(3)

LORDS PROTESTS.

A

Die Martis 13° Aprilis, 1725.

Bill for regulating Elections within the city
of London, and for preferving the Peace,
good Order and Government of the faid
City, being read the third Time,

It was propofed to afk the Opinion of the Judges,

whether this Bill does repeal any, of the Prefcrip-

tions, Privileges, Customs or Liberties of the City

of London, reftored to them, preferved by the

Act paffed in the fecond Year of King William

and Queen Mary, for reverfing the Judgment in a

Quo Warranto against the City of London, and for

reftoring the faid City to its ancient Rights and

Privileges?

Which being objected to, and Debate had there

upon,

The Question was put, whether

Contents 24 the Judges fhall deliver their Opi-

Not cont. 38 nions upon the faid propofed Que-

ftion?

It was refolved in the Negative.

Diffentient'

ft, Because it being enacted and declared by the

Act mentioned in the Question, That the Mayor,

Commonalty, and Citizens of London, fhall for ever

hereafter remain, continue, and be, and prescribed

to be, a Body-Corporate, in re facto & nomine, by

the Name of Mayor, and Commonalty and Citizens

VOL. II.

B

of

1

of the City of London, and fhall (as by Law they
ought) peaceably enjoy all and every their Rights,
Gifts, Charters, Grants, Liberties, Privileges,
Franchises, Cuftoms, Ufages, Conftitutions, Pré-
fcriptions, Immunities, Markets, Duties, Tolls,

Lands, Tenements, Eftates, and Hereditaments,

whatsoever, which they had (or had a Right, Title

or Interest in or to) at the Time of giving the faid

Judgment; and we being apprehensive, that the

Alterations made by this Bill in the Conftitution

of the Common-Council, and other ancient Rights,

Franchises, and Prescriptions of the City, may ut-

terly abolish the ancient legal Title of the City to

their Rights, Franchifes, Prefcriptions, and Con-

ftitutions in the Particulars contained in the faid

Bill; and may, in Confequence thereof, work a to-

tal Change of the whole ancient Conftitution of the

Corporation of the faid City, or greatly confound or

prejudice the fame which has ftood for so many

Ages upon the Foundation of its ancient Title,

Right, and Prefcriptions, confirmed by many

Grants made by his Majesty's Royal Progenitors,

and by many Acts of Parliament; all which were

restored fo foon after the happy and glorious Revo-

lution, and which have been peaceably enjoyed to

the prefent Time: We are of Opinion, that the So-

lution of the faid Question, by the Judges, must

have tended greatly to the neceffary Information of

the House, and to their better Judgment, upon a

Bill of fo great Importance, as well as to the Sa-

tisfaction and Quiet of the Citizens of London,.

who, fo far as we can collect from the Petitions

against the Bill, are greatly alarmed at the Confe-

quence thereof; and we are of Opinion, that it

was the more neceffary, and the more confiftent

with the Wisdom of this House, to be informed of

the Law, by the Judges, upon the Queftion pro-

pofed, because we don't find in this Bill any Saving

or

or Confirmation of any of the ancient Titles, Rights,
Prefcriptions, Privileges, or Franchises of the faid
City, reftored to them by the former Law.

2dly, We think the Queftion ought to have been

proposed to the Judges, the rather because the Opi-

nions of feveral Counsel were admitted to be read,

at the Bar of the Committee of the whole House,

in Favour of the faid Bill.

Then, after long Debate,

The Question was put, whether
Contents 79 this Bill, with the Amendments,
Not Cont. 27 fhall pafs?

It was refolved in the Affirmative.

Diffentient

ift, Because we apprehend, that the Penalty of

Two hundred Pounds upon the Officer prefiding
at Wardmote-Elections, as well as at Elections even
for Members of Parliament, is fo fmall, that it
may be construed into an Indemnification, and be
looked upon rather as an Encouragement than a
Reftraint by a wealthy, partial and arbitrary Of-
ficer; at least, we are of Opinion, that fuch a one
will not be fufficiently deterred by it from return-
ing fuch Candidates as he likes, rather than fuch
as the City chufes; and if ever that melancholy
cafe should happen, we fear neither the Candidates
nor Voters will be able to find an effectual Method
of doing Justice for fo flagrant an Injury, either
to themselves, or to the Nation.

2dly, Because we cannot but think, from the
Evidence given at the Bar, that this Bill will take
away from many Citizens their Right of voting in
Wardmote-

B 2

Wardmote-Elections, by giving an Exclufion to all that inhabit Houfes under Ten Pounds a Year, even tho' they pay all Parish Duties, or Thirty Shillings in Lieu of them; which we conceive an unjuftifiable Hardship upon those who may have long enjoyed that Right, and have had no Crime objected to them, much lefs proved, as we think it ought to be, before they can juftly be deprived

of it.

3dly, Because, by this Bill, no Act is to pafs in Common-Council for the future, except what relates to the Nomination of fome few Officers, without the Affent of the major Part of the Mayor and Aldermen prefent in fuch Common-Council; which, we conceive, will give too great an Addition of Power to the Mayor and Aldermen, who have already many and large Prerogatives inconteftably allowed them by the Commonalty of the City; and tho' the Council for the Bill infifted that the Mayor and Aldermen had anciently that Right which this Bill establishes, yet the Proof of that Right appeared to us fo remote and obfcure, that we own ourfelves too fhort-fighted to difcern it; and on the other Side it appeared plain to us, that even from the Time of incorporating the City to this prefent Time, fuch a Claim has very feldom been made, and that it has never been acknowledged; and therefore, we conceive, if there be any Foundation for fuch a Right, which we are far from thinking there is, the Difpute fhould be decided firft in the inferior Courts of Juftice, and rather determined in the House of Lords upon an Appeal, than ended by an Act of Parliament; which feems to us fuch a Method of determining Controverfies. of this Nature, as may prove of the most dangerous Confequence to the Rights and Properties of all the Subjects of Great-Britain.