeded to impeach Danby for having been concerned in certain money transactions between Charles and the king of France. Knowing the danger likely to arise from such an investigation, Charles dissolved (24 Jan., 1679) the parliament, which had now sat for more than seventeen years.The first short parliament, 6 March-27 May, 1679.When the elections for the new parliament were over it was found that the opposition to the king was greater than ever. Of the city members who had sat in the last parliament only one—Alderman Love—was returned, the remaining seats being taken by Alderman Sir Robert Clayton, Sir Thomas Player, the city chamberlain, and Thomas Pilkington, afterwards elected alderman of the ward of Farringdon Without. This second parliament—the first of a series of short parliaments—in Charles's reign met on the 6th March, 1679, but was suddenly dissolved on the 27th May in order to stop the progress of an Exclusion Bill depriving the Duke of York of his right of succession[pg 459]to the crown.1428It left its mark, however, on the statute book by passing the Habeas Corpus Act. It also voted a sum exceeding £200,000 for disbandment of the forces raised since Michaelmas, 1677.1429Just a week before parliament dissolved the Court of Aldermen was asked (20 May) to forward an address thanking both Houses for their care in securing the personal safety of the king and maintaining the Protestant religion. The address was referred back in order to include the king in the vote of thanks, and was then submitted (23 May) to the Common Council for approval. That body made a further amendment by adding the words: "The Protestant religion according to the doctrine and discipline of the Church of England as it is now established by law."1430The king's illness and recovery, Aug.-Sept., 1679.In August the king was confined to his bed with a fever so violent that it was deemed advisable to send for his brother the Duke of York. He recovered however; and on the 11th September a deputation of city aldermen waited on him to learn when the court might come in person to congratulate him on his convalescence.1431On the 17th the mayor issued his precept for bells to be set ringing and bonfires to be lighted in the city in honour of his majesty's return from Windsor to Whitehall after his late indisposition.1432The Duke of York did not return to England until February, 1680, when a special Court of Aldermen sat[pg 460]to make arrangements for presenting their congratulations to him and the duchess.1433Proclamation against "tumultuous petitions," 12 Dec., 1679.The elections for a fresh parliament which had taken place in the meantime having gone against the court party, parliament no sooner met (17 Oct.) than it was prorogued; and in consequence of repeated prorogations never sat again for a whole twelvemonth (21 Oct., 1680).1434Nor would it in all probability have been allowed to meet even then, had it not been for a constant succession of petitions addressed to the king insisting upon a session being held. So annoyed was Charles with this demonstration of popular feeling in favour of parliament that he issued a proclamation (12 Dec., 1679) prohibiting such "tumultuous petitions."1435Petitioners and Abhorrers.This led to the presentation of a number of counter-addresses to the king, expressing the greatest confidence in his majesty's wisdom, the most dutiful submission to his prerogative, andabhorrenceof those who had dared to encroach upon it by petitions. The two parties thus became distinguished asPetitionersandAbhorrers; names which were subsequently replaced by Whigs and Tories.The petition of Common Hall, 29 July, 1680.The citizens werePetitioners. On the 29th July (1680) the Livery assembled in Common Hall for the election of sheriffs took the opportunity of desiring Sir Robert Clayton, the lord mayor, to beseech his majesty on their behalf, that for the preservation of his royal person and government and the Protestant[pg 461]religion he would graciously please to order that parliament, his great council, might assemble and sit to take measures against the machinations of Rome.1436Clayton showed himself very willing to comply with the wishes of Common Hall, but pointed out at the same time that he had reason to believe that parliament was to meet in November. "If that be so," said he, "I hope your great concern for that matter might have been spared, being anticipated by his majesties gracious intention. However, I shall not be wanting with all humility to lay the whole matter before him." In spite of Jeffreys, the Recorder, having ruled that such a petition bordered on treason, and in spite of a warning received from the lord chancellor, Clayton insisted on presenting a petition, and for doing so was rewarded with the grateful thanks of the Common Council on his quitting the mayoralty.1437Jeffreys on the other hand was compelled to resign the recordership.1438The City's address to the king, 12 Nov., 1680.The king's reply.When parliament was at last allowed to meet the City lost no time in presenting a dutiful address1439to Charles acknowledging his majesty's favour and their own satisfaction. They besought him to lend a ready ear to the humble advice tendered by his great council for the safety of his royal person and the preservation of[pg 462]the true Protestant religion, and promised to be ready at all times to promote his majesty's ease and prosperity, and to stand by him against all dangers and hazards whatsoever. Had Charles accepted this address in the spirit with which it was made matters might have gone better with him, and the Stuart family might never have been driven from the throne; but he was in no mood to accept advice either from parliament or the city, and the only answer he vouchsafed to the citizens was to tell them to mind their own business. He knew what he had to do, without their advice.1440The second short parliament, 1680-1681.As soon as the House met it commenced an attack upon Papists. The Exclusion Bill was again passed, but was thrown out by the Lords. Thus baulked the Commons revived the impeachment of the Catholic lords. During the trial of Stafford on a charge of a design to murder the king, more than ordinary precautions had to be taken by the mayor to maintain order and prevent too great a crowd assembling at Westminster.1441Being condemned to death, the king was ready to spare Stafford the grosser indignities attached to a felon's execution, but the royal act of clemency was not allowed to pass unchallenged by the sheriffs of London on the ground that if the king could dispense with some part of the execution why not of all?1442The House had passed a vote of thanks to the City for its "manifest loyalty to the king" and its care and vigilance for the preservation of his majesty's person and of the Protestant religion,[pg 463]and had got as far as the second reading of a Bill for repealing the Corporation Act of 1661 when it found itself suddenly prorogued from the 10th January to the 20th.1443The City's petition to the king for parliament to be allowed to sit, 13 Jan., 1681.During the interval a petition was drawn up by the Common Council (13 Jan.) and presented to the king, in which the petitioners expressed their surprise at the late prorogation "whereby the prosecution of the public justice of the kingdom ... have received an interruption," and after referring to the action taken by parliament for the defence of his majesty's person and the preservation of the Protestant religion, prayed that the House might be allowed to resume its session on the day to which parliament had been prorogued as being "the only means to quiet the minds and extinguish the fears of your Protestant subjects."1444This petition, and more especially that part of it which spoke of the interruption of justice, was highly resented by Charles, and was one of the causes which led to the issue of the writ ofQuo Warrantoagainst the city in the following year. In the meanwhile it served only to make the king more determined than ever to dissolve the parliament, which he did by proclamation on the 18th January. A new parliament was summoned for the 21st March; it was not however to sit in London, but in the royalist city of Oxford.1445
Parliament and the Test Act, 1673.The war, which was chiefly remarkable for the noble stand made by the Dutch under the young William, Prince of Orange, Charles's own nephew and afterwards King of England, soon drained the king's resources, and once more he had to face a parliament. The parliament, which met on the 4th February, 1673, showed itself willing to vote a subsidy of £70,000 a month for a period of eighteen months, but only on its own terms. These were (1) the repeal of the Declaration of Indulgence which Charles, who was beginning to show signs of favouring the Roman Church, had by a stretch of prerogative recently caused to be issued, and (2) the passing of a Test Act which should bind all public officers to take the oaths of supremacy and allegiance, receive the sacrament, and abjure the doctrine of transubstantiation. By this means parliament hoped to maintain the supremacy of the Church.The City in arrears with assessments.The assessments which the City was now called upon to pay were far beyond its powers, seeing that many merchants and traders who had left the city at the time of the Plague and Fire refused to return, preferring to live in the suburbs, and thus a large number of the houses that had recently been re-built were left unoccupied. Every exertion was made to get some remission of the burden, but although the king signified his intention of making some abatement, little appears to have been done.1393[pg 447]Cardonel's proposals for raising money by annuities.In March of this year (1673) an individual named Philip De Cardonel came forward with a scheme for raising money by way of annuities to be granted by the city to every subscriber of £20 or more.1394The matter was in the first instance brought before the Court of Aldermen, who, upon consideration, declared that the proposal appeared to them "very faire and reasonable, and in all likelihood of very great advantage to the city," and forthwith resolved themselves into a committee of the whole court to treat with Cardonel and take such further proceedings as might be thought requisite.1395In the following month (11 April) the same proposals were submitted to the Common Council, where they met with similar favour. The court also appointed a committee to take them into further consideration, promising in the meantime that no advantage should be taken or benefit derived from the scheme without the special leave and consent of the proposer.1396Although the committee reported favourably on the scheme1397it was allowed to drop.The City's petition to parliament for relief, Feb., 1674.By February of the next year (1674) trade had become so bad that a number of the inhabitants of the city petitioned the Common Council (13 Feb.) to seek some relief from parliament. An address[pg 448]was accordingly drawn up, setting forth the miserable state to which the city had been reduced by the ravages of the plague and the fire, the increase of new buildings in the suburbs, which not only injured the trade of the city, but afforded a retreat for disorderly persons, and excessive taxation (the city being called upon to pay the same amount of taxes as in its most prosperous days), and praying the Commons to apply some timely remedy. The address was to have been laid before the house on Monday, the 23rd February,1398but no mention of it appears in the Commons Journal. On the 24th the House was prorogued.The question of aldermanic veto again raised, Sept., 1674.In September (1674) the old