all of the Family Kindred and Society to revenge and tends to Quarrels Verba movent litem lis vulnera vulnera Mortem against a Subordinate Magistrate it 's a greater offence because it scandalizes the Government for Injuria crescit decrescit secundum dignitatem personae But against the King who is the Supream Head of the Common-wealth Pater Patriae it 's a Crime of the first Magnitude And how fatal and pernicious the publishing of Scandals and Libels have been to the Kings of England and to their good Subjects this Nation is very sensible 7 E. 1. the King sent Commissions to all the Counties of England to enquire de Spersoribus Rumorum and 25 E. 1. Declaratio Regis missa fuit ad omnes Comitatus Angliae de Rege purgando de certis rumoribus iniquis contra ipsum ortis c. Rot. Parl. 7 E. 1. M. 13. Rot. Patent 25 E. 1. pars 2. M. 7. A Declaration of the King was sent to all the Counties of England to purge him of certain false and unjust Rumours and Scandals raised against him Rex mandavit Majori Vicecomit London Quod facta inquisitione de sparsoribus rumorum Seditionem in Civitate ipsas caperent in Prisona de Newgate detinerent 20 E. 3. pars 1. M. 18. 26. The King Commands the Major and Sheriffs of London that they make diligent inquisition of the spreaders of False Reports and Sedition in the City and that they should seize upon them and keep them in the prison of Newgate As for the Petition imprinted and published by the Major Aldermen and Citizens I hope it was acted by many of them out of a principle of Piety and Loyalty but must needs be looked upon as an action of no great discretion in them to say no worse for to make such ill reflections upon his Majesty when the King by his Oath is bound to do Justice and Nulli Negavimus is one of his Royal Attributes Ob. But it hath been said That no acts bind beyond the Corporation but such as are done under their common Seal therefore they cannot present a Clerk to a Living but by Deed sub Communi Sigillo 13 H. 8 12. nor make a Surrender 33 H. 6.17 34 H. 6.21 nor assign Auditors 4 H. 7.17 7 H. 7.9 Et hujusmodi so their Laws and Constitutions made in their Common Council do not bind because they are not under their Common Seal Answ Excellent Logick he must be a rare Chymist that can Extract such a Consequence from the Premisses The Common Council of the City is a Parliament of the City the Mayor is the King the Aldermen the Peers the Commonalty the Commons and what they there Enact and Ordain is upon Record Jones Rep. Fol. 540. Therefore those Constitutions and Ordinances by them there made being Enacted in a Court of Record if not Warrantable make the more against them and what is then by them Enacted is of greater Force and Puissance than if it had been under their Common Seal If they appoint an Attorney at Law or Bayliff in their Common Council they may justifie any Act which doth belong to their Office Sans monstrans de fait c. for it 's to the Use of the Corporation 12 H. 7.25 26. They certifie their New Mayor Yearly in the Exchequer because it 's entred on Record 13 H. 8.22 vide lib. 10. l' Guardians 8. S. Saviours Case 14 H. 8.29 12 E. 4.9 10. IV. If the Mayor Commonalty and Citizens have done any Act in their Common Council whereby to Forfeit their Corporation and Franchises Where a Franchise is absolute and entire and hath no dependence on another Franchise then if any incident to it be Forfeited the whole Franchise is Forfeited 22 Ass 34. Palmers Rep. Fol. 82. en l' Case d' Corporation d' Maydenhead But the Corporation of London is a Franchise Court d' Entries Fol. 527. Palmers Rep. Fol. 82. absolute and entire and hath no dependance on another Franchise therefore the Forfeiture of any incident to the Corporation of London is a Forfeiture of the Corporation To make Laws and Ordinances for the well Government of the Corporation is incident to every Corporation Hob. Rep. Fol. 211. But the Corporation of London hath abused and mis-used this Power therefore they have Forfeited their Power to make Laws and Ordinances which is incident to their Corporation therefore they have Forfeited their Corporation the abuse of the Court of Pye-Powders being incident to a Fair is a Forfeiture of the Fair 7 H. 4.44 otherwise of Toll because it 's not incident to the Fair or Market Palmer Ibid. Object There is a Stat. 7 R. 2. That the Citizens