The Navigation Act, 1651.The attempt made to cripple the carrying trade of the Dutch by the passing of the Navigation Act (Oct., 1651) found little favour with the merchants of the city. What they of all things desired to see was free trade in the port of London; and to this end they presented a petition to the Council for Trade, and appointed (9 Dec.) a committee to maintain it "with the best reasons they could."1063The war with Holland, 1652-1653.This Act failed in its purpose, and only led to retaliation and war. In the spring of the following year (1652) the fleet was got ready to put to sea. On the 26th March the Council of State wrote to the mayor and aldermen and Militia Committee of the city1064asking that certain brass guns laid up at Gresham College and other places in the city should be forthwith delivered to the ordnance officer, as the guns formerly used in the fleet during the late wars had been dispersed among various garrisons. By way of postscript—as if an afterthought—the council added: "As there is a pretension of right made to such guns on behalf of the city we shall be ready to receive and consider any claim which they shall make to them; and if it appear that they belong to the city we will take care, after the service is past to which[pg 344]they are designed, that they are either restored or satisfaction made according to their value." In May it was found that the store of gunpowder in the Tower was likely to run short owing to a breach of contract, and again application for assistance was made to the City, who were asked to lend such gunpowder as lay in the Companies' halls.1065In March of the following year (1653) the request for guns in the City's magazines to be delivered to the ordnance officers for the public service was repeated,1066and by November they were all in the custody of the lieutenant of the Tower.1067By that time a victory had been gained over the Dutch admirals Tromp and De Ruyter off Portland (18 Feb., 1653) by Blake and Monk, the latter having for a time exchanged land service for the sea. This success was the more welcome inasmuch as Blake had previously suffered a signal defeat (28 Nov., 1652) at the hands of the Dutch admirals and had himself been wounded. Moreover Tromp had been so elated at his victory that in bravado he had fixed a broom to his masthead, in token of his resolution to sweep the sea of English vessels.Subscriptions opened in the city for wounded soldiers and sailors, 4 March, 1653.The example set by parliament of opening a subscription for those wounded at sea was followed by the Common Council of the city. Each member of the court was ordered (4 March) to take steps to "collect the benevolence of the inhabitants in money and old linen, for relief of the wounded soldiers and[pg 345]mariners which God hath made instrumental in the late great success of the Commonwealth at sea against the Dutch." In reporting to the court the total amount thus gathered (£1,071 9s.5d.) Alderman Fowke intimated that it was the express wish of many of the contributors that the widows and children of those that had been killed should share in the charity. To this the court agreed.1068The money was despatched to the fleet by the hands of Alderman Tichborne, and gratefully acknowledged by the admirals Deane and Monk in a letter addressed to the lord mayor (2 April).1069Two months later Deane was dead, having been killed in another engagement with the Dutch, when the English fleet again came off victorious. For this success a general thanksgiving at St. Paul's was voted by the Court of Aldermen, who were invited to attend the public funeral of the late gallant admiral.1070Conflict between parliament and the city touching elections, Feb.-March, 1653.A few weeks before the Long Parliament was so rudely "interrupted" by Cromwell (20 April, 1653) it raised the ire of the Common Council of the city by the action of its commissioners, sitting at Haberdashers' Hall, who had prosecuted and fined certain inhabitants of the ward of Farringdon Within for having contravened the Act touching election of officers upon the Treasonable Engagement.1071A deputation from the court was ordered to wait upon the[pg 346]commissioners and to get some explanation of their conduct and to report the result of their interview. The commissioners assumed a very haughty tone. They were, they said, entrusted with full powers to deal with such matters by parliament, but expressed their intention to "be tender to passe severe sentence upon any well affected citizen. For that they have power to doe it or not to doe it." This was not at all to the mind of the Common Council, who thereupon resolved (4 March, 1653) to ask parliament to explain who were promoters and abettors of the Treasonable Engagement, and whether the citizens were to be considered as promoters and abettors for having obeyed the orders of the militia authorised by parliament in manning forts and appearing in arms, as they so often had done, in defence of parliament as well as of themselves.1072Before any answer was given to this awkward question the Long Parliament had ceased to exist, to be succeeded by another of a very different character.Barebone's or the "little" parliament, 4 July-12 Dec., 1653."Praise-God Barebone, Esquire," who gave a nick-name to the next parliament, was a leatherseller of London, and was summoned by Cromwell to sit as member for the city. "I, as commander-in-chief of the armies of the Commonwealth," wrote Cromwell to him, "summon you ... to appear at the council chamber, Whitehall, on 4th July, and take upon you the said trust for the city of London."1073The rest of the members of this Puritan parliament were for the most part also Cromwell's nominees. It was[pg 347]destined to be short lived. It attacked the law and the Church and threatened the universities. To save the last mentioned institutions the city of London intervened and received the thanks of the university of Oxford.1074Afraid of their own acts, which they felt were displeasing to Cromwell, they agreed to dissolve parliament and to transfer their powers to the man from whom they had received them. This took place somewhat suddenly and unexpectedly on the 12th December.Cromwell created Lord Protector, 16 Dec, 1653.On the 16th Cromwell was solemnly installed as Lord Protector, the lord mayor, the aldermen and the Recorder being invited to be present, and in due course his new title was proclaimed in the city.1075The lord mayor, Thomas Vyner, happening