CHAPTER XII. History of London during the Reign of Charles the First On the twenty-eighth of March, 1625, Charles was proclaimed king at the usual places in the city, and with the accustomed ceremonies. In the June following, Henrietta Maria, of France, the new queen, arrived in London; but the preparations that had been making for her reception, were obliged to be laid aside through a dreadful plague that had broke out in the metropolis, and carried off, in the course of the twelvemonth, upwards of 35,000 persons. Charles's first Parliament, which met at Westminster in the above month, was speedily adjourned to Oxford, for fear of this calamity; and though its sittings at both places had not exceeded three weeks, it was dissolved on the pretence of the spreading of the pestilence: "but the true reason," says Rapin, was because the king found not in this Parliament a compliance and disposition fit for his purpose."* 66 On the second of February, 1626, Charles was crowned at Westminster. The lord-mayor and aldermen officiated, as customary, as chief butlers at the dinner; but the accustomed procession through the city from the Tower, was dispensed with on account of the plague. Four days afterwards a new Parliament met at Westminster, in which the commons acted in the most stubborn manner, refusing supplies, and complaining of various grievances. The impeachment of Buckingham was resolutely proceeded with; and though the king endeavoured to awe the commons into obedience, by committing Sir Dudley Digges and Sir John Elliot to the Tower, for contemptuous words, untruly affirmed to have been spoken by them against the duke, who was highly in favour with Charles as he had been with his father, the attempt was unsuccessful, and he was presently obliged to release the imprisoned members. These compliances with the popular wish were so coupled with unconstitutional assumptions, that they had little effect in promoting the king's views, and the Parliament was dissolved in disgust on the fifteenth of June. The measures that were immediately afterwards pursued by the king's council, evince a determination to reduce the state to a complete despotism. The royal prerogative was held forth as superior to all arrangements of convention; forced loans and benevolences were exacted under the penalty of martial law; taxes were illegally levied; and it was publicly asserted from the pul Rapin, vol. ii, 248. pit by Dr. Manwaring, that the "king was not bound to observe the laws of the realm concerning the subjects' rights and privileges: but that his royal will and command, in imposing loans and taxes, without common consent in Parliament, doth oblige the subjects' conscience upon pain of eternal damnation." He was rewarded with a good benefice, and afterwards with a bishopric; and this after the lords had sentenced him to pay a fine of 10001. and to be imprisoned. Under the oppressive system of coercion that was now instituted, London particularly suffered; and to this cause perhaps the determined support that was given by the inhabitants to the parliament in the subsequent civil wars, may be more directly referred. The first attempt upon the city was to exact a loan of 100,0001.; but this having failed through the resolute opposition of the citizens, the inayor, aldermen, and commonalty were enjoined by precept from the council, immediately to fit out twenty of the best ships in the river Thames for public service, to be well manned, and stored with provisions and ammunition for three months; and no intercession could obtain any abatement in this command. Many of the principal citizens were also imprisoned for refusing to subscribe to the loan as individuals, whilst others in a lower sphere were “forced to serve in the King's ships then going forth."* Similar conduct was pursued generally throughout the country, some being committed," and others "pressed for soldiers." The strong disaffection excited by these unjust acts, became at length so violent, that Charles was content to remit his rigour from apprehension of the consequences; and on the advice of Sir Robert Cotton, he ordered writs to be issued for the assembling of another parliament, to meet on the 17th of March, 1628. An order of council was then made for the release of those gentlemen who had been imprisoned or confined for refusing to submit to the loan, and the king had the mortification to learn that twenty-seven out of the number were chosen by the people as representatives for the ensuing parliament. It was not long, however, before a pretence was found for obtaining a sum of money from the city. One Doctor Lamb, a reputed conjuror, a favourite of the king, and the suspected adviser of these arbitrary proceedings, being discovered in the city, on the 18th June, 1628, was attacked by a mob, who loaded him with the most bitter invectives, and dragged him about the streets, beating and kicking him, till at length he died under their inhuman treatment. The king, hearing of the tumult, hastened into the city in time to have saved his life, had his authority been sufficiently great, or his body-guard strong enough to have rescued him from the exasperated citizens, who, in reply to the king's entreaties, and promises that he would suffer the law to take its course if he could be proven • Whit. Mem. P. 8. proceedings in Rushworth, vol. i, ↑ Ibid. See more of these despotic p. 422-429. guilty of any offence, said, they had judged him already,' and continued their outrageous conduct. Finding he could neither chastise nor redress this insolence, he returned to his palace; and soon after the privy-council sent a letter to the lord-mayor, aldermen, and sheriffs, commanding them to make strict enquiry after the principal actors and abettors, and to bring them to justice; but so little attention was paid to this order, that an answer was returned that they could not discover any of them. On this, they were summoned to attend the privycouncil, where they were threatened with the confiscation of their charter, if they did not apprehend and deliver up the principal actors in the riot. But this made no impression upon their resolution to screen the parties sought after; for their next report was 'that they could not be found.' The king was so incensed at this, that he amerced the city in a fine of three thousand pounds, which was afterwards mitigated to fifteen hundred marks, on the committal of several of the rioters. This was in the year 1632, four years after the murder had been committed. A curious account of the mode of apprenticing at this time, is given in a letter from Mr. Howell to his father. "Our two younger brothers which you sent hither are disposed of; my brother Doctor Howell, (afterwards Bishop of Bristol) hath placed the elder of the two with Mr. Hawes, a mercer, in Cheapside, and he took much pains in it; and I had plac'd my brother Ned with Mr. Barrington, a silk-man in the same street, but afterwards, for some inconveniences, I remov'd him to one Mr. Smith, at the Flower-de-luce in Lombard-street, a mercer also; their