question again cropt up as to the power of the Court of Aldermen to veto matters ordained by the Common Council. The question had arisen, it will be remembered, in January, 1649,1399when Reynardson, the mayor, got up and left the Common Council, followed by the aldermen, and the court, instead of breaking up according to custom, proceeded to pass measures in their absence. Its action on this occasion was reported to parliament, and the house signified its approval of the court's proceedings and passed an ordinance which practically deprived the Court of Aldermen of all control over the Common Council. Since that time the matter had remained dormant, until jealousy between the two bodies was again excited by the Common Council passing an Act (17 Sept., 1674) for compelling the aldermen to reside within the city[pg 449]under the penalty of a fine of £500.1400Against the passing of any such Act the Recorder, on behalf of the Court of Aldermen, formally reported their protest to the Common Council, and the Commons as formerly protested against that protest (13 Nov.).1401It was not that the mayor and aldermen were not fully conscious of the mischief arising from their own non-residence in the city, for they themselves passed an order for every alderman to return with his family into the city before the following Easter on pain of heavy penalty,1402but they objected to the court of Common Council presuming to dictate to them.Report to Court of Aldermenreveto, 20 Oct., 1674.In the meantime the Court of Aldermen had appointed a committee (24 Sept.) to examine the question of the right of veto, and this committee had reported (20 Oct.) in favour of the court.1403"We find," said the committee, "that the court of Common Council hath always consisted, and still it doth, of three distinct degrees of persons, viz., of the lord mayor in the first place as the chefe magistrate, and secondly of the aldermen as subordinate magistrates, and thirdly of the commons, or of a select number of the commons representing all the commoners of the said city as now is, and for a long time before hath been used." In this respect the committee proceeded to say, "the Common Councill of the city doth much resemble the constitution of the Common Council of the kingdom, and we further find that the order of[pg 450]proceeding in the making of lawes for the good government of the citty doth imitate the paterne sett them by the High Court of Parliament, in making lawes for the government of the nation, in regard that noe ordinance made in the Common Councell of this city can be a binding law to any without the joint consent and concurrence of the Lord Mayor, Court of Aldermen and commoners in Common Councell assembled, they having a joynt power and equal authority in making of lawes. So that the mayor and aldermen cannot impose upon the commoners, nore converso; each degree having a power to dissent or assent as to them seems best."The committee next pointed out how Bills for the better government of the city had formerly originated for the most part with the mayor and aldermen, and had been by them transmitted to the Common Council, where, after being read in two several courts (and not twice in one court) and assented to, they became complete acts and binding laws. Such had been the usual and salient practice. Nevertheless, the committee had found that sometimes the Common Council had petitioned the Court of Aldermen for redress of certain grievances and the latter had complied with such petitions, "and so sometimes Acts of Common Council have been made at the desire of the lord mayor and aldermen signifyed to the commons by the Recorder." The conclusion that the committee arrived at was that "the lord mayor and aldermen have negative votes as the commoners also have, and contrary to this order of proceeding in making Acts of Common Council wee cannot find any presedent."[pg 451]On the 13th November a joint Committee of Aldermen and Commoners was appointed by the Common Council to search the city's Records as to "the respective privileges of the lord mayor and aldermen and of the commons in Common Council assembled, and of the most ancient and decent method in making laws within this citty," and to report thereon.1404Four days later (17 Nov.) the Court of Aldermen instructed their committee to make further search on the question.1405The conduct of Jeffreys the Common Sergeant, 12 March, 1675.Ordered to be suspended from office.Matters were brought to a crisis on the 12th March, 1675, when the mayor and aldermen, dissatisfied with the proceedings of the court of Common Council, got up and left the court. The Common Sergeant—the notorious George Jeffreys—refusing to follow the example set by the Common Sergeant in 1649, remained behind, and went so far as to put a question to the court of which the mayor and aldermen had previously disapproved. For this he was shortly afterwards called to account. His defence was that he only obeyed the wishes of the majority; but this being deemed unsatisfactory, the Court of Aldermen ordered him to be suspended from office.1406Offers an apology which is deemed unsatisfactory, 23 March.The matter referred to the king.He afterwards (23 March) offered an apology to the Court of Aldermen for his conduct, confessing "that the question by him put at the last Common Council after the lord mayor was out of the chair was altogether irregular," and asked pardon. His apology, so far as it went, was accepted in good part by the court, but upon some explanation being asked of him as to his not refusing to put a question when[pg 452]commanded to refuse, and his offering to put another question at the request of some members of the council, he desired to be allowed time before he made answer.1407Meanwhile the dispute between the Aldermen and Common Council had been brought to the notice of the king,1408who, with his brother the Duke of York, had recently received the freedom of the City.1409Jeffreys questioned by the king, 29 March, 1675.The king recommends his restoration to office.A week later (30 March) the Recorder, John Howell, reported to the Court of Aldermen1410that he and the Common Sergeant had by command appeared before his majesty the previous day touching the unhappy difference existing between the Aldermen and the Common Council; that the Common Sergeant being asked to whom it devolved to put the question on a debate in council, had in the Recorder's hearing replied to the effect "that the question had always been used to be put by the lord mayor or by his lordship's appointment and not otherwise, so far as he had observed," and he had never known the matter disputed; that he had then likewise declared to his majesty that he was "sorry for his deportment at the last Common Council, saying that what he did was a sudden act and rashly done without any intention to make any disturbance, and that he would freely acknowledge the same wheresoever his majesty should command him"; that therefore his majesty had commanded the Recorder to acquaint the court that the best expedient he could suggest, as the case[pg 453]stood, for a settlement of the difficulty, was that the old order of things should be re-established, that (among other things) the suspension of the Common Sergeant should be removed, and that the books and records of the city should be searched by six such aldermen as the lord mayor should appoint, and six such commoners as the Common Council should appoint, in order to satisfy themselves of the respective privileges of the lord mayor and aldermen and commons in Common Council assembled, and to settle the same in a quiet and peaceable manner if they could. Failing this his majesty would appoint a judge to arbitrate in the matter.Jeffreys restored, 30 March, 1675.The court followed the king's suggestion so far as related to the Common Sergeant, and having listened to his expressions of regret for his late conduct, and his assurances that he would always endeavour to "promote the honour and government of the city," it removed his suspension.City Records defective.As regards the real issue between the two Courts of Aldermen and Common Council, matters remained much as they were before. Although the Court of Aldermen gave orders (12 April) that the proceedings relative to the dispute between the two courts should be faithfully recorded, the minutes of the Common Council at this period are particularly lacking in information as well on this as on other matters in which the City was concerned.1411[pg 454]Standing counsel for the Court of Aldermen.One result of thecontretempswhich had occurred in the court of Common Council of the 12th March was that the Court of Aldermen resolved to retain certain counsel to advise them as occasion should arise on the question of their rights and privileges, and to create a fund by subscription among themselves to meet the necessary expenses.1412Further search to be made amongst the city's archives touching rights of mayor and aldermen.In April the Town Clerk and the four clerks of the outer court (i.e.mayor's court) were instructed to search the books and records of the city on the question whether or not it was the province of the lord mayor (1) to direct and put the question in the Common Council, (2) to name committees, and (3) to nominate persons to be put in election to any office.1413This last point especially affected the right claimed by the mayor to nominate (if not to elect) one of the sheriffs by virtue of his prerogative—a claim which had already been more than once canvassed and which was destined shortly to bring the City and the Crown into violent opposition.The opinion of counsel on the question of aldermanic veto, 1675-1678.On the 7th September, 1675, the Court of Aldermen directed that the opinion of counsel should be taken on the power of the mayor and aldermen to put their veto on matters passed by the Common Council.1414After the lapse of fifteen months the opinions of Sir William Jones, the attorney-general, Sir Francis Winnington, solicitor-general, Sir John Maynard and Sir Francis Pemberton, sergeants-at-law, and of "Mr. William Steele" (nota former Recorder of that name as some have supposed1415) were presented[pg 455]to the court (5 Dec., 1676);1416and with the exception of the last mentioned, all the lawyers declared in favour of the mayor and aldermen. There the matter was allowed to rest for a year or more until in February, 1678, the opinions of Sir William Dolben, not long since appointed the city's Recorder, and of Jeffreys, the Common Sergeant, who was destined in a few months to succeed Dolben on the latter's promotion to the bench, were taken and found to coincide with the opinions already delivered with the exception of that of William Steele.1417A cry for war against France, 1678.A City loan of £100,000, afterwards raised to £150,000.Parliamentary vote of £200,000 for disbandment of the army, 4 June.Peace of Nimeguen, 31 July, 1678.In the meantime Charles had concluded a separate treaty with the Dutch (19 Feb., 1674), who continued to struggle manfully against the French king, with such assistance as they derived from the emperor and the German states. The Commons were fearful of entrusting the king with either money or troops lest he should employ them against the Dutch, or against their own liberties. The successes of Louis at length provoked a general cry for war against France, and the Commons went so far as to pass a bill (8 March, 1678) imposing a poll tax as part of the supply.1418Charles lost no time in applying to the City for the sum of £100,000 on the security of this tax, and the court of Common Council signified its readiness to advance the money (9 April).1419Finding that parliament