case the king against the mayor and commonalty OF the city OF London king  bench Michaelmas term car roll crown side see duke of Newcastle v Worksop u d  g Ch a corporation aggregate may be forfeit by a breach of the trust upon  which it be grant and the corporation of London be in this respect like every  other corporation and therefore if the mayor and common council extort under  pretence of a buy law money from all the king subject who shall resort to the  city market or make and publish a scandalous and libellous petition it be a  forfeiture of their franchise for the act of the mayor and council be the act  of the corporation for which a information in quo warranto may be maintain and  on judgement for the king the franchise may be seize into the king hand SC  saint Tr SC saint Tr SC   Ent quo warranto for claim inter alian to be a  corporation and after a special plea of several act of parliament and charter  some forfeiture be assign then a rejoinder surrejoinder c and demurrer a finch  solicitor general argue for the king we shall first consider some preparative  question which some at the bar have make so otherwise I shall not first  whether any corporation can be forfeit at all now no corporation have any  other foundation or subsistence than other franchise and there be a secret  trust that they shall not be abuse otherwise there will be a great mischief  the king be the head and original of all corporation and franchise b a  prescription to be a corporation suppose it to be derive from the crown there  be no rule more certain than that a franchise may be forfeit by the yearbook c  the second institute d and the mirror e there cite a abuser of murage be a  forfeiture thereof and that by the commonlaw for the statute of Westminster  the first c be but a affirmance of the commonlaw it only add a further  punishment videlicet to be grievous amerce for a abuser f the abbot of saint  Alban franchise of have a gaol be seize into the king hand for a abuser  thereof g by Pigot if the conusance of plead be grant and he do otherwise than  he ought he shall lose his franchise h nonuser or abuser be a forfeiture  shower KB of a office I in Fitzherbert king it be say that a bishop  temperality and franchise may be forfeit thus far it be plain that franchise  misuse may be forfeit although they be enjoy by a corporation and in a  corporate capacity unless some will say that a corporation can forfeit the  franchise of be a corporation which certain may be do as well as a gaoler  forfeit his office of be a gaoler suppose a corporation shall under the common  seal a see SC post a see the plead c in the case of the quo warranto against  the city of London b Keilway c Edward quo warranto d Inst e the mirror of  justice cap sect f yearbook Henry pi g yearbook Edward pi h yearbook Henry pi  I more king Fitzherbert Abr title coroner pi shower KB er p authorize a  rebellion will not this be a forfeiture in the yearbook l it be say that a  corporation can commit a battery or do a personal wrong and this be true but  yet they may do a corporate act which may be unwarrantable yea illegal a  corporation may be surrender and that which may be surrender may be forfeit m  in Lincoln inn library in Lord hale collection of adjudge of Edward the first  fol there be a judgement quad freedom de Sandwich forisfacta sit and by he  mark in the margin et the dawn judgment to see to stretch out to the cinque  port and these be confirm by Act of parliament as well as the city of London  all quo warrantos hitherto have end in submission in Edward c if a corporation  shall neglect to come in during the eire or into the king court it be a  forfeiture which be so it be strange that oppression though outrageous commit  by corporation shall not be so n second whether the city of London be in any  other plight than other corporation and I think it the same this depend on  their plea and the statute mention therein the four institute oh mention the  statute of Richard the second likewise the first great Charta be no more a  confirmation to they than to any other for it be et all men other freedom and  Lord coke and the mirror say that they shall have all they which they have not  forfeit by any abuser p as for the other act it be plain that in the  twentyfifth year of Edward the first Q the city be forfeit and in the  twentysixth year r he restore their liberty and their city shower KB to they  to hold during his pleasure he cite Edward member part patent rot Edward  Edward pat rot it be restore by the grace of the king but never by due course  of the law as to the Act of Edward c which they set forth I know no such Act  there be no such print nor be there any Parliamentrolls till long after that  videlicet the four year of Edward the three he cite Edward rot Claus member as  to the Richard pl though Lord coke S say it be a statute and cite several book  in the margin yet never one prove it or tend thereto he say rot parliament  Richard man whereas that be only a prayer of the commons that a patent to that  purpose be grant to the city of London