Preparations for re-building the city.The Great Fire had scarcely ceased smouldering before the inhabitants of the city set to work re-building their devastated houses. Information having reached the ear of the king that building operations were about to be carried out on the old foundations, he instructed Sir William Morice, secretary of state, to write to the lord mayor to put a stop to them until further orders, as his majesty had under consideration certain models and plans for re-building the city "with more decency and conveniency than formerly."1336Charles himself also wrote at the same time to the mayor and aldermen desiring them to afford every assistance to Wenceslas Hollar and Francis Sandford, whom he had appointed to make an exact survey of the city as it stood after the fire.1337The civic authorities on their part instructed Robert Hooke to devise a scheme for re-building the city, and on the 21st September he presented to the Common Council "an exquisite modell or draught" which found much favour with the court.1338Early in the following month (4 Oct.) the Common Council was informed that for the greater expedition in carrying out the[pg 428]work of re-building the city, the king had appointed Wren and two others to make a survey, with the assistance of such surveyors and workmen as the civic authorities should nominate. The city's choice fell upon Robert Hooke, described as "Reader of the Mathematicks in Gresham Colledge," Peter Mills and Edward Jermyn or Jarman. By way of preparation for the survey, the owners of houses that had been destroyed were again ordered (9 Oct.) to clear their foundations of rubbish, and to pile up the bricks and stones within fourteen days, so that every man's property might be "more exactly measured and asserted."1339A special Court of Judicature created by Stat. 19 Car. II, c. 2.The impracticability of re-building the city except on old foundations soon become manifest, and the handsome design which Wren prepared had to be dismissed. There was difficulty enough as it was, and the four sworn viewers of the city whose duty at ordinary times was to guard against encroachments and other nuisances were unusually busy. Sometimes the old foundations proved too weak to support a new building, sometimes the new building threatened to encroach on the public thoroughfare. Such matters required the constant attention of the viewers. Disputes would also arise between the landlords and tenants of houses destroyed by the fire. In order to settle all differences that arose, a special Court of Judicature was established by Act of Parliament (31 Jan., 1667).1340The court sat at Clifford's Inn, and the decrees signed by the judges, as well as the portraits of the judges themselves, are preserved at[pg 429]the Guildhall.1341The city authorities were very urgent in getting this Act passed, and pressed the judges to give the Bill all dispatch they could, "as a matter of principal concernment and encouragement to the great worke of re-building the citty." This their lordships promised to do.1342Gift of £100 to the Speaker. 4 Dec., 1666.It was not deemed in any way derogatory in those days to give and receive presents for services either past or prospective. We need not be surprised therefore to find that whilst this and other Bills in which the City was interested were before Parliament, the Court of Aldermen voted a sum of £100 in gold as a gift to the Speaker of the House of Commons, "as a loving remembrance from this court for his many kind offices performed to the State of this citty."1343Building Act, 19 Car. II, c. 3, 1667.Whilst a Bill for re-building the city was being prepared for parliament the civic authorities were busy considering how to find the money necessary for re-building the Guildhall, the city's gates, the prisons and other public buildings. On the 6th November (1666) the Court of Aldermen resolved to sit every Wednesday afternoon at the house of the new lord mayor (Sir William Bolton) to consider this important question, and to continue such weekly sittings until the matter was settled.1344It was not[pg 430]long before the court determined to apply to parliament for an imposition of twelve pence a chaldron on coals brought into the Port of London, wherewith to meet the expense. The advice and assistance of the solicitor-general and of Sir Job Charlton were to be solicited, and £10 in "old gold" given to each of them, in addition to "such other charges and rewards" as might be necessary for the furtherance of the business.1345Later on the court resolved to approach the Lord Chancellor and to entreat him to recommend the City's proposals to his majesty and to the House of Lords.1346By the end of November the Common Council had agreed to certain "heads thought requisite to be inserted" into the Bill for re-building the city,1347and on the 29th December the Bill was brought in and read the first time.For fear lest some of the clauses might offend the king a petition was drawn up for presentation to his majesty, in which matters were explained, and his majesty's favourable interpretation and pardon asked for anything omitted in the Bill or done amiss.1348A report had got abroad that the City had caused a clause to be inserted in the Bill forbidding any one to engage in building operations who refused to abjure the Covenant. This made the Common Council very angry, and the mayor and sheriffs were desired to investigate the matter.1349On the 5th February (1667) the Bill passed the Commons, and two days later received the assent of the Lords.1350[pg 431]In the meantime the Court of Aldermen had drafted (22 Jan.) a petition to the king for permission to introduce a Bill for an impost on coals, to assist the City in re-building the conduits, aqueducts and other public works, as it had "no common stock, nor revenue, nor any capacity to raise within itself anything considerable towards so vast an expense."1351But instead of a new Bill for this purpose, a clause was inserted in the Bill for re-building the city (Stat. 19 Car. II, c. 3), authorising such an impost as was desired.1352Vote of thanks to the king and the Duke of York, 19 Feb., 1667.The Common Council directed (19 Feb.) the lord mayor, the recorder and the sheriffs to attend the king and the Duke of York with the most humble thanks of the court for the favour they had shown the City in passing the Bill, and to learn his majesty's pleasure as to the enlargement of the streets of the city in pursuance of the recent Act.1353Appointment of four city surveyors, 13 March, 1667.On the 12th March certain proposals for widening streets which had received the approval of the Common Council were submitted to Charles at a council held at Berkshire House, now Cleveland House, St. James's. On the following day they were returned to the Common Council with his majesty's recommendations and suggestions thereon. The same day (13 March), the City nominated Peter Mills, Edward Jarman, Robert Hooke and John Oliver to be surveyors and supervisors of the houses about to be re-built; the king's commissioners, Christopher Wren, Hugh May and "Mr." Prat being[pg 432]ordered by his majesty to afford them their best advice and assistance whenever it should be required.1354In September the king suggested the appointment of Sir William Bolton, the lord mayor, as surveyor-general for the re-building of the city. The suggestion was referred to a committee, who reported to the Common Council (25 Oct.) their opinion that there was "noe use or occasion for a surveyor-generall," as the work could be well and sufficiently managed by the surveyors already appointed.1355Classification of streets, lanes, etc., 21 March. 1667.Pursuant to the Building Act the Common Council proceeded (21 March) to parcel out the streets of the city, placing them under the several categories of "high and principal streets," "streets or lanes of note," and "by-lanes."1356The scheme met with the approval of the king and council.1357Towards the end of the following month (29 April) a schedule was drawn up of streets and narrow passages[pg 433]which it was proposed to enlarge.1358For the next few months the authorities were busy seeing to the clearing and staking out of the various streets.1359In September the Common Council resolved that the new street which it was proposed to make from the Guildhall to Cheapside should be called King Street, whilst its continuation from Cheapside to the river should be known as Queen Street.1360Allotment of market sites.A fresh distribution of markets and market places was proposed (21 Oct.).1361Three markets and no more were to be allotted for the sale of flesh and other victuals brought into the city by country butchers and farmers, viz., Leadenhall and the Greenyard for the east end of the city, Honey Lane for the centre, and a market near Warwick Lane, which was to take the place of Newgate Market, for the west end. Two places were to be assigned for herb and fruit markets, viz., the site of the king's wardrobe (if the king would give his consent) and the ground whereon recently had stood the church of St. Laurence Pulteney. The markets formerly held in Aldersgate Street and Gracechurch Street were to be discontinued. A place was to be found at or near Christ Church as a site for the meat market, hitherto kept in Newgate market. These suggestions were with slight alteration accepted in the following February (1668), when provision was also made for a fish market on the site of the ancient stocks and the Woolchurch and[pg 434]churchyard.1362On the 23rd Oct. (1667) the king went in state into the city to lay "the first stone of the first pillar of the new building of the Exchange."1363The coal duty raised to 2s.a chaldron. 