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.

One of the first questions James had to decide on his accession to the throne was that of religious toleration; and his settlement of the question was anxiously looked for as well by the Puritans as the Catholics. The fear lest the policy which the king should advocate might prove adverse to their interests determined the Catholics to resort to strong measures, and the life of James was threatened by a series of plots, as that of Elizabeth had been before him. Among these was a plan for seizing the king at Greenwich on Midsummer-day, 1603. The plan was laid by a secular priest named William Watson, who had previously sounded James as to his probable attitude to the Catholics if he came to the throne, Sir Griffin Markham, a Catholic gentleman, who for private reasons was discontented with the government, and one Antony Copley. News of the plot having reached the government, the conspirators fled for their lives. Proclamations were issued for their capture,(20) in which details were given of their personal appearance. Thus Watson was described as a man of the lowest sort about thirty-six years of age, "he lookethe a squinte and is verie purblynde," and had formerly worn a long beard which he was believed to have cut off; whilst Sir Griffin Markham is credited with having a large broad face of a "bleake" complexion, a big nose, and a hand maimed by a bullet. His brethren "have all verie greate noses." Copley’s description is not given, but we have that of another conspirator, William Clarke, a priest, whose hair is represented as having been "betwixte redd and yeallowe." The whole party was subsequently taken, one after another, and their examination disclosed traces of another conspiracy, the object of which was to place Arabella Stuart on the throne.

The discovery of Watson’s conspiracy—generally known as the "Bye" or "Surprise" Plot—so alarmed the king that he lost no time in making known his intention to exact no longer the recusancy fines. The result was such as might be expected. The Puritans were disgusted, whilst the number of recusants increased to such an alarming extent that in February, 1604, the king took the extreme measure of ordering the expulsion of all Jesuits and Seminary priests from the country before the 19th March,(21) the day fixed for the meeting of parliament.

As soon as parliament met a crisis was felt to be at hand; the new king and the Commons were for the first time to measure their strength. The city’s representatives are duly recorded.(22) At the head of them was Sir Henry Billingsley,(23) a former mayor, Sir Henry Montague,(24) recently appointed Recorder of the city upon the king’s own recommendation, Nicholas Fuller, of whom little is known beyond the fact that he came from Berkshire and married the daughter of Nicholas Backhouse,(25) alderman and grocer, and Richard Gore, a merchant tailor.

With his customary self-complacency and patronising air James told the assembled Commons that he had brought them two gifts, the one peace abroad,(26) and the other the union of England with Scotland under the title of Great Britain,(27) and he expressed no little surprise and indignation when he found that neither one nor the other was acceptable. The question of the union of the two kingdoms, seeing that it involved some political difficulties necessary of solution, was referred to a commission.(28) James showed his displeasure at the want of compliance displayed by the Commons by refusing to accept a scheme of commutation of his rights of purveyance and wardship, which had now grown so burdensome.

Another important matter which occupied the attention of the House at this session—although no reference to it appears in the City’s records of the day—was the introduction of Free Trade, to the prejudice of the chartered rights of various trading companies. The citizens of London were deeply interested in the bill which was introduced for this purpose, for although it little affected the livery companies, it touched very closely the interests of those companies which were incorporated for the purpose of trading with foreign countries, such as that of the Merchant Adventurers, the Levant Company, the Russia Company, and others. These companies had been formed at a time when few individuals were sufficiently wealthy to bear the risk of distant enterprises. Not every citizen was a Whitington or a Gresham. The risk incurred by these associations in undertaking voyages to distant countries was compensated by the advantage gained by the enjoyment of a monopoly of the trade with those countries by charter from the Crown. At the outset there had been no cry raised against monopolies of this kind, but as time wore on and the merchant navy increased, as it did in the last reign with extraordinary rapidity, a feeling of jealousy grew up on the part of shipowners who were not members of one or other of these chartered companies. By the beginning of the seventeenth century dissatisfaction with the privileges of these trading companies had become so general that appeals were made to the Privy Council. These being without effect, the whole matter was referred to a parliamentary committee. No pains were spared to get at the root of the grievance. The committee were attended by "a great concourse of clothiers and merchants of all parts of the realm and especially of London."(32) Counsel was heard in favour of the bill which had been drafted for the purpose of throwing open foreign trade to all merchants alike, and the bill was supported by all the merchants attending the committee with the exception of the merchants of London, who were represented on the occasion by the principal aldermen of the city. The free traders urged the natural right of every one to the free exercise of his own industry and the example set by other nations. They declared that the passing of the bill would lead to the more even distribution of wealth,(33) the greater increase of shipping, and the augmentation of the revenues of the Crown. The upholders of the companies, on the other hand, could find no better arguments in their favour than that no company could be a monopoly inasmuch as a monopoly was something granted exclusively to a single individual, and that if the existence of the companies was determined, apprenticeship would cease and difficulties arise in collecting the king’s customs! After three days’ debate on the third reading the bill passed the Commons by a large majority.(34) It met, however, with so much opposition in the House of Lords that it was eventually dropt.