London and the Kingdom - Volume 2: A History Derived Mainly from the Archives at Guildhall in the Custody of the Corporation of the City of London

The Story

The narrative begins with the ascension of James I, an era defined by a complex, uneasy dance between the Crown’s insatiable need for capital and the City’s desire for commercial autonomy. This period is marked by the Gunpowder Plot and the King’s mounting pecuniary difficulties, which lead him to lean heavily on the Corporation of London. The City, eager to expand its influence and secure trade, finds itself entangled in the "Plantation of Ulster." This venture proves to be a source of constant friction; the London livery companies are coerced into funding the project under the guise of colonial expansion, yet they receive little in return. The Irish Society is eventually chartered, but not before the City has been squeezed for repeated "loans" and "contributions," a pattern that establishes the contentious financial relationship between the merchants and the monarch.

As James I’s reign progresses, the tension shifts toward foreign policy and the burgeoning interests of the merchant class. The City is called upon to support the Elector Palatine and fund military expeditions, such as those led by Mansfield. The citizens’ reluctance to provide funds—often coupled with their vocal distaste for the Spanish Match—sets the stage for the escalating conflict between the throne and the capital. These grievances are exacerbated by the King’s attempts to suppress the Merchant Adventurers and his reliance on forced loans, which serve only to alienate the very men who hold the purse strings of the kingdom.

The situation reaches a breaking point with the accession of Charles I. The King’s demands for ship money and tonnage and poundage are met with increasing resistance from the aldermen and commoners. The City’s refusal to grant loans becomes a weapon, effectively paralyzing the royal government. The imprisonment of four aldermen and the impeachment of the Recorder illustrate the severity of the rift. The City’s eventual alignment with the Long Parliament signals a turning point in the English Civil War, as the capital provides the financial backbone for the parliamentary army. The execution of the Earl of Strafford, demanded by a massive, organized crowd of London citizens, serves as a visceral reminder of the City’s power to enforce its will on the state.

The mid-century years bring further upheaval, including the turmoil of the civil war, the subsequent interregnum, and the eventual restoration of the monarchy. Through these shifting regimes, the City remains a pivot point. The records detail how the Commonwealth government attempts to settle the Irish estate, only to be met with the same bureaucratic resilience from the City. With the restoration of Charles II, the citizens begin to openly signal their loyalty to the returning order, even as they navigate the devastating aftermath of the Great Fire. The fire of 1666, while a catastrophe, serves as a catalyst for new municipal regulations and a massive rebuilding effort that requires the City to reassert its governance over its own ruins.

The final decades of the century are characterized by political intrigue and the struggle for religious and civic control. The City’s involvement in the election of sheriffs—often a proxy battle for political influence—reveals the deep-seated rivalry between the Whig and Tory factions. James II’s attempts to "regulate" corporations and secure a parliament favorable to his own ends fall flat, as the City’s institutions prove resistant to his heavy-handed influence. The narrative concludes with the arrival of the 18th century, the reign of Queen Anne, and the consolidation of a new political order, highlighting the City’s permanent status as a necessary partner in the governance of the realm.

The People

• James I: A monarch defined by his constant struggle with insolvency. He views the City as an inexhaustible treasury and attempts to fund his grandiose colonial and foreign policies by leveraging the wealth of the livery companies, ultimately fostering the deep distrust that plagues his successor.
• Charles I: The King whose inability to reconcile his divine right with the pragmatic reality of City finance leads to the collapse of the monarchy. He attempts to force loans and ship money from the citizens, only to discover that the City’s financial blockade is as effective as any military maneuver.
• The Earl of Strafford: A key figure in the royal administration whose eventual downfall and execution are orchestrated by the pressure applied by the City. His fate serves as a stark demonstration of the shift in power from the throne to the organized, wealthy masses of London.
• The Irish Society: An entity representing the City’s corporate interests in Ulster. It acts as a focal point for the frustration of the livery companies, who are forced to pour money into a plantation project that offers little in terms of promised land or profit, highlighting the risks of state-mandated investment.
• The Aldermen and Common Council: The collective protagonists who manage the city’s affairs. They are masters of bureaucratic delay, using legal petitions, "previous questions," and the withholding of funds to protect the City’s privileges against an intrusive Crown.

