Mayor

Mayor.

I. 152. Letter from the Lords of the Council to the Lord Mayor and Aldermen, desiring to know why the ancient and honourable Feast of the Lord Mayor had been omitted, without permission or allowance of the Privy Council, and directing that some persons well instructed should be sent to attend the Council, and explain the cause.
30th October, 1580.

I. 153. Letter from the Lord Mayor, Sir John Branch, to the Lords of the Council, in reply. The Feast had been omitted, not on account of any sparing, but lest, through the feeble state of his health, he should not be able to bear the pain requisite. The day being a fish day, which could not be altered, if the Feast had been holden publicly, it must have been either with offence to the laws and orders in force, in respect of diet, or with great dishonour to the State, for lack of seemly provision. He intended to invite them on some more convenient day. It had not been usual to obtain permission of Her Majesty or the Council to omit the Feast.
31st October, 1580.

I. 158. Letter from the Lord Mayor, Sir John Branch, to Lord Burghley, Lord Treasurer, referring to the same subject, and requesting him to explain to Her Majesty the reasons why the Feast had been omitted on Lord Mayor's Day.
31st October, 1580.

I. 285. Letter from the Lords of the Council to the Lord Mayor and Aldermen, in reply to their application to know if they might, with Her Majesty's good allowance, continue the Mayor's Feast this year, notwithstanding the present infection within the City. As by the certificate of the number that had died of the disease the last week, it. appeared the contagion decreased, and as the season of the year, and the weather, would decrease it still more, Her Majesty thought it fit and convenient that preparations should be made for the said Feast on the accustomed day. If it should then be found dangerous to keep it, it might be deferred to some other day, either before or after Christmas. The Council further desired that strict order should be taken to put the directions against infection into execution, as well in the houses of the rich as the poor, as the neglect of these precautions would compel Her Majesty to direct the term to be kept and continued in some other place.
15th October, 1581.

I. 414. Letter from William Rowe and John Heydon, (fn. 1) Sheriffs, to Sir Francis Walsingham, Knight, stating that, in accordance with his suggestion, and on account of sickness in London, they had post poned the usual Feast, and desiring to know when, in his opinion, it might be held.
16th October, 1582.

I. 416. Letter from the Lord Mayor to the Lord Treasurer, informing him that, preparation having been made for the usual presentation of the Mayor in the Court of Exchequer, Mr. Recorder had, since the last Proclamation of adjournment of the Term, conferred with the Baron of the said Court here remaining, who had affirmed that the Court would then be kept, and that he should be present; since then he had expressed some doubt upon the subject. The Baron desired his Lordship's declaration of Her Majesty's pleasure therein, and the Lord Mayor therefore requested that the same might at once be signified to him.
26th October, 1582.

I. 417. Letter from the Lords of the Council to the Lord Mayor and Aldermen, in reply to their communication as to the keeping of the Lord Mayor's Public Feast, directing that, on account of the sickness, it should not be held, and that all other costly ceremonies used at the taking of the Mayoralty should be avoided, and further advising that the money should be given to assist the poor suffering from the infection.
18th October, 1582.

I. 419. Same as No. 416.
26th October, 1582.

I. 428. Letter from Sir Thomas Blanke, Lord Mayor, to Sir James Harvey, Knight, Alderman, informing him that information had been brought by Mr. Mosely, Secondary, that there had been an amercement of 1,000l. set upon his head in the Court of Common Pleas, for not holding a Court of Hustings in the time of his Mayoralty, in the beginning of October last, whereby a great number of suits of exigent, both for the Queen and parties, had been lost, when it was affirmed by Mr. Sheriff Rowe and Mr. Norton, that at that time he was sick in bed, in some suspicion of the infection sickness, and that his attendance would have been at the peril of his life. The Counsel of the City had stated that in like cases there had been precedents of loss of Hustings, Quia Maior egrotat (because the Mayor is sick). The Court of Aldermen advised him to repair to the term, first conferring with Mr. Recorder and Mr. Mosely, to procure his discharge, bearing with him such letters, testimonials, and certificates, as he might be advised.
13th November, 1582.

II. 178. Letter from the Lord Treasurer, Thomas, Lord Buckhurst, to the Lord Mayor, Aldermen, and Sheriffs, granting them an allowance of impost of Wine, to the Lord Mayor six tuns, to the Sheriffs four tuns each, and one tun to each of the twenty-four Aldermen, and from time to time to continue the same.
8th November, 1600.

II. 242. Letter from the Lord Mayor (Sir Thomas Bennet (fn. 2) ) to Lord Ellesmere, Lord High Chancellor, informing him that the writer had been elected to the office of Mayor this present year, and requesting his most gracious favour to him in that office.
12th March, 1603.

II. 260. Letter from the Lord Mayor to the Lord Treasurer, informing him of the custom of making an allowance of Wine to the Mayor and Aldermen, which for certain reasons had been discontinued, and requesting that it might be revived.
24th February, 1604–5.

VI. 158. Letter from the Lords of the Council to the Lord Mayor, Recorder, and Court of Aldermen, stating that it had come to their knowledge that at the election of Lord Mayor for the ensuing year, the Commons, misled by some few popular and turbulent spirits, had endeavoured to introduce some innovation in the election. The Council marvelled to see offences of that nature (tending to affront all authority) carried so openly and audaciously, and could not but impute it in a great part to the relaxation of government, by the remissness of the Lord Mayor, Recorder, and Magistrates, manifestly appearing in the matter, for which they could not but much reprehend and blame them. They therefore, by the King's special command, expressed his high displeasure, and required that the names of the ringleaders should be ascertained, and certified to them, that steps might be taken for their punishment, and for the prevention of similar insolencies in future.
October, 1628.

VI. 159. Answer of the Lord Mayor and Court of Aldermen, stating that they had examined divers persons who were present on the occasion, but not parties to the election, and they found that the persons whose examinations they enclosed were thought to be the ringleaders. They prayed the Council's favourable opinion of the Court of Aldermen, who, according to custom, were not to be present at the nomination of the Commons, but who, hearing of the disturbance, had come down. After many disputes and much time spent, the Sheriffs advised the Commons to continue the ancient custom, and, accompanied by the Common Serjeant and the Wardens of the twelve Companies, they had certified two names to the Court of Aldermen, according to custom, who were thereupon satisfied to proceed to the election.
Dated in margin, October, 1628.