POLITICAL HISTORY 



applied, and it is no wonder that it was needed. On March n, 1595, 

 the repayment of a loan due six months earlier was postponed for 

 another six months. On February 23, 1597-8, another repayment was 

 put off for six months. 1 The unfortunate men who declined to lend 

 in these circumstances were compelled to enter into ' good bonds ' for 

 their appearance before the Council. This meant that they were liable 

 to be called up to London, to be kept an indefinite time waiting on the 

 pleasure of the Council, and when called before it might expect to be 

 examined and browbeaten by what we should call Cabinet Ministers, 

 who in addition to their dignity wielded the formidable power of 

 summary punishment by fine and imprisonment. Warlike levies con- 

 tinued in the county. There were three chief theatres of action, to all 

 which Surrey contributed men ; the war in the Low countries, opera- 

 tions in northern France on behalf of Henri IV. against the Spaniards 

 and the League, and ultimately the war in Ireland. There were also 

 expeditions to attack the coasts of Spain and Portugal. The unfortunate 

 expedition to Portugal, under Drake and Norris in 1589, was the 

 occasion of a quarrel in which a long-standing difficulty of Surrey 

 politics appears. Southwark was a debatable land, over which the 

 Lord Mayor and Corporation of London were always striving to extend 

 their jurisdiction, while the county authorities were continually aiming 

 at preserving their biggest town and richest source of revenue for their 

 own use. The strangely jumbled up jurisdiction of Southwark and the 

 neighbouring suburbs will be better explained in another place. But 

 for military purposes Southwark was under the Lord Lieutenant of 

 Surrey. In January, 1590, the people of Southwark appealed to the 

 Lord Mayor against the excessive burden of military contributions put 

 upon them by the deputy lieutenants of Surrey. The latter were 

 summoned before the Star Chamber to answer the complaint of the 

 Lord Mayor. 3 The immediate result is not told to us, though Walsing- 

 ham himself wrote to smooth matters down. Probably Southwark got 

 little by its complaint, for on January 14, 1593-4, reference is made to 

 the refusal of the borough of Southwark to contribute towards the relief 

 of the maimed soldiers of the county of Surrey, though the most part 

 of the maimed soldiers to whom pensions were assigned at the last 

 sessions at Croydon belong to and reside in the said borough. 3 It is 

 clear that there were many Southwark men enlisted after all, and that 

 there was a sense of grievance still existing in Southwark. The traces 

 of this friction between town and county seem to appear in a letter of 

 Lord Howard's, of November 5, 1595,* directing that the 'two decayed 

 bands of soldiers' furnished by the borough of Southwark and part of 

 Brixton should be amalgamated into one band, the said places alleging 

 that they cannot supply the vacancies, most of their wealthiest inhabi- 



1 Loseley MSS. dates cited, i. 69, 70. * Ibid. February i, 14, 1889-90, vi. 56, xii. 71. 



8 Ibid. January 14, 1593-4, vi. 62. 



4 Ibid, date cited, vi. 89. They, the county magistrates, altogether denied the rights of the Lord 

 Mayor in Southwark, probably on this occasion ; but their protest in the Loseley MSS. is undated. 



393 



