(M838) (M839)
By this time James, who had been foiled in his first attempt to reach the coast, and had returned to London, had, with the connivance of the Prince of Orange, been more successful in a second attempt, and had crossed over to France, where he spent the remainder of his days. The country was therefore left without king, parliament or legal system for its government. In London the Corporation of the city was almost the only authority that remained unaffected by the king"s abdication; and it is significant as well of its power as of the respect which that body commanded that when William was endeavouring to form an authoritative a.s.sembly by summoning all the members who had ever sat in parliament under Charles II,(1641) he likewise desired that the lord mayor of the city, the entire Court of Aldermen and fifty representatives of the Common Council should attend.(1642) This a.s.sembly met on the 26th December, and after due consultation decided to adopt the same procedure as was adopted in 1660 before the return of Charles II. As there was no king there could be no writs for a parliament, but William could call a Convention, which would be a parliament in everything but name. A Convention was accordingly summoned to meet on the 22nd January, 1689. The election of the city members to serve in the convention was ordered to take place on Wednesday the 9th January,(1643) when the choice of the citizens fell upon their former well-tried representatives, Sir Patience Ward, Sir Robert Clayton, Pilkington (who had regained his liberty in August, 1686)(1644) and Love.
(M840)
In the meantime (8 Jan.) the prince wrote to the civic authorities setting forth the inadequacy of the revenue to supply three pressing wants. These were the maintenance of the navy, the partial disbandment of the army and the furnishing of a force for the speedy relief of the Protestants in Ireland. He desired the City, therefore, to advance him such a sum as could be "conveniently spared."(1645) The City was still to keep up its character as the purse of the nation. The Common Council, having heard the letter read, at once resolved to a.s.sist the prince to the utmost of their power. A committee was appointed to settle with the revenue officers the nature of the security, and orders were given for precepts to be sent to the aldermen to raise subscriptions in the various wards.(1646) Sir Peter Rich, who had recently been re-instated in the office of city chamberlain from which he had been ousted, was instructed to pay into the exchequer all money received on account of the loan, and to strike tallies for the same in his own name in trust for the use of the several lenders. Ten days later (18 Jan.) the committee reported the steps taken for the security of repayment of the money already paid into the exchequer, and the council recommended that similar steps should be taken with respect to those sums yet to be paid in. It was at the same time unanimously agreed to ask the Prince to dinner in the city, and the recorder, the sheriffs and the common sergeant were instructed to wait on his highness and learn his pleasure.(1647)
(M841)
On the 22nd January the Convention met. On the 28th the Commons declared the throne to be vacant, and on the 6th February a vote to similar effect was pa.s.sed by the Lords. Some over-zealous inhabitants of the city had in the meanwhile prepared a pet.i.tion, which they purposed presenting to the House of Lords, praying that the crown might be offered to the Prince of Orange and his consort. The prince ordered the lord mayor to put a stop to such proceedings, and a precept (200 copies of which were ordered to be printed) was accordingly issued to this effect.(1648)
(M842)
A Declaration of Rights was drawn up condemning the unconst.i.tutional acts of James II, and offering to settle the crown on William and Mary and their children, with remainders over. On the 13th February this offer was accepted,(1649) and the prince and princess were forthwith proclaimed king and queen with the usual ceremony. The next day the Common Council unanimously agreed to wait upon their majesties and congratulate them upon their accession to the throne.(1650)
(M843)
At the coronation banquet of the king and queen, which took place on the 11th April, the masters of the twelve princ.i.p.al livery companies were for the first time nominated by the Court of Aldermen to join with the lord mayor in a.s.sisting the chief butler,(1651) and they continued to be so nominated on like occasions up to the coronation of George IV, when in consequence of a change of masters taking place between the time of their nomination and the day of the coronation, the new masters presented a pet.i.tion to the Court of Claims praying to have their names inserted in the place of the former masters whose term of office had expired. This pet.i.tion was opposed by the Remembrancer, on behalf of the City, on the ground that the masters of the livery companies enjoyed no peculiar right to serve on such occasions, and after some deliberation the commissioners declined to interfere, inasmuch as the power of nominating the twelve citizens rested absolutely with the Court of Aldermen.(1652) The lord mayor and swordbearer were resplendent at the coronation ceremony in new crimson and damask gowns, whilst the city"s plate-again lent for the occasion-added l.u.s.tre to the banquet.(1653)
CHAPTER x.x.xII.
