Volume II Part 31 (1/2)

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.