animofity between the two parties was now inflam- A. C. 1682. ed into rage and rancour and Charles declared himself the head of a faction. The city of London ftill maintained its independence, and the sheriffs influenced the grand jury in fuch a manner, as skreened the presbyterians of that capital from oppreffion, Sir John Moor, the mayor, had been gained over to the court intereft; and he named two perfons for fheriffs who he knew would be agreeable to the ministry. The common-hall and the citizens taking the alarm, infifted upon an election by liveries, and Papillon and Dubois were elected by a great majority: nevertheless, the mayor carried on a separate poll in favour of North and Rich; and, being fupported by the miniftry, forced them upon the public. In the fame irregular manner he secured a fucceffor in the mayoralty, whom he knew devoted to the king's commands. This was a point of great importance to Charles, and fo well understood by the earl of Shaftsbury, that he thought proper to quit the kingdom, and fix his refidence in Holland; that very country, the ruin of which he had planned in the cabinet, and urged in parliament in the remarkable words "Delenda "eft Carthago." The duke of York, now that the magiftracy of London was at his devotion, fued alderman Pilkington on a writ of Scandalum magnatum, for having faid of him, when he heard of his return from Scotland, "He has already burned Rapin "the city, and now he is coming to cut all our "throats." For this indifcreet expreffion he was caft in damages to the amount of one hundred thousand pounds. Sir Patience Ward, who gave evidence in his behalf, being fued for perjury, was convicted and condemned to the pillory. The earl of Sunderland had been difmiffed from his office of fecretary of state when he voted for the bill of exclufion, and his place had been filled with lord

Con

Ralph.

A, C. 1682. Conway; but upon this nobleman's refignation, Sunderland was taken again into favour, and by fome people fufpected of having joined the exclufionists, on purpose to learn and betray their fecrets to the miniftry †.

A. C. 1683.

Charles was at this time fecure of the magiftracy in London, but he forefaw a strong oppofition at the next election, and that he would be every year exposed to the fame ftruggles, and oppofed, not only in London, but likewife in all the corporations which were uuder presbyterian management. While that intereft prevailed he could never expect to see a parliament propitious to his defires; and he was fo much involved in debts and difficulties, that he could hardly fubfift without a parliamentary supply: he therefore formed a project for raifing a defpotic authority over all the corporations of England, He began with London, He feizes against which he iffued a writ of" Quo warthe chartersranto," to enquire into the validity of its charter, which he pretended the corporation had forfeited in two inftances. They were charged with having imposed a toll, in order to defray the expence of rebuilding their markets after the fire of London, and of having presented an address to the king, containing a fcandalous reflection upon his majefty and his adminiftration. The cause was tried in the court of King's-Bench, and Treby and Pollexfen pleaded as counsellors for the city they proved, that all corporations had a power to make byelaws; that fubjects were invefted with an inherent right to petition the king; that the reflection in the addrefs charged upon them as fcandalous, was not levelled at the king, but his evil counfellors, who

of the city.

Prince Rupert, the duke of Lauderdale, the earls of Nottingham and Shaftsbury, died in the course of this year; and Mr. Thyn was affaf

finated in the streets of London by count Coningsmark, two of whose ac complices were executed at Tyburn.

had

had advised him to prorogue the parliament; and A. C, 1683. they expatiated upon the injuftice of annihilating a whole corporation for the faults of their magiftrates, who were liable to profecution as individuals. Notwithftanding thefe arguments, the judges, who were wholly influenced by the miniftry, declared that the city of London had forfeited its privileges; and that its charter was at the king's difpofal. The judgment, however, was not recorded until His majesty's pleasure should be known. The citizens of London were confounded and difmayed at this tranfaction. A common-council being affembled,' the majority agreed to fubmit to the king's pleafure, before the fentence fhould be recorded. They accordingly prefented a petition to that effect; and the king offered to reftore their charter, on the following conditions: That no mayor or other officer of the commonalty fhould exercife his office until his election fhould be confirmed under the king's fign manual: That, in cafe his majesty should difapprove of their choice of a mayor and fheriffs, they should proceed to a new election; and provided the second fhould be difagreeable to the king, he should appoint perfons of his own nomination; That the mayor and court of aldermen fhould be empowered to diveft any alderman of his office, by the king's permiffion: that fhould any alderman, after his election be deemed incapable by the court of aldermen, the ward fhould be obliged to chufe another; and, fhould he prove unacceptable to the court, a third fhould be elected by the court itself; and that the justices of the peace in London should act only by virtue of the king's commiffion. These were fevere terms, to which, however, the common-council fubmitted by a majority of eighteen voices. Other corporations, feeing the fate of London, were perations eafily induced to furrender their charters into the voluntarily hands of the king, from whence they were not re- their char trieved ters,

