THE privilege AND RIGHT OF The Free-men of London, to choose their own SHERIFFS.  
And the Right of the SHERIFFS to Manage, Conduct, and Declare the Election, farther Cleared, Re-inforced and Vindicated.  
FOR Citizens Modestly to Assert and justify their Rights, can administer Offence to none, unless to such as Envy their having any privileges or Jurisdictions; or to persons that would either wrest from this famous Corporation whatsoever it enjoys by Prescription, Charter and Law; or from a Principle of weakness, if not upon a worse Design, tamely surrender them. And we judge ourselves the more Pardonable in re-assuming this Debate, by finding some Papers already Published on this Subject, unjustly Censured and Reproached, as containing false insinuations. But if the naked Authority of my Lord Mayor and the Court of Aldermen, do not impress and influence the minds of men more than the late Print, styled A brief Collection of the Records of the City touching Election of the Sheriffs of London and County of Middlesex; we doubt not but to make appear, That what Mr. Town-Clerk, who is the Author of the said Collection, calls false insinuations, are Truths not to be rationally controlled, and which all unbiased and unprejudiced persons, do either already acknowledge for such, or upon giving themselves liberty to inquire impartially into these things, must unavoidably confess to be so.  
'Tis certain that the privilege of choosing Sheriffs in all the Counties of England, did anciently belong to the Free-holders, 
See Cooks 2. Instit. fol. 558. Lamb. Sax. Laws, fol. 146,  or to the suitors in the several and respective County-Courts; and that Right they long enjoyed without the Authority of any Act of Parliament or Statute, merely by virtue of the Common-Law of the Land, upon the foundation of immemorial usage. And this Ed 1. in the 28 year of his Reign granted and confirmed by Act of Parliament, to all his People, if they pleased to make use of the said privilege; but with this Provision and Caution, if the Sherivalty was not in Fee; intimating that the said Act did no ways refer unto such, but that they were to possess and enjoy their former privileges, Usages and Rights, according to the Grants made unto them upon the said Fee or Fees.  
But forasmuch as through the neglect of the most considerable and wisest Free-holders, to attend the County-Courts, in order to the making such Elections, weak, mean, and insufficient Sheriffs; were often chosen and returned; therefore in the 9 of Ed. 2. it was Enacted and Ordained by Parliament, that from thenceforth Sheriffs should be assigned by the Chancellor, Treasurer, Barons of the Exchequer, and by the Justices. Which Statute, though it hath since obtained in the several Shires of the Kingdom, as to the manner of Electing Sheriffs, yet it no ways extends to London and Middlesex; nor have they any concernment in it, because both by antecedent and subsequent Charters of our English Princes and Monarchs they have and enjoy the Election of their own Sheriffs, settled and vested in them. And this Statute being a Repeal of the Statute of the 28 of Ed. 1. which excepted all those places which held their Sheriffwicks in Fee from any room or place in the said Statute, it plainly follows that the privilege and Right which the City of London anciently enjoyed of choosing their own Sheriffs, is secured and confirmed unto them.  
Nor will or can it be denied, but that the Citizens or Freemen of London, have and enjoy by the Charters and Patents of the Kings of this Realm, the Right and privilege of Electing annually the Sheriffs of London and Middlesex. 
Lib. K. fol. 120. in Archib. land.  For as William the Conqueror, with the consent & Authoritate Parliamenti, and by the Authority of Parliament, did Grant and Confirm Civibus London vicecomitatum ejusdem, to the Citizens of London the Sheriffwick thereof; So Hen. 1. Son to the said William, granted to the Citizens of London and their Heirs, the Sheriffwick of Middlesex, at the Fee-farm of Three Hundred pounds per annum.  
And as both these Charters are ratified and confirmed by the Charters and Grants of Hen. 1. Hen. 2. King John; so the same privileges and Rights are devised unto them by the Charter of Rich. 2. who lived and reigned after Ed. 2. in whose time the Right of choosing Sheriffs was by Act of Parliament taken and withdrawn from the Freeholders and suitors of the several Shires and Counties of the Kingdom. But we need the less to insist upon this, it being allowed and granted by the present Lord Mayor and Court of Aldermen, in the first Paragraph of the Paper which they have caused lately to be published in Vindication of his lordship from innovating, in assuming the power of choosing a Sheriff, and imposing him upon the City. We shall therefore only crave liberty to mention two things, whereof the first is, that the electing Sheriffs is founded originally upon Prescription, and not upon Charter, otherwise the Charters would not merely say, That the Citizens are to choose Mayor and Sheriffs, but they would prescribe and appoint in what manner, and at what time they should do so. 