of London shall enjoy all their whole Liberties whatsoever with this clause Licet usi non fuerint vel abusi fuerint and notwithstanding any Statute to the contrary 7 R. 2. n. 37. Answ This is no Act of Parliament but an Act of Grace of the King in Parliament For no assent of the Lords c. do appear but only per dominum Regenâ— Consilium suum which must be intended his Privy Council if it had been otherwise then Consilio Comitum Baronum c. as 35 E. 1. apud Carlioten Stat. de Asportatis Religiosorum c. â—ut admitting it to be an Act of Parliament it doth only extend to 〈◊〉 Offences and Crimes which they had committed or omitted and not 〈◊〉 â—â—ose that shall be committed or omitted by them de futuro If otherwise it would have been against all Reason and Justice and by consequence void and that it must be so read the Kings Answer to the Petition of the Commons at large Jones Rep. Fol. 241. And if we look into all the Statutes which confirm the Liberties of London viz. 14 E. 3. c. 1. which confirms all Reasonable Liberties 2 H. 4. c. 1. the Liberties which have been duly used 3 H. 5. c. 1. all except such as are Repealed by the Common Law 2 H. 6. c. 1. All Liberties well used and not Repealed by the Common Law There is no Statute or Prescription Warrant any of their Actions but only such as are consonant to Right Reason and Justice Qui Muragium ad villam clandendam gravius ceperint quam concessum fuerit per Chaâ—tam Regis perdant ex tunc gratiam suae concessionis graviter amerciantur Fleta lib. 2. c. 43. They which shall take more Murage than is granted to them shall lose the Benefit of their Grant and shall be grievously Amerced Le ley voet quo chescan perdera son Franchise que eo misuera Mirror c. 5. § 4. The Law wills that every one shall lose his Franchise which mis-use it And Bracton saith that Libertates possunt amitti per abusum vel non usum Bract. lib. 2. Fol. 56. lib. 3. Fol. 117. And it 's to be Observed that where the Law saith that they shall lose their Liberties or their Grant it 's to be understood of a Forfeiture of them for ever Inst Part 2. Fol. 222. How the Mayor and Commonalty and Citizens of London have mis-used and abused their Franchise by Levying of such Sums of Money to the Oppression of His Majesties good Subjects is submitted to the grave consideration of all Sober and dis-interessed Persons A Leet was seized into the Kings Hands because they did take of the Offenders against the Assize of Bread and Beer 2 s. when they had no Pillory nor Tumbrel Rastals Entries Fol. 540. In the Eires of the County of Cornwall 30 E. 1. inter Placita Coronae infra Hundredum de Keryer there was prescribed that in Holston Burgh they did take de novo of every great Beast viz. Ox c. as well of the Buyers as of the Sellers one penny whereas they ought to take but one penny of the Buyer And that they take of Merchandises exceeding 12 d. of the Buyer ob and of the Seller ob whereas they ought to take but ob of the Buyer Rolls Abridg. Part 2. Fol. 523. The Justices in Eire did enquire of those which did take superfluous or undue Tolls in Cities Burroughs or elsewhere against the common Usage of the Kingdom Cap. Itineris vet Magna Charta It 's to be Observed that if the Defendants in a Quo Warranto made default their Franchises were seized into the Hands of the King and the King was to be Answered all the Profits and if they did not Replieve within the Eire they lost their Franchises for ever Iten Canc. 6 E. 2.7 Ob. If the Mayor and Commonalty and Citizens of London have committed any Offence the particular Persons which have transgressed ought to be punished but the Corporation cannot for no Trespass lye against a Corporation 22 Ass 67. Brok. Tit. Corp. n. 43. 15 E. 4.1 b. No Capias no exigent against it neither can it be Imprisoned 21 E. 4.69 70. 45 E. 3.2 3. Neither can a Corporation be bound in a Statute or Recognizance Moores Rep. 68. Answ His Majesty may proceed against them in their Politick capacity and so to a Forfeiture of their Corporation and Franchises or in their Natural capacities against any particular Persons of the Corporation which are Offenders and they shall be punished Secundum quantitatem qualitatem delucti according to the quantity and quality of their Offence Non oppressus liberant Qui liberos opprimunt They will not free those which are Oppressed who Oppress those which are Free. FINIS