and the king say Le roy veut but there  be never such a patent grant and if there be it can be interpret only to  extend to pass forfeiture not to future one and in the sixteenth year of  Richard the second they be seize per debiting law process t by which it appear  that notwithstanding their pretend statute they be de facto forfeit in the  second year of Richard the second u a petition from the city be present in  parliament that they may not be forfeitable and the answer be Le roy avisera  which argue that they have no such before and they pray likewise that which be  never before or since pray videlicet that they may interpret their own charter  and it be deny the three question be whether the act of the mayor and  commoncouncil may be term the act of the whole all bylaw be corporate act and  make by the whole and yet they be make by the common council and when for  their purpose be defend as good and so they have be allow in the king court  they have plead that they have time out of mind a commoncouncil it be a  inseparable incident to corporation to make bylaw and a power to make they be  imply in the very be of a corporation and therefore a misuser of that be a  misuser or l Edward pi m Edward rot Claus member Edward rot Claus member  easter term Edward roll n see the case of the earl of Gloucester v the earl of  Hereford Hilary term Edward to and relee parliamentaria placita and and Edward  rot Claus member oh Inst p see Inst Q Edward part of the patent roll member r  Edward rot pat Memb S Inst t Richard rot pat Memb a Richard parliament rot  shower KB er p forfeiture of the whole wonder when diverse franchise be  dependent one on another the misuser of one of these be a forfeiture of the  whole ten toll be incident to a market and a abuser of the toll be a  forfeiture of the market shower KB the four question be whether the act do by  this corporation allege in our replication and confess in their rejoinder be a  forfeiture first as to the make of the bylaw and levy money in pursuance  thereof and now what right have they to such toll and this as they have plead  be none at all a prescription to toll without say what in certain be void and  so be a grant from the king of such uncertain toll that for no man can pretend  to tax his fellow subject nor be this which they pretend to a toll for a toll  be to be pay by the buyer but this be to be pay by the market people the  seller yet I agree there must be a custom for stallage but that must be  certain as be Henry pi express in the point but suppose it a good prescription  then our traverse of their prescription be good and they ought to have take  issue thereon whereas they have offer a issue to toll uncertain and have not  reduce it to a certainty by their bylaw when the king have grant a market he  can never after grant toll because it be once a free market and when once a  market be in the city that be with a custom for a sum certain they can never  raise it but may lessen it so that the question will be whether raise and levy  of money be a forfeiture it be a breach of trust and a oppression to the  people the offence lie in usurp a power to make a bylaw for the levy of money  that be the misuser in the case of shipmoney z it be not the quantity but the  manner of levy it without Act of parliament which be the matter complain of  and if this corporation may go thus far who know where they may end as to the  petition the present and print it be the offence which be do by they as a  corporation it be take upon they to censure the king and his government it be  a scandalize of he there be the case colonel king v lake a in the Lord hale  time in this court the print any man case while pen be a offence because it be  as it be a appeal to the people if the fact be do the law say malicious and  with a ill intention they confess the fact and then traverse the malice which  can be this will have shower KB be a offence in a private person and have  incur the penalty of imprisonment during the king pleasure he cite harrison  case a for it who be sentence so and likewise with a grievous fine for speak  word of justice Hutton in relation to a judgement of his about shipmoney much  more criminal be it to charge the king with misgovernment and on the whole  matter he pray judgement for the king sir George Treby argue e contra first a  corporation can be forfeit it be a mere capacity b in brook abridgment his  title be corporation and capacity now he never use two word in his title but  when they be synominous c in one case and in but one case in the world be it  call a franchise and that be in title quo warranto in coke entry d Noy call it  a franchise for say he it be call so in that plea they never die e it be  invisible immortal and have no soul so be the case of tipple v rexal f No  subpoena lie against they because they have no conscience they can speak nor  appear in person but by attorney and this be the opinion of manwood chief  baron Grotius say that city be immortal g that a corporation shall be dissolve  be never adjudge nor question nor attempt before