to be a goldsmith, the Council of State commissioned him to supply two services of plate for the use of the "Lord Protector and his lady."1076The Lord Protector invited to dine in the city, Feb., 1654.Having recognised the new order of things and caused the Lord Protector to be proclaimed at the Old Exchange and other places in the city,1077the Common Council proceeded to ask him to a banquet to be given in his honour at Grocers' Hall.1078The invitation was accepted, and the dinner took place on the 8th February, 1654. The entertainment was given in right royal style, the mayor and his brother aldermen riding out in state to meet his Highness, who[pg 348]exercised the privilege of his new position by knighting the chief magistrate of the city on his departure.1079The first parliament under the Protectorate, Sept., 1654-Jan., 1655.In July (1654) when there was some talk of sending the city's Recorder, William Steele, to Ireland on affairs of State, the Common Council addressed a petition to the Lord Protector praying him not to deprive the city of the services of so excellent an officer, and one who was likely to prove particularly useful both to the city and the whole Commonwealth in the forthcoming parliament,1080the first parliament under the Protectorate and one of the very few parliaments to which the city sent as many as six burgesses.1081Alderman Pack and his "remonstrance," Feb., 1657.This parliament, like its predecessor, was of short duration, lasting little more than five months. One other parliament and no more was summoned by Cromwell (17 Sept., 1656). It was before this parliament that Alderman Sir Christopher Pack (the only member for the city, so far as we have any authentic record), brought forward (23 Feb., 1657) his famous "remonstrance," desiring the Protector to assume the kingly dignity and to restore the House of Lords. The question whether the "remonstrance" should be read was answered in the affirmative by a majority of[pg 349]nearly 100 after some hours' debate.1082Before it was taken into consideration a day was appointed for prayer and fasting and to seek directions from the Lord.1083The proposal was particularly obnoxious to the army, and Colonel Pride had no difficulty in obtaining a large number of signatures against it.After many days' debate, in the course of which the title of the "remonstrance" was changed to that of "petition and advice,"1084the document received the assent of the Commons, and on the 31st March a copy of it engrossed on vellum was presented to the Protector at Whitehall in the presence of the whole House. Its main feature was the creation of a second House, the members of which were to enjoy their seats for life and exercise some of the functions of the former House of Lords. Cromwell was asked to assume the title of king with the right of naming his own successor. The kingship after considerable hesitation he declined (8 May): "I cannot undertake this government with the title of king. And that is mine answer to this great and weighty business."1085The rest of the terms he accepted, and on the 28th June he was again installed as Lord Protector in the presence of the mayor and aldermen, the mayor to the left of the Protector bearing the civic sword, with the Earl of Warwick to the right bearing the sword of state.1086On the 1st July public proclamation was made in the city with great solemnity.1087[pg 350]Some members of Cromwell's House of Lords.In due course writs were issued to more than sixty persons—many of them members of the House of Commons, whilst others were men of the lower orders, Puritan officers or parliamentary supporters of Cromwell—to form a new House, a "Peerage of fact," not of descent.1088Among them was Glyn, the city's late Recorder, now a chief justice; two city aldermen, viz., Christopher Pack, the prime mover in the restoration of the second House, and Robert Tichborne, who, in honour of his promotion, it may be, presented in the following year a silver bason and ewer weighing 110 ozs. to the City for the use of the lord mayor and his successors.1089Colonels Pride and Skippon, soldiers of fortune who had done good service both in parliament and on the field, also found seats among Cromwell's new peers, as also did John Hewson, erstwhile a shoemaker and still a member of the Cordwainers' Company, which honoured him with a banquet at which special dishes, we read, were provided for "my lord Hewson."Dissolution of the second parliament under the Protectorate, 4 Feb., 1658.The new House was not a success. It soon began to give itself the airs of the hereditary House of Lords and fell foul of the Commons. Cromwell saw no other course open but to dissolve his second Protectorate Parliament, which he did on the 4th February (1658).Precautions taken against a royalist rising, March, 1658.On Friday, the 12th March (1658), the civic authorities were sent for to Whitehall, where they were informed by Cromwell that Charles meditated an invasion, and that Ormond had recently been[pg 351]engaged in enlisting support for the royalist cause in and about the city. They were asked to put the city into a state of readiness for the suppression of tumult and disorder if any should arise, and to place the militia in trustworthy hands.1090The warning came just in time, for the Common Council had that very day given orders for the sale of broken carriages, guns and other war material stored at Gresham College, the Leadenhall and in the Guildhall Chapel, and for the proceeds to be paid into the Chamber.1091On the 15th the Common Council appointed a committee to draw up a representation or petition expressing the City's thanks to the Protector for the favour thus shown to them.1092On the 16th the document was presented to the court for approval, and on the following day carried by a deputation to Cromwell. Its terms were very flattering. After alluding to the blessings which had accompanied the Protector's government and the recent news that "the old restless enemy" was preparing to execute his wrath against God, his highness and the nation, the citizens concluded by assuring him that his enemies would be considered the City's enemies and his friends its friends.1093The deputation was instructed by the Common Council to disavow to Cromwell a certain petition which had been addressed to him purporting to come from "divers citizens and inhabitants in and about the city of London," and to humbly desire his highness not to look upon any petition as the petition of