Chapter of the Bishop of Norwich and therefore to be of his Council to Advise with them about the determination of difficult Points and Controversies of Religion and also to give their consent to every Grant which the Bishop should make to bind his Successor For it was thought by Henry the Eight not to be Reasonable to impose so great Confidence in any sole Person as to give him Power to bind his Successor and therefore without the consent of the Bishop he having an Interest in them as a Corporation to be his Counsel the Dean and Chapter without the consent of the Bishop could not surrender their Corporation but shall remain as long as the Bishoprick continue Lib. 3. m. 40 41. Eliz. Dean Chapter de Norw Case Object Civitas London habeat omnes libertates suas antiquas consuetudines Mag. Ch. c. 9. The Liberties of the City of London for any Cause shall not be taken into the Kings Hands Rot. Parl. 1 E. 3. Authoritate Parliament Inst Part 4. Fol. 253. Answ That the City of London shall have its Ancient Franchises and Frank Customs it 's Excellently Interpreted by our Ancient Authors that the Citizens of London shall have their Franchises of which they are seized by a Rightful and Loyal Title of the Gifts Grants and Confirmations of the Kings and which they have not Forfeited by their Abuser or Mis-user and that they have those Franchises and Customs which are sufferable by Right and not Repugnant to Law Inst Part 2. Fol. 20. Mirror Ch. 5. § 2. Fleta Lib. 2. c. 48. Plowd Com. Fol. 40. And it doth appear by the Authorities abovesaid that for Abusion the Franchises of the City of London may be seized And whereas the Act 1 E. 3. saith that the Liberties shall not for any cause be seized c. it must be understood that for any cause that is not reasonable or at the Kings Pleasure they shall not be seized The Citizens of London were before and after the Conquest Governed by Port-graves or Portgreeves until the Reign of King Richard the First by whose Charter they were Governed by two Bayliffs But King Richard the first Year of his Reign appointed them a Mayor who continued therein until the Eight Year of King John and then King John appointed a Mayor and because sometime the Mayor appointed by the King was no Citizen of London King John the Tenth Year of his Reign Granted to the Citizens Liberty and Authority to chose a Mayor De seipsis Inst Part 4. Fol. 255. 7 R. 2. it was Enacted that the Aldermen of London shall not from henceforth be Yearly chosen but shall remain till they be put out for Reasonable cause notwithstanding the Ordinance of Edward the Second and Edward the Third So that by this Act it doth appear that for Reasonable cause an Alderman might be put out Rot. Parl. 7 R. 2. n. 25. So that by the Authorities above-said it doth appear that a Corporation is a Franchise and that a Franchise may be Forfeited and by consequence a Corporation 3. If the Mayor and Commonalty and Citizens have done any Act in their Common Council whereby to Forfeit their Corporation and Franchises wherein we shall Enquire 1. Whether the Quo Warranto be well brought against the Mayor and Commonalty and Citizens c. or ought not the same to have been against particular Persons 2. How far the Acts of the Common Council shall bind the Corporation 3. What those Acts were 4. If they amount unto a Forfeiture of the Franchises and Liberties 1. It 's conceived that the Quo Warranto is well brought against the Mayor and Commonalty and Citizens of the City of London without naming any Persons in particular for by that Name they ought to Plead and be Impleaded c. An Action was brought against the Masters and Scholars of New Colledge in C. and well brought 15 E. 4. Fol. 33. a. Quo Warranto versus de Corporation de Maydenhead in Barkshire quod Gardiani Pontenarii Burgenses Communitas de villa de Maydenhead for three Years have used a Market with divers Liberties H. 17. Jac. B R. Rot. 106. in Coron Office Palmer's Rep. Fol. 80. An Action upon the Stat. of Winchester was brought against the Men Inhabitant in Hundredo de Elthorn and Spelthorn without naming any particular and well brought T. 12. Jac. Fosters Case Hutton Rep. Croke Part 2.187 Noys Rep. Fol. 21. An Action versus Inhabitantes in domidio Hundredi d' Waltham and adjudged good T. 15. Jac. Rot. 2244. Constables Case Brownl Part 