Retribution on the city for opposition to army, 6 Aug., 1647.The City was now powerless. The day of reckoning had come, and the City had to pay for the opposition it had displayed towards the army. The Tower was no longer entrusted to the citizens, but was committed by parliament to Fairfax as constable.806Diligent search was made for reformadoes with the intention of making an example of some of them,807and a committee consisting of members of both Houses was appointed to enquire into the violence recently offered to parliament.808The Town Clerk received orders to produce to the committee all such books of the city as contained the Acts and Orders of the Common Council passed and made from the 20th July until the 6th August, as well as the original petitions of which copies had been presented to the Commons on the memorable 26th July, and other documents.809Glyn, the city's Recorder, expelled the House and committed to the Tower, Aug., 1647.The cry raised by the agitators of the army for the expulsion of the eleven members from parliament became so great that six of the number thought it advisable to make their escape to the continent.810Of[pg 263]those that remained to face the worst in England, Glyn, the city's Recorder, was one. It was in vain that the Common Council, who upheld the conduct of their officer, interceded with Fairfax and invoked the aid of friends in both Houses on his behalf.811He was expelled the House and committed to the Tower, one week only being allowed him to put his papers and affairs in order.812A loan of £50,000 demanded from the city, 24 Aug., 1647.The city hesitates to advance the sum demanded, 6 Sept., 1647.On the 24th August a deputation of the committee of the army waited on the Common Council and demanded an advance of a month's pay (£50,000). The City was to re-imburse itself out of the arrears which the citizens had failed to contribute to the army, and which amounted to over £60,000. The matter was referred to a committee.813Ten days elapsed and parliament became impatient for an answer.814The City was told (4 Sept.) that its "engagement" of the 21st July had been the occasion of the army approaching London, and its failing to pay the money as it became due was the occasion of keeping the army near London. If the citizens failed to take the necessary steps for the removal of the army, "they must expect to suffer the inconveniences that will come hereby."815To this the City replied (6 Sept.) that whatever arrears of assessments were due they were not due from the Common Council as a body, for that had never been assessed, but were due from particular individuals. The council feared that it would be impossible to[pg 264]raise the money on the security offered, but it promised to use its best endeavours to raise it if some better security were found, and to get in arrears of assessments at the same time. As to the "engagement," they called God to witness that the Common Council as a body had had no hand in it; but as soon as a copy of it was received from the army, the council returned answer that "according to their duty they did rest in that which both Houses of Parliament had resolved hereupon." In that resolution the council expressed itself as still remaining and altogether disavowed the "engagement." It even ventured to hope that the House would not permit such a mark of its displeasure to remain on record, reflecting so badly as it did upon the whole City.816Parliament repeats its demand for a loan, 9 Sept., 1647.The demand backed up by a letter from Fairfax, 6 Sept.This reply being deemed unsatisfactory the Commons sent a more peremptory demand (9 Sept.) to the effect that not only the sum of £50,000 should be advanced by the City before the 18th September, but that also the whole of the arrears, amounting to £64,000, should be levied,817and they got Fairfax himself to write and back up their demand for £50,000. The letter of Fairfax was dated from Putney on the 6th September, but it was not communicated to the Common Council until Saturday the 11th, a court which had been specially summoned for the previous day (Friday) having been adjourned for want of aquorum.818To this letter was appended the following[pg 265]postscript:—"We understand itts neare a fortnight since the committee applied themselves to you in this busines, and that yet nothing is done, we desire there may be a present performance, the condicon of the armie not admitting any longer delay."The City's reply, 13 Sept., 1647.To the Commons the City made answer (13 Sept.) that arrears were already being got in as speedily as possible, and asked that the hands of the collectors might be strengthened by additional parliamentary powers.819To Fairfax a long letter was sent the same day explaining the reason of the delay that had occurred in satisfying the demand of parliament, and informing him of the steps that were being taken to get in the arrears due to the army.820Suggestions by Fairfax to parliament for enforcing a city loan, 16 Sept.The excuses put forward were considered to be of so unsatisfactory and temporising a character that Fairfax and the General Council of the Army proposed to parliament, that unless the arrears came in by a certain day the general himself should be authorised to levy them and to inflict fines upon delinquents. This withholding the money by the City, said they, was but a scheme for bringing the army into disrepute, and for the purpose of causing disturbance; the Common Council had been ready enough to advance far larger sums to encourage designs against parliament and the army; it might again be induced to show a similar readiness in providing money, without which the army could not disperse, if parliament would but impose a fine upon them as a body, "which money being chargeable so properly upon themselves, we[pg 266]presume they will not have the like excuse not to provide."821The mayor, one of the sheriffs, and three aldermen committed to the Tower, 24 Sept., 1647.Warner elected mayor,locoGayer, 28 Sept., 1647.The new mayor presented to the House of Lords.Before any further steps were taken to enforce the loan the committee appointed to investigate the outrage upon parliament in July reported (24 Sept.) to the House that they had discovered sufficient evidence for the impeachment of Sir John Gayer, the mayor, Thomas Cullum, one of the sheriffs, and three aldermen of the city, viz., James Bunce, John Langham and Thomas Adams, on the charge of threatening the Commons