I understand not for nothing can be more flat and plain against him If so be we should forfeit our Toll or our Market be it so nay if we should forfeit our Liberty of having a Common Council what then how is it possible to bring it up to a Forfeiture of the Corporation You shall forfeit a Court of Pypowders if you forfeit your Market because 't is incident to it and dependent upon it and subject to what dangers the Market it self is subject to but the being of a Corporation nothing can transcend that To be sure what is incident to it cannot transcend it 't is but a Subject to that which is is superiour For example sake my Lord I will cite you a Case which is the Case of the City of London too about the measurage of Coals It is Sir Julius Caesar's Case 1 Leon ' 106. And I choose to cite that Book for though it did not come out with your Lordships Authority yet my late Lord Chancellor gave this just accompt of it That it was one of the best of our later Reports Sir Julius Caesar libelled in the Admiralty against the Officer of the City for measuring Coals upon the Thames Fleetwood came to the Bar and prayed a Prohibition and Edgerton the Solicitor on the other side complained that the Mayor of London did take a Fine for this measurage and made an Office of it and this he conceived was Extortion which is the thing complained of here in so many words and being upon the Thames should be punished in the Admiralty As to that the Iudges replyed by no means and Wrey Gawdey said if it be Extortion in the Mayor there is no remedy for it in the Court of Admiralty but in the Kings Courts and it shall be redressed here in a Quo Warranto says Gawdy 'T is true a Quo Warranto might well have been brought for redressing that Extortion but it could not mean thereby that the Corporation should be dissolved And that it was so understood is most plain for accordingly a Quo Warranto is brought You have it in Cokes Entries fol. 535. and 536. placit ' 4. And the City of London appeared and pleaded and prescribed to it and thereupon the Attorney General that then was my Lord Coke himself was satisfied and confessed their Title and Iudgment was given for them and since it hath been held good and they have enjoyed it in peace and this I hope is a good Example for Mr. Attorney to follow in this Case My Lord I come now to that part which I come least willingly to I mean that of the Petition and that which I have to say in it is this my Lord. First I say That this Petition is justified in the Pleading and I hope it is very justifiable if it were but excusable 't is enough That it is justifiable to Petition the King in our necessities and extremities is plain from what my Lord Hobart says fol. 220. He says it was resolved by the Court in Renham's Case that it was lawful for any Subject to Petition to the King for a redress in an humble and modest manner For as 't is there said Access to the Sovereign must not be shut up in case of the Subjects distresses Now the Common Council are not less priviledged than any other sure but rather more in this kind of Addressing and Petitioning I cannot tell what Crime to make of this there is so much alledged against us I did very well observe truly and would always observe and remember in all such Cases what my Lord-Kéeper here said to your Lordship That Council should not so much speak as if they would abett the Guilt of their Clyent rather than advocate for their innocency My Lord If the words themselves that are alledged are not words that are unlawful to be delivered or spoken then all this that they are dressed up with of the intention to censure the King and to bring him into dislike with his People all that must go for nothing and are not to weigh in the Case Now the Words are these That there was a Prorogation and by means of this there being depending so many Impeachments of Lords and others and Bills in the Parliament in both Houses which could not be perfected any where but there the prosecution of the publick Iustice and the making Provisions necessary for the preservation of his Majesty and his Protestant Subjects received an interruption Now my Lord I conceive these Words are not Words that in themselves are unlawful And for that your Lordship will be pleased to consider our Plea I néed not repeat it you have it before you If they are in sense and substance the same Words that have béen spoken by the King and the Lords and Commons in Parliament he that will not be satisfied with that Authority will not be satisfied with any Then what do we say We say that the prosecution of the publick Iustice received an interruption does not the King say so