London and the Kingdom Volume II Part 32

(M771) (M772)

When that day arrived and the common sergeant, acting on instructions from the mayor, put forward the name of Peter Rich, there arose repeatedly the cry of "No Rich!" and such a din followed, the citizens declaring loudly that they would stand by their old choice, that nothing else could be heard. At length the sheriffs were given to understand that a poll was demanded. The mayor hearing of the proposed poll thereupon came on to the hustings and declared Rich to be duly elected. The whole business was carried on in dumb show, it being impossible to hear anything that was said. Having done this, the mayor dissolved the Common Hall and went home.

The sheriff proceeded nevertheless to open the poll in the afternoon, with the result that 2,082 votes were found in favour of standing by their old choice, whilst only thirty-five were for Rich. Hearing that the mayor was returning, the sheriffs made a hurried declaration of the result of the poll, proclaiming Papillon and Du Bois to have been again elected, and dismissed the a.s.sembly. The mayor on his arrival caused the gates of the Guildhall to be closed. Such is the account of what took place on the 19th September, as given by the diarist of the day.(1511) The City's Journal merely records in the briefest manner possible the election of Rich.(1512)

(M773)

The next day (20 Sept.) the lord mayor and a deputation of aldermen waited on the king at Whitehall, and informed him of what had taken place. A council was thereupon summoned for that afternoon, which the sheriffs were ordered to attend. Upon their appearance they were told that they had behaved in a riotous manner, and must answer for their conduct before the King's Bench. They were accordingly made to enter into their own recognisances severally for 1,000, besides finding other security.(1513)

(M774)

On the 26th, when Rich was called before the Court of Aldermen to enter into bond to take office, a paper was handed to the court desiring that Papillon and Du Bois might be called to the shrievalty, but it was to no purpose. The same answer was returned as on previous occasions.(1514)

(M775)

Two days later (28 Sept.) Rich and North were sworn into office amid a great concourse of citizens at the Guildhall, the entrance to which was strongly guarded by a company of trained bands in case of disturbance.

When the oath was about to be administered to them a protest was made by Papillon and Du Bois, who attempted to get possession of the book; but upon the lord mayor commanding them in the king's name to depart and keep the peace, they left the hall and with them went several of the aldermen who were their supporters. The new sheriffs entertained the mayor and aldermen, according to custom, at Grocers' Hall, Rich being a member of that company.(1515) Rich subsequently applied for and was allowed the sum of 100 out of the fine of 400 paid into the Chamber by Box.(1516) The election which had been so long and so hotly contested thus ended in a complete victory for the court party.

(M776)

It was the custom in those days, as it is now, for members of the livery company or companies to which a newly-elected sheriff belonged to accompany him to the Guildhall on the occasion of his entering upon his office. Dudley North, being a member of the Mercers' Company, had desired the officers of the company and several of the livery to pay him this compliment, but after considering the matter the court of the company pa.s.sed a resolution to the effect that neither officers nor members should attend him on pain of being expelled from the company, but that they should accompany Papillon to the hall and present him to be sworn as one of the sheriffs.(1517)

(M777)

Cornish attended the ceremony at the Guildhall, and afterwards (2 Oct.) swore an information before Sir William Turner,(1518) a brother alderman, of the treatment he had received at the hands of the soldiers present. The information was to the effect that when he and several other aldermen entered the hall about nine o'clock in the morning they found a guard of soldiers placed at the hall door, and another drawn up before the hustings, "who were presently commanded by their officer to stand to their armes." After a short stay in the Council Chamber they returned into the hall to meet the lord mayor, and for a quarter of an hour walked up and down the hall "betweene the clock-house and the doore wch leads up to the Hustings Court on the north side of the hall." Hitherto they had met with no opposition from the soldiers, but now they were accosted by Lieutenant-Colonel Quiney, the officer in command, who desired "they would give him noe disturbance." To this they replied that "they would give him none and expected alsoe not to bee themselves disturbed by anie in that place." Quiney thereupon left, but soon after returned and told them he had orders from the lieutenancy to clear the hall. He was asked to produce the order, and if it were found to include aldermen of the city Cornish and his friends would obey. The order was not forthcoming; it was with the major, said Quiney, who soon afterwards formed up his men and, again addressing Cornish and the other aldermen, peremptorily required them to withdraw or he would expel them by force. Cornish again demanded to see the order, but the officer forthwith laid hands on him and thrust him out, declaring that he would abide by the order of the lieutenancy, who were his masters. So ends Cornish's information. Proceedings were subsequently taken against Quiney for keeping persons that were liverymen out of the Guildhall and offering abuse to others.(1519)

(M778)