hesitated to furnish the supplies it had voted, and without which he assured the members he would have to lay up the fleet and disband some of the newly raised forces, Charles applied to the City for[pg 456]another £50,000. This, too, was granted (14 May);1420and Charles, in order to show his displeasure with the Commons, resorted to his usual tactics and prorogued parliament, but only for ten days.1421A few days after the Commons had again met they resolved (27 May) that if the king would declare war against France they would give him their hearty support, otherwise they would at once proceed to take into consideration the speedy disbandment of the army.1422The king refusing to declare war, parliament proceeded (4 June) to carry out its threat and voted the sum of £200,000 for the disbandment of all the forces that had been raised since the 29th September, 1677.1423The disbandment did not take place, however, but in its stead a force was despatched to Holland. Scarcely had it arrived before the peace of Nimeguen was signed.The Popish plot, 1678.Just when the war was brought so unexpectedly to an end Charles signified his desire for another loan by the City to the extent of £200,000. The matter was brought to the notice of the Common Council on the last day of July, and on the 1st August the lord mayor issued his precept to the aldermen of the several wards to invite subscriptions.1424For what purpose the money was required we are not told. It was generally feared that the king meditated a suppression of the[pg 457]liberties of his subjects by the introduction of foreign troops. This fear was enhanced by the knowledge that if Charles died the crown would fall to his brother, an uncompromising Catholic. The public mind became so unhinged that every breath or rumour created the greatest trepidation. Within a fortnight after the City had signified its assent to the last loan the nation was suddenly surprised by some words let drop by Dr. Tonge, the weak and credulous rector of St. Michael's, Wood Street, and the tool of the infamous Titus Oates. A Popish plot was, he said, on foot and the king's life in danger, in proof of which he produced documentary evidence. Oates, the prime mover in starting the idea of a plot, was ready in the most shameless way with depositions to corroborate all that Tonge had said. These depositions he made before a Middlesex magistrate, Sir Edmondesbury Godfrey. The next morning Godfrey's corpse was found lying in a ditch near Primrose Hill. All London was wild with excitement and jumped to the conclusion that the Middlesex Justice had met a violent death for listening to Oates's evidence, although there is reason for believing him to have fallen by his own hands. The cry against Papists continued unabated for years.1425The city presented the appearance of a state of siege with its gates kept closed, its streets protected with posts and chains, and an armed watch kept by night and day.1426In October, when according to custom the king was to be invited to the lord mayor's banquet, the Recorder was instructed to congratulate his majesty upon his recent escape and to make[pg 458]arrangements for a deputation to wait upon him in person.1427The dissolution of the Cavalier Parliament, 24 Jan., 1679.When parliament met on the 21st of this month it passed a new Test Act rigidly excluding all Catholics from both Houses. Five Catholic peers were committed to the Tower, and Coleman, the secretary of the Duchess of York, was tried and executed for having in his possession papers betraying a design for forcing the Roman Catholic religion on the nation. It next proceeded to impeach Danby for having been concerned in certain money transactions between Charles and the king of France. Knowing the danger likely to arise from such an investigation, Charles dissolved (24 Jan., 1679) the parliament, which had now sat for more than seventeen years.The first short parliament, 6 March-27 May, 1679.When the elections for the new parliament were over it was found that the opposition to the king was greater than ever. Of the city members who had sat in the last parliament only one—Alderman Love—was returned, the remaining seats being taken by Alderman Sir Robert Clayton, Sir Thomas Player, the city chamberlain, and Thomas Pilkington, afterwards elected alderman of the ward of Farringdon Without. This second parliament—the first of a series of short parliaments—in Charles's reign met on the 6th March, 1679, but was suddenly dissolved on the 27th May in order to stop the progress of an Exclusion Bill depriving the Duke of York of his right of succession[pg 459]to the crown.1428It left its mark, however, on the statute book by passing the Habeas Corpus Act. It also voted a sum exceeding £200,000 for disbandment of the forces raised since Michaelmas, 1677.1429Just a week before parliament dissolved the Court of Aldermen was asked (20 May) to forward an address thanking both Houses for their care in securing the personal safety of the king and maintaining the Protestant religion. The address was referred back in order to include the king in the vote of thanks, and was then submitted (23 May) to the Common Council for approval. That body made a further amendment by adding the words: "The Protestant religion according to the doctrine and discipline of the Church of England as it is now established by law."1430The king's illness and recovery, Aug.-Sept., 1679.In August the king was confined to his bed with a fever so violent that it was deemed advisable to send for his brother the Duke of York. He recovered however; and on the 11th September a deputation of city aldermen waited on him to learn when the court might come in person to congratulate him on his convalescence.1431On the 17th the mayor issued his precept for bells to be set ringing and bonfires to be lighted in the city in honour of his majesty's return from Windsor to Whitehall after his late indisposition.1432The Duke of York did not return to England until February, 1680, when a special Court of Aldermen sat[pg 460]to make arrangements for presenting their congratulations to him and the duchess.1433Proclamation against "tumultuous petitions," 12 Dec., 1679.The elections for a fresh parliament which had taken place in the meantime having gone against the court party, parliament no sooner met (17 Oct.) than it was prorogued; and in consequence of repeated prorogations never sat again for a whole twelvemonth (21 Oct., 1680).1434Nor would it in all probability have been allowed to meet even then, had it not been for a constant succession of petitions addressed to the king insisting upon a session being held. So annoyed was Charles with this demonstration of popular feeling in favour of parliament that he issued a proclamation (12 Dec., 1679) prohibiting such "tumultuous petitions."1435Petitioners and Abhorrers.This led to the presentation of a number of counter-addresses to the king, expressing the greatest confidence in his majesty's wisdom, the most dutiful submission to his prerogative, andabhorrenceof those who had dared to encroach upon it by petitions. The two parties thus became distinguished asPetitionersandAbhorrers; names which were subsequently replaced by Whigs and Tories.The petition of Common Hall, 29 July, 1680.The citizens werePetitioners. On the 29th July (1680) the Livery assembled in Common Hall for the election of sheriffs took the opportunity of desiring Sir Robert Clayton, the lord mayor, to beseech his majesty on their behalf, that for the preservation of his royal person and government and the Protestant[pg 461]religion he would graciously please to order that parliament, his great council, might assemble and sit to take measures against the machinations of Rome.1436Clayton showed himself very willing to comply with the wishes of Common Hall, but pointed out at the same time that he had reason to believe that parliament was to meet in November. "If that be so," said he, "I hope your great concern for that matter might have been spared, being anticipated by his majesties gracious intention. However, I shall not be wanting with all humility to lay the whole matter before him." In spite of Jeffreys, the Recorder, having ruled that such a petition bordered on treason, and in spite of a warning received from the lord chancellor, Clayton insisted on presenting a petition, and for doing so was rewarded with the grateful thanks of the Common Council on his quitting the mayoralty.1437Jeffreys on the other hand was compelled to resign the recordership.1438The City's address to the king, 12 Nov., 1680.The king's reply.When parliament was at last allowed to meet the City lost no time in presenting a dutiful address1439to Charles acknowledging his majesty's favour and their own satisfaction. They besought him to lend a ready ear to the humble advice tendered by his great council for the safety of his royal person and the preservation of[pg 462]the true Protestant religion, and promised to be ready at all times to promote his majesty's ease and prosperity, and to stand by him against all dangers and hazards whatsoever. Had Charles accepted this address in the spirit with which it was made matters might have gone better with him, and the Stuart family might never have been driven from the throne; but he was in no mood to accept advice either from parliament or the city, and the only answer he vouchsafed to the citizens was to tell them to mind their own business. He knew what he had to do, without their advice.1440The second short parliament, 1680-1681.As soon as the House met it commenced an attack upon Papists. The Exclusion Bill was again passed, but was thrown out by the Lords. Thus baulked the Commons revived the impeachment of the Catholic lords. During the trial of Stafford on a charge of a design to murder the king, more than ordinary precautions had to be taken by the mayor to maintain order and prevent too great a crowd assembling at Westminster.1441Being condemned to death, the king was ready to spare Stafford the grosser indignities attached to a felon's execution, but the royal act of clemency was not allowed to pass unchallenged by the sheriffs of London on the ground that if the king could dispense with some part of the execution why not of all?1442The House had passed a vote of thanks to the City for its "manifest loyalty to the king" and its care and vigilance for the preservation of his majesty's person and of the Protestant religion,[pg 463]and had got as far as the second reading of a Bill for repealing the Corporation Act of 1661 when it found itself suddenly prorogued from the 10th January to the 20th.1443The City's petition to the king for parliament to be allowed to sit, 13 Jan., 1681.During the interval a petition was drawn up by the Common Council (13 Jan.) and presented to the king, in which the petitioners expressed their surprise at the late prorogation "whereby the prosecution of the public justice of the kingdom ... have received an interruption," and after referring to the action taken by parliament for the defence of his majesty's person and the preservation of the Protestant religion, prayed that the House might be allowed to resume its session on the day to which parliament had been prorogued as being "the only means to quiet the minds and extinguish the fears of your Protestant subjects."1444This petition, and more especially that part of it which spoke of the interruption of justice, was highly resented by Charles, and was one of the causes which led to the issue of the writ ofQuo Warrantoagainst the city in the following year. In the meanwhile it served only to make the king more determined than ever to dissolve the parliament, which he did by proclamation on the 18th January. A new parliament was summoned for the 21st March; it was not however to sit in London, but in the royalist city of Oxford.1445
