Charles I the City lost divers large sums of money,
and that by reason of this, as well as of the destruction of the greatest
part of their estate in the great fire and their losses consequent on the
illegal judgment on the _Quo Warranto_, their debts to the orphans had
amounted to a sum far larger than the City was able to pay without the
assistance of parliament. It proceeded to lay before the House the scheme
proposed by the committee, and prayed the House to assist the petitioners
to raise a sufficient sum for an annual payment to be made in lieu of the
said debts, or such other provision for the same as the House might think
fit. On the 27th November leave was granted to bring in a Bill, and on the
3rd December a Bill was brought in and read the first time, but nothing
further appears to have come of it.(1787) On the 6th August, 1692, a
committee was appointed to consider the question how best the City's
revenues might be improved with the view to the easier discharge of
orphans' claims. The committee showed itself very active, meeting at least
once and often twice a week. Nevertheless it was not until the 2nd
November it was in a position to make a report to the Common
Council.(1788) What was thought of the committee's recommendations is not
recorded, but a few days later (11 Nov.) we find the court resolving to
present a petition to parliament in precisely the same terms as their
former petition.(1789)

(M902)

The matter was allowed to drag on until the 17th February of the next year
(1693), when a committee was appointed by the House to prepare and bring
in another Bill. A Bill was accordingly brought in on the 20th, read the
first time on the 21st, read the second time on the 22nd and committed.
Before the Bill passed through committee the City desired to be heard by
counsel against the Bill on the ground that it divested the City of all
its revenues, deprived it of much of its ancient and necessary
jurisdiction, and would not answer the ends proposed.(1790) In March
progress was reported, but before anything further could be done the House
was prorogued.(1791)

(M903)

When the House re-assembled in November (1693) the City again presented a
petition in terms similar to their former petitions. The petition having
been referred to a committee of the whole House that committee reported
(17 Feb., 1694) to the following effect,(1792) viz., that (1) a
rent-charge of L8,000 per annum should be set aside out of