A re-action in favour of the court party, July, 1681.The country seemed to be on the verge of another civil war. A re-action, however, in favour of the king set in. The nation began to view the situation more dispassionately and to entertain serious doubts whether parliament had acted rightly in pushing matters to such an extremity. The religious question after all might not be so important or so fraught with danger as they had been led to believe by professional informers. Addresses of the type of those presented by the lieutenancy of London and the borough of Southwark, among them being one signed by over twenty thousand apprentices of the city,1453began to flow in; and proceedings were commenced against Protestants on no better evidence than had previously been used against Catholics.Proceedings against College.Among the first against whom proceedings were taken was a Londoner named Stephen College, a joiner by trade, who from his zeal in the cause of religion came to be known as the "Protestant joiner." An attempt to get a true bill returned against him at the Old Bailey, where the juries were empanelled by[pg 468]the sheriffs of London and Middlesex, having failed, he was removed to Oxford and tried there on a charge of high treason. After much hard swearing a verdict was at length obtained.1454Proceedings against the Earl of Shaftesbury, July-Nov., 1681.Having secured the conviction of College the council flew at higher game in the person of the Earl of Shaftesbury. He was arrested at his house in Aldersgate Street on the 2nd July, but it was not until November that a bill of high treason was preferred against him at the Old Bailey. The nomination of juries practically rested with the sheriffs, and the court party had recently endeavoured to force the election of candidates of their own political complexion. In this they had failed, although in December last the king had endeavoured to change the character of city juries by ordering the mayor (Sir Patience Ward) to issue his precept to the Aldermen to see that none were returned by their wards for service on juries "of inferior degree than a subsidy man."1455The sheriffs for the year, Thomas Pilkington and Samuel Shute, who were zealous Whigs, took care to empanel a grand jury which would be inclined to ignore the bill against the earl, and under these circumstances the bill was thrown out (24 Nov.).1456The manner of election of sheriffs.The failure of the court party to obtain a conviction of Shaftesbury owing to the political bias of the sheriffs for the time being, determined them to resort to more drastic measures to obtain the election of candidates with Tory proclivities. In order to understand the[pg 469]method pursued it will be necessary to review briefly the manner in which the election of sheriffs had from time to time been carried out.Attempt to restrict the number of electors in the 14th century.From the earliest times of which we have any city record until the commencement of the 14th century it had been the custom for the sheriffs of London and Middlesex to be elected by the mayor, aldermen and "the good men of the city" or "commonalty." But a custom sprang up in 1301 of summoning twelve men only from each ward to take part with the mayor and aldermen in such elections,1457a custom which found little favour with the bulk of the inhabitants of the city, who insisted upon being present and taking part in the proceedings. An attempt was made by the civic authorities in 1313 to put a stop to the noise and confusion resulting from the presence of such vast numbers at the Guildhall by an order providing that thenceforth only the best men from each ward should be summoned to take part in the elections, and two years later (4 July, 1315) this order was enforced by royal proclamation.1458Nevertheless the practice of summoning representatives from the wards was soon dropt, and for more than thirty years the sheriffs continued to be elected by the mayor, aldermen and the "whole commonalty." Another attempt (made under Brembre in 1384) to restrict the number of the commonalty to "so many and such of them as should seem needful for the time" (tantz et tieux come lour semble busoignable pur le temps)1459was not more successful.[pg 470]The mayor's claim to elect one of the sheriffs.In 1347 we meet for the first time with a new method of procedure. In that year one of the sheriffs was elected by the mayor and the other by the commonalty;1460and this prerogative of the mayor for the time being to elect one of the sheriffs continued to be exercised with few (if any) exceptions down to 1638. Neither in 1639 nor in the following year was the prerogative exercised. In 1641 the mayor attempted to exercise it, but through some negligence on his part was declared by the House of Commons to have forfeited his right, and the election of both sheriffs devolved,pro hac vice, upon the commonalty.1461The mayor's prerogative, 1642-1662.From 1642 to 1651 the mayor for the time being exercised his prerogative in electing as well as nominating one of the sheriffs, but the commonalty always challenged his right to elect, although they paid the mayor the compliment of electing his nominee to serve with the sheriff of their own choice. From 1652 to 1660 (or 16611462?) the mayor did not attempt to exercise a right either of electing or nominating one of the sheriffs, but in 1662, when the mayor would have elected as well as nominated Thomas Bludworth as sheriff, the commonalty claimed their rights. Bludworth was eventually returned together with Sir William Turner.1463Appointment of committee of enquiry, 1674.In the following year (1663) the prerogative exercised by the mayor passed unchallenged, and so[pg 471]continued until 1674, when, objection being raised,1464the Common Council appointed a committee "to consider of the matters in difference and now long debated in this court between yeright honorable yelord maior and commons of this citty concerneing the eleccon of one of yesheriffes and to finde out some expedient for yereconciling yesame."1465Custom of the mayor drinking to a future sheriff, 1674.We now read for the first time in the City's Records of a custom in connection with the election of sheriffs (although that custom is said to have arisen in the reign of Elizabeth),1466namely, the nomination or election of a sheriff by the mayor drinking to an individual at a public banquet. It appears that the lord mayor had recently drunk to William Roberts, citizen and vintner, thereby intimating