the city of London[pg 352]except such as came from the Common Council in the name of "the mayor, aldermen and commons of the city of London in Common Council assembled."1094Aldermen Chiverton and Ireton knighted by Cromwell, 22 March, 1658.So pleased was Cromwell with the City at this critical time that he conferred the honour of knighthood upon the lord mayor (Richard Chiverton) and upon John Ireton, a brother of Henry Ireton, his own son-in-law and fellow campaigner, now deceased.1095The royalist rising in the city of 15 May.Thanks to the Protector's caution and advice a royalistémeutein the city, in which Dr. Hewet, a preacher at St. Gregory's by St. Paul's, was implicated, and for which he and Sir Henry Slingsby lost their heads, was prevented, the ringleaders being arrested on the eve of the outbreak. It was remarked at the time that the apprentices engaged in this rising were for the most part "sons of cavaliers, or else such debauched fellows that their masters could not rule or govern them."1096On the 6th July the mayor, aldermen and sheriffs, with the city's Recorder, Sir Lisleborne Long, waited on the Lord Protector to congratulate him upon "the deliverance of his person, the city and the whole nation" from the dangers of the late conspiracy.1097Death of Cromwell, 3 Sept.Cromwell's days were fast drawing to a close, although scarce sixty years of age. The death of his favourite daughter in August of this year cast a gloom over his mind and affected his health, and within less than a month he followed her, dying on the 3rd September—his "fortunate day," as he called it—the day of Dunbar and of Worcester. The lord mayor[pg 353]and city officers were allowed each nine yards of mourning cloth, and eighty other persons of the city four yards each, as on the demise of a sovereign.1098On the 4th Richard Cromwell was proclaimed in succession to his father at Westminster and in the city, four heralds attending the mayor on that occasion.1099The Rump restored, 7 May, 1659.After a brief trial of a new parliament (29 Jan.-22 April, 1659) the Rump was restored and its restoration duly proclaimed in the city.1100The citizens affected to see a special interposition of Providence in the new order of affairs and lost no time in preparing a petition for the preservation of the privileges and estates as well of corporations as of individuals, for the speedier despatch of business in the courts of law and equity, for greater liberty of religious worship, for protection of universities and schools in their work of education, and for relief from excessive taxation.1101No long time elapsed before the old jealous feud between parliament and the army was renewed by the former resolving that all commissions should be received from the Speaker of the House. One of the first desires of the House was to settle the trained bands of London,1102for upon the goodwill of the militia of London and its neighbourhood much depended. But although the citizens were zealous in displaying their loyalty to the government,1103they had no mind that the services of their trained bands or of cavalry[pg 354]raised in the city should be employed beyond the city's walls, or that they should be placed under the command of any but "persons of quality, freemen and inhabitants of the city."1104Royalist rising in Cheshire supported by a party in the city, Aug., 1659.Dissension between parliament and the army was for a time hushed by the threat of a common danger. On the 9th August it was reported to the House that the lord mayor had discovered the existence of a party in the city in favour of the rising which had recently occurred in Cheshire with the view of bringing in Prince Charles.1105The mayor, aldermen and Common Council were thereupon ordered to attend the Council of State at Whitehall on the following afternoon, when they were formally thanked for the support they had given to parliament and encouraged to continue in the same course.1106Parliament desires the re-election of John Ireton mayor, 2 Sept., 1659.Opposition of the Common Council.Nevertheless, when the danger was over the House thought fit to run the risk of alienating the favour of the City by an attempt to force the re-election of John Ireton as mayor for the coming year upon the unwilling citizens. On the 2nd September the House resolved that "John Ireton" [thus ignoring his knighthood], then lord mayor of the city of London, should continue to execute the office of lord mayor for the year ensuing, and ordered "that it be recommended to the city of London to see the[pg 355]same done accordingly."1107The Common Council being in no mood to comply with such request drew up a long petition to parliament,1108in which the government of the city was shown to depend upon "two strong supports," viz., the customs of the city and its charters, confirmed as they had been by divers Acts of Parliament; that by virtue of these charters and customs the mayor was chosen by the citizens, that he remained in office for no more than one year, and was presented to the supreme power of the nation for approbation. The petition went on to remind the House how on various occasions, and notably on the 13th January, 1644, and the 6th and 18th May of the same year, parliament had formally acknowledged the constant affection and assistance it had received from the city, and concluded by praying the House to lay no restraint upon the free election of their mayor by the citizens nor infringe the ancient customs and charters of the city, a breach of which "would exceedingly hazard, if not totally destroy, the peace, good order and happiness of the most ancient and well governed city" in the nation, if not in the whole world.Parliament gives way, 28 Sept., 1659.The House taking this petition into consideration on the 28th September—the day preceding that on which the election was to take place—resolved by thirty-eight votes to thirteen "that the city of London be left at liberty to make choice of their mayor according to their charter, notwithstanding the previous vote of the House of the 2nd September[pg 356]instant."1109The citizens thereupon showed their independence by electing Thomas Aleyne.Parliament invited to dinner at Grocers' Hall, 6 Oct., 1659.A good understanding or "correspondence" between parliament and the city having thus been arrived at, the Common Council resolved to ask the House to a dinner at Grocers' Hall to commemorate Lambert's defeat of the royalists. The invitation was accepted, and Thursday, the 