London and the Kingdom Volume II Part 31

No Act of Common Council appears to have been pa.s.sed pursuant to the committee's recommendation, but in the following year (1675) and down to 1679 the mayor exercised his full prerogative of electing one of the sheriffs without opposition, although the person so elected did not always undertake the office.

(M747)

On Midsummer-day, 1680, the mayor elected George Hockenhall, citizen and grocer, to be one of the sheriffs, but Hockenhall refused to serve and was discharged on his entering into a bond for the payment of 400. The commons thereupon stept in and elected Slingsby Beth.e.l.l, leatherseller, and Henry Cornish, haberdasher.(1469) At this juncture political influence was brought to bear upon the elections. Beth.e.l.l was particularly an object of aversion to the court party. He is reported to have declared himself ready to have acted as executioner of the late king if no one else could be found for the job,(1470) and to have made himself obnoxious in other ways. With Cornish little fault could at present be found. Objection was raised to both these gentlemen acting as sheriffs, on the ground that they had not taken the oath or received the sacrament as prescribed by law, and another election demanded. Before this second election took place (14 July) they had qualified themselves according to the Corporation Act.(1471) The mayor did not claim his prerogative on this occasion.

Beth.e.l.l and Cornish were put up again for office, and against them two others, Ralph Box, grocer, and Humphrey Nicholson, merchant taylor, who, although nominated like Beth.e.l.l and Cornish by the commonalty, were in reality candidates put forward by the court party.(1472) Beth.e.l.l and Cornish having been again declared elected, a poll was demanded, which lasted several days. At its close it was found that Cornish was at the head with 2,483 votes, Beth.e.l.l next with 2,276, whilst Box and Nicholson followed with 1,428 and 1,230 votes respectively.(1473)

(M748)

The two first named were declared (29 July) duly elected. Beth.e.l.l has been described as a "sullen and wilful man," a republican at heart and one that "turned from the ordinary way of a sheriff's living into the extreme of sordidness." Cornish on the other hand was "a plain, warm, honest man and lived very n.o.bly all his year."(1474) It was doubtless Beth.e.l.l's proposal that the customary dinner to the aldermen on the day the new sheriffs were sworn in should be omitted. If so, Cornish had to give way to the parsimonious whim of his fellow sheriff. "What an obstinate man he was!"

remarked Cornish of him, when brought to trial five years later.(1475) The aldermen refused to accompany the sheriffs to the Guildhall unless they were invited to dinner.(1476)

(M749)

In the following year (1681) two other sheriffs of the same political character, viz., Pilkington and Shute, were elected over the heads of the same court candidates that had stood the previous year, the defeat of the latter being still more p.r.o.nounced.(1477)

(M750)

The king did not attempt to conceal his displeasure at the City's proceedings, and when the recorder and the sheriffs came to invite him to dinner on lord mayor's day,(1478) made the following answer:-"Mr.

Recorder, an invitation from my lord mayor and the city is very acceptable to me, and to show that it is so, notwithstanding that it is brought by messengers that are so unwelcome to me as these two sheriffs are, yet I accept it."(1479)

(M751)

The outgoing sheriffs were presented (27 June) with an address(1480) from the citizens a.s.sembled in Common Hall thanking them for their faithful discharge of their office of trust and complimenting them more especially upon their successful efforts to maintain and a.s.sert the undoubted rights and privileges of the citizens and their "continual provision of faithful and able juries." The address concluded with thanks to them for their despatch in carrying out the recent "unnecessary" poll in connection with the election of new sheriffs, and not delaying the matter by troublesome adjournments.

(M752)

Opportunity was also taken of thanking the lord mayor (Sir Patience Ward) and the members of the Common Council for presenting the recent address to his majesty praying him to confide in parliament,(1481) and desired his lords.h.i.+p to a.s.sure his majesty that the address reflected the true feeling and desires of all his loyal subjects there a.s.sembled in Common Hall, notwithstanding rumours to the contrary. They also desired to join in the vote of thanks which the Common Council had pa.s.sed to the city members sitting in the last parliament for their faithful services.

