(M458)

Early in November parliament was again pressed for money and was forced to apply to the City for a further loan of 4,000 to enable it to proceed with the "Treaty." It at the same time complained of the inadequate guard provided by the City for the protection of the Houses. The guard, it was said, consisted of hired men, and not citizens, who often quitted their posts when on duty. The subject led to an acrimonious debate in the Common Council. As soon as Alderman Gibbs, who was a member of the Militia Committee, began to suggest a remedy for the evil, he was interrupted by Philip Chetwyn, whose plain speaking had once before created trouble, and who now boldly charged the alderman and others with telling "many long stories to put the city in fear without cause." He declared that at a former council the alderman had acted in a similar way, "pretending that the city was in great danger of having their throats cut whereas there was no such cause." This speech brought other members of the council on their legs in defence of the alderman, who declared that this was not the first time that Chetwyn had done him wrong, and asked the court to right him.

What he had said at a former council about the danger the city was in was nothing more than what the Militia Committee had authorised him to say, and this statement was corroborated by other members of the committee then present. Certain questions were thereupon put to the vote, when it was decided (1) that Chetwyn had done the alderman a wrong by his speech, (2) that what the alderman had spoken at a former council was warranted by the Militia Committee, and (3) that the action by the committee on that occasion had been for the safety of the city, which was then in danger.(901) On the 27th November the Militia Committee reported to the council the steps taken to satisfy parliament that better protection would be afforded to the Houses in the future.(902)

(M459)

Before the end of November the army, now at Windsor, had entirely lost patience both with king and parliament, and on the last day of the month issued a declaration to the effect that it was about to appeal "unto the extraordinary judgment of G.o.d and good people." The existing parliament must be dissolved to give place to a succession of reformed parliaments.

Those members who agreed with the army were invited to leave the House and join the army to form a kind of provisional government until elections for a new parliament could take place, when the army would willingly disband.

(M460)

That same night (30 Nov.) whilst the mayor was going the rounds inspecting the city watches a letter was put into his hands by a trumpeter of Fairfax, addressed to the lord mayor, aldermen and common council.(903) Strictly speaking, the mayor had no right to open a letter thus addressed.

Reynardson, however, who had not long been in the mayoralty chair, and who afterwards displayed strong royalist proclivities, thought otherwise and broke the seal; a proceeding which received the approval of the Common Council specially summoned for the next day (1 Dec.)(904) The letter announced the general's intention of quartering his army on London, and demanded a sum of 40,000 out of the arrears of a.s.sessment to be paid to the soldiers by the following night.(905)

(M461)

The council at once decided to lay the letter before both Houses, and in the meantime took steps for the immediate payment of an instalment of 10,000 to Fairfax, to whom a deputation was despatched to a.s.sure him that the City would do its utmost to execute his commands.(906) Both Houses a.s.sented to Fairfax being provided with the money demanded, the Commons giving the City liberty to communicate direct with the general by committee or letter as they should think fit.(907)

(M462)

In spite of a request by the Commons that he would keep at a distance, lest his approach should involve danger, Fairfax entered London with his troops on Sat.u.r.day, the 2nd December, and took up his quarters at Whitehall. On Wednesday, the 6th-the day on which Colonel Pride administered his famous "purge" to the House of Commons-a letter from the general was read in the Common Council in which he desired that 3,800 beds might be sent to Whitehall by ten o'clock the next morning for the use of the soldiers, and also sufficient furniture for lodging. The beds and furniture were to be afterwards returned.(908)

(M463)

The Common Council immediately nominated a committee to go to Fairfax and to beg him to excuse the City furnishing the beds as desired. The committee was further instructed to inform his lordship that if he would obtain a warrant from the Committee of the Army to the Treasurers at War for the payment of 10,000, the City would be prepared to pay over the whole sum of 40,000 (which ought to have been already paid over) by the next day (7 Dec). There was one other matter. A rumour had reached the city that it was intended to arrest Major-General Browne, who at the time was serving as one of the sheriffs of London, and the committee were directed to point out to his excellency the "inconveniences" likely to arise from such a proceeding.(909)

(M464)