now in the first institute h  a corporation be say to be dissolve but it be not proper a dissolve but rather  a take away of the subject in which it subsist in roll abridgment there be  this quaere how it may be dissolve and no answer I it wonder assize pi ten see  the case of the corporation of maidenhead palmer that palmer z state trial a  Mod vent sand a cro car b   light c hob d   Ent pi e   light f Bulst g Grotius  de jure Belli lib c h   light I roll Abr corporation shower KB er p can by the  judgement of the court in a quo warranto but by death of all its member and in  Littleton it be reckon a good argument that no such action lie insomuch that  it be never see or hear of king and in a quo warranto a disclaimer bind the  successor l a corporation in a town be more protect than another lordship or  dignity it can be forfeit because it be personal it can be surrender as be  agree by the lord in the earl of purbeck case earl of Oxford case in Jones a  corporation can be surrender the surrender in the time of Henry the eight be  not good and therefore need act of parliament for they the dean and shower KB  chapter of norwich case m be though a corporation surrender yet the  corporation remain in the case of Fulcher v Heyward n and in Worthley v Adam  oh only the land passes by the surrender and the corporation be not name there  roll seem to the contrary p deanery of well say to be surrender Walrond v  pollard Q a corporation be before it have land and continue after all its land  be evict in roll Abr r it be say the land come to the king by the statute of  dissolution and true in the case of the archbishop of Dublin v Brierton S it  be resolve by five judge that the corporation and chapter of saint Patrick be  by the gift and surrender of the dean and chapter lawful dissolve and  determine and that also without general consensus archbishop which can be law  for it can never be without the leave of the bishop my Lord coke argue t that  the surrender be by Act of parliament otherwise it have not be good the case  in the institute u be a boo warranto bring and submission c wonder but then  pass that some thing may be surrenderable and yet not forfeitable as au  annuity be in Eursons case ten all the seizure be but till fine and ransom and  in the interim the king put upon they a custos a corporation be not a liberty  that may be seize the king may seize the mayor and put in a custos but he can  seize a thing which be not seisable during all these time the corporation be  in position quo and be sue and do sue and their court continue open and free  as before and since if they have not sue a replevin say within a year and a  day they have cease to have be a corporation it be a mere personality that can  be seize that as this action be bring there can be no judgement it be bring  against we as a corporation for usurp the franchise of be a corporation that  in palmer Rep be bring against particular man by name and so be that in the  Dublin case z the writ here suppose there be no corporation and yet call they  so in shower KB hale commonplace book a and coke entry b there the judgement  be quod in pity if the king misconceive his action the writ may abate c if it  be a forfeiture it must relate to the time of the toll take and all the act we  have do since be void forisfecerunt be a new word in a quo warranto in all  judgement in quo warranto there be and must be a fine and who shall be fine  here I it be as if a action shall be bring against husband and wife and in the  replication the plaintiff shall allege a divorce first to own they a  corporation and then deny they to be one be repugnant in the case of the king  v Bradwell d a quo warranto for usurp to be a company of fiddler but it be by  name there be that against the Bermuda company but they never appear as to the  act of pickage and stallage they be such uncertain thing as can be reduce to a  certainty in coke entry e there be a general plead without any certainty and  yet more may be say of that plead of a waterbailiff king light sect l   light  m   n Jones SC palm oh Plowd p roll Rep a dyer r roll Abr S dyer t Leon a Inst  rot parliament Richard member wonder see this case at large in davis report  ten dyer f n b Edward pi that lane roll Abr z palm roll a page title quo  warranto b   Ent c blow d car in b r e   Ent pl shower KB er p than this for  stallage f those in London may prescribe against act of parliament but other  place can the court hero have take notice of the court of record in London Q  stallage be pay only for stand and so there be quid pro quo h toll through may  be prescribe to in consideration of repair the king way so be the case of hill  v hawk I we provide stall and stand and we pay tax for the soil be we by  several book they that have stand only pasty ho tax and so be roll Rep where  Thomas Hellidge be sue in the spiritual court for a rate towards reparation of  the church and because he have only a stand a prohihition be grant for he only  come thither on marketday and by chamberlain for a man that take his lodging  for a