In Its Own Voice

When describing the King’s frustration with the perceived lack of progress in the Irish plantation, the text highlights his impatience:

Fault was found with them, not only for failing to build houses according to the articles of agreement, but for their humane treatment of the "mere Irish," instead of driving them forth to perish in the narrow districts set apart for them.

The immense political pressure brought to bear by the citizens during the crisis of the Long Parliament is captured in a report on the movement against the Earl of Strafford:

"There is," he says, "money ready in the city, but none will be delivered until justice be done upon my lord of Strafford."

The logistical difficulty of managing the city after the Great Fire illustrates the scale of the reconstruction effort:

Its first care was to order every street and lane in each ward to be cleared of all rubbish by the late inhabitants, "every one before his grounds," and by no one else.

What It's Really About

At its core, this volume is an inquiry into the mechanics of power in a society transitioning from absolute royal prerogative to a system predicated on constitutional and financial negotiation. It argues that the history of London is not merely a record of its mayors and pageants, but a study of how trade and capital dictate the boundaries of governance. The central conflict is the "loan"—a instrument that serves as a thermometer for the political health of England. When the City lends, the government functions; when it refuses, the State faces paralysis.

The book challenges the notion that historical change is driven solely by individual monarchs or military commanders. Instead, it positions the City’s Common Council, the livery companies, and the bureaucratic apparatus of the Guildhall as the true engines of the kingdom. The book is deeply concerned with the tension between "public interest" as defined by the Crown—such as the plantation of Ulster or the support of the Palatinate—and the private, civic interest of the London merchant, which demands property rights, commercial stability, and the freedom from arbitrary taxation.

Furthermore, the text explores the fragility of political legitimacy. Whether it is the destruction of statues of the "tyrant" during the Commonwealth or the restoration of the royal arms after the return of Charles II, the book shows how the symbols of power are as malleable as the City’s own political allegiances. It examines the "regulation" of corporations, demonstrating how both the Stuarts and their successors attempted to use the City’s electoral machinery to manufacture consent. The recurring theme of the "regulated" corporation—where members are purged or installed based on their political or religious orthodoxy—shows that the battle for the soul of the nation was fought in the wardmotes and the livery halls. Ultimately, the volume provides a granular, evidence-based critique of how the City of London acted as the "key of the situation," possessing the power to restrain the state through the quiet, stubborn exercise of financial and legal leverage.

Why Read It Today

This work is for those who enjoy history when it feels like a ledger—precise, unapologetic, and concerned with the realities of how things are actually paid for. It is not a romanticized version of London’s past; it is a clinical account of the city as a political machine. The prose is dignified and steady, reflecting the nature of the archival records from which it is drawn. Because the book relies heavily on extracts from the Guildhall archives, the reader is treated to the clipped, authoritative tone of municipal petitions, royal proclamations, and the minutes of the Common Council.

The difficulty for the modern reader lies in its density. It is a work of immense detail; it does not dwell on the color or the pageantry of the eras it describes, but rather on the petitions, the debts, and the legal maneuvers. It demands patience. You will not find dramatic character studies here; instead, you will find the record of a City that viewed kings as temporary tenants and the law as a tool for survival.

What stays with you is the realization that the "unsettled times" of the 17th century were not just battles on a field, but a relentless, daily struggle in the counting-houses of London. There is a strange comfort in reading about a time when the citizens, faced with the incompetence or excesses of the central government, responded with a mixture of bureaucratic obstruction and steadfast, collective resolve. For anyone interested in the foundational tension between the state and the city, or for those who wish to see the skeleton of English constitutional development beneath the skin of historical narrative, this volume is a vital and sobering companion. It captures the essential truth that, in the long arc of history, the money and the men of the City have always held the final, quiet vote.