Volume II Part 15 (1/2)

The reconciliation between parliament and the city was followed by an interchange of courtesies. The royalist army under Hopton had recently surrendered to Fairfax in the west of England (14 March), and had been disbanded; and the last hope of Charles had vanished in the defeat of Astley's troops after a sharp engagement at Stow-on-the-Wold (22 March).

”You have now done your work” were the parting words of the veteran commander to his soldiers, ”and may go play, unless you will fall out among yourselves.”(727) On the 26th March a deputation from both Houses waited on the Common Council, and invited the mayor, aldermen and council, as ”the representative body of the city,” to attend a public thanksgiving service to be held that day week (2 April) at Christ Church, Newgate Street. The invitation was graciously accepted, and the City returned the compliment by asking both Houses to dine the same day at Grocers'

Hall.(728)

(M350) (M351)

On the 19th May, whilst virtually a prisoner in the hands of the Scots, Charles wrote to the City(729) declaring his readiness to concur in settling truth and peace, his desire to have all things speedily concluded to that end, and his hope that his return to his ancient city might be to the satisfaction of parliament and his people. The Commons were angry with the civic authorities for opening the king's letter without their leave, and returned a curt answer to a remonstrance presented to them by the City calling upon them to suppress heresy, to unite with the Scots and to come to a speedy arrangement with the king.(730) The Lords, to whom a similar remonstrance had been presented, expressed themselves more graciously.

They acknowledged the fidelity and constant services of the City to parliament. They were satisfied with the resolutions of the citizens to settle the Protestant religion and to preserve the rights and privileges of parliament, the liberties of the kingdoms and the person and authority of his majesty. As for their lord mayor (Thomas Adams), whose character the pet.i.tioners had declared to have been aspersed by certain members of the Commons (for opening the king's letter without leave?), they (the Lords) held him in high esteem, and declared that nothing had been said or done in their House to his prejudice. As soon as they should be informed of the nature of his grievance they would be found ready in a parliamentary way to do him right.(731) The Common Council received a formal address of thanks for presenting this remonstrance from a large body of ”citizens of the best rank and qualitie,” as well as from the General a.s.sembly of Scotland.(732)

(M352)

On the other hand an attempt was made to minimise the effect of the remonstrance by getting up a counter-pet.i.tion on the pretext that the remonstrance had not fairly represented the wishes of the majority of the citizens. This counter-pet.i.tion, which is said to have been backed up with 5,000 or 6,000 signatures, was duly presented to the Commons, who by a small majority pa.s.sed a vote of thanks to the pet.i.tioners (2 June).(733)

(M353)

In the meanwhile the king's letter of the 19th May remained unanswered. At last, on the 3rd July, an answer-or ”pet.i.tion”-was drafted and submitted to the Common Council for approval. After acknowledging the special favour of receiving a letter direct from the king, the citizens expressed their desire to a.s.sure his majesty and the whole world of the continuance of their loyalty in accordance with the terms of their protestation and covenant. They prayed him to comply with the propositions for the settlement of religion and peace and the maintenance of the union of the two nations which parliament was about to send him, and they expressed an earnest hope to see him return to his ancient city with honour and joy.(734)

(M354)

The city fathers were too wary to despatch their pet.i.tion without first obtaining leave from parliament. On the following day (4 July), therefore, a deputation of aldermen and members of the council, with Alderman Sir Thomas Foote at its head, presented itself before the House of Lords to ask their leave to despatch the City's answer to the king. After perusing the pet.i.tion the Lords declared their approval of its being sent to the king, and courteously acknowledged the action of the citizens in first submitting it to the judgment of their lords.h.i.+ps.(735) It was otherwise with the Commons, who again returned a churlish reply. The deputation was given to understand that the House had been put to some inconvenience in giving them an audience, being busily engaged at the time in pressing business. The pet.i.tion, however, was of importance, and would receive their consideration at a convenient time.(736)

(M355)

On Friday the 10th the Commons were pressed for an answer, but they again put the matter off on the plea of pressure of business. The next day the deputation again waited on the House, attended by the city members of parliament, and about four o'clock in the afternoon received a message from the Commons that the City's pet.i.tion was not to be forwarded to the king, and that ”in convenient time” they would send and inform the Common Council of their further pleasure. Accordingly two of the city's members, Sir Thomas Soame and Samuel Va.s.sall, appeared before the council on the 15th, when Va.s.sall declared that he had been commanded by the House to make an explanation. In order to avoid mistakes he would read the message he was to deliver. The message was to the effect that inasmuch as the propositions which had been despatched to the king by parliament on the 13th June embraced the city of London as well as the whole kingdom, the House could not approve of the city's pet.i.tion being forwarded to his majesty. Being desired by the council to leave the paper with them, Va.s.sall declared that he had no authority to do so.(737) In the meantime, the House had appointed a committee to enquire ”concerning the first princ.i.p.al contrivers and framers of the city remonstrance, and concerning such as have or do labour to disaffect the people and the city from the parliament”;(738) but before the committee could take steps to carry out its instructions, circ.u.mstances had arisen which made it advisable to let the matter drop and not to widen the breach between the city and parliament.

