CONCERNING MONEYS DEPOSITED In the Chamber of London BY S it Richard Gurney, Kt. & Bar. LATE Lord Mayor OF THE City of London, And since his Death, due to Sir JOHN PETTUS of the County of Suffolk, Knight. LONDON, Printed for the Author in the Year 1680. The Proceed concerning the 500 l. deposited in the Chamber of London, by Sir Richard Gurney, Anno 1641. SIr Richard Gurney then Lord Mayor, 13 Decem. 1641. deposited 500 l. in the Chamber of London, which (according to the words in the receipt for it) by order of the Court of Aldermen, is to remain in the Chamber of London, until Security be given for the repayment thereof to the liking of the Court of Aldermen, together with such costs and damages for the same after the Rate of 8 l. per Cent. for a year, from the time that the same is advanced, until it shall be repaid, and this is subscribed by Bateman then Chamberlain of the City. The then House of Commons being displeased at some of Sir Richard Gurneys proceed, 15 July 1642. (manifesting his Loyalty to the King, and Fidelity in supporting the Rights of the City) carried up an Impeachment against him to the Lords house, for which he was this same day sent to the Tower of London, and upon several hear at the Lords Bar, both before his Commitment, and during his Trial, cost him above 1000 l. He was sentenced by the Lords, 12 August. 1642. (amongst other severities) to continue a Prisoner in the Tower during their Lordship's pleasure. He was Plundered of all his Plate, 20 August. 1642. , Goods, etc. to the value of 4000 l. besides the loss of Offices then in his gift, disposed of to Pennington, of as great a value. He borrowed 500 l. of Mr. William Chamberlain and Mr. Pettit upon the Security and Assignment to them of the said 500 l. deposited in the Chamber of London. 10 Septem. 1642. He being in the Tower, 3 Decemb. 1642. was assessest 1000 l. for his Twenty fifth part, which he not paying, his Estate was Sequestered by order of Haberdashers-Hall in Feb. following, and so continued till November 1647. Besides his Imprisonment, 19 April 1644. and the 1000 l. assessed by Haberdashers-Hall, the Committee of Goldsmiths-Hall, issued out Warrants to several Counties to restrain his Rents, upon pretence of 5000 l. also assessest on him by the House of Commons. Sir Richard Gurney Petitioning to the Commons, they sent Mr. Ash to him, to know whether he would pay the 5000 l. and he should be freed of Imprisonment and Sequestration. Sir Richard paid the 1000 l. to Haberdashers-Hall, 15 April 1645. and had orders for discharging his Sequestration. Mr. Ash reports to the Commons, 2 March 1645. that Sir Richard Gurney obstinately refused to pay the said 5000 l. whereupon The Commons ordered the levying it upon his Estate. 4 March 1645. The power of Haberdashers-Hall, and Goldsmiths-Hall, as to freeing his Estate of Sequestration, held in debate till April 1647. before he could get free of Sequestration. Apr. 1647. Sir Richard Gurney died a Prisoner of the Tower of London. 3 October 1647. His Executors Thomas Lord Richardson, Nou. 1647. 1647. 1648. 1649. and Sir John Pettus Knight, in right of their Wives (Coheirs to Sir Richard Gurney) proved his Will, and by virtue thereof, and Deeds of Settlement made in June 1641, his trusties and Executors were so Industrious that before the end of the year 1649, they sold and disposed of all his real Estate, and with the money paid great debts which Sir Richard owed before, and had contracted during his more than five years' Imprisonment, and thereby they thought to have enjoyed the Personal Estate in quiet, so as they did not think it safe or prudent to stir in this 500 l. or any other of his personal Estate, as conceiving the personal Securities, were not so visible as the real Estate. The Executors divided the Personal Estate under Hand and Seal, 24 Decem. 1650. whereby this 500 l. and the Interest fell to Sir John Pettus his share, and upon the Account thereof, did pay several considerable debts, the other assigned debts proving of little benefit to him. But the Executors having as yet no discharge of the said 5000 l. although there was a Cessation, did not think fit to stir in this, and according to their fears, so it happened; For The Commons did order the Commissioners of Goldsmiths-Hall, 3 Novemb. 