« ПредишнаНапред »
place, or ofiice; and that his estates, goods, and chattels, should be forfeited,- * ‘
Such was the manner‘in which the Court treated their opponents in a country where the violence of their supporters ‘enabled them to commit any kind of offence against justice. , In England, the,vengeance of the Court against the Whig leaders was still retarded by the in- fluence which they maintained in the city. It was found that the proceedings in the case of quo warrauto being embarrassed by legal forms,would occasion considerable delay. A shorter way to the same object was perceived by electing sheriffs against the will of the citizens.
It had been an ancient custom for the Lord Mayor to name one of the sherifl's for the ensuing year, by drinking to him, and this nomi
* It is curious to remark the reasons which are given in the Life of James, supported in this instance by reference to their letters, for the conduct of the King and the Duke in this affair.. The Duke refuses the intercession of the Duke of Lauderdale, because “he would not be diverted, to make friends to himself, from pursuing the King's interest, wherever he thought it concerned.” The King, on the other hand, “ thought fit to issue out a proclamation for apprehending my Lord Argyle, that if it missed his person, it might convince the world, at least, he was satisfied with the Duke’s management, and silence, thereby, the discourses industriously spread abroad, as if he had been prosecuted more out of a, pique by the Duke, than by reason of any guilt to the King.” What an affecting pictureof brotherly love!
nation was generally confirmed by the livery. ’
But the letter of the charter, and various precedents, demonstrate, beyond all doubt, that the ri‘ght'of election resided in the citizens at large, and that the choice allowed to the Lord Mayor was only a matter of courtesy between the city and its chief magistrate. The Court, however, made use of this custom as an engine to impose, not only one, but both sheriffs of their own party. Sir John Moore, the Lord Mayor, a very weak man, was prevailed upon to drink to Mr. Dudley North, a Turkey merchant. The Whigs having pitched upon Mr. Papillion and Mr. Dubois for sheriffs, assembled in great numbers on the day of election, and were clamorous
for a poll. The Lord Mayor, insisting on his.
right to choose one of the sheriffs, by drinking to him, would not proceed to an election, but adjourned the court. And here the sherifi's of the year, Mr. Shute and Mr. Pilkington, were guilty of a great irregularity. For they still held on the. court, and began a poll. Upon which some confusion ensued, and the next day the Lord Mayor complained of the sheriffs_ for a riot, and they were committed to the Tower.
After another irregular poll, the election of‘ the sheriffs at last took place, on the 15th of July, when the Lord Mayor insisted that North was already chosen, and would only poll for
memoirs, speaking of himself, “ the Duke knew very well his revenue was so settled, that nothing but an act of parliament could alienate any part of it ; which he took care not to mention to any living soul, lest that might have made the King lay the thoughts of it aside, or made her solicit for a Parliament, which would have given that project a mischievous turn, and done him hurt instead of good.” Soon after his return, Pilkington, formerly sherifl', being accused of saying, on a report that the Duke intended to leave Scotland, “ He has already burned the city; he is now coming to cut all our throats,” was convicted and sentenced to pay 100,0001. damages. * A fine, extending to the ruin of the criminal, and. directly contrary to the spirit of our laws. Sir Patience Ward; formerly mayor, having given'evidence that he did not hear the words spoken by Pilkington, was condemned to the pillory for perjury. I
The election of the sheriffs seemed: to com»plete the victory of the, throne over the; people.
* In the Life of Jam‘... this "in is, glared in 16.83, instead of which, it ought to be Nov. 24, 1682. N.. Luttrell'a Diary.
it evident, from the past conduct of the‘ Court, that they would now select whom they pleased for condemnation.
Lord Russell received’ the‘ news with the re: gret which’, in a‘ person of'h'i‘s' temper, it was , ' most likely to produce. Lor'cf Shaftesbury, on' the other band’, who was provoked’ at th‘e'apathy‘ of'his' party, received with‘ joy the news‘ of the‘ appointment of the sheriff's,‘ thi’nki'ng' that his London fiiends, seeing their necks. in‘ danger, would join with him in raising an insurrection. He hoped, at first‘, to make use of the names of the Duke of Monmouth. and Lord‘ Russell, to‘ catch the idle and unwary, by the‘ respect paid to their characters; but when he found them too'cautious to compromise themselves, he en-' deavoured to ruin their credit with‘ the citizens. Hesaid that the Duke of'Monmo'uth' was a tool of the Court ; that Lord Essex had also made his bargain, and“ was to go‘ to Ireland; and that,‘ between them, Lord Russell was deceived. "' It is a strong. testimony to the real worth of
. IQord‘ Russell, that, when he made‘ himself 0bnoxious, either to the Court or to‘ die-more‘ vio- ‘ lent of ' his own party, the‘ only charge they ever Brought against him was, that'of being deceived,