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.(1100) The citizens affected to see a special interposition of Providence in the new order of affairs and lost no time in preparing a pet.i.tion 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.(1101) No 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,(1102) for 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,(1103) they had no mind that the services of their trained bands or of cavalry 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)

(M557)

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.(1105) The 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)

(M558) (M559)

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 same done accordingly."(1107) The Common Council being in no mood to comply with such request drew up a long pet.i.tion to parliament,(1108) in 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 pet.i.tion 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 a.s.sistance 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.

(M560)

The House taking this pet.i.tion 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 instant."(1109) The citizens thereupon showed their independence by electing Thomas Aleyne.

(M561)

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 munic.i.p.al authorities.(1110)

(M562)

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.(1111) So arbitrary a proceeding was distasteful to the citizens of London as well as to the nation at large.

(M563)

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 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)

(M564)

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)

(M565)

On the 23rd November the Common Council received a letter from Monk, which Whitelock describes as "not relished well by them."(1114) The letter is not mentioned in the minutes of the court held on that day, which are confined to an order for 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 G.o.d might bring them through all their "fears, troubles and darkness unto true rest, peace and settlement."(1115)

(M566)

Whilst matters were yet in a state of suspense the apprentices of the city again took the lead and presented (5 Dec.) a pet.i.tion to the Common Council on the subject of "how the peace of this city may be preserved."

Their pet.i.tion was referred to a committee for consideration,(1116) but 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.(1117) The 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)

(M567)

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 pet.i.tion to the Common Council for a parliament as in 1642 was unfavourably received, and handed back to the pet.i.tioners with a request to them not to print it.(1119) Anxious 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)

(M568)

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 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.(1121) The action of the mayor, the common council and the committee in the matter was much canva.s.sed, 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)

(M569)

On the 22nd a fresh committee was appointed to consult for the peace and safety of the city as well as to consider what answers should be sent to Monk, to the officers at Portsmouth and to Lawson, who was in command of a squadron in the Thames, all of whom were opposed to the army in London and in favour of a parliament.

(M570)

No time was lost; on the following day (23 Dec.) the committee reported to the Common Council recommending, among other things, that six regiments of trained bands should be at once called out and placed under the command of officers, whose commissions should be under the common seal of the city; that commissioners should be appointed to confer with Haslerigg, Morley, Walton and Vice-Admiral Lawson touching the safety of the city and the peace and settlement of the nation, and "in due time" to give an answer to General Monk's letter; and that the commissioners should be authorised to propound the convening of a free parliament according to the late "declaration" of the court. These recommendations being approved, commissioners were there and then appointed, and instructions drawn up for their guidance.(1123)

(M571)

The next day (Sat.u.r.day, 24 Dec.) the Common Council was busy nominating officers of the trained bands. It also ordered the city's chains and posts to be set up in the several precincts, and the gates, portcullises and posterns to be looked to; but the council afterwards changed their minds on this matter, and the order was countermanded before the court rose.(1124)

(M572)

The revival of the city's militia was a welcome sign to the royalists.

"What does the city?" wrote secretary Nicholas from Brussels about this time. "We know they talk of setting up a militia of their own, and that some of them say, as they helped to drive out the father, they will help to bring in the son."(1125) And again, a few days later, "The city should be made to understand how much their interests are concerned to suppress the illegal and boundless authority usurped by the army which cannot be done but by force, and by no force so well as that of the city and counties adjacent; for if the army shall ... get again to be absolute masters in London, no citizen or inhabitant there will be secure of anything they possess longer than it pleases the soldiery, which will soon make the citizens their absolute slaves." Once more, "The city cannot be secure," he repeats, "if the army continue their quarter and soldiers still among them, nor can any parliament be free whilst awed by an army.... Until it [the army] shall be made to obey orders from a power superior to it, there can be no security or peace, either in city or country."(1126)

(M573)

The spirit that had moved Haslerigg, Morley, Walton and Lawson at length moved the rank and file of the army in London. The soldiers placed themselves at the command of their cashiered officers. On the 24th December they marched to Lenthall's house in Chancery Lane, expressed their sorrow for the past, and promised to stand by parliament for the future. On the 26th the Rump was for the second time restored to power.(1127)

(M574) (M575)