1652. forthwith to levy the same for the use of the Admiralty. Thereupon the Commissioners ordered the Executors to pay it within seven days, 4 Novemb. 1652. or they would proceed to levy it, and notwithstanding all their applications, 25 January 1652. Letters were sent from those Commissioners into every County where Sir Richard had any real or personal Estate, to Sequester it (sold or unsold) accordingly every particular purchasor of his real Estate in and about London, were summoned, viz. Sir John Frederick, etc. to the value of 10000 l. and they did appear, but the Executors seeing (after a long defence for themselves) that the Committee was resolved to levy it upon the Purchasers, and the Executors being sensible that the Purchasers had purchased the Lands without any Covenant from the Executors against any Act of Sir Richards, the Executors were so just, that they in discharge of the Purchasers, freely offered that they would pay the 5000 l. rather than the Purchasers should suffer, and not only so, but paid their charges, and gave them a good Dinner besides, of which generous dealing the Commissioners were so sensible, that they allowed to the Executors some further time of Appeal to the House of Commons, but the time being elapsed, and the Commissioners pressing for the money, one of the Executors, viz. the Lord Richardson, gave Bond for the payment of 2500 l. but Sir John Pettus the other Executor, proffering his Interest for the satisfaction of the other 2500 l. the Commissioners refused, whereupon he suffered himself to be Sequestered about two years before he could get his discharge: whilst the Executors were thus transacting about his real and personal Estate, several of the Debtors to Sir Richard Gurney, did apply themselves to the Executors, offering, that if the Executors would make such abatements as they proposed, they would pay the Executors, if not, they would discover the same to the Commissioners, so that the Executors did abate at least 3000 l. rather than have their debts discovered. Amongst the rest of the Discoverers, April 53. two Aldermen, whereof one is now living, informed the Commissioners of this 500 l. in the Chamber of London, due to Sir Richard, whereupon orders were issued to the Chamber to pay in the money, which the Court was ready to obey, but the aforesaid Assignment to Mr. William Chamberlain and Mr. Pettit, being not canceled, it was produced, and proved (without taking notice of the Reassignment of it to Sir Richard Gurneys Executors) and was allowed, so there was no further proceed on that Discovery. By this time Cromwell took upon him to be Protector, Decem. 54. whereupon the Executors by Petition complaining of the Injustice of the House of Commons (in punishing a man so often for one offence, or without hearing the Executors Case, though it stood committed) gained a reference to his Council, when the injustice and unusual proceed were made so clear, that the Lord Richardson was discharged of his Security given to Goldsmiths-Hall, Jan. 1654. 1655. 1656. and Sir John Pettus of his Sequestration, with an order of restitution of what had been taken from him, yet he lost above 600 l. on that account; nor was there a clear effect of the order of discharging the 5000 l. till the year 1657. These three years were years of great commotion in the City, etc. so as there was no stirring there, 1657. 1658. 1659. in matters which concerned money. The Executors were advised (though the 500 l. debt was transferred to Sir John Pettus) to Petition to the Lord Major, In 1660. 1661. etc. in all their Names, and had some Proceed upon it. This Debt was looked upon to be so good, 20 Novem. 1662. that Mr. Charles Eucrard Goldsmith of London, (who about that time fined for Alderman) takes the Assignment of it as a good Security for above 600 l. which the said Sir John did after Repay, so as little was done more in getting in the money till 1663. And then the Executors upon a new Petition, 2 June 1663. gains a Reference to a Committee of Aldermen, and a Report from them to the Court of Aldermen, to this effect, 20 June 1663. viz. That they found the money to be paid by Sir Richard Gurney, but not repaid to him, but in respect the money was issued out of the Chamber, (as was pretended) they conceived it could not be levied without a Common Council, Upon which the Executors prepared