that it was his lordship's wish that Roberts should be one of the sheriffs for the year ensuing. The commons objected to the mayor thus exercising his prerogative, whilst the aldermen were no less determined to support him.1467The committee to whom the matter was referred suggested a compromise, namely, that Roberts should be bound over to take upon himself the office if within the next two or three years he should be either drunk to by the mayor or elected by the commons to be sheriff; and that, further, an Act of Common Council should be forthwith made for settling the shrievalty and all matters connected with it.1468[pg 472]The mayor's prerogative unchallenged, 1675-1679.No Act of Common Council appears to have been passed pursuant to the committee's recommendation, but in the following year (1675) and down to 1679 the mayor exercised his full prerogative of electing one of the sheriffs without opposition, although the person so elected did not always undertake the office.Election of Bethell and Cornish Sheriffs, 24 June, 1680.On Midsummer-day, 1680, the mayor elected George Hockenhall, citizen and grocer, to be one of the sheriffs, but Hockenhall refused to serve and was discharged on his entering into a bond for the payment of £400. The commons thereupon stept in and elected Slingsby Bethell, leatherseller, and Henry Cornish, haberdasher.1469At this juncture political influence was brought to bear upon the elections. Bethell was particularly an object of aversion to the court party. He is reported to have declared himself ready to have acted as executioner of the late king if no one else could be found for the job,1470and to have made himself obnoxious in other ways. With Cornish little fault could at present be found. Objection was raised to both these gentlemen acting as sheriffs, on the ground that they had not taken the oath or received the sacrament as prescribed by law, and another election demanded. Before this second election took place (14 July) they had qualified themselves according to the Corporation Act.1471The mayor did not claim his prerogative on this occasion. Bethell and Cornish[pg 473]were put up again for office, and against them two others, Ralph Box, grocer, and Humphrey Nicholson, merchant taylor, who, although nominated like Bethell and Cornish by the commonalty, were in reality candidates put forward by the court party.1472Bethell and Cornish having been again declared elected, a poll was demanded, which lasted several days. At its close it was found that Cornish was at the head with 2,483 votes, Bethell next with 2,276, whilst Box and Nicholson followed with 1,428 and 1,230 votes respectively.1473The character of the new Sheriffs.The two first named were declared (29 July) duly elected. Bethell has been described as a "sullen and wilful man," a republican at heart and one that "turned from the ordinary way of a sheriff's living into the extreme of sordidness." Cornish on the other hand was "a plain, warm, honest man and lived very nobly all his year."1474It was doubtless Bethell's proposal that the customary dinner to the aldermen on the day the new sheriffs were sworn in should be omitted. If so, Cornish had to give way to the parsimonious whim of his fellow sheriff. "What an obstinate man he was!" remarked Cornish of him, when brought to trial five years later.1475The aldermen refused to accompany the sheriffs to the Guildhall unless they were invited to dinner.1476Election of Pilkington and Shute sheriffs, 24 June, 1681.In the following year (1681) two other sheriffs of the same political character, viz., Pilkington and Shute, were elected over the heads of the same court[pg 474]candidates that had stood the previous year, the defeat of the latter being still more pronounced.1477The king signifies his displeasure.The king did not attempt to conceal his displeasure at the City's proceedings, and when the recorder and the sheriffs came to invite him to dinner on lord mayor's day,1478made the following answer:—"Mr. Recorder, an invitation from my lord mayor and the city is very acceptable to me, and to show that it is so, notwithstanding that it is brought by messengers that are so unwelcome to me as these two sheriffs are, yet I accept it."1479Thanks of the Common Hall to the late sheriffs, 27 June, 1681.The outgoing sheriffs were presented (27 June) with an address1480from the citizens assembled in Common Hall thanking them for their faithful discharge of their office of trust and complimenting them more especially upon their successful efforts to maintain and assert the undoubted rights and privileges of the citizens and their "continual provision of faithful and able juries." The address concluded with thanks to them for their despatch in carrying out the recent "unnecessary" poll in connection with the[pg 475]election of new sheriffs, and not delaying the matter by troublesome adjournments.The mayor desired to present an address to the king, 27 June, 1681.Opportunity was also taken of thanking the lord mayor (Sir Patience Ward) and the members of the Common Council for presenting the recent address to his majesty praying him to confide in parliament,1481and desired his lordship to assure his majesty that the address reflected the true feeling and desires of all his loyal subjects there assembled in Common Hall, notwithstanding rumours to the contrary. They also desired to join in the vote of thanks which the Common Council had passed to the city members sitting in the last parliament for their faithful services.Address to the king, 7 July.It required some courage for the mayor to again face the king and his chancellor and to run the risk of another rebuff. Nevertheless, on Thursday, the 7th July, the mayor went to Hampton Court, attended by Sir Robert Clayton, Sir John Shorter and others, as well as by the sheriffs Bethell and Cornish (the new sheriffs not coming into office until September), to present to the king in council another address from the Common Hall. It was received with no more favour than the last. The chancellor affected to believe that it was but the address of a faction in the city, and not the unanimous vote of the citizens at large. "The king takes notice there are no aldermen," he said, whilst Alderman Clayton and Alderman Shorter were at his elbow! In fine they were again told to mind their own business.1482[pg 476]Sir John Moore elected mayor, Sept., 1681.Although the court party had twice signally failed to obtain the appointment of sheriffs who should be amenable to its