1. c. 31. The Duke of Norfolk had the Office of Marischal of the Kings Bench he made a Deputy who permitted the Prisoners to escape adjudged that it was a Forfeiture of the Office But if the Duke had made a Grant for Life to J.S. and he had permitted the Prisoners to escape this had been no Forfeiture but for the Life of J. S. For in the Case of the Deputy the Duke did remain Marischal and so Respondeat Superior but in the other Case J.S. was Marischal for his Life and so shall Forfeit only his own Interest 39 H. 6.33 34. Where an Office is granted to a Man and he mis-use or do not his Office this is a cause of Forfeiture of it Ibid. When the Lord of a Franchise refuse to do a thing according to the Grant of the Franchise or doth a thing against his Franchise or mis-use his Franchise by himself or Deputy or non-use his Franchise in all these Cases the Franchise shall be seized For when the King grants a Franchise there is a Condition in Law that he should do Right to all Parties concerned if not the Franchise shall be seized 20 E. 4. Fol. 5 6. When one Franchise is incident to another of Common Right then the Forfeiture of the one is the Forfeiture of the other as the Abuser of the Court of Pye Powders may cause the Forfeiture of the Fair. So when the Franchises are one of them Subordinate to another but otherwise when they are Absolute or by several Titles or Patents H. 17. Jac. B R. If one hath a Fair or Market for one day and he keep it another day as when a Grant or Prescription be for Wednesday and he keep it on Thursday it 's a cause of Forfeiture So when a Fair or Market is Granted to one for one day in the Week and he keep it two days but in the last Case the Forfeiture shall be only of that he hath Usurped Cok. Lib. 9. Fol. 50.22 Ass 34. Old n. b. Fol. 157. If a Man keeps a Fair or Market two days and being Questioned by the King for it and claims both days by the Kings Grant and it 's afterwards found that he hath Right but to one day by Prescription and to another by Patent and the first is found against him this will be no Forfeiture of the last Lib. 9. Fol. 50. In some Cases for the Abuser of a Franchise one shall be Fined only and not Forfelt his Franchise So for the Usurping of a Franchise where none is or of more than is due but to take less than is due is no cause of Forfeiture Broke Tit. Forfeiture n. 37. 14 H. 3. The Arch-Bishop of Dublin was Fined Three Hundred Marks for that he did dis-forest a Forest of the Church 2 H. 4.3 Lib. 11. Lyfords Case By an Ancient Record in the Time of William the Conquerour it doth appear that the end of Erecting of Corporations and making and establishing of Cities and Towns Corporate was 1. Ad Consuetudines Regni jus commune dignitates Coronae Conservand for the conservation of the Dignities and Preheminencies of the Crown and the Laws of the Land 2. Ad tuitionem gentium Populorum Regni for Defence of the Kings Subjects and for keeping the Kings Peace in time of sudden Uproars 3. Ad defensionem Regni for Defence of the Realm against outward and inward Hostility If a Corporation may be Forfeited A Corporation may be Forfeited Corporations are called Liberties Franchises as it doth appear by the Writ of Non omittas propter aliquam libertatem Regist 82. f. n.b. 74. a. and by that Name have been ousted By the Surrender of all Franchises and Liberties a Corporation is gone Cokes Entries Fol. 527. Palm Rep. Fol. 493. Cives London petunt quod Rex vetit its concedere prestinum statum scilicet Majororem antiquas libertates Rex non habet inde Consihum quia sunt in bono statu ut sibi videtur hac vice statum non mutabit Inter les Petitions de Parliament 18 E. 3.1 The Citizens of London Petition the King that he would be pleased to grant to them their former state that is to say their Mayor and Ancient Liberties The King gave them this Answer That he was not Advised to it because they were in a good state and condition as it seemed to him at pro hac vice he would not alter or change The City of Norwich and the Liberties thereof seized into the Kings Hands for Burning of the Cathedral Church there but afterwards upon their Petition and Paying a great Fine their Liberties were restored to them 13 E. 1. Rot. Fin. m. 10. Quia Homines de