with force and raising a fresh war.822The House at once accepted the committee's report and ordered the accused parties to the Tower. On the following day it took into consideration the question as to how the city government was to be carried on in the absence of the mayor, and resolved to refer the matter to the rest of the aldermen who happened to be in London at the time, so that the civil government might continue "according to the charters, custom or usage of the city in like cases."823But on the 27th it was left to Alderman Pennington, in whom both Houses had confidence, to summon a Court of Aldermen and to direct that a Common Hall should be forthwith called for the purpose of electing someone to serve as mayor "until the 29th October next, or until Sir[pg 267]John Gayer should be either sentenced or acquitted."824The customary day for election (29 Sept.) having been appointed a solemn fast, the election took place by order of the Common Council on the 28th September,825when Alderman Warner, a strong Independent, was chosen mayor, the approaches to the Guildhall being guarded at the time of the election by a strong body of soldiers.826In the absence of the king, and there being no chancellor or lord keeper, the new mayor was presented to the House of Lords (30 Sept.), which approved of the city's choice and gave orders that the customary oaths should be administered to him in the exchequer as well as in the city.827On the 6th October an ordinance excluding delinquents from all municipal offices or from voting at municipal elections finally received the approval of both Houses.828Threat of Fairfax to quarter troops on the city to assist in getting in arrears, 19 Nov.A letter from Fairfax, dated at Kingston the 19th November,829threatening to quarter 1,000 men on the city to assist the municipal authorities in getting in arrears of assessments due to the army, created no little alarm in the city. Whilst the Common Council was deliberating on the matter news was brought that the Earl of Northumberland and a deputation from both Houses were waiting without the Council Chamber desiring to speak with some members of the court. A similar intimation to that contained in the letter of Fairfax had been made[pg 268]to parliament, and both Houses were anxious to urge upon the city the extreme importance of anticipating such a step as that which Fairfax threatened by getting in the arrears of assessments as speedily as possible. This the council expressed itself as very willing to do if parliament would relieve the collectors of certain pains and penalties recently imposed on them, which had only served to render them the more unwilling to execute their duties.830The City's reply, 20 Nov., 1647.A little respite was granted831whilst the municipal authorities drew up a reply to Fairfax.832They expressed great regret if the arrears due from the City to the army, or anything else connected with the City, should be the cause of the army continuing so long in the vicinity of London, to the great prejudice if not to the ruin of many. They were doing all they could to get in the arrears, and they called the general's attention to certain proposals which they were about to submit to parliament. They concluded by assuring Fairfax that the City was determined to remain faithful to parliament and the kingdom, and at the same time to cultivate good relations with the army.Proposals for the better getting in of arrears in the city rejected by parliament, 22 Nov.The City's proposals, which were submitted to parliament on the 22nd November, met with little favour in the House of Commons. The deputation presenting them was somewhat bluntly informed that parliament had done what it had judged fit in the matter of the City's arrears; that it was much dissatisfied with the slowness with which they were[pg 269]being got in; that the City was setting a very bad example to others which might have ill consequences; that the commands of parliament were expected to be obeyed, and that prompt measures ought to be taken by the City to carry them out.833Letter from Fairfax at Windsor, 24 Nov., 1647.Two days later (24 Nov.) Fairfax wrote to the City from Windsor,834whither the army had removed as soon as the king's escape (11 Nov.) from Hampton Court did away with the necessity of its presence in the immediate neighbourhood of London, informing the authorities that as parliament had raised an objection to his sending troops to the city for the purpose of getting in arrears, he was content to wait and see the result of parliamentary action in the matter and whether the City's recent promises bore fruit or not. Should the result prove unsatisfactory, he doubted not the consequences would be sad, "and that not more to the parliament, kingdom or army than to the city itself."City's petition to parliament, 1 Dec., 1647.On the 1st December Alderman Bide, who had narrowly escaped impeachment with Gayer and the rest, and who was now sheriff, presented a petition to the Commons on behalf of the City. This petition, which had been ordered to be prepared as far back as the 6th November—that is to say, before Charles's escape from Hampton Court and the withdrawal of the army to Windsor—after expressing the City's humble submission to parliament and its appreciation of the many benefits it had derived from the course which parliament had followed, prayed the House to[pg 270]take steps for the removal of the army to a greater distance from the city and for the strict observance of the Covenant, and concluded by asking for the release of their Recorder and of the aldermen recently committed to prison.835The Journal of the House records nothing more than the formal answer which the Commons returned to the petition: their thanks to the City for expressions of goodwill, their readiness to consider such matters referred to in the petition as had not been already taken in hand, and their assurance that speedy justice should be done to those imprisoned.836But from other sources it appears that the petition created considerable ill-feeling in the House, and that it was only after Vane had threatened to bring the army back again that the petition was practically rejected. Had the petitioners succeeded in their object it was expected that the Presbyterians in parliament and in the city would have followed up their victory by restoring the expelled members and preparing for a personal treaty with Charles without imposing upon him any test whatever.837The royalist