control, they were fortunate in having an adherent in the mayor elected on Michaelmas-day to succeed Sir Patience Ward. The senior alderman who had not already passed the chair happened to be Sir John Moore. It does not often occur that in the choice of a mayor the Common Hall passes over the senior alderman who is both capable and willing to take upon himself the office; but there was some chance of it doing so in this case, inasmuch as Sir John Moore had rendered himself unpopular with a large section of citizens by presenting an address of thanks to the king for the declaration which his majesty had published in defence of his having dissolved parliament.1483Two aldermen, Sir John Shorter and Thomas Gold, were nominated with Moore for the office. A poll was demanded, with the result that Moore was elected by a majority of nearly 300 votes over his opponents.1484On his being presented (7 Oct.) to the lord chancellor for the king's approbation, he was told that his majesty experienced much satisfaction at the choice of so loyal and worthy a magistrate.1485Three days before (4 Oct.) the Court of Aldermen nominated a committee to take informations concerning the scandalous remarks that had been made against him in Common Hall on the day of his election.1486Issue of aQuo Warranto, Jan., 1682.Not content with this success, the king's advisers determined upon bringing the City to book for its[pg 477]recent attitude in the election of sheriffs. The anomaly by which the citizens of London enjoyed the right of electing their own sheriffs, as they had done with short intermissions for the past 500 years, whilst in nearly every county of the kingdom the sheriffs were nominated by the king, must be abolished. A writ in the nature of aQuo Warrantowas accordingly issued to the sheriffs in January, 1682, calling upon them to summon the mayor and commonalty and citizens of the city to appear in his majesty's court of King's Bench to answer by what warrant they claimed divers liberties, franchises and privileges of which the writ declared they were impeached.1487A committee appointed to take steps for the City's defence, 18 Jan., 1682.Notification of service of the writ was formally made to the Common Council on the 18th January. The council showed no signs of dismay; they scarcely realized, perhaps, at the outset the true significance of the writ or the consequence it was likely to entail. They had no cause to think that the mayor, commonalty and citizens had usurped any liberties, franchises or privileges without due warrant or had abused any to which they had lawful title. One thing was plain. It was their duty to maintain the rights of the City. They therefore appointed a committee to consult with counsel learned in the law, and prepare a defence such as they might be advised to make, and ordered the Chamberlain to[pg 478]disburse such sums of money as might be required for the purpose.1488Rival factions touching election of sheriffs.More than a twelvemonth was taken up in preparing the long and technical pleadings1489preliminary to trial, and in the meantime another severe struggle took place in assertion of the right claimed by the citizens to elect both their sheriffs. The citizens ranged themselves in separate factions, the Whig party under sheriff Pilkington, the Tories under the mayor. Each leader entertained his supporters at dinner.1490There was to have been a banquet held on the 21st April at Haberdashers' Hall, at which the Duke of Monmouth, Lord Shaftesbury and others of the Whig party were to have been present, but the proposal getting wind, the mayor was strictly enjoined by the Privy Council to prevent it as being a seditious meeting and tending to create factions among the king's subjects.1491The Duke of York and Sheriff Pilkington, June, 1682.The Duke of York, who had for some time past resided in Scotland, had not increased in favour with the citizens of London. It is true that the mayor and aldermen of the city paid their respects to his highness (10 April, 1682) at St. James's Palace, on his return from the north, after paying a similar visit to the king, who had recently returned to Whitehall from Newmarket;1492but a proposal to offer[pg 479]an address to the duke praying him to reside in London found but little response in the Court of Aldermen, and was allowed to drop.1493It was not so long ago that his picture hanging in the Guildhall was found to have been mutilated, an offer of £500 for the discovery of the perpetrator of the outrage being without effect.1494Just when Pilkington was about to lay down his office of sheriff the duke entered an action against him for slander, claiming damages to the extent of £50,000. For a time he managed to escape service of the writ,1495but if he was not served before, his presence in the Common Hall on Midsummer-day for the election of new sheriffs afforded ample opportunity to serve him then.The election of sheriffs, 24 June, 1682.This election is one of the most remarkable elections in the City's annals. The royalist mayor, Sir John Moore, having previously drunk to Dudley North at a banquet at the Bridge House (18 May), thereby intimating that he nominated North as one of the sheriffs for the year ensuing, according to custom, had issued his precept to the several companies (19 June) to meet in Common Hall for the purpose ofconfirminghis nomination and electing another sheriff to serve with his nominee.1496This form of precept was objected to, and when the Common Cryer called upon the livery assembled in Common Hall to appear for the "confirmation" of North, he was met with cries of "No confirmation! No confirmation!"