1670. Stat. 22 Car. II, c. 11.The impost of twelve pence a chaldron on coals brought into the port of London was soon found inadequate to meet the expense of re-building the Guildhall, the prisons and other public edifices of the city, and in 1670 it was raised by statute (22 Car. II, c. 11) to two shillings a chaldron. Great irregularities, however, were allowed to take place in collecting and accounting for the duty thus imposed, and between 1667 and 1673 the City was obliged to borrow no less than £83,000.1364In March, 1667, the Court of Aldermen resolved that all fines paid by persons to be discharged from the office of alderman between that day and Midsummer next should be devoted to the restoration of the Guildhall and the Justice Hall, Old Bailey.1365Not only money but material also was required to enable the City to carry out its building operations. To this end a Bill was introduced into parliament to facilitate the City's manufacture of lime, brick and tile.1366A sub-tenant of the City holding five acres of land in the parish of St. Giles in the Fields obtained permission from the Court of Aldermen to "digg and cast upp the said ground for the making of bricke any covenant or clause in the lease of the said ground to the contrary notwithstanding."1367Application was made to Charles for liberty to fetch[pg 435]Portland stone for the City's use, but this was refused as the stone was required for works at Whitehall.1368The Dutch fleet in the Medway, June, 1667.In the meanwhile negotiations for a peace had been opened at Breda. The Londoners more especially desired peace1369in order to devote their energies to re-building their city. In anticipation of a cessation of hostilities Charles set about discharging his navy, leaving the Thames and Medway open to attack. The Dutch took advantage of his precipitancy and at once sailed up the Medway, burnt three men-of-war, among them being the "Loyal London," and carried off a fourth.1370This took place in June (1667). The city never presented so dejected an appearance as on the arrival of the news of this disgrace. The cry of treason was raised and endeavours made to fasten the blame upon any one and every one. The Dutch fleet was every hour expected up the Thames,1371and vessels were sunk in the bed of the channel at Barking, Woolwich and Blackwall to stop its progress. But so great was the confusion that one of the king's store ships for victualling the navy is said to have been sunk among the rest, as well as vessels that had been fitted out as fire-ships at great expense. The Common Council interposed on behalf of interested owners of merchandise on board the ship "Diana," lying in the[pg 436]Thames, to prevent if possible the sinking of that vessel.1372Auxiliaries raised in the city, 13 June, 1667.The Common Council ordered (13 June) every able-bodied man in the city forthwith to enlist, and resolved to petition the king that the auxiliaries then to be raised might remain as a guard to the city.1373The same day the city's militia was reviewed by Charles himself on Tower Hill. He addressed them in a speech assuring them that he would personally share their danger. But here, too, was confusion and lack of organization. "The city is troubled at their being put upon duty," wrote Pepys (14 June), "summoned one hour and discharged two hours after: and then again summoned two hours after that; to their great charge as well as trouble."The Dutch fleet retires, 19 June.Above all there was a lack of money to pay the seamen. Had the Dutch fleet sailed up the Thames immediately after its success at Chatham, instead of wasting its time at Portsmouth and Plymouth and other places on the south coast, matters would have gone hard with the capital. As it was the delay gave time for recovery from the recent scare and for measures to be taken against its approach, with the result that after getting up the river as far as Tilbury it was compelled to retire.1374A City loan of £10,000 for fortifying Sheerness, 21 June, 1667.On the morning of the 20th June the Dutch fleet was believed to be sailing homewards, but by midday news arrived of its appearance off Harwich, which was threatened with an immediate attack.1375The next[pg 437]day (21 June) the mayor and aldermen obeyed a summons to attend upon the king in council, when, a proposal having been made to fortify Sheerness and other places on the river, they agreed to raise the sum of £10,000 for the purpose.1376That the government should be driven to borrow so small a sum excited the contempt of Pepys, who thought it "a very poor thing that we should be induced to borrow by such mean sums." That the City could afford no more is not surprising when we consider what had been the state of trade during the last three years. As it was the money was paid by small instalments. The coffers of the city merchant or goldsmith keeping "running cashes" were well nigh empty, and the credit of some of the best men was shaken.1377The companies of Masons and Bricklayers to furnish workmen.There was another difficulty besides the want of money. There was a deficiency of workmen to carry out the works at Sheerness. Application was accordingly made to the wardens of the several companies of masons and bricklayers to furnish able men so that the fortifications might be completed before the cold weather came on.1378The Treaty of Breda signed, 31 July, 1667.At last negotiations for a peace were concluded and the Treaty of Breda was signed (31 July). The peace was proclaimed at Temple Bar in the presence of the lord mayor on St. Bartholomew's Day (24 Aug.).[pg 438]The bells were set ringing in honour of the event, but there were no bonfires at night "partly"—writes Pepys—"from the dearness of firing, but principally from the little content most people have in the peace." Yet the terms of the treaty were not wholly ruinous to the country. England, at least, gained New York, hitherto known as New Amsterdam.Report on state of the City's Chamber, 23 Nov., 1668.The lull in the storm afforded the municipal authorities an opportunity of taking stock of their own Chamber. To this end a committee was appointed on the 12th February, 1668. For nine months that committee was employed examining the state of the City's finances, and then had not finished their task. Nevertheless, on the 23rd November they made a report to the Common Council of the result of their labours so far as they had gone.1379The state of the Chamber, they said, was so low that it would require the utmost care and industry to restore it and save it from utter decay and ruin, "for what by misemployment of the treasure in the late troubles and other ill managements," as well as by extraordinary expenses occasioned by the Plague and Fire, the City's debt had still increased notwithstanding its income having been largely augmented by fines of aldermen and chamber and bridge-house leases, which within the last fifteen years had exceeded £200,000. It was clear that when these extraordinary accessories to the City's income ceased—and they had already begun to decline—the City's debt would increase and would indeed become desperate unless some remedy were found. The committee, therefore, made certain[pg 439]suggestions with the view of cutting down expenses. The City Chronologer,1380in the first place, could be dispensed with altogether. The salary of the City Waits, which had lately been increased, should be reduced to its former amount. Some saving might be made in allowance of stationery in the various offices, in expenses attending Courts of Conservancy, in allowance of boots to City labourers and artificers. The personal expenses of the City's Remembrancer for diet, coach hire, boat hire, etc., should be no longer allowed; and the Chamber should not be called upon to make any disbursement for military purposes beyond the sum of £4,666 13s.4d., for which the City was yearly liable by Act of Parliament. Lastly, neither the court of Aldermen nor the court of Common Council ought to have power to draw upon the Chamber for a sum exceeding £500, except it were in connection with the re-building of the Guildhall and other specified objects. These and other recommendations of the committee, being carefully considered by the court, were for the most part accepted with certain amendments.Alderman Backwell.On the other hand there was due to the city's Chamber no less a sum than £77,409 6s.6d.for principal and interest on former loans to the king. This sum Alderman Backwell undertook himself to pay to the City, accepting a transfer of the Treasury[pg 440]Bills in the hands of the City Chamberlain. The Common Council was only too ready to accept the offer.1381Edward Backwell, alderman of Bishopsgate Ward, was one of those city princes whose wealth brought them into close relation with