(M753)

It required some courage for the mayor to again face the king and his chancellor and to run the risk of another rebuff. Nevertheless, on Thursday, the 7th July, the mayor went to Hampton Court, attended by Sir Robert Clayton, Sir John Shorter and others, as well as by the sheriffs Beth.e.l.l and Cornish (the new sheriffs not coming into office until September), to present to the king in council another address from the Common Hall. It was received with no more favour than the last. The chancellor affected to believe that it was but the address of a faction in the city, and not the unanimous vote of the citizens at large. "The king takes notice there are no aldermen," he said, whilst Alderman Clayton and Alderman Shorter were at his elbow! In fine they were again told to mind their own business.(1482)

(M754)

Although the court party had twice signally failed to obtain the appointment of sheriffs who should be amenable to its control, they were fortunate in having an adherent in the mayor elected on Michaelmas-day to succeed Sir Patience Ward. The senior alderman who had not already pa.s.sed the chair happened to be Sir John Moore. It does not often occur that in the choice of a mayor the Common Hall pa.s.ses over the senior alderman who is both capable and willing to take upon himself the office; but there was some chance of it doing so in this case, inasmuch as Sir John Moore had rendered himself unpopular with a large section of citizens by presenting an address of thanks to the king for the declaration which his majesty had published in defence of his having dissolved parliament.(1483) Two aldermen, Sir John Shorter and Thomas Gold, were nominated with Moore for the office. A poll was demanded, with the result that Moore was elected by a majority of nearly 300 votes over his opponents.(1484) On his being presented (7 Oct.) to the lord chancellor for the king's approbation, he was told that his majesty experienced much satisfaction at the choice of so loyal and worthy a magistrate.(1485) Three days before (4 Oct.) the Court of Aldermen nominated a committee to take informations concerning the scandalous remarks that had been made against him in Common Hall on the day of his election.(1486)

(M755)

Not content with this success, the king's advisers determined upon bringing the City to book for its recent att.i.tude in the election of sheriffs. The anomaly by which the citizens of London enjoyed the right of electing their own sheriffs, as they had done with short intermissions for the past 500 years, whilst in nearly every county of the kingdom the sheriffs were nominated by the king, must be abolished. A writ in the nature of a _Quo Warranto_ was accordingly issued to the sheriffs in January, 1682, calling upon them to summon the mayor and commonalty and citizens of the city to appear in his majesty's court of King's Bench to answer by what warrant they claimed divers liberties, franchises and privileges of which the writ declared they were impeached.(1487)

(M756)

Notification of service of the writ was formally made to the Common Council on the 18th January. The council showed no signs of dismay; they scarcely realized, perhaps, at the outset the true significance of the writ or the consequence it was likely to entail. They had no cause to think that the mayor, commonalty and citizens had usurped any liberties, franchises or privileges without due warrant or had abused any to which they had lawful t.i.tle. One thing was plain. It was their duty to maintain the rights of the City. They therefore appointed a committee to consult with counsel learned in the law, and prepare a defence such as they might be advised to make, and ordered the Chamberlain to disburse such sums of money as might be required for the purpose.(1488)

(M757)

More than a twelvemonth was taken up in preparing the long and technical pleadings(1489) preliminary to trial, and in the meantime another severe struggle took place in a.s.sertion of the right claimed by the citizens to elect both their sheriffs. The citizens ranged themselves in separate factions, the Whig party under sheriff Pilkington, the Tories under the mayor. Each leader entertained his supporters at dinner.(1490) There was to have been a banquet held on the 21st April at Haberdashers' Hall, at which the Duke of Monmouth, Lord Shaftesbury and others of the Whig party were to have been present, but the proposal getting wind, the mayor was strictly enjoined by the Privy Council to prevent it as being a seditious meeting and tending to create factions among the king's subjects.(1491)

(M758)

The Duke of York, who had for some time past resided in Scotland, had not increased in favour with the citizens of London. It is true that the mayor and aldermen of the city paid their respects to his highness (10 April, 1682) at St. James's Palace, on his return from the north, after paying a similar visit to the king, who had recently returned to Whitehall from Newmarket;(1492) but a proposal to offer an address to the duke praying him to reside in London found but little response in the Court of Aldermen, and was allowed to drop.(1493) It was not so long ago that his picture hanging in the Guildhall was found to have been mutilated, an offer of 500 for the discovery of the perpetrator of the outrage being without effect.(1494) Just when Pilkington was about to lay down his office of sheriff the duke entered an action against him for slander, claiming damages to the extent of 50,000. For a time he managed to escape service of the writ,(1495) but if he was not served before, his presence in the Common Hall on Midsummer-day for the election of new sheriffs afforded ample opportunity to serve him then.