[pg 480]and the rest of his proclamation was drowned in uproar. "Thereupon," runs the City's Record,1497"Thomas Papillon, esq., mercer, John Du Bois, weaver, and Ralph Box, grocer, citizens of London (together with the said Dudley North, so as aforesaid elected by the lord mayor), were nominated by the commonalty, that two of them by the said commonalty might be chosen into the office of sheriffs of the city of London and county of Middlesex." The Common Sergeant having declared Papillon and Du Bois duly elected, a poll was demanded. This was granted and proceeded with until seven o'clock in the evening, when the meeting was adjourned by the mayor until the 27th. The outgoing sheriffs (Pilkington and Shute), however, disregarded the mayor's order for adjournment and continued the poll for some time longer, but at last adjourned the meeting to the day fixed by the mayor.Pilkington and Shute committed to the Tower, 26 June, 1682.A fresh question thus arose, namely, whether the right of adjourning a Common Hall was vested in the mayor for the time being or in the sheriffs. Sir John Moore reported the conduct of Pilkington and Shute to the king's council, with the result that before the 27th day of June arrived they were both committed to the Tower. They were afterwards admitted to bail.1498Further adjournment of Common Hall to the 5 July.Again adjourned to 7 July, 1682.Papillon and Du Bois declared elected.In the meantime the Common Hall had been adjourned by the mayor from the 27th June to the 5th July. On the latter day the sheriffs duly appeared on the husting, but the mayor being absent[pg 481]through indisposition, the Recorder declared his lordship's order that a further adjournment should take place until the 7th July. The sheriffs again interposed and asked the Common Hall if it was their wish that an adjournment should take place, and the answer being in the negative they proceeded to finish the poll, with the result that Papillon and Du Bois were again declared elected by a large majority. Orders having been given to the Town Clerk to place their proceedings on record, the Common Hall broke up.1499Counsel's opinion as to right of adjourning Common Hall.On the 7th the mayor and aldermen appeared in the Guildhall prepared to proceed with the poll, ignoring all that had taken place two days before. The Hall was very crowded, and soon debate arose as to whom belonged the right of adjournment. The opinion of counsel was taken by both parties then and there,1500but with little practical result, and the lord mayor further adjourned the Hall until that day week (14 July).A fresh election ordered.In the meanwhile several aldermen and citizens waited on his majesty in council, and gave him an[pg 482]account of the late proceedings, with the result that an order was sent to the mayor to hold a new election, the last being declared irregular.1501The City's account of proceedings of Common Hall, 14 July, 1682.The City's own account of what took place at the Common Hall on the 14th is thus recorded. After the order for a new election had been read, "relation was ...de novomade that Dudley North, esq., citizen and mercer of London, was elected by the mayor by his prerogative, according to the custom, into the office of one of the sheriffs of the city of London and county of Middlesex for the year ensuing, that another might be associated to him by the commonalty. And upon this, after declaration made that the said Dudley North was confirmed and Thomas Papillon, esq., citizen and mercer of London, was chosen sheriffs, certain of the commons demanded that it might be decided by the voices of the commons between the said Dudley North and Thomas Papillon and John Du Bois, weaver, and Ralph Box, grocer (named also by the commonalty), that the two of those four who should have the most voices might be the sheriffs elected for the city of London and county of Middlesex for the year ensuing. Whereupon the sheriffs and other officers of the city in the accustomed manner went into the upper chamber, where declaration of the premisses was made by the common sergeant to the mayor and aldermen there sitting; which said mayor and aldermen, the relation aforesaid well weighing, did declare the said Dudley North to be rightly and duly elected and confirmed according to[pg 483]the law and custom of the said city, and immediately came down upon the place where the Court of Hustings is usually held, and there, in their presence and by their command, the said Dudley North was solemnly called to come forth and give his consent to take upon him the said office.1502And the said lord mayor did then direct that the poll should be taken only for the said Thomas Papillon, John Du Bois and Ralph Box, by certain persons thereunto particularly appointed by the said lord mayor, that one of those three who had the most voices might be associated to the said Dudley North. And afterwards the said mayor and aldermen departed out of the hall. And the poll for the said three persons last named was immediately begun, and continued until the evening of that day. And then the said congregation was, by order of the lord mayor, adjourned until the next day, being Saturday, the 15th of July aforesaid, at 9 o'clock in the afternoon [sic.]. At which day the said poll being continued was in the afternoon of that day finished. And thereupon relation was made by the common sergeant to the mayor and aldermen that upon the poll taken by the severall persons appointed by the said lord mayor as aforesaid, there were 60 voices for Mr. Papillon, 60 voices for Mr. Du Bois, and 1,244 voices for Mr. Box. By which it appeared that the said Ralph Box had the most voices, and so was elected into the office of one of the sheriffs of the city of London and county of Middlesex for the year ensuing. And the same in the afternoon was so declared by the common[pg 484]sergeant to the commons then and there assembled, which said election of the said Ralph Box was by the aforesaid mayor, aldermen and commonalty ratified and confirmed. And thereupon, according to the form and effect of the Act of Common Council in that case made and provided, publication thereof by proclamation being then made in the place where the Hustings Court is usually held in the presence of the said lord mayor, aldermen and sheriffs, the said Ralph Box was then and there solemnly called, etc."Very different is the account of the proceedings as given us in a tract of the day.1503From the latter we learn that a separate poll was opened the same day by the sheriffs, in which all four candidates were submitted to the choice of the citizens, and the result of which was declared by Sheriff Pilkington on the 15th, prior to the mayor's declaration. According to this poll, Papillon and Du Bois were again returned at the head with 2,487 and 2,481 votes respectively. There were only 107 in favour of confirming North's election, whilst 2,414 gave their votes against it. Box found himself with only 173 supporters. It was after the declaration of this result that the mayor ordered the common sergeant to declare the result of the other poll, but the declaration of the large number of votes alleged to have been given in favour of Box caused so much uproar that he could proceed no further. The mayor and aldermen thereupon left the hall, and Papillon and Du Bois were declared by the sheriffs duly elected.[pg 485]

