London and the Kingdom Volume II Part 34

For a time James had entertained the hope of obtaining favours for the Catholics with the goodwill of the Church of England, whilst continuing the persecution of dissenters. Finding this impossible he determined to make friends of the dissenters, and to include them in a general declaration of indulgence. Accordingly on the 4th April, 1687, there appeared a Declaration of Indulgence suspending all laws against Roman Catholics and dissenters alike.(1582)

(M815)

James would willingly have obtained parliamentary sanction for his declaration if he could. To this end he again took to tampering with corporations throughout the country, in the hope of securing thereby a parliament favourable to his policy of toleration. Six commissioners were appointed in November to "regulate" all the corporations of England, by turning out all who were opposed to the abolition of the penal laws and Test Act and putting in their place those who favoured it.(1583) In London dispensations were granted to the livery companies relieving their members from taking the oaths and test, whilst similar dispensations were included in the royal commissions appointing aldermen. In many of the companies Tories of a too p.r.o.nounced character were turned out and their places taken by dissenters.(1584) Everywhere dissenters were treated with the greatest consideration. Notwithstanding every effort, however, to capture the const.i.tuencies at the next elections, James found public opinion against him to be too strong, and all thought of summoning a fresh parliament had to be abandoned.

(M816)

In the meanwhile addresses flowed in from various parts of the country thanking the king for his declaration. Presbyterians, Quakers, Independents, Congregationalists alike sent addresses, but as yet no address was presented on behalf of the Court of Aldermen-the governing body of the city, now that the Common Council was in abeyance. That body had to be largely remodelled before it would consent to present any such address. On Thursday, the 16th June, the infamous Jeffreys, who had been rewarded with the seals for his work at the b.l.o.o.d.y a.s.sizes, appeared before the Court of Aldermen and declared his majesty's pleasure that in future that court should nominate and recommend to the Crown such persons as they thought fit to be aldermen as vacancies occurred, and that no one so nominated should be exempt from service except for insufficiency of estate, to be declared on oath. Those who were capable of serving and refused to serve when nominated by the court were to be fined, and the fines were to be devoted to the use and benefit of the city's orphans. The ancient privilege, too, of the mayor drinking to a future sheriff received the king's sanction.(1585) Having listened to the lord chancellor's message the court resolved to wait upon the king at Windsor on the following Sunday to thank his majesty "for that and all other his majesties acts of grace to this court and city."(1586) Both the mayor and the Court of Aldermen lost no time in exercising their privileges, but they experienced great difficulty in getting any one to serve sheriff or alderman. Fines ran up apace, until no less than 8,500 had been paid by persons desirous at any cost to be discharged from filling either of those thankless offices. Many of the aldermen either voluntarily resigned their gowns or were dismissed from the court because they were unwilling to vote an address of thanks to James for his declaration.(1587)

(M817)

At length the court was sufficiently packed with dissenters to pa.s.s an address to the king (26 July) thanking him for his declaration, and a.s.suring his majesty of their readiness to stand by him with their lives and fortunes.(1588) The orphans of the city also voted an address,(1589) as well they might, seeing the amount of money that the declaration had been the means of bringing into the orphans' fund.

(M818) (M819) (M820)

Not every dissenter welcomed the king's declaration. To many of them it seemed-what the king intended it to be-only a lever for raising the Roman Catholics. Baxter, to whom friendly overtures were made by government to win him over, refused to join in any address of thanks for the declaration. John Howe declared himself an opponent of the dispensing power, and Bunyan declined to enter into any negotiations on the matter at all. William Kiffin, on the other hand, an influential Baptist in the city, succ.u.mbed to the threats, if not to the blandishments, of James.(1590) In addition to possessing spiritual gifts of no mean order, Kiffin was also a man of wealth and position in the world of commerce. In every way he would prove a valuable ally, if only he could be won over.