(M844)
The Convention having been converted by a formal Act into a true parliament (23 Feb.),(1654) one of the first motions put to the House was that a special committee should be appointed to consider the violations of the liberties and franchises of all the corporations of the kingdom, "and particularly of the city of London." The motion was lost by a majority of 24.(1655) The House nevertheless resolved to bring in a Bill for repealing the Corporation Act, and ten days later (5 March) the Grand Committee of Grievances reported to the House its opinion (1) that the rights of the city of London in the election of sheriffs in the year 1682 were invaded and that such invasion was illegal and a grievance, and (2) that the judgment given upon the _Quo Warranto_ against the city was illegal and a grievance. The committee"s opinion on these two points (among others) was endorsed by the House, and on the 16th March it ordered a Bill to be brought in to restore all corporations to the state and condition they were in on the 29th May, 1660, and to confirm the liberties and franchises which at that time they respectively held and enjoyed.(1656)
(M845)
A special committee appointed (5 March) to investigate the nature of the city"s grievances, and to discover who were the authors and advisers of them, presented, on the 29th May, a long report to the House,(1657) giving the whole story of the election of sheriffs in June, 1682, and of Pritchard"s election to the mayoralty in the following September; of the fines that had been imposed on Pilkington, Shute, Beth.e.l.l, Cornish and others for so-called riots whilst engaged in a.s.serting the rights of the citizens; of Papillon having been cast in damages to the amount of 10,000 at the suit of Pritchard, and of other matters which led up to the proceedings under the _Quo Warranto_, when, as the committee had discovered, two of the justices of the King"s Bench-Pemberton and Dolben-were removed from the court because their opinion was found to be in favour of the city. The committee refer to the City"s Records in support of the claim of the lord mayor to elect one of the sheriffs, and say "that from the twenty-first of Edward the IIId unto the year 1641 the way of making sheriffs was that the lord mayor named one to be sheriff and presented him to the Common Hall, who did confirm him, and chose another to act with him; except in three or four years within that time, when the Common Hall chose both the sheriffs, the persons drank to in those years by the lord mayor having refused to hold and paid their fines." They capitulated to the House the various occasions on which the mayor exercised his prerogative unchallenged, and those when the Common Hall refused to confirm the mayor"s nomination, down to 1682, when matters were brought to a crisis by Sir John Moore claiming to have _elected_ Dudley North by drinking to him according to custom; and in conclusion they reported their opinion to be that Sir John Moore and Dudley North were among the "authors of the invasion made upon the rights of the city of London in the election of sheriffs for the said city in the year 1682."
(M846)
In the meantime the civic authorities themselves had not been idle. The Common Council had already (1 March) appointed a committee to take steps for obtaining a reversal of the judgment on the _Quo Warranto_ with the a.s.sistance of the recorder and the city"s representatives in parliament.
Before the end of May a draft Bill had been prepared for the purpose and been submitted to the court for approval.(1658)
(M847)
There was another matter pressing very heavily upon the City just now, and one which later on would also claim the attention of parliament, and that was the relationship of the civic authorities to the city orphans. By the custom of London the mayor and aldermen were the recognised guardians of all citizens" orphans, and as such took charge of their property until they came of age or married. A Court of Orphans was established, with the common sergeant as its chief officer, which exercised the same jurisdiction over the bodies and goods of orphans in the city that the Court of Chancery exercised outside. In course of time the fund paid into this court became very considerable, and in order to prevent it lying idle and thus deprive the orphans of interest that might accrue on their estate, the court lent large sums to the Crown on the security of exchequer bills. Could any guardian or trustee have acted more honestly or with greater prudence? They had not reckoned, however, upon a king being on the throne who should be sufficiently dishonest to stop all payments out of the exchequer in discharge of princ.i.p.al and interest of past loans.
This is what Charles II did, as we have seen, in 1672; and his action not only ruined many bankers and merchants of the city, but inflicted great hardship upon the city"s fatherless children. The City"s revenue at the time of William"s accession was little more than sufficient to meet the necessary expenses of the munic.i.p.ality, to say nothing of repaying the orphans their confiscated estates. This fact was recognised by the orphans themselves, who saw no other hope but to apply to parliament for a.s.sistance with the aid of the Common Council.
(M848)
To this end "a large number" of orphans of the city presented a pet.i.tion to the court on the 1st March.(1659) Their fortunes (they said) had been paid into the Chamber of London according to the custom of the city, and they were now left dest.i.tute of support and reduced to great hardships and extremities, very many of them having their whole portions in the Chamber.
They prayed the court, therefore, to appoint a committee to consider the whole matter with the view of approaching parliament with some recommendation. To this the court readily gave its consent, and a committee was then and there nominated.