the Crown. A goldsmith by trade, he, like others of his class, took to keeping "running cashes" and transacting generally the business of a banker at his house known as the "Unicorn" in Lombard Street. Pepys mentions him frequently in his Diary. In the days of the Commonwealth he was paymaster of the garrison at Dunkirk, and continued to act as financial agent in all matters connected with that town until it was sold to the French king. His house in Lombard Street having perished in the Great Fire, he was, by the king's special command, accommodated with lodgings in Gresham College, in order that his business relations with the king might not be interrupted pending the re-building of his premises.1382The rights of the mayor within the precincts of the Temple.In March, 1669, a riot occurred in the Temple on the occasion of the mayor and aldermen going to dine with the reader of the Inner Temple. The question whether the Temple is situate within the city and liberties or not was then a debateable one, whatever it may be at the present day. The lord mayor of that time (William Turner) evidently thought that it lay within his jurisdiction, and insisted upon being preceded by the city's sword-bearer carrying the sword up. To this the students strongly objected. The story, as told by Pepys, is to the effect that on Wednesday, 3rd March,[pg 441]"my lord mayor being invited this day to dinner at the readers at the Temple, and endeavouring to carry his sword up, the students did pull it down, and forced him to go and stay all the day in a private counsellor's chamber until the reader himself could get the young gentlemen to dinner; and then my lord mayor did retreat out of the Temple by stealth with his sword up. This do make great heat among the students, and my lord mayor did send to the king, and also I hear that Sir Richard Browne did cause the drums to beat for the trained bands; but all is over, only I hear that the students do resolve to try the charter of the city." From a draft report1383of the incident which was probably made for the purpose of being laid before the Council Board,1384we learn that as soon as the civic procession entered the Temple cloisters it was met by a man named Hodges and others coming down the back stairs of the Inner Temple Hall; that Hodges threatened the lord mayor if he would not take down his sword, declaring that the Temple was excepted out of the city's charter, that the sword was not the king's sword, but the lord mayor's, and that "they were as good men as he, and no respect was to be given him there." A struggle then took place for the possession of the sword, in which the sword-bearer was slightly hurt and some of the pearls from the scabbard were lost. The students made a snatch at the "cap of maintenance" worn by the sword-bearer. The marshal's men who were in attendance suffered some rough treatment, and narrowly escaped being[pg 442]put under the pump. The mayor and aldermen in the meanwhile sought refuge in the chambers of Mr. Auditor Phillips, and awaited the return of Sir John Nicholas, who with the recorder and the sheriffs had been despatched to Whitehall to report the matter to the king. As soon as they returned the mayor and aldermen essayed to make their way out of the Temple, but were again opposed by the students, with Hodges at their head. The scene was one of wild excitement and confusion; blows were showered upon the aldermen, and one of the sheriffs was seized by the collar in the frantic attempts of the students to pull down the sword. The mayor and aldermen were called "cuckolds," and their officers "dogs, rogues, rascals and other very bad names." Some of the students are said to have had weapons concealed under their gowns, and to have threatened to draw them. The sheriffs, the recorder and Sir John Nicholas having again been sent to the king, it was intimated to the mayor by some of the benchers, and by Mr. Goodfellow, the Reader, at whose invitation the civic fathers were in the Temple, that he might now leave without any interruption (the "young gentlemen," according to Pepys, had been persuaded to go to dinner), which, after some display of opposition, he was allowed to do. Such is the City's own version of the affair, which concludes with the remark "that the proceedings aforesaid were greatly affrontive and dishonourable to the government of the city," a remark with which most people will be disposed to agree. Nor is it surprising to find that two years later the mayor and aldermen declined a similar invitation from Sir Francis North to attend his "feast" at the[pg 443]Temple, more especially as another disturbance was threatened if the sword should be borne up before his lordship.1385Secret treaty of Dover, 1 June, 1670.In July, 1670—at a time when the City could ill afford to part with money—the king sent to borrow £60,000.1386He had recently entered into a secret treaty with France (1 June), whereby he had pledged himself to assist the French king in subjugating Holland, in return for pecuniary support. The City agreed to advance the money, but in order to raise the sum required it became necessary to draw upon the coal dues.1387Much opposition was raised to the loan by the inhabitants,1388so that in November it became necessary for the city Chamberlain to borrow at interest more than £1,000 to complete the loan.1389In addition to the loan by the City Charles obtained considerable supplies from parliament when it met in the autumn. The House had been kept in complete ignorance of the arrangement that had been made with France, and voted the money on the understanding that it would be used in assisting the Dutch against Louis and not Louis against the Dutch.The Prince of Orange entertained in the city, Dec., 1670.In order to keep up the illusion Charles treated the Prince of Orange (afterwards William III of England), who was on a visit to this country at the time, with the highest consideration and insisted on the lord mayor giving "hand and place" to his foreign guest[pg 444](contrary to city custom) at an entertainment given by the City in the prince's honour.1390The Exchequer stops payment, 2 Jan., 1672.As soon as parliament had voted supplies it was prorogued (11 Dec.), Charles and his "cabal" being determined to have no restraint put upon them in carrying out the terms of the shameful treaty with France. No long time elapsed before they had to face the difficulty of an empty exchequer. It was useless to declare war without funds. Charles was at his wits' end for money and promised high office to any one who should point out a successful way of raising it. Clifford and Ashley, two members of the cabal, put their heads together and hit upon the bold plan of declaring amoratorium, or suspension of payments out of the royal exchequer. For many years past it had been the custom for the goldsmiths of London and others who had been in the habit of keeping the money of private individuals, either on deposit or running account, to lend it to the king, who could afford to pay them a higher rate of interest than they paid to their private customers. The money was paid into the exchequer, the bankers taking assignments of the public revenue for payment of principal and interest, as it came in. Most of this money had already been spent by Charles in paying off the fleet that brought him over, and in carrying on the late war with the Dutch;1391but the bankers and capitalists who had provided the money were content to abide by the[pg 445]king's frequent assurance that he would continue to make good all assignments until their whole debt should be wiped out. We may judge therefore of their surprise and disappointment when they learnt, as they did on the 2nd January, 1672, that the king proposed to suspend all payments out of the public revenue for one whole year!London bankers brought to bankruptcy.It is true that he promised to add the interest then due to the capital and to allow six per cent. interest on the whole as some compensation to his creditors for the delay; but this, even if carried into practice, proved unavailing to ward off disaster. The inevitable crash came. Many of the London bankers, and among them Alderman Backwell, who held revenue assignments exceeding a quarter of a million sterling, were made utterly bankrupt. A few of them who had interest at court got wind of the threatened danger and managed to withdraw their money from the exchequer in time, whilst Shaftesbury, one of the prime movers in closing the exchequer, foreseeing the inevitable result, took all of his own money out of his banker's hands and warned his friends to do the same.Declaration of war with the Dutch, 17 March, 1672.The exchequer having been in this way made richer by £1,300,000, Charles was prepared to declare war. An attempt to intercept a fleet of Dutch merchantmen before any declaration of war had been made—a piratical act admitting of no possible justification—brought matters to a climax and war was declared (17 March, 1672) by England and France. The 27th March was appointed by royal proclamation to be kept as a solemn fast for the purpose of begging the Almighty's blessing on his majesty's forces, the[pg 446]same prayers being used as had been specially ordained for the late war.1392