6th October, named as the day on which the House would be prepared to go to the city to hear a sermon at Christchurch, Newgate, and afterwards dine with the municipal authorities.1110Parliament closed by Lambert, 13 Oct.On that day week (13th October) the House suffered another indignity at the hands of the army. No sooner had Lambert defeated the royalist insurgents in Cheshire than he and his fellow officers made extraordinary demands of parliament. When these were refused they betook themselves to brute force and sent troops to shut out members from the House.1111So arbitrary a proceeding was distasteful to the citizens of London as well as to the nation at large.Fears of a disturbance in the city on lord mayor's day.When lord mayor's day came round and Thomas Aleyne was to enter upon his year of office there was some apprehension in the minds of Fleetwood and the Council of Officers, who were now supreme, lest the day should be made an opportunity for display of popular feeling in favour of parliament. It was suggested, therefore, to the Court of Aldermen by Fleetwood that it might be well to omit the usual[pg 357]shows and attendance of the companies on that day. The court, however, thought otherwise, and directed a deputation to wait upon his excellency and acquaint him with the preparations that had already been made, and with the disappointment which the citizens would feel if they had to forego the customary solemnities, which could be carried out, in the opinion of the court, without any risk of disturbance.1112Monk prepares to march southward, Nov., 1659.Monk, who was in Scotland, disapproved of the action of Lambert and his fellow officers, and prepared to march southward for the purpose (he said) of vindicating the rights of parliament. Whether he had any ulterior motive in view at the time is not known. Every effort was made by the officers of Lambert's army to secure the support of the City before Monk's arrival. On the 4th November and again on the 8th, Fleetwood, Whitelock and others conferred with the civic authorities. On the latter occasion Whitelock did not hesitate to declare that Monk's real design was the king's restoration at the risk of a civil war. "I shewed the danger of it to the city and nation and counselled them to provide for their own safety, and to join for the safety of the whole nation and for preservation of the peace." The Common Council expressed their thanks, and resolved to follow the advice thus given.1113Monk's letter to the City, 23 Nov., 1659.On the 23rd November the Common Council received a letter from Monk, which Whitelock describes as "not relished well by them."1114The letter is not mentioned in the minutes of the court held on that day, which are confined to an order for[pg 358]the repair of the wall of Richmond Park and to the appointment of a day (2 Dec.) for a solemn humiliation with fasting and prayer, that God might bring them through all their "fears, troubles and darkness unto true rest, peace and settlement."1115Rising of apprentices in favour of a free parliament, 5 Dec., 1659.Whilst matters were yet in a state of suspense the apprentices of the city again took the lead and presented (5 Dec.) a petition to the Common Council on the subject of "how the peace of this city may be preserved." Their petition was referred to a committee for consideration,1116but the apprentices brooked no delay. Out into the street they ran, in spite of all precautions to keep them indoors, crying out for a "free parliament." Amid the confusion Hewson appeared on the scene with a regiment of soldiers, and there was some little bloodshed, two men being killed. This brought the army into greater disrepute than ever, and the cry became general that "it was only kept on foot for the murder of citizens." The next day (6 Dec.) the Court of Aldermen sent a deputation to the Committee of Safety to excuse the recent outbreak and to disavow any complicity in it.1117The Committee desired to know particulars as to how the men came by their death, and to understand how far the Court of Aldermen would be responsible for the peace of the city. The Committee was told in reply that the recent deaths were under the consideration of the coroner, and that as to the steps about to be taken for the preservation of the peace of the city, further information would shortly be given.1118[pg 359]A committee to confer with Fleetwood for the security of peace and the safety of the city, 8 Dec.On the 8th December a Court of Aldermen sat and appointed a committee to confer with Fleetwood for preserving the peace and safety of the city and "for a right understanding between the city and army." He was to be desired in the meantime to keep his soldiers within barracks whilst the court of Common Council was sitting, unless the mayor or sheriffs expressed a wish to the contrary, and to cause the removal of certain "granadoes" recently stored at Gresham College and elsewhere in the city, which had caused strange apprehensions among the inhabitants. A petition to the Common Council for a parliament as in 1642 was unfavourably received, and handed back to the petitioners with a request to them not to print it.1119Anxious as the citizens were to get rid of the army's ammunition stored in the city, they were not so anxious to part with their own little stock of gunpowder, and hesitated to lodge it in the Tower as requested, lest it should be some day used against themselves. The City Remembrancer was instructed (17 Dec.) to see Fleetwood on the matter, and to represent to him the feeling of the inhabitants, that order might be taken for securing public peace and quiet.1120Fleetwood promises a free parliament.By the 19th matters were accommodated between Fleetwood and the City. A parliament was to be summoned which should be free from military influence or interference. The Common Council, on hearing of the success of the committee appointed to confer with Fleetwood, were so satisfied with the manner in which it had carried out its duties that they authorised[pg 360]it to continue to confer with his lordship from time to time as it should see cause for prevention of all misunderstandings between the city and the army.1121The action of the mayor, the common council and the committee in the matter was much canvassed, however, by a certain section of the community, and they were accused of betraying the rights and liberties of the city. A "declaration" was therefore drawn up in vindication of their conduct.1122