and more in his Spéech we have set forth wherein he recommends it to both Houses that Iustice may be done What is the meaning then but this if the further prosecution of the Offenders goes not on Iustice is not done and so we speak but the Kings Words We say they are not tryed or they were not tryed they themselves complain of it to this day and therefore Iustice did receive an interruption I am confident without reflection that Honourable Person my Lord Danby in this point hath said Words much more liable to exception though truly Words that I believe deserve no rebuke He has complained that Iustice was not done in his Case because he was not tryed and that when he desired to be tryed too but his Liberty taken away and he forfeited that which was dearer to him than Lands or Honours his Health whereby he endangered his Life and lost all the comforts of Life If it were lawful for him to say as certainly it was That Iustice was not done in his Case why might not the City say so Either these Lords ought to be condemned or they ought to be acquitted 't is hard to say Iustice is done when they lie so long in Prison and are not either acquitted or condemned Then we say this That the making Provision for the preservation of the Kings Person and of his Protestant Subjects received an interruption To this part we give this Answer We set forth That there were Bills depending in the Parliament for this purpose and that is agréed to us by the Demurrer and that these Bills could not pass into Laws any more than the Lords could be tryed but in Parliament Why then if so be it be so that the matter cannot be done nor provision made but as that Proclamation that issued for the Fast said and as the Addresses of both Houses for the Fast do say By the blessing of God upon the Counsels of King and Parliament if
Lord Arundel of Warder Lord Petre Lord Bellasis were Impeached by the Commons in Parliament of High Treason for the same Conspiracies and sent to the Tower That the King in his Speech to that Parliament had recommended to them the further pursuit and examination of that Conspiracy declaring he thought not himself nor them safe till that matter were gone through with and therefore that it was necessary that the said Lords in the Tower should be brought to their Trials that Justice might be done and the Parliament having made an Address to the King wherein both Lords and Commons declared their being deeply sensible of the sad condition of the Realm occasioned chiefly by the Conspiracies of a Popish Party who had plotted and intended the Destruction of the King and Subversion of the Government and Religion of the Kingdom and thereupon a Solemn Fast kept pursuant to the Kings Proclamation grounded upon the said Address and divers Bills prepared to be pass'd into Laws for preservation of his Protestant Subjects These Impeachments and Bills being thus depending and the Lords in the Tower not Tryed the Parliament was upon the 10th of January prorogued as the Attorney General above in his Replication hath alledged by reason whereof the Citizens and Inhabitants of the said City being faithful Subjects to the King were much disquieted with the sense and apprehensions of the Danger threatning the Person of the King his Government and Realm by reason of the Conspiracies aforesaid as is by both King and Parliament affirmed and declared and conceiving no better means to prevent than by the Sitting of the Parliament and having received a Petition from divers faithful Subjects Citizens of London to the same effect And it being lawful to Petition the Mayor Sir Patience Ward and the Aldermen and Commons in Common Council assembled for the preservation of the King and his Government did cause to be written the Petition in the Replication mentioned which is set forth in haec verba and did Order that after the same was presented to the King it should be Printed for the satisfaction of the troubled Minds of the said Citizens and traverse the writing or making any other Petition or making this to any other end or intent than they have pleaded THE Attorney General as to the Plea of the Mayor Surrejoynder and Commonalty and Citizens pleaded to the making and publishing the Ordinance about the Markets Protestando That the Mayor and Commonalty and Citizens were not seiz'd of the Markets nor at their charges provided Stalls and Necessaries or Market-places Protestando etiam That the said Rates and Sums were not reasonable For Plea saith That by a Statut made 22 Car. II. it was enacted that Places for Markets should be set out and 2 d. per Chaldron upon Coals for the charge of that and many other things