Fairfax paid little regard to what might or might not be convenient for the City, and on the 12th Browne was arrested, together with Waller, Ma.s.sey and others, on the charge of having joined in an invitation to the Scots to invade England, although it was difficult to find evidence against them. The Court of Aldermen immediately interested themselves in endeavouring to obtain Browne's release, guaranteeing to Fairfax, if he would set the sheriff free, to produce him whenever required, and vouching for his "civil and quiet deportment" in the city.(910)

(M465)

Finding that the money (40,000) which he had ordered the City to furnish was not forthcoming on the day appointed, Fairfax notified the Common Council by letter (8 Dec.) that he had given orders for seizing the treasury at Goldsmiths' Hall and Weavers' Hall. The sum of 27,400 was accordingly seized at the latter Hall; and this sum Fairfax intended to keep until the 40,000 should be paid. When that was done he would withdraw his troops, and not before. On learning this the Common Council sent a deputation to inform his excellency that, if certain concessions were made, the City itself would be responsible for repayment of the money seized, and that arrears should be got in as speedily as possible. At the same time Fairfax was asked to withdraw his troops from the city.(911)

(M466)

To these proposals Fairfax replied by letter the same day,(912) that if the City would cause all the money charged on the City for the army up to the 25th March next ensuing, and still in arrear, to be brought in within fourteen days, he would repay the money taken from Weavers' Hall and would withdraw his troops. Their presence in the city he affected to conceive would facilitate the collection of the money. On the receipt of this letter the civic authorities renewed their exertions to hasten the getting in of a.s.sessments.(913)

(M467)

It was thought that a saving might be effected by the discontinuance of the trained bands in their duty of guarding the city. They were known to be very remiss in their duties, piling their arms and leaving them in charge of some few of their number whilst the others went away and amused themselves. They had thus become a laughing-stock to the better disciplined soldiers of the army, and brought discredit on the city. The question was eventually left to the discretion of the Militia Committee to continue the guards or not as it might think fit.(914)

(M468)

In spite, however, of every effort the money demanded by Fairfax was not forthcoming, and the maintenance of his troops quartered in the city became an intolerable burden. On Sat.u.r.day, the 6th January, 1649, a fortnight's pay, or, 19,000, was due to the soldiers, and unless the money was found within four days Fairfax threatened to quarter his whole army upon the city. A house-to-house visitation for getting in arrears was organised. A short extension of time for payment to the army was asked for and obtained. Ministers were charged to exhort their parishioners on the intervening Sunday to pay up their arrears. The money was eventually advanced by the Treasurers at War on the personal security of the aldermen and wealthier inhabitants of each ward.(915)

(M469)

The feeling of detestation for the army and of inclination towards the king had in the meanwhile been growing stronger in the city day by day. A royalist lord mayor, in the person of Abraham Reynardson, had recently been elected, and it was feared by parliament-or the Rump, as it came to be called-that the same royalist proclivities would show themselves in the elections to the Common Council which were to take place on St. Thomas's day (21 Dec.). An ordinance was accordingly pa.s.sed on the 18th against the election of "malignants" to the city council. This ordinance was amended two days later (20 Dec.) in such a way as to exclude every citizen who had subscribed to an engagement for a personal treaty with the king.(916) It was in vain that representation was made to parliament of the difficulty of getting a council together under such a restriction. The House was inflexible and ordered the election to be at once proceeded with. The election accordingly took place, but when the members came to take their seats the mayor forbade them unless they were prepared to take the oath of allegiance, which had not yet been abolished. This action on the part of Reynardson being reported to the House, it directed him (5 Jan., 1649) to forthwith summon the Common Council together, but to suspend the taking of oaths until further order.(917) It at the same time gave orders for the city chains to be removed and stored in the Leadenhall, the easier to put down any disturbance that might arise in consequence of the recent elections.(918) The effect of the "purge" thus administered to the city's parliament was soon to be seen.