week in a town he shall not be charge to the repair of the church by  Lord coke l the sole and true measure of toll be the not hinder shower KB of  trade and I be sure we do not for no market be more fill nor be there any  place where the people have better gain the duty or tax for hallage of good at  blackwellhall in the chamberlain of London case m be much the same with this  every shop in London be a market you can judge it unreasonable and if  reasonable what mischief be there to any one the consideration be meritorious  and equivalent thereto a unreasonable bylaw be no cause of forfeiture it be  void and quasi non fact n here be no compulsion of duress or imprisonment if a  levy of money be a forfeiture then we have forfeit our charter continual for  come hundred of year the majus et minus work nothing if this be a forfeiture  it be only of the market nay I say it be only a forfeiture of the toll a  denizen forfeit only his denizenship by c though that be Westminster cap the  seizure shall be only till they redeem by make fine and ransom oh the be of a  corporation be so far from be in danger that in sir Julius Caesar case c p as  to the petition that be lawful and so be Wrenhams case Q and the case of hare  v miller r the petition contain the same word in sense and substance as those  speak by the lord and Commons which we sot forth in our plea in the Lord  hollis case S these word she intention be explode in cro car a corporation can  not do any thing against the peace admit that the take of toll be robbery what  then Edward cite by Mr solicitor by the statute of Lien c it be most plain for  if this make ill bylaw be a forfeiture of their be a corporation to what  purpose then be there a Act of parliament to make it a forfeiture of twenty  pound the commoncouncil be not the whole for that be a thing collateral to the  corporation as be warren case u he be a alderman and oneof the counsel of  Coventry sue a mandamus they return that they have a castor to choose a  commoncouncil and to remove they ad it pleases and per curian there be a  difference between a alderman and a commoncouncilman they can remove a freeman  nor a alderman shower KB without cause belt to be one of the commoncouncil be  a thing collateral to the corporation and a custom to remove such may be good  and the court grant a writ of restitution to restore hint to his aldermanship  but deny it as to the other the same case be report in roll Rep and there hold  as he report it that the mouse of one of the commoncouncil be only to give his  assistance for the good of the city there be Estwicks case a where it seem to  be for matter of advice a commoncouncil be mere for counsel that and all the  other power they have be by custom and then you shall no more know what be  plead a ill bylaw be void and if any man be aggrieve thereby a action lie  thereon a custom shall never be construe to do a wrong although they have the  use of the common seal in many ease that be not material for the court of  alderman have it f roll Abr palm g Spinkle v tenant roll Rep Leon pi Leon pi h  Lord Cobham case Leon S roil Abr I roll Rep l Inst m   n hob oh palm old n b p  Leon   Ent Q hob r hob S state trial a cro James r style that see roll Rep  shower KB er p in several case commoncouncil man be choose by unfreemen by all  that be housekeeper c all the trust they have be to destroy not to maintain  their liberty there be no crime charge that relate to it as a corporation what  be pretend be only a encroachment of property and what be this to the  corporation Lord sander chief justice can your corporation do any corporate  act accord to your notion never be one corporate act do by they certain  whatsoever the commoncouncil do bind the whole otherwise it be impossible for  you to do any corporate act for you never do nor never can convene all the  citizen your power of make bylaw be annex to you as a corporation and not as  lord of the market Ajournatur to be argue again the first Friday in the next  term Mr attorney general argue it in easter term for the king but then I be  not present Mr pollexfen the next day for the defendant there be not one  precedent judgement or opinion that any one corporation be ever forfeit for  any misdemeanour first question whether this information be bring against the  corporation as such to know by what authority shower KB they claim to be a  corporation be good it ought to be bring either against their particular  person by name or inhabitant of a will and then some person appear and plead  by name and my reason for it be these first the writ suppose he a body politic  otherwise there be no defendant in court it be not enough that there be a  person only in supposition suppose a information or action against husband and  wife this suppose they to be such now if it happen by any of the plead to  appear on the plaintiff own show that they be not so the writ shall abate  second the very information suppose that they have a be precedent to that  wherewith they charge they person not in be can usurp or do any act it be true  