London (England) -- History -- 17th century; London (England) -- Social life and customs -- 17th century
to the bankers of Lombard Street.
Not even Henry the Third, not even Richard the Second, ever inflicted
such a blow as this upon the City. In money of our day, and considering
the poverty of the City, it represents at least £6,000,000—nay, more,
because the interest was then more than double that of the present day,
say £8,000,000. Imagine the rage and consternation were such a blow to
be delivered at the Bank of England! Imagine the consternation if there
were to be no interest on a great part of the National Debt for a whole
year! Nay, the blow was far greater, because London two hundred years
ago was far, far less wealthy than at present, not only actually, but
in proportion to its population. Looking on London only as a trading
community it is quite certain that such a blow could never be forgiven.
When the opportunity should arise it would be remembered. It was not
his religion only that drove James from Whitehall, it was the memory
of this act of confiscation and the other acts of oppression which
followed.
The absence of resistance is at first sight most remarkable. I can
only account for this fact on the theory that the poverty of the City
and its weakness were much greater than is generally supposed. The
Plague, which swept away many thousands of bread-winners, left behind
it many thousands of penniless orphans. The Fire, which spared the
lives of the people, destroyed all they owned in the world: house,
furniture, stock in trade, tools, everything. The long civil wars
had helped to impoverish the City; the Dutch War was calamitous; in
other words, the City for many years had been living on its capital,
and now this was coming to an end. Again, the religious dissensions
of the City contributed to its weakness. It was the influence of the
Church of England which brought back the King; it was therefore with
an ill grace that they complained of the Royal exactions. The Church
of England had joined in persecuting the Nonconformists just as, in
the fifties, the Independents and the Presbyterians had joined in
persecuting the Anglicans. Moreover, from many a pulpit in the City,
day after day, the doctrine—the monstrous suicidal doctrine—of passive
obedience was preached. The “Judgment and Decree” of Oxford, issued a
few years later, was already on the lips of the High Church preachers.
It declared to be “false, seditious, and impious, even heretical and
blasphemous,” to hold that “authority is derived from the people;
that if lawful governors become tyrants, they forfeit their right
of governing; that the King hath but a co-ordinate right with the
other two estates, the Lords and the Commons, etc.,” and that passive
obedience is “the badge and character of the Church of England.”
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account