The Navigation Act, 1651.

The attempt made to cripple the carrying trade of the Dutch by the passing of the Navigation Act (Oct., 1651) found little favour with the merchants of the city. What they of all things desired to see was free trade in the port of London; and to this end they presented a petition to the Council for Trade, and appointed (9 Dec.) a committee to maintain it "with the best reasons they could."1063

The war with Holland, 1652-1653.

This Act failed in its purpose, and only led to retaliation and war. In the spring of the following year (1652) the fleet was got ready to put to sea. On the 26th March the Council of State wrote to the mayor and aldermen and Militia Committee of the city1064asking that certain brass guns laid up at Gresham College and other places in the city should be forthwith delivered to the ordnance officer, as the guns formerly used in the fleet during the late wars had been dispersed among various garrisons. By way of postscript—as if an afterthought—the council added: "As there is a pretension of right made to such guns on behalf of the city we shall be ready to receive and consider any claim which they shall make to them; and if it appear that they belong to the city we will take care, after the service is past to which[pg 344]they are designed, that they are either restored or satisfaction made according to their value." In May it was found that the store of gunpowder in the Tower was likely to run short owing to a breach of contract, and again application for assistance was made to the City, who were asked to lend such gunpowder as lay in the Companies' halls.1065In March of the following year (1653) the request for guns in the City's magazines to be delivered to the ordnance officers for the public service was repeated,1066and by November they were all in the custody of the lieutenant of the Tower.1067By that time a victory had been gained over the Dutch admirals Tromp and De Ruyter off Portland (18 Feb., 1653) by Blake and Monk, the latter having for a time exchanged land service for the sea. This success was the more welcome inasmuch as Blake had previously suffered a signal defeat (28 Nov., 1652) at the hands of the Dutch admirals and had himself been wounded. Moreover Tromp had been so elated at his victory that in bravado he had fixed a broom to his masthead, in token of his resolution to sweep the sea of English vessels.

Subscriptions opened in the city for wounded soldiers and sailors, 4 March, 1653.

The example set by parliament of opening a subscription for those wounded at sea was followed by the Common Council of the city. Each member of the court was ordered (4 March) to take steps to "collect the benevolence of the inhabitants in money and old linen, for relief of the wounded soldiers and[pg 345]mariners which God hath made instrumental in the late great success of the Commonwealth at sea against the Dutch." In reporting to the court the total amount thus gathered (£1,071 9s.5d.) Alderman Fowke intimated that it was the express wish of many of the contributors that the widows and children of those that had been killed should share in the charity. To this the court agreed.1068The money was despatched to the fleet by the hands of Alderman Tichborne, and gratefully acknowledged by the admirals Deane and Monk in a letter addressed to the lord mayor (2 April).1069Two months later Deane was dead, having been killed in another engagement with the Dutch, when the English fleet again came off victorious. For this success a general thanksgiving at St. Paul's was voted by the Court of Aldermen, who were invited to attend the public funeral of the late gallant admiral.1070

Conflict between parliament and the city touching elections, Feb.-March, 1653.

A few weeks before the Long Parliament was so rudely "interrupted" by Cromwell (20 April, 1653) it raised the ire of the Common Council of the city by the action of its commissioners, sitting at Haberdashers' Hall, who had prosecuted and fined certain inhabitants of the ward of Farringdon Within for having contravened the Act touching election of officers upon the Treasonable Engagement.1071A deputation from the court was ordered to wait upon the[pg 346]commissioners and to get some explanation of their conduct and to report the result of their interview. The commissioners assumed a very haughty tone. They were, they said, entrusted with full powers to deal with such matters by parliament, but expressed their intention to "be tender to passe severe sentence upon any well affected citizen. For that they have power to doe it or not to doe it." This was not at all to the mind of the Common Council, who thereupon resolved (4 March, 1653) to ask parliament to explain who were promoters and abettors of the Treasonable Engagement, and whether the citizens were to be considered as promoters and abettors for having obeyed the orders of the militia authorised by parliament in manning forts and appearing in arms, as they so often had done, in defence of parliament as well as of themselves.1072Before any answer was given to this awkward question the Long Parliament had ceased to exist, to be succeeded by another of a very different character.

Barebone's or the "little" parliament, 4 July-12 Dec., 1653.

"Praise-God Barebone, Esquire," who gave a nick-name to the next parliament, was a leatherseller of London, and was summoned by Cromwell to sit as member for the city. "I, as commander-in-chief of the armies of the Commonwealth," wrote Cromwell to him, "summon you ... to appear at the council chamber, Whitehall, on 4th July, and take upon you the said trust for the city of London."1073The rest of the members of this Puritan parliament were for the most part also Cromwell's nominees. It was[pg 347]destined to be short lived. It attacked the law and the Church and threatened the universities. To save the last mentioned institutions the city of London intervened and received the thanks of the university of Oxford.1074Afraid of their own acts, which they felt were displeasing to Cromwell, they agreed to dissolve parliament and to transfer their powers to the man from whom they had received them. This took place somewhat suddenly and unexpectedly on the 12th December.

Cromwell created Lord Protector, 16 Dec, 1653.

On the 16th Cromwell was solemnly installed as Lord Protector, the lord mayor, the aldermen and the Recorder being invited to be present, and in due course his new title was proclaimed in the city.1075The lord mayor, Thomas Vyner, happening to be a goldsmith, the Council of State commissioned him to supply two services of plate for the use of the "Lord Protector and his lady."1076

The Lord Protector invited to dine in the city, Feb., 1654.