(M759)

This election is one of the most remarkable elections in the City's annals. The royalist mayor, Sir John Moore, having previously drunk to Dudley North at a banquet at the Bridge House (18 May), thereby intimating that he nominated North as one of the sheriffs for the year ensuing, according to custom, had issued his precept to the several companies (19 June) to meet in Common Hall for the purpose of _confirming_ his nomination and electing another sheriff to serve with his nominee.(1496) This form of precept was objected to, and when the Common Cryer called upon the livery a.s.sembled in Common Hall to appear for the "confirmation"

of North, he was met with cries of "No confirmation! No confirmation!" and the rest of his proclamation was drowned in uproar. "Thereupon," runs the City's Record,(1497) "Thomas Papillon, esq., mercer, John Du Bois, weaver, and Ralph Box, grocer, citizens of London (together with the said Dudley North, so as aforesaid elected by the lord mayor), were nominated by the commonalty, that two of them by the said commonalty might be chosen into the office of sheriffs of the city of London and county of Middles.e.x." The Common Sergeant having declared Papillon and Du Bois duly elected, a poll was demanded. This was granted and proceeded with until seven o'clock in the evening, when the meeting was adjourned by the mayor until the 27th.

The outgoing sheriffs (Pilkington and Shute), however, disregarded the mayor's order for adjournment and continued the poll for some time longer, but at last adjourned the meeting to the day fixed by the mayor.

(M760)

A fresh question thus arose, namely, whether the right of adjourning a Common Hall was vested in the mayor for the time being or in the sheriffs.

Sir John Moore reported the conduct of Pilkington and Shute to the king's council, with the result that before the 27th day of June arrived they were both committed to the Tower. They were afterwards admitted to bail.(1498)

(M761) (M762) (M763)

In the meantime the Common Hall had been adjourned by the mayor from the 27th June to the 5th July. On the latter day the sheriffs duly appeared on the husting, but the mayor being absent through indisposition, the Recorder declared his lords.h.i.+p's order that a further adjournment should take place until the 7th July. The sheriffs again interposed and asked the Common Hall if it was their wish that an adjournment should take place, and the answer being in the negative they proceeded to finish the poll, with the result that Papillon and Du Bois were again declared elected by a large majority. Orders having been given to the Town Clerk to place their proceedings on record, the Common Hall broke up.(1499)

(M764)

On the 7th the mayor and aldermen appeared in the Guildhall prepared to proceed with the poll, ignoring all that had taken place two days before.

The Hall was very crowded, and soon debate arose as to whom belonged the right of adjournment. The opinion of counsel was taken by both parties then and there,(1500) but with little practical result, and the lord mayor further adjourned the Hall until that day week (14 July).

(M765)

In the meanwhile several aldermen and citizens waited on his majesty in council, and gave him an account of the late proceedings, with the result that an order was sent to the mayor to hold a new election, the last being declared irregular.(1501)

(M766)

The City's own account of what took place at the Common Hall on the 14th is thus recorded. After the order for a new election had been read, "relation was ... _de novo_ made that Dudley North, esq., citizen and mercer of London, was elected by the mayor by his prerogative, according to the custom, into the office of one of the sheriffs of the city of London and county of Middles.e.x for the year ensuing, that another might be a.s.sociated to him by the commonalty. And upon this, after declaration made that the said Dudley North was confirmed and Thomas Papillon, esq., citizen and mercer of London, was chosen sheriffs, certain of the commons demanded that it might be decided by the voices of the commons between the said Dudley North and Thomas Papillon and John Du Bois, weaver, and Ralph Box, grocer (named also by the commonalty), that the two of those four who should have the most voices might be the sheriffs elected for the city of London and county of Middles.e.x for the year ensuing. Whereupon the sheriffs and other officers of the city in the accustomed manner went into the upper chamber, where declaration of the premisses was made by the common sergeant to the mayor and aldermen there sitting; which said mayor and aldermen, the relation aforesaid well weighing, did declare the said Dudley North to be rightly and duly elected and confirmed according to the law and custom of the said city, and immediately came down upon the place where the Court of Hustings is usually held, and there, in their presence and by their command, the said Dudley North was solemnly called to come forth and give his consent to take upon him the said office.(1502) And the said lord mayor did then direct that the poll should be taken only for the said Thomas Papillon, John Du Bois and Ralph Box, by certain persons thereunto particularly appointed by the said lord mayor, that one of those three who had the most voices might be a.s.sociated to the said Dudley North. And afterwards the said mayor and aldermen departed out of the hall. And the poll for the said three persons last named was immediately begun, and continued until the evening of that day. And then the said congregation was, by order of the lord mayor, adjourned until the next day, being Sat.u.r.day, the 15th of July aforesaid, at 9 o'clock in the afternoon [_sic._]. At which day the said poll being continued was in the afternoon of that day finished. And thereupon relation was made by the common sergeant to the mayor and aldermen that upon the poll taken by the severall persons appointed by the said lord mayor as aforesaid, there were 60 voices for Mr. Papillon, 60 voices for Mr. Du Bois, and 1,244 voices for Mr. Box. By which it appeared that the said Ralph Box had the most voices, and so was elected into the office of one of the sheriffs of the city of London and county of Middles.e.x for the year ensuing. And the same in the afternoon was so declared by the common sergeant to the commons then and there a.s.sembled, which said election of the said Ralph Box was by the aforesaid mayor, aldermen and commonalty ratified and confirmed. And thereupon, according to the form and effect of the Act of Common Council in that case made and provided, publication thereof by proclamation being then made in the place where the Hustings Court is usually held in the presence of the said lord mayor, aldermen and sheriffs, the said Ralph Box was then and there solemnly called, etc."

