The New Model Army, 15 Feb., 1645.The City advances £80,000, 4 March, 1645.The failure of the negotiations at Uxbridge hastened the passing of an ordinance for re-modelling the army and placing it on such a footing that the men should be in receipt of constant pay and the officers selected for military efficiency alone. Ever since November the "New Model" ordinance—as it was called—had been under consideration. In January it passed the Commons, but the Lords hesitated until the difference of opinion that had manifested itself at Uxbridge induced them to give their assent (15 Feb.). On the 4th March a deputation from both Houses came into the city and informed the Common Council that, the Treaty of Uxbridge having fallen through, the Houses had resolved "to put their forces into the best posture they can for the vigorous prosecution of the war, as the best means now left (under God) for the obtaining of peace." Parliament had passed an ordinance—they proceeded to say—for raising £50,000 a month for nine months for payment of an army under Sir Thomas Fairfax, and they now asked the City to advance a sum of £80,000 on the security of the money so to be raised in the last five months out of the nine. The matter was referred to a committee to carry out.669The self-denying ordinance, 3 April, 1645.The passing of the New Model ordinance was followed by the passing of a self-denying ordinance,670[pg 215]the original purport of which was to exclude all members of either House from commands in the army, but was afterwards so far modified as to compel existing officers to resign their appointments, leaving it to parliament to re-appoint them if it would. Essex, Waller and Manchester resigned, but when the time came for Cromwell, the prime mover in the re-organisation of the army, to follow suit, he and two or three others were re-appointed to commands in the new army. The immediate effect of the passing of this ordinance upon the city of London was that Pennington, who had been appointed by parliament lieutenant of the Tower, had to resign his post. The nomination of his successor was, however, left with the Common Council, who sent up the name of Colonel Francis West for the approval of the Commons (24 April).671Military activity in the city, April, 1645.Whilst the army was undergoing a process of reformation outside London, considerable activity prevailed within the city with the object of strengthening its position. The Committee of Militia was instructed to raise a sufficient number of men to guard the city forts so that the trained bands might be free for more active duties. Large sums of money were voted to pay arrears due to gunners, "mattrosses" and workmen who had been engaged in erecting the fortifications. The sum of £500 was ordered to be laid out in the purchase of gunpowder. The scout-master for the city was encouraged in his duty of bringing information of movements of the royalist army by the payment of arrears due to him, and steps were taken to bring up the regiments of the city auxiliaries to their full complement by enlistments from the several wards.672[pg 216]The siege of Oxford, 22 May, 1645.The first serious undertaking confided to Fairfax and the New Model army was the siege of Oxford. The utter uselessness of such an enterprise, whilst Charles was free to roam the country and deal blows wherever opportunity offered, failed to make itself apparent to the Committee of Both Kingdoms, which still governed the movements of the parliamentary army. The siege being resolved upon, a deputation from both Houses waited on the Common Council (16 May) to ask for assistance in furnishing a force to set out under Major-General Browne to join Fairfax and Cromwell in the undertaking.673Four days later (20 May), when another deputation attended, the court instructed the committee of arrears sitting at Weavers' Hall to raise £10,000 for the purpose.674Massey to quit Gloucester and take command in the west, 24 May.Whilst the main force of the parliamentary army was wasting time in besieging Oxford, care was taken to keep the country open round Taunton, recently set free by a detachment sent by Fairfax. For this purpose Massey, the governor of Gloucester, was ordered to quit his post and march towards Bristol.675The prospect of losing their governor, who had achieved so many military successes in the neighbourhood, threw the inhabitants of Gloucester into terrible consternation, and they went so far as to petition parliament against his removal; but somehow or other their petition failed to be read before the Commons. In their distress they caused their mayor[pg 217]to address a letter to the city of London (29 May) stating the facts of the case, and praying that the Londoners, who had already done so much to save them from the hand of the enemy, would interpose with the Commons on their behalf, so that Colonel Massey might be allowed to remain. The civic authorities agreed (7 June) to lay the matter before parliament;676but in spite of all representations Massey had to go. The Londoners themselves were asked (9 June) to furnish 500 mounted musketeers for Massey's expedition, and were encouraged to do so by "motives" setting forth the gallant behaviour of the brigade in and about Taunton, and the critical condition it was in by being cut off from provisions. The Common Council ordered the motives to be printed and circulated, with the result that sufficient money was raised to fit out 500 dragoons.677City's petition to parliament, 4 June, 1645.In the meantime considerable dissatisfaction manifested itself in the city at the state of affairs in general, and more particularly with the manner in which the movements of Fairfax and the New Model army were hampered by orders from home. A petition from divers inhabitants of the city with certain suggestions was laid before the Common Council for presentation to parliament. It was not customary, however, for the Common Council to present petitions to parliament unless drawn up by themselves, but as the feelings of the court were in sympathy with the petitioners it ordered two petitions to be drawn up embracing the substance of the[pg 218]original petition, and these were presented, one to each of the Houses. After setting forth what they esteemed to be the reasons for the ill success of the parliamentary cause, the petitioners made known their own wishes. In the first place, they desired that the army of Fairfax should be recruited, and that the general might be allowed greater freedom of action. Secondly, that steps should be taken, before it was too late, to recover Leicester, which had recently (31 May) fallen into the king's hands. Thirdly, that the Scots should be urged to march southward. Fourthly, that Cromwell should be placed in command of the Eastern Association. Fifthly, that adequate convoys should be provided for