Other cor

furrender

A. C. 1683.trieved but by the payment of confiderable fums of money.

Plan of an infurrection

Such an arbitrary and cruel adminiftration could against the hardly fail to produce defigns against the governgovernment. ment, in a nation abounding with people who entertained even the most extravagant notions of liberty. The earl of Shaftsbury, even before the laft parliament, had engaged the duke of Monmouth, the lords Ruffel and Grey, to rife in arms and oppose the duke's fucceffion at the death of Charles: they afterwards affociated the earls of Effex and Salisbuty with them in the above design; but the imprisonment of Shaftsbury interrupted their confultations. Thefe, however, were renewed when the new sheriffs were impofed upon the city; infurrections were planned, and correfpondencies established in different parts of the kingdom. The confederates depended chiefly on the city of London, which was devoted to Shaftsbury, who, being afraid of trusting himself in any other place, lurked among the citizens, meditating the most desperate fchemes that blafted ambition and revenge could dictate. The confpirators met at the house of one Shepherd, a wine merchant, in the city; they proposed their friends fhould rise in arms in London, Bristol, Devonshire, and Chefhire. The duke of Monmouth and Sir Thomas Armstrong viewed the guards; and were of opi. nion that they might be easily attacked and reduced. They agreed to a declaration for justifying their defign to the public; but the enterprize was delayed in confequence of an intimation from Trenchard, who had undertaken to head the rifing in the West, and now gave them to understand that he could not for fome weeks be ready to take the field. Shaftsbury was fo enraged at the delay, as well as intimidated by the authority which the king had established in the city, that he retired to Am

fterdam,

fterdam, where he died very little regretted; tho' A. C. 1683 it must be allowed, that notwithstanding all his inconftancy, party-rage, diffimulation, and ruinous ambition, he was one of the most able and upright judges that ever prefided in the court of chancery.

vered by

The chiefs of the confpiracy, after his depar- Rye-houfe ture, were the duke of Monmouth, the earl of plot difcoEffex, the lords Ruffel and Howard, Algernoon Keiling. Sidney, and John Hambden, grandfon to the famous patriot who oppofed Charles I. in the tax of fhip-money they correfponded with Argyle and the malcontents of Scotland, and still resolved to prosecute the scheme of infurrection, though they differed widely from each other in their motives. Monmouth afpired to the crown; Ruffel and Hambden proposed to exclude the duke of York from the fucceffion, and redrefs the grievances of the nation; Sidney was a profeffed republican; Effex feemed to cherish the fame principles; and lord Howard was an abandoned nobleman, who fought only to gratify his own intereft and ambition. There was likewise a set of subordinate confpirators, confifting of colonel Rumfey, an old republican officer; lieutenant-colonel Walcot of the fame ftamp; Goodenough, under-fheriff of London; Ferguson, an hot headed, factious, independent minifter, who had been one of Shaftsbury's tools; and feveral attorneys, merchants, and tradefmen of London: but of thefe none had accefs to the lords, except Rumfey and Ferguson. The inferior order at their meetings embraced the moft defperate refolutions: they proposed to affaffinate the king in his way to Newmarket. Rumbald, one of their number, poffeffed a farm on that road, called the Rye house, whence the confpiracy was denominated "the "Rye-houfe plot." They deliberated upon ftopNUMB. LXXV.

..

ping