a Petition to the Major and Common-council, 1664. but being delayed, His Majesty well knowing the great Sufferings of Sir Richard Gurney, 16 June 1665. by his Loyalty and Fidelity to the City, writ a Letter to the Lord Major, Court of Aldermen, and Common-Councel, recommending the Case to them; but the Common-Councel not sitting, and the Plague increasing, nothing was done more in that year. Before the Executors could bring the matters to any Resolution, the Plague destroyed the Citizens, and in 1666, 1666. the Fire consumed the City, (wherein Sir John had an house (let for 100 l. per Annum, and more worth) burnt) and in 1667, 1667. the Dutch gave a trouble to the whole Kingdom, for all which Reasons, Sir John's Counsel and Friends advised him not to stir in it, till the City was in a better condition to pay him. The Executors applied themselves fresh again to the Court of Aldermen, but soon after, 1670 1671 1672 1673 viz. in 1672 and 1673, Sir John being the only Prosecutor of it, was employed in Suffolk about the Dutch Wars on that Coast. Those being ended, the Executors applied themselves again to the Court of Aldermen, 1674 1675 1676 and then some scruples were raised concerning the nature of the Debt, which occasioned Sir John Pettus to be at great expenses and trouble in searching the Books in the House of Lords and House of Commons, the Court not permitting Sir John to have the view of the Chamberlines books as formerly he had. At last Sir John (being then the sole Petitioner) found that some of the Aldermen did favour his Lady who (had lived about Twenty years from him, and was turned Roman Catholic) and had endeavoured to make a stop of any money to be paid to Sir John. Whereupon Sir John pressed to know the resolution of the Court, whether they would pay it or not, 1677 that the might take some other legal course: to which two of the Aldermen replied, that if Sir John did go to Law for it, the Excommunication which his Lady had against him should be pleaded. Upon which Answer, 1678 Sir John gave over solicitation. But now his Lady being Dead, and the Excommunication discharged under the Seal of the Spiritual Court, and published in Form, so as the whole Interest being in Sir John, he now Petitions singly and desires their Resolution. Being able to prove, 1. That the 500 l. was Deposited. 2. That most, if not all others who deposited money upon the same occasion, are repaid. 3. That Sir Richard was not repaid in his life time. 4. That is was engaged by Sir Richard, and Redeemed by his Executors. 5. That it was afterwards purchased upon very valuable considerations by Sir John Pettus of the other Executors. 6. That is was engaged by him for a good sum to one that fined for Alderman. 7. That it had not been prudent or safe for Sir Richard in his life time, nor for his Executors for twelve years after Sir Richard's Death, to press for it. 8. That three years after his Death, it was acknowledged by some Aldermen (by way of Discovery) to be in the Chamber) as money justly due to his Executors, and so claimed by Goldsmith-Hall Commissioners. 9 That for Fifteen years after that discovery, it was acknowledged a just Debt by the Court of Aldermen, but the manner how it should be raised and paid, was the only question. 10. Sir John Pettus did coolly Prosecute the payment of it ever after, because Sir John did perceive that his Lady had made an Interest in some Aldermen to stop it, unless she might have better conditions than he thought fit to allow, considering what he had paid for it, and what trouble and charge he had been at concerning it. 11. That she is now Dead, and the right to the said 500 l. and Interest, according to contract, is solely due to him. 12. That it is a Trust in the Court, and aught to be performed with as much Sanctity and Integrity, as any money due to Orphans, Especially Considering That Sir John Pettus can make it appear, that Sir Richard was lessened in his Estate by his Imprisonment, Plunders, and Sequestration, etc. merely for his Loyalty to the King, and fidelity to the City) full 28600 l. of which Sir John's share as Executor, would have been above 14300 l. and therefore in Justice he ought to be paid this 500 l. with Interest (which in June last passed, amounted to 2160 l.) or in Equity a greater sum for his Relative Sufferings. FINIS.