Preparations for re-building the city.

The Great Fire had scarcely ceased smouldering before the inhabitants of the city set to work re-building their devastated houses. Information having reached the ear of the king that building operations were about to be carried out on the old foundations, he instructed Sir William Morice, secretary of state, to write to the lord mayor to put a stop to them until further orders, as his majesty had under consideration certain models and plans for re-building the city "with more decency and conveniency than formerly."1336Charles himself also wrote at the same time to the mayor and aldermen desiring them to afford every assistance to Wenceslas Hollar and Francis Sandford, whom he had appointed to make an exact survey of the city as it stood after the fire.1337The civic authorities on their part instructed Robert Hooke to devise a scheme for re-building the city, and on the 21st September he presented to the Common Council "an exquisite modell or draught" which found much favour with the court.1338Early in the following month (4 Oct.) the Common Council was informed that for the greater expedition in carrying out the[pg 428]work of re-building the city, the king had appointed Wren and two others to make a survey, with the assistance of such surveyors and workmen as the civic authorities should nominate. The city's choice fell upon Robert Hooke, described as "Reader of the Mathematicks in Gresham Colledge," Peter Mills and Edward Jermyn or Jarman. By way of preparation for the survey, the owners of houses that had been destroyed were again ordered (9 Oct.) to clear their foundations of rubbish, and to pile up the bricks and stones within fourteen days, so that every man's property might be "more exactly measured and asserted."1339

