Analytical Index to the Series of Records Known as the Remembrancia 1579-1664. Originally published by EJ Francis, London, 1878.
This free content was digitised by double rekeying. All rights reserved.
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
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.
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.