particular person may take upon they to be a corporation usurpation be always  take in a unlawful sense z then three from the judgement that must be give in  this case when bring against particular person the judgement destroy and damns  their be a corporation with a fine to the king for their offence pass in this  case there can be any fine to the king for the corporation be to be dissolve  by the judgement the precedent cite in this case and in number twelve be all  except two non pro and discontinuances that of Barkingsted in Hertfordshire  the judgement be by default that of new Malton in Yorkshire Trin James rot the  judgement be quod freedom et franchesiae pillage in manus domini king to take  in hand and that the mayor and bailiff shall be take pro fine which I do not  at all understand that there ought to be particular person name there be these  book   Ent palm roll Rep palm Lord hale commonplace book in Lincolnsinn  library be express so fol be a particular notam on the report of Cusacks case  Mr attorney will have it that this be bring against particular person under  that name but that can be intend a the writ show itself bring against the  corporation if it be bring against particular person under another name then  they appear by particular shower KB name as in case it be against inhabitant  of a place this be plain against the corporation they appear by warrant of  attorney under the common seal suppose this information well bring then we be  to consider the replication there be a issue tender on the prescription that  they have not be time out of mind a corporation and then they plead over a  forfeiture for levy of money this be a ill replication for it contain a issue  that it be no corporation and two cause of forfeiture also there be no  instance in the world of such a replication that there shall be a issue to the  fact and a plead over to other matter either of which strike to the whole I  can find any such sort of plead it be true the king attorney may waive his own  issue but it must be the same term b by the Henry c the king shall be bind by  one issue and can offer one and then waive it z   light a Leon hob b Plowd  yearbook Edward pl and king v bagshaw cro James shower KB er p and offer  another the assignment of two forfeiture be ill for by the first Act the  corporation be go which be six or seven year since and then it can not commit  another act of forfeiture here be a forfeiture if any Self facto but Mr  attorney be please to say that it be no forfeiture till some record or  judgement be thereof then he admit that we be not yet a determine corporation  and if we be yet a corporation we can be say to have usurp c then whether the  fact allege in the rejoinder be sufficient to excuse and answer what be allege  in the replication Mr attorney have neither deny or confess in his  surrejoinder what we have allege in our rejoinder I do agree for a lord of a  market to prescribe to have a toll uncertain and as often as occasion require  to ascertain it will be a ill prescription but this in London be good the  bylaw in the chamberlain of London case c if it have be in any other city I  doubt if it will have be good so here as in that of the city of London case d  we have aver they to be reasonable toll but it be object that we have not set  forth what they be so as the court may judge it reasonable or not in London  they have shower KB a power to change their market both as to time and place  it be object as if the statute we have allege be not act of parliament the I  Edward be not in print nor the roll to be find private act be general not  print beside though they be not roll we have the very Act itself under the  great seal of king Edward the three the way then be to send they to sheriff of  county to have they proclaim and afterward they be enrol in the general court  in Westminster and this be enrol in Trinity term Edward roll in the exchequer  e there be various form of pen statute in ancient time f and ancient they be  in form of grant g sometime in form of article and sometime in form of  petition h it be object that it want the assent of the lord it appear to be in  parliament it be on the Parliamentrolls I in the prince case king that Act  there do not mention the commons assent and yet it be always agree to be a Act  of parliament beside in the city book there be a entry of it and the  proclamation thereof be in open court m then suppose this bylaw ill it be then  void and can be a forfeiture a feoff without livery or insufficient livery  which be all one make by tenant for life or year be a void feoff be no  forfeiture n the receipt of money not due be but extortion and punishable as  such and the party have his action the law construe it to be a wrongful take  and to be receive to the owner use a private person in this case can only  forfeit the toll or market and be liable to repay the money so take and  receive Mr attorney by his demurrer have confess that the petition be present  in the manner and for the reason we have allege it be sufficient and  substantial plead and I