Having recognised the new order of things and caused the Lord Protector to be proclaimed at the Old Exchange and other places in the city,1077the Common Council proceeded to ask him to a banquet to be given in his honour at Grocers' Hall.1078The invitation was accepted, and the dinner took place on the 8th February, 1654. The entertainment was given in right royal style, the mayor and his brother aldermen riding out in state to meet his Highness, who[pg 348]exercised the privilege of his new position by knighting the chief magistrate of the city on his departure.1079

The first parliament under the Protectorate, Sept., 1654-Jan., 1655.

In July (1654) when there was some talk of sending the city's Recorder, William Steele, to Ireland on affairs of State, the Common Council addressed a petition to the Lord Protector praying him not to deprive the city of the services of so excellent an officer, and one who was likely to prove particularly useful both to the city and the whole Commonwealth in the forthcoming parliament,1080the first parliament under the Protectorate and one of the very few parliaments to which the city sent as many as six burgesses.1081

Alderman Pack and his "remonstrance," Feb., 1657.

This parliament, like its predecessor, was of short duration, lasting little more than five months. One other parliament and no more was summoned by Cromwell (17 Sept., 1656). It was before this parliament that Alderman Sir Christopher Pack (the only member for the city, so far as we have any authentic record), brought forward (23 Feb., 1657) his famous "remonstrance," desiring the Protector to assume the kingly dignity and to restore the House of Lords. The question whether the "remonstrance" should be read was answered in the affirmative by a majority of[pg 349]nearly 100 after some hours' debate.1082Before it was taken into consideration a day was appointed for prayer and fasting and to seek directions from the Lord.1083The proposal was particularly obnoxious to the army, and Colonel Pride had no difficulty in obtaining a large number of signatures against it.

After many days' debate, in the course of which the title of the "remonstrance" was changed to that of "petition and advice,"1084the document received the assent of the Commons, and on the 31st March a copy of it engrossed on vellum was presented to the Protector at Whitehall in the presence of the whole House. Its main feature was the creation of a second House, the members of which were to enjoy their seats for life and exercise some of the functions of the former House of Lords. Cromwell was asked to assume the title of king with the right of naming his own successor. The kingship after considerable hesitation he declined (8 May): "I cannot undertake this government with the title of king. And that is mine answer to this great and weighty business."1085The rest of the terms he accepted, and on the 28th June he was again installed as Lord Protector in the presence of the mayor and aldermen, the mayor to the left of the Protector bearing the civic sword, with the Earl of Warwick to the right bearing the sword of state.1086On the 1st July public proclamation was made in the city with great solemnity.1087

Some members of Cromwell's House of Lords.

In due course writs were issued to more than sixty persons—many of them members of the House of Commons, whilst others were men of the lower orders, Puritan officers or parliamentary supporters of Cromwell—to form a new House, a "Peerage of fact," not of descent.1088Among them was Glyn, the city's late Recorder, now a chief justice; two city aldermen, viz., Christopher Pack, the prime mover in the restoration of the second House, and Robert Tichborne, who, in honour of his promotion, it may be, presented in the following year a silver bason and ewer weighing 110 ozs. to the City for the use of the lord mayor and his successors.1089Colonels Pride and Skippon, soldiers of fortune who had done good service both in parliament and on the field, also found seats among Cromwell's new peers, as also did John Hewson, erstwhile a shoemaker and still a member of the Cordwainers' Company, which honoured him with a banquet at which special dishes, we read, were provided for "my lord Hewson."

Dissolution of the second parliament under the Protectorate, 4 Feb., 1658.

The new House was not a success. It soon began to give itself the airs of the hereditary House of Lords and fell foul of the Commons. Cromwell saw no other course open but to dissolve his second Protectorate Parliament, which he did on the 4th February (1658).

Precautions taken against a royalist rising, March, 1658.

On Friday, the 12th March (1658), the civic authorities were sent for to Whitehall, where they were informed by Cromwell that Charles meditated an invasion, and that Ormond had recently been[pg 351]engaged in enlisting support for the royalist cause in and about the city. They were asked to put the city into a state of readiness for the suppression of tumult and disorder if any should arise, and to place the militia in trustworthy hands.1090The warning came just in time, for the Common Council had that very day given orders for the sale of broken carriages, guns and other war material stored at Gresham College, the Leadenhall and in the Guildhall Chapel, and for the proceeds to be paid into the Chamber.1091On the 15th the Common Council appointed a committee to draw up a representation or petition expressing the City's thanks to the Protector for the favour thus shown to them.1092On the 16th the document was presented to the court for approval, and on the following day carried by a deputation to Cromwell. Its terms were very flattering. After alluding to the blessings which had accompanied the Protector's government and the recent news that "the old restless enemy" was preparing to execute his wrath against God, his highness and the nation, the citizens concluded by assuring him that his enemies would be considered the City's enemies and his friends its friends.1093The deputation was instructed by the Common Council to disavow to Cromwell a certain petition which had been addressed to him purporting to come from "divers citizens and inhabitants in and about the city of London," and to humbly desire his highness not to look upon any petition as the petition of the city of London[pg 352]except such as came from the Common Council in the name of "the mayor, aldermen and commons of the city of London in Common Council assembled."1094

Aldermen Chiverton and Ireton knighted by Cromwell, 22 March, 1658.