Very different is the account of the proceedings as given us in a tract of the day.(1503) From the latter we learn that a separate poll was opened the same day by the sheriffs, in which all four candidates were submitted to the choice of the citizens, and the result of which was declared by Sheriff Pilkington on the 15th, prior to the mayor's declaration.

According to this poll, Papillon and Du Bois were again returned at the head with 2,487 and 2,481 votes respectively. There were only 107 in favour of confirming North's election, whilst 2,414 gave their votes against it. Box found himself with only 173 supporters. It was after the declaration of this result that the mayor ordered the common sergeant to declare the result of the other poll, but the declaration of the large number of votes alleged to have been given in favour of Box caused so much uproar that he could proceed no further. The mayor and aldermen thereupon left the hall, and Papillon and Du Bois were declared by the sheriffs duly elected.

(M767)

It was expected that Box would attend before the next Court of Aldermen to be held on the 18th July to give bond for holding office as North had already done, but he failed to appear. A pet.i.tion, therefore, was presented to the court praying that as Papillon and Du Bois had been elected sheriffs the court should call them forth according to custom. The mayor being advised to postpone giving an answer, another pet.i.tion to the same effect was presented at the next court (20 July), whilst yet a third prayed that a _caveat_ might be entered against North and Box being admitted and sworn sheriffs. The mayor was again advised to take time to consider his answer.(1504)

(M768)

A week later (27 July) the mayor made the following reply to the pet.i.tioners, by advice of the court:-"Gentlemen, this court hath considered of your pet.i.tion, and will take care that such persons shall take the office of sheriffs upon them as are duly elected according to law and the ancient customs of this city; and in this and all other things this court will endeavour to maintain the rights and privileges of the chair and of the whole city; and wherein you think that we do otherwise the law must judge between us."(1505) This was little to the liking of the pet.i.tioners, who complained that it was no answer to their pet.i.tion; but they were summarily dismissed.(1506)

(M769)

Thus the matter was allowed to rest until the 5th September, when the Court of Aldermen were again prayed that Papillon and Du Bois might be called upon to enter into bond according to custom. The only answer returned was that Box, who in the opinion of the court had been duly elected one of the sheriffs, had been discharged from service on payment of a fine, and that another election would shortly take place. Thereupon murmurs arose. There had been too many Common Halls already over this affair, cried some, and their choice of sheriffs had been made. The mayor bade them begone in the king's name, or they would be looked upon as tumultuous.(1507)

(M770)

The court sat again on the 12th September, when, we are told, a pet.i.tion similar to those before presented being again brought forward, a debate arose which occasioned some sharp words, and the mayor ordered the sword to be taken up and so dissolved the court; but nothing of this is recorded in the minutes of the court.(1508) Two days later (14 Sept.), several pet.i.tions were presented to the court, one being from the free-holders of Middles.e.x.(1509) To these the same reply was made as had been given to the pet.i.tioners of the 27th July. The pet.i.tioners were further told that it was the mayor's intention to call a Common Hall on Tuesday, the 19th September, to elect one to serve in the place of Box.(1510)