The tyrannical and oppressive treatment of the citizens of London by
Charles I. is too well known to need more than a passing allusion.
Not only did he imprison the aldermen for refusing to act dishonourably
towards their fellow-citizens; not only did he make illegal demands
and impose arbitrary fines, but he even deprived them of the right of
petition and remonstrance. Such despotic conduct could not do
otherwise than alienate the affection of those who had previously
displayed many proofs of their loyalty to the Crown and attachment to
the royal person. The City consequently made common cause with the
Parliament, freely expending both blood and treasure in defence of the
national freedom. Who has mot read with kindling cheeks how the bold
'prentices, armed only with spears, withstood a furious charge of the
fiery Rupert at the head of his gallant cavaliers? But though prepared
to resist the abuse of the royal prerogative, the citizens were not
disposed to transfer their allegiance to a usurper, who, in the name
of liberty, trampled liberty under foot. Accordingly we find them
consistently opposed to the military absolutism of Cromwell, and among
the first to co-operate with Monk in effecting the restoration to the
throne of the royal line of Stuart.

The Stuarts, however, like the Bourbons, were incapable of benefiting
by the lessons of adversity. It was not long before "the merry
monarch" was involved in most unmirthful disputes with the citizens,
whom he endeavoured to deprive of their ancient right to elect their
own sheriffs. For the moment he partially succeeded, and, encouraged
by this success, formed the design of seizing the charters of every
corporate borough in the kingdom. The chief difficulty rested with
London: if that could be overcome, the smaller cities would fall an
easy prey. The law officers of the Crown were accordingly instructed
to make out a case to sanction the forfeiture of the city charters.