cause in the city.In the city the royalist cause was gaining ground every day. The merchant was tired of the disquietude that had so long prevailed, condemning him to frequent calls upon his purse whilst preventing him replenishing it by his commercial pursuits. He was ready to support any party that would promise him peace and quiet. "The citty is subject still to be ridden by every party and wilbe so rather than endanger trade and stock," wrote a royalist in March[pg 271]of this year.838The more youthful inhabitant was disgusted with the closing of the playhouses,839whilst the shopkeeper was indignant at having to close his shop on Christmas-day for fear of a riot, notwithstanding his having parliamentary sanction for opening it. The city apprentices resisted the interference of the lord mayor and his officers who would have put a stop to their decorating a pump in Cornhill with evergreens at Christmas, and not only did ministers who had been deprived for malignancy occupy pulpits in various city churches on that day, but they used the Book of Common Prayer.840A riot in the city, 9-10 April, 1648.The mayor, who owed his election to pressure of parliament, and who was on that account never really popular in the city, unwittingly assisted the royal cause by another act of injudicious meddling. On Sunday, the 9th April, 1648, he sent a detachment of trained bands to interfere with the amusement of some boys playing tip-cat in Moorfields. A crowd of apprentices and others took the part of the boys, and attacked the trained bands, getting possession of their arms and colours. With these they marched, some three or four thousand strong, along Fleet Street and the Strand, raising the shout of "Now for King Charles!" and intending to make their way to Whitehall, but before they reached Charing Cross they were scattered by a troop of cavalry quartered at the King's Mews, and for a time the disturbance was at[pg 272]an end. During the night, however, the apprentices again arose and made themselves masters of Ludgate and Newgate. Laying their hands on whatever ammunition they could find, and summoning their friends by drums belonging to the trained bands, they proceeded to attack the mansion of the unpopular mayor. Whilst a messenger was hurrying off to Fairfax for military aid, the mayor, the sheriffs and the Committee of Militia had to repel as best they could the attacks of the mob, who kept firing through the windows of the lord mayor's house. At last the troops arrived, and were admitted into the city by Aldersgate. They followed up the rioters to the Leadenhall, where arms were being collected. Resistance to a disciplined force soon proved useless. The ringleaders were taken and led off to prison, and the crowd was dispersed, but not without some little bloodshed.841The affair made the city poorer by the sum of £300, that amount being voted by the Court of Aldermen out of the city's cash to the officers and soldiers sent by Fairfax to suppress the riot.842The City reports the riot to parliament, 13 April, 1648.On the 13th April the city authorities submitted to both Houses an account of what had recently taken place, which the Houses ordered to be printed. Parliament accepted their assurance that they were in no way responsible for the outbreak, and thanked the mayor and all others concerned for the part they had taken in its suppression. A day was appointed for a public thanksgiving for deliverance from the threatened danger. The Tower garrison was augmented and the[pg 273]city's chains removed, in view of a recurrence of danger, whilst a commission of Oyer and Terminer was issued for the punishment of those implicated in the late riot.843Impeachment of Gayer and his brother aldermen, 15 April, 1648.Their discharge ordered by the Lords, 6 June, 1648.Six months and more had now passed since Gayer, the late deposed mayor, and his brother aldermen had been committed to prison, and no steps had as yet been taken to bring them to trial. At length articles of impeachment were drawn up by the Commons and sent up to the Lords (15 April),844charging him with having on the 26th July last past, in conjunction with Thomas Adams, John Langham, James Bunce, aldermen of the city and others, "maliciously and traitorously plotted and endeavoured with open force and violence, and with armed power, to compel and enforce the Lords and Commons then assembled in parliament at Westminster to alter the laws and ordinances by parliament established for the safety and weal of the realm; and likewise maliciously and traitorously raised and levied war against the king, parliament and kingdom." Gayer took exception to the jurisdiction of the House, and when brought before the Lords and ordered to kneel at the bar as a delinquent refused to do anything of the kind, for which contempt he was fined £500. After hearing the articles of impeachment read, he declared that he disavowed and abhorred the offences with which he was charged, and asked to be furnished with a copy of them. He further desired the assistance of counsel and time to answer them,[pg 274]both of which were allowed.845When his brother aldermen and fellow prisoners appeared before the Lords to hear their several charges read to them and were ordered to kneel as delinquents, they too refused. Like Gayer they were severally fined846and relegated to the Tower, whence they had been brought. There the four aldermen remained prisoners until a crisis arrived in the following June, when the Commons, fearing to alienate the city at a time when the enemy was almost at its gates, declared (3 June) that they would proceed no further with the charges.847The Lords thereupon ordered (6 June) their discharge and their impeachments to be vacated.848The "Lion Sermon" at the church of St. Catherine Cree.Gayer did not live long to enjoy his liberty. By his will, dated the 19th December following his discharge, he left a sum of £200 for the purchase of lands or tenements the rents of which were to be devoted to the preaching of a sermon on the 16th October of every year in the church of St. Catherine Cree in commemoration of the testator's escape from a lion whilst travelling in Africa. The sermon is preached to this day and is commonly known as the "Lion Sermon."849News of an army being raised in Scotland, 25 April, 1648.In the meanwhile matters assumed a gloomy aspect for the Independents, culminating in the news that an army was in course of being raised in Scotland. The object for which