A re-action in favour of the court party, July, 1681.

The country seemed to be on the verge of another civil war. A re-action, however, in favour of the king set in. The nation began to view the situation more dispassionately and to entertain serious doubts whether parliament had acted rightly in pushing matters to such an extremity. The religious question after all might not be so important or so fraught with danger as they had been led to believe by professional informers. Addresses of the type of those presented by the lieutenancy of London and the borough of Southwark, among them being one signed by over twenty thousand apprentices of the city,1453began to flow in; and proceedings were commenced against Protestants on no better evidence than had previously been used against Catholics.

Proceedings against College.

Among the first against whom proceedings were taken was a Londoner named Stephen College, a joiner by trade, who from his zeal in the cause of religion came to be known as the "Protestant joiner." An attempt to get a true bill returned against him at the Old Bailey, where the juries were empanelled by[pg 468]the sheriffs of London and Middlesex, having failed, he was removed to Oxford and tried there on a charge of high treason. After much hard swearing a verdict was at length obtained.1454

Proceedings against the Earl of Shaftesbury, July-Nov., 1681.

Having secured the conviction of College the council flew at higher game in the person of the Earl of Shaftesbury. He was arrested at his house in Aldersgate Street on the 2nd July, but it was not until November that a bill of high treason was preferred against him at the Old Bailey. The nomination of juries practically rested with the sheriffs, and the court party had recently endeavoured to force the election of candidates of their own political complexion. In this they had failed, although in December last the king had endeavoured to change the character of city juries by ordering the mayor (Sir Patience Ward) to issue his precept to the Aldermen to see that none were returned by their wards for service on juries "of inferior degree than a subsidy man."1455The sheriffs for the year, Thomas Pilkington and Samuel Shute, who were zealous Whigs, took care to empanel a grand jury which would be inclined to ignore the bill against the earl, and under these circumstances the bill was thrown out (24 Nov.).1456

The manner of election of sheriffs.

The failure of the court party to obtain a conviction of Shaftesbury owing to the political bias of the sheriffs for the time being, determined them to resort to more drastic measures to obtain the election of candidates with Tory proclivities. In order to understand the[pg 469]method pursued it will be necessary to review briefly the manner in which the election of sheriffs had from time to time been carried out.

Attempt to restrict the number of electors in the 14th century.

From the earliest times of which we have any city record until the commencement of the 14th century it had been the custom for the sheriffs of London and Middlesex to be elected by the mayor, aldermen and "the good men of the city" or "commonalty." But a custom sprang up in 1301 of summoning twelve men only from each ward to take part with the mayor and aldermen in such elections,1457a custom which found little favour with the bulk of the inhabitants of the city, who insisted upon being present and taking part in the proceedings. An attempt was made by the civic authorities in 1313 to put a stop to the noise and confusion resulting from the presence of such vast numbers at the Guildhall by an order providing that thenceforth only the best men from each ward should be summoned to take part in the elections, and two years later (4 July, 1315) this order was enforced by royal proclamation.1458Nevertheless the practice of summoning representatives from the wards was soon dropt, and for more than thirty years the sheriffs continued to be elected by the mayor, aldermen and the "whole commonalty." Another attempt (made under Brembre in 1384) to restrict the number of the commonalty to "so many and such of them as should seem needful for the time" (tantz et tieux come lour semble busoignable pur le temps)1459was not more successful.

The mayor's claim to elect one of the sheriffs.

In 1347 we meet for the first time with a new method of procedure. In that year one of the sheriffs was elected by the mayor and the other by the commonalty;1460and this prerogative of the mayor for the time being to elect one of the sheriffs continued to be exercised with few (if any) exceptions down to 1638. Neither in 1639 nor in the following year was the prerogative exercised. In 1641 the mayor attempted to exercise it, but through some negligence on his part was declared by the House of Commons to have forfeited his right, and the election of both sheriffs devolved,pro hac vice, upon the commonalty.1461

The mayor's prerogative, 1642-1662.

From 1642 to 1651 the mayor for the time being exercised his prerogative in electing as well as nominating one of the sheriffs, but the commonalty always challenged his right to elect, although they paid the mayor the compliment of electing his nominee to serve with the sheriff of their own choice. From 1652 to 1660 (or 16611462?) the mayor did not attempt to exercise a right either of electing or nominating one of the sheriffs, but in 1662, when the mayor would have elected as well as nominated Thomas Bludworth as sheriff, the commonalty claimed their rights. Bludworth was eventually returned together with Sir William Turner.1463

Appointment of committee of enquiry, 1674.

In the following year (1663) the prerogative exercised by the mayor passed unchallenged, and so[pg 471]continued until 1674, when, objection being raised,1464the Common Council appointed a committee "to consider of the matters in difference and now long debated in this court between yeright honorable yelord maior and commons of this citty concerneing the eleccon of one of yesheriffes and to finde out some expedient for yereconciling yesame."1465

Custom of the mayor drinking to a future sheriff, 1674.

We now read for the first time in the City's Records of a custom in connection with the election of sheriffs (although that custom is said to have arisen in the reign of Elizabeth),1466namely, the nomination or election of a sheriff by the mayor drinking to an individual at a public banquet. It appears that the lord mayor had recently drunk to William Roberts, citizen and vintner, thereby intimating that it was his lordship's wish that Roberts should be one of the sheriffs for the year ensuing. The commons objected to the mayor thus exercising his prerogative, whilst the aldermen were no less determined to support him.1467The committee to whom the matter was referred suggested a compromise, namely, that Roberts should be bound over to take upon himself the office if within the next two or three years he should be either drunk to by the mayor or elected by the commons to be sheriff; and that, further, an Act of Common Council should be forthwith made for settling the shrievalty and all matters connected with it.1468

The mayor's prerogative unchallenged, 1675-1679.