So pleased was Cromwell with the City at this critical time that he conferred the honour of knighthood upon the lord mayor (Richard Chiverton) and upon John Ireton, a brother of Henry Ireton, his own son-in-law and fellow campaigner, now deceased.1095

The royalist rising in the city of 15 May.

Thanks to the Protector's caution and advice a royalistémeutein the city, in which Dr. Hewet, a preacher at St. Gregory's by St. Paul's, was implicated, and for which he and Sir Henry Slingsby lost their heads, was prevented, the ringleaders being arrested on the eve of the outbreak. It was remarked at the time that the apprentices engaged in this rising were for the most part "sons of cavaliers, or else such debauched fellows that their masters could not rule or govern them."1096On the 6th July the mayor, aldermen and sheriffs, with the city's Recorder, Sir Lisleborne Long, waited on the Lord Protector to congratulate him upon "the deliverance of his person, the city and the whole nation" from the dangers of the late conspiracy.1097

Death of Cromwell, 3 Sept.

Cromwell's days were fast drawing to a close, although scarce sixty years of age. The death of his favourite daughter in August of this year cast a gloom over his mind and affected his health, and within less than a month he followed her, dying on the 3rd September—his "fortunate day," as he called it—the day of Dunbar and of Worcester. The lord mayor[pg 353]and city officers were allowed each nine yards of mourning cloth, and eighty other persons of the city four yards each, as on the demise of a sovereign.1098On the 4th Richard Cromwell was proclaimed in succession to his father at Westminster and in the city, four heralds attending the mayor on that occasion.1099

The Rump restored, 7 May, 1659.

After a brief trial of a new parliament (29 Jan.-22 April, 1659) the Rump was restored and its restoration duly proclaimed in the city.1100The citizens affected to see a special interposition of Providence in the new order of affairs and lost no time in preparing a petition for the preservation of the privileges and estates as well of corporations as of individuals, for the speedier despatch of business in the courts of law and equity, for greater liberty of religious worship, for protection of universities and schools in their work of education, and for relief from excessive taxation.1101No long time elapsed before the old jealous feud between parliament and the army was renewed by the former resolving that all commissions should be received from the Speaker of the House. One of the first desires of the House was to settle the trained bands of London,1102for upon the goodwill of the militia of London and its neighbourhood much depended. But although the citizens were zealous in displaying their loyalty to the government,1103they had no mind that the services of their trained bands or of cavalry[pg 354]raised in the city should be employed beyond the city's walls, or that they should be placed under the command of any but "persons of quality, freemen and inhabitants of the city."1104

Royalist rising in Cheshire supported by a party in the city, Aug., 1659.

Dissension between parliament and the army was for a time hushed by the threat of a common danger. On the 9th August it was reported to the House that the lord mayor had discovered the existence of a party in the city in favour of the rising which had recently occurred in Cheshire with the view of bringing in Prince Charles.1105The mayor, aldermen and Common Council were thereupon ordered to attend the Council of State at Whitehall on the following afternoon, when they were formally thanked for the support they had given to parliament and encouraged to continue in the same course.1106

Parliament desires the re-election of John Ireton mayor, 2 Sept., 1659.

Opposition of the Common Council.

Nevertheless, when the danger was over the House thought fit to run the risk of alienating the favour of the City by an attempt to force the re-election of John Ireton as mayor for the coming year upon the unwilling citizens. On the 2nd September the House resolved that "John Ireton" [thus ignoring his knighthood], then lord mayor of the city of London, should continue to execute the office of lord mayor for the year ensuing, and ordered "that it be recommended to the city of London to see the[pg 355]same done accordingly."1107The Common Council being in no mood to comply with such request drew up a long petition to parliament,1108in which the government of the city was shown to depend upon "two strong supports," viz., the customs of the city and its charters, confirmed as they had been by divers Acts of Parliament; that by virtue of these charters and customs the mayor was chosen by the citizens, that he remained in office for no more than one year, and was presented to the supreme power of the nation for approbation. The petition went on to remind the House how on various occasions, and notably on the 13th January, 1644, and the 6th and 18th May of the same year, parliament had formally acknowledged the constant affection and assistance it had received from the city, and concluded by praying the House to lay no restraint upon the free election of their mayor by the citizens nor infringe the ancient customs and charters of the city, a breach of which "would exceedingly hazard, if not totally destroy, the peace, good order and happiness of the most ancient and well governed city" in the nation, if not in the whole world.

Parliament gives way, 28 Sept., 1659.

The House taking this petition into consideration on the 28th September—the day preceding that on which the election was to take place—resolved by thirty-eight votes to thirteen "that the city of London be left at liberty to make choice of their mayor according to their charter, notwithstanding the previous vote of the House of the 2nd September[pg 356]instant."1109The citizens thereupon showed their independence by electing Thomas Aleyne.

Parliament invited to dinner at Grocers' Hall, 6 Oct., 1659.