Parliament and the Test Act, 1673.The war, which was chiefly remarkable for the noble stand made by the Dutch under the young William, Prince of Orange, Charles's own nephew and afterwards King of England, soon drained the king's resources, and once more he had to face a parliament. The parliament, which met on the 4th February, 1673, showed itself willing to vote a subsidy of £70,000 a month for a period of eighteen months, but only on its own terms. These were (1) the repeal of the Declaration of Indulgence which Charles, who was beginning to show signs of favouring the Roman Church, had by a stretch of prerogative recently caused to be issued, and (2) the passing of a Test Act which should bind all public officers to take the oaths of supremacy and allegiance, receive the sacrament, and abjure the doctrine of transubstantiation. By this means parliament hoped to maintain the supremacy of the Church.The City in arrears with assessments.The assessments which the City was now called upon to pay were far beyond its powers, seeing that many merchants and traders who had left the city at the time of the Plague and Fire refused to return, preferring to live in the suburbs, and thus a large number of the houses that had recently been re-built were left unoccupied. Every exertion was made to get some remission of the burden, but although the king signified his intention of making some abatement, little appears to have been done.1393[pg 447]Cardonel's proposals for raising money by annuities.In March of this year (1673) an individual named Philip De Cardonel came forward with a scheme for raising money by way of annuities to be granted by the city to every subscriber of £20 or more.1394The matter was in the first instance brought before the Court of Aldermen, who, upon consideration, declared that the proposal appeared to them "very faire and reasonable, and in all likelihood of very great advantage to the city," and forthwith resolved themselves into a committee of the whole court to treat with Cardonel and take such further proceedings as might be thought requisite.1395In the following month (11 April) the same proposals were submitted to the Common Council, where they met with similar favour. The court also appointed a committee to take them into further consideration, promising in the meantime that no advantage should be taken or benefit derived from the scheme without the special leave and consent of the proposer.1396Although the committee reported favourably on the scheme1397it was allowed to drop.The City's petition to parliament for relief, Feb., 1674.By February of the next year (1674) trade had become so bad that a number of the inhabitants of the city petitioned the Common Council (13 Feb.) to seek some relief from parliament. An address[pg 448]was accordingly drawn up, setting forth the miserable state to which the city had been reduced by the ravages of the plague and the fire, the increase of new buildings in the suburbs, which not only injured the trade of the city, but afforded a retreat for disorderly persons, and excessive taxation (the city being called upon to pay the same amount of taxes as in its most prosperous days), and praying the Commons to apply some timely remedy. The address was to have been laid before the house on Monday, the 23rd February,1398but no mention of it appears in the Commons Journal. On the 24th the House was prorogued.The question of aldermanic veto again raised, Sept., 1674.In September (1674) the old question again cropt up as to the power of the Court of Aldermen to veto matters ordained by the Common Council. The question had arisen, it will be remembered, in January, 1649,1399when Reynardson, the mayor, got up and left the Common Council, followed by the aldermen, and the court, instead of breaking up according to custom, proceeded to pass measures in their absence. Its action on this occasion was reported to parliament, and the house signified its approval of the court's proceedings and passed an ordinance which practically deprived the Court of Aldermen of all control over the Common Council. Since that time the matter had remained dormant, until jealousy between the two bodies was again excited by the Common Council passing an Act (17 Sept., 1674) for compelling the aldermen to reside within the city[pg 449]under the penalty of a fine of £500.1400Against the passing of any such Act the Recorder, on behalf of the Court of Aldermen, formally reported their protest to the Common Council, and the Commons as formerly protested against that protest (13 Nov.).1401It was not that the mayor and aldermen were not fully conscious of the mischief arising from their own non-residence in the city, for they themselves passed an order for every alderman to return with his family into the city before the following Easter on pain of heavy penalty,1402but they objected to the court of Common Council presuming to dictate to them.Report to Court of Aldermenreveto, 20 Oct., 1674.In the meantime the Court of Aldermen had appointed a committee (24 Sept.) to examine the question of the right of veto, and this committee had reported (20 Oct.) in favour of the court.1403"We find," said the committee, "that the court of Common Council hath always consisted, and still it doth, of three distinct degrees of persons, viz., of the lord mayor in the first place as the chefe magistrate, and secondly of the aldermen as subordinate magistrates, and thirdly of the commons, or of a select number of the commons representing all the commoners of the said city as now is, and for a long time before hath been used." In this respect the committee proceeded to say, "the Common Councill of the city doth much resemble the constitution of the Common Council of the kingdom, and we further find that the order of[pg 450]proceeding in the making of lawes for the good government of the citty doth imitate the paterne sett them by the High Court of Parliament, in making lawes for the government of the nation, in regard that noe ordinance made in the Common Councell of this city can be a binding law to any without the joint consent and concurrence of the Lord Mayor, Court of Aldermen and commoners in Common Councell assembled, they having a joynt power and equal authority in making of lawes. So that the mayor and aldermen cannot impose upon the commoners, nore converso; each degree having a power to dissent or assent as to them seems best."The committee next pointed out how Bills for the better government of the city had formerly originated for the most part with the mayor and aldermen, and had been by them transmitted to the Common Council, where, after being read in two several courts (and not twice in one court) and assented to, they became complete acts and binding laws. Such had been the usual and salient practice. Nevertheless, the committee had found that sometimes the Common Council had petitioned the Court of Aldermen for redress of certain grievances and the latter had complied with such petitions, "and so sometimes Acts of Common Council have been made at the desire of the lord mayor and aldermen signifyed to the commons by the Recorder." The conclusion that the committee arrived at was that "the lord mayor and aldermen have negative votes as the commoners also have, and contrary to this order of proceeding in making Acts of Common Council wee cannot find any presedent."[pg 451]On the 13th November a joint Committee of Aldermen and Commoners was appointed by the Common Council to search the city's Records as to "the respective privileges of the lord mayor and aldermen and of the commons in Common Council assembled, and of the most ancient and decent method in making laws within this citty," and to report thereon.1404Four days later (17 Nov.) the Court of Aldermen instructed their committee to make further search on the question.1405The conduct of Jeffreys the Common Sergeant, 12 March, 1675.Ordered to be suspended from office.Matters were brought to a crisis on the 12th March, 1675, when the mayor and aldermen, dissatisfied with the proceedings of the court of Common Council, got up and left the court. The Common Sergeant—the notorious George Jeffreys—refusing to follow the example set by the Common Sergeant in 1649, remained behind, and went so far as to put a question to the court of which the mayor and aldermen had previously disapproved. For this he was shortly afterwards called to account. His defence was that he only obeyed the wishes of the majority; but this being deemed unsatisfactory, the Court of Aldermen ordered him to be suspended from office.1406Offers an apology which is deemed unsatisfactory, 23 March.The matter referred to the king.He afterwards (23 March) offered an apology to the Court of Aldermen for his conduct, confessing "that the question by him put at the last Common Council after the lord mayor was out of the chair was altogether irregular," and asked pardon. His apology, so far as it went, was accepted in good part by the court, but upon some explanation being asked of him as to his not refusing to put a question when[pg 452]commanded to refuse, and his offering to put another question at the request of some members of the council, he desired to be allowed time before he made answer.1407Meanwhile the dispute between the Aldermen and Common Council had been brought to the notice of the king,1408who, with his brother the Duke of York, had recently received the freedom of the City.1409Jeffreys questioned by the king, 29 March, 1675.The king recommends his restoration to office.A week later (30 March) the Recorder, John Howell, reported to the Court of Aldermen1410that he and the Common Sergeant had by command appeared before his majesty the previous day touching the unhappy difference existing between the Aldermen and the Common Council; that the Common Sergeant being asked to whom it devolved to put the question on a debate in council, had in the Recorder's hearing replied to the effect "that the question had always been used to be put by the lord mayor or by his lordship's appointment and not otherwise, so far as he had observed," and he had never known the matter disputed; that he had then likewise declared to his majesty that he was "sorry for his deportment at the last Common Council, saying that what he did was a sudden act and rashly done without any intention to make any disturbance, and that he would freely acknowledge the same wheresoever his majesty should command him"; that therefore his majesty had commanded the Recorder to acquaint the court that the best expedient he could suggest, as the case[pg 453]stood, for a settlement of the difficulty, was that the old order of things should be re-established, that (among other things) the suspension of the Common Sergeant should be removed, and that the books and records of the city should be searched by six such aldermen as the lord mayor should appoint, and six such commoners as the Common Council should appoint, in order to satisfy themselves of the respective privileges of the lord mayor and aldermen and commons in Common Council assembled, and to settle the same in a quiet and peaceable manner if they could. Failing this his majesty would appoint a judge to arbitrate in the matter.Jeffreys restored, 30 March, 1675.The court followed the king's suggestion so far as related to the Common Sergeant, and having listened to his expressions of regret for his late conduct, and his assurances that he would always endeavour to "promote the honour and government of the city," it removed his suspension.City Records defective.As regards the real issue