merchants; and lastly, that parliament should publish its own account of the recent negotiations, as well as its resolutions against free trade by sea to such ports as were in the king's hands.678The petition, which was presented by Alderman Fowke to the Commons (4 June),679was favourably received by both Houses, and the City thanked for its care.Cromwell appointed lieutenant-general, 10 June, 1645.One of the wishes expressed in the City's petition was soon realised, for within a week Cromwell was appointed, not to the command of the Eastern Association as suggested, but to a still greater command, viz., the lieutenant-generalship of the army, an office which, by long prescription, carried also the command of the cavalry, an arm of the service in[pg 219]which Cromwell had especially shown himself a master.680The battle of Naseby, 14 June, 1645.Fairfax, being now allowed a free hand, abandoned the siege of Oxford and set off in pursuit of the royal army. He came up with them at Naseby, where on the 14th June he succeeded, with the help of Cromwell and his cavalry, in obtaining a signal victory and utterly crushing the power of Charles in the field. Among the wounded on the parliamentary side was the City's old friend Skippon, "shot under the arme six inches into his flesh." The pain of having his wound dressed caused him to groan. "Though I groane, I grumble not," said he to the by-standers, and asked for a chaplain to come and pray for him.681Thanksgiving in the city for the victory at Naseby, 19 June.The victory at Naseby was celebrated in the city by a thanksgiving service at Christ Church, Newgate (19 June), which was attended by the members of both Houses, followed by an entertainment at Grocers' Hall. The hall not being large enough to contain the whole of the company, the members of the Common Council dined by themselves at the hall of the Mercers Company. Nothing was omitted that could serve to enhance the reputation of the City.682The city advances £31,000 for payment of the Scottish army, 14 June.The wishes of the citizens were to be further gratified. The Scottish army was about to move southward, and parliament had voted a month's pay, or £31,000. The City was asked to assist in raising[pg 220]the money (14 June). To this the Common Council readily agreed, but at the same time directed the Recorder to represent to parliament that the citizens were anxious for the Scots to recover Leicester as speedily as possible.683Before the army had time to make any great advance in this direction Leicester had surrendered to Fairfax (18 June).Cavalry raised by the City for the parliamentary arms, July-Sept., 1645.In July the City was called upon to assist in raising 1,000 horse and 500 dragoons for the relief of the counties of Oxford, Buckingham, Berkshire and others, and the better security of the Association.684Three months later (2 Sept.) another contingent of 500 light horse and a like number of "dragoneers" were required "to pursue the forces of the king." Each member of the Common Council was directed to provide a light horse and arms or to pay the sum of £12 in lieu thereof. A dragoon horse and arms might be compounded for by payment of half that sum. Parliament agreed to charge the excise with the sum of £16,000 to provide compensation for any loss the contributors might sustain, whilst the City contributed out of its Chamber the sum of £400 towards the pay of officers, the buying of trophies and other necessaries.685Plymouth appeals to London, 5 Sept.The aid of the City was now invoked by Plymouth as formerly it had been by Gloucester. On the 5th September the mayor and aldermen of Plymouth addressed a letter to the mayor and common council of London enclosing a petition they[pg 221]were about to lay before parliament. The petition set forth how, in the absence of Fairfax, who was laying siege to Bristol, the whole country round Plymouth was in the hands of the enemy; and an attack would, it was feared, be soon made by Lord Goring on the town garrison. Unless the siege was raised before winter, or considerable supplies brought in, the town would be unable to hold out longer. This petition the municipal authorities of London were asked to second, with the hope of prevailing upon parliament to send at least that relief which had been so often desired and so often promised. A whole fortnight elapsed before the letter and petition were brought to the notice of the Common Council (20 Sept.)—the letter from Gloucester had taken a week in transit, such was the state of the country—and then it was resolved to send a deputation from the city, including the two sheriffs, to express to the Committee of Both Kingdoms the desire of the City that they would be pleased to take the petition into speedy and serious consideration, and to provide for the safety and defence of Plymouth.686Accommodation in the city for royalist prisoners.The Londoners themselves were suffering from an inconvenience from which they had hitherto in vain sought relief from parliament, and that was the large number of royalist soldiers—amounting to no less than 3,000—which after the battle of Naseby had been quartered on the city.687Now that the war was practically over, so far as the king was concerned, the Common Council again took the matter in hand, and it was suggested that the Convocation House and its cloisters situate on the south side of St. Paul's[pg 222]Churchyard should be fitted up at a cost of £40 for their reception. By this means Bethlehem hospital, where many of the prisoners had been housed, would be free to minister again to the wants of the poor.688The Presbyterians and Independents.The troubles with Charles had scarcely terminated before a new struggle commenced. A monster had been raised, after much hesitation and with no little difficulty, in the shape of a well-organised and regularly paid army, the command of which was virtually in the hands of a small political party known as Independents. The great fear was lest this party, with the army at its back, should over-ride the wishes of the Presbyterians, a party which was numerically stronger than the Independents, both in the House and in the country; and to avoid such a catastrophe the Presbyterians of England were ready to join hands with their brethren in Scotland.The Presbyterians and the Scottish army.The House, however, was unfortunate enough at this critical juncture to offend the Scots as well as the citizens of London. The Scottish army had been invited to march southward to attack Newark, whither Charles had betaken himself after witnessing from the walls of Chester the defeat of his troops on Rowton Heath (24 Sept.), and the Commons had promised to raise a sum of £30,000 for its pay provided it arrived before Newark by the 1st day of November.689This sum the City promised to find (10 Oct.), but only on the condition named.690On