(M470)

On the 13th January, by which day a High Court of Justice had been especially established for the king's trial and all royalists had been banished the city by order of Fairfax,(919) the new Common Council began to a.s.sert itself. The court had been summoned to meet at eight o'clock in the morning (not an unusually early hour in those days), but the mayor did not put in an appearance until eleven, and then was only accompanied by two aldermen, the number necessary to form a court. It was soon seen that there was something wrong. The mayor refused to acknowledge the authority of the council or to allow the minutes of the last court to be read in accordance with custom. The council took but little notice of this and pa.s.sed on to the next business. This was a pet.i.tion to the House of Commons, drawn up and approved by a committee,(920) asking the House to execute justice impartially and vigorously "upon all the grand and capital authors, contrivers of and actors in the late wars against parliament and kingdom, from the highest to the lowest," and to take steps, as the supreme power of the nation, for the preservation of peace and the recovery of trade and credit.(921) Such a pet.i.tion was so diametrically opposed to the sentiments of the royalist lord mayor and his brother aldermen that they got up and left the court rather than allow the pet.i.tion to be sanctioned by their presence. Strictly speaking there was no longer any court. Nevertheless an attempt was made to get the Common Sergeant and then the Town Clerk(922) to put the question, but they refused to do so in the absence of the mayor and aldermen, and they too got up and left the council chamber. Thus left to themselves the members of the court voted Colonel Owen Rowe into the chair. The pet.i.tion was then three times read, and after due deliberation unanimously agreed to, twenty members of the council being nominated to carry it up to the House, together with a narrative of the proceedings that had taken place that day in court.(923)

(M471)

In submitting the pet.i.tion to the Commons on the 15th January, Colonel Robert Tichborne, a member of the council, explained the reason why the pet.i.tion varied in t.i.tle from other pet.i.tions from the city, purporting, as it did, to come from the commons of the city alone, and not from the mayor, aldermen and commons, and with the pet.i.tion presented a narrative of the proceedings that had taken place in the council two days before.(924) The House readily accepted the explanation (as was only to be expected), and declared that the pet.i.tion and narrative might and should of right be entered on the records of the Common Council. "As to the Common Council of the city of London, and so owned by this House"-the Speaker went on to say-"they take notice of the extraordinary affections long since and often expressed by many particular persons, if not by every member of your present body, especially of that true and publick principle which carried you on to the framing of this pet.i.tion, and to your going through with it, notwithstanding the opposition and withdrawing of your mayor and aldermen." The Speaker a.s.sured the deputation that the House fully approved of the members continuing to sit as a Common Council in the absence or dissent of the mayor or aldermen, or both together, and concluded by saying that both the pet.i.tion and narrative would receive speedy consideration.(925)

(M472)

On the 23rd January two officers from the army waited upon the Court of Aldermen and informed the members that the sum of 4,000 out of the 19,000 formerly demanded for the army was still in arrear. The money was in the hands of the Treasurers at War, but they refused to pay it over until they had received their security from the wards according to agreement. Fairfax pressed for an immediate payment, otherwise he would be under the necessity of quartering troops of horse and foot upon those wards which had failed to give the promised security for arrears of a.s.sessments. Rather than this should happen the aldermen themselves engaged to be security to the treasurers for payment of the money.(926)

(M473)

In the meanwhile the special tribunal established for the trial of the king had commenced its work. At its head sat John Bradshaw, a sergeant-at-law and sometime a judge of the sheriffs' court of the Wood Street compter in the city.(927) Five aldermen were placed on the commission, viz., Isaac Pennington, Thomas Andrews, Thomas Atkins, Rowland Wilson and John Fowke;(928) but only the first two named took any active part in the trial, and Wilson absolutely declined to serve. Not one of them affixed his signature to the king's death-warrant. Among the rest of the commissioners were, however, two citizens of repute, viz., Robert Tichborne, afterwards an alderman,(929) and Owen Rowe, both of whom took an active part in the trial and both signed the warrant for the king's execution. When put upon his trial in October, 1660, for the part he now took, Tichborne pleaded that what he had done was through ignorance, and that had he known more he would sooner have entered a "red hot oven" than the room in which the warrant was signed.(930) His penitence saved his life, and he, like Pennington, spent the remainder of his days in confinement.

The proceedings of the trial were unreasonably short and sharp. On Friday, the 19th January, Charles was brought from Windsor to London. On the following day he made his first appearance before his judges. On that day week-Sat.u.r.day, the 27th-sentence was p.r.o.nounced, and three days later (30 Jan.) it was carried out before the king's own banquetting-house at Whitehall.