was given and that they received a great Sum out of that Duty for the purpose aforesaid and yet for their own private Lucre took the Mony by the Ordinance And traverseth that the Mayor and Commonalty and Citizens time out of mind habuerunt habere consueverunt Tolneta Ratas sive denariorum summas per ipsos Majorem Communitatem Cives superius supposit per prefatam Legem sive Ordinationem predict ' Assess in certitudinem reduct prout per placitum suum superius rejungendo placitat ' supponitur And to the Plea of the Mayor and Commonalty and Citizens pleaded to the Residue of the Attorney's matter assigned for a Forfeiture as aforesaid The Attorney Protestando That the aforesaid Prorogation of the Parliament was for urgent Causes concerning the good of the Kingdom and thereby the prosecution of publique Justice not interrupted And Demurrs to the said Plea of the Mayor and Commonalty and Citizens by them pleaded as to the Petition Rebutter THE Mayor and Commonalty and Citizens as to the making and publishing the Ordinance for the payment of Monies by those that come to the said Markets say as before That the Mayor and Commonalty and Citizens have time out of mind had and accustomed to have reasonable Tolls Rates or Sums of Mony of all Persons comming to these Markets with Victuals and Provisions there to be sold for Stalls Standings and other Accomodations by them had for exposing their Victuals and Provisions to sale And of this they put themselves upon the Country c. To this Mr. Attorney demurrs And as to the Plea by the Mayor and Commonalty and Citizens pleaded to the Residue of the matter by the Attorney General assigned for Forfeiture they joyn in Demurrer Memorandum That when the Demurrer in this Case was joyn'd viz. Mich. Term. 34 Car. II. Mr. Sergeant Pemberton was Chief Justice of the King-Bench But before Hillary Term that it came to be argued he was removed and made Chief Justice of the Common-Bench and Sir Edmoud Saunders who had been Counsel for the King in drawing and advising the Pleadings was made Chief Justice of the Kings Bench. De Termino Sancti Hillarii Annis RRs Car. II. 34. 35. Annoque Dom. 1682. In Banco Regis die Mercurii 7. Februarii Dominus Rex versus Majorem Communitat ' Cives Civitat ' London THIS Great Case was twice only argued at the Bar First by Mr. Finch the Kings Sollicitor for the King and Sir George Treby Recorder of London for the City And next by Sir Robert Sawyer the Kings Attorney General for the King and Henry Pollexfen for the City Mr. Sollicitor The Questions in this Case as I think will be Mr. Sollicitor I. Whether any Corporation can be Forfeited II. Whether the City of London differ from other Corporations as to point of Forfeiture III. Whether any Act of the Mayor Aldermen and Common Council in Common Council Assembled be so much the Act of the Corporation as can make a Forfeiture IV. Whether the Acts by them done in making the By-Law and receiving Mony by it or in making the Petition and causing it to be Printed and Published be such Acts as if done by the Corporation will make a Forfeiture of the Corporation The First of these Questions truly I should not make any Question at all but that this Case has been a Case of so great expectation every man hath discoursed about it and the prejudice that some have entertained concerning it have drawn them to assert the Negative Proposition Therefore my Lord because this strikes to the whole though I think it hath no Foundation in Law I will beg leave to remove this Objection out of the Case I. First of all No Corporation hath any other Creation than any other Franchises have and subsist upon the same Terms that other Franchises do II. There is a Trust or a Condition in Law that is annexed to and grows upon all Franchises that they be not abused and the Breach of them is a Forfeiture of the very being of the Franchise III. And as there is no Foundation of
If the same produced under the Great Seal put to it when made be not sufficient Evidence to satisfie what can be Trin. 1. E. 3. r. 61 62. 