the 13th the House offended the dignity of the Scots by a series of resolutions protesting against the conduct of the Scottish[pg 223]army in not attacking the enemy as well as in levying money on the inhabitants of the northern counties, and demanded the removal of the garrisons which had been placed in Newcastle, Carlisle and other towns without the consent of parliament.691Presbyterianism in the city, 1645.The quarrel between parliament and the City was scarcely less serious, and arose out of an attempt to foist a system of Presbyterianism upon the citizens which should serve as a model for the rest of the kingdom. It was not that the Londoner objected to the principle of Presbyterianism; the natural bent of his mind was in that direction, and the City had already petitioned parliament for the election of elders to join with the parish ministers.692What he found fault with was the mode of electing the elders prescribed by parliament (23 Sept.).693The scheme was so far from satisfying the general body of citizens that a number of them presented a petition to the Common Council to address both Houses of Parliament, with a view to having the powers of the elders sufficiently enlarged to effect a genuine reform in the Church.694They wanted, in fact, to see parliamentary control over the Church in matters purely ecclesiastical withdrawn. Herein they were supported by the ministers of their own parish churches, who drew up a list of reforms they desired to see executed and the reasons why they so desired.695It was a difficult matter on which to approach parliament. Nevertheless, in accordance with a resolution of the Common Council (18 Nov.),[pg 224]a deputation of aldermen and common councillors, of whom Alderman Gibbs acted as spokesman, presented themselves (19 Nov.) before the House of Commons with the petition of the citizens, as well as with the "desires and reasons" of the city clergy. The reply they got was far from encouraging. They were given to understand that parliament was well aware of its trust and duty, and was quite able to discharge both, if only it was let alone, and its purpose not misconceived and prejudged as it appeared to have been in the city; and they were dismissed with the caution not to form premature opinions about matters which were still under discussion.696Notwithstanding this rebuff, the deputation the following day attended before the Lords (20 Nov.), who returned them a far more gracious and sympathetic answer. After thanking the deputation for their expressions of submission to the resolutions of parliament, their lordships assured them that none should excel them in their endeavours for the maintenance of the covenant, the advancement and settling of God's true religion, and the discharge of the trust reposed in them.697City loan of £6,000 for siege of Chester, 12 Nov., 1645.In the meantime a deputation from parliament had waited on the Common Council (12 Nov.) with a request for a loan of £6,000 for the troops engaged in blockading Chester. The court agreed to the request, but thought it high time to learn precisely how the city stood with respect to loans already made to parliament, and appointed (17 Nov.) a committee to report on the whole matter, with a view of[pg 225]addressing parliament for re-payment of monies in arrear.698Parliament and the Scottish army.It was feared that the Scottish army might change sides. It wanted supplies. The City, we have seen, had agreed with parliament to advance a sum of £30,000 for payment of the Scots, provided their army appeared before Newark by the 1st November. This condition had not been fulfilled. The army, nevertheless, appeared later on, and a committee of the House of Commons came down to the city and asked the citizens (6 Dec.) to stand by their former promise and advance the sum mentioned, which they readily consented to do.699The king's proposal to come to Westminster, 26-29 Dec., 1645.Answer of the House, 13 Jan., 1646.The question with Charles was, from whom was he likely to obtain the better terms, the English or the Scots? On the 26th December he addressed a letter to the Speaker of the House of Lords, asking whether the two Houses of Parliament, the Scottish commissioners, the municipal authorities, as well as the militia of the city and the officers of both armies, would guarantee his personal security if he came to reside in London or Westminster, with a retinue not exceeding three hundred in number, for a period of forty days.700The risk of allowing such a step was too great. Already the Earl of Holland had been heard to threaten a royalist rising in the city if only Charles could be brought in safety to Westminster. Not getting a reply so quickly as he wished, Charles wrote again three days later (29 Dec.) urging his[pg 226]former proposal.701More delay took place, during which the Commons instructed the mayor to see well to the city's guards and scrutinise the passes of those coming and going,702and at last, on the 13th January, the Speakers wrote to Charles declining the proposal.703Day of humiliation in the city, 14 Jan., 1646.The day following the despatch of this reply was kept in the city as a day of solemn humiliation. Sermons were preached before the mayor, aldermen and members of the common council, who afterwards individually took the oath and covenant. An enquiry was subsequently ordered (9 Feb.) for the purpose of discovering what members of the common council had failed to take the covenant on this occasion, and the reasons why they had not done so. A few members stood out and refused to renew the covenant, whereupon the court resolved to ask parliament for instructions as to what should be done with them.704The king's offers to parliament on religion, 15 Jan.On the 15th January Charles made overtures to parliament for the first time on the question of religion. He was prepared to allow religion to be settled as it was in the reign of Elizabeth and James, "with full liberty for the ease of their consciences who will not communicate in that service established by law, and likewise for the free and public use of the directory prescribed and, by command of the two Houses, now practised in some parts of the city of London."705[pg 227]The City's petition against toleration, 15 Jan.This important concession on the part of Charles—a concession which only the necessities of the time induced him, after much exercise of mind, to make—was announced to parliament on the same day that the City presented a petition706against toleration of any other form of religion than the Presbyterianism already adopted by parliament and the citizens. The petitioners declared that since they last addressed the Houses on the subject of religion a fresh election of the Common Council had taken place, and the inhabitants of many of the wards had taken the opportunity of asking their alderman