A special Court of Judicature created by Stat. 19 Car. II, c. 2.

The impracticability of re-building the city except on old foundations soon become manifest, and the handsome design which Wren prepared had to be dismissed. There was difficulty enough as it was, and the four sworn viewers of the city whose duty at ordinary times was to guard against encroachments and other nuisances were unusually busy. Sometimes the old foundations proved too weak to support a new building, sometimes the new building threatened to encroach on the public thoroughfare. Such matters required the constant attention of the viewers. Disputes would also arise between the landlords and tenants of houses destroyed by the fire. In order to settle all differences that arose, a special Court of Judicature was established by Act of Parliament (31 Jan., 1667).1340The court sat at Clifford's Inn, and the decrees signed by the judges, as well as the portraits of the judges themselves, are preserved at[pg 429]the Guildhall.1341The city authorities were very urgent in getting this Act passed, and pressed the judges to give the Bill all dispatch they could, "as a matter of principal concernment and encouragement to the great worke of re-building the citty." This their lordships promised to do.1342

Gift of £100 to the Speaker. 4 Dec., 1666.

It was not deemed in any way derogatory in those days to give and receive presents for services either past or prospective. We need not be surprised therefore to find that whilst this and other Bills in which the City was interested were before Parliament, the Court of Aldermen voted a sum of £100 in gold as a gift to the Speaker of the House of Commons, "as a loving remembrance from this court for his many kind offices performed to the State of this citty."1343

Building Act, 19 Car. II, c. 3, 1667.

Whilst a Bill for re-building the city was being prepared for parliament the civic authorities were busy considering how to find the money necessary for re-building the Guildhall, the city's gates, the prisons and other public buildings. On the 6th November (1666) the Court of Aldermen resolved to sit every Wednesday afternoon at the house of the new lord mayor (Sir William Bolton) to consider this important question, and to continue such weekly sittings until the matter was settled.1344It was not[pg 430]long before the court determined to apply to parliament for an imposition of twelve pence a chaldron on coals brought into the Port of London, wherewith to meet the expense. The advice and assistance of the solicitor-general and of Sir Job Charlton were to be solicited, and £10 in "old gold" given to each of them, in addition to "such other charges and rewards" as might be necessary for the furtherance of the business.1345Later on the court resolved to approach the Lord Chancellor and to entreat him to recommend the City's proposals to his majesty and to the House of Lords.1346By the end of November the Common Council had agreed to certain "heads thought requisite to be inserted" into the Bill for re-building the city,1347and on the 29th December the Bill was brought in and read the first time.

For fear lest some of the clauses might offend the king a petition was drawn up for presentation to his majesty, in which matters were explained, and his majesty's favourable interpretation and pardon asked for anything omitted in the Bill or done amiss.1348A report had got abroad that the City had caused a clause to be inserted in the Bill forbidding any one to engage in building operations who refused to abjure the Covenant. This made the Common Council very angry, and the mayor and sheriffs were desired to investigate the matter.1349On the 5th February (1667) the Bill passed the Commons, and two days later received the assent of the Lords.1350

In the meantime the Court of Aldermen had drafted (22 Jan.) a petition to the king for permission to introduce a Bill for an impost on coals, to assist the City in re-building the conduits, aqueducts and other public works, as it had "no common stock, nor revenue, nor any capacity to raise within itself anything considerable towards so vast an expense."1351But instead of a new Bill for this purpose, a clause was inserted in the Bill for re-building the city (Stat. 19 Car. II, c. 3), authorising such an impost as was desired.1352

Vote of thanks to the king and the Duke of York, 19 Feb., 1667.

The Common Council directed (19 Feb.) the lord mayor, the recorder and the sheriffs to attend the king and the Duke of York with the most humble thanks of the court for the favour they had shown the City in passing the Bill, and to learn his majesty's pleasure as to the enlargement of the streets of the city in pursuance of the recent Act.1353

Appointment of four city surveyors, 13 March, 1667.