Southampton verberaverunt vulneraverunt usque ad morrem Gilb. Canon qui exequahatur praeceptum Regis in dicta villa pro transgressione villae Capta fuit villa ista in manum Regis finem fecerunt firmam suam exaltaverunt ad 20 l. per Annum Rolls Abridgm Part 2. Tit. Prerog Fol. 204. Because the Men of Southampton did beat and Wound even to Death Gilb. Canon who did Execute the Mandate of the King in that Town for the Offence and Transgression of the said Town the said Town was seized into the Kings Hands and they paid a Fine and their Fee-Farm Rent was advanced to 20 l. per Annum Mandatum est Guilielmo de Haverhall The saurario Regis quod Civitas London Capiatur in manum Regis eo quod Cives ejusdem Civitatis non tenuerunt Hutesium clamorem Secundum Legem consuetudinem Regni Teste Rege apud Wondestock 22 die Angusti Rot. Claus 30. H. 3. m. 5. Inst Part 3. Fol. 118. William de Haverhall Treasurer of the King is Commanded that the City of London be seized into the Kings Hands for that the Citizens of the said City did not make Hue and Cry according to the Law and Custom of the Kingdom 29 E. 3. the Liberties of the City of Oxford seized for a Riot and part of them granted to the University which they do enjoy to this day Rot. Claus 29 E. 3. m. 9. And in the 32 H. 3. the Liberties of the City of Oxford were seized into the Kings Hands 32 H. 3. m. 18. The Liberties of the Mayor Bayliffs and Commonalty of Cambridge were seized into the Kings Hands for that in the late Tumults and Uproars there they and other mis-doers did break up the Treasury of the University of Cambridge and thereout take and burned sundry the Charters c. of the said University and for that they compelled the Chancellor and Scholars of the said University under their Common Seal to release to the said Mayor and Burgesses all manner of Liberties and also all Actions Real and Personal and further to be bound to them in great Sums of money And the King did grant unto the Chancellor and Scholars aforesaid within the said Town of Cambridge and Suburbs of the same divers
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
for the well Government of the City 22 Ass Part 34. But Ordinances which are contrary to the Publick Good which is the scope and great End of all Laws for Salus Populi est Suprema Lex are injurious or prejudicial to a multitude and beneficial only to some particular Persons such Ordinances are repugnant to the Law of Reason to which they ought to be subordinate and by consequence void And most of the Ordinances and Constitutions which by the Common Law have been adjudged void as being unreasonable against common Right or purely against Law if their Nature and Quality be considered they have been found injurious to a multitude and prejudicial to the Common-wealth and to have had their commencement and continuance by Oppression and Extortion 1. They have made a Constitution and Ordinance to Levy several great Sums of Money as well upon the said Citizens of London as Strangers which come to the Markets of the said City with Victuals c. These Sums of Money Levyed by them could not be Levyed for Toll Pickage or Stallage incident to their Markets or due by Prescription they do not pretend it to be but by an Arbitrary Power without any Right and against Law they have Levyed the said Sums Every Oppression against Law by colour of any Usurped Authority is a destruction within Magna Chart. c. 29. and it 's the worst of Oppressions that is done by colour of Justice If the King de novo doth grant a Fair or Market Toll doth not pass as incident to it without special words Kelloway Fol. 138.145 11 H. 6.19 9 H. 6.45 T. 38. Eliz. Rot. 936. Heedy Weldhouse And the Reason is because it 's but a private Profit against common Right If the King doth grant a Market with Toll if he doth not appoint how much shall be taken for Toll the Grant is void For when the King doth create a Market and grant such things which may be chargeable to the Subject the Law presumes that the King granted it Pro bono publico and the Subject had Quid pro Quo and greater benefit by it But it 's against all reason to give power to any Subject to impose so much as he pleases upon another by Toll or other Duty and the rule is given Lib. 11. f. 8. in