between the two Courts of Aldermen and Common Council, matters remained much as they were before. Although the Court of Aldermen gave orders (12 April) that the proceedings relative to the dispute between the two courts should be faithfully recorded, the minutes of the Common Council at this period are particularly lacking in information as well on this as on other matters in which the City was concerned.1411[pg 454]Standing counsel for the Court of Aldermen.One result of thecontretempswhich had occurred in the court of Common Council of the 12th March was that the Court of Aldermen resolved to retain certain counsel to advise them as occasion should arise on the question of their rights and privileges, and to create a fund by subscription among themselves to meet the necessary expenses.1412Further search to be made amongst the city's archives touching rights of mayor and aldermen.In April the Town Clerk and the four clerks of the outer court (i.e.mayor's court) were instructed to search the books and records of the city on the question whether or not it was the province of the lord mayor (1) to direct and put the question in the Common Council, (2) to name committees, and (3) to nominate persons to be put in election to any office.1413This last point especially affected the right claimed by the mayor to nominate (if not to elect) one of the sheriffs by virtue of his prerogative—a claim which had already been more than once canvassed and which was destined shortly to bring the City and the Crown into violent opposition.The opinion of counsel on the question of aldermanic veto, 1675-1678.On the 7th September, 1675, the Court of Aldermen directed that the opinion of counsel should be taken on the power of the mayor and aldermen to put their veto on matters passed by the Common Council.1414After the lapse of fifteen months the opinions of Sir William Jones, the attorney-general, Sir Francis Winnington, solicitor-general, Sir John Maynard and Sir Francis Pemberton, sergeants-at-law, and of "Mr. William Steele" (nota former Recorder of that name as some have supposed1415) were presented[pg 455]to the court (5 Dec., 1676);1416and with the exception of the last mentioned, all the lawyers declared in favour of the mayor and aldermen. There the matter was allowed to rest for a year or more until in February, 1678, the opinions of Sir William Dolben, not long since appointed the city's Recorder, and of Jeffreys, the Common Sergeant, who was destined in a few months to succeed Dolben on the latter's promotion to the bench, were taken and found to coincide with the opinions already delivered with the exception of that of William Steele.1417A cry for war against France, 1678.A City loan of £100,000, afterwards raised to £150,000.Parliamentary vote of £200,000 for disbandment of the army, 4 June.Peace of Nimeguen, 31 July, 1678.In the meantime Charles had concluded a separate treaty with the Dutch (19 Feb., 1674), who continued to struggle manfully against the French king, with such assistance as they derived from the emperor and the German states. The Commons were fearful of entrusting the king with either money or troops lest he should employ them against the Dutch, or against their own liberties. The successes of Louis at length provoked a general cry for war against France, and the Commons went so far as to pass a bill (8 March, 1678) imposing a poll tax as part of the supply.1418Charles lost no time in applying to the City for the sum of £100,000 on the security of this tax, and the court of Common Council signified its readiness to advance the money (9 April).1419Finding that parliament hesitated to furnish the supplies it had voted, and without which he assured the members he would have to lay up the fleet and disband some of the newly raised forces, Charles applied to the City for[pg 456]another £50,000. This, too, was granted (14 May);1420and Charles, in order to show his displeasure with the Commons, resorted to his usual tactics and prorogued parliament, but only for ten days.1421A few days after the Commons had again met they resolved (27 May) that if the king would declare war against France they would give him their hearty support, otherwise they would at once proceed to take into consideration the speedy disbandment of the army.1422The king refusing to declare war, parliament proceeded (4 June) to carry out its threat and voted the sum of £200,000 for the disbandment of all the forces that had been raised since the 29th September, 1677.1423The disbandment did not take place, however, but in its stead a force was despatched to Holland. Scarcely had it arrived before the peace of Nimeguen was signed.The Popish plot, 1678.Just when the war was brought so unexpectedly to an end Charles signified his desire for another loan by the City to the extent of £200,000. The matter was brought to the notice of the Common Council on the last day of July, and on the 1st August the lord mayor issued his precept to the aldermen of the several wards to invite subscriptions.1424For what purpose the money was required we are not told. It was generally feared that the king meditated a suppression of the[pg 457]liberties of his subjects by the introduction of foreign troops. This fear was enhanced by the knowledge that if Charles died the crown would fall to his brother, an uncompromising Catholic. The public mind became so unhinged that every breath or rumour created the greatest trepidation. Within a fortnight after the City had signified its assent to the last loan the nation was suddenly surprised by some words let drop by Dr. Tonge, the weak and credulous rector of St. Michael's, Wood Street, and the tool of the infamous Titus Oates. A Popish plot was, he said, on foot and the king's life in danger, in proof of which he produced documentary evidence. Oates, the prime mover in starting the idea of a plot, was ready in the most shameless way with depositions to corroborate all that Tonge had said. These depositions he made before a Middlesex magistrate, Sir Edmondesbury Godfrey. The next morning Godfrey's corpse was found lying in a ditch near Primrose Hill. All London was wild with excitement and jumped to the conclusion that the Middlesex Justice had met a violent death for listening to Oates's evidence, although there is reason for believing him to have fallen by his own hands. The cry against Papists continued unabated for years.1425The city presented the appearance of a state of siege with its gates kept closed, its streets protected with posts and chains, and an armed watch kept by night and day.1426In October, when according to custom the king was to be invited to the lord mayor's banquet, the Recorder was instructed to congratulate his majesty upon his recent escape and to make[pg 458]arrangements for a deputation to wait upon him in person.1427The dissolution of the Cavalier Parliament, 24 Jan., 1679.When parliament met on the 21st of this month it passed a new Test Act rigidly excluding all Catholics from both Houses. Five Catholic peers were committed to the Tower, and Coleman, the secretary of the Duchess of York, was tried and executed for having in his possession papers betraying a design for forcing the Roman Catholic religion on the nation. It next proceeded to impeach Danby for having been concerned in certain money transactions between Charles and the king of France. Knowing the danger likely to arise from such an investigation, Charles dissolved (24 Jan., 1679) the parliament, which had now sat for more than seventeen years.The first short parliament, 6 March-27 May, 1679.When the elections for the new parliament were over it was found that the opposition to the king was greater than ever. Of the city members who had sat in the last parliament only one—Alderman Love—was returned, the remaining seats being taken by Alderman Sir Robert Clayton, Sir Thomas Player, the city chamberlain, and Thomas Pilkington, afterwards elected alderman of the ward of Farringdon Without. This second parliament—the first of a series of short parliaments—in Charles's reign met on the 6th March, 1679, but was suddenly dissolved on the 27th May in order to stop the progress of an Exclusion Bill depriving the Duke of York of his right of succession[pg 459]to the crown.1428It left its mark, however, on the statute book by passing the Habeas Corpus Act. It also voted a sum exceeding £200,000 for disbandment of the forces raised since Michaelmas, 1677.1429Just a week before parliament dissolved the Court of Aldermen was asked (20 May) to forward an address thanking both Houses for their care in securing the personal safety of the king and maintaining the Protestant religion. The address was referred back in order to include the king in the vote of thanks, and was then submitted (23 May) to the Common Council for approval. That body made a further amendment by adding the words: "The Protestant religion according to the doctrine and discipline of the Church of England as it is now established by law."1430The king's illness and recovery, Aug.-Sept., 1679.In August the king was confined to his bed with a fever so violent that it was deemed advisable to send for his brother the Duke of York. He recovered however; and on the 11th September a deputation of city aldermen waited on him to learn when the court might come in person to congratulate him on his convalescence.1431On the 17th the mayor issued his precept for bells to be set ringing and bonfires to be lighted in the city in honour of his majesty's return from Windsor to Whitehall after his late indisposition.1432The Duke of York did not return to England until February, 1680, when a special Court of Aldermen sat[pg 460]to make arrangements for presenting their congratulations to him and the duchess.1433Proclamation against "tumultuous petitions," 12 Dec., 1679.The elections for a fresh parliament which had taken place in the meantime having gone against the court party, parliament no sooner met (17 Oct.) than it was prorogued; and in consequence of repeated prorogations never sat again for a whole twelvemonth (21 Oct., 1680).1434Nor would it in all probability have been allowed to meet even then, had it not been for a constant succession of petitions addressed to the king insisting upon a session being held. So annoyed was Charles with this demonstration of popular feeling in favour of parliament that he issued a proclamation (12 Dec., 1679) prohibiting such "tumultuous petitions."1435Petitioners and Abhorrers.This led to the presentation of a number of counter-addresses to the king, expressing the greatest confidence in his majesty's wisdom, the most dutiful submission to his prerogative, andabhorrenceof those who had dared to encroach upon it by petitions. The two parties thus became distinguished asPetitionersandAbhorrers; names which were subsequently replaced by Whigs and Tories.The petition of Common Hall, 29 July, 1680.The citizens werePetitioners. On the 29th July (1680) the Livery assembled in Common Hall for the election of sheriffs took the opportunity of desiring Sir Robert Clayton, the lord mayor, to beseech his majesty on their behalf, that for the preservation of his royal person and government and the Protestant[pg 461]religion he would graciously please to order that parliament, his great council, might assemble and sit to take measures against the machinations of Rome.1436Clayton showed himself very willing to comply with the wishes of Common Hall, but pointed out at the same time that he had reason to believe that parliament was to meet in November. "If that be so," said he, "I hope your great concern for that matter might have been spared, being anticipated by his majesties gracious intention. However, I shall not be