The next day being Michaelmas-day a Common Hall met to elect a mayor for the ensuing year in the place of Sir John Moore.(1520) Four aldermen were nominated as candidates, viz., Sir William Pritchard, the senior alderman below the chair, Sir Henry Tulse, Sir Thomas Gold and Henry Cornish. The common sergeant having declared that the choice of the citizens lay between Pritchard and Gold, a poll was demanded and allowed, the result of which was declared (4 Oct.) to be as follows:-Gold 2,289, Cornish 2,259, Pritchard 2,233 and Tulse 236.(1521)

This result seems to have satisfied no one, and a scrutiny was asked for in order that the poll books might be compared with the lists of liverymen of the several companies. It was discovered that certain members of the livery of the Merchant Taylors' and other companies had recorded their votes although they had not taken the liveryman's oath prescribed by such companies. The question of the legality of such votes being submitted to the Court of Aldermen, that body decided (24 Oct.) against the voters.(1522) The election was watched with anxious interest. Pritchard, himself a Merchant Taylor, was known to be of the same political mind as the out-going mayor, and it was the common belief at the time that if the majority of votes should prove to be in favour of Gold or Cornish, who were of the Whig party, the king would interpose and continue Sir John Moore in office for another year.(1523) His majesty had recently been amusing himself at Newmarket, but he had been kept posted up in city news, and immediately after his return to Whitehall was waited on by the mayor and aldermen (22 Oct.) and informed of the state of affairs. The result of the scrutiny, according to the paper submitted to the Court of Aldermen, was still in favour of Gold and Cornish, but according to the return made by the mayor(1524) (25 Oct.) Pritchard was placed at the head of the poll with 2,138 votes, as against 2,124 for Gold, 2,093 for Cornish and 236 for Tulse. The first two named were therefore presented to the Court of Aldermen for them to choose one to be mayor according to custom, and their choice falling upon Pritchard he was declared elected, and on the following feast of SS. Simon and Jude (28 Oct.) was admitted and sworn.

(M779)

A motion was afterwards made (24 Nov.) for a _mandamus_ directing the mayor and aldermen to swear Gold or Cornish as duly elected mayor of London, but nothing came of it.(1525)

(M780)

The time was thought opportune by the Duke of York for prosecuting his action for slander against Pilkington commenced in June last. The words complained of, and for which the duke claimed damages to the extent of 50,000, were declared on the oath of two aldermen-Sir Henry Tulse and Sir William Hooker-to have been spoken by him at a Court of Aldermen at a time when that body was about to visit the duke to congratulate him upon his return from Scotland, and were to the effect that the duke had burnt the city and was then coming to cut their throats. That the words, if spoken-a question open to much doubt-were scandalous to a degree cannot be denied, but the claim for damages was none the less vindictive. Instead of laying his action in London the duke caused his action to be tried by a jury of the county of Hertford (24 Nov.). Pilkington made very little defence (he probably thought it useless), and the jury awarded the duke the full amount of damages claimed. The ex-sheriff was of course ruined; he surrendered himself into custody(1526) and gave up his aldermanry, in which he was succeeded by Dudley North, the sheriff.(1527)

(M781)

Still he was not allowed to rest. In the following February (16 Feb., 1683) he and his late colleague in the shrievalty, Samuel Shute, together with Lord Grey of Wark, Alderman Cornish, Sir Thomas Player, the city chamberlain (who had recently been called to account for moneys received), Slingsby Beth.e.l.l, and others were brought to trial for the disturbance that had taken place last Midsummer-day. The trial was opened at the Guildhall on the 16th February, but the jury being challenged on the ground that the array contained no peer (a peer of the realm being about to be tried), the challenge was allowed, and the trial put off until the next term. On the 8th May, after a long trial, all the accused were found guilty, and were eventually (26 June) fined in various sums, amounting in all to 4,100.(1528)

(M782)

Pilkington's fall also dragged down Sir Patience Ward, who was proceeded against for perjury, he having stated on oath at the trial of the late sheriff that the debate in the Court of Aldermen concerning the Duke of York was over before Pilkington had arrived, and that there was no mention made of cutting throats while he was there. After much contradictory evidence the jury found the defendant guilty, and he, like Shaftesbury before him, sought refuge in Holland.(1529)

(M783)

In the meantime, having experienced so much difficulty in bending the City to his will, and having so far succeeded in his object as to have a royalist mayor in the chair, as well as royalist sheriffs, Charles took steps to obtain an equally subservient Common Council. To this end he had issued a command (18 Dec.) to the mayor to enforce on the electors at the coming feast of St. Thomas (21 Dec.) the obligation of electing only such men to be members of the new council as had conformed with the provisions of the Corporation Act. The king's letter was by the mayor's precept read at each wardmote on the day of election.(1530) It was hoped that by this means a Common Council might be returned which might be induced to make a voluntary surrender of the City's charter instead of forcing matters to an issue at law.(1531)

