London (England) -- History -- 17th century; London (England) -- Social life and customs -- 17th century
On the termination of the French war, Charles asked the City to lend
him another _£_200,000. The City consented amid gloomy forebodings.
What did the King want with the money? What was he going to do with
it? Would he introduce foreign troops and so destroy the liberties of
the people? It is a singular illustration of the affection which the
City is said to have always entertained for Charles that these things
should have been whispered about. It was not affection, it was fear.
This Prince, whom we suppose to have been always under the influence
of women, always wallowing in pleasure, had proved himself a strong
man and a crafty man; he showed when he seized that money, not only
his own strength, but also the weakness of the City. He did what he
pleased with them, and he continued to do what he pleased with them
as long as he lived. In one point, however, Charles was powerless; he
could not abolish the national hatred and suspicion of the Catholics.
The Popish Plot, invented by Titus Oates, drove the City into a state
of panic meaningless and causeless. Sir Edmondbury Godfrey was found
dead on Primrose Hill the day after he had received the deposition of
Titus Oates. Murdered by the Papists of course! Why, then, did they
not murder Titus Oates himself? No one felt safe. The City gates were
closed, the streets were protected by post and chains, the City was in
a state of siege, with no enemy in sight or existence.
In the year 1679 the King was attacked by fever, and for some time
was believed to be in danger. The City realised, then, at least, that
his successor was a Catholic. Therefore when Charles recovered, the
joybells and the bonfires represented much more than a common and
perfunctory rejoicing. The King recovered, and made haste to show
the true nature of his sentiments towards the City. He was very much
annoyed by the presentation of a number of petitions from all parts
of the country, including London, in favour of calling a Parliament.
He went so far as to prohibit (December 1672) “tumultuous petitions,”
the adjective meaning petitions such as might lead to civil war.
Notwithstanding this prohibition the City of London dared to present
another petition urging his Majesty “for the preservation of his royal
person and government, and the Protestant religion, he would graciously
please to order that parliament, his Great Council, might assemble and
sit to take measures against the machinations of Rome.”
When, in November 1680, the House did meet, the City sent up another
petition. They urged the King to lend an ear to the advice tendered by
the House for his own safety and the preservation of the Protestant
religion; “they promised to be ready at all times to promote his
Majesty’s ease and prosperity, and to stand by him against all dangers
and hazards whatsoever.”
The deputation which presented the petition were bluntly told to go
home and mind their own business.
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