The citizens had obtained their desire to have once more a parliament, but the parliament they got was far from being the free parliament they had been looking for. They wished to take an early opportunity-lest their action should be misinterpreted-to inform the Rump that the measures they had taken for "settling" the trained bands had been taken before "their honors came together this last time." They desired to explain the reasons for undertaking the work, and to show that in so doing the city had only acted within its rights. A pet.i.tion was accordingly drawn up on the 28th December, setting forth that disorders in the city had increased "by the exorbitant actings of many of those men who at first being appointed by parliament a Committee of Militia within the city of London for their security and safety, have since their last interruption acted by a commission under the Great Seal of England against the same parliament,"

and that for the prevention of any disorder that might arise they had fallen back upon their ancient rights and usages, and had put themselves in a posture of defence, not for the purpose of acting against parliament, but for it. Whilst offering these explanations the City was anxious that parliament would receive into its House all such members as were still alive and fill up the places of all who were dead. On the 29th the Common Council resolved that this pet.i.tion should not be laid before the House until further order.(1128) The commissioners appointed by the City to confer with Haslerigg, Morley and Walton at Portsmouth had returned, and their report made to the Common Council on that day may have given rise to the postponement.

(M576)

Monk's letter to the City, sent in November, had all this time remained unanswered. At last (29 Dec.) a reply was drawn up, and, after receiving the approval of the Common Council, was despatched to the general by the hands of the City Swordbearer.(1129)

(M577)

On the last day of the year a deputation from the House, including Lenthall, Haslerigg, Morley and others, waited upon the Court of Aldermen to confer with them about the safety of the city. The erection of the city posts and chains, which apparently had been proceeded with, and the calling out of the trained bands troubled parliament. By the 2nd January Haslerigg was able to satisfy parliament on the first head. It was contrary (he said) to the mind of the lord mayor, aldermen and Common Council to have any posts or chains set up, and those that were set up should be taken down.(1130) Two days later (4 Jan.) the Common Council ordered the settlement of the trained bands to be proceeded with, and nominated a committee to lay before parliament the grounds and reasons for so doing, the committee being instructed to again press for a full and free parliament.(1131) The att.i.tude of the City towards the restored Rump was keenly watched by royalists abroad. "Let me know certainly the Londoners' intentions about the Rump," wrote secretary Nicholas, "and settling their own militia, and also the proceedings of Monk and Lambert, and how each of them approves the restoring of the Rump."(1132)

(M578)

The City's anxiety for a return of a full and free parliament in the place of the Rump was occasioned in some degree by the fact that in the existing House they had but a single representative, viz., Alderman Atkin, and without due representation the citizens refused to be subjected to taxation. "They were resolved," Pepys notes in his diary (13 Jan.), "to make no more applications to the parliament, nor to pay any money, unless the secluded members be brought in or a free parliament chosen."

(M579) (M580)

In the meantime Lambert, who had set out for the north of England with the intention of stopping Monk's pa.s.sage from Scotland, had been recalled, and by the middle of January Monk and his army were well on their way to London. On the 6th January he had despatched a letter(1133) to the Common Council by the hands of the City Swordbearer, who having handed to the general the city's late missive, was about to return.(1134) As Monk approached London Alderman Fowke and two other commissioners were ordered (19 Jan.) to go out to meet him and thank him for his second letter, and for his cheerful concurrence with the declaration of the Common Council, and to desire the continuance of a good understanding between his excellency and the court for the settlement of the nation and peace of the city. By the 30th they had returned and were able to report to the Common Council the result of their interview.(1135) The nature of their report has not been recorded.

(M581) (M582)

In order to avoid as much as possible the appearance of entering London as a conqueror, Monk brought with him no more than 5,000 men, a force considerably less than that which was quartered in London and Westminster.

Having reached St. Albans, he wrote to the Speaker asking that five of the regiments in the capital might be removed to a distance before his arrival lest his troops should become disaffected by intercourse with those who had been so recently engaged in rebellion. The House acquiesced and gave orders to that effect, but the soldiers refused to leave their quarters, swearing that they would not go without their money, and threatening if their pay was not received to "go where they might have it, and that was the city."(1136) A sum of money having been hastily raised to satisfy their demands, they consented to march out, and the next morning (3 Feb.) Monk entered at the head of his force-"in very good plight and stout officers"-and proceeded to the quarters a.s.signed to him at Whitehall recently occupied by Bradshaw.(1137)

(M583)

Monk was anxious to feel the pulse of the City before committing himself to any definite policy. He had not long to wait before he was a.s.sured of its favour. On the 8th February the Common Council agreed to send a deputation to the general to congratulate him upon his coming to London and to thank him for his courtesy to the City's commissioners recently despatched to him, as well as to express a hope that the good understanding which had prevailed between his excellency and the City might continue.(1138)

(M584)