Against this, however, there was one great impediment: the recollection of the judicial murder of his two grandsons, Benjamin and William Hewling, by Jeffreys at the b.l.o.o.d.y a.s.sizes. Fondly imagining that the memory of that foul act could be blotted out and the stricken heart salved by an increase of wealth or elevation in rank, James sent for him to court, and after some preliminary remarks touching the royal favour that was being shown to dissenters, told Kiffin that he had put him down as an alderman in his "new charter," alluding no doubt to the royal commission of 6th August, in which Kiffin's name appears as alderman of Cheap ward in the place of Samuel Dashwood. On hearing this Kiffin replied, "Sir, I am a very old man,"-he was seventy years of age when he lost his grandchildren-"I have withdrawn myself from all kind of business for some years past, and am incapable of doing any service in such an affair to your majesty or the city. Besides, sir," the old man continued, with tears running down his cheeks, and looking the king steadily in the face, "the death of my grandsons gave a wound to my heart which is still bleeding, and never will close but in the grave." For a moment the king was abashed, but quickly recovering himself told Kiffin that he (James) would find "a balsam for that sore." The old man still held out, until, hearing that legal proceedings were about to be taken against him, he took counsel's opinion as to what was best to be done. He was told that he was running a great risk by refusing to become an alderman, for the judges, as they then were, might subject him to a penalty of ten, twenty, or thirty thousand pounds, "even what they pleased." Under such circ.u.mstances he consented to be made an alderman, rather than bring ruin on himself and family. He, however, put off the evil day as long as he could, and was not sworn into office until the 27th October.(1591)

Kiffin expressed himself as pleased with the reception he met with in his ward, where he was almost a stranger. But much of the business which the Court of Aldermen was called upon to execute in those days was distasteful to him. "We had frequently orders from the king" (he writes) "to send to the several companies to put out great numbers of liverymen out of the privilege of being liverymen, and others to be put in their rooms; most of which that were so turned out were Protestants of the Church of England.

There has been a list of seven hundred at a time to be discharged, although no crime laid to their charge." The royal commission which appointed him an alderman also created him a justice of the peace and a member of the Court of Lieutenancy, but to use his own words, "I never meddled with either of those places, neither in any act of power in that court [_i.e._, Court of Aldermen] touching causes between man and man, but only such things as concerned the welfare of the city and good of the orphans, whose distressed condition called for help, although we were able to do little towards it." He was not called upon to discharge his invidious duties for any great length of time; for after being in office only nine months he obtained his discharge, to his "very great satisfaction." He continued to live for another thirteen years, dying on the 29th December, 1701, in his 86th year, and he was buried in Bunhill Fields-that "G.o.d's acre" which holds the dust of so many of his fellow non-conformists.

(M821)

In September the king had issued a patent for Sir John Shorter to be lord mayor for the year ensuing. Shorter was a dissenter-"an Anabaptist, a very odd ignorant person, a mechanic, I think," wrote Evelyn(1592) of him-and on that account a clause was inserted in his commission permitting him to have any preacher he might choose.(1593) His granddaughter was married to Sir Robert Walpole. He was at one time alderman of Cripplegate ward, but in December, 1682, he fell foul of Charles II for attending a conventicle at Pinmakers' Hall, and the Court of Aldermen received orders to remove him.(1594) He had recently, however (6 Aug., 1687), been restored to his aldermanry and to his rank of precedence by commission from James,(1595) and now, by the same usurped authority, he was to become lord mayor. The feast of SS. Simon and Jude (28 Oct.) happening this year to fall on a Friday, the installation of the new lord mayor, as well as the banquet to which James and the Papal Nuncio had been invited, was postponed until the following day. The aldermen agreed to defray the cost of the entertainment out of their own pockets,(1596) each laying down the sum of 50. Kiffin also sent 50, although he had not yet been sworn a member of the court; but he afterwards regretted having done so when he learnt that the Pope's Nuncio and other priests had been invited as guests.(1597) The day pa.s.sed off well. The Goldsmiths' Company, of which the new lord mayor was a member, made a particularly brave show. The entire roadway from Charing Cross to the city had been fresh gravelled that morning, and the king, who was accompanied by the queen, expressed himself as well pleased with the entertainment afforded him.(1598)

(M822)

The Dissenters now had matters all their own way. The livery companies had become so leavened with an influx of new members, whose claim for admittance rested chiefly on their antagonism to the established Church, that most of them now sent in addresses to the king thanking him for his Declaration of Indulgence. The Barber-Surgeons and the Apothecaries had already done so; so had the Clothworkers, the Mercers and the Glovers.

Their example was now followed by the Cutlers, the Goldsmiths, the Haberdashers, the Joiners and the Weavers.(1599) The mayor, who kept his mayoralty at Grocers' Hall, openly held a conventicle there on Sunday, the 6th November,(1600) whilst he declined to listen to a sermon by the learned Dr. Stillingfleet in the Guildhall chapel.(1601) More than this, he would have turned the chapel itself into a conventicle could he have had his own way.(1602)

(M823)