A good understanding or "correspondence" between parliament and the city having thus been arrived at, the Common Council resolved to ask the House to a dinner at Grocers' Hall to commemorate Lambert's defeat of the royalists. The invitation was accepted, and Thursday, the 6th October, named as the day on which the House would be prepared to go to the city to hear a sermon at Christchurch, Newgate, and afterwards dine with the municipal authorities.1110

Parliament closed by Lambert, 13 Oct.

On that day week (13th October) the House suffered another indignity at the hands of the army. No sooner had Lambert defeated the royalist insurgents in Cheshire than he and his fellow officers made extraordinary demands of parliament. When these were refused they betook themselves to brute force and sent troops to shut out members from the House.1111So arbitrary a proceeding was distasteful to the citizens of London as well as to the nation at large.

Fears of a disturbance in the city on lord mayor's day.

When lord mayor's day came round and Thomas Aleyne was to enter upon his year of office there was some apprehension in the minds of Fleetwood and the Council of Officers, who were now supreme, lest the day should be made an opportunity for display of popular feeling in favour of parliament. It was suggested, therefore, to the Court of Aldermen by Fleetwood that it might be well to omit the usual[pg 357]shows and attendance of the companies on that day. The court, however, thought otherwise, and directed a deputation to wait upon his excellency and acquaint him with the preparations that had already been made, and with the disappointment which the citizens would feel if they had to forego the customary solemnities, which could be carried out, in the opinion of the court, without any risk of disturbance.1112

Monk prepares to march southward, Nov., 1659.

Monk, who was in Scotland, disapproved of the action of Lambert and his fellow officers, and prepared to march southward for the purpose (he said) of vindicating the rights of parliament. Whether he had any ulterior motive in view at the time is not known. Every effort was made by the officers of Lambert's army to secure the support of the City before Monk's arrival. On the 4th November and again on the 8th, Fleetwood, Whitelock and others conferred with the civic authorities. On the latter occasion Whitelock did not hesitate to declare that Monk's real design was the king's restoration at the risk of a civil war. "I shewed the danger of it to the city and nation and counselled them to provide for their own safety, and to join for the safety of the whole nation and for preservation of the peace." The Common Council expressed their thanks, and resolved to follow the advice thus given.1113

Monk's letter to the City, 23 Nov., 1659.

On the 23rd November the Common Council received a letter from Monk, which Whitelock describes as "not relished well by them."1114The letter is not mentioned in the minutes of the court held on that day, which are confined to an order for[pg 358]the repair of the wall of Richmond Park and to the appointment of a day (2 Dec.) for a solemn humiliation with fasting and prayer, that God might bring them through all their "fears, troubles and darkness unto true rest, peace and settlement."1115

Rising of apprentices in favour of a free parliament, 5 Dec., 1659.

Whilst matters were yet in a state of suspense the apprentices of the city again took the lead and presented (5 Dec.) a petition to the Common Council on the subject of "how the peace of this city may be preserved." Their petition was referred to a committee for consideration,1116but the apprentices brooked no delay. Out into the street they ran, in spite of all precautions to keep them indoors, crying out for a "free parliament." Amid the confusion Hewson appeared on the scene with a regiment of soldiers, and there was some little bloodshed, two men being killed. This brought the army into greater disrepute than ever, and the cry became general that "it was only kept on foot for the murder of citizens." The next day (6 Dec.) the Court of Aldermen sent a deputation to the Committee of Safety to excuse the recent outbreak and to disavow any complicity in it.1117The Committee desired to know particulars as to how the men came by their death, and to understand how far the Court of Aldermen would be responsible for the peace of the city. The Committee was told in reply that the recent deaths were under the consideration of the coroner, and that as to the steps about to be taken for the preservation of the peace of the city, further information would shortly be given.1118

A committee to confer with Fleetwood for the security of peace and the safety of the city, 8 Dec.

On the 8th December a Court of Aldermen sat and appointed a committee to confer with Fleetwood for preserving the peace and safety of the city and "for a right understanding between the city and army." He was to be desired in the meantime to keep his soldiers within barracks whilst the court of Common Council was sitting, unless the mayor or sheriffs expressed a wish to the contrary, and to cause the removal of certain "granadoes" recently stored at Gresham College and elsewhere in the city, which had caused strange apprehensions among the inhabitants. A petition to the Common Council for a parliament as in 1642 was unfavourably received, and handed back to the petitioners with a request to them not to print it.1119Anxious as the citizens were to get rid of the army's ammunition stored in the city, they were not so anxious to part with their own little stock of gunpowder, and hesitated to lodge it in the Tower as requested, lest it should be some day used against themselves. The City Remembrancer was instructed (17 Dec.) to see Fleetwood on the matter, and to represent to him the feeling of the inhabitants, that order might be taken for securing public peace and quiet.1120

Fleetwood promises a free parliament.

By the 19th matters were accommodated between Fleetwood and the City. A parliament was to be summoned which should be free from military influence or interference. The Common Council, on hearing of the success of the committee appointed to confer with Fleetwood, were so satisfied with the manner in which it had carried out its duties that they authorised[pg 360]it to continue to confer with his lordship from time to time as it should see cause for prevention of all misunderstandings between the city and the army.1121The action of the mayor, the common council and the committee in the matter was much canvassed, however, by a certain section of the community, and they were accused of betraying the rights and liberties of the city. A "declaration" was therefore drawn up in vindication of their conduct.1122

Back to Index Next