The question of surrender or no surrender of the City's franchise, Sept.-Oct., 1683.On Thursday, the 27th September, the mayor laid before the Common Council drafts of a surrender of the City's franchise to his majesty, and of a re-grant from his majesty which the Attorney-general had prepared for their acceptance. After long debate the opinion of the Attorney-general, the Solicitor-general, and the Recorder was taken upon the following questions, viz., (1) Whether the surrender was agreeable to the submission of the Common Council already made and necessary for the regulations required by his majesty; (2) whether by this surrender the office of mayoralty was surrendered; (3) if so, whether the customs and prescriptions belonging to that office were not thereby surrendered and lost; (4) whether in case judgment should be entered up (as the king had threatened) the consequences would not be worse than a surrender; and (5) how far did the re-grant confirm and restore the city to the liberties, etc., therein mentioned. On the following Tuesday[pg 504](2 Oct.) the opinions of the several counsel were ready.1550Two of them, viz., that of the Attorney-general and that of the Solicitor-general were decidedly in favour of the City surrendering its liberties in preference to allowing judgment to be entered up. The Recorder took a diametrically opposite view of the matter, one of the reasons urged by him against a surrender being that such action would be against their oaths, and that if they freely surrendered their liberties there would be no redress left open to them. If, on the other hand, they suffered judgment to be entered up, they could take proceedings against it by writ of error. These opinions gave rise to much debate, and many hard things were spoken against the Recorder. At last the matter was put to the vote, when 103 were found against sealing the deed of surrender as against 85 who were in favour of it; and so this momentous question was settled, and the council broke up at eleven o'clock at night.1551Judgment against the City entered up, 4 Oct., 1683.Judgment was forthwith (4 Oct.) entered against the City. The mayor and the new sheriffs were summoned to attend the king. Pritchard received a commission to continue in office during pleasure, and similar commissions were handed to the new sheriffs. The Recorder was dismissed and his place given to Sir Thomas Jenner.1552Eight aldermen were turned out and their places filled by nominees of the king.1553On the 25th October the Court of Aldermen was informed of his majesty's commission having been issued for Sir Henry Tulse to be mayor for the ensuing year,[pg 505]and on the 29th he was sworn with the usual accompaniment of civic procession and banquet.1554The king's action against the livery companies.Having thus reduced the Corporation of the city to submission, Charles proceeded to take similar action against the livery companies, with the object of getting into his own hands the power of appointing and dismissing their governing body. Seeing that opposition was useless, they submitted with the best grace they could, surrendering their former charters and receiving new charters in their place. The first master, wardens and assistants were usually named in these new charters, which provided (inter alia) that they should be removable at the king's pleasure by Order in Council, that they should take the oaths of allegiance and supremacy and make the declaration prescribed by the Corporation Act, that none should be elected members who were not of the Church of England, and that in all things concerning the government of the city they should be subject to the mayor and aldermen.Death of the king, 6 Feb., 1685.Notwithstanding the treatment that the citizens had received at the king's hands they heard of his sudden illness (2 Feb., 1685) with unfeigned sorrow, and the Court of Aldermen (5 Feb.) instructed the sheriffs to attend at Whitehall every morning and Sir William Turner and Sir James Edwards every evening during his majesty's illness.1555Their attendance, however, was not long required, for next day (6 Feb.) the king died.