No Act of Common Council appears to have been passed pursuant to the committee's recommendation, but in the following year (1675) and down to 1679 the mayor exercised his full prerogative of electing one of the sheriffs without opposition, although the person so elected did not always undertake the office.

Election of Bethell and Cornish Sheriffs, 24 June, 1680.

On Midsummer-day, 1680, the mayor elected George Hockenhall, citizen and grocer, to be one of the sheriffs, but Hockenhall refused to serve and was discharged on his entering into a bond for the payment of £400. The commons thereupon stept in and elected Slingsby Bethell, leatherseller, and Henry Cornish, haberdasher.1469At this juncture political influence was brought to bear upon the elections. Bethell was particularly an object of aversion to the court party. He is reported to have declared himself ready to have acted as executioner of the late king if no one else could be found for the job,1470and to have made himself obnoxious in other ways. With Cornish little fault could at present be found. Objection was raised to both these gentlemen acting as sheriffs, on the ground that they had not taken the oath or received the sacrament as prescribed by law, and another election demanded. Before this second election took place (14 July) they had qualified themselves according to the Corporation Act.1471The mayor did not claim his prerogative on this occasion. Bethell and Cornish[pg 473]were put up again for office, and against them two others, Ralph Box, grocer, and Humphrey Nicholson, merchant taylor, who, although nominated like Bethell and Cornish by the commonalty, were in reality candidates put forward by the court party.1472Bethell and Cornish having been again declared elected, a poll was demanded, which lasted several days. At its close it was found that Cornish was at the head with 2,483 votes, Bethell next with 2,276, whilst Box and Nicholson followed with 1,428 and 1,230 votes respectively.1473

The character of the new Sheriffs.

The two first named were declared (29 July) duly elected. Bethell has been described as a "sullen and wilful man," a republican at heart and one that "turned from the ordinary way of a sheriff's living into the extreme of sordidness." Cornish on the other hand was "a plain, warm, honest man and lived very nobly all his year."1474It was doubtless Bethell's proposal that the customary dinner to the aldermen on the day the new sheriffs were sworn in should be omitted. If so, Cornish had to give way to the parsimonious whim of his fellow sheriff. "What an obstinate man he was!" remarked Cornish of him, when brought to trial five years later.1475The aldermen refused to accompany the sheriffs to the Guildhall unless they were invited to dinner.1476

Election of Pilkington and Shute sheriffs, 24 June, 1681.

In the following year (1681) two other sheriffs of the same political character, viz., Pilkington and Shute, were elected over the heads of the same court[pg 474]candidates that had stood the previous year, the defeat of the latter being still more pronounced.1477

The king signifies his displeasure.

The king did not attempt to conceal his displeasure at the City's proceedings, and when the recorder and the sheriffs came to invite him to dinner on lord mayor's day,1478made the following answer:—"Mr. Recorder, an invitation from my lord mayor and the city is very acceptable to me, and to show that it is so, notwithstanding that it is brought by messengers that are so unwelcome to me as these two sheriffs are, yet I accept it."1479

Thanks of the Common Hall to the late sheriffs, 27 June, 1681.

The outgoing sheriffs were presented (27 June) with an address1480from the citizens assembled in Common Hall thanking them for their faithful discharge of their office of trust and complimenting them more especially upon their successful efforts to maintain and assert the undoubted rights and privileges of the citizens and their "continual provision of faithful and able juries." The address concluded with thanks to them for their despatch in carrying out the recent "unnecessary" poll in connection with the[pg 475]election of new sheriffs, and not delaying the matter by troublesome adjournments.

The mayor desired to present an address to the king, 27 June, 1681.

Opportunity was also taken of thanking the lord mayor (Sir Patience Ward) and the members of the Common Council for presenting the recent address to his majesty praying him to confide in parliament,1481and desired his lordship to assure his majesty that the address reflected the true feeling and desires of all his loyal subjects there assembled in Common Hall, notwithstanding rumours to the contrary. They also desired to join in the vote of thanks which the Common Council had passed to the city members sitting in the last parliament for their faithful services.

Address to the king, 7 July.

It required some courage for the mayor to again face the king and his chancellor and to run the risk of another rebuff. Nevertheless, on Thursday, the 7th July, the mayor went to Hampton Court, attended by Sir Robert Clayton, Sir John Shorter and others, as well as by the sheriffs Bethell and Cornish (the new sheriffs not coming into office until September), to present to the king in council another address from the Common Hall. It was received with no more favour than the last. The chancellor affected to believe that it was but the address of a faction in the city, and not the unanimous vote of the citizens at large. "The king takes notice there are no aldermen," he said, whilst Alderman Clayton and Alderman Shorter were at his elbow! In fine they were again told to mind their own business.1482

Sir John Moore elected mayor, Sept., 1681.