In the Spring of 1688 James published a second Declaration of Indulgence varying but slightly from the former one, and ordered it to be read in the churches of London and Westminster on the 20th and 27th May, and in the country on the 3rd and 10th June. This was more than the clergy could stand. A meeting of bishops was held at Lambeth for the purpose of drawing up a pet.i.tion to the king praying that the clergy might be excused reading an illegal doc.u.ment in the midst of public service. This pet.i.tion was signed by Sancroft, the primate, and six bishops. Although the Bishop of London was not among those who signed the pet.i.tion-he at the time being under disability-there is reason for believing that Compton had been taken into counsel by those who drafted it.(1603) On the pet.i.tion being presented James pretended the utmost surprise, and insisted that the presentation of such a pet.i.tion was "a standard of rebellion." This took place on Friday preceding the first Sunday (20th May) when the Declaration was to be read in the London churches. When Sunday arrived people flocked to the churches to hear what would happen. Only a few of the London clergy attempted to read the Declaration.(1604) In the country not more than 200 clergy carried out the king's orders, "and of these some read it the first Sunday, but changed their minds before the second; others declared in their sermons that though they obeyed the order they did not approve the Declaration." One minister in particular told his congregation that though he was obliged to read it they were not obliged to hear it, and waited until all had left the church before he commenced reading the hateful doc.u.ment. In other places the congregation took the initiative and rose to go as soon as the minister commenced reading it.(1605)

(M824)

What followed is well known. On Friday the 8th June the Archbishop of Canterbury and the six bishops who had signed the pet.i.tion were summoned before the council and asked if they acknowledged their respective signatures. They were next required to enter into bond for appearance before the King's Bench. This they declined to do, and were thereupon committed to the Tower.(1606) To have carried them through the streets of the city might have caused a riot; they were therefore conveyed to the Tower by water, "and all along as they pa.s.sed the banks of the river were full of people, who kneeled down and asked their blessing, and with loud shouts expressed their good wishes for them and their concern in their preservation."(1607) The enthusiasm of the Londoners did not end here.

They continued to flock to the Tower, filling the small chapel where the bishops attended service to overflowing in order to gaze upon their beloved pastors and receive their blessing.(1608) After being kept in separate confinement, and allowed to meet only at meals and in chapel, for ten days, the bishops were allowed to come out on bail.

(M825)

On the 29th June they appeared before the King's Bench on a charge of publis.h.i.+ng a seditious libel. A technical difficulty presented itself at the outset, but this was got over, and after a trial of some hours the question of their innocence or guilt was left to a jury drawn, not from London, but from the county of Middles.e.x. One of the panel stuck out against the rest, and wished to bring in a verdict of guilty, but after being locked up through the night he allowed himself to be persuaded by his fellow-jurymen, and on the morning of the 30th June a verdict of not guilty was found. Thereupon "there were such shoutings, so long continued, and as it were echoed into the city, that all people were struck with it."(1609) Bonfires were lighted, guns discharged and church bells rung, not only in London but throughout the kingdom.

(M826)

The beginning of the end was approaching. Already the troops encamped at Hounslow, on which James placed so much dependence, showed signs of disaffection. He had hoped that his army would have overawed London, instead of which the free spirit of London had, as a result of his policy, entirely captivated his army. So long as the king was in their midst the troops maintained a respectful demeanour, but as soon as his back was turned they threw off all restraint, and joined in the general exultation at the late joyful deliverance to the Church of England.(1610)

(M827)

The birth of a prince (10 June), which had recently taken place, served to hasten the crisis. Those who were willing to have waited patiently for a recurrence to the old order of things at the king's death now saw their hopes dashed to the ground. The king's heir and successor, brought up, as he undoubtedly would be, in the tenets of his father, promised them little relief. Even before the birth of the prince overtures had been made to William of Orange to appear in England at the head of an army.

Nevertheless the Court of Aldermen displayed its loyalty by resolving that the conduits in Cheapside and at the Stocks Market should run with claret on Thanksgiving-day. The sheriffs were to take the matter in hand, whilst the sum of 50 was raised by the court to defray the cost, the mayor contributing 10, each of the sheriffs 5, and the rest of the aldermen the balance between them.(1611) Later on (29 June) the mayor, aldermen and sheriffs waited upon the infant prince and kissed his hand. The various nurses were presented by the Chamberlain with the respectable _douceur_ of sixty guineas, whilst ten guineas were given to the lord chancellor's messenger who brought the news to the city of the prince's birth.(1612)

(M828)

The day that saw the bishops acquitted a letter was despatched, signed by Shrewsbury, Danby, Compton (the suspended Bishop of London) and others, to the Prince of Orange, again inviting him to land in England with an armed force, and promising to render him every a.s.sistance. After some hesitation William accepted the invitation, and began to make preparations, both naval and military, for his descent on England. Towards the close of September news came from Holland of the vast preparations that were being pushed forward in that country. A fleet of sixty sail was in readiness, and the prince himself was shortly expected on board. James lost no time in informing the lord mayor of the state of affairs, and desired that he and the aldermen would take measures for preserving the city in peace.(1613) On the 28th he issued a proclamation informing his subjects of the threatened invasion, and calling upon them to lay aside all jealousies and to unite in defending the country against the foreign enemy.(1614)

(M829)

James saw, when it was too late, that he had over-taxed the patience of his subjects. He was now ready to make any and every concession. As for the citizens of London, they should have their charter restored.