The question of surrender or no surrender of the City's franchise, Sept.-Oct., 1683.On Thursday, the 27th September, the mayor laid before the Common Council drafts of a surrender of the City's franchise to his majesty, and of a re-grant from his majesty which the Attorney-general had prepared for their acceptance. After long debate the opinion of the Attorney-general, the Solicitor-general, and the Recorder was taken upon the following questions, viz., (1) Whether the surrender was agreeable to the submission of the Common Council already made and necessary for the regulations required by his majesty; (2) whether by this surrender the office of mayoralty was surrendered; (3) if so, whether the customs and prescriptions belonging to that office were not thereby surrendered and lost; (4) whether in case judgment should be entered up (as the king had threatened) the consequences would not be worse than a surrender; and (5) how far did the re-grant confirm and restore the city to the liberties, etc., therein mentioned. On the following Tuesday[pg 504](2 Oct.) the opinions of the several counsel were ready.1550Two of them, viz., that of the Attorney-general and that of the Solicitor-general were decidedly in favour of the City surrendering its liberties in preference to allowing judgment to be entered up. The Recorder took a diametrically opposite view of the matter, one of the reasons urged by him against a surrender being that such action would be against their oaths, and that if they freely surrendered their liberties there would be no redress left open to them. If, on the other hand, they suffered judgment to be entered up, they could take proceedings against it by writ of error. These opinions gave rise to much debate, and many hard things were spoken against the Recorder. At last the matter was put to the vote, when 103 were found against sealing the deed of surrender as against 85 who were in favour of it; and so this momentous question was settled, and the council broke up at eleven o'clock at night.1551Judgment against the City entered up, 4 Oct., 1683.Judgment was forthwith (4 Oct.) entered against the City. The mayor and the new sheriffs were summoned to attend the king. Pritchard received a commission to continue in office during pleasure, and similar commissions were handed to the new sheriffs. The Recorder was dismissed and his place given to Sir Thomas Jenner.1552Eight aldermen were turned out and their places filled by nominees of the king.1553On the 25th October the Court of Aldermen was informed of his majesty's commission having been issued for Sir Henry Tulse to be mayor for the ensuing year,[pg 505]and on the 29th he was sworn with the usual accompaniment of civic procession and banquet.1554The king's action against the livery companies.Having thus reduced the Corporation of the city to submission, Charles proceeded to take similar action against the livery companies, with the object of getting into his own hands the power of appointing and dismissing their governing body. Seeing that opposition was useless, they submitted with the best grace they could, surrendering their former charters and receiving new charters in their place. The first master, wardens and assistants were usually named in these new charters, which provided (inter alia) that they should be removable at the king's pleasure by Order in Council, that they should take the oaths of allegiance and supremacy and make the declaration prescribed by the Corporation Act, that none should be elected members who were not of the Church of England, and that in all things concerning the government of the city they should be subject to the mayor and aldermen.Death of the king, 6 Feb., 1685.Notwithstanding the treatment that the citizens had received at the king's hands they heard of his sudden illness (2 Feb., 1685) with unfeigned sorrow, and the Court of Aldermen (5 Feb.) instructed the sheriffs to attend at Whitehall every morning and Sir William Turner and Sir James Edwards every evening during his majesty's illness.1555Their attendance, however, was not long required, for next day (6 Feb.) the king died.
The question of surrender or no surrender of the City's franchise, Sept.-Oct., 1683.On Thursday, the 27th September, the mayor laid before the Common Council drafts of a surrender of the City's franchise to his majesty, and of a re-grant from his majesty which the Attorney-general had prepared for their acceptance. After long debate the opinion of the Attorney-general, the Solicitor-general, and the Recorder was taken upon the following questions, viz., (1) Whether the surrender was agreeable to the submission of the Common Council already made and necessary for the regulations required by his majesty; (2) whether by this surrender the office of mayoralty was surrendered; (3) if so, whether the customs and prescriptions belonging to that office were not thereby surrendered and lost; (4) whether in case judgment should be entered up (as the king had threatened) the consequences would not be worse than a surrender; and (5) how far did the re-grant confirm and restore the city to the liberties, etc., therein mentioned. On the following Tuesday[pg 504](2 Oct.) the opinions of the several counsel were ready.1550Two of them, viz., that of the Attorney-general and that of the Solicitor-general were decidedly in favour of the City surrendering its liberties in preference to allowing judgment to be entered up. The Recorder took a diametrically opposite view of the matter, one of the reasons urged by him against a surrender being that such action would be against their oaths, and that if they freely surrendered their liberties there would be no redress left open to them. If, on the other hand, they suffered judgment to be entered up, they could take proceedings against it by writ of error. These opinions gave rise to much debate, and many hard things were spoken against the Recorder. At last the matter was put to the vote, when 103 were found against sealing the deed of surrender as against 85 who were in favour of it; and so this momentous question was settled, and the council broke up at eleven o'clock at night.1551Judgment against the City entered