bear nothing allege to the contrary now suppose a man  in the plaguetime have a suit depend in Westminster hall whereon his all  depend and the term have be shower KB adjourn and he have prefer a petition  with such a clause therein that the current of justice in his case have  receive a interruption though the adjournment be good convenient and necessary  will this have be a offence beside these be not act of the corporation the  commoncouncil be but part of the corporation constitute to a particular  purpose you can take notice of any other power they have than what appear in  the plead they can forfeit any more than they can surrender or grant they be  by custom not by charter their power and authority reach only to what their  usage have be and they have not use or accustom to forfeit suppose they be  find upon some bylaw which be lose how therefore can we suppose they have any  authority to forfeit and ruin the body all their power be for the benefit and  advancement of the principal last whether these act shall forfeit a  corporation I think it as great a point as if great Charta be at stake all the  corporation c   d   e Jones f prince case   g   light h yearbook Richard No I  seldom mare enclosed space king   l Title m yearbook Henry pl Inst Jones     n  dyer shower KB er p in England both ecclesiastical and civil may then be  forfeit and three part in five of the house of Commons be citizen and burgess  and consequent one of the three estate of the realm for the most part depend  thereon I shall endeavour to answer the reason they go on and the first reason  be that if it be otherwise corporation may act extravagant and have no  adequate punishment I answer there be no offence but the actor will be  punishable in their private capacity and if it be as they will have it then  those part of the corporation which do not concur to the fact must be punish  for another fault which will be contrary to all natural justice second they  object the general rule of law that a abuser of a franchise be a forfeiture  thereof I answer that they shall by a abuser thereof forfeit the particular  franchise abuse and no other but what be dependent on and incident to it oh  and if their rule be true the abbot of saint Alban shall have forfeit not only  his gaol but his very abbacy I agree that the forfeiture of a incident may  forfeit the principal if a man misuse a piepowder shower KB court or toll he  shall forfeit the very fair or market three they object that a corporation be  a franchise and commence by grant and be surrenderable and forfeitable as a  franchise I answer and agree that a franchise be a large word and may include  it but this be like the privilege of be a natural person I think that no true  position that what be grantable may be surrender and what may be surrender be  forfeitable there be a vast difference between this and other franchise  franchise of other nature be estate and inheritance grantable and transferable  over to other they either carry some profit from the king or from the subject  in itself this be nothing but a personality and a mere capacity this be never  such a franchise as they talk of p in all the eyres that ever have be there be  never a claim of a corporation whereas all other franchise be for their  service as that of easter term in the nine year of Edward the first in the  exchequer roll John Dennis mayor of Sandwich and three other be implead and  judgement quod partnership de Sandwich to send away freedom svan Edward rot  Claus Memb Inst town of Cambridge that and many more be cite be in parliament  all these precedent be above three hundred year old except that of the second  year of Richard the second which be two hundred and ninety year ago and never  follow with any practice or authority since they be very troublesome time and  full of great commotion and disorder and therefore be not of such weight in  all the book of the report of those time there be nothing print of those  seizure which make I think they rather illegal and disorderly than fit  precedent and those bring on great Charta and all the other statute in  affirmance of the livery of the subject Q to secure the people against the  irregularity of those time seem their first care and in all those time when  these seizure be the corporation still be in be and not determine do do  corporate act and enjoy their privilege still only a custos instead of a mayor  and sometime a mayor of the king appointment instead of the old one the custos  take the oath of mayor and sit shower KB in court a writ of right be bring and  they defend it they make lease they be sue and do sue so that the corporation  be not determine or dissolve by those seizure and all those corporation which  they say be so seize and forfeit do plead themselves corporation by  prescription which can possible be be it as they say as London or Bristol  Gloucester Cambridge and Sandwich be the corporation dissolve Self facto or  only upon judgement in the treasurer remembrancer office in the exchequer baga  de quo warranto in journey Northton and Bedford