this step was being taken was declared to be the establishment of the Presbyterian form of religion in England, the suppression of[pg 275]heresy and the Book of Common Prayer, the disbandment of Fairfax's army of sectaries, and the opening of negotiations with Charles, who was to be brought for the purpose to the neighbourhood of London.850Ill-feeling between the city and the army.Matters were made worse by the continued ill-feeling between the City and the English army, whose pay was still largely in arrear. No threats of Fairfax or of parliament had succeeded in making the inhabitants of the city pay up their arrears of assessments, and unless these were paid the soldiers had no alternative but to starve or render themselves obnoxious to the nation by living at free quarters. The City had been already charged with withholding money for the express purpose of driving the army to the latter alternative, that so the nation might the quicker be free of it. The army was fast losing patience, and there was some talk of it taking the law into its own hands.Everard's information, 24 April, 1648.Demands of the city, 27 April.On the 24th April the mayor informed the citizens assembled in Common Council that he had received information from one John Everard of certain matters which the informer pretended to have overheard at Windsor greatly affecting the city. He had examined Everard on oath, and the result of the examination being then openly read, it was resolved to lay the same before parliament.851Accordingly, on the 27th, Everard's information, which was nothing more nor less than a threat which he had overheard some officers make of disarming and plundering the city,[pg 276]was laid before both Houses, together with a petition from the municipal authorities that the chains which had been recently removed from the streets of the city by order of parliament might be restored for the purpose of defence, that the army should be removed to a greater distance, and that Skippon might be placed in command of the city's forces.852There was nothing to be gained by opposing the city's wishes in the matter of replacing the chains and the appointment of Skippon, so that these concessions were readily made, but the question of removing the army could only be decided with the concurrence of the army itself.Charges against a member of the Common Council, 28 April, 1648.A member of the Common Council, Philip Chetwyn, was charged with having publicly declared that Skippon's appointment was not the real wish of the court, and that "seaven lies" had been voted by the court on the 11th April last.853Chetwyn gave an emphatic denial to the first charge, and eventually both charges were allowed to drop. The council at the same time passed a resolution to the effect that whenever a charge should in future be made by one member of the court against another, and the court take cognisance of it, the charge itself and the names of the accuser and the accused should be expressed in the order of the court.854Great alarm in the city, 29 April.Revolt of Wales, 1 May, 1648.The City lost no time in availing itself of the assent of parliament to replace the chains in the streets from which they had been removed. They[pg 277]went further than this. From Saturday night to the following Monday night (28-30 May) the gates and posterns were ordered to be kept closed and guarded, the names of all lodgers were to be taken, vagrant soldiers were to be ordered to their quarters, whilst servants and children were to be confined indoors, except on the Sunday that intervened, when they might be escorted to church by their parents or masters.855The reason for these precautions was that there had been unmistakable signs of the army getting out of hand. An unexpected danger, the revolt of the whole of South Wales, which meant nothing less than the renewal of the war, served, however, to consolidate the ranks.Necessity of conciliating the City.With Wales up in arms for the king and the north of England threatened with a Scottish invasion the army had enough to do without keeping a forcible hold on London. The City, therefore, had to be left to itself, and to be kept in good humour by concessions rather than by force until the trouble had passed away. The story goes that before Cromwell proceeded to quell the rebellion in Wales the Council of War resolved that the City should have all they asked or desired, "there being no other way for the present to quiet them." It would be time enough when the enemy had been beaten to "make the City pay for all."856The protection of parliament entrusted to the City in the absence of Fairfax.On the 1st May Fairfax wrote to the Commons from Windsor announcing his intention to despatch Cromwell into Wales and to withdraw the regiments[pg 278]quartered at Whitehall and Charing Cross, leaving the protection of parliament to the London forces under the command of Skippon. The same day that the Commons received this letter (2 May) they communicated with the Common Council of the city, who were delighted at the execution of their long expressed wishes that the army should be removed from the vicinity of London and at the compliment paid them by Fairfax in placing the protection of parliament in their hands. The sum of £600 a year was voted to Skippon for his services, a sum just double that allowed him on his appointment as sergeant-major-general in January, 1642.857Fairfax wrote him a friendly letter complimenting him on his past services to parliament and the kingdom and expressing regret at parting from him. He at the same time disengaged Skippon from all ties to himself and the army under his command, and wished him much happiness in his new sphere.858Petition for control of city militia and custody of the Tower, 9 May, 1648.The civic authorities were not slow to take advantage of the turn of affairs. If they were to be responsible for the protection of parliament and the peace of the city, surely, they reasoned, the appointment of their own Committee of Militia should be left in their hands as well as the custody of the Tower. Both Houses accordingly were approached with petitions to this effect (9 May).859The Lords hesitated,860but the Commons at once acquiesced.861On the 16th the Commons had under consideration[pg 279]the several names of persons chosen (12th May) by the Common Council to serve on the Militia Committee,862and agreed to the City's nomination of Lieutenant-Colonel West to be lieutenant of the Tower.863