Although the court party had twice signally failed to obtain the appointment of sheriffs who should be amenable to its control, they were fortunate in having an adherent in the mayor elected on Michaelmas-day to succeed Sir Patience Ward. The senior alderman who had not already passed the chair happened to be Sir John Moore. It does not often occur that in the choice of a mayor the Common Hall passes over the senior alderman who is both capable and willing to take upon himself the office; but there was some chance of it doing so in this case, inasmuch as Sir John Moore had rendered himself unpopular with a large section of citizens by presenting an address of thanks to the king for the declaration which his majesty had published in defence of his having dissolved parliament.1483Two aldermen, Sir John Shorter and Thomas Gold, were nominated with Moore for the office. A poll was demanded, with the result that Moore was elected by a majority of nearly 300 votes over his opponents.1484On his being presented (7 Oct.) to the lord chancellor for the king's approbation, he was told that his majesty experienced much satisfaction at the choice of so loyal and worthy a magistrate.1485Three days before (4 Oct.) the Court of Aldermen nominated a committee to take informations concerning the scandalous remarks that had been made against him in Common Hall on the day of his election.1486

Issue of aQuo Warranto, Jan., 1682.

Not content with this success, the king's advisers determined upon bringing the City to book for its[pg 477]recent attitude in the election of sheriffs. The anomaly by which the citizens of London enjoyed the right of electing their own sheriffs, as they had done with short intermissions for the past 500 years, whilst in nearly every county of the kingdom the sheriffs were nominated by the king, must be abolished. A writ in the nature of aQuo Warrantowas accordingly issued to the sheriffs in January, 1682, calling upon them to summon the mayor and commonalty and citizens of the city to appear in his majesty's court of King's Bench to answer by what warrant they claimed divers liberties, franchises and privileges of which the writ declared they were impeached.1487

A committee appointed to take steps for the City's defence, 18 Jan., 1682.

Notification of service of the writ was formally made to the Common Council on the 18th January. The council showed no signs of dismay; they scarcely realized, perhaps, at the outset the true significance of the writ or the consequence it was likely to entail. They had no cause to think that the mayor, commonalty and citizens had usurped any liberties, franchises or privileges without due warrant or had abused any to which they had lawful title. One thing was plain. It was their duty to maintain the rights of the City. They therefore appointed a committee to consult with counsel learned in the law, and prepare a defence such as they might be advised to make, and ordered the Chamberlain to[pg 478]disburse such sums of money as might be required for the purpose.1488

Rival factions touching election of sheriffs.

More than a twelvemonth was taken up in preparing the long and technical pleadings1489preliminary to trial, and in the meantime another severe struggle took place in assertion of the right claimed by the citizens to elect both their sheriffs. The citizens ranged themselves in separate factions, the Whig party under sheriff Pilkington, the Tories under the mayor. Each leader entertained his supporters at dinner.1490There was to have been a banquet held on the 21st April at Haberdashers' Hall, at which the Duke of Monmouth, Lord Shaftesbury and others of the Whig party were to have been present, but the proposal getting wind, the mayor was strictly enjoined by the Privy Council to prevent it as being a seditious meeting and tending to create factions among the king's subjects.1491

The Duke of York and Sheriff Pilkington, June, 1682.

The Duke of York, who had for some time past resided in Scotland, had not increased in favour with the citizens of London. It is true that the mayor and aldermen of the city paid their respects to his highness (10 April, 1682) at St. James's Palace, on his return from the north, after paying a similar visit to the king, who had recently returned to Whitehall from Newmarket;1492but a proposal to offer[pg 479]an address to the duke praying him to reside in London found but little response in the Court of Aldermen, and was allowed to drop.1493It was not so long ago that his picture hanging in the Guildhall was found to have been mutilated, an offer of £500 for the discovery of the perpetrator of the outrage being without effect.1494Just when Pilkington was about to lay down his office of sheriff the duke entered an action against him for slander, claiming damages to the extent of £50,000. For a time he managed to escape service of the writ,1495but if he was not served before, his presence in the Common Hall on Midsummer-day for the election of new sheriffs afforded ample opportunity to serve him then.

The election of sheriffs, 24 June, 1682.

This election is one of the most remarkable elections in the City's annals. The royalist mayor, Sir John Moore, having previously drunk to Dudley North at a banquet at the Bridge House (18 May), thereby intimating that he nominated North as one of the sheriffs for the year ensuing, according to custom, had issued his precept to the several companies (19 June) to meet in Common Hall for the purpose ofconfirminghis nomination and electing another sheriff to serve with his nominee.1496This form of precept was objected to, and when the Common Cryer called upon the livery assembled in Common Hall to appear for the "confirmation" of North, he was met with cries of "No confirmation! No confirmation!"[pg 480]and the rest of his proclamation was drowned in uproar. "Thereupon," runs the City's Record,1497"Thomas Papillon, esq., mercer, John Du Bois, weaver, and Ralph Box, grocer, citizens of London (together with the said Dudley North, so as aforesaid elected by the lord mayor), were nominated by the commonalty, that two of them by the said commonalty might be chosen into the office of sheriffs of the city of London and county of Middlesex." The Common Sergeant having declared Papillon and Du Bois duly elected, a poll was demanded. This was granted and proceeded with until seven o'clock in the evening, when the meeting was adjourned by the mayor until the 27th. The outgoing sheriffs (Pilkington and Shute), however, disregarded the mayor's order for adjournment and continued the poll for some time longer, but at last adjourned the meeting to the day fixed by the mayor.