(M784)

The design failed and the king resolved at length to proceed with the _Quo Warranto_. After the lapse of more than a twelvemonth the trial came on for hearing (7 Feb., 1683). The solicitor-general, who opened the case, propounded to the court four questions: (1) Whether any corporation could be forfeited? (2) Whether the city of London differed from other corporations as to point of forfeiture? (3) Whether any act of the mayor, aldermen and Common Council in Common Council a.s.sembled be so much the act of the Corporation as could make a forfeiture? and (4) Whether the acts by them done in making a certain by-law and receiving money by it,(1532) or in making the pet.i.tion of the 13th January, 1681, and causing it to be published, be such acts as, if done by the Corporation, would make a forfeiture of the Corporation? After a lengthy argument counsel for the Crown concluded by asking judgment for the king, and that the defendants might be ousted of their franchise as a Corporation.

(M785)

The City's Recorder, Sir George Treby, rose in reply. His argument in favour of the City(1533) tended to show that the corporation of London _qua_ corporation could not forfeit its existence either by voluntary surrender or by abuse of its powers, much less could its existence be imperilled by the action of those representatives of the city to whom its government had been confided. The corporation of the City was a governing body elected for specific purposes; if it proceeded _ultra vires_ to establish market tolls or to offer a pet.i.tion to the king which was seditious, an indictment lay against every particular member of that body, but no execution could be taken against the mayor, commonalty and citizens of London, a body politic that is invisible, one that can neither see nor be seen.

Counsel on the other side had laid stress on the fact that the liberties and franchises of the City had been often seized or "taken into the king's hands," adducing instances with which the reader of the earlier pages of this work will be already familiar; and if they could be so seized, they could also be forfeited. The Recorder argued that this conclusion was a wrong one. The effect of the seizure of the City's liberties in former days had only been to place the government of the city in the hands of a _custos_ or warden. The Corporation continued as before; it might sue and be sued as before; it was neither suspended nor destroyed. How could the king seize a Corporation? Could he himself const.i.tute the mayor, commonalty and citizens of a city, or make anyone else such? No, a Corporation was not, to use a legal phrase, "manurable"; it could not be seized; nor had anyone (he believed) ever imagined such a thing as a dissolution of a corporation by a judgment in law until that day. At the conclusion of his speech the further hearing of the case was adjourned until April.

(M786)

On the resumption of the hearing (27 April)(1534) Sir Robert Sawyer, the attorney-general, at whose suggestion and by whose authority the writ against the City had been issued, took up the argument, commencing his speech with an attempt to allay the apprehension excited by the prospect of forfeiture of the City's charter. "It was not the king's intention," he said, "to demolish at once all their liberties and to lay waste and open the city of London, and to reduce it to the condition of a country village," as some had maliciously reported, but to amend the government of the City "by running off those excesses and exorbitances of power which some men (contrary to their duty and the known laws of the land) have a.s.sumed to themselves under colour of their corporate capacity, to the reviling of their prince, the oppression of their fellow subjects and to the infinite disquiet of their fellow citizens."(1535) History had shown that the City had never been better governed than when it was in the king's hands. Its ancient customs had not been destroyed, but only restrained in subordination to the general government of the kingdom, and therefore the danger now threatened would not prove so fatal to the City as had been suggested.

(M787)

After the conclusion of the arguments on both sides, nearly three months were allowed to pa.s.s before judgment was given, in the hope that the citizens of London might follow the example set by Norwich, Evesham and other boroughs, and freely surrender their charter. "I do believe n.o.body here wishes this case should come to judgment," was the remark made by Chief Justice Saunders at the conclusion of the hearing; but at length the patience of the Crown or of the judges was exhausted, and judgment was p.r.o.nounced (12 June) by Justice Jones in the absence of the Lord Chief Justice, who was now on the point of death. Briefly, the judgment p.r.o.nounced was to the effect (1) that a corporation aggregate might be seized; (2) that exacting and taking money by a "pretended" by-law was extortion and a forfeiture of franchise; (3) that the pet.i.tion was scandalous and libellous, and the making and publis.h.i.+ng it a forfeiture; (4) that an Act of Common Council is an Act of the Corporation; (5) that the matter set forth in the record did not excuse or avoid those forfeitures set forth in the replication, and (6) that the information was well founded. The result of these findings was that the franchise of the Corporation was ordered to be seized into the king's hands, but this judgment was not to be entered until the king's pleasure should be known.

As to the right claimed by the citizens to have and const.i.tute sheriffs (a right which they had recently shown no disposition to forego) and the claim of the mayor and aldermen to be Justices of the Peace and to hold Sessions, the attorney-general was content to enter a _nolle prosequi_.