Edward rot a quo warranto  against William Bedford for hang man for felony commit out of the jurisdiction  the judgement be only that their privilege of infangthief shall be seize with  the office of these that miscarry themselves in that matter I shall not  dispute but that a seizure and a forfeiture be all one and the same thing  whether it be surrenderable oh bro Abr Franchice assize   Inst p Inst Q Henry  c the Henry c he Henry c the Henry c the Henry c the Henry c shower KB er p be  not much to the purpose and if they insist on it they depend on a very  doubtful argument and therefore I shall not much dispute it only thus far it  seem not since those that be member of a corporation do take a oath to  preserve the liberty of the corporation and be member not only for themselves  but be entrust for other and whatever they do contrary to their oath and  against the good of the corporation be a forfeiture of their freemanship and a  cause of their disfranchisement as be James bag be case r which strong argue  that they can surrender it the take of a new charter of a market be a  surrender of the old S but a corporation take of a new charter be no surrender  of the former a body politic be but a person create by law in resemblance of a  natural person to have a capacity to sue and be sue to take to bold and to  enjoy to particular end and purpose   light Jones f n b by a judgement against  they all debt owe to they will be go their land will revert to the heir of the  donor and so all the customary share of a freeman estate all the act of  parliament relate to they will be as it be expire for they relate only to the  corporation   light shower KB sander chief justice if a corporation be not  dissolvable then you oust the king of his quo warranto and you likewise set up  so many independent commonwealth as there be corporation in the kingdom curian  advisare vult Mr attorney general in Trinity term follow Tuesday June pray  judgement for the king then Jones justice the Lord sander be sick say this  case have be solemnly and elaborate argue on both side and all say that can be  on either part in the argument of this case three be many bookcase precedent  record and authority cite all the bookcase I have look into and consider they  all the record and precedent I have see either attest copy or the record  themselves and several time have we meet and have conference about this matter  and we have wait on my Lord sander during his sickness often and that very  late and for my part I have have as mature and serious consideration of this  cause as possible and I suppose my brother have do so too and upon  deliberation we be all unanimous of opinion first as to the great preliminary  point whether a corporation aggregate such as the city of London be may be  forfeit or seize into the king hand we all think that it may upon a breach of  the trust repose in they for the good government of the king people as to a  seizure it be plain imply in the statute of Edward c which enact that on the  first offence the city of London shall forfeit a thousand mark on the second  two thousand and for the three the liberty and franchise of the city of London  shall be take into the king hand which plain argue that there may be a seizure  of the corporation and as to a forfeiture the Act of oblivion prove it where  in car c S all body corporate city borough c be pardon and acquit of all  forfeiture c and if the law shall be otherwise it will erect so many  independent republic as there be now corporation in England which of how  mischievous consequence it will be to the king and kingdom every one may easy  imagine shower KB second we be of opinion that the assume a power to make  bylaw for the levy of money as they have do be a great oppression to the  people and consequent a breach of the trust repose in they for the welfare of  the king subject and consequent a just cause of forfeiture three we be of  opinion that the petition mention in the plead be so scandalous to the king  and his government and so tend to beget in the people a hatred of their  sovereign that it be a just cause of forfeiture fourthly that these act allege  be corporate act be sufficient allege in the replication and not sufficient  answer in the rejoinder five that the excuse mention in the rejoinder be  frivolous and insufficient last that the information be well find and upon  this whole record it be the judgement of this court and this court do award  that the liberty and franchise of the city of London be seize into the king  hand r   S yearbook Henry pl shower KB er p Raymond justice to prevent ill  surmise concern this matter I must declare that I be of the same opinion in  all particular Wythens justice I be so likewise and this be the Lord sander  opinion in all the several point then Mr attorney general move that judgement  may not be enter up till the king pleasure be know concern the same the court  let a rule be enter accord and in the long vacation follow judgement be enter  and the lord mayor and alderman constitute anew by the king Commission t