that parliament might be again desired to settle Church government and forbid toleration. Private meetings for religious worship, they went on to say, were constantly held. In one parish there were at least eleven. Orthodox ministers were evil spoken of, as if the city were still under the "tyranny of prelatical government." Women had taken to preaching, and such blasphemies were uttered as made the petitioners tremble to think of. Having heard that it was the intention of divers persons to petition the House for a toleration of such doctrines as were against the covenant under pretext of liberty of conscience, the petitioners humbly prayed that parliament would take steps to remedy abuses and to settle the Church government according to the solemn covenant made with the most high God. The Commons lent a ready ear to the petition and thanked the City for their display of piety and religion. It was gratifying to them to know that they had the sympathy of the City in their anxiety to settle the peace of the[pg 228]Church.707The Lords, to whom a similar petition had been presented, returned an equally gracious message, and expressed a hope that the municipal authorities would take steps to remedy the existing abuses.708The Scottish commissioners attend a Common Council, 11 Feb., 1646.Whilst endeavouring to come to terms with parliament Charles was also in communication both with the Scots and the Independents. His purpose was to play one party off against the other. A complete understanding existed between the citizens and the Scots on the subject of religion. On the 11th February the Scottish commissioners themselves appeared at a Common Council bearing a letter from the president of the Scottish parliament addressed to the lord mayor, aldermen and common council of the city, thanking them for their zeal for the reformation of religion and uniformity of Church government, as well as for the large sums of money advanced to the armies in defence of religion and the liberty of the subject.709The Common Council thanked the commissioners for the favour thus shown, and begged them to assure their countrymen that the City would continue its zeal and affection for the reformation of religion and uniformity of Church government, and would persevere in its resolution to preserve the same according to the covenant.Parliament desires to know particulars of the interview.Francis Allen's account of the interview.As soon as Parliament heard that the City had received a communication from Scotland the Commons sent a deputation to learn all the particulars and to ask that the letter might be forwarded to them. The deputation was to assure the mayor and the Common[pg 229]Council that there was "no jealousie at all or dislike of their proceedings" in the business. In the meanwhile the House called upon Francis Allen, a member of the House as well as a member of the Common Council, to give an account of what had taken place in the city on the 11th. This he did to the best of his ability, giving from memory the substance of the letter from Scotland. He then proceeded to say that one of the Scottish commissioners, Lord Lauderdale, had made the following remark before the Common Council, viz., "That many aspersions had been caste upon their armie and their proceedings by malignants; and desired that the authors of them might be looked upon as those that endeavour to disturb the unitie of both kingdomes."710The City's version of the matter.That at least was the story as recorded in the Journal of the House. Allen, however, declared that he had been inaccurately recorded, and the Common Council, in giving parliament their own version of the matter, denied that Lauderdale had made any such remark. He had said nothing that could give offence. They forwarded the letter as desired, but begged that it might be returned in order that it might be entered on the city's Journal. They further expressed a wish to print and publish it so that the real facts might be known. Allen, they said, was not to be credited, and had been guilty of a breach of privilege in what he had done.711Resolution of the House. 21 Feb., 1646.The House, however, took a different view of Allen's conduct, and declared that he had only done[pg 230]his duty. It at the same time came to a resolution that the relation entered on the Journal of the House varied from Allen's and ordered it to be expunged.712Allen elected alderman of Farringdon Without, 1649.Three years later, when Allen was elected alderman of the ward of Farringdon Without, the House declared (5 Dec, 1649) that it deemed it "an acceptable service to the commonwealth" if Allen would accept the post, and the Common Council resolved (19 Dec.) to revoke all votes of the court that had been passed in the month of February, 1646, reflecting on Allen's conduct.713The City's claim to govern the militia of the suburbs, 1646.Hitherto the City and Parliament had, in the presence of a common danger, mutually supported one another; but as soon as the royalists ceased to give further cause for alarm differences immediately sprang up. The question of the City's jurisdiction over the militia raised within the weekly bills of mortality, as well as over that raised within the city and liberties, was no new question. It had been raised at least as far back as August, 1644,714but during the crisis of the civil war the matter had been allowed to drop until December, 1645, when the City again brought it forward and urged parliament to acknowledge its jurisdiction.715Before parliament would give its assent it wished to be informed whether the jurisdiction claimed by the City was already vested in the City by Charles or by custom, and if not, what extension of jurisdiction was it that the City now desired?716The[pg 231]chief opposition came from the inhabitants of Middlesex, Surrey, Southwark and Westminster, who objected to their militia being placed under the command of the mayor, aldermen and common council of the city. All parties were cited to appear before the Star Chamber on the 31st June, 1646, to support their own contention.717Parliament had already (27 Jan.) expressed itself as willing to sanction the government of the militia of the city and liberties being vested in the municipal authorities and to allow that the city forces should not be called upon to serve away from the city without their own consent,718but this was not enough. What the City desired was nothing more and nothing less than what had already been proposed to the king at Oxford with the sanction of both Houses, namely, "the government of the militia of the parishes without London and the liberties within the weekly bills of mortality." Parliament had made no scruple about the matter at a time when it stood in sore need of assistance from the City; and the City did not intend to let it go back lightly on its word.719