Accordingly, on Sat.u.r.day the 6th October Lord Chancellor Jeffreys appeared before the Court of Aldermen with two separate grants under the great seal, the one appointing Sir John Chapman to be mayor (in the place of Sir John Eyles(1615)) up to the feast of SS. Simon and Jude (28 Oct.), with liberty to the citizens in the meantime to elect one of their own choice to be mayor for the year ensuing; the other, continuing in office Sir Samuel Thompson and Sir Humphrey Edwin, then sheriffs, until a new election of sheriffs should be made by the citizens. The newly-appointed mayor and the existing sheriffs thereupon went down into the Guildhall, accompanied by the lord chancellor, who informed the citizens of the rest.i.tution of their liberties.(1616) The mayor and sheriffs having taken the oaths and subscribed the declaration prescribed by the Corporation Act, the aldermen returned to their chamber, and such as had been aldermen at the time of the judgment upon the writ of _Quo Warranto_ and were then present were forthwith sworn in for the respective wards from which they had been deposed. The court next proceeded to draw up an address to the king, in which his majesty was a.s.sured that with all duty and faithfulness they would cheerfully and readily _discharge the trust reposed in them_ to the utmost hazard of their lives and fortunes.(1617) One cannot help noticing how studiously different the wording of this address is from those previously presented. Not a word about defending his majesty's person with their lives and fortunes; these are thenceforth to be expended in guarding their own liberties! When the Court of Aldermen met three days later (9 Oct.) the common sergeant, the town clerk, the comptroller, swordbearer, common crier and other officers who had been ousted from their places under the _Quo Warranto_ were formally re-instated;(1618) and the same day Chapman issued his precept for a Common Hall to meet on the 11th for the election of sheriffs for the year ensuing.(1619) Several aldermen who had lost their places in 1683 declined to be re-instated, among them being Sir Robert Clayton.(1620) Sir George Treby, who had been recorder at the time of the confiscation of the city's liberties, also refused to accept office again; but the Court of Aldermen finding great difficulty in getting a suitable person to accept the appointment, Treby was finally induced to change his mind, and before the end of the year he occupied his old place and continued to occupy it until, in 1692, he was made chief justice of common pleas.(1621)

The city was still without a Common Council, and it was not until the 26th November that the Court of Aldermen advised the mayor to issue his precept for an election of common councilmen to take place on the 28th. The council so elected was to be but a provisional one until the regular election should take place on St. Thomas-day (21 Dec.).(1622) On the 1st December the new Common Council sat for the first time,(1623) none having met since the 2nd October, 1683.

(M830)

The day that a new Common Council was elected Jeffreys (who was already packing up to be off) notified that writs were about to be issued for a new parliament. The House was to meet on the 15th January (1689). James had purposed summoning a parliament for November (1688), and some of the writs had been actually sent out, but the Dutch preparations so alarmed him that the writs were recalled.(1624)

(M831)

In the meantime an extraordinary council had been held at Whitehall (20 Oct.) which the mayor and aldermen of the city had been invited to attend.

The object of the meeting was to dissipate any doubt that had been entertained as to the infant prince being actually the king's son. There had been rumours to the contrary, and as the king was about to enter upon a dangerous enterprise in person, he declared his intention of settling the question beyond all doubt before leaving. Some twenty witnesses were accordingly examined then and there as to the prince's legitimacy, the king offering to send for the queen herself if the meeting so wished. This offer, one need scarcely say, was declined.(1625) The same day proclamation was made for guarding the sea coast and withdrawing all draft cattle into the interior.(1626)

(M832)

The feast of SS. Simon and Jude (28 Oct.) falling on Sunday, Sir John Chapman, who had been re-elected mayor by free choice of the citizens, proceeded to Westminster by water according to custom on the following Monday, accompanied by the aldermen, and was sworn before the barons of the exchequer. He returned to Grocers' Hall and there entertained the lords of the council, the judges and many of the n.o.bility. Notwithstanding the precautions taken against riot during the mayor's absence from the city the mob broke out and sacked and burnt a "ma.s.s house" in Bucklersbury. For this disturbance the mayor and sheriffs were called to account by the king.(1627)