the Case de Monopolies that every Grant and Grievance to the prejudice of the Subject is void 13 H. 4.14 15. Kelloway temps E. 3.134 30 E. 3.15.1 and expresly 9 H. 6.45 it is That in a Prescription for Toll it ought to be set out how much had been used to be taken for Toll 11 H. 6.19 Book tit Patent 11.12 When the King erects a Court he ought to appoint Officers and not the Patentee so that there be no oppression or extortion 14 E. 3.13 14. In the 13 H. 4. the Commons complained in Parliament that an Office was erected for Measurage of Clothes and Canvas with a new Fee for the same by colour of the Kings Letters Patents and prayed that the said Letters-Patents might be revoked For the King could erect no Office with new Fees to be taken of the people who may not be so charged but by Parliament The Royal Answer of the King in Parliament was That the Statutes therefore provided should be observed Rot. Parl. 13 H. 4. n. 43.13 H. 4. fol. 16 17. King Edward the Third had granted to Robert Polcy a new Office of Measuring Worsteads with a new Fee at the petition of the Commons it was resolved in Parliament to be void and afterwards revoked as void by Authority of Parliament Rot. Parl. 22. E. 3. n. 31. Rot. Parl. 25. E. 3. And by the Stat. 34 E. 1. all Burthens or Charges put upon the Subject by the King either to or for the King or to or for any Subject by the Kings Letters-Patents or other Commandment or Order is prohibited unless it be by common consent in Parliament 1 Inst Part. 2. fol. 534. If the King cannot put or impose any Burthen or Charge upon the Subject but by their assent in Parliament From whence do the Mayor and Commonalty and Citizens of London derive their Power and Authority to set and impose such Sums of Money If from the King that Power and Authority is against the 29 ch of Mag and the Statute of 34 E. 1. If by Prescription that Prescription is against the said Statutes and so void in Law therefore it 's an usurpation of an unlimited Power and contrary to Law and Justice and a just cause of forfeiture of their Corporation And that which adds to the Superinjustice of their actings as they have imposed these sums of Money upon the Kings Subjects so they may at their wills and pleasure impose what greater sums of Money they shall think fit Richard D'Wakyes did distrain William de Hay for that he did hold of him certain Lands apud Lin de faud by the service of 10 s. Et per tallagium ei faciendum ad voluntatem ipsius Richardi quia ipsum Willielmum talliavit Anno Regis 9. una fâ— vice ad 2 s atia vice Anno 10 18 d. quod tallagium ei a retro fuit pro praedictis 2 s. per Annum ipsum Willielmum distrinxit super feodem suum pro praedictis arreragiis Adjudged that the Tallage of 2 s. and 18 d. or any other sum uncertain And because it was to be at the will and pleasure of the said Richard D'Wakyes 't was against the Statute of 34 E. 1. and so void M. 11. E. 1. in Banco Rot. 49. Sussex A Custom that the Lord of a Mannor shall detain the Distress taken upon his Demesnes until a Fine be paid unto him for the damage at his will is void Davys Rep. fo 33. a. 2. H. 4.24 and because he is Judge in his own case 5 H. 7. fo 9.44 E. 3. fo 19. An Action of Trespass was brought for carrying away of certain Trees The Def. pleaded a Custom that he of the Tenants of the Mannor which first came to the place when c. should have all the Windfalls there Adjudged that this Custom was void for the incertainty and the reason given was that that lieth not in Prescription which lyeth in the will and pleasure of man for the will of man is uncertain 14 E. 3. Fitz. Batt 277. And this Ordinance of the Mayor and Commonalty and Citizens doth not onely extend to his Majesties Subjects within the City of London but unto Forainers and Strangers which shall come to their Markets within the said City which is not only against Law but a very high breach of their trust which his Majesty hath reposed in them and a misuser and abuser of their Franchises The Lord of a Mannor prescribes to have of every man which breaks the Pound of the Lord there 3 l. the Prescription is not good because Strangers cannot be bound by it 21 H. 7.40 11 H. 7. fo 14. a. 21 H. 7.
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