case the king against the mayor and alderman OF London in quo warranto a  judgement of seizure against the liberty of a corporation do not dissolve the  body politic or render the subsequent act of the member of the corporation  void and therefore if a Act of parliament pass after such judgement and  seizure order that every person then have any office or employment to take  certain oath within a limit time or that such office and employment shall be  void a alderman of a corporation so seize into the king hand forfeit his  office by neglect to take the oath within the time SC post SC Mod SC Carth SC  skin SC holt SC Mod Bac Abr mandamus to restore sir James smith to the office  of a alderman of the city of London to which he have be duly choose and prefer  accord to the custom of the say city use and approve they return that sir  James smith on the thirteenth February be one of the alderman of the city of  London to that place and office accord to the custom of the say city before  that time duly elect and prefer and from the say thirteenth February to the  first of August follow remain one of the alderman that at the time of make the  Act for abrogate the oath c a and continual afterward he have and enjoy the  say office till the first of August that at shower KB any time before the say  first of August he do not take the oath by the say Act prescribe but to take  they before the say first of August he do altogether neglect whereby by virtue  of the say Act the say office become void and that the say James smith at any  time after the neglect be never elect into the office of one of the alderman  and therefore they can restore he sir Robert sawyer argue against the return  that the mandamus be not to be restore to the place be enjoy in but to the  office he enjoy accord to the custom of the city before the judgement in the  quo warranto b the Act for restore d this point be argue by sir b shower but  the court be unanimous of opinion that a mandamus do not lie in this case ante  and in SC Mod the court be say to have be of opinion that the arch have  anoriginal and independent jurisdiction like all other court over its own  officer that the judge there be the proper person to censure they for  misbehaviour and that if they shall be mistake yet the king court can relieve  SC Carth a by will mary sess c S it be enact that if any person now have any  office or employment civil or military shall neglect or refuse to take the say  oath before August or soon if require by the privycouncil the say office and  employment of every person so neglect or refuse shall be void b this  information be bring in the car and in Trinity term car judgement be give for  the king that the corporation be dissolve and the franchise be seize in the  king hand show to state trial to state trial appendix page but the judgement  be never record Bac Abr notorious facts kin Charles the second grant new  charter but on the October James the second restore the charter to the  metropolis accord to the ancient constitution state trial and by the statute  will mary sess c the say judgement and all and every other judgement give or  record shower KB er p the city franchise be that he take the oath the next  term after his restitution by that Act all officer be restore c sir Francis  Pemberton ex eaden part there be three thing of consideration first the Act  for abrogate the oath second the city Act three the return to this mandamus  first the Act for abrogate the oath require no body to take the oath but those  that then be in possession of their office or shall be admit to a office one  of the clause be in actual possession of a office the other be such as shall  be admit if a man have a office in possession and another a right to it in  reversion and do not take the oath he only lose that office which he be in  possession of there be a judgement in a quo warranto in the thirtyfifth year  of Charles the second whereby all the privilege of the city be take away now  sir James smith be duly elect when the corporation be in be for it appear by  the return that he be ante tunc debit dainties accord to the custom of the  city so that must be before the judgement for he can not be duly choose accord  to the custom after the judgement by the judgement in the quo warranto sir  James smith cease to be a alderman for the corporation be dissolve and a man  can be a alderman of a corporation that have not a be after this judgement  there be new charter grant as appear by the city Act it appear that he be a  alderman by the charter of king James for it be say in the return that he be a  alderman from thirteenth February to the first of August the reversal restore  all the officer as they be when the judgement be give by the reversal all the  alderman be restore that be live d there be a particular time give by this Act  of reversal e for take the oath by those that be restore videlicet that all  who be restore shall take the oath the next term after that Act of parliament  and that be in Trinity term that year now have premise this sir shower KB  James smith be a alderman duly elect before the judgement by the judgement be  cease to be a alderman and afterward upon a incorporation by Charles the  second he be make a alderman again and remain so till the first of August by  the Act for abrogate the oath he be oblige under the penalty of the loss of  his office which he hold to take the oath by the first of August then the city  Act of reversal restore he to the office which he have at the time of the  judgement and there be nothing that hinder he from be restore the reason which  they give in the return be that be a alderman he do not take the oath this be  no reason for though it shall be grant that it be a forfeiture it be only of  that which he then have it be under forfeiture of such office and that must be  intend the office which require he to take the oath you will not extend it  further than that which he have in actual possession he be not oblige to take  the oath in respect of his office under the first corporation he have no such  office he have neither law in re nor law ad remember suppose he have stand as  he do under that old corporation and have no new office I think no body will  say he be oblige to take the oath at all the objection that the eight  paragraph except he I answer that sir James smith be not at all within this  paragraph and if the first clause do not extend to he for he need no  confirmation then the exception do not extend to he by the body of the Act he  be restore and he stand in no need of confirmation the confirm clause be  design for those who have buy their place and to confirm these present officer  for seize the liberty c of London be reverse annul and make void and the  liberty regrant to the member of the corporation and in the case of newling v  Francis easter term Geo it be hold that the proclamation of James the second  for restore corporation to their ancient charter operate when accept as a  grant of revival to such of the old corporation as have surrender their  corporate franchise to Charles the second who have grant new charter and  overturn such new charter term Rep see also king v amery c by will mary c S  that all person so to be restore and continue shall take the oath appoint by  will mary sess c the next term after such restitution under the penalty  forfeiture disability and incapacity in the say Act provide and appoint d see  the case of newling v Francis term Rep and note a SC post e will mary c S  shower KB er p those that be old one be restore and those that be new one be  confirm the office of alderman can not be surrender during the force of the  judgement for there be no such office in be this exception can reach only to  those that be confirm which be those that go from hand to hand suppose this  clause be take to comprehend all sir James smith have nothing whereby to  disable himself from be restore and if he be not disable he be restore in  rigour he have forfeit the office which he have but shall the not take the  oath disable he from take a new office summer solicitor general there be a  great difference between a right to the possession and a right in reversion  the clause of confirmation seem to qualify the force of the first reversal sir  James smith be except and so remove in truth Mr solicitor be unprepared and so  make little answer shower KB holt chief justice I must own that when last  speak to I do not understand this case nor what be intend in the argument but  it now appear to have weight in it by the Act of reversal we be to take notice  that there be a judgement and therefore that they be deprive of all their  liberty by such judgement you do not Mr solicitor answer the writ for that be  to be restore to a legal aldermanship choose by custom now that he can not  have the thirteenth February he have no right to a action the mayor commonalty  and citizen have a right but sir James smith have no right he can bring no  action a alderman be a officer within the confirm clause but that do not reach  this case f