Selected quad for the lemma: judgement_n

Word A Word B Word C Word D Occurrence Frequency Band MI MI Band Prominent
judgement_n according_a law_n time_n 1,531 5 3.5321 3 false
View all documents for the selected quad

Text snippets containing the quad

ID Title Author Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) STC Words Pages
A63900 An argument in defence of the hospitaller of St. Thomas Southwark and of his fellow-servants and friends in the same house Turner, John, b. 1649 or 50. 1689 (1689) Wing T3300; ESTC R9444 36,427 31

There is 1 snippet containing the selected quad. | View lemmatised text

and Citizens of the City of London for the benefit of Sick and Lame indigent Persons with liberty in his Charter reserved to visit and enquire into the management of the trust According to the usage of the City the house hath been always governed by Citizens and others appointed by the Court of Aldermen the Governours of the house for the time being and the Court of Aldermen according to the laws and customes of the City chose A their Clerk. A Quo Warranto being afterwards brought against the City and Judgment Anno 1683. being thereupon had and enter'd a Commission was thereupon granted to certain Aldermen and others to regulate the said Hospitall and inter alia to appoint Governours and Officers of the house The said Commissioners appoint B. to be Clerk of the house instead of A. during the pleasure of that Court of Commissioners His Late Majesty James the Second when this Case was stated restores to the City their antient government Lands Tenements Franchises Priviledges c. and soon after issues out his Proclamation for restoring Corporations c. dated the 17th of October 1688. and dissolves the said Commission The Case being thus stated the question is Whether by the said restitution of the Charter c. and by the said Proclamation or either of them B not having been discharged of his office by the Commissioners A hath any right to be restored to his office of Clerk especially if the Court of Aldermen hath since the restitution of the Charter confirmed all officers belonging to the City in their respective places and the right should appear in that Court to choose a Clerk of the said Hospitall Sr. Francis Pembertons resolution of this Case I conceive that the Court of Aldermen being the persons who authorised the Governours of this Hospitall by their order when the Corporation of the City of London was dissolved by the Judgment in the Quo Warranto the authority of those Governours of the Hospitall ceased and they cannot act again without a new order or appointment of the Court of Aldermen and I conceive the King's proclaimation in October 1688. doth not give any Authority to the former Governours of the hospitall to Act by the former Authority to them given by the former order of the Court of Aldermen but they ought to be Commissionated by a new order before they Act as Governours I do apprehend this place of Clerk to the Governours not to be a standing Office but rather an Employment in it's nature to be put in or out by the Court of Aldermen if they please or if the Court of Aldermen please by the Governors but such Clerk hath no fixt interest in his Employment and A. hath I conceive no right to this place unless be should see a new chosen and appointed thereunto by a new Order and the Kings Proclamation in October extends to the enabling and empowering all members Officers of Corporations to act as they might have done before the Quo Warranto's were brought but that extends only to what they might do as members or Officers of those Corporations but not to any collaterall matters which they might have done by virtue of any collaterall Commissions derived from those Corporations as the case of these Governours and clerk of this Hospitall are And I conceive that any Governours of this Hospitall appointed by those who acted as Mayor and Aldermen of London by virtue of any Letters Patents since the Judgment in the Quo Warranto are all disabled to act or do any thing as Governours Letters Patents to those Mayors and Aldermen being set aside by this Kings Proclamation in October last and all the authorities derived under those Letters Patents as depending on them falling with them Fr. Pemberton Mr. Pollexfen's Opinion of the same Case I conceive that the Clerk hath not any Office or Estate but is only a Servant to the Governours not within the Charter of restitution or the Proclamation claiming any legall right or interest but is at will of the Governours and they at their will and pleasure may put out or take in or employ in the place whom they think fit Hen. Pollexfen Jan. 11. 1688. Sir John Holt's Opinion to the same purpose I conceive that the Clerk not being a Charter Officer is not restored by the Kings Proclamation which extends only to such Officers and members of the Corporations which were made upon the Originall constitution or by virtue of some Charter but the Clerks place is only a Service or an imployment which is wholly at the disposall of the Governours as they shall think fit J. Holt. January 15. 88. The First observation I shall make from hence shall be taken from the stateing of the Case it self wherein it is set forth that this Hospitall being Founded by King Edward the Sixth the care and trust of it from time to time was committed to the Mayor Aldermen and Commonalty of the City of London reserving to himself and Successours a liberty to visit and enquire into the management of the trust and without any such express reservation in the Charter it self it is but reasonable and Just that in all Hospitals that are of Royal Foundation the King should be the proper and Supream Visitor because without this the King and his Successours can have no Assurance but that his Royal Intentions may be disappointed his Charity Embezled and the trust which is reposed in certain Persons for the due management of it betrayed and besides the Nature of the thing added to the express reservation of our Royal Founder in his Charter the King by Act of Parliament is the Supreme Visitor of Hospitalls and Publick Charities to see that they be conferred upon fit and suitable objects and managed by Officers well qualify'd for their Employments Now from hence it appears that the avoidance of the Charter and the Regulation of the Hospitalls that Followed quickly after it have no manner of Connexion with each other it is true indeed that after Judgment was had and entred against the Charter all trusts that were reposed in the City as a Corporation did of necessity fall together with it but yet it is Equally true that the King might have visited and regulated this and other Hospitalls though the Charter had stood he being Supream Visitor and Inspector of the same but more Especially of Royal Hospitalls that owe their Foundation derive their Constitution and receive their very being from the Crown so that it is plain that the old Officers might have continued in this house if the King had so pleased notwithstanding the Charter of the City was made void and that the destruction of the Charter had no immediate or consequentiall Operation upon the Officers of this House they not being Charter Officers but Persons Employ'd in a trust under the King whom he may always place or displace at his pleasure and of whose fitness and capacity for their respective Employments he is the Supreme