Selected quad for the lemma: city_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
city_n	honourable_a	lord_n	sir_n	4,562	4	6.1811	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A95687	That the right both of chusing sheriffs, and of admitting them to, or precluding them from, the relieving themselves by fine, is solely inthe [sic] Common-Hall briefly opened and defended.	Bethel, Slingsby, 1617-1697.	1689 (1689)	Wing T840A; ESTC R42914	4,788	4

it remains still subordinate and subject unto and may have its Acts both questioned and superseded by a Common-Hall For the former being a Creature of the latter and only instituted and erected by it for the ease and conveniency of the Great Body of the Commonalty it is not to be supposed but that the Free-men reserved a Jurisdiction unto themselves in their General Meetings both of controuling and annulling such Acts as should be found to the prejudice of the Corporation and Society Accordingly we not only find the Commons of London in the 20 Ed. 3. and the 43 Ed. 3. giving Rise and Being unto a Common-Council and both prescribing the Ends for which it was Instituted and Ordained and adjusting the number of the Members th●t were to constitute it together with the manner how they should be chosen and elected But we further find That the said Commons ☞ in Common-Hall assembled An. 7. Ric. 2. do both redress those Inconveniences that had crept into the Management of Common-Councils and prescribe such new Regulations as might render their Debates calm and sedate and themselves more useful in time to come But then if we will observe That the Act insisted upon by the Court of Aldermen for their admitting Persons after their being elected to Offices by the Commons to discharge and free themselves from the said Offices by Fine without the leave and consent of the Commons is inconsistent with the Charter we may not only affirm it to be in it self null but that they who strive to assert and uphold the Authority of it are not so regardful of their Credit as men of Wisdom and Honesty ought to be All the Power and Authority that either the Court of Aldermen or the Common Council can pretend unto is vested in them for the preservation of the Franchises granted to the Citizens and not for the subversion of them To this they are sworn upon their admission into their respective Offices and by every known and wilful invasion upon the Privileges setled by the Charter on the Free-men they are guilty of the violation of their Oaths and become perjured Nor is their passing and enacting of such Laws as are inconsistent with the Charter merely an invasion upon the Rights of the Commonalty but it is a Crime against the King both in robbing his people of the Grace which the Crown hath vouchsafed unto them and in annulling all the Statute Laws by which the Charter is rati●ied and confirmed And therefore as it hath been lately acknowledged by the Town-Clerk before the Committee of the House of Commons that this Act of Common Council is disagreeable unto and inconsistent with the Charter so I do not know but that they who have the boldness to support and justifie it are liable to be impeached of cancelling the Laws of the Kingdom and of claiming a power unto themselves both of subverting his Majesties Royal Authority and Prerogative and of committing a breach upon his Bounty Favour and Grace And as it is not to be thought that the present Lord Mayor who besides his approved Integrity in the most difficult times is a person of that Wisdom as not to act inconsistently with himself will after he has so lately departed from one Branch of this Act of Common-Council as unjust illegal and oppressive insist upon any other Clause or part of it as valid and binding so 't is to be hoped that the very Court of Aldermen will as readily in favour of the Commonalty of London abandon the unjust and arbitrary pretence and claim which they fan●y ●●●●oresaid Act does empower them to challenge about admitting persons to Fine whom the Common-Hall hath chosen for Sheriffs without the concurrence and approbation of the Majority of the Electors as they calmly deserted and forsook their invasion upon the Rights of the City about the Lord Mayor's constituting a Sheriff by the Honourable Method of Drinking to One and who by the late Act of Common-Council in the Mayoralty of Sir Will. Pritchard was to be so held and esteemed if but Two Persons of the whole Commonalty should hold up their hands in Confirmation of the Person designed and chosen by the Glass and Rummer Nor will it be unworthy of the consideration of the Court of Aldermen That the Act of Common-Council upon which they insist in justification of their present procedure hath been judged to be of no Force Validity or Obligation by the highest Court of Judicatory of the Kingdom namely by the Lords in Parliament assembled 17 Car. 1. For the Commons having refused to confirm one for Sheriff whom Sir Edward Wright the then Lord Mayor had by the Cup or Glass chalk'd out for that Office and a disappointment being thereby occasioned of the Election of Sheriffs on Midsummer day the Case was thereupon brought judicially before that High and Honourable Court which after a full he●●ing of both Parties ordered the Commonalty to proceed to the Nomination and Election of both Sheriffs for the Year ensuing To which may be added That the forementioned Act in the 7 Car. 1. and all other Acts of Common Council preceding the 15 Car. 2. that are either derogatory from inconsistent with or invasions upon the Rights of the Charter are all cancell'd repealed or made void by the Inspeximus of the said 15 Car. 2. For whereas that revives and confirms all the Original Grants made to the City reinvesting the Freemen in all the Rights and Privileges conveyed to them in Former Charters it necessarily follows That all such By-Laws as detract from diminish or subvert their Franchises are thereby supe●s●ded abrogated and annulled And for any now to plead the validity of the often fore-mentioned Act of Common-Council is not only to dispute the Authority and renounce the grace and benefit of the said Inspeximus but to provoke the Commonalty to seek redress in Parliament against this unjust and abrogated Law. Yea should this Act of the Common-Council be acknowledged of force and binding and be made the Rule according to which the Court of Aldermen are to govern themselves in reference to the choice of Sheriffs they would not only be cloathed with a power of oppressing and harrassing the Citizens by often and unnecessary attendance in Common Halls but they would so far deprive the City of all Authority over its Memb●rs That it would neither be in the power of the Commonalty nor in the Court of Aldermen to oblige any man to take upon him and to hold the Office of Sheriff For whereas by that Law any man that will may notwithstanding his being chosen by the majority of the Freemen for Sheriff challenge a right of discharging himself from serving upon the paying of a certain and specified Fine it plainly follows that it must be from Choice and not from Obligation if any Person submit to hold LONDON Printed in the Year 1689.