See Londons Liberties p. 16.  Nor is this my private or particular Notion, but it is the Sense and Opinion of sergeant Maynard in his Argument at Guild-Hall Decemb. 14. 1650. where he says, That the reason why a general Grant was made to the Citizens to choose their own Sheriffs, was because it was their Right by ancient usage and custom.  
The 2d. Thing I would take notice of, and recommend to every mans consideration is this; namely, That if by the Charters the Citizens are to choose their own Sheriffs, as is confessed in the foresaid Paper published by the Order of my Lord Mayor and the Court of Aldermen; then neither his Lordship, nor they can claim the Election of a Sheriff without direct contravention, and opon violation of the Charters, which in several Capacities, and by divers Oaths they are both bound and obliged to keep and preserve from all Violation from others, and to comform unto, and stand by themselves. But nothing is surprising from persons, who both contrary to their Oaths implead and sue Fre●men out of the City, when they may have Right and Law within the same; and in direct Opposition to the Plea put in for the Defence and Preservation of the Charter, wherein it is alleged and pleaded, That it is the right of the Citizens to choose their own Sheriffs, substitute and insist upon a Claim perfectly opposite thereunto.  
And tho the Town-Clerk in the Paper authorised by my Lord Mayor and the Court of Aldermen, hath no ways done truly and fairly in reciting the Records of the City concerning the Election of Sheriffs; yet he hath plainly supplanted and overthrown my Lord Mayors Right of Electing a Sheriff, by acknowledging that the Commons have so often withstood it; 
See paragraph 2d.  and in direct Opposition to the Claim of the Mayors, have as well name, as elected both the Sheriffs. For so many Instances as himself produceth, being quietly acquiesced in, and submitted unto, are according both to the unversal Reason of Mankind, and the common Law of Nations, more than enough to subvert and overthrow any pretence to the contrary, especially one that contradicts the fundamental Laws of the Corporation, and the Grants by which it challengeth its Rights and privileges.  
Nor do I much wonder at their forgetfulness and neglect of common Usages and known Records, seeing their memories are not so tenacious as to retain the remembrance of what themselves confessed on Friday, June 23. upon the hearing of Mr. Recorders Speech. For then my Lord Mayor himself, however since influenced and perverted, not only freely subscribed to what the Recorder said, as to the Rights of the Citizens in choosing both the Sheriffs, but seemed fully purposed and resolved to take his measures, as indeed he ought, and to act accordingly. But how falsely doth Master Town-Clerk both impose upon the Court of Aldermen and the City, in reciting the Act of Common-Council, of the 21th of Edward 3. seeing besides that the Entries in the 42d and 43 of the said Edward 3d, do plainly express, That the Sheriffs were chosen in the Court of Common-Hall, at Guild-Hall, where were assembled the Lord Mayor and Aldermen, & quamplurimi, and very many Citizens; in which Court the Sheriffs were chosen, ex communi assensu, by common consent; I say besides this, that very Act of Common-Council says, That he shall Name the Person he would have chosen, provided he were present, and that the Commons concur with him and do the same.  
Nor needs there any more to overthrow and render ridiculous the Paper published by the Order of Lord Mayor and the Court of Aldermen, than the acknowledgement which is made by the Town-Clerk in the said Print; Namely, That by an Act of Common Council in the 4th of Henry 5th, it is ordained and provided, That the Sheriffs are to be freely and indifferently chosen by the more sufficient Citizens summoned to those Elections. Only I cannot but wonder at the Perjury as well as disingenuity of the man, that h● should not only add things which are not in the Records, but that he should both to the imposing upon the Court of Aldermen and the City, conceal what he cannot but have found there, if he did with the least care and fidelity peruse them. For besides his reciting of precedents which seem to make in favour of my Lord Mayors choosing one Sheriff, he not only conceals the Common Halls free voluntary choosing of the said Persons nominated by the respective Lord Mayors before they could be capable of serving in the Office; but both contrary to his Oath, as well as the principles of Justice and Honesty, he reserves and conceals from his Lordship and the Court of Aldermen, the Cases wherein the Free-men have contested and disputed this pretended Prerogative of the Chair, and made the Mayors abandon and desert their usurped claim and pretence. Nay, all the custom and usage which the Mayor challengeth his prerogative and claim upon, is many years after the time that gives rise and foundation to Prescription. So that his Lordships Prerogative of choosing yearly one Sheriff being precluded both by Prescription and Charter, it is no otherwise to be accounted of, but as an invasion and usurpation upon the Rights of the Corporation. And the very particular Cases whereby my Lord Mayor's pretended Right of choosing one Sheriff, is supported and justified, do all of them insinuate and imply, That the free and indifferent confirmation and allowance of the said Persons to be Sheriffs, belonged unto, and was vested in the Free men of London. Accordingly in the 21th of Hen. 8th, we find a Letter directed to Ralph Powlet, bearing date the 2d of Sept. which being subscribed by my Lord Mayor and the Court of Aldermen, they therein inform and acquaint him the said Powlet, 
Lib: O. fol. 158. in Archiv. land.  that the Citizens of the Kings City and Chamber of London had elected and chosen him to be one of the Sheriffs, and he to associate to and with Michael Dormer, before name and appointed by the Mayor, and that day by the said Citizens ratified and confirmed.  