2. But in this Case it is enrolled upon record also Inter placita Corone penes Camerarios in Scaccario it is enrolled there Obj. But perhaps it may be objected also That this was no Act of Parliament but only a Grant or Patent in Parliament because 't is that the King de assensu Prelator ' Comitu ' Baron ' ac totius Communitat ' regni in praesenti Parliamento Resp That Acts of Parliament observe not any certain Form Jones 103. In the Case of the Earldom of Oxford express that there was variety in Penning Acts of Parliament in ancient time Dominus Rex per Consilium fidelium subditor ' suor ' statuit and other forms there are yet good Acts. But that they were anciently in form of Patents or Grants in Parliament Magna Charta C. 1. is in form of a Charter or Grant The form of the Act of Parliament 11 E. 3. for creating the Prince Prince of Wales begins Edwardus Dei gratia c. in form of Patent Princes Case R. 8. fol. 8. and is De communi assensu consilio Prelator ' Comitu ' Baron ' aliorum de consilio nostro in presenti Parliamento and adjudged a good Act of Parliament and the Authorities and Reasons to prove it an Act of Parliament are fol. 18 19 20. so full that it might be thought that this Objection would never have béen made And that this is in the same form that all the rest of the Acts of this very Parliament of the 1 E. 3. are Membr the 17. appears by the Patent Roll of the same Parliament A Charter granted by the King de assensu Prelator ' Comitu ' Baron ' Communit ' Regni in Parliamento apud Westm ' to enable the City to apprehend Felons in Southwark An Act in the same form for the annulling the Conviction of Treason that was against Roger Mortimer in the time of E. 2. Rot. Claus 1 E. 3. M. An Exemplification then entred of an Act made in the same form in the same Parliament Rot. Pat. 2 E. 3. P. S. 1. M. 17. for the annulling the Attainder of Thomas Earl of Lancaster attainted tempore E. 2. Divers other Acts of Parliament in the same form made 1 E 3. Rot. Pat. 2 E. 3. P. S. 2. M. 11. Inst 2. 527. 639. for annulling divers other Attainders that were tempore E. 2. so that as to this Act of Parliament 1 E. 3. I think the Objections are answered and that it is an Act as pleaded And as to the other Act 7 R. 2. that that is no Act of Parliament only a Prayer of the Commons that there might be a Patent granted to the City confirming their Liberties licet usi vel abusi fuerint and the answer was Le Roy le vieult and object for Reasons against that being an Act of Parliament Obj. 1. It wants the assent of the Lords 2. It is only a Prayer of the Commons to have their Liberties confirmed and the King's answer le Roy le vieult but nothing done to confirm it Resp 1. As to the first Objection Supposing it true that there is no mention made of the assent of the Lords yet the Act is a good Act. 1. It appears to be in Parliament ad instantiam requisitionem Communitat ' Regni nostri in presenti Parliamento 2. The answer in Parliament that is given by the King to the making all Laws is given to this le Roy le vieult 3. And next it is admitted to be upon the Parliament Roll 7 R. 2. Num. 27. I have before said that Acts of Parliament are not in any certain form sometimes entred as Charters or Grants sometimes as Articles sometimes and frequently as Petitions the Books I have already cited prove it But according to the Course of Parliaments let it be in what form it will let it begin in which House it will yet it must go through both the Houses of Parliament before it can come to the King for his Royal assent If either House rejects or refuseth there it ends it comes not to the King nor is the Royal assent in these great operative words Le Roy le vielut in Parliament given to any thing but what the whole Parliament have assented and agréed unto So that this is an Objection grounded upon a Reason contrary to all the course of Parliaments which shews that the Lords assent was to it though not mentioned Selden's Mare Claus 249. gives a full Resolution herein Certissimum est saith he that according to Custome no Answer is given either by the King or in the King's Name to any Parliamentary Bills before that the Bill whether it be brought in first by the Lords or by the Commons hath passed both Houses as it is known to all that are versed in the Affairs and Records of Parliament And in the Prince's Case before cited there the Act is said to be de Assensu Consil ' of the Lords but doth not name the Commons And this Answers the other Reason also viz. That it should only be a Prayer and Petition also to have a Charter of Confirmation granted For since the Forms are in manner of Petitions since the Royal Assent or Words Le Roy le vieult is never put to any Bills in Parliament but such as are thereby made and passed into Laws the giving the Royal Assent is sufficient in this Case to prove it a Law But for farther Evidence 1. We have it under the great Seal of King R. 2. thus penn'd Ad instantiam requisitionem Communit ' Regni nostri Angl ' in presenti Parliamento nostro pro majori Quiete Pace inter Legeos nostros focendis pro bono publico de assensu Prelatorum Dominor ' Procerum Magnat ' nobis in eodem Parliamento assistentium c. So that hereby it is fully proved and shewn that though the Assent of the Lords be not mentioned in the Copy yet that it was had and under the Great Seal of R. 2. it so appears We have also in our Book of the Acts of that time in the City Lib. H. f. 169. a b the Proclamation made upon the first promulging this Act in the time of Sir Nicholas Brembre Lord Mayor and therein it is also entred in the same words as before under the Great Seal of R. 2. de assensu Prelator ' c. Next our Books and continual Practice ever since 'T is true that in the 7 H. 6. fol. 1. when 't is said that the Customs of London were confirmed by Statute Quaere what Statute but it is not there made a Quaere whether this were a Statute Instit 4. 