CHAPTER XXVI.

(M474)

Within a week of the king's execution the Commons, confident in their own strength and that of the army, voted the abolition of king and house of lords, and declared England to be a Commonwealth.(931) They next proceeded (14 Feb.) to place the executive power in the hands of a Council of State of forty-one members, most of whom were also members of their own body, with Bradshaw as president. Cromwell, Fairfax and Skippon were members of the council, as also were two aldermen of the city, viz., Pennington and Wilson.(932) The post of Secretary for Foreign Languages was offered to a kinsman of Bradshaw, and one of whom the city of London is justly proud, to wit, John Milton.

(M475)

The revolution which was taking place in the government of the kingdom found its counterpart in the munic.i.p.al government of the City, where the mayor, aldermen and commons bore close a.n.a.logy to the king, lords and commons of the realm. The City was but the kingdom in miniature, the kingdom was but the City writ large. No sooner was the house of lords abolished, and with it the right of the lords to veto the Acts of the commons, than the Court of Aldermen was deprived of a similar right over the proceedings of the Common Council.

(M476)

Until the year 1645 the right of the mayor and aldermen to veto an ordinance made by the commons in Common Council a.s.sembled appears never to have been disputed, but on the 24th January of that year, when fresh by-laws were under the consideration of the court, and the mayor and aldermen claimed this privilege as a matter of right, objection was raised, and the question was referred to a committee.(933) No settlement of the matter appears to have been arrived at until matters were brought to a crisis by the action of the mayor and aldermen on the 13th January, 1649, when, as we saw at the close of the last chapter, they got up and left the court.

(M477)

In view of similar action being taken by the mayor and aldermen in future, it was enacted by parliament (28 Feb.),(934) that all things proposed in Common Council should thenceforth be fairly debated and determined in and by the same council as the major part of the members present should desire or think fit; "and that in every vote which shall pa.s.se and in the other proceedings of the said councell neither the lord maior nor aldermen, joynte or separate, shall have any negative or distinctive voice or vote otherwise than with and amonge and as parte of the rest of the members of the said councell, and in the same manner as the other members have; and that the absence or withdraweinge of the lord maior or aldermen from the said councell shall not stopp or prejudice the proceedings of the said councell; and that every Common Councell which shall be held in the city of London shall sitt and continue soe longe as the major parte of the saide councell shall thinke fitte, and shall not be dissolved or adjourned but by and accordinge to the order or consent of the major parte of the same councell." It was further enacted that "in all times to come the lord maior ... soe often and att such time as any tenn or more of the Common Councell men doe by wryting under theire hands request or desire him thereunto, shall summon, a.s.semble and hold a Common Councell. And if at any tyme beinge soe requested or desired hee shall faile therein, then the tenn persons or more makeinge such request or desire shall have power, and are hereby authorized, by wrytinge under theire hands, to summon or cause to be summoned to the said councell the members belonginge thereunto in as ample manner as the lord maior himself usually heretofore hath done."

(M478)

Pursuant to this enactment the mayor received a written request from fifteen members of the council for a court to meet at three o'clock of the afternoon of the 14th June, 1650. The court a.s.sembled, but neither mayor nor any alderman appeared until a message was sent to the Court of Aldermen then sitting requesting their attendance in the Common Council.(935) After prayers(936) his lordship declared that he had not summoned the court inasmuch as the members who came to him on the matter had refused to acquaint him with the reasons for which it was to be summoned, and he moved that the subscribers to the request for a court should state why the court was summoned before any other business was taken in hand. This proposal met with great opposition, and a debate arose on the question whether the mayor's motion should take precedence of the reading of the minutes of the last court or not, and lasted until nine o'clock at night. At length the mayor's motion was negatived and the minutes of the last court were read. It then became known that the reason for the court being summoned was to hear a committee's report read. But the mayor at this point declared himself tired with sitting so long and rose to go, promising to call a court the next morning or any time most convenient. Upon certain members insisting upon the report being read then and there, his lordship and all the aldermen except one left the court.

Nevertheless the report was read, and the members themselves fixed a day for another court for taking it into consideration unless the mayor himself should summon one in the meantime. His lordship was informed of this resolution by a deputation sent for the purpose.(937)

(M479)