COINS OF THE PERIOD
- 1. Old Harry sovereign
- 2. Edward shilling.
- 3. James I. shilling.
- 4. Charles II. gold crown.
- 5. Elizabeth groat.
- 6. Charles II. half groat.
- 7. Charles II. sixpence.
- 8. Charles II. gold sovereign.
- 9. Charles II. half broad (gold)
- 10. Charles II. shilling.
- 11. Charles II. crown.
- 12. Charles II. half crown.
- 13. Charles II. silver Maundy penny.
It was not a time of universal prosperity; witness the following account of the Grocers’ Company (Ninth Report, Historical MSS.):—
“27th March 1673. The Grocers’ proposal for payment of their debts. The Company’s year rents and revenues amount to only £722:5:4, and are charged with a yearly payment of £7571:19:8 in charity. Their debts are £24,000. In 1640 they lent the king £4500, for repayment whereof some of the Peers became bound. In 1642 they advanced £9000 for suppressing the Irish Rebellion. In 1643 they lent the City of London £4500. The principal and interest of these several debts, still owing to the Company as aforesaid, amount to above £40,000. The greater part of their estate was in houses burnt down in the late Fire, and since leased out for 60, 70, and 80 years, by decrees made in the late Court of Judicature established by Act of Parliament. The several sums they owe were voluntarily lent them. They propose that £12,000 be raised by voluntary subscriptions and equally distributed among all their creditors within six months; that, to discharge the rest of their debt, the debts owing to the Company be assigned to trustees; that a special memorandum be entered in the Company’s books, that, in case the creditors be not satisfied by the means proposed, the Company shall, if ever in a capacity hereafter, pay the whole remainder to every creditor; and that, on performance of these proposals, the Company be absolutely discharged from all their debts. Meanwhile all prosecutions against the Company to be stayed, that the Company may be animated cheerfully to raise the money. The Company submit, in conclusion, that a Hall encumbered and not half finished is all the Company of Grocers have to encourage their members to a voluntary contribution to satisfy debts contracted before most of them were born, and before all the residue, save some few only, were free of the Company. (Offered this day, having been called for by the Committee on the 24th. Rejected as ‘not satisfactory’ on the 28th. Com. Book of date.)
OLD GROCERS’ HALL USED FOR BANK OF ENGLAND, 1695
28th March. Answer of the Appellants. The Company, besides their £722:15:4 for rents in England, have an estate of nearly £400 rental in Ireland, and their Hall, with appurtenances worth £200 a year more. The lands charged with charitable uses are expressly excepted by the decree. The estate is let at quit-rents, and, if rack-rented, would yield another £12,000. The yearly contributions of members amount to another £1000.
Their disbursements in 1671 were:—
£ s. d. For payment for dinners and collations 172
13
10
To the Wardens 12
10
0
Corn money 25
0
0
Reparation of their Hall 281
4
6
In Gratuity given 89
0
0
Suit in Chancery and in Parliament with Appellants 89
8
11
Lord Mayor’s Day 44
4
0
Interest money 46
14
0
Besides this they can at pleasure raise in a month’s time, by fines for offices and calling to livery, £4000. Most of their debts are recent. Their loans to the City should be sued for by themselves. The loan of 1643 was to defend the City against the King. The Company did not suffer much by the Fire, as most of their estate was let on long leases. All the creditors have received one-sixth of their claims, except the Cholmleys, who have been promised payment since the decree, but have received nothing. The Company itself is willing to pay its debts, but is prevented by a small minority, who are the authors of the proposal, and dishonestly deny liability. Appellants cannot agree to stand equally with the rest of the creditors, who refused to join them at first before the suit commenced, and only sued the Company at its own litigation, with a view to forestall Appellants. They cannot accept the Grocers’ proposals in lieu of the decree they hold. The Company have already offered more favourable terms, which have been refused. The Hall is actually sequestered, and was so before its conveyance to the Lord Mayor, etc. of London, as Governors of Christ’s Hospital. The Company’s estate is sufficient to cover their claim, in which Appellants are supported by several members of the Company itself. If the Company will give good personal security to discharge their debts in seven years, and to pay at once the sixth part of the principal to the Cholmleys, with interest from the time others had it, with costs, Appellants will accept these terms, assign over their sequestration, and help them to pay their other creditors; otherwise they pray the sale may be enforced. (Put in this day, but rejected by the Grocers’ Counsel. Com. Book of date.”)
| £ | s. | d. | |
|---|---|---|---|
| For payment for dinners and collations | 172 | 13 | 10 |
| To the Wardens | 12 | 10 | 0 |
| Corn money | 25 | 0 | 0 |
| Reparation of their Hall | 281 | 4 | 6 |
| In Gratuity given | 89 | 0 | 0 |
| Suit in Chancery and in Parliament with Appellants | 89 | 8 | 11 |
| Lord Mayor’s Day | 44 | 4 | 0 |
| Interest money | 46 | 14 | 0 |
Another company was also struggling with difficulties, as the following extract from the same Report shows:—
“10th March, 1675. The petition of the Master, Warden, Assistants and Commonaltie of the Corporation of Pin-makers, London, to the King; with paper of proposals attached thereto Reminding his Majesty of a contract made between Him and their Company, for the benefit alike of His Majesty and the London Pin-makers, that came to nought in consequence of the Great Plague and the Dutch, the Pin-makers beg for an aid of £20,000—£10,000 thereof to be laid out in wire, to be bought of His Majesty at 30d. per hundred weight about the current rate of such wire; and the other £10,000 thereof to be used as a fund by Commissioners, and the pins being distributed to buyers at a cost sufficient only to cover the charge of production. By operation of the scheme, embodied in these proposals, it is urged the trade of the pin-making will revive, the pin-makers will have full and lucrative employment, and his Majesty will by his profit on the wire receive a revenue of at least £4000 per annum.”