Retribution on the city for opposition to army, 6 Aug., 1647.

The City was now powerless. The day of reckoning had come, and the City had to pay for the opposition it had displayed towards the army. The Tower was no longer entrusted to the citizens, but was committed by parliament to Fairfax as constable.806Diligent search was made for reformadoes with the intention of making an example of some of them,807and a committee consisting of members of both Houses was appointed to enquire into the violence recently offered to parliament.808The Town Clerk received orders to produce to the committee all such books of the city as contained the Acts and Orders of the Common Council passed and made from the 20th July until the 6th August, as well as the original petitions of which copies had been presented to the Commons on the memorable 26th July, and other documents.809

Glyn, the city's Recorder, expelled the House and committed to the Tower, Aug., 1647.

The cry raised by the agitators of the army for the expulsion of the eleven members from parliament became so great that six of the number thought it advisable to make their escape to the continent.810Of[pg 263]those that remained to face the worst in England, Glyn, the city's Recorder, was one. It was in vain that the Common Council, who upheld the conduct of their officer, interceded with Fairfax and invoked the aid of friends in both Houses on his behalf.811He was expelled the House and committed to the Tower, one week only being allowed him to put his papers and affairs in order.812

A loan of £50,000 demanded from the city, 24 Aug., 1647.

The city hesitates to advance the sum demanded, 6 Sept., 1647.

On the 24th August a deputation of the committee of the army waited on the Common Council and demanded an advance of a month's pay (£50,000). The City was to re-imburse itself out of the arrears which the citizens had failed to contribute to the army, and which amounted to over £60,000. The matter was referred to a committee.813Ten days elapsed and parliament became impatient for an answer.814The City was told (4 Sept.) that its "engagement" of the 21st July had been the occasion of the army approaching London, and its failing to pay the money as it became due was the occasion of keeping the army near London. If the citizens failed to take the necessary steps for the removal of the army, "they must expect to suffer the inconveniences that will come hereby."815To this the City replied (6 Sept.) that whatever arrears of assessments were due they were not due from the Common Council as a body, for that had never been assessed, but were due from particular individuals. The council feared that it would be impossible to[pg 264]raise the money on the security offered, but it promised to use its best endeavours to raise it if some better security were found, and to get in arrears of assessments at the same time. As to the "engagement," they called God to witness that the Common Council as a body had had no hand in it; but as soon as a copy of it was received from the army, the council returned answer that "according to their duty they did rest in that which both Houses of Parliament had resolved hereupon." In that resolution the council expressed itself as still remaining and altogether disavowed the "engagement." It even ventured to hope that the House would not permit such a mark of its displeasure to remain on record, reflecting so badly as it did upon the whole City.816

Parliament repeats its demand for a loan, 9 Sept., 1647.

The demand backed up by a letter from Fairfax, 6 Sept.

This reply being deemed unsatisfactory the Commons sent a more peremptory demand (9 Sept.) to the effect that not only the sum of £50,000 should be advanced by the City before the 18th September, but that also the whole of the arrears, amounting to £64,000, should be levied,817and they got Fairfax himself to write and back up their demand for £50,000. The letter of Fairfax was dated from Putney on the 6th September, but it was not communicated to the Common Council until Saturday the 11th, a court which had been specially summoned for the previous day (Friday) having been adjourned for want of aquorum.818To this letter was appended the following[pg 265]postscript:—"We understand itts neare a fortnight since the committee applied themselves to you in this busines, and that yet nothing is done, we desire there may be a present performance, the condicon of the armie not admitting any longer delay."

The City's reply, 13 Sept., 1647.

To the Commons the City made answer (13 Sept.) that arrears were already being got in as speedily as possible, and asked that the hands of the collectors might be strengthened by additional parliamentary powers.819To Fairfax a long letter was sent the same day explaining the reason of the delay that had occurred in satisfying the demand of parliament, and informing him of the steps that were being taken to get in the arrears due to the army.820

Suggestions by Fairfax to parliament for enforcing a city loan, 16 Sept.

The excuses put forward were considered to be of so unsatisfactory and temporising a character that Fairfax and the General Council of the Army proposed to parliament, that unless the arrears came in by a certain day the general himself should be authorised to levy them and to inflict fines upon delinquents. This withholding the money by the City, said they, was but a scheme for bringing the army into disrepute, and for the purpose of causing disturbance; the Common Council had been ready enough to advance far larger sums to encourage designs against parliament and the army; it might again be induced to show a similar readiness in providing money, without which the army could not disperse, if parliament would but impose a fine upon them as a body, "which money being chargeable so properly upon themselves, we[pg 266]presume they will not have the like excuse not to provide."821

The mayor, one of the sheriffs, and three aldermen committed to the Tower, 24 Sept., 1647.

Warner elected mayor,locoGayer, 28 Sept., 1647.

The new mayor presented to the House of Lords.