wanting with all humility to lay the whole matter before him." In spite of Jeffreys, the Recorder, having ruled that such a petition bordered on treason, and in spite of a warning received from the lord chancellor, Clayton insisted on presenting a petition, and for doing so was rewarded with the grateful thanks of the Common Council on his quitting the mayoralty.1437Jeffreys on the other hand was compelled to resign the recordership.1438The City's address to the king, 12 Nov., 1680.The king's reply.When parliament was at last allowed to meet the City lost no time in presenting a dutiful address1439to Charles acknowledging his majesty's favour and their own satisfaction. They besought him to lend a ready ear to the humble advice tendered by his great council for the safety of his royal person and the preservation of[pg 462]the true Protestant religion, and promised to be ready at all times to promote his majesty's ease and prosperity, and to stand by him against all dangers and hazards whatsoever. Had Charles accepted this address in the spirit with which it was made matters might have gone better with him, and the Stuart family might never have been driven from the throne; but he was in no mood to accept advice either from parliament or the city, and the only answer he vouchsafed to the citizens was to tell them to mind their own business. He knew what he had to do, without their advice.1440The second short parliament, 1680-1681.As soon as the House met it commenced an attack upon Papists. The Exclusion Bill was again passed, but was thrown out by the Lords. Thus baulked the Commons revived the impeachment of the Catholic lords. During the trial of Stafford on a charge of a design to murder the king, more than ordinary precautions had to be taken by the mayor to maintain order and prevent too great a crowd assembling at Westminster.1441Being condemned to death, the king was ready to spare Stafford the grosser indignities attached to a felon's execution, but the royal act of clemency was not allowed to pass unchallenged by the sheriffs of London on the ground that if the king could dispense with some part of the execution why not of all?1442The House had passed a vote of thanks to the City for its "manifest loyalty to the king" and its care and vigilance for the preservation of his majesty's person and of the Protestant religion,[pg 463]and had got as far as the second reading of a Bill for repealing the Corporation Act of 1661 when it found itself suddenly prorogued from the 10th January to the 20th.1443The City's petition to the king for parliament to be allowed to sit, 13 Jan., 1681.During the interval a petition was drawn up by the Common Council (13 Jan.) and presented to the king, in which the petitioners expressed their surprise at the late prorogation "whereby the prosecution of the public justice of the kingdom ... have received an interruption," and after referring to the action taken by parliament for the defence of his majesty's person and the preservation of the Protestant religion, prayed that the House might be allowed to resume its session on the day to which parliament had been prorogued as being "the only means to quiet the minds and extinguish the fears of your Protestant subjects."1444This petition, and more especially that part of it which spoke of the interruption of justice, was highly resented by Charles, and was one of the causes which led to the issue of the writ ofQuo Warrantoagainst the city in the following year. In the meanwhile it served only to make the king more determined than ever to dissolve the parliament, which he did by proclamation on the 18th January. A new parliament was summoned for the 21st March; it was not however to sit in London, but in the royalist city of Oxford.1445
Parliament and the Test Act, 1673.
Parliament and the Test Act, 1673.
Parliament and the Test Act, 1673.
The war, which was chiefly remarkable for the noble stand made by the Dutch under the young William, Prince of Orange, Charles's own nephew and afterwards King of England, soon drained the king's resources, and once more he had to face a parliament. The parliament, which met on the 4th February, 1673, showed itself willing to vote a subsidy of £70,000 a month for a period of eighteen months, but only on its own terms. These were (1) the repeal of the Declaration of Indulgence which Charles, who was beginning to show signs of favouring the Roman Church, had by a stretch of prerogative recently caused to be issued, and (2) the passing of a Test Act which should bind all public officers to take the oaths of supremacy and allegiance, receive the sacrament, and abjure the doctrine of transubstantiation. By this means parliament hoped to maintain the supremacy of the Church.
The City in arrears with assessments.
The City in arrears with assessments.
The City in arrears with assessments.
The assessments which the City was now called upon to pay were far beyond its powers, seeing that many merchants and traders who had left the city at the time of the Plague and Fire refused to return, preferring to live in the suburbs, and thus a large number of the houses that had recently been re-built were left unoccupied. Every exertion was made to get some remission of the burden, but although the king signified his intention of making some abatement, little appears to have been done.1393
Cardonel's proposals for raising money by annuities.
Cardonel's proposals for raising money by annuities.
Cardonel's proposals for raising money by annuities.
In March of this year (1673) an individual named Philip De Cardonel came forward with a scheme for raising money by way of annuities to be granted by the city to every subscriber of £20 or more.1394The matter was in the first instance brought before the Court of Aldermen, who, upon consideration, declared that the proposal appeared to them "very faire and reasonable, and in all likelihood of very great advantage to the city," and forthwith resolved themselves into a committee of the whole court to treat with Cardonel and take such further proceedings as might be thought requisite.1395In the following month (11 April) the same proposals were submitted to the Common Council, where they met with similar favour. The court also appointed a committee to take them into further consideration, promising in the meantime that no advantage should be taken or benefit derived from the scheme without the special leave and consent of the proposer.1396Although the committee reported favourably on the scheme1397it was allowed to drop.
The City's petition to parliament for relief, Feb., 1674.
The City's petition to parliament for relief, Feb., 1674.
The City's petition to parliament for relief, Feb., 1674.
By February of the next year (1674) trade had become so bad that a number of the inhabitants of the city petitioned the Common Council (13 Feb.) to seek some relief from parliament. An address[pg 448]was accordingly drawn up, setting forth the miserable state to which the city had been reduced by the ravages of the plague and the fire, the increase of new buildings in the suburbs, which not only injured the trade of the city, but afforded a retreat for disorderly persons, and excessive taxation (the city being called upon to pay the same amount of taxes as in its most prosperous days), and praying the Commons to apply some timely remedy. The address was to have been laid before the house on Monday, the 23rd February,1398but no mention of it appears in the Commons Journal. On the 24th the House was prorogued.
The question of aldermanic veto again raised, Sept., 1674.
The question of aldermanic veto again raised, Sept., 1674.
The question of aldermanic veto again raised, Sept., 1674.
In September (1674) the old question again cropt up as to the power of the Court of Aldermen to veto matters ordained by the Common Council. The question had arisen, it will be remembered, in January, 1649,1399when Reynardson, the mayor, got up and left the Common Council, followed by the aldermen, and the court, instead of breaking up according to custom, proceeded to pass measures in their absence. Its action on this occasion was reported to parliament, and the house signified its approval of the court's proceedings and passed an ordinance which practically deprived the Court of Aldermen of all control over the Common Council. Since that time the matter had remained dormant, until jealousy between the two bodies was again excited by the Common Council passing an Act (17 Sept., 1674) for compelling the aldermen to reside within the city[pg 449]under the penalty of a fine of £500.1400Against the passing of any such Act the Recorder, on behalf of the Court of Aldermen, formally reported their protest to the Common Council, and the Commons as formerly protested against that protest (13 Nov.).1401
It was not that the mayor and aldermen were not fully conscious of the mischief arising from their own non-residence in the city, for they themselves passed an order for every alderman to return with his family into the city before the following Easter on pain of heavy penalty,1402but they objected to the court of Common Council presuming to dictate to them.
Report to Court of Aldermenreveto, 20 Oct., 1674.
Report to Court of Aldermenreveto, 20 Oct., 1674.
Report to Court of Aldermenreveto, 20 Oct., 1674.
In the meantime the Court of Aldermen had appointed a committee (24 Sept.) to examine the question of the right of veto, and this committee had reported (20 Oct.) in favour of the court.1403"We find," said the committee, "that the court of Common Council hath always consisted, and still it doth, of three distinct degrees of persons, viz., of the lord mayor in the first place as the chefe magistrate, and secondly of the aldermen as subordinate magistrates, and thirdly of the commons, or of a select number of the commons representing all the commoners of the said city as now is, and for a long time before hath been used." In this respect the committee proceeded to say, "the Common Councill of the city doth much resemble the constitution of the Common Council of the kingdom, and we further find that the order of[pg 450]proceeding in the making of lawes for the good government of the citty doth imitate the paterne sett them by the High Court of Parliament, in making lawes for the government of the nation, in regard that noe ordinance made in the Common Councell of this city can be a binding law to any without the joint consent and concurrence of the Lord Mayor, Court of Aldermen and commoners in Common Councell assembled, they having a joynt power and equal authority in making of lawes. So that the mayor and aldermen cannot impose upon the commoners, nore converso; each degree having a power to dissent or assent as to them seems best."
The committee next pointed out how Bills for the better government of the city had formerly originated for the most part with the mayor and aldermen, and had been by them transmitted to the Common Council, where, after being read in two several courts (and not twice in one court) and assented to, they became complete acts and binding laws. Such had been the usual and salient practice. Nevertheless, the committee had found that sometimes the Common Council had petitioned the Court of Aldermen for redress of certain grievances and the latter had complied with such petitions, "and so sometimes Acts of Common Council have been made at the desire of the lord mayor and aldermen signifyed to the commons by the Recorder." The conclusion that the committee arrived at was that "the lord mayor and aldermen have negative votes as the commoners also have, and contrary to this order of proceeding in making Acts of Common Council wee cannot find any presedent."