1. Fol. 156. An Action was brought against Dean and Chapter without Naming them by their Names of Baptism so if Dean and Chapter bring an Action 21 E. 4.15 An Action upon the Stat. of Winchester and 27 Eliz. Versus homines Inhabitantes de D. Rastal Entries Fol. 406. If the King grants Land in Fee Probis hominibus villae d' D. it 's a good Corporation and so if he grants Lands Burgensibus Civibus Communitati to the Burgesses Citizens and Commonalty they may sue and be sued by those Names and they may have an Action ad respondendum Probis hominibus Burgensibus Civibus c. 7 E. 4.14 Where Mayor and Commonalty is sued and all the Commoners appear in their proper Persons it 's not good for this is another Body therefore the Corporation ought to appear by Attorney by the Name of the Corporation and not in their proper Persons 19 H. 6.8 Brok. Tit. Corporation n. 28. A Quo Warranto was brought against the Mayor and Bayliffs of Maydstone T. 2. Car. in B R. The Mayor and Bayliffs of Maydstone's Case Poph. Rep. Fol. 180. An Information against the Inhabitants of the Town and Burrough of Denhigh in the County of Denbigh for Usurping divers Franchises c. Cokes Entries Tit. Quo Warranto Fol. 537. b. 2. So that if a Quo Warranto is well brought against Burgenses Cives Inhabitantes Communitatem de villa c. be good a fortiori this Quo Warranto being brought against the Mayor and Commonalty and Citizens of London 2. The Burgesses of the Town of Tewksbury in the County of Gloucester brought an Action of Debt upon the Statute of 8 H. 6. c. 27. which hath reference to the Statute of Winchester if Satisfaction be not made for the Robbery therein mentioned within fifteen days after Proclamation The Action was given against the Commonalties of the Forest of Dean which are adjacent to the River of Severn and of the Hundreds of Bledstow and Westbury and the Writ was Praecipe Communitati Ferestae de Deane Hundredis de B. W. Exception was taken to the Writ for the Writ ought to have been Praecipe Communitati Forestae d' Deane Hundredorum de B. W. according to the words of the Statute of 8 H. 6. as one entire Commonalty and yet the Writ was adjudged good for that it was to the same effect 8 H. 6. c. 27.11 H.
6. Fol. 47. a. Inst Part 2. Fol. 570. The next thing which falls into Consideration is How far the Acts of the Common Council shall bind the Corporation 1. The Acts of the Common Council shall bind the Corporation for that Court hath some Resemblance of the High Court of Parliament for it consisteth of two Houses the one of the Mayor and Aldermen the other of such as be of the Commons Assembly Representing the Commonalty of London In this Court they may make Constitutions and Laws for Government of Trade and Traffick for the better Execution of the Laws and Statutes of the Nation or pro bono Publico and for the good Government of the City so those Constitutions and Laws be not contrary to the Laws and Statutes of the Nation And being made by the Mayor Aldermen and Commonalty do bind within the City of London and the Liberties thereof Inst Part 4. Fol. 249. Lib. 5.62 63. the Chamberlain's Case Lib. 8.173 the Case of the City of London 14 H. 8. It 's said that the Dean and major part of the Chapter make the Corporation and their Act is the Act of the Corporation although the others do not agree to it 14 H. 8. Fol. 9. So in the 21 E. 4.27.70 b. it 's said ubi major pars ibi tota 9. H. 6.32 If the Major part of the Corporation doth Imprison the Minor part until they consent to do an Act although they do not consent yet the Act done by the Major part shall bind all and its the Act of the Corporation 15 E. 4. Fol. 2. And with this agrees Panormitan C. cum in cunctis where it 's said Quod authoritas protestas Capituli consislit in majori parte ejus sic totum Capitulum facere dicitur quod major pars facit Davyes Rep. Fol. 48. Therefore I agree that if the Minor part of a Corporation accept of a New Charter it shall not bind the Corporation T. 13. Jac. Baggs Case Rolls Rep. Part 1. Fol. 224. Yet in some Cases the Act of one or of some few of the Corporation will bind the rest Did not the Corporation of Sandwich for the Misdemeanour of John Dennis the then Mayor thereof in a high Measure suffer and being thereof Convicted was not the Judgment thereupon Quod Communitas amittat libertatem The Command of the Mayor only