(M323)
Fairfax, being now allowed a free hand, abandoned the siege of Oxford and set off in pursuit of the royal army. He came up with them at Naseby, where on the 14th June he succeeded, with the help of Cromwell and his cavalry, in obtaining a signal victory and utterly crushing the power of Charles in the field. Among the wounded on the parliamentary side was the City"s old friend Skippon, "shot under the arme six inches into his flesh." The pain of having his wound dressed caused him to groan. "Though I groane, I grumble not," said he to the by-standers, and asked for a chaplain to come and pray for him.(681)
(M324)
The victory at Naseby was celebrated in the city by a thanksgiving service at Christ Church, Newgate (19 June), which was attended by the members of both Houses, followed by an entertainment at Grocers" Hall. The hall not being large enough to contain the whole of the company, the members of the Common Council dined by themselves at the hall of the Mercers Company.
Nothing was omitted that could serve to enhance the reputation of the City.(682)
(M325)
The wishes of the citizens were to be further gratified. The Scottish army was about to move southward, and parliament had voted a month"s pay, or 31,000. The City was asked to a.s.sist in raising the money (14 June). To this the Common Council readily agreed, but at the same time directed the Recorder to represent to parliament that the citizens were anxious for the Scots to recover Leicester as speedily as possible.(683) Before the army had time to make any great advance in this direction Leicester had surrendered to Fairfax (18 June).
(M326)
In July the City was called upon to a.s.sist in raising 1,000 horse and 500 dragoons for the relief of the counties of Oxford, Buckingham, Berkshire and others, and the better security of the a.s.sociation.(684) Three months later (2 Sept.) another contingent of 500 light horse and a like number of "dragoneers" were required "to pursue the forces of the king." Each member of the Common Council was directed to provide a light horse and arms or to pay the sum of 12 in lieu thereof. A dragoon horse and arms might be compounded for by payment of half that sum. Parliament agreed to charge the excise with the sum of 16,000 to provide compensation for any loss the contributors might sustain, whilst the City contributed out of its Chamber the sum of 400 towards the pay of officers, the buying of trophies and other necessaries.(685)
(M327)
The aid of the City was now invoked by Plymouth as formerly it had been by Gloucester. On the 5th September the mayor and aldermen of Plymouth addressed a letter to the mayor and common council of London enclosing a pet.i.tion they were about to lay before parliament. The pet.i.tion set forth how, in the absence of Fairfax, who was laying siege to Bristol, the whole country round Plymouth was in the hands of the enemy; and an attack would, it was feared, be soon made by Lord Goring on the town garrison. Unless the siege was raised before winter, or considerable supplies brought in, the town would be unable to hold out longer. This pet.i.tion the munic.i.p.al authorities of London were asked to second, with the hope of prevailing upon parliament to send at least that relief which had been so often desired and so often promised. A whole fortnight elapsed before the letter and pet.i.tion were brought to the notice of the Common Council (20 Sept.)-the letter from Gloucester had taken a week in transit, such was the state of the country-and then it was resolved to send a deputation from the city, including the two sheriffs, to express to the Committee of Both Kingdoms the desire of the City that they would be pleased to take the pet.i.tion into speedy and serious consideration, and to provide for the safety and defence of Plymouth.(686)
(M328)
The Londoners themselves were suffering from an inconvenience from which they had hitherto in vain sought relief from parliament, and that was the large number of royalist soldiers-amounting to no less than 3,000-which after the battle of Naseby had been quartered on the city.(687) Now that the war was practically over, so far as the king was concerned, the Common Council again took the matter in hand, and it was suggested that the Convocation House and its cloisters situate on the south side of St.
Paul"s Churchyard should be fitted up at a cost of 40 for their reception. By this means Bethlehem hospital, where many of the prisoners had been housed, would be free to minister again to the wants of the poor.(688)
(M329)
The troubles with Charles had scarcely terminated before a new struggle commenced. A monster had been raised, after much hesitation and with no little difficulty, in the shape of a well-organised and regularly paid army, the command of which was virtually in the hands of a small political party known as Independents. The great fear was lest this party, with the army at its back, should over-ride the wishes of the Presbyterians, a party which was numerically stronger than the Independents, both in the House and in the country; and to avoid such a catastrophe the Presbyterians of England were ready to join hands with their brethren in Scotland.