250. Rep. 5. 63. Rep. 8. 162. all say that the Customs of London are confirmed by Parliament 7
or Being Lands Goods and all This cannot be agréeable to any Rules or Reason of our Law and therefore I take it it cannot be the Law The next thing is the Mischiefs and Inconveniences 2. The Mischiefs and Inconveniences that must attend this Doctrine or Law of Forfeiting and Surrendring if the Law be so 1. First Let us consider whether this at one stroke do not make all the Corporations in England of all sorts forfeit at once and perhaps many years since Is there any Corporation in England that hath not Offended or Transgressed all manner of Corporations fall under this Rule If they have transgressed or done any such Act as makes a Forfeiture as every miscarriage for any thing I can see to the contrary doth whether the Corporation be ipso facto dissolved by the Offence committed or else by the Iudgment which must relate to the Offence to avoid all mean Acts done by the Corporation All that they have done since such Miscarriage they have done without right and all that they think they have a Title to as a Corporation they are mistaken in they have none Perhaps if a Parliament should be called those forfeited Corporations can lawfully send no Burgesses I do not know whether I am mistaken or not I only offer this to Consideration amongst others As give me leave to venture a little farther upon these Considerations of Surrenders and Forfeitures of Corporations Can a Bishop Dean and Chapter Prebendary Parson c. surrender his Corporation or Body Politick If they can most of them perhaps are of the foundation of the Crown and had their Lands from thence We have many Statutes made to restrain their Alienations Those of Queen Elizabeth did not extend to hinder their Alienations to the Crown but perhaps out of hope of Preferment they aliened to the Crown till the Statute of 1 Jacobi cap. 3. took away that Power also of conveying to the Crown Can these forfeit the Corporations Perhaps we are Sinners all or at least as the ballance at some time or other may be holden may be found too light we are upon a point that goes to posterity fear and favour what may it doe and what may it not doe If they may surrender a forfeit what effects may this have upon the whole Ecclesiastical Estate If this had been known in the days of King Henry the Eighth perhaps there would have been no great need of Acts of Parliament to make him Head of the Church or to have dissolved the Monasteries Suppose that Colleges Hospitals and other Corporations founded for Charity can surrender or forfeit the present Masters and Fellows and the Heirs of the Donors may truck what effect may this have upon them what ways may they find out Also Cities and Boroughs what Divisions and Contentions hath it already produced some for surrendring others for defending what Animosities are about it The end of the Law is to preserve Peace and Quiet Divisions and Dissentions frequently end in the Destruction of both Parties The Citizens and Burgesses are I think three parts of four of the House of Commons It is considerable what Effects this may have in Parliaments our Laws and Posterities perhaps not a little concerned herein and if so surely this is a great Case But if only the City of London give me leave to see what the ill Consequences and Mischiefs will be Arguments from Mischiefs and Inconveniences are forcible Arguments in Law Inst 1. 11. 60. So saith Littleton and my Lord Cook upon Littleton and men must be desperate and sensual that despise future Mischiefs and Inconveniences and many other places there cited First all their Lands will be gone and revert to the Donors and their Heirs By Dissolutions of Corporations all their Privileges are gone Jones 190. and their Lands revert to their Donors F. N. B. 33. k. Inst 1. 