AND Wardens. 209 



1680 Peter Rich. ") 1682 Robert Waring "1 



Second time. J Second time. J 



1681 Robert Wareing. 1683 Samuel Shenton. 



customarily (is) done by all Companyes to their members that 

 happen to come to such office. In 1683 he was chosen Alder- 

 man for the ward of Aldersgate, and in 1684, Luttrell, in his diary, 

 informs us, " Sir Peter Aylworth Chamberlain of London being 

 dead, his Majestic hath constituted Peter Rich, Esq., in his stead." 

 According to a MS. account of the Chamberlains of London, 

 in the Library of the Corporation, he represented London in 

 1685, and was knighted by James IL the same year. The 

 following year, however, we learn from Luttrell that Sir P. Rich 

 was turned out of the office of Chamberlain, and a Mr. Hy. 

 Loades, the candidate of the popular party, elected in his stead ; 

 but in 1688 Rich was re-elected to that office. The factious 

 opposition, however, which grew keener and keener every year, 

 was again too strong for Rich, and in 1689 he was displaced 

 from the office of Chamberlain, and Mr. Leonard Robinson, 

 the candidate of the popular party, elected. In 1690, Rich 

 was again defeated by Robinson. But in 1691 he instituted 

 an action in the King's Bench against Sir Thos. Pilkington, the 

 Lord Mayor, " for a false return not to be duly chosen 

 Chamberlain of London," and the jury gave him ^130 

 damages. Having again put up for Chamberlain, he was once 

 more defeated by Robinson, by 2155 to 1882 votes. In 

 August, 1692, he died and was buried at Lambeth. There is 

 no doubt that Rich was throughout the instrument of the Court 

 party. A tract in the Guildhall Library, entitled " A new 

 yeare's gift for the Tories," accuses Sir John More, Mayor in 

 1682, of "with force of arms and in a hostile manner" con- 

 stituting Dudley North and Peter Rich, Sheriffs, although not 

 returned by the Common Hall. It also alleges that Sir Peter 

 Rich, when Alderman in 1690, did illegally dissolve a Ward- 

 mote, and that he was accused by a Mr. Bellamy in the same 

 year of the murder of Lord Russell. Rich brought an action 

 against Bellamy for libel, and according to this authority he 

 only received 6^-. 8^. damages, but Luttrell states it to have 

 been four nobles {j[^\ 6s. Sd.). Sir Peter Rich appears to 



