London and the Kingdom Volume II Part 29

On the other hand there was due to the city's Chamber no less a sum than 77,409 6_s._ 6_d._ for princ.i.p.al 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 Bills in the hands of the City Chamberlain. The Common Council was only too ready to accept the offer.(1381) Edward 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 cla.s.s, 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)

(M696)

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, "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 report(1383) of the incident which was probably made for the purpose of being laid before the Council Board,(1384) we 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 s.n.a.t.c.h 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 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 Temple, more especially as another disturbance was threatened if the sword should be borne up before his lords.h.i.+p.(1385)

(M697)

In July, 1670-at a time when the City could ill afford to part with money-the king sent to borrow 60,000.(1386) He had recently entered into a secret treaty with France (1 June), whereby he had pledged himself to a.s.sist 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.(1387) Much opposition was raised to the loan by the inhabitants,(1388) so that in November it became necessary for the city Chamberlain to borrow at interest more than 1,000 to complete the loan.(1389) In 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 a.s.sisting the Dutch against Louis and not Louis against the Dutch.

(M698)

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 (contrary to city custom) at an entertainment given by the City in the prince's honour.(1390)

(M699)

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 a _moratorium_, 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 a.s.signments of the public revenue for payment of princ.i.p.al 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;(1391) but the bankers and capitalists who had provided the money were content to abide by the king's frequent a.s.surance that he would continue to make good all a.s.signments 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!

(M700)

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 a.s.signments 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.

(M701)

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 same prayers being used as had been specially ordained for the late war.(1392)

(M702)

The war, which was chiefly remarkable for the n.o.ble stand made by the Dutch under the young William, Prince of Orange, Charles's own nephew and afterwards King of England, soon drained the king's resources, and once more he had to face a parliament. The parliament, which met on the 4th February, 1673, showed itself willing to vote a subsidy of 70,000 a month for a period of eighteen months, but only on its own terms. These were (1) the repeal of the Declaration of Indulgence which Charles, who was beginning to show signs of favouring the Roman Church, had by a stretch of prerogative recently caused to be issued, and (2) the pa.s.sing of a Test Act which should bind all public officers to take the oaths of supremacy and allegiance, receive the sacrament, and abjure the doctrine of transubstantiation. By this means parliament hoped to maintain the supremacy of the Church.

(M703)

The a.s.sessments which the City was now called upon to pay were far beyond its powers, seeing that many merchants and traders who had left the city at the time of the Plague and Fire refused to return, preferring to live in the suburbs, and thus a large number of the houses that had recently been re-built were left unoccupied. Every exertion was made to get some remission of the burden, but although the king signified his intention of making some abatement, little appears to have been done.(1393)

(M704)

In March of this year (1673) an individual named Philip De Cardonel came forward with a scheme for raising money by way of annuities to be granted by the city to every subscriber of 20 or more.(1394) The matter was in the first instance brought before the Court of Aldermen, who, upon consideration, declared that the proposal appeared to them "very faire and reasonable, and in all likelihood of very great advantage to the city,"

and forthwith resolved themselves into a committee of the whole court to treat with Cardonel and take such further proceedings as might be thought requisite.(1395) In the following month (11 April) the same proposals were submitted to the Common Council, where they met with similar favour. The court also appointed a committee to take them into further consideration, promising in the meantime that no advantage should be taken or benefit derived from the scheme without the special leave and consent of the proposer.(1396) Although the committee reported favourably on the scheme(1397) it was allowed to drop.

(M705)

By February of the next year (1674) trade had become so bad that a number of the inhabitants of the city pet.i.tioned the Common Council (13 Feb.) to seek some relief from parliament. An address was accordingly drawn up, setting forth the miserable state to which the city had been reduced by the ravages of the plague and the fire, the increase of new buildings in the suburbs, which not only injured the trade of the city, but afforded a retreat for disorderly persons, and excessive taxation (the city being called upon to pay the same amount of taxes as in its most prosperous days), and praying the Commons to apply some timely remedy. The address was to have been laid before the house on Monday, the 23rd February,(1398) but no mention of it appears in the Commons Journal. On the 24th the House was prorogued.