13. b. or Lords of whom they were holden Secondly All their Markets Tolls and Duties that they claim by Prescription whereby the Government and the Honour of the City the Publick Halls Gates Prisons Bridges and other Edifices are in a great measure maintained Thirdly All the Debts owing to the City and all their personal Estate by the death or dissolution of the Corporation will be gone but who shall have them perhaps non difinitur in jure Fourthly all the Liberties and customary Privileges that the Freemen of the City their Wives and Children claim viz. to have customary shares in their Husbands or Fathers Estates To be exempt from Tolls In other Towns Ports and Markets to exclude Foreigners and Vnfreemen from using their Trades in London and many others Fifthly All the Acts of Parliament that give particular Powers and Authorities to the Lord Mayor and Aldermen or Common Council or Corporation respecting either the Government or Iustice of the City as about Ministers and payment of their Dues Buildings Paving of Strats Sewers Ensurance Office and many others Sixthly What shall become of the Orphans and all the Moneys and Debts the City owes and all the Charities in the City We have seen the City burnt and may remember what a Swarm were unhived thereby but we never yet saw it dissolved nor are the consequences measurable And though it please his Majesty upon the Dissolution of this to grant a new Charter yet it will be impossible any of these things can be preserved Their Lands Estates Debts Privileges Customs are all personal and annexed to the Corporation and must live and dye with it the said Acts of Parliament are all fixed to this Corporation and so are the Charities and cannot as I conceive be ever transferred to any other to be new created A new Corporation can be in no succession or privity with the old If a Body Politick be once dissolved though a new one be founded of the same Name Inst 1. 102. b that can have no succession to the old nor come in privity to it Therefore is it that in the Deau and Chapter of Norwich Case and in Fulcher and Heyward's Case the Preservation of the old Corporation is insisted on If every Abuser committed by a Corporation be a Forfeiture Determination or Dissolution Is there any one in England not forfeited and dissolved Abuse is a word of wonderfull large sense when the Law speaks of a Franchise abused or misused it is applicable to a particular Franchise as to a Market Court or the like and if that Franchise be misused or abused in Oppression or misuse contrary to the ends of it some certainty there is in it But the Abuse of a Corporation extends to all its Acts and all Estates of the Corporation and all the Privileges of all the particular Persons and all that are concerned in them are sufferers for every Abuse or Misuse or Mis-act or Trespass how small soever Who can tell in the Actions of a Person what may be taken to be ill or illegally done or an Abuse Who will trust a
these Counsels or the King and his Parliament are interrupted this is not done To make such an high Crime of this I do not understand I would not be thought to speak any thing to justifie that which is really a Crime but this is that I say 'T is not in Law unlawful for us to petition the King or address to him But my Lord to take off the edge of this business I shall beg leave to read to your Lordship a Spéech of the Kings made the 6th of March following and therein there are these Words The further Prosecution of the Plot. My Lord let any man read and spell and see how in substance the Words in our Petition differ from the Words of the King making those Laws necessary for the security of himself and the Kingdom and this spoken the 6th of March when this very Petition now complained of was presented in January or February before and there was no Parliament between No man will say that there were Laws sufficient for the security of the King and Kingdom when the King himself speaks of the necessity of making such ones So then those Laws that were preparing received an interruption The Lords were not tryed is not that an interruption of Iustice since they could be tryed no where else as must be granted and the King recommends it to them as not done but necessary to be done So the King said before and so 't is implyed here There is no such thing said in the Petition That the King did interrupt Justice and the proceedings of the Parliament 'T is an Inference and a Consequence made by Wit and Art not that the King did interrupt or intend to interrupt Iustice but it says by the Prorogation of the Parliament the publick Justice received an Interruption My Lord Suppose at that time there had béen a Pestilence here and the King had been as much resolved to meet his two Houses as they him but by reason