(M833)

On the 5th November the Prince of Orange successfully effected a landing in Torbay. As soon as the news reached London James again sent for the mayor and aldermen, ordered them to take care of the city, and, if he should fall in battle, to proclaim the Prince of Wales successor to the crown.(1628) William proceeded to march upon London. At Exeter he was well received, but some little time elapsed before the gentry showed any disposition to throw in their lot with the prince. On the 17th James set out with his army to meet the invader, after receiving an a.s.surance from the mayor and aldermen that they would take care of the city during his absence.(1629) He reached Salisbury, but soon found himself deserted by officers and friends. Among the former was Lord Churchill, afterwards known as the Duke of Marlborough, and the greatest soldier of the age.

Left almost alone, James returned to London, having been absent from the capital less than ten days. Like his name-sake the Conqueror, William made no haste to reach London, but advanced by slow marches, putting up at various gentlemen's houses on the way. It was agreed that both armies should remain at a distance of forty miles from London in order to allow the new parliament to meet in safety.

(M834)

Since the news of the prince's landing there had been a renewal of the attacks made on Roman Catholics and their places of wors.h.i.+p in London. On the 11th November the mob broke into St. John's, Clerkenwell, where rumour declared there were stored gridirons, spits and other instruments for torturing Protestants. The troops were called out and one or two of the rioters killed. It was deemed advisable to close all the Roman Catholic chapels except the royal chapels and those belonging to foreign amba.s.sadors.(1630) Another sign of the times was the fact that the sceptre belonging to the statue of Queen Mary set up in the Royal Exchange had either accidentally fallen or (as was more probable) had been forcibly struck out of her hand.(1631) On the 7th December the mayor issued a precept to the aldermen of each ward for a careful search to be made in the city for all Papists and suspicious persons. He did this because he understood that the inhabitants of the city were much alarmed at the great resort of Papists to the city who were believed to be meditating some attack upon London.(1632)

(M835)

The negotiations which had been opened with William were only intended by James to serve the purpose of giving the latter time to place his wife and child in a place of security before he himself should seek safety in flight. On the 11th December he attempted to make good his escape. As soon as it was known that the king had left London a great number of lords, both spiritual and temporal, came to the Guildhall, as to a place of security, the better to consult and take measures for the common weal.

Having informed the Court of Aldermen of the king's flight the lords retired into the "gallery adjoining to ye councell chamber," and there drew up a Declaration,(1633) containing in effect their resolution to a.s.sist the Prince of Orange in maintaining the religion, the rights and the liberties which had been invaded by Jesuitical counsels. This was communicated to the Court of Aldermen, who thanked the lords for the favour shown to the Court. As the occasion was an important one it was deemed advisable to summon forthwith a Common Council, as well as the law officers of the City, to advise the aldermen as to what was best to be done.(1634) A Common Council was accordingly held that same day. Being informed of the state of affairs, the court quickly resolved to follow the example set by the lords, and themselves to present an address to the prince.(1635) An address was accordingly prepared, in which, having warmly acknowledged the prince's zeal for the Protestant religion and expressed regret at the king's measures and his recent flight, the citizens implored the prince's protection, promising him at the same time a hearty welcome whenever he should repair to their city. The lieutenancy of the city followed suit the same day with another address, in which his highness was a.s.sured that measures had been taken for preserving the city in peace until his arrival.(1636) The lords, having finished their business in the city, dined the same evening with the lord mayor at Grocers' Hall.(1637)

(M836)

On the 17th a letter from the prince was read before the Common Council.

The terms of the letter are not recorded in the City's archives, but it probably contained some reference to the peace of the city, for the council, after preparing an answer to it, forthwith gave orders for the guards of the trained bands to be increased by three regiments.(1638)

(M837)

The following day (18 Dec.) the prince himself entered London, and the council, having heard of his arrival, immediately despatched the sheriffs and the common sergeant to learn when his highness would be pleased to receive a deputation from the city. It was arranged that the aldermen and their deputies and one or two members of the council of each ward, according to the number of its representatives, should form the deputation.(1639) The lord mayor (Chapman) being indisposed was unable to attend. He had recently been seized with a fit of apoplexy whilst trying the terrible Jeffreys, who had been discovered and apprehended in disguise at Wapping. But Treby, the recorder, was there, and made a speech on the City's behalf.(1640)