(M330)
The House, however, was unfortunate enough at this critical juncture to offend the Scots as well as the citizens of London. The Scottish army had been invited to march southward to attack Newark, whither Charles had betaken himself after witnessing from the walls of Chester the defeat of his troops on Rowton Heath (24 Sept.), and the Commons had promised to raise a sum of 30,000 for its pay provided it arrived before Newark by the 1st day of November.(689) This sum the City promised to find (10 Oct.), but only on the condition named.(690) On the 13th the House offended the dignity of the Scots by a series of resolutions protesting against the conduct of the Scottish army in not attacking the enemy as well as in levying money on the inhabitants of the northern counties, and demanded the removal of the garrisons which had been placed in Newcastle, Carlisle and other towns without the consent of parliament.(691)
(M331)
The quarrel between parliament and the City was scarcely less serious, and arose out of an attempt to foist a system of Presbyterianism upon the citizens which should serve as a model for the rest of the kingdom. It was not that the Londoner objected to the principle of Presbyterianism; the natural bent of his mind was in that direction, and the City had already pet.i.tioned parliament for the election of elders to join with the parish ministers.(692) What he found fault with was the mode of electing the elders prescribed by parliament (23 Sept.).(693) The scheme was so far from satisfying the general body of citizens that a number of them presented a pet.i.tion to the Common Council to address both Houses of Parliament, with a view to having the powers of the elders sufficiently enlarged to effect a genuine reform in the Church.(694) They wanted, in fact, to see parliamentary control over the Church in matters purely ecclesiastical withdrawn. Herein they were supported by the ministers of their own parish churches, who drew up a list of reforms they desired to see executed and the reasons why they so desired.(695) It was a difficult matter on which to approach parliament. Nevertheless, in accordance with a resolution of the Common Council (18 Nov.), a deputation of aldermen and common councillors, of whom Alderman Gibbs acted as spokesman, presented themselves (19 Nov.) before the House of Commons with the pet.i.tion of the citizens, as well as with the "desires and reasons" of the city clergy.
The reply they got was far from encouraging. They were given to understand that parliament was well aware of its trust and duty, and was quite able to discharge both, if only it was let alone, and its purpose not misconceived and prejudged as it appeared to have been in the city; and they were dismissed with the caution not to form premature opinions about matters which were still under discussion.(696) Notwithstanding this rebuff, the deputation the following day attended before the Lords (20 Nov.), who returned them a far more gracious and sympathetic answer. After thanking the deputation for their expressions of submission to the resolutions of parliament, their lordships a.s.sured them that none should excel them in their endeavours for the maintenance of the covenant, the advancement and settling of G.o.d"s true religion, and the discharge of the trust reposed in them.(697)
(M332)
In the meantime a deputation from parliament had waited on the Common Council (12 Nov.) with a request for a loan of 6,000 for the troops engaged in blockading Chester. The court agreed to the request, but thought it high time to learn precisely how the city stood with respect to loans already made to parliament, and appointed (17 Nov.) a committee to report on the whole matter, with a view of addressing parliament for re-payment of monies in arrear.(698)
(M333)
It was feared that the Scottish army might change sides. It wanted supplies. The City, we have seen, had agreed with parliament to advance a sum of 30,000 for payment of the Scots, provided their army appeared before Newark by the 1st November. This condition had not been fulfilled.