of the Pestilence he were necessitated and forced to make a Prorogation Then there comes such a Petition from the City and says That by reason of this Prorogation those Bills that were depending did not pass and the publick Iustice received an Interruption What is the Offence of this 'T is all true If there be Bills depending and Impeachments that can no other where be tryed they do receive interruption by a Prorogation Can any man say this is false The charge in the Replication is That we did falsly and maliciously say what that which is true and that which the King had said before and that which the Lords and Commons said after him That till those things were done they were not safe and those things as yet were not done My Lord There is this further in it the Petition is set forth in haec verba and therefore I may take any thing out of it to explain it and restore it to it self for this indeed is a very restrained construction of the Petition It says when this interruption by the Prorogation was receiv'd That the King for urgent causes and very good reasons did Prorogue the Parliament It is his Prerogative to do so and God forbid but he should have it I think without doubt we should be more at a loss for want of that Prerogative than we can by the use of it 't is mine and I believe every good mans Opinion that that Prerogative is very necessary and profitable for us all but it is the consequence of it that this interruption of Iustice is received nay we are so far from saying that the King did interrupt Iustice or intending it that we say we do hope the Kings gracious intentions were only to make way for the better concurrence of his Majesty and his Parliament The King does for great causes and best known to himself who has the Prerogative Prorogue the Parliament whereby as a meer consequence not as the Kings intention the publick Justice is interrupted Nay this we affirm was with a good intention in the King that he might the better be inabled to concur with his Parliament as is set forth in the Petition Can there be any thing more properly said 'T is the greatest justification of the Prorogation that can be The King has prorogued the Parliament What to do Why Iustice hath in view received an Interruption but not in the intention of the King We know what the meaning of it is and so we set forth in our very Petition it is to gain time that he may the better concur with his Parliament 'T is a great commendation of the Kings purpose instead of charging him with Injustice that he did resolve to concur with his Parliament for such ends and accordingly did Prorogue the Parliament Now the Attorney General hath put in that it was ea Intentione there is the sting of the business to put in those words to make that which we may lawfully speak of it self to be an Offence but truly that signifies just nothing It can never hurt a thing that is true it has great Authority in it if it be applyed to a thing that is unlawful but if in substance it be true and the thing it self justifiable those Words make nothing in the Case and I think I néed not argue that point but refer my self to the great Case that was in Westminster-Hall and that is the Reversal of the Iudgment given in this Court against my Lord Hollis which was a Reversal in Parliament and is Printed and the last Impression of Mr. Iustice Coke's Reports by order of Parliament and there they explode all the notion of ea intentione and this business A man speaks words that he might speak in Parliament though I know not whether he might or no but the great thing is If words that in themselves are tollerable to be spoken be spoken you shall not come and say they were spoken with an ill intention though as I shall shew by and by this hath a kind of Fatality in it and that is this That it is done with an ill mind by a Corporation that hath no mind at all Mr. Attorney General Just now you said it had a mind and Reason was its mind Mr. Recorder I said as my Lord Hobart says that a By-law to it is a mind as reason is to a man but it hath no moral mind My Lord then I say the Citizens of London were indéed at that time under great consternation by reason of the Conspiracies that had béen discovered in Parliament and in the Courts of Iustice and it had béen declared by the late Lord Chancellor at the Tryal of the Lord Stafford which your Lordship may very well remember That London was burnt by the Papists and therefore 't was no wonder that they were desirous that themselves and the Kingdom should be put into great security against those Enemies This my Lord I confess is a tender point and I would not speak a word in 't without