(M706)

In September (1674) the old question again cropt up as to the power of the Court of Aldermen to veto matters ordained by the Common Council. The question had arisen, it will be remembered, in January, 1649,(1399) when Reynardson, the mayor, got up and left the Common Council, followed by the aldermen, and the court, instead of breaking up according to custom, proceeded to pa.s.s measures in their absence. Its action on this occasion was reported to parliament, and the house signified its approval of the court's proceedings and pa.s.sed an ordinance which practically deprived the Court of Aldermen of all control over the Common Council. Since that time the matter had remained dormant, until jealousy between the two bodies was again excited by the Common Council pa.s.sing an Act (17 Sept., 1674) for compelling the aldermen to reside within the city under the penalty of a fine of 500.(1400) Against the pa.s.sing of any such Act the Recorder, on behalf of the Court of Aldermen, formally reported their protest to the Common Council, and the Commons as formerly protested against that protest (13 Nov.).(1401)

It was not that the mayor and aldermen were not fully conscious of the mischief arising from their own non-residence in the city, for they themselves pa.s.sed an order for every alderman to return with his family into the city before the following Easter on pain of heavy penalty,(1402) but they objected to the court of Common Council presuming to dictate to them.

(M707)

In the meantime the Court of Aldermen had appointed a committee (24 Sept.) to examine the question of the right of veto, and this committee had reported (20 Oct.) in favour of the court.(1403) "We find," said the committee, "that the court of Common Council hath always consisted, and still it doth, of three distinct degrees of persons, viz., of the lord mayor in the first place as the chefe magistrate, and secondly of the aldermen as subordinate magistrates, and thirdly of the commons, or of a select number of the commons representing all the commoners of the said city as now is, and for a long time before hath been used." In this respect the committee proceeded to say, "the Common Councill of the city doth much resemble the const.i.tution of the Common Council of the kingdom, and we further find that the order of proceeding in the making of lawes for the good government of the citty doth imitate the paterne sett them by the High Court of Parliament, in making lawes for the government of the nation, in regard that noe ordinance made in the Common Councell of this city can be a binding law to any without the joint consent and concurrence of the Lord Mayor, Court of Aldermen and commoners in Common Councell a.s.sembled, they having a joynt power and equal authority in making of lawes. So that the mayor and aldermen cannot impose upon the commoners, nor _e converso_; each degree having a power to dissent or a.s.sent as to them seems best."

The committee next pointed out how Bills for the better government of the city had formerly originated for the most part with the mayor and aldermen, and had been by them transmitted to the Common Council, where, after being read in two several courts (and not twice in one court) and a.s.sented to, they became complete acts and binding laws. Such had been the usual and salient practice. Nevertheless, the committee had found that sometimes the Common Council had pet.i.tioned the Court of Aldermen for redress of certain grievances and the latter had complied with such pet.i.tions, "and so sometimes Acts of Common Council have been made at the desire of the lord mayor and aldermen signifyed to the commons by the Recorder." The conclusion that the committee arrived at was that "the lord mayor and aldermen have negative votes as the commoners also have, and contrary to this order of proceeding in making Acts of Common Council wee cannot find any presedent."

On the 13th November a joint Committee of Aldermen and Commoners was appointed by the Common Council to search the city's Records as to "the respective privileges of the lord mayor and aldermen and of the commons in Common Council a.s.sembled, and of the most ancient and decent method in making laws within this citty," and to report thereon.(1404) Four days later (17 Nov.) the Court of Aldermen instructed their committee to make further search on the question.(1405)

(M708) (M709)

Matters were brought to a crisis on the 12th March, 1675, when the mayor and aldermen, dissatisfied with the proceedings of the court of Common Council, got up and left the court. The Common Sergeant-the notorious George Jeffreys-refusing to follow the example set by the Common Sergeant in 1649, remained behind, and went so far as to put a question to the court of which the mayor and aldermen had previously disapproved. For this he was shortly afterwards called to account. His defence was that he only obeyed the wishes of the majority; but this being deemed unsatisfactory, the Court of Aldermen ordered him to be suspended from office.(1406)

(M710) (M711)

He afterwards (23 March) offered an apology to the Court of Aldermen for his conduct, confessing "that the question by him put at the last Common Council after the lord mayor was out of the chair was altogether irregular," and asked pardon. His apology, so far as it went, was accepted in good part by the court, but upon some explanation being asked of him as to his not refusing to put a question when commanded to refuse, and his offering to put another question at the request of some members of the council, he desired to be allowed time before he made answer.(1407) Meanwhile the dispute between the Aldermen and Common Council had been brought to the notice of the king,(1408) who, with his brother the Duke of York, had recently received the freedom of the City.(1409)

(M712) (M713)