Before any further steps were taken to enforce the loan the committee appointed to investigate the outrage upon parliament in July reported (24 Sept.) to the House that they had discovered sufficient evidence for the impeachment of Sir John Gayer, the mayor, Thomas Cullum, one of the sheriffs, and three aldermen of the city, viz., James Bunce, John Langham and Thomas Adams, on the charge of threatening the Commons with force and raising a fresh war.822The House at once accepted the committee's report and ordered the accused parties to the Tower. On the following day it took into consideration the question as to how the city government was to be carried on in the absence of the mayor, and resolved to refer the matter to the rest of the aldermen who happened to be in London at the time, so that the civil government might continue "according to the charters, custom or usage of the city in like cases."823But on the 27th it was left to Alderman Pennington, in whom both Houses had confidence, to summon a Court of Aldermen and to direct that a Common Hall should be forthwith called for the purpose of electing someone to serve as mayor "until the 29th October next, or until Sir[pg 267]John Gayer should be either sentenced or acquitted."824The customary day for election (29 Sept.) having been appointed a solemn fast, the election took place by order of the Common Council on the 28th September,825when Alderman Warner, a strong Independent, was chosen mayor, the approaches to the Guildhall being guarded at the time of the election by a strong body of soldiers.826In the absence of the king, and there being no chancellor or lord keeper, the new mayor was presented to the House of Lords (30 Sept.), which approved of the city's choice and gave orders that the customary oaths should be administered to him in the exchequer as well as in the city.827On the 6th October an ordinance excluding delinquents from all municipal offices or from voting at municipal elections finally received the approval of both Houses.828

Threat of Fairfax to quarter troops on the city to assist in getting in arrears, 19 Nov.

A letter from Fairfax, dated at Kingston the 19th November,829threatening to quarter 1,000 men on the city to assist the municipal authorities in getting in arrears of assessments due to the army, created no little alarm in the city. Whilst the Common Council was deliberating on the matter news was brought that the Earl of Northumberland and a deputation from both Houses were waiting without the Council Chamber desiring to speak with some members of the court. A similar intimation to that contained in the letter of Fairfax had been made[pg 268]to parliament, and both Houses were anxious to urge upon the city the extreme importance of anticipating such a step as that which Fairfax threatened by getting in the arrears of assessments as speedily as possible. This the council expressed itself as very willing to do if parliament would relieve the collectors of certain pains and penalties recently imposed on them, which had only served to render them the more unwilling to execute their duties.830

The City's reply, 20 Nov., 1647.

A little respite was granted831whilst the municipal authorities drew up a reply to Fairfax.832They expressed great regret if the arrears due from the City to the army, or anything else connected with the City, should be the cause of the army continuing so long in the vicinity of London, to the great prejudice if not to the ruin of many. They were doing all they could to get in the arrears, and they called the general's attention to certain proposals which they were about to submit to parliament. They concluded by assuring Fairfax that the City was determined to remain faithful to parliament and the kingdom, and at the same time to cultivate good relations with the army.

Proposals for the better getting in of arrears in the city rejected by parliament, 22 Nov.

The City's proposals, which were submitted to parliament on the 22nd November, met with little favour in the House of Commons. The deputation presenting them was somewhat bluntly informed that parliament had done what it had judged fit in the matter of the City's arrears; that it was much dissatisfied with the slowness with which they were[pg 269]being got in; that the City was setting a very bad example to others which might have ill consequences; that the commands of parliament were expected to be obeyed, and that prompt measures ought to be taken by the City to carry them out.833

Letter from Fairfax at Windsor, 24 Nov., 1647.

Two days later (24 Nov.) Fairfax wrote to the City from Windsor,834whither the army had removed as soon as the king's escape (11 Nov.) from Hampton Court did away with the necessity of its presence in the immediate neighbourhood of London, informing the authorities that as parliament had raised an objection to his sending troops to the city for the purpose of getting in arrears, he was content to wait and see the result of parliamentary action in the matter and whether the City's recent promises bore fruit or not. Should the result prove unsatisfactory, he doubted not the consequences would be sad, "and that not more to the parliament, kingdom or army than to the city itself."

City's petition to parliament, 1 Dec., 1647.

On the 1st December Alderman Bide, who had narrowly escaped impeachment with Gayer and the rest, and who was now sheriff, presented a petition to the Commons on behalf of the City. This petition, which had been ordered to be prepared as far back as the 6th November—that is to say, before Charles's escape from Hampton Court and the withdrawal of the army to Windsor—after expressing the City's humble submission to parliament and its appreciation of the many benefits it had derived from the course which parliament had followed, prayed the House to[pg 270]take steps for the removal of the army to a greater distance from the city and for the strict observance of the Covenant, and concluded by asking for the release of their Recorder and of the aldermen recently committed to prison.835The Journal of the House records nothing more than the formal answer which the Commons returned to the petition: their thanks to the City for expressions of goodwill, their readiness to consider such matters referred to in the petition as had not been already taken in hand, and their assurance that speedy justice should be done to those imprisoned.836But from other sources it appears that the petition created considerable ill-feeling in the House, and that it was only after Vane had threatened to bring the army back again that the petition was practically rejected. Had the petitioners succeeded in their object it was expected that the Presbyterians in parliament and in the city would have followed up their victory by restoring the expelled members and preparing for a personal treaty with Charles without imposing upon him any test whatever.837

The royalist cause in the city.