On the 12th March certain proposals for widening streets which had received the approval of the Common Council were submitted to Charles at a council held at Berkshire House, now Cleveland House, St. James's. On the following day they were returned to the Common Council with his majesty's recommendations and suggestions thereon. The same day (13 March), the City nominated Peter Mills, Edward Jarman, Robert Hooke and John Oliver to be surveyors and supervisors of the houses about to be re-built; the king's commissioners, Christopher Wren, Hugh May and "Mr." Prat being[pg 432]ordered by his majesty to afford them their best advice and assistance whenever it should be required.1354

In September the king suggested the appointment of Sir William Bolton, the lord mayor, as surveyor-general for the re-building of the city. The suggestion was referred to a committee, who reported to the Common Council (25 Oct.) their opinion that there was "noe use or occasion for a surveyor-generall," as the work could be well and sufficiently managed by the surveyors already appointed.1355

Classification of streets, lanes, etc., 21 March. 1667.

Pursuant to the Building Act the Common Council proceeded (21 March) to parcel out the streets of the city, placing them under the several categories of "high and principal streets," "streets or lanes of note," and "by-lanes."1356The scheme met with the approval of the king and council.1357Towards the end of the following month (29 April) a schedule was drawn up of streets and narrow passages[pg 433]which it was proposed to enlarge.1358For the next few months the authorities were busy seeing to the clearing and staking out of the various streets.1359In September the Common Council resolved that the new street which it was proposed to make from the Guildhall to Cheapside should be called King Street, whilst its continuation from Cheapside to the river should be known as Queen Street.1360

Allotment of market sites.

A fresh distribution of markets and market places was proposed (21 Oct.).1361Three markets and no more were to be allotted for the sale of flesh and other victuals brought into the city by country butchers and farmers, viz., Leadenhall and the Greenyard for the east end of the city, Honey Lane for the centre, and a market near Warwick Lane, which was to take the place of Newgate Market, for the west end. Two places were to be assigned for herb and fruit markets, viz., the site of the king's wardrobe (if the king would give his consent) and the ground whereon recently had stood the church of St. Laurence Pulteney. The markets formerly held in Aldersgate Street and Gracechurch Street were to be discontinued. A place was to be found at or near Christ Church as a site for the meat market, hitherto kept in Newgate market. These suggestions were with slight alteration accepted in the following February (1668), when provision was also made for a fish market on the site of the ancient stocks and the Woolchurch and[pg 434]churchyard.1362On the 23rd Oct. (1667) the king went in state into the city to lay "the first stone of the first pillar of the new building of the Exchange."1363

The coal duty raised to 2s.a chaldron. 1670. Stat. 22 Car. II, c. 11.

The impost of twelve pence a chaldron on coals brought into the port of London was soon found inadequate to meet the expense of re-building the Guildhall, the prisons and other public edifices of the city, and in 1670 it was raised by statute (22 Car. II, c. 11) to two shillings a chaldron. Great irregularities, however, were allowed to take place in collecting and accounting for the duty thus imposed, and between 1667 and 1673 the City was obliged to borrow no less than £83,000.1364In March, 1667, the Court of Aldermen resolved that all fines paid by persons to be discharged from the office of alderman between that day and Midsummer next should be devoted to the restoration of the Guildhall and the Justice Hall, Old Bailey.1365Not only money but material also was required to enable the City to carry out its building operations. To this end a Bill was introduced into parliament to facilitate the City's manufacture of lime, brick and tile.1366A sub-tenant of the City holding five acres of land in the parish of St. Giles in the Fields obtained permission from the Court of Aldermen to "digg and cast upp the said ground for the making of bricke any covenant or clause in the lease of the said ground to the contrary notwithstanding."1367Application was made to Charles for liberty to fetch[pg 435]Portland stone for the City's use, but this was refused as the stone was required for works at Whitehall.1368

The Dutch fleet in the Medway, June, 1667.

In the meanwhile negotiations for a peace had been opened at Breda. The Londoners more especially desired peace1369in order to devote their energies to re-building their city. In anticipation of a cessation of hostilities Charles set about discharging his navy, leaving the Thames and Medway open to attack. The Dutch took advantage of his precipitancy and at once sailed up the Medway, burnt three men-of-war, among them being the "Loyal London," and carried off a fourth.1370This took place in June (1667). The city never presented so dejected an appearance as on the arrival of the news of this disgrace. The cry of treason was raised and endeavours made to fasten the blame upon any one and every one. The Dutch fleet was every hour expected up the Thames,1371and vessels were sunk in the bed of the channel at Barking, Woolwich and Blackwall to stop its progress. But so great was the confusion that one of the king's store ships for victualling the navy is said to have been sunk among the rest, as well as vessels that had been fitted out as fire-ships at great expense. The Common Council interposed on behalf of interested owners of merchandise on board the ship "Diana," lying in the[pg 436]Thames, to prevent if possible the sinking of that vessel.1372

Auxiliaries raised in the city, 13 June, 1667.

The Common Council ordered (13 June) every able-bodied man in the city forthwith to enlist, and resolved to petition the king that the auxiliaries then to be raised might remain as a guard to the city.1373The same day the city's militia was reviewed by Charles himself on Tower Hill. He addressed them in a speech assuring them that he would personally share their danger. But here, too, was confusion and lack of organization. "The city is troubled at their being put upon duty," wrote Pepys (14 June), "summoned one hour and discharged two hours after: and then again summoned two hours after that; to their great charge as well as trouble."

The Dutch fleet retires, 19 June.

Above all there was a lack of money to pay the seamen. Had the Dutch fleet sailed up the Thames immediately after its success at Chatham, instead of wasting its time at Portsmouth and Plymouth and other places on the south coast, matters would have gone hard with the capital. As it was the delay gave time for recovery from the recent scare and for measures to be taken against its approach, with the result that after getting up the river as far as Tilbury it was compelled to retire.1374

A City loan of £10,000 for fortifying Sheerness, 21 June, 1667.