to the Bayliff of the Corporation to enter into certain Lands for the Corporation though it be without Deed shall be good and bind the Corporation 16 H. 7.2 A Sum of 100 l. per Annum was due to the Mayor and Commonalty of Southampton out of the Customs of the King an Acquittance by the Mayor alone because he was the Head of the Corporation was allowed by the Justices and for that there were shewn many Prsidents of Acquittances by the Mayor made in times past 2 R. 3. Fol. 7. An Action of Debt was brought against the Provost and Scholars of a Colledge in C. for that T. M. their late Provost and Predecessor of the Def. and the Scholars by F. their Servant bought certain Goods to the value of 10 l. which came to the use of the Colledge By the Justices it was agreed that the Contract was good and shall be intended the Contract of the Provost only and the Name of Scholars is but surplusage for the Contract of the Provost and for that it came to the Use of the Colledge is sufficient 5 E. 4.7 Brok. Corporation n. 53. A Writ of Covenant was brought by the Mayor and Commonalty d' H. against the Mayor and Commonalty of D. and declared that the Defendants by their Deed Covenanted that the Plantiâ—es should be Free of Murage Pontage Customs and Toll in D. of all those of H. and that they have unjustly taken Toll by certain of their Burgesses of certain of the Burgesses of H. c. adjudged that the Prisal and taking by their common Minister is a taking of the whole Corporation for it cannot reasonably be intended that the whole Community could meet together to take Toll and therefore it was adjudged a breach of the Covenant there is no mention made that he was their Minister by Specialty Sub communi sigillo Corporationis 48 E. 3. Ful. 17. I do agree that where there are Garden and Chaplin Mayor and Commonalty Dean and Chapter or the like the Garden Mayor or Dean solely cannot make a Lease nor discontinue for it ought to be by the whole Corporation and by Deed 21 E. 4.70 But if the King makes a Corporation consisting of Twelve Men to continue for ever in Succession when any of them dye that the rest may chose others in their place if three or four of them dye yet all Acts done by them shall be valid in Law Rolls Abridgment Part 2. Fol. 514. By which it doth appear by what Acts a Corporation is bound but when those things are acted and done in the Common Council of the said City being a Court of Record and which is Representative of all the Free Men and Citizens of the City of London they must in a more eminent degree bind the Corporation We shall Observe 4. What those Acts were 1. The said Mayor and Commonalty and Citizens of the said City of London have assumed an unlawful and unjust Power and Authority to Levy Money of the Subjects of our Lord the King to the proper Use of the said Mayor and Commonalty and Citizens assumed by colour of the Laws or Ordinances by them in Fact Ordained without any other Right Title or Authority and in particular in their Common Council Assembled they did make and publish a certain Law by them in Fact Enacted for Levying several Sums of Money of all His Majesties Subjects and Liege People as well Free as not Free men of the said City and of other Foreigners at the Publick Markets held within the City aforesaid coming thither to Sell their Victuals and Provisions 2. That the said Mayor and Commonalty and Citizens of the said City in their Common Council Assembled without any Legal Authority did assume upon themselves to Censure and Judge our said Lord the King and the Prorogation of the Parliament and then and there being so Assembled in their Common Council did Vote and Ordain that a certain Petition under the Name of the Mayor Aldermen and Commons of the City of London in the Common Council Assembled should be exhibited to our said Lord the King in which Petition there was contained that by the said Prorogation of the Parliament the Prosecution of the Publick Justice of this Kingdom and the making necessary Provision for His Majesties Protestant Subjects was obstructed And they did Order the Imprinting of the same and caused the same to be Published and dispersed We shall enquire whether these Laws and Ordinances made by the Mayor and Commonalty and Citizens of London be Warrantable by Law or not I do agree that they have Power to make Laws and Constitutions