(M356)

On the 30th July the parliamentary commissioners arrived in Newcastle for the purpose of laying before Charles propositions for peace. Charles had already become possessed of a copy, and had long since made up his mind to reject them. The commissioners had received positive orders to allow the king ten days to give his a.s.sent, and if he failed to give his a.s.sent within that time after their arrival they were at once to return.(739) The only reply which Charles condescended to give was contained in a letter which he handed to the commissioners on the 1st August. The letter was read before the House on the 12th. It contained little more than vague promises and a request that he might be allowed to come to London to discuss the propositions at length.(740)

(M357)

The same day that the king's answer was read before the Lords a letter from the Scottish commissioners was produced, in which they offered to withdraw their forces from England upon payment of expenses already incurred.(741) After a considerable amount of haggling the Scots consented to take the sum of 400,000 in full discharge of all claims, a moiety to be paid to them before leaving England and the remainder by instalments at specified dates.(742) It only remained for parliament to raise the sum of 200,000 needed for the first payment, and to whom was it more natural that application should first be made than to the City? A large deputation from the Commons, including Cromwell himself, accordingly waited on the Common Council (7 Sept.) to ask it to consider ways and means for raising the money. The committee to whom the matter was referred lost no time. On the 9th it reported to the court a scheme for raising the money on the security of the excise and sale of the Bishops' lands, the security to extend to previous loans. Parliament accepted these terms, on the understanding that ”Bishops' lands” were not to comprise impropriations and advowsons.(743)

(M358)

On the 10th December there was presented to the Common Council ”an humble representacon of the pressinge grievances and important desires of the well affected freemen and covenant engaged cittizens of the cittie of London,” with a request that it might be laid before parliament.(744) This doc.u.ment, after being revised by a committee appointed for the purpose, was laid before the Commons on the 19th December, together with a pet.i.tion from the civic authorities themselves, who similarly addressed themselves to the House of Lords. The chief points on which stress was laid were the disbandment of the army, the suppression of heresy, the union of the two kingdoms, the free election of members of parliament, and the City's government of its own militia. As for the ”bringing home of his majesty,”

that was left to the wisdom of both Houses, with the confidence that they would preserve his majesty's royal person and authority in defence of the true religion and liberties of the kingdom according to the covenant.(745) Both Houses thanked the City and promised to take the matter into their consideration.(746)

(M359)

In the spring of the following year (1647) a new terror presented itself to the Presbyterians at home in the absolute supremacy of the army under Fairfax, although that general had given his word that the army should not come within twenty-five miles of London.(747) The City pet.i.tioned both Houses that it might be disbanded, and that the Common Council might have authority to make annual election of the members of the city's militia. To those pet.i.tions gracious answers were returned, the Lords declaring that they had considered already a measure touching the city's militia and had transmitted it to the Commons.(748)

(M360)

The army would in all probability have been disbanded in due course, and all might have gone well but for the high-handed treatment it received from the Commons. It was proposed to ask the soldiers after disbandment to volunteer for service in Ireland. There were, however, considerable arrears of pay due to them, and neither officers nor men would volunteer until they had received some a.s.surance from parliament that they would be paid all that was due to them. Instead of doing this parliament contented itself with voting a sum of 200,000, not for satisfying arrears of pay, but ”for the service of England and Ireland.”(749) The soldiers were about to pet.i.tion parliament with the sanction of their officers, but such a course was declared by both Houses to be highly improper.(750)

(M361)

It was easier for parliament to vote a sum of 200,000 than to raise that amount. Application was as usual made to the City (6 April).(751) The zeal of the citizens was excited by the Commons at length pa.s.sing the ordinance sent down to them by the Lords for a new militia committee (16 April).(752) On the following day (17 April) the Common Council was prepared with a scheme to be submitted to parliament for raising the money. Like other schemes that had gone before, it proposed that subscribers to certain former loans should add arrears of interest, and by making a further advance equivalent to the sum total should have the whole secured on the sale of lands of bishops and delinquents.(753) Parliament hesitated at first to allow the lands of delinquents and compositions paid by them to the committee sitting at Goldsmiths' Hall to form part of the security for the loan, but afterwards consented to a moiety of all such compositions being added to the security.(754)