On the morning of the 20th June the Dutch fleet was believed to be sailing homewards, but by midday news arrived of its appearance off Harwich, which was threatened with an immediate attack.1375The next[pg 437]day (21 June) the mayor and aldermen obeyed a summons to attend upon the king in council, when, a proposal having been made to fortify Sheerness and other places on the river, they agreed to raise the sum of £10,000 for the purpose.1376That the government should be driven to borrow so small a sum excited the contempt of Pepys, who thought it "a very poor thing that we should be induced to borrow by such mean sums." That the City could afford no more is not surprising when we consider what had been the state of trade during the last three years. As it was the money was paid by small instalments. The coffers of the city merchant or goldsmith keeping "running cashes" were well nigh empty, and the credit of some of the best men was shaken.1377

The companies of Masons and Bricklayers to furnish workmen.

There was another difficulty besides the want of money. There was a deficiency of workmen to carry out the works at Sheerness. Application was accordingly made to the wardens of the several companies of masons and bricklayers to furnish able men so that the fortifications might be completed before the cold weather came on.1378

The Treaty of Breda signed, 31 July, 1667.

At last negotiations for a peace were concluded and the Treaty of Breda was signed (31 July). The peace was proclaimed at Temple Bar in the presence of the lord mayor on St. Bartholomew's Day (24 Aug.).

The bells were set ringing in honour of the event, but there were no bonfires at night "partly"—writes Pepys—"from the dearness of firing, but principally from the little content most people have in the peace." Yet the terms of the treaty were not wholly ruinous to the country. England, at least, gained New York, hitherto known as New Amsterdam.

Report on state of the City's Chamber, 23 Nov., 1668.

The lull in the storm afforded the municipal authorities an opportunity of taking stock of their own Chamber. To this end a committee was appointed on the 12th February, 1668. For nine months that committee was employed examining the state of the City's finances, and then had not finished their task. Nevertheless, on the 23rd November they made a report to the Common Council of the result of their labours so far as they had gone.1379The state of the Chamber, they said, was so low that it would require the utmost care and industry to restore it and save it from utter decay and ruin, "for what by misemployment of the treasure in the late troubles and other ill managements," as well as by extraordinary expenses occasioned by the Plague and Fire, the City's debt had still increased notwithstanding its income having been largely augmented by fines of aldermen and chamber and bridge-house leases, which within the last fifteen years had exceeded £200,000. It was clear that when these extraordinary accessories to the City's income ceased—and they had already begun to decline—the City's debt would increase and would indeed become desperate unless some remedy were found. The committee, therefore, made certain[pg 439]suggestions with the view of cutting down expenses. The City Chronologer,1380in the first place, could be dispensed with altogether. The salary of the City Waits, which had lately been increased, should be reduced to its former amount. Some saving might be made in allowance of stationery in the various offices, in expenses attending Courts of Conservancy, in allowance of boots to City labourers and artificers. The personal expenses of the City's Remembrancer for diet, coach hire, boat hire, etc., should be no longer allowed; and the Chamber should not be called upon to make any disbursement for military purposes beyond the sum of £4,666 13s.4d., for which the City was yearly liable by Act of Parliament. Lastly, neither the court of Aldermen nor the court of Common Council ought to have power to draw upon the Chamber for a sum exceeding £500, except it were in connection with the re-building of the Guildhall and other specified objects. These and other recommendations of the committee, being carefully considered by the court, were for the most part accepted with certain amendments.

Alderman Backwell.

On the other hand there was due to the city's Chamber no less a sum than £77,409 6s.6d.for principal and interest on former loans to the king. This sum Alderman Backwell undertook himself to pay to the City, accepting a transfer of the Treasury[pg 440]Bills in the hands of the City Chamberlain. The Common Council was only too ready to accept the offer.1381Edward Backwell, alderman of Bishopsgate Ward, was one of those city princes whose wealth brought them into close relation with the Crown. A goldsmith by trade, he, like others of his class, took to keeping "running cashes" and transacting generally the business of a banker at his house known as the "Unicorn" in Lombard Street. Pepys mentions him frequently in his Diary. In the days of the Commonwealth he was paymaster of the garrison at Dunkirk, and continued to act as financial agent in all matters connected with that town until it was sold to the French king. His house in Lombard Street having perished in the Great Fire, he was, by the king's special command, accommodated with lodgings in Gresham College, in order that his business relations with the king might not be interrupted pending the re-building of his premises.1382

The rights of the mayor within the precincts of the Temple.