The New Model Army, 15 Feb., 1645.

The City advances £80,000, 4 March, 1645.

The failure of the negotiations at Uxbridge hastened the passing of an ordinance for re-modelling the army and placing it on such a footing that the men should be in receipt of constant pay and the officers selected for military efficiency alone. Ever since November the "New Model" ordinance—as it was called—had been under consideration. In January it passed the Commons, but the Lords hesitated until the difference of opinion that had manifested itself at Uxbridge induced them to give their assent (15 Feb.). On the 4th March a deputation from both Houses came into the city and informed the Common Council that, the Treaty of Uxbridge having fallen through, the Houses had resolved "to put their forces into the best posture they can for the vigorous prosecution of the war, as the best means now left (under God) for the obtaining of peace." Parliament had passed an ordinance—they proceeded to say—for raising £50,000 a month for nine months for payment of an army under Sir Thomas Fairfax, and they now asked the City to advance a sum of £80,000 on the security of the money so to be raised in the last five months out of the nine. The matter was referred to a committee to carry out.669

The self-denying ordinance, 3 April, 1645.

The passing of the New Model ordinance was followed by the passing of a self-denying ordinance,670[pg 215]the original purport of which was to exclude all members of either House from commands in the army, but was afterwards so far modified as to compel existing officers to resign their appointments, leaving it to parliament to re-appoint them if it would. Essex, Waller and Manchester resigned, but when the time came for Cromwell, the prime mover in the re-organisation of the army, to follow suit, he and two or three others were re-appointed to commands in the new army. The immediate effect of the passing of this ordinance upon the city of London was that Pennington, who had been appointed by parliament lieutenant of the Tower, had to resign his post. The nomination of his successor was, however, left with the Common Council, who sent up the name of Colonel Francis West for the approval of the Commons (24 April).671

Military activity in the city, April, 1645.

Whilst the army was undergoing a process of reformation outside London, considerable activity prevailed within the city with the object of strengthening its position. The Committee of Militia was instructed to raise a sufficient number of men to guard the city forts so that the trained bands might be free for more active duties. Large sums of money were voted to pay arrears due to gunners, "mattrosses" and workmen who had been engaged in erecting the fortifications. The sum of £500 was ordered to be laid out in the purchase of gunpowder. The scout-master for the city was encouraged in his duty of bringing information of movements of the royalist army by the payment of arrears due to him, and steps were taken to bring up the regiments of the city auxiliaries to their full complement by enlistments from the several wards.672

The siege of Oxford, 22 May, 1645.

The first serious undertaking confided to Fairfax and the New Model army was the siege of Oxford. The utter uselessness of such an enterprise, whilst Charles was free to roam the country and deal blows wherever opportunity offered, failed to make itself apparent to the Committee of Both Kingdoms, which still governed the movements of the parliamentary army. The siege being resolved upon, a deputation from both Houses waited on the Common Council (16 May) to ask for assistance in furnishing a force to set out under Major-General Browne to join Fairfax and Cromwell in the undertaking.673Four days later (20 May), when another deputation attended, the court instructed the committee of arrears sitting at Weavers' Hall to raise £10,000 for the purpose.674

Massey to quit Gloucester and take command in the west, 24 May.

Whilst the main force of the parliamentary army was wasting time in besieging Oxford, care was taken to keep the country open round Taunton, recently set free by a detachment sent by Fairfax. For this purpose Massey, the governor of Gloucester, was ordered to quit his post and march towards Bristol.675The prospect of losing their governor, who had achieved so many military successes in the neighbourhood, threw the inhabitants of Gloucester into terrible consternation, and they went so far as to petition parliament against his removal; but somehow or other their petition failed to be read before the Commons. In their distress they caused their mayor[pg 217]to address a letter to the city of London (29 May) stating the facts of the case, and praying that the Londoners, who had already done so much to save them from the hand of the enemy, would interpose with the Commons on their behalf, so that Colonel Massey might be allowed to remain. The civic authorities agreed (7 June) to lay the matter before parliament;676but in spite of all representations Massey had to go. The Londoners themselves were asked (9 June) to furnish 500 mounted musketeers for Massey's expedition, and were encouraged to do so by "motives" setting forth the gallant behaviour of the brigade in and about Taunton, and the critical condition it was in by being cut off from provisions. The Common Council ordered the motives to be printed and circulated, with the result that sufficient money was raised to fit out 500 dragoons.677

City's petition to parliament, 4 June, 1645.

In the meantime considerable dissatisfaction manifested itself in the city at the state of affairs in general, and more particularly with the manner in which the movements of Fairfax and the New Model army were hampered by orders from home. A petition from divers inhabitants of the city with certain suggestions was laid before the Common Council for presentation to parliament. It was not customary, however, for the Common Council to present petitions to parliament unless drawn up by themselves, but as the feelings of the court were in sympathy with the petitioners it ordered two petitions to be drawn up embracing the substance of the[pg 218]original petition, and these were presented, one to each of the Houses. After setting forth what they esteemed to be the reasons for the ill success of the parliamentary cause, the petitioners made known their own wishes. In the first place, they desired that the army of Fairfax should be recruited, and that the general might be allowed greater freedom of action. Secondly, that steps should be taken, before it was too late, to recover Leicester, which had recently (31 May) fallen into the king's hands. Thirdly, that the Scots should be urged to march southward. Fourthly, that Cromwell should be placed in command of the Eastern Association. Fifthly, that adequate convoys should be provided for merchants; and lastly, that parliament should publish its own account of the recent negotiations, as well as its resolutions against free trade by sea to such ports as were in the king's hands.678The petition, which was presented by Alderman Fowke to the Commons (4 June),679was favourably received by both Houses, and the City thanked for its care.