(M788)

A few days before delivery of judgment the Common Council agreed to expunge from the records of the court all minutes of proceedings during the late civil war that in any way reflected upon the late king.(1536) The list of the various minutes thus ordered to be annulled was a very long one, occupying more than ten pages of the city's Journal, and embraced a period of eighteen years (1641-1659). The munic.i.p.al authorities may have thought that by this egregious act of self-stultification they might mitigate the judgment that was impending over them. If so they were sadly mistaken.

(M789)

Finding that further resistance was useless the Common Council unanimously(1537) agreed (14 June) to present a humble pet.i.tion to his majesty asking pardon for their late offences, and declaring their readiness to submit to anything that he might command or direct.

Accordingly, on Monday the 18th June, the lord mayor proceeded to Windsor, accompanied by a deputation of aldermen and members of the Common Council, to lay this pet.i.tion before the king in council, and his majesty's reply, given by the mouth of the lord keeper, was reported to the Common Council on the following Wednesday.(1538)

(M790)

The king, he said, had been very loth to take action against the City, but had been driven to do so by the recent elections. Their pet.i.tion would have been more gracious if presented earlier; nevertheless, his majesty would not reject it on that account. He would, however, show the City as much favour as could be reasonably expected. It was not his intention to prejudice them either in their properties or customs, and he had instructed Mr. Attorney not to enter judgment lest such a proceeding might entail serious consequences. The alterations he required were few and easy. They were these, viz., that no mayor, sheriff, recorder, common sergeant, town clerk or coroner of the city of London or any steward of the borough of Southwark should be appointed without his majesty's approval under his sign manual; that if his majesty should express disapproval of the choice of a mayor made by the citizens a new election should take place within a week, and if his majesty should disapprove of the second choice he shall, if he so please, himself nominate a mayor for the year ensuing; that if his majesty should in like manner disapprove of the persons chosen to be sheriffs, or either of them, he shall, if he please, proceed to appoint sheriffs by his commission, but subject to this restriction the election of these officers might take according to the ancient usuage of the city; that the lord mayor and Court of Aldermen might with leave of his majesty displace any alderman, recorder, common sergeant, town clerk, coroner of the city or steward of Southwark; that where an election of an alderman had been set aside by the Court of Aldermen another election should be held, and that the Justices of the Peace should be by his majesty's commission. These terms accepted by the citizens, his majesty would consent to confirm their charter in a manner consistent with them. But if they were not speedily complied with his majesty had given orders to enter up judgment by the Sat.u.r.day following, and any consequences that might follow would be at the door of the citizens themselves.

(M791)

A "long and serious" debate, we are told, followed the reading of this answer in the Common Council, after which a poll was taken on the question: whether the court should submit to the king's terms or not, with the result that 104 votes were recorded in favour of accepting them as against 85 votes to the contrary. Whereupon it was "unanimously" ordered that his majesty should be informed of the court's submission, and that the Midsummer-day elections should be put off until the 18th July.(1539)

(M792)

Whilst these proceedings against the city were going on, a writ had been obtained by Papillon and Du Bois for the arrest of Pritchard, the mayor, Dudley North, the sheriff, and several aldermen, for having made a false return to a _mandamus_ directed to them in November last.(1540) The writ was directed to Broom, the city's coroner, who executed it by lodging the parties in his own house (24 April). No sooner was this done than one of the city sergeants proceeded to arrest the coroner, who was taken to the compter, where he had to pa.s.s the night, whilst the mayor and his fellow-prisoners made their way home. A cry that the Whigs had seized the mayor and carried him off caused great consternation, and the trained bands were immediately ordered out for the security of the city. The citizens themselves were much divided in their opinions on the matter, "some condemning it and others approving it, according to the different tempers of persons."(1541)

(M793)

A committee was appointed (26 April) by the Court of Aldermen to consider what was fit to be done by way of vindicating the honour of the mayor and the government of the city, as well as for punis.h.i.+ng the authors of the indignity;(1542) whilst the Common Council caused it to be placed on record (22 May) that neither they nor the citizens at large had any partic.i.p.ation in or knowledge of the action against the mayor, which Papillon and Du Bois alleged had been brought in the name of the citizens of London.(1543) Broom's conduct, as well as the terms on which he held his appointment, were made the subject of an investigation by a committee.(1544)

(M794)

After Pritchard's year of office expired he brought an action on the case against Papillon for false imprisonment, and eventually (6 Nov., 1684) obtained a verdict and damages to the respectable amount of 10,000. This verdict, whilst it caused amazement to many, met with the avowed approval of Jeffreys, recently promoted to be Lord Chief Justice, who complimented the jury upon their good sense. "Gentlemen," he remarked at the close of the trial, "you seem to be persons that have some sense upon you, and consideration for the government, and I think have given a good verdict and are to be greatly commended for it."(1545) Papillon thereupon absconded.