masters are both of them very well to pass, and of good repute; I think it will prove some advantage to them hereafter, to be both of one trade; because when they are out of their time, they may join stocks together; so that I hope, Sir, they are well plac'd as any two youths in London; but you must not use to send them such large tokens in money, for that may corrupt them. When I went to bind my brother Ned apprentice in Drapers'-hall, casting my eyes upon the chimney-piece of the great room, I might spie a picture of an ancient gentleman, and underneath Thomas Howel; I ask'd the clerk about him, and he told me that he had been a Spanish merchant in Henry the Eight's time, and coming home rich, and dying a bachelor, he gave that hall to the Company of Drapers, with other things, so that he is accounted one of their chiefest benefactors. I told the clerk that one of the sons of Thomas Howel came now thither to be bound, he answered, that if he be a right Howel, he may have when he is free, three hundred pounds to help him to set up, and pay no interest for five years. It may be hereafter we may make use of this. He told me also that any maid that can prove her father to be a true Howel, may come and demand fifty pounds towards her portion, of the said hall.Because Mr. Hawes of Cheapside is 1 lately dead, I have removed my brother Griffith to the Hen and Chickens in Paternoster-row, to Mr. Taylor's, as gentile a shop as any in the city, but I gave a piece of plate of twenty nobles price to his wife." The use of hackney coaches was but very trifling in 1626; for, among the many monopolies granted by the king, was one which gave rise to the use of sedan chairs in London.* This grant was made to Sir Sanders Duncomb, and expressed in the following terms: "That whereas the streets of our cities of London and Westminster, and their suburbs, are of late so much incumbered with the unnecessary multitude of coaches, that many of our subjects are thereby exposed to great danger; and the necessary use of carts and carriages for provisions thereby much hindered; and Sir Sanders Duncomb's petition, representing that in many parts beyond sea, people are much carried in chairs that are covered; whereby few coaches are used among them:-wherefore we have granted to him the sole privilege to use, let, or hire a number of the said covered chairs for fourteen years." This patent was followed by a proclamation against hackney coaches, strictly commanding, "That no hackney coach should be used in the city of London or suburbs thereof, other than carrying people to and from their habitations in the country; and that no person should make use of a coach in the city, except such persons as could keep four able horses fit for his majesty's service, which were to be ready when called for, under a severe penalty."+ Charles was not altogether so unsuccessful with his third parliament as he had been with his former ones; though, for the purpose of securing more devotion to his will, he sought opportunity to intimate at the opening of the session," that in case the supplies he demanded were not granted, he could raise them other ways.". He was obliged, however, after many evasions, to agree to the Petition of Right; yet that.was nothing more than the 'confirmation of laws, which till then bad passed for incontestible.' Shortly afterwards, the king, understanding that the commons were preparing a remonstrance against the levying of tunnage and poundage by royal authority alone, prorogued the parliament till October. In the interval, the Duke of Buckingham, against whom the reprehensions of the commons, had been principally directed, was stabbed at Portsmouth by John Felton, who had been a lieutenant in the army, and whose mind had been wound up to the deed, 'by frequently hearing some popular preachers in the city.' * Captain Bailey, an old sea officer, first set up four hackney coaches with the drivers in liveries, with directions to ply at the May-pole in the Strand, where now the new church is, and at what rate to carry passengers about the town,-Gough's British Topo- Hughson's London, i. 176. On being threatened by Bishop Laud with the rack, unless he discovered his accomplices, he answered, that if he was put to that torture, he knew not whom he should accuse, perhaps the Bishop himself.'* Felton was executed at Tyburn in November, and afterwards hanged in chains. The parliament, which had been prorogued from October, 1628 met on the 12th of January, 1629: previous to this time, various new acts of aggression against the laws, and in violation of the rights of the people, had been committed on the part of the crown. Several merchants of the city had had their goods seized, for refusing to pay the demand of the king's officers for tunnage and poundage; and one of them, named Vassall, who had defended his refusal before the Barons of the Exchequer, had judgment given against him, and was imprisoned. Similar abuses were practised during the very sitting of the parliament, and that upon the effects of John Rolls, Esq., a member of the house, and merchant of London, whose cause was immediately taken up by the commons, and argued with much vehemence. They even examined the officers of the customs, who answered that they acted in virtue of a commission under the great seal: one of them declared, that he had seized the goods for duties that were due in the time of King James,' and that his majesty had sent for him, and commanded him to make no other answer.'This direct interference inflamed the house to the utmost, and, in a grand committee, they voted that Mr. Rolls ought to have privilege both in person and goods;' but when the house was resumed, the speaker refused to put the question, saying, 'He durst not, for the king had commanded to the contrary.'* this the commons adjourned, with much indignation, till the twenty-fifth of February; and were then further adjourned, by the king's order, till the second of March. On that day they again assembled, yet the speaker still refused to put the deferred question, and saying he was commanded by his majesty to adjourn the house till the tenth of March; he endeavoured to go forth of his chair," but was held in it by force, whilst the doors of the house were locked, and a strong protestation drawn up by Sir John Elliot, put to the vote, and approved by the majority, Whit. Mem. p. 11 The council, by the king's directions, required the opinion of the judges on the question, 'Whether Felton might be racked by the law?" They answered unanimously, that By the law he might not be put to the rack.'-Ibid. That this torture was in use for state purposes, within the preceding ten years, is proved by a warrant to the lieutenant of the Tower, dated in 1619, and 6 66 On signed by the Lord Chancellor Bacon, the Earl of Worcester, Lord Privy Seal, the Earl of Arundell, Lord Ca rew, Lord Digby, Secretary Naunton, and Sir Edward Coke, by which one Samuel Peacock was ordered to be put to the torture,' either of the manacles or the rack.'—Brayley's Lon don, i. 330. Whit. Mem. p. 12. |