Cromwell appointed lieutenant-general, 10 June, 1645.

One of the wishes expressed in the City's petition was soon realised, for within a week Cromwell was appointed, not to the command of the Eastern Association as suggested, but to a still greater command, viz., the lieutenant-generalship of the army, an office which, by long prescription, carried also the command of the cavalry, an arm of the service in[pg 219]which Cromwell had especially shown himself a master.680

The battle of Naseby, 14 June, 1645.

Fairfax, being now allowed a free hand, abandoned the siege of Oxford and set off in pursuit of the royal army. He came up with them at Naseby, where on the 14th June he succeeded, with the help of Cromwell and his cavalry, in obtaining a signal victory and utterly crushing the power of Charles in the field. Among the wounded on the parliamentary side was the City's old friend Skippon, "shot under the arme six inches into his flesh." The pain of having his wound dressed caused him to groan. "Though I groane, I grumble not," said he to the by-standers, and asked for a chaplain to come and pray for him.681

Thanksgiving in the city for the victory at Naseby, 19 June.

The victory at Naseby was celebrated in the city by a thanksgiving service at Christ Church, Newgate (19 June), which was attended by the members of both Houses, followed by an entertainment at Grocers' Hall. The hall not being large enough to contain the whole of the company, the members of the Common Council dined by themselves at the hall of the Mercers Company. Nothing was omitted that could serve to enhance the reputation of the City.682

The city advances £31,000 for payment of the Scottish army, 14 June.

The wishes of the citizens were to be further gratified. The Scottish army was about to move southward, and parliament had voted a month's pay, or £31,000. The City was asked to assist in raising[pg 220]the money (14 June). To this the Common Council readily agreed, but at the same time directed the Recorder to represent to parliament that the citizens were anxious for the Scots to recover Leicester as speedily as possible.683Before the army had time to make any great advance in this direction Leicester had surrendered to Fairfax (18 June).

Cavalry raised by the City for the parliamentary arms, July-Sept., 1645.

In July the City was called upon to assist in raising 1,000 horse and 500 dragoons for the relief of the counties of Oxford, Buckingham, Berkshire and others, and the better security of the Association.684Three months later (2 Sept.) another contingent of 500 light horse and a like number of "dragoneers" were required "to pursue the forces of the king." Each member of the Common Council was directed to provide a light horse and arms or to pay the sum of £12 in lieu thereof. A dragoon horse and arms might be compounded for by payment of half that sum. Parliament agreed to charge the excise with the sum of £16,000 to provide compensation for any loss the contributors might sustain, whilst the City contributed out of its Chamber the sum of £400 towards the pay of officers, the buying of trophies and other necessaries.685

Plymouth appeals to London, 5 Sept.

The aid of the City was now invoked by Plymouth as formerly it had been by Gloucester. On the 5th September the mayor and aldermen of Plymouth addressed a letter to the mayor and common council of London enclosing a petition they[pg 221]were about to lay before parliament. The petition set forth how, in the absence of Fairfax, who was laying siege to Bristol, the whole country round Plymouth was in the hands of the enemy; and an attack would, it was feared, be soon made by Lord Goring on the town garrison. Unless the siege was raised before winter, or considerable supplies brought in, the town would be unable to hold out longer. This petition the municipal authorities of London were asked to second, with the hope of prevailing upon parliament to send at least that relief which had been so often desired and so often promised. A whole fortnight elapsed before the letter and petition were brought to the notice of the Common Council (20 Sept.)—the letter from Gloucester had taken a week in transit, such was the state of the country—and then it was resolved to send a deputation from the city, including the two sheriffs, to express to the Committee of Both Kingdoms the desire of the City that they would be pleased to take the petition into speedy and serious consideration, and to provide for the safety and defence of Plymouth.686

Accommodation in the city for royalist prisoners.

The Londoners themselves were suffering from an inconvenience from which they had hitherto in vain sought relief from parliament, and that was the large number of royalist soldiers—amounting to no less than 3,000—which after the battle of Naseby had been quartered on the city.687Now that the war was practically over, so far as the king was concerned, the Common Council again took the matter in hand, and it was suggested that the Convocation House and its cloisters situate on the south side of St. Paul's[pg 222]Churchyard should be fitted up at a cost of £40 for their reception. By this means Bethlehem hospital, where many of the prisoners had been housed, would be free to minister again to the wants of the poor.688

The Presbyterians and Independents.

The troubles with Charles had scarcely terminated before a new struggle commenced. A monster had been raised, after much hesitation and with no little difficulty, in the shape of a well-organised and regularly paid army, the command of which was virtually in the hands of a small political party known as Independents. The great fear was lest this party, with the army at its back, should over-ride the wishes of the Presbyterians, a party which was numerically stronger than the Independents, both in the House and in the country; and to avoid such a catastrophe the Presbyterians of England were ready to join hands with their brethren in Scotland.

The Presbyterians and the Scottish army.