In the city the royalist cause was gaining ground every day. The merchant was tired of the disquietude that had so long prevailed, condemning him to frequent calls upon his purse whilst preventing him replenishing it by his commercial pursuits. He was ready to support any party that would promise him peace and quiet. "The citty is subject still to be ridden by every party and wilbe so rather than endanger trade and stock," wrote a royalist in March[pg 271]of this year.838The more youthful inhabitant was disgusted with the closing of the playhouses,839whilst the shopkeeper was indignant at having to close his shop on Christmas-day for fear of a riot, notwithstanding his having parliamentary sanction for opening it. The city apprentices resisted the interference of the lord mayor and his officers who would have put a stop to their decorating a pump in Cornhill with evergreens at Christmas, and not only did ministers who had been deprived for malignancy occupy pulpits in various city churches on that day, but they used the Book of Common Prayer.840

A riot in the city, 9-10 April, 1648.

The mayor, who owed his election to pressure of parliament, and who was on that account never really popular in the city, unwittingly assisted the royal cause by another act of injudicious meddling. On Sunday, the 9th April, 1648, he sent a detachment of trained bands to interfere with the amusement of some boys playing tip-cat in Moorfields. A crowd of apprentices and others took the part of the boys, and attacked the trained bands, getting possession of their arms and colours. With these they marched, some three or four thousand strong, along Fleet Street and the Strand, raising the shout of "Now for King Charles!" and intending to make their way to Whitehall, but before they reached Charing Cross they were scattered by a troop of cavalry quartered at the King's Mews, and for a time the disturbance was at[pg 272]an end. During the night, however, the apprentices again arose and made themselves masters of Ludgate and Newgate. Laying their hands on whatever ammunition they could find, and summoning their friends by drums belonging to the trained bands, they proceeded to attack the mansion of the unpopular mayor. Whilst a messenger was hurrying off to Fairfax for military aid, the mayor, the sheriffs and the Committee of Militia had to repel as best they could the attacks of the mob, who kept firing through the windows of the lord mayor's house. At last the troops arrived, and were admitted into the city by Aldersgate. They followed up the rioters to the Leadenhall, where arms were being collected. Resistance to a disciplined force soon proved useless. The ringleaders were taken and led off to prison, and the crowd was dispersed, but not without some little bloodshed.841The affair made the city poorer by the sum of £300, that amount being voted by the Court of Aldermen out of the city's cash to the officers and soldiers sent by Fairfax to suppress the riot.842

The City reports the riot to parliament, 13 April, 1648.

On the 13th April the city authorities submitted to both Houses an account of what had recently taken place, which the Houses ordered to be printed. Parliament accepted their assurance that they were in no way responsible for the outbreak, and thanked the mayor and all others concerned for the part they had taken in its suppression. A day was appointed for a public thanksgiving for deliverance from the threatened danger. The Tower garrison was augmented and the[pg 273]city's chains removed, in view of a recurrence of danger, whilst a commission of Oyer and Terminer was issued for the punishment of those implicated in the late riot.843

Impeachment of Gayer and his brother aldermen, 15 April, 1648.

Their discharge ordered by the Lords, 6 June, 1648.

Six months and more had now passed since Gayer, the late deposed mayor, and his brother aldermen had been committed to prison, and no steps had as yet been taken to bring them to trial. At length articles of impeachment were drawn up by the Commons and sent up to the Lords (15 April),844charging him with having on the 26th July last past, in conjunction with Thomas Adams, John Langham, James Bunce, aldermen of the city and others, "maliciously and traitorously plotted and endeavoured with open force and violence, and with armed power, to compel and enforce the Lords and Commons then assembled in parliament at Westminster to alter the laws and ordinances by parliament established for the safety and weal of the realm; and likewise maliciously and traitorously raised and levied war against the king, parliament and kingdom." Gayer took exception to the jurisdiction of the House, and when brought before the Lords and ordered to kneel at the bar as a delinquent refused to do anything of the kind, for which contempt he was fined £500. After hearing the articles of impeachment read, he declared that he disavowed and abhorred the offences with which he was charged, and asked to be furnished with a copy of them. He further desired the assistance of counsel and time to answer them,[pg 274]both of which were allowed.845When his brother aldermen and fellow prisoners appeared before the Lords to hear their several charges read to them and were ordered to kneel as delinquents, they too refused. Like Gayer they were severally fined846and relegated to the Tower, whence they had been brought. There the four aldermen remained prisoners until a crisis arrived in the following June, when the Commons, fearing to alienate the city at a time when the enemy was almost at its gates, declared (3 June) that they would proceed no further with the charges.847The Lords thereupon ordered (6 June) their discharge and their impeachments to be vacated.848

The "Lion Sermon" at the church of St. Catherine Cree.

Gayer did not live long to enjoy his liberty. By his will, dated the 19th December following his discharge, he left a sum of £200 for the purchase of lands or tenements the rents of which were to be devoted to the preaching of a sermon on the 16th October of every year in the church of St. Catherine Cree in commemoration of the testator's escape from a lion whilst travelling in Africa. The sermon is preached to this day and is commonly known as the "Lion Sermon."849

News of an army being raised in Scotland, 25 April, 1648.