In March, 1669, a riot occurred in the Temple on the occasion of the mayor and aldermen going to dine with the reader of the Inner Temple. The question whether the Temple is situate within the city and liberties or not was then a debateable one, whatever it may be at the present day. The lord mayor of that time (William Turner) evidently thought that it lay within his jurisdiction, and insisted upon being preceded by the city's sword-bearer carrying the sword up. To this the students strongly objected. The story, as told by Pepys, is to the effect that on Wednesday, 3rd March,[pg 441]"my lord mayor being invited this day to dinner at the readers at the Temple, and endeavouring to carry his sword up, the students did pull it down, and forced him to go and stay all the day in a private counsellor's chamber until the reader himself could get the young gentlemen to dinner; and then my lord mayor did retreat out of the Temple by stealth with his sword up. This do make great heat among the students, and my lord mayor did send to the king, and also I hear that Sir Richard Browne did cause the drums to beat for the trained bands; but all is over, only I hear that the students do resolve to try the charter of the city." From a draft report1383of the incident which was probably made for the purpose of being laid before the Council Board,1384we learn that as soon as the civic procession entered the Temple cloisters it was met by a man named Hodges and others coming down the back stairs of the Inner Temple Hall; that Hodges threatened the lord mayor if he would not take down his sword, declaring that the Temple was excepted out of the city's charter, that the sword was not the king's sword, but the lord mayor's, and that "they were as good men as he, and no respect was to be given him there." A struggle then took place for the possession of the sword, in which the sword-bearer was slightly hurt and some of the pearls from the scabbard were lost. The students made a snatch at the "cap of maintenance" worn by the sword-bearer. The marshal's men who were in attendance suffered some rough treatment, and narrowly escaped being[pg 442]put under the pump. The mayor and aldermen in the meanwhile sought refuge in the chambers of Mr. Auditor Phillips, and awaited the return of Sir John Nicholas, who with the recorder and the sheriffs had been despatched to Whitehall to report the matter to the king. As soon as they returned the mayor and aldermen essayed to make their way out of the Temple, but were again opposed by the students, with Hodges at their head. The scene was one of wild excitement and confusion; blows were showered upon the aldermen, and one of the sheriffs was seized by the collar in the frantic attempts of the students to pull down the sword. The mayor and aldermen were called "cuckolds," and their officers "dogs, rogues, rascals and other very bad names." Some of the students are said to have had weapons concealed under their gowns, and to have threatened to draw them. The sheriffs, the recorder and Sir John Nicholas having again been sent to the king, it was intimated to the mayor by some of the benchers, and by Mr. Goodfellow, the Reader, at whose invitation the civic fathers were in the Temple, that he might now leave without any interruption (the "young gentlemen," according to Pepys, had been persuaded to go to dinner), which, after some display of opposition, he was allowed to do. Such is the City's own version of the affair, which concludes with the remark "that the proceedings aforesaid were greatly affrontive and dishonourable to the government of the city," a remark with which most people will be disposed to agree. Nor is it surprising to find that two years later the mayor and aldermen declined a similar invitation from Sir Francis North to attend his "feast" at the[pg 443]Temple, more especially as another disturbance was threatened if the sword should be borne up before his lordship.1385

Secret treaty of Dover, 1 June, 1670.

In July, 1670—at a time when the City could ill afford to part with money—the king sent to borrow £60,000.1386He had recently entered into a secret treaty with France (1 June), whereby he had pledged himself to assist the French king in subjugating Holland, in return for pecuniary support. The City agreed to advance the money, but in order to raise the sum required it became necessary to draw upon the coal dues.1387Much opposition was raised to the loan by the inhabitants,1388so that in November it became necessary for the city Chamberlain to borrow at interest more than £1,000 to complete the loan.1389In addition to the loan by the City Charles obtained considerable supplies from parliament when it met in the autumn. The House had been kept in complete ignorance of the arrangement that had been made with France, and voted the money on the understanding that it would be used in assisting the Dutch against Louis and not Louis against the Dutch.

The Prince of Orange entertained in the city, Dec., 1670.

In order to keep up the illusion Charles treated the Prince of Orange (afterwards William III of England), who was on a visit to this country at the time, with the highest consideration and insisted on the lord mayor giving "hand and place" to his foreign guest[pg 444](contrary to city custom) at an entertainment given by the City in the prince's honour.1390

The Exchequer stops payment, 2 Jan., 1672.

As soon as parliament had voted supplies it was prorogued (11 Dec.), Charles and his "cabal" being determined to have no restraint put upon them in carrying out the terms of the shameful treaty with France. No long time elapsed before they had to face the difficulty of an empty exchequer. It was useless to declare war without funds. Charles was at his wits' end for money and promised high office to any one who should point out a successful way of raising it. Clifford and Ashley, two members of the cabal, put their heads together and hit upon the bold plan of declaring amoratorium, or suspension of payments out of the royal exchequer. For many years past it had been the custom for the goldsmiths of London and others who had been in the habit of keeping the money of private individuals, either on deposit or running account, to lend it to the king, who could afford to pay them a higher rate of interest than they paid to their private customers. The money was paid into the exchequer, the bankers taking assignments of the public revenue for payment of principal and interest, as it came in. Most of this money had already been spent by Charles in paying off the fleet that brought him over, and in carrying on the late war with the Dutch;1391but the bankers and capitalists who had provided the money were content to abide by the[pg 445]king's frequent assurance that he would continue to make good all assignments until their whole debt should be wiped out. We may judge therefore of their surprise and disappointment when they learnt, as they did on the 2nd January, 1672, that the king proposed to suspend all payments out of the public revenue for one whole year!

London bankers brought to bankruptcy.

It is true that he promised to add the interest then due to the capital and to allow six per cent. interest on the whole as some compensation to his creditors for the delay; but this, even if carried into practice, proved unavailing to ward off disaster. The inevitable crash came. Many of the London bankers, and among them Alderman Backwell, who held revenue assignments exceeding a quarter of a million sterling, were made utterly bankrupt. A few of them who had interest at court got wind of the threatened danger and managed to withdraw their money from the exchequer in time, whilst Shaftesbury, one of the prime movers in closing the exchequer, foreseeing the inevitable result, took all of his own money out of his banker's hands and warned his friends to do the same.

Declaration of war with the Dutch, 17 March, 1672.

The exchequer having been in this way made richer by £1,300,000, Charles was prepared to declare war. An attempt to intercept a fleet of Dutch merchantmen before any declaration of war had been made—a piratical act admitting of no possible justification—brought matters to a climax and war was declared (17 March, 1672) by England and France. The 27th March was appointed by royal proclamation to be kept as a solemn fast for the purpose of begging the Almighty's blessing on his majesty's forces, the[pg 446]same prayers being used as had been specially ordained for the late war.1392

Back to Index Next