The House, however, was unfortunate enough at this critical juncture to offend the Scots as well as the citizens of London. The Scottish army had been invited to march southward to attack Newark, whither Charles had betaken himself after witnessing from the walls of Chester the defeat of his troops on Rowton Heath (24 Sept.), and the Commons had promised to raise a sum of £30,000 for its pay provided it arrived before Newark by the 1st day of November.689This sum the City promised to find (10 Oct.), but only on the condition named.690On the 13th the House offended the dignity of the Scots by a series of resolutions protesting against the conduct of the Scottish[pg 223]army in not attacking the enemy as well as in levying money on the inhabitants of the northern counties, and demanded the removal of the garrisons which had been placed in Newcastle, Carlisle and other towns without the consent of parliament.691

Presbyterianism in the city, 1645.

The quarrel between parliament and the City was scarcely less serious, and arose out of an attempt to foist a system of Presbyterianism upon the citizens which should serve as a model for the rest of the kingdom. It was not that the Londoner objected to the principle of Presbyterianism; the natural bent of his mind was in that direction, and the City had already petitioned parliament for the election of elders to join with the parish ministers.692What he found fault with was the mode of electing the elders prescribed by parliament (23 Sept.).693The scheme was so far from satisfying the general body of citizens that a number of them presented a petition to the Common Council to address both Houses of Parliament, with a view to having the powers of the elders sufficiently enlarged to effect a genuine reform in the Church.694They wanted, in fact, to see parliamentary control over the Church in matters purely ecclesiastical withdrawn. Herein they were supported by the ministers of their own parish churches, who drew up a list of reforms they desired to see executed and the reasons why they so desired.695It was a difficult matter on which to approach parliament. Nevertheless, in accordance with a resolution of the Common Council (18 Nov.),[pg 224]a deputation of aldermen and common councillors, of whom Alderman Gibbs acted as spokesman, presented themselves (19 Nov.) before the House of Commons with the petition of the citizens, as well as with the "desires and reasons" of the city clergy. The reply they got was far from encouraging. They were given to understand that parliament was well aware of its trust and duty, and was quite able to discharge both, if only it was let alone, and its purpose not misconceived and prejudged as it appeared to have been in the city; and they were dismissed with the caution not to form premature opinions about matters which were still under discussion.696Notwithstanding this rebuff, the deputation the following day attended before the Lords (20 Nov.), who returned them a far more gracious and sympathetic answer. After thanking the deputation for their expressions of submission to the resolutions of parliament, their lordships assured them that none should excel them in their endeavours for the maintenance of the covenant, the advancement and settling of God's true religion, and the discharge of the trust reposed in them.697

City loan of £6,000 for siege of Chester, 12 Nov., 1645.

In the meantime a deputation from parliament had waited on the Common Council (12 Nov.) with a request for a loan of £6,000 for the troops engaged in blockading Chester. The court agreed to the request, but thought it high time to learn precisely how the city stood with respect to loans already made to parliament, and appointed (17 Nov.) a committee to report on the whole matter, with a view of[pg 225]addressing parliament for re-payment of monies in arrear.698

Parliament and the Scottish army.

It was feared that the Scottish army might change sides. It wanted supplies. The City, we have seen, had agreed with parliament to advance a sum of £30,000 for payment of the Scots, provided their army appeared before Newark by the 1st November. This condition had not been fulfilled. The army, nevertheless, appeared later on, and a committee of the House of Commons came down to the city and asked the citizens (6 Dec.) to stand by their former promise and advance the sum mentioned, which they readily consented to do.699

The king's proposal to come to Westminster, 26-29 Dec., 1645.

Answer of the House, 13 Jan., 1646.

The question with Charles was, from whom was he likely to obtain the better terms, the English or the Scots? On the 26th December he addressed a letter to the Speaker of the House of Lords, asking whether the two Houses of Parliament, the Scottish commissioners, the municipal authorities, as well as the militia of the city and the officers of both armies, would guarantee his personal security if he came to reside in London or Westminster, with a retinue not exceeding three hundred in number, for a period of forty days.700The risk of allowing such a step was too great. Already the Earl of Holland had been heard to threaten a royalist rising in the city if only Charles could be brought in safety to Westminster. Not getting a reply so quickly as he wished, Charles wrote again three days later (29 Dec.) urging his[pg 226]former proposal.701More delay took place, during which the Commons instructed the mayor to see well to the city's guards and scrutinise the passes of those coming and going,702and at last, on the 13th January, the Speakers wrote to Charles declining the proposal.703

Day of humiliation in the city, 14 Jan., 1646.

The day following the despatch of this reply was kept in the city as a day of solemn humiliation. Sermons were preached before the mayor, aldermen and members of the common council, who afterwards individually took the oath and covenant. An enquiry was subsequently ordered (9 Feb.) for the purpose of discovering what members of the common council had failed to take the covenant on this occasion, and the reasons why they had not done so. A few members stood out and refused to renew the covenant, whereupon the court resolved to ask parliament for instructions as to what should be done with them.704

The king's offers to parliament on religion, 15 Jan.

On the 15th January Charles made overtures to parliament for the first time on the question of religion. He was prepared to allow religion to be settled as it was in the reign of Elizabeth and James, "with full liberty for the ease of their consciences who will not communicate in that service established by law, and likewise for the free and public use of the directory prescribed and, by command of the two Houses, now practised in some parts of the city of London."705

The City's petition against toleration, 15 Jan.