In the meanwhile matters assumed a gloomy aspect for the Independents, culminating in the news that an army was in course of being raised in Scotland. The object for which this step was being taken was declared to be the establishment of the Presbyterian form of religion in England, the suppression of[pg 275]heresy and the Book of Common Prayer, the disbandment of Fairfax's army of sectaries, and the opening of negotiations with Charles, who was to be brought for the purpose to the neighbourhood of London.850

Ill-feeling between the city and the army.

Matters were made worse by the continued ill-feeling between the City and the English army, whose pay was still largely in arrear. No threats of Fairfax or of parliament had succeeded in making the inhabitants of the city pay up their arrears of assessments, and unless these were paid the soldiers had no alternative but to starve or render themselves obnoxious to the nation by living at free quarters. The City had been already charged with withholding money for the express purpose of driving the army to the latter alternative, that so the nation might the quicker be free of it. The army was fast losing patience, and there was some talk of it taking the law into its own hands.

Everard's information, 24 April, 1648.

Demands of the city, 27 April.

On the 24th April the mayor informed the citizens assembled in Common Council that he had received information from one John Everard of certain matters which the informer pretended to have overheard at Windsor greatly affecting the city. He had examined Everard on oath, and the result of the examination being then openly read, it was resolved to lay the same before parliament.851Accordingly, on the 27th, Everard's information, which was nothing more nor less than a threat which he had overheard some officers make of disarming and plundering the city,[pg 276]was laid before both Houses, together with a petition from the municipal authorities that the chains which had been recently removed from the streets of the city by order of parliament might be restored for the purpose of defence, that the army should be removed to a greater distance, and that Skippon might be placed in command of the city's forces.852There was nothing to be gained by opposing the city's wishes in the matter of replacing the chains and the appointment of Skippon, so that these concessions were readily made, but the question of removing the army could only be decided with the concurrence of the army itself.

Charges against a member of the Common Council, 28 April, 1648.

A member of the Common Council, Philip Chetwyn, was charged with having publicly declared that Skippon's appointment was not the real wish of the court, and that "seaven lies" had been voted by the court on the 11th April last.853Chetwyn gave an emphatic denial to the first charge, and eventually both charges were allowed to drop. The council at the same time passed a resolution to the effect that whenever a charge should in future be made by one member of the court against another, and the court take cognisance of it, the charge itself and the names of the accuser and the accused should be expressed in the order of the court.854

Great alarm in the city, 29 April.

Revolt of Wales, 1 May, 1648.

The City lost no time in availing itself of the assent of parliament to replace the chains in the streets from which they had been removed. They[pg 277]went further than this. From Saturday night to the following Monday night (28-30 May) the gates and posterns were ordered to be kept closed and guarded, the names of all lodgers were to be taken, vagrant soldiers were to be ordered to their quarters, whilst servants and children were to be confined indoors, except on the Sunday that intervened, when they might be escorted to church by their parents or masters.855The reason for these precautions was that there had been unmistakable signs of the army getting out of hand. An unexpected danger, the revolt of the whole of South Wales, which meant nothing less than the renewal of the war, served, however, to consolidate the ranks.

Necessity of conciliating the City.

With Wales up in arms for the king and the north of England threatened with a Scottish invasion the army had enough to do without keeping a forcible hold on London. The City, therefore, had to be left to itself, and to be kept in good humour by concessions rather than by force until the trouble had passed away. The story goes that before Cromwell proceeded to quell the rebellion in Wales the Council of War resolved that the City should have all they asked or desired, "there being no other way for the present to quiet them." It would be time enough when the enemy had been beaten to "make the City pay for all."856

The protection of parliament entrusted to the City in the absence of Fairfax.

On the 1st May Fairfax wrote to the Commons from Windsor announcing his intention to despatch Cromwell into Wales and to withdraw the regiments[pg 278]quartered at Whitehall and Charing Cross, leaving the protection of parliament to the London forces under the command of Skippon. The same day that the Commons received this letter (2 May) they communicated with the Common Council of the city, who were delighted at the execution of their long expressed wishes that the army should be removed from the vicinity of London and at the compliment paid them by Fairfax in placing the protection of parliament in their hands. The sum of £600 a year was voted to Skippon for his services, a sum just double that allowed him on his appointment as sergeant-major-general in January, 1642.857Fairfax wrote him a friendly letter complimenting him on his past services to parliament and the kingdom and expressing regret at parting from him. He at the same time disengaged Skippon from all ties to himself and the army under his command, and wished him much happiness in his new sphere.858

Petition for control of city militia and custody of the Tower, 9 May, 1648.

The civic authorities were not slow to take advantage of the turn of affairs. If they were to be responsible for the protection of parliament and the peace of the city, surely, they reasoned, the appointment of their own Committee of Militia should be left in their hands as well as the custody of the Tower. Both Houses accordingly were approached with petitions to this effect (9 May).859The Lords hesitated,860but the Commons at once acquiesced.861On the 16th the Commons had under consideration[pg 279]the several names of persons chosen (12th May) by the Common Council to serve on the Militia Committee,862and agreed to the City's nomination of Lieutenant-Colonel West to be lieutenant of the Tower.863

Back to Index Next