In June (1651) another attempt at retrenchment was made by the City. A
committee was appointed "to examine what profits or perquisites have been
received by the lord mayor and sheriffs or belong to their places, and how
they came so to belong or to be received" whilst another committee was
appointed "to consider how the service, honour and attendance of the lord
mayor and sheriffs of this city may be continued with all befitting
abatement of diet and all other charges."(1025) The result of the enquiry
was to cut down the profits and perquisites hitherto attaching to the
office of lord mayor to such an extent that when John Kendricke was
elected to the chair on the following Michaelmas-day (29 Sept., 1651) he,
being without sufficient private estate, represented to the Court of
Aldermen (2 Oct.) that he could not undertake the office "upon such terms
as never any had done before him, the ancient perquisites and late
allowances made in consideration thereof being wholly taken away."(1026)
He was afterwards prevailed upon by his brother aldermen to change his
mind and accept office, declaring that he did so "for the city's quiet and
peace, and in hope and expectation of all due and fit
encouragements."(1027)

(M527)

Ever since the passing of the Act of Parliament of the 28th February,
1649, the relations between the court of Aldermen, including the lord
mayor for the time being, and the court of Common Council had become more
and more strained. It had become a common practice whenever the Common
Council made a proposition distasteful to the mayor and aldermen for his
lordship and such aldermen as happened to be present to break up the court
by taking their departure. Mention has already been made of two occasions
(viz., 13 Jan., 1649, and 14 June, 1650) on which the mayor and aldermen
took this method of expressing their dissatisfaction with the Common
Council. They took the same course again on the 2nd July, 1651.(1028)

(M528)

The aldermen complained of other encroachments on their rights and
privileges by the Common Council, and determined to lay their case before
the Council of State. They objected (1) to the commons increasing the
number of members sitting on committees, and making a quorum without any
alderman being present; (2) to the commons taking upon themselves to
appoint the executive officers of the mayor and sheriffs, and abolishing
perquisites whereby the mayor, aldermen and sheriffs were rendered unabl