This important concession on the part of Charles—a concession which only the necessities of the time induced him, after much exercise of mind, to make—was announced to parliament on the same day that the City presented a petition706against toleration of any other form of religion than the Presbyterianism already adopted by parliament and the citizens. The petitioners declared that since they last addressed the Houses on the subject of religion a fresh election of the Common Council had taken place, and the inhabitants of many of the wards had taken the opportunity of asking their alderman that parliament might be again desired to settle Church government and forbid toleration. Private meetings for religious worship, they went on to say, were constantly held. In one parish there were at least eleven. Orthodox ministers were evil spoken of, as if the city were still under the "tyranny of prelatical government." Women had taken to preaching, and such blasphemies were uttered as made the petitioners tremble to think of. Having heard that it was the intention of divers persons to petition the House for a toleration of such doctrines as were against the covenant under pretext of liberty of conscience, the petitioners humbly prayed that parliament would take steps to remedy abuses and to settle the Church government according to the solemn covenant made with the most high God. The Commons lent a ready ear to the petition and thanked the City for their display of piety and religion. It was gratifying to them to know that they had the sympathy of the City in their anxiety to settle the peace of the[pg 228]Church.707The Lords, to whom a similar petition had been presented, returned an equally gracious message, and expressed a hope that the municipal authorities would take steps to remedy the existing abuses.708

The Scottish commissioners attend a Common Council, 11 Feb., 1646.

Whilst endeavouring to come to terms with parliament Charles was also in communication both with the Scots and the Independents. His purpose was to play one party off against the other. A complete understanding existed between the citizens and the Scots on the subject of religion. On the 11th February the Scottish commissioners themselves appeared at a Common Council bearing a letter from the president of the Scottish parliament addressed to the lord mayor, aldermen and common council of the city, thanking them for their zeal for the reformation of religion and uniformity of Church government, as well as for the large sums of money advanced to the armies in defence of religion and the liberty of the subject.709The Common Council thanked the commissioners for the favour thus shown, and begged them to assure their countrymen that the City would continue its zeal and affection for the reformation of religion and uniformity of Church government, and would persevere in its resolution to preserve the same according to the covenant.

Parliament desires to know particulars of the interview.

Francis Allen's account of the interview.

As soon as Parliament heard that the City had received a communication from Scotland the Commons sent a deputation to learn all the particulars and to ask that the letter might be forwarded to them. The deputation was to assure the mayor and the Common[pg 229]Council that there was "no jealousie at all or dislike of their proceedings" in the business. In the meanwhile the House called upon Francis Allen, a member of the House as well as a member of the Common Council, to give an account of what had taken place in the city on the 11th. This he did to the best of his ability, giving from memory the substance of the letter from Scotland. He then proceeded to say that one of the Scottish commissioners, Lord Lauderdale, had made the following remark before the Common Council, viz., "That many aspersions had been caste upon their armie and their proceedings by malignants; and desired that the authors of them might be looked upon as those that endeavour to disturb the unitie of both kingdomes."710

The City's version of the matter.

That at least was the story as recorded in the Journal of the House. Allen, however, declared that he had been inaccurately recorded, and the Common Council, in giving parliament their own version of the matter, denied that Lauderdale had made any such remark. He had said nothing that could give offence. They forwarded the letter as desired, but begged that it might be returned in order that it might be entered on the city's Journal. They further expressed a wish to print and publish it so that the real facts might be known. Allen, they said, was not to be credited, and had been guilty of a breach of privilege in what he had done.711

Resolution of the House. 21 Feb., 1646.

The House, however, took a different view of Allen's conduct, and declared that he had only done[pg 230]his duty. It at the same time came to a resolution that the relation entered on the Journal of the House varied from Allen's and ordered it to be expunged.712

Allen elected alderman of Farringdon Without, 1649.

Three years later, when Allen was elected alderman of the ward of Farringdon Without, the House declared (5 Dec, 1649) that it deemed it "an acceptable service to the commonwealth" if Allen would accept the post, and the Common Council resolved (19 Dec.) to revoke all votes of the court that had been passed in the month of February, 1646, reflecting on Allen's conduct.713

The City's claim to govern the militia of the suburbs, 1646.

Hitherto the City and Parliament had, in the presence of a common danger, mutually supported one another; but as soon as the royalists ceased to give further cause for alarm differences immediately sprang up. The question of the City's jurisdiction over the militia raised within the weekly bills of mortality, as well as over that raised within the city and liberties, was no new question. It had been raised at least as far back as August, 1644,714but during the crisis of the civil war the matter had been allowed to drop until December, 1645, when the City again brought it forward and urged parliament to acknowledge its jurisdiction.715Before parliament would give its assent it wished to be informed whether the jurisdiction claimed by the City was already vested in the City by Charles or by custom, and if not, what extension of jurisdiction was it that the City now desired?716The[pg 231]chief opposition came from the inhabitants of Middlesex, Surrey, Southwark and Westminster, who objected to their militia being placed under the command of the mayor, aldermen and common council of the city. All parties were cited to appear before the Star Chamber on the 31st June, 1646, to support their own contention.717Parliament had already (27 Jan.) expressed itself as willing to sanction the government of the militia of the city and liberties being vested in the municipal authorities and to allow that the city forces should not be called upon to serve away from the city without their own consent,718but this was not enough. What the City desired was nothing more and nothing less than what had already been proposed to the king at Oxford with the sanction of both Houses, namely, "the government of the militia of the parishes without London and the liberties within the weekly bills of mortality." Parliament had made no scruple about the matter at a time when it stood in sore need of assistance from the City; and the City did not intend to let it go back lightly on its word.719

Back to Index Next