And it is very remarkable, that when the Lords of the Privy-Council in the 6th. of Hen. 5. long after the 21. of Ed. 3. had upon the death of one John Bryan, in the time of his Shrivality, demanded of my Lord Mayor and Aldermen by what Right and Authority the City choose Sheriffs? how thereupon the Mayor, Aldermen, and principal Citizens replied, by their Recorder, That inter caeteras Libertates, &c. among other Liberties and privileges granted to them by Charter, and confirmed by divers Parliaments, they had allowed and devised unto them, 
Lib. Dunthorn fol. 442.  quod Cives Londini faciant Vicecomites de seipsis quoties volverint, & eos amoveant quando volverint; That the Citizens of London should choose from among themselves their Sheriffs, and remove them whensoever they would, &c. With which Answer the Lords of the Privy-Council being fully satisfied, they declared that the Mayor, Aldermen and Commons should enjoy and use the custom of Electing Sheriffs, as they had anciently done; and accordingly the Mayor and Aldermen convocata communitate ad Guild-Hall, having called and convened the Commons to Guild-Hall, they there together choose one John Perneys to be Sheriff in the room of John Bryan who was deceased.  
Yea, the Act of Common-Council in the 7th. of Charles the I. made for the Regulating the Election of Sheriffs, and which repeals all former Acts made touching and concerning that matter, reserveth to the Common-Hall the confirmation and allowance of such as shall be thereafter chosen and elected by the Lord Mayor to be Sheriffs. Which plainly intimates, that what is called my Lord Mayors Election, is no more but a Nomination; and that those of the Livery have still a Right and privilege to disallow and refuse the Persons so presented unto them by the Mayors, and no man can by virtue of what is styled the Mayors Election, be lawfully Sheriff of London, unless he be confirmed and allowed by the Commons.  
And as no Act of Common-Council that interferes with, and destroys the Charter, can be of any legal force and validity; so the many Cases wherein the Commons have refused to allow and confirm these persons for Sheriffs, whom the Mayors have by their claimed Prerogative pretended to choose, most evidently shows, that what is vulgarly styled the Mayors Election of a Sheriffs, is nothing but a bare nomination, and a tendering such a one to be considered of by the Hall, in order to their choosing of him, if they think it for the Interest of the City so to do. And if but few have been rejected by the Commons, that were proposed by the Mayors, it is only an Evidence of the Wisdom of those that have heretofore sate in the Chair, in that for the most part they recommended such as the Citizens could safely devolve that Trust upon; but it is no Argument that their Lordships have an Arbitrary and Uncontrollable Prerogative and Jurisdiction vested in them, as to this matter. And had the present Lord Mayor shown but the same temper and discretion that most of his Predecessors have done in this case and particular, his recommendation of a fit Person to the Commons for Sheriff, would have been entertained and received with the same deference and respect that hath been expressed by the Hall, in reference to former nominations of this kind. And tho Mr. Town Clerk hath had no regard to Truth, Honour, Justice or Conscience, in the Paper that he imposed upon my Lord Mayor and the Court of Aldermen, and which they by an implicit Faith have caused to be published with an annexed Order of his Lordship and their Worships, to give it Weight and Authority; yet his very acknowledgement of five or six interruptions of this Custom, is enough with all rational men, to destory and set aside all pretence unto it. Only because his Memory seems not to be good, or at least his knowledge in the City Records very sender and imperfect, I will presume to put him in mind, that besides the several instances that are assigned in some Papers lately published relating to this Subject, wherein the Citizens choose both the Sheriffs; there are three other Instances wherein the Commons did the same, and that both in years successive one to another, as well long before the commencement of the late Troubles, namely in the 28, 29, and 30. of Queen Elizabeth.  