The army, nevertheless, appeared later on, and a committee of the House of Commons came down to the city and asked the citizens (6 Dec.) to stand by their former promise and advance the sum mentioned, which they readily consented to do.(699)
(M334) (M335)
The question with Charles was, from whom was he likely to obtain the better terms, the English or the Scots? On the 26th December he addressed a letter to the Speaker of the House of Lords, asking whether the two Houses of Parliament, the Scottish commissioners, the munic.i.p.al authorities, as well as the militia of the city and the officers of both armies, would guarantee his personal security if he came to reside in London or Westminster, with a retinue not exceeding three hundred in number, for a period of forty days.(700) The risk of allowing such a step was too great. Already the Earl of Holland had been heard to threaten a royalist rising in the city if only Charles could be brought in safety to Westminster. Not getting a reply so quickly as he wished, Charles wrote again three days later (29 Dec.) urging his former proposal.(701) More delay took place, during which the Commons instructed the mayor to see well to the city"s guards and scrutinise the pa.s.ses of those coming and going,(702) and at last, on the 13th January, the Speakers wrote to Charles declining the proposal.(703)
(M336)
The day following the despatch of this reply was kept in the city as a day of solemn humiliation. Sermons were preached before the mayor, aldermen and members of the common council, who afterwards individually took the oath and covenant. An enquiry was subsequently ordered (9 Feb.) for the purpose of discovering what members of the common council had failed to take the covenant on this occasion, and the reasons why they had not done so. A few members stood out and refused to renew the covenant, whereupon the court resolved to ask parliament for instructions as to what should be done with them.(704)
(M337)
On the 15th January Charles made overtures to parliament for the first time on the question of religion. He was prepared to allow religion to be settled as it was in the reign of Elizabeth and James, "with full liberty for the ease of their consciences who will not communicate in that service established by law, and likewise for the free and public use of the directory prescribed and, by command of the two Houses, now practised in some parts of the city of London."(705)
(M338)
This important concession on the part of Charles-a concession which only the necessities of the time induced him, after much exercise of mind, to make-was announced to parliament on the same day that the City presented a pet.i.tion(706) against toleration of any other form of religion than the Presbyterianism already adopted by parliament and the citizens. The pet.i.tioners declared that since they last addressed the Houses on the subject of religion a fresh election of the Common Council had taken place, and the inhabitants of many of the wards had taken the opportunity of asking their alderman that parliament might be again desired to settle Church government and forbid toleration. Private meetings for religious worship, they went on to say, were constantly held. In one parish there were at least eleven. Orthodox ministers were evil spoken of, as if the city were still under the "tyranny of prelatical government." Women had taken to preaching, and such blasphemies were uttered as made the pet.i.tioners tremble to think of. Having heard that it was the intention of divers persons to pet.i.tion the House for a toleration of such doctrines as were against the covenant under pretext of liberty of conscience, the pet.i.tioners humbly prayed that parliament would take steps to remedy abuses and to settle the Church government according to the solemn covenant made with the most high G.o.d. The Commons lent a ready ear to the pet.i.tion and thanked the City for their display of piety and religion. It was gratifying to them to know that they had the sympathy of the City in their anxiety to settle the peace of the Church.(707) The Lords, to whom a similar pet.i.tion had been presented, returned an equally gracious message, and expressed a hope that the munic.i.p.al authorities would take steps to remedy the existing abuses.(708)
(M339)
Whilst endeavouring to come to terms with parliament Charles was also in communication both with the Scots and the Independents. His purpose was to play one party off against the other. A complete understanding existed between the citizens and the Scots on the subject of religion. On the 11th February the Scottish commissioners themselves appeared at a Common Council bearing a letter from the president of the Scottish parliament addressed to the lord mayor, aldermen and common council of the city, thanking them for their zeal for the reformation of religion and uniformity of Church government, as well as for the large sums of money advanced to the armies in defence of religion and the liberty of the subject.(709) The Common Council thanked the commissioners for the favour thus shown, and begged them to a.s.sure their countrymen that the City would continue its zeal and affection for the reformation of religion and uniformity of Church government, and would persevere in its resolution to preserve the same according to the covenant.
(M340) (M341)
As soon as Parliament heard that the City had received a communication from Scotland the Commons sent a deputation to learn all the particulars and to ask that the letter might be forwarded to them. The deputation was to a.s.sure the mayor and the Common Council that there was "no jealousie at all or dislike of their proceedings" in the business. In the meanwhile the House called upon Francis Allen, a member of the House as well as a member of the Common Council, to give an account of what had taken place in the city on the 11th. This he did to the best of his ability, giving from memory the substance of the letter from Scotland. He then proceeded to say that one of the Scottish commissioners, Lord Lauderdale, had made the following remark before the Common Council, viz., "That many aspersions had been caste upon their armie and their proceedings by malignants; and desired that the authors of them might be looked upon as those that endeavour to disturb the unitie of both kingdomes."(710)
(M342)
That at least was the story as recorded in the Journal of the House.