On the 13th November a joint Committee of Aldermen and Commoners was appointed by the Common Council to search the city's Records as to "the respective privileges of the lord mayor and aldermen and of the commons in Common Council assembled, and of the most ancient and decent method in making laws within this citty," and to report thereon.1404Four days later (17 Nov.) the Court of Aldermen instructed their committee to make further search on the question.1405
The conduct of Jeffreys the Common Sergeant, 12 March, 1675.
The conduct of Jeffreys the Common Sergeant, 12 March, 1675.
The conduct of Jeffreys the Common Sergeant, 12 March, 1675.
Ordered to be suspended from office.
Ordered to be suspended from office.
Ordered to be suspended from office.
Matters were brought to a crisis on the 12th March, 1675, when the mayor and aldermen, dissatisfied with the proceedings of the court of Common Council, got up and left the court. The Common Sergeant—the notorious George Jeffreys—refusing to follow the example set by the Common Sergeant in 1649, remained behind, and went so far as to put a question to the court of which the mayor and aldermen had previously disapproved. For this he was shortly afterwards called to account. His defence was that he only obeyed the wishes of the majority; but this being deemed unsatisfactory, the Court of Aldermen ordered him to be suspended from office.1406
Offers an apology which is deemed unsatisfactory, 23 March.
Offers an apology which is deemed unsatisfactory, 23 March.
Offers an apology which is deemed unsatisfactory, 23 March.
The matter referred to the king.
The matter referred to the king.
The matter referred to the king.
He afterwards (23 March) offered an apology to the Court of Aldermen for his conduct, confessing "that the question by him put at the last Common Council after the lord mayor was out of the chair was altogether irregular," and asked pardon. His apology, so far as it went, was accepted in good part by the court, but upon some explanation being asked of him as to his not refusing to put a question when[pg 452]commanded to refuse, and his offering to put another question at the request of some members of the council, he desired to be allowed time before he made answer.1407Meanwhile the dispute between the Aldermen and Common Council had been brought to the notice of the king,1408who, with his brother the Duke of York, had recently received the freedom of the City.1409
Jeffreys questioned by the king, 29 March, 1675.
Jeffreys questioned by the king, 29 March, 1675.
Jeffreys questioned by the king, 29 March, 1675.
The king recommends his restoration to office.
The king recommends his restoration to office.
The king recommends his restoration to office.
A week later (30 March) the Recorder, John Howell, reported to the Court of Aldermen1410that he and the Common Sergeant had by command appeared before his majesty the previous day touching the unhappy difference existing between the Aldermen and the Common Council; that the Common Sergeant being asked to whom it devolved to put the question on a debate in council, had in the Recorder's hearing replied to the effect "that the question had always been used to be put by the lord mayor or by his lordship's appointment and not otherwise, so far as he had observed," and he had never known the matter disputed; that he had then likewise declared to his majesty that he was "sorry for his deportment at the last Common Council, saying that what he did was a sudden act and rashly done without any intention to make any disturbance, and that he would freely acknowledge the same wheresoever his majesty should command him"; that therefore his majesty had commanded the Recorder to acquaint the court that the best expedient he could suggest, as the case[pg 453]stood, for a settlement of the difficulty, was that the old order of things should be re-established, that (among other things) the suspension of the Common Sergeant should be removed, and that the books and records of the city should be searched by six such aldermen as the lord mayor should appoint, and six such commoners as the Common Council should appoint, in order to satisfy themselves of the respective privileges of the lord mayor and aldermen and commons in Common Council assembled, and to settle the same in a quiet and peaceable manner if they could. Failing this his majesty would appoint a judge to arbitrate in the matter.
Jeffreys restored, 30 March, 1675.
Jeffreys restored, 30 March, 1675.
Jeffreys restored, 30 March, 1675.
The court followed the king's suggestion so far as related to the Common Sergeant, and having listened to his expressions of regret for his late conduct, and his assurances that he would always endeavour to "promote the honour and government of the city," it removed his suspension.
City Records defective.
City Records defective.
City Records defective.
As regards the real issue between the two Courts of Aldermen and Common Council, matters remained much as they were before. Although the Court of Aldermen gave orders (12 April) that the proceedings relative to the dispute between the two courts should be faithfully recorded, the minutes of the Common Council at this period are particularly lacking in information as well on this as on other matters in which the City was concerned.1411
Standing counsel for the Court of Aldermen.
Standing counsel for the Court of Aldermen.
Standing counsel for the Court of Aldermen.
One result of thecontretempswhich had occurred in the court of Common Council of the 12th March was that the Court of Aldermen resolved to retain certain counsel to advise them as occasion should arise on the question of their rights and privileges, and to create a fund by subscription among themselves to meet the necessary expenses.1412
Further search to be made amongst the city's archives touching rights of mayor and aldermen.
Further search to be made amongst the city's archives touching rights of mayor and aldermen.
Further search to be made amongst the city's archives touching rights of mayor and aldermen.
In April the Town Clerk and the four clerks of the outer court (i.e.mayor's court) were instructed to search the books and records of the city on the question whether or not it was the province of the lord mayor (1) to direct and put the question in the Common Council, (2) to name committees, and (3) to nominate persons to be put in election to any office.1413This last point especially affected the right claimed by the mayor to nominate (if not to elect) one of the sheriffs by virtue of his prerogative—a claim which had already been more than once canvassed and which was destined shortly to bring the City and the Crown into violent opposition.
The opinion of counsel on the question of aldermanic veto, 1675-1678.
The opinion of counsel on the question of aldermanic veto, 1675-1678.
The opinion of counsel on the question of aldermanic veto, 1675-1678.
On the 7th September, 1675, the Court of Aldermen directed that the opinion of counsel should be taken on the power of the mayor and aldermen to put their veto on matters passed by the Common Council.1414After the lapse of fifteen months the opinions of Sir William Jones, the attorney-general, Sir Francis Winnington, solicitor-general, Sir John Maynard and Sir Francis Pemberton, sergeants-at-law, and of "Mr. William Steele" (nota former Recorder of that name as some have supposed1415) were presented[pg 455]to the court (5 Dec., 1676);1416and with the exception of the last mentioned, all the lawyers declared in favour of the mayor and aldermen. There the matter was allowed to rest for a year or more until in February, 1678, the opinions of Sir William Dolben, not long since appointed the city's Recorder, and of Jeffreys, the Common Sergeant, who was destined in a few months to succeed Dolben on the latter's promotion to the bench, were taken and found to coincide with the opinions already delivered with the exception of that of William Steele.1417
A cry for war against France, 1678.
A cry for war against France, 1678.
A cry for war against France, 1678.
A City loan of £100,000, afterwards raised to £150,000.
A City loan of £100,000, afterwards raised to £150,000.
A City loan of £100,000, afterwards raised to £150,000.
Parliamentary vote of £200,000 for disbandment of the army, 4 June.
Parliamentary vote of £200,000 for disbandment of the army, 4 June.
Parliamentary vote of £200,000 for disbandment of the army, 4 June.
Peace of Nimeguen, 31 July, 1678.
Peace of Nimeguen, 31 July, 1678.
Peace of Nimeguen, 31 July, 1678.
In the meantime Charles had concluded a separate treaty with the Dutch (19 Feb., 1674), who continued to struggle manfully against the French king, with such assistance as they derived from the emperor and the German states. The Commons were fearful of entrusting the king with either money or troops lest he should employ them against the Dutch, or against their own liberties. The successes of Louis at length provoked a general cry for war against France, and the Commons went so far as to pass a bill (8 March, 1678) imposing a poll tax as part of the supply.1418Charles lost no time in applying to the City for the sum of £100,000 on the security of this tax, and the court of Common Council signified its readiness to advance the money (9 April).1419Finding that parliament hesitated to furnish the supplies it had voted, and without which he assured the members he would have to lay up the fleet and disband some of the newly raised forces, Charles applied to the City for[pg 456]another £50,000. This, too, was granted (14 May);1420and Charles, in order to show his displeasure with the Commons, resorted to his usual tactics and prorogued parliament, but only for ten days.1421A few days after the Commons had again met they resolved (27 May) that if the king would declare war against France they would give him their hearty support, otherwise they would at once proceed to take into consideration the speedy disbandment of the army.1422The king refusing to declare war, parliament proceeded (4 June) to carry out its threat and voted the sum of £200,000 for the disbandment of all the forces that had been raised since the 29th September, 1677.1423The disbandment did not take place, however, but in its stead a force was despatched to Holland. Scarcely had it arrived before the peace of Nimeguen was signed.
The Popish plot, 1678.
The Popish plot, 1678.
The Popish plot, 1678.