Pilkington and Shute committed to the Tower, 26 June, 1682.

A fresh question thus arose, namely, whether the right of adjourning a Common Hall was vested in the mayor for the time being or in the sheriffs. Sir John Moore reported the conduct of Pilkington and Shute to the king's council, with the result that before the 27th day of June arrived they were both committed to the Tower. They were afterwards admitted to bail.1498

Further adjournment of Common Hall to the 5 July.

Again adjourned to 7 July, 1682.

Papillon and Du Bois declared elected.

In the meantime the Common Hall had been adjourned by the mayor from the 27th June to the 5th July. On the latter day the sheriffs duly appeared on the husting, but the mayor being absent[pg 481]through indisposition, the Recorder declared his lordship's order that a further adjournment should take place until the 7th July. The sheriffs again interposed and asked the Common Hall if it was their wish that an adjournment should take place, and the answer being in the negative they proceeded to finish the poll, with the result that Papillon and Du Bois were again declared elected by a large majority. Orders having been given to the Town Clerk to place their proceedings on record, the Common Hall broke up.1499

Counsel's opinion as to right of adjourning Common Hall.

On the 7th the mayor and aldermen appeared in the Guildhall prepared to proceed with the poll, ignoring all that had taken place two days before. The Hall was very crowded, and soon debate arose as to whom belonged the right of adjournment. The opinion of counsel was taken by both parties then and there,1500but with little practical result, and the lord mayor further adjourned the Hall until that day week (14 July).

A fresh election ordered.

In the meanwhile several aldermen and citizens waited on his majesty in council, and gave him an[pg 482]account of the late proceedings, with the result that an order was sent to the mayor to hold a new election, the last being declared irregular.1501

The City's account of proceedings of Common Hall, 14 July, 1682.

The City's own account of what took place at the Common Hall on the 14th is thus recorded. After the order for a new election had been read, "relation was ...de novomade that Dudley North, esq., citizen and mercer of London, was elected by the mayor by his prerogative, according to the custom, into the office of one of the sheriffs of the city of London and county of Middlesex for the year ensuing, that another might be associated to him by the commonalty. And upon this, after declaration made that the said Dudley North was confirmed and Thomas Papillon, esq., citizen and mercer of London, was chosen sheriffs, certain of the commons demanded that it might be decided by the voices of the commons between the said Dudley North and Thomas Papillon and John Du Bois, weaver, and Ralph Box, grocer (named also by the commonalty), that the two of those four who should have the most voices might be the sheriffs elected for the city of London and county of Middlesex for the year ensuing. Whereupon the sheriffs and other officers of the city in the accustomed manner went into the upper chamber, where declaration of the premisses was made by the common sergeant to the mayor and aldermen there sitting; which said mayor and aldermen, the relation aforesaid well weighing, did declare the said Dudley North to be rightly and duly elected and confirmed according to[pg 483]the law and custom of the said city, and immediately came down upon the place where the Court of Hustings is usually held, and there, in their presence and by their command, the said Dudley North was solemnly called to come forth and give his consent to take upon him the said office.1502And the said lord mayor did then direct that the poll should be taken only for the said Thomas Papillon, John Du Bois and Ralph Box, by certain persons thereunto particularly appointed by the said lord mayor, that one of those three who had the most voices might be associated to the said Dudley North. And afterwards the said mayor and aldermen departed out of the hall. And the poll for the said three persons last named was immediately begun, and continued until the evening of that day. And then the said congregation was, by order of the lord mayor, adjourned until the next day, being Saturday, the 15th of July aforesaid, at 9 o'clock in the afternoon [sic.]. At which day the said poll being continued was in the afternoon of that day finished. And thereupon relation was made by the common sergeant to the mayor and aldermen that upon the poll taken by the severall persons appointed by the said lord mayor as aforesaid, there were 60 voices for Mr. Papillon, 60 voices for Mr. Du Bois, and 1,244 voices for Mr. Box. By which it appeared that the said Ralph Box had the most voices, and so was elected into the office of one of the sheriffs of the city of London and county of Middlesex for the year ensuing. And the same in the afternoon was so declared by the common[pg 484]sergeant to the commons then and there assembled, which said election of the said Ralph Box was by the aforesaid mayor, aldermen and commonalty ratified and confirmed. And thereupon, according to the form and effect of the Act of Common Council in that case made and provided, publication thereof by proclamation being then made in the place where the Hustings Court is usually held in the presence of the said lord mayor, aldermen and sheriffs, the said Ralph Box was then and there solemnly called, etc."

Very different is the account of the proceedings as given us in a tract of the day.1503From the latter we learn that a separate poll was opened the same day by the sheriffs, in which all four candidates were submitted to the choice of the citizens, and the result of which was declared by Sheriff Pilkington on the 15th, prior to the mayor's declaration. According to this poll, Papillon and Du Bois were again returned at the head with 2,487 and 2,481 votes respectively. There were only 107 in favour of confirming North's election, whilst 2,414 gave their votes against it. Box found himself with only 173 supporters. It was after the declaration of this result that the mayor ordered the common sergeant to declare the result of the other poll, but the declaration of the large number of votes alleged to have been given in favour of Box caused so much uproar that he could proceed no further. The mayor and aldermen thereupon left the hall, and Papillon and Du Bois were declared by the sheriffs duly elected.

Back to Index Next