Allen, however, declared that he had been inaccurately recorded, and the Common Council, in giving parliament their own version of the matter, denied that Lauderdale had made any such remark. He had said nothing that could give offence. They forwarded the letter as desired, but begged that it might be returned in order that it might be entered on the city"s Journal. They further expressed a wish to print and publish it so that the real facts might be known. Allen, they said, was not to be credited, and had been guilty of a breach of privilege in what he had done.(711)
(M343)
The House, however, took a different view of Allen"s conduct, and declared that he had only done his duty. It at the same time came to a resolution that the relation entered on the Journal of the House varied from Allen"s and ordered it to be expunged.(712)
(M344)
Three years later, when Allen was elected alderman of the ward of Farringdon Without, the House declared (5 Dec, 1649) that it deemed it "an acceptable service to the commonwealth" if Allen would accept the post, and the Common Council resolved (19 Dec.) to revoke all votes of the court that had been pa.s.sed in the month of February, 1646, reflecting on Allen"s conduct.(713)
(M345)
Hitherto the City and Parliament had, in the presence of a common danger, mutually supported one another; but as soon as the royalists ceased to give further cause for alarm differences immediately sprang up. The question of the City"s jurisdiction over the militia raised within the weekly bills of mortality, as well as over that raised within the city and liberties, was no new question. It had been raised at least as far back as August, 1644,(714) but during the crisis of the civil war the matter had been allowed to drop until December, 1645, when the City again brought it forward and urged parliament to acknowledge its jurisdiction.(715) Before parliament would give its a.s.sent it wished to be informed whether the jurisdiction claimed by the City was already vested in the City by Charles or by custom, and if not, what extension of jurisdiction was it that the City now desired?(716) The chief opposition came from the inhabitants of Middles.e.x, Surrey, Southwark and Westminster, who objected to their militia being placed under the command of the mayor, aldermen and common council of the city. All parties were cited to appear before the Star Chamber on the 31st June, 1646, to support their own contention.(717) Parliament had already (27 Jan.) expressed itself as willing to sanction the government of the militia of the city and liberties being vested in the munic.i.p.al authorities and to allow that the city forces should not be called upon to serve away from the city without their own consent,(718) but this was not enough. What the City desired was nothing more and nothing less than what had already been proposed to the king at Oxford with the sanction of both Houses, namely, "the government of the militia of the parishes without London and the liberties within the weekly bills of mortality." Parliament had made no scruple about the matter at a time when it stood in sore need of a.s.sistance from the City; and the City did not intend to let it go back lightly on its word.(719)
(M346)
A pet.i.tion was accordingly presented to the House of Commons by alderman Fowke on the 6th February.(720) The pet.i.tion set out at considerable length all the proceedings that had taken place since the question of the militia was first submitted to Charles. It compared the att.i.tude of the city towards parliament in the late civil war with the part played by the citizens in a previous civil war, viz., the war of the Barons, when (according to the pet.i.tioners) the Barons were eventually beaten out of the field owing to the citizens of London staying at home! The pet.i.tioners proceeded to show the necessity of the City being empowered to raise militia in the adjacent counties for the purpose of keeping open a pa.s.sage for victualling the city in times of danger; that since the militia of the suburbs had been under the command of the City good service had been rendered to the parliamentary cause, and notably in the relief of Gloucester; that if it were now removed from the jurisdiction of the City the suburban forts might be seized and both the city and parliament might be threatened; and that it was for the better preservation of parliament, and not for the purpose of rendering the city militia independent of parliament, that the pet.i.tioners appeared before the House. Finally, Alderman Fowke, who acted as spokesman, declared himself authorised to state that if the militia of the city and kingdom were not settled by the king and parliament there would be no course left open to the city authorities but to act according to their conscience and to abide by their covenant. A similar pet.i.tion was presented to the House of Lords (7 Feb.).
A week later (14 Feb.) a counter-pet.i.tion was addressed to the Commons by the inhabitants of the Tower Hamlets, Westminster and Southwark,(721) and on the 13th March a committee was appointed to arrange, if possible, a compromise.(722)
(M347)
Before this question was settled another had arisen to widen the breach between parliament and the city in the shape of an ordinance for establishing a system of Presbyterianism throughout England.(723) One clause of this ordinance-clause 14-was particularly objectionable as introducing the authority of the State into matters of Church government.
Commissioners were to be appointed, of whom nothing was known, to regulate the Church in each province. The Common Council, being urged by inhabitants of the city to oppose a measure so opposed to the Word of G.o.d,(724) presented pet.i.tions to both Houses (to the Lords first, they having not yet a.s.sented to clause 14) praying that no officers might be appointed to exercise any Church censures contrary to the Scriptures, and that their appointment might be in accordance with the Word of G.o.d.(725) The pet.i.tions were so badly received by both Houses that the munic.i.p.al authorities took fright, and asked that they might be withdrawn and expunged from the Journals of Parliament. Their request was acceded to, but only on condition that the pet.i.tions were likewise expunged from the City"s Records.(726)
(M348) (M349)