Nor let any say, That because some persons have Fined upon my Lord Mayors drinking to them, before they were allowed or confirmed by the Common-Hall, that therefore there is a Right in my Lord Mayor of Electing one Sheriff, seeing their submitting to Fine merely upon my Lords Drinking to them, is more than they were obliged unto, and which some have refused to do, till they were confirmed and chosen by the Common-Hall; so the only reason why others have done it, was from an apprehension that the Commons might upon the Mayors recommendation, choose them sooner than those of whom there had no previous mention been made.  
But the falsifications of Mr. Town-Clerk in the forementioned Paper which is authorised by my Lord Mayor and Court of Aldermen, are too many to be taken notice of at present; and therefore must be adjourned to a future discourse, wherein we shall not fail to expose him under all the Characters which both render him unworthy of his Employ, and lay him obnoxious as well to the Justice of a Parliament, as the deserved Recentments of the City. Nor do I know but of one Objection which can be advanced with any plausibleness against what hath been here asserted and declared, namely, That if the Election of Sheriffs, notwithstanding the Demise and Grant thereof made to the Barons and Free men, can be confined and restrained to the Livery, that by consequence and parity of Reason, it may be as well transferred unto, and devolved upon the mayor. To which I first answer, That the Free-men consonantly to the Charter, do still choose and elect those Officers, tho all that are of the Companies do not so. For whereas there was a Statute made in the 28th of Ed. 1. That the people in the several Counties of the Kingdom should choose their respective Sheriffs or Conservators of the Peace, yet there was nothing more evident and clear, than that only the Freeholders were both to nominate and elect them.  
Secondly, I say, That all the Free-men do choose, tho they do not so by their personal and particular Votes. For example, the Nation in the Election of Parliament-men is said to choose its own R●●presentatives, and yet only the Free-holders, and those to such a Yearly value, are admitted to Vote in their Election.  
I reply Thirdly, that forasmuch as the Common-Council have a Suffrage in the Election of those Officers, that therefore by consequence all the Free-men by whom the Members of the Common-Council are chosen, and whom they do represent, may very justly and congruously be said to Elect them.  
Nay Fourthly, as the ground and foundation of transferring the Election of Sheriffs to the Livery, was to avoid inevitable Mutinies and Riots, and to comply with the necessity, which the multitude of Free-men constrained and obliged the City unto; so unless Elections by those of the Gown, be acknowledged Good and Legal, not only are bargains by the City Officers, since Ed. 1. ipso facto, null and voided; but the present Magistratess are answerable for whatsoever they have done in their respective Places and Offices, as Usurpers and Intruders.  
5ly. This very Case concerning the legality of Election of City-Officers by the Livery, with an exclusion of the rest of the Free-men, hath both come into debate, and received its decision heretofore. For Cook tells us in in the 4th part of his Reports fol. 77, 78. That it being propounded to Popham, Anderson, and all the rest of the Judges, Whether an Election by the Livery in opposition to a popular choice was good and legal? how all of them unanimously accorded and resolved that it was so. And he further adds, That this was not only resolved upon per less Justices sur grand deliberation el sur conference un enter Mesnes, upon great Deliberation and Conference with one another; but that it was both el bien Garrant per leur Charters, elles ancient & continual usages ount easter in Londres, but that it was agreeable and consonant to the Charters, Customs, and the Usages of the City of London.  
6ly. The Election by those of the Livery stands ratified and confirmed both by Charters and Acts of Parliament. For as it's acknowledged, That as the Election of the Livery begun before the time of Rich. 2. so it is most ungainsayable, that the foregoing Customs, and Usages of the City, are fully ratified and established by the express Charter of that King, and by the Inspeximus's and Confirmations of his Royal Successors.  
Lastly, seeing we hear a rumour of some mens retreat unto this, as their last reserve; we dare make bold to tell them, That for one we have in the Common-Hall against my Lor Mayors electing a Sheriff, we are sure of Five for one, if all the Free-men be convocated and admitted to that Election.  
Having thus briefly discoursed the Right and privilege of the Common-Hall to choose the Sheriffs of Eondon and Middlesex, we are in the next place to inquire into the privilege, and after the Authority of the Sheriffs for the time being to manage and declare the Election. And indeed, so much hath been said to justify and confirm this in a former Paper, to which neither Mr. Town-Clerk, nor any other hath made the least