up, 4 Oct., 1683.Judgment was forthwith (4 Oct.) entered against the City. The mayor and the new sheriffs were summoned to attend the king. Pritchard received a commission to continue in office during pleasure, and similar commissions were handed to the new sheriffs. The Recorder was dismissed and his place given to Sir Thomas Jenner.1552Eight aldermen were turned out and their places filled by nominees of the king.1553On the 25th October the Court of Aldermen was informed of his majesty's commission having been issued for Sir Henry Tulse to be mayor for the ensuing year,[pg 505]and on the 29th he was sworn with the usual accompaniment of civic procession and banquet.1554The king's action against the livery companies.Having thus reduced the Corporation of the city to submission, Charles proceeded to take similar action against the livery companies, with the object of getting into his own hands the power of appointing and dismissing their governing body. Seeing that opposition was useless, they submitted with the best grace they could, surrendering their former charters and receiving new charters in their place. The first master, wardens and assistants were usually named in these new charters, which provided (inter alia) that they should be removable at the king's pleasure by Order in Council, that they should take the oaths of allegiance and supremacy and make the declaration prescribed by the Corporation Act, that none should be elected members who were not of the Church of England, and that in all things concerning the government of the city they should be subject to the mayor and aldermen.Death of the king, 6 Feb., 1685.Notwithstanding the treatment that the citizens had received at the king's hands they heard of his sudden illness (2 Feb., 1685) with unfeigned sorrow, and the Court of Aldermen (5 Feb.) instructed the sheriffs to attend at Whitehall every morning and Sir William Turner and Sir James Edwards every evening during his majesty's illness.1555Their attendance, however, was not long required, for next day (6 Feb.) the king died.
The question of surrender or no surrender of the City's franchise, Sept.-Oct., 1683.On Thursday, the 27th September, the mayor laid before the Common Council drafts of a surrender of the City's franchise to his majesty, and of a re-grant from his majesty which the Attorney-general had prepared for their acceptance. After long debate the opinion of the Attorney-general, the Solicitor-general, and the Recorder was taken upon the following questions, viz., (1) Whether the surrender was agreeable to the submission of the Common Council already made and necessary for the regulations required by his majesty; (2) whether by this surrender the office of mayoralty was surrendered; (3) if so, whether the customs and prescriptions belonging to that office were not thereby surrendered and lost; (4) whether in case judgment should be entered up (as the king had threatened) the consequences would not be worse than a surrender; and (5) how far did the re-grant confirm and restore the city to the liberties, etc., therein mentioned. On the following Tuesday[pg 504](2 Oct.) the opinions of the several counsel were ready.1550Two of them, viz., that of the Attorney-general and that of the Solicitor-general were decidedly in favour of the City surrendering its liberties in preference to allowing judgment to be entered up. The Recorder took a diametrically opposite view of the matter, one of the reasons urged by him against a surrender being that such action would be against their oaths, and that if they freely surrendered their liberties there would be no redress left open to them. If, on the other hand, they suffered judgment to be entered up, they could take proceedings against it by writ of error. These opinions gave rise to much debate, and many hard things were spoken against the Recorder. At last the matter was put to the vote, when 103 were found against sealing the deed of surrender as against 85 who were in favour of it; and so this momentous question was settled, and the council broke up at eleven o'clock at night.1551Judgment against the City entered up, 4 Oct., 1683.Judgment was forthwith (4 Oct.) entered against the City. The mayor and the new sheriffs were summoned to attend the king. Pritchard received a commission to continue in office during pleasure, and similar commissions were handed to the new sheriffs. The Recorder was dismissed and his place given to Sir Thomas Jenner.1552Eight aldermen were turned out and their places filled by nominees of the king.1553On the 25th October the Court of Aldermen was informed of his majesty's commission having been issued for Sir Henry Tulse to be mayor for the ensuing year,[pg 505]and on the 29th he was sworn with the usual accompaniment of civic procession and banquet.1554The king's action against the livery companies.Having thus reduced the Corporation of the city to submission, Charles proceeded to take similar action against the livery companies, with the object of getting into his own hands the power of appointing and dismissing their governing body. Seeing that opposition was useless, they submitted with the best grace they could, surrendering their former charters and receiving new charters in their place. The first master, wardens and assistants were usually named in these new charters, which provided (inter alia) that they should be removable at the king's pleasure by Order in Council, that they should take the oaths of allegiance and supremacy and make the declaration prescribed by the Corporation Act, that none should be elected members who were not of the Church of England, and that in all things concerning the government of the city they should be subject to the mayor and aldermen.Death of the king, 6 Feb., 1685.Notwithstanding the treatment that the citizens had received at the king's hands they heard of his sudden illness (2 Feb., 1685) with unfeigned sorrow, and the Court of Aldermen (5 Feb.) instructed the sheriffs to attend at Whitehall every morning and Sir William Turner and Sir James Edwards every evening during his majesty's illness.1555Their attendance, however, was not long required, for next day (6 Feb.) the king died.