(M849)
A week later (8 March) this committee made a report to the council.(1660) They had found upon investigation that the debt owing by the Chamber was very great, being upwards of 500,000 due on princ.i.p.al money to orphans and nearly 100,000 more due to others, besides "finding money" and interest. The committee were of opinion that before any application was made to parliament the City should first do what it could on its own account for the relief of the orphans. The City"s lands of inheritance were estimated as bringing in about 4,000 a year, subject to a charge of 500 or 600 for charitable uses, and the committee recommended that lands to the value of 3,000 a year rental should be sold. By this means it was thought that 70,000 or thereabouts would be raised, and the sum being devoted to the relief of the orphans would be "a good introduction to request a further a.s.sistance from the parliament." The charges of munic.i.p.al government must be met with the residue of the "casual profits"
of the Chamber. If parliament (the report went on to say) would be pleased to a.s.sist by granting a duty on coals and allowing the City to tax hackney coachmen at 5_s._ a head, the whole debt, or at least the princ.i.p.al, might be liquidated. A Bill which the committee had prepared for presentation to parliament for this purpose was then read and referred to the town clerk and the city solicitor, as well as to the attorney and the solicitor-general for their opinions.
(M850)
The king"s intimation to the House (1 March) that he was prepared, with its a.s.sent, to abolish the odious Hearth Tax was received with universal joy. The Commons immediately voted an address of thanks, and pa.s.sed a formal resolution to stand by the king with their lives and fortunes in supporting his alliances abroad, in the reduction of Ireland, and the defence of the Protestant religion,(1661) whilst the Common Council of the city resolved to present a humble address of thanks to his majesty for the welcome relief from a tax that had been from its commencement obnoxious.
The court at the same time resolved to return its thanks to both Houses of Parliament for their resolution to stand by the king.(1662) The Commons, in acknowledging the address, represented to the deputation by the mouth of the Speaker that they had taken notice of the courage and constancy displayed by the City in the late revolution, and more especially its action in advancing so large a sum of money to his majesty at so critical a time. The City"s care for the public would never fail to receive the like return from the Commons.(1663)
(M851)
On Sunday the 17th March a special Court of Aldermen sat. The lord mayor, Sir John Chapman, had died at ten o"clock that morning, and it became necessary to take steps for the election of a mayor to serve for the remainder of the mayoralty year, and to secure, in the meantime, the peace of the city. Three aldermen were despatched, accompanied by the town clerk, to inform the king of the state of affairs, and to a.s.sure him that care would be taken to prevent disorder until a new mayor should be elected. To secure this latter object a precept was at once issued by the court for a double watch to be kept until further orders, whilst another precept was issued for a Common Hall to meet on the following Wednesday (20 March) for the election of a new mayor.(1664)
(M852)
When the Common Hall met the choice of the citizens fell upon their old friend and champion, Pilkington, and Thomas Stampe; but a poll was demanded by the supporters of two other candidates, viz., Sir John Moore-who had already served (1681-2) and in whose mayoralty there had been such a fight over the election of sheriffs-and Jonathan Raymond. It is said that the Tory party in the city put up Moore for re-election by way of showing their disgust at a recent resolution pa.s.sed by the House of Commons to the effect that Moore had been a betrayer of the liberties of the City during his mayoralty.(1665) But however that may be (and no record of such a resolution appears in the Journal of the House), the result of the poll placed Stampe and Pilkington-with 1975 and 1973 votes respectively-far ahead of either of the other candidates. Moore, indeed, was at the bottom of the poll with only 780 votes, whilst Raymond only polled 930. Stampe and Pilkington having been returned to the Court of Aldermen for them to select one, according to the custom, they chose Pilkington, and he was accordingly admitted and sworn mayor for the remainder of the year, being presented to the Governor of the Tower by order of the king instead of before the barons of the exchequer.(1666) A few weeks later (10 April) he received the honour of knighthood.(1667)
(M853)
At Midsummer (1689) a difficulty again arose with the election of sheriffs for the ensuing year. The Common Hall elected Christopher Lethieullier, alderman and dyer, and John Houblon, grocer,(1668) but these preferring to pay a fine to serving, the Common Hall refused to elect others in their place. The Court of Aldermen, finding themselves in a fix, sent for the attorney-general to peruse the City"s Records and to give his advice in the matter. Lethieullier had determined to cut all connection with the Corporation, and had paid another fine to be relieved of the aldermanry of the ward of Coleman Street. Nevertheless, by the 10th September both he and Houblon had been persuaded to change their minds, and professed themselves ready, if the Court of Aldermen so willed, to take upon themselves the office of sheriffs.(1669)