Just when the war was brought so unexpectedly to an end Charles signified his desire for another loan by the City to the extent of £200,000. The matter was brought to the notice of the Common Council on the last day of July, and on the 1st August the lord mayor issued his precept to the aldermen of the several wards to invite subscriptions.1424For what purpose the money was required we are not told. It was generally feared that the king meditated a suppression of the[pg 457]liberties of his subjects by the introduction of foreign troops. This fear was enhanced by the knowledge that if Charles died the crown would fall to his brother, an uncompromising Catholic. The public mind became so unhinged that every breath or rumour created the greatest trepidation. Within a fortnight after the City had signified its assent to the last loan the nation was suddenly surprised by some words let drop by Dr. Tonge, the weak and credulous rector of St. Michael's, Wood Street, and the tool of the infamous Titus Oates. A Popish plot was, he said, on foot and the king's life in danger, in proof of which he produced documentary evidence. Oates, the prime mover in starting the idea of a plot, was ready in the most shameless way with depositions to corroborate all that Tonge had said. These depositions he made before a Middlesex magistrate, Sir Edmondesbury Godfrey. The next morning Godfrey's corpse was found lying in a ditch near Primrose Hill. All London was wild with excitement and jumped to the conclusion that the Middlesex Justice had met a violent death for listening to Oates's evidence, although there is reason for believing him to have fallen by his own hands. The cry against Papists continued unabated for years.1425The city presented the appearance of a state of siege with its gates kept closed, its streets protected with posts and chains, and an armed watch kept by night and day.1426In October, when according to custom the king was to be invited to the lord mayor's banquet, the Recorder was instructed to congratulate his majesty upon his recent escape and to make[pg 458]arrangements for a deputation to wait upon him in person.1427
The dissolution of the Cavalier Parliament, 24 Jan., 1679.
The dissolution of the Cavalier Parliament, 24 Jan., 1679.
The dissolution of the Cavalier Parliament, 24 Jan., 1679.
When parliament met on the 21st of this month it passed a new Test Act rigidly excluding all Catholics from both Houses. Five Catholic peers were committed to the Tower, and Coleman, the secretary of the Duchess of York, was tried and executed for having in his possession papers betraying a design for forcing the Roman Catholic religion on the nation. It next proceeded to impeach Danby for having been concerned in certain money transactions between Charles and the king of France. Knowing the danger likely to arise from such an investigation, Charles dissolved (24 Jan., 1679) the parliament, which had now sat for more than seventeen years.
The first short parliament, 6 March-27 May, 1679.
The first short parliament, 6 March-27 May, 1679.
The first short parliament, 6 March-27 May, 1679.
When the elections for the new parliament were over it was found that the opposition to the king was greater than ever. Of the city members who had sat in the last parliament only one—Alderman Love—was returned, the remaining seats being taken by Alderman Sir Robert Clayton, Sir Thomas Player, the city chamberlain, and Thomas Pilkington, afterwards elected alderman of the ward of Farringdon Without. This second parliament—the first of a series of short parliaments—in Charles's reign met on the 6th March, 1679, but was suddenly dissolved on the 27th May in order to stop the progress of an Exclusion Bill depriving the Duke of York of his right of succession[pg 459]to the crown.1428It left its mark, however, on the statute book by passing the Habeas Corpus Act. It also voted a sum exceeding £200,000 for disbandment of the forces raised since Michaelmas, 1677.1429Just a week before parliament dissolved the Court of Aldermen was asked (20 May) to forward an address thanking both Houses for their care in securing the personal safety of the king and maintaining the Protestant religion. The address was referred back in order to include the king in the vote of thanks, and was then submitted (23 May) to the Common Council for approval. That body made a further amendment by adding the words: "The Protestant religion according to the doctrine and discipline of the Church of England as it is now established by law."1430
The king's illness and recovery, Aug.-Sept., 1679.
The king's illness and recovery, Aug.-Sept., 1679.
The king's illness and recovery, Aug.-Sept., 1679.
In August the king was confined to his bed with a fever so violent that it was deemed advisable to send for his brother the Duke of York. He recovered however; and on the 11th September a deputation of city aldermen waited on him to learn when the court might come in person to congratulate him on his convalescence.1431On the 17th the mayor issued his precept for bells to be set ringing and bonfires to be lighted in the city in honour of his majesty's return from Windsor to Whitehall after his late indisposition.1432The Duke of York did not return to England until February, 1680, when a special Court of Aldermen sat[pg 460]to make arrangements for presenting their congratulations to him and the duchess.1433
Proclamation against "tumultuous petitions," 12 Dec., 1679.
Proclamation against "tumultuous petitions," 12 Dec., 1679.
Proclamation against "tumultuous petitions," 12 Dec., 1679.
The elections for a fresh parliament which had taken place in the meantime having gone against the court party, parliament no sooner met (17 Oct.) than it was prorogued; and in consequence of repeated prorogations never sat again for a whole twelvemonth (21 Oct., 1680).1434Nor would it in all probability have been allowed to meet even then, had it not been for a constant succession of petitions addressed to the king insisting upon a session being held. So annoyed was Charles with this demonstration of popular feeling in favour of parliament that he issued a proclamation (12 Dec., 1679) prohibiting such "tumultuous petitions."1435
Petitioners and Abhorrers.
Petitioners and Abhorrers.
Petitioners and Abhorrers.
This led to the presentation of a number of counter-addresses to the king, expressing the greatest confidence in his majesty's wisdom, the most dutiful submission to his prerogative, andabhorrenceof those who had dared to encroach upon it by petitions. The two parties thus became distinguished asPetitionersandAbhorrers; names which were subsequently replaced by Whigs and Tories.
The petition of Common Hall, 29 July, 1680.
The petition of Common Hall, 29 July, 1680.
The petition of Common Hall, 29 July, 1680.
The citizens werePetitioners. On the 29th July (1680) the Livery assembled in Common Hall for the election of sheriffs took the opportunity of desiring Sir Robert Clayton, the lord mayor, to beseech his majesty on their behalf, that for the preservation of his royal person and government and the Protestant[pg 461]religion he would graciously please to order that parliament, his great council, might assemble and sit to take measures against the machinations of Rome.1436Clayton showed himself very willing to comply with the wishes of Common Hall, but pointed out at the same time that he had reason to believe that parliament was to meet in November. "If that be so," said he, "I hope your great concern for that matter might have been spared, being anticipated by his majesties gracious intention. However, I shall not be wanting with all humility to lay the whole matter before him." In spite of Jeffreys, the Recorder, having ruled that such a petition bordered on treason, and in spite of a warning received from the lord chancellor, Clayton insisted on presenting a petition, and for doing so was rewarded with the grateful thanks of the Common Council on his quitting the mayoralty.1437Jeffreys on the other hand was compelled to resign the recordership.1438
The City's address to the king, 12 Nov., 1680.
The City's address to the king, 12 Nov., 1680.
The City's address to the king, 12 Nov., 1680.
The king's reply.
The king's reply.
The king's reply.
When parliament was at last allowed to meet the City lost no time in presenting a dutiful address1439to Charles acknowledging his majesty's favour and their own satisfaction. They besought him to lend a ready ear to the humble advice tendered by his great council for the safety of his royal person and the preservation of[pg 462]the true Protestant religion, and promised to be ready at all times to promote his majesty's ease and prosperity, and to stand by him against all dangers and hazards whatsoever. Had Charles accepted this address in the spirit with which it was made matters might have gone better with him, and the Stuart family might never have been driven from the throne; but he was in no mood to accept advice either from parliament or the city, and the only answer he vouchsafed to the citizens was to tell them to mind their own business. He knew what he had to do, without their advice.1440
The second short parliament, 1680-1681.
The second short parliament, 1680-1681.
The second short parliament, 1680-1681.
As soon as the House met it commenced an attack upon Papists. The Exclusion Bill was again passed, but was thrown out by the Lords. Thus baulked the Commons revived the impeachment of the Catholic lords. During the trial of Stafford on a charge of a design to murder the king, more than ordinary precautions had to be taken by the mayor to maintain order and prevent too great a crowd assembling at Westminster.1441Being condemned to death, the king was ready to spare Stafford the grosser indignities attached to a felon's execution, but the royal act of clemency was not allowed to pass unchallenged by the sheriffs of London on the ground that if the king could dispense with some part of the execution why not of all?1442The House had passed a vote of thanks to the City for its "manifest loyalty to the king" and its care and vigilance for the preservation of his majesty's person and of the Protestant religion,[pg 463]and had got as far as the second reading of a Bill for repealing the Corporation Act of 1661 when it found itself suddenly prorogued from the 10th January to the 20th.1443
The City's petition to the king for parliament to be allowed to sit, 13 Jan., 1681.
The City's petition to the king for parliament to be allowed to sit, 13 Jan., 1681.
The City's petition to the king for parliament to be allowed to sit, 13 Jan., 1681.
During the interval a petition was drawn up by the Common Council (13 Jan.) and presented to the king, in which the petitioners expressed their surprise at the late prorogation "whereby the prosecution of the public justice of the kingdom ... have received an interruption," and after referring to the action taken by parliament for the defence of his majesty's person and the preservation of the Protestant religion, prayed that the House might be allowed to resume its session on the day to which parliament had been prorogued as being "the only means to quiet the minds and extinguish the fears of your Protestant subjects."1444This petition, and more especially that part of it which spoke of the interruption of justice, was highly resented by Charles, and was one of the causes which led to the issue of the writ ofQuo Warrantoagainst the city in the following year. In the meanwhile it served only to make the king more determined than ever to dissolve the parliament, which he did by proclamation on the 18th January. A new parliament was summoned for the 21st March; it was not however to sit in London, but in the royalist city of Oxford.1445