The question of surrender or no surrender of the City's franchise, Sept.-Oct., 1683.
The question of surrender or no surrender of the City's franchise, Sept.-Oct., 1683.
The question of surrender or no surrender of the City's franchise, Sept.-Oct., 1683.
On Thursday, the 27th September, the mayor laid before the Common Council drafts of a surrender of the City's franchise to his majesty, and of a re-grant from his majesty which the Attorney-general had prepared for their acceptance. After long debate the opinion of the Attorney-general, the Solicitor-general, and the Recorder was taken upon the following questions, viz., (1) Whether the surrender was agreeable to the submission of the Common Council already made and necessary for the regulations required by his majesty; (2) whether by this surrender the office of mayoralty was surrendered; (3) if so, whether the customs and prescriptions belonging to that office were not thereby surrendered and lost; (4) whether in case judgment should be entered up (as the king had threatened) the consequences would not be worse than a surrender; and (5) how far did the re-grant confirm and restore the city to the liberties, etc., therein mentioned. On the following Tuesday[pg 504](2 Oct.) the opinions of the several counsel were ready.1550Two of them, viz., that of the Attorney-general and that of the Solicitor-general were decidedly in favour of the City surrendering its liberties in preference to allowing judgment to be entered up. The Recorder took a diametrically opposite view of the matter, one of the reasons urged by him against a surrender being that such action would be against their oaths, and that if they freely surrendered their liberties there would be no redress left open to them. If, on the other hand, they suffered judgment to be entered up, they could take proceedings against it by writ of error. These opinions gave rise to much debate, and many hard things were spoken against the Recorder. At last the matter was put to the vote, when 103 were found against sealing the deed of surrender as against 85 who were in favour of it; and so this momentous question was settled, and the council broke up at eleven o'clock at night.1551
Judgment against the City entered up, 4 Oct., 1683.
Judgment against the City entered up, 4 Oct., 1683.
Judgment against the City entered up, 4 Oct., 1683.
Judgment was forthwith (4 Oct.) entered against the City. The mayor and the new sheriffs were summoned to attend the king. Pritchard received a commission to continue in office during pleasure, and similar commissions were handed to the new sheriffs. The Recorder was dismissed and his place given to Sir Thomas Jenner.1552Eight aldermen were turned out and their places filled by nominees of the king.1553On the 25th October the Court of Aldermen was informed of his majesty's commission having been issued for Sir Henry Tulse to be mayor for the ensuing year,[pg 505]and on the 29th he was sworn with the usual accompaniment of civic procession and banquet.1554
The king's action against the livery companies.
The king's action against the livery companies.
The king's action against the livery companies.
Having thus reduced the Corporation of the city to submission, Charles proceeded to take similar action against the livery companies, with the object of getting into his own hands the power of appointing and dismissing their governing body. Seeing that opposition was useless, they submitted with the best grace they could, surrendering their former charters and receiving new charters in their place. The first master, wardens and assistants were usually named in these new charters, which provided (inter alia) that they should be removable at the king's pleasure by Order in Council, that they should take the oaths of allegiance and supremacy and make the declaration prescribed by the Corporation Act, that none should be elected members who were not of the Church of England, and that in all things concerning the government of the city they should be subject to the mayor and aldermen.
Death of the king, 6 Feb., 1685.
Death of the king, 6 Feb., 1685.
Death of the king, 6 Feb., 1685.
Notwithstanding the treatment that the citizens had received at the king's hands they heard of his sudden illness (2 Feb., 1685) with unfeigned sorrow, and the Court of Aldermen (5 Feb.) instructed the sheriffs to attend at Whitehall every morning and Sir William Turner and Sir James Edwards every evening during his majesty's illness.1555Their attendance, however, was not long required, for next day (6 Feb.) the king died.