(M854)
The wheel of fortune had taken a sudden turn. Those who had suffered during the last two reigns for vindicating their liberties and upholding the reformed religion, found themselves again in favour. Papillon and Beth.e.l.l, who had sought safety in Holland, returned to England, and the former was appointed a commissioner for victualling the navy.(1670) In June the attainder of Cornish was reversed by Act of Parliament,(1671) and in October, Ralph Box, who had refused to allow himself to be forced into the shrievalty in 1682 against the wish of the citizens, had the honour, as master of the Grocers" Company, of conferring the freedom of the company upon the king, who, in his turn, created Box a knight.(1672)
(M855)
North, on the other hand, was subjected to a severe cross-examination before a committee popularly called the "murder committee," and narrowly escaped a criminal trial for having systematically packed juries during his shrievalty. His statement that he had never troubled himself about the political opinions of those he had placed on the panel, but had only taken care to have good and substantial citizens, was with difficulty accepted.(1673) Broom, who had been deprived of his coronership for arresting North and Pritchard, the royalist mayor, was re-instated in January, 1690.(1674)
(M856)
William had achieved the crown of England without bloodshed. In Ireland, as well as in Scotland, he had to fight for his crown. The news that James had landed in Ireland (12 March) created no small excitement in the city.
Volunteers were called for, and were readily found. The trained bands were augmented and new officers appointed.(1675) When it was found that James was marching to the north of Ireland, where the citizens of London held a large interest, the excitement was increased. On the 18th April he appeared before the walls of Londonderry, expecting the city to immediately surrender. Thanks to the strength of those walls, repaired and fortified by the care and at the charges of the citizens of London,(1676) and still more to the stout hearts behind them, the town was able to stand a long and dreary siege, with all its attendant horrors of slaughter and starvation, and at last, after heroic resistance and patient suffering for 105 days, to come off victorious. There is one name more especially honoured in connection with the famous siege, that of George Walker, who, although a clergyman and advanced in years, inspired the besieged with so much energy and courage that from first to last there was no thought of surrender. Attempts were made to win over the garrison by intrigue, and among the devices set on foot for establishing communication between besiegers and the besieged was that of placing a letter in an empty sh.e.l.l and firing the latter into the town.(1677) When Walker made his appearance in England he was graciously received by the king, who made him a present of 5,000 and promised to have a care for the rest of the garrison.(1678) The king afterwards desired Walker to furnish a list of the officers who had displayed such determined courage during the siege and blockade.(1679)
(M857)
Whilst Londonderry was thus besieged a discovery had been made by means of intercepted letters of further designs which James hoped to carry out with the a.s.sistance of the French king. On the 19th June Sir George Treby, who was both the city"s recorder and the king"s attorney-general, laid before the Common Council at his majesty"s request certain letters which had been seized on board a ship at Liverpool and forwarded by special messenger to the government. The letters, which had already been submitted to both houses, were now read to the Common Council, and this having been done the council resolved to present an address to the king thanking him for his favour and condescension, and a.s.suring him that they would stand by him with their lives and estates.(1680)
(M858)
Michaelmas-day this year (1689) happening to fall on Sunday, the election of a mayor for the year ensuing took place on the previous Sat.u.r.day, when Pilkington was re-elected.(1681) Tuesday, the 29th October, was lord mayor"s day, but why the ceremony of swearing in the lord mayor should have been observed on that day instead of on the feast of SS. Simon and Jude-the 28th October-as was the custom, is not clear. The lord mayor"s show was (we are told) "very splendid," and was witnessed by the king and queen and the Prince of Denmark from a balcony in Cheapside. After the show they were entertained, together with the members of both Houses and high officers of state, at a banquet in the Guildhall. The cost of the entertainment was defrayed by voluntary subscriptions among the aldermen and members of the Common Council.(1682) In order to prevent unpleasant crowding the Commons were invited to make their way into the Guildhall through the church of St. Lawrence, Jewry.(1683) The king took occasion to knight the two sheriffs (Lethieullier and Houblon), and also Edward Clark and Francis Child, two aldermen who were chosen sheriffs the next year.(1684)
(M859)
Within a few weeks of this entertainment it was found that the portrait of William set up in the Guildhall had been maliciously mutilated. The crown and sceptre had been cut out of the picture by some Jacobite, and the reward of 500 offered (21 Nov.) by the Court of Aldermen failed to discover the perpetrator.(1685)
(M860)