A week later (30 March) the Recorder, John Howell, reported to the Court of Aldermen(1410) that he and the Common Sergeant had by command appeared before his majesty the previous day touching the unhappy difference existing between the Aldermen and the Common Council; that the Common Sergeant being asked to whom it devolved to put the question on a debate in council, had in the Recorder's hearing replied to the effect "that the question had always been used to be put by the lord mayor or by his lords.h.i.+p's appointment and not otherwise, so far as he had observed," and he had never known the matter disputed; that he had then likewise declared to his majesty that he was "sorry for his deportment at the last Common Council, saying that what he did was a sudden act and rashly done without any intention to make any disturbance, and that he would freely acknowledge the same wheresoever his majesty should command him"; that therefore his majesty had commanded the Recorder to acquaint the court that the best expedient he could suggest, as the case stood, for a settlement of the difficulty, was that the old order of things should be re-established, that (among other things) the suspension of the Common Sergeant should be removed, and that the books and records of the city should be searched by six such aldermen as the lord mayor should appoint, and six such commoners as the Common Council should appoint, in order to satisfy themselves of the respective privileges of the lord mayor and aldermen and commons in Common Council a.s.sembled, and to settle the same in a quiet and peaceable manner if they could. Failing this his majesty would appoint a judge to arbitrate in the matter.

(M714)

The court followed the king's suggestion so far as related to the Common Sergeant, and having listened to his expressions of regret for his late conduct, and his a.s.surances that he would always endeavour to "promote the honour and government of the city," it removed his suspension.

(M715)

As regards the real issue between the two Courts of Aldermen and Common Council, matters remained much as they were before. Although the Court of Aldermen gave orders (12 April) that the proceedings relative to the dispute between the two courts should be faithfully recorded, the minutes of the Common Council at this period are particularly lacking in information as well on this as on other matters in which the City was concerned.(1411)

(M716)

One result of the _contretemps_ which had occurred in the court of Common Council of the 12th March was that the Court of Aldermen resolved to retain certain counsel to advise them as occasion should arise on the question of their rights and privileges, and to create a fund by subscription among themselves to meet the necessary expenses.(1412)

(M717)

In April the Town Clerk and the four clerks of the outer court (_i.e._ mayor's court) were instructed to search the books and records of the city on the question whether or not it was the province of the lord mayor (1) to direct and put the question in the Common Council, (2) to name committees, and (3) to nominate persons to be put in election to any office.(1413) This last point especially affected the right claimed by the mayor to nominate (if not to elect) one of the sheriffs by virtue of his prerogative-a claim which had already been more than once canva.s.sed and which was destined shortly to bring the City and the Crown into violent opposition.

(M718)

On the 7th September, 1675, the Court of Aldermen directed that the opinion of counsel should be taken on the power of the mayor and aldermen to put their veto on matters pa.s.sed by the Common Council.(1414) After the lapse of fifteen months the opinions of Sir William Jones, the attorney-general, Sir Francis Winnington, solicitor-general, Sir John Maynard and Sir Francis Pemberton, sergeants-at-law, and of "Mr. William Steele" (_not_ a former Recorder of that name as some have supposed(1415)) were presented to the court (5 Dec., 1676);(1416) and with the exception of the last mentioned, all the lawyers declared in favour of the mayor and aldermen. There the matter was allowed to rest for a year or more until in February, 1678, the opinions of Sir William Dolben, not long since appointed the city's Recorder, and of Jeffreys, the Common Sergeant, who was destined in a few months to succeed Dolben on the latter's promotion to the bench, were taken and found to coincide with the opinions already delivered with the exception of that of William Steele.(1417)

(M719) (M720) (M721) (M722)

In the meantime Charles had concluded a separate treaty with the Dutch (19 Feb., 1674), who continued to struggle manfully against the French king, with such a.s.sistance as they derived from the emperor and the German states. The Commons were fearful of entrusting the king with either money or troops lest he should employ them against the Dutch, or against their own liberties. The successes of Louis at length provoked a general cry for war against France, and the Commons went so far as to pa.s.s a bill (8 March, 1678) imposing a poll tax as part of the supply.(1418) Charles lost no time in applying to the City for the sum of 100,000 on the security of this tax, and the court of Common Council signified its readiness to advance the money (9 April).(1419) Finding that parliament hesitated to furnish the supplies it had voted, and without which he a.s.sured the members he would have to lay up the fleet and disband some of the newly raised forces, Charles applied to the City for another 50,000. This, too, was granted (14 May);(1420) and Charles, in order to show his displeasure with the Commons, resorted to his usual tactics and prorogued parliament, but only for ten days.(1421) A few days after the Commons had again met they resolved (27 May) that if the king would declare war against France they would give him their hearty support, otherwise they would at once proceed to take into consideration the speedy disbandment of the army.(1422) The king refusing to declare war, parliament proceeded (4 June) to carry out its threat and voted the sum of 200,000 for the disbandment of all the forces that had been raised since the 29th September, 1677.(1423) The disbandment did not take place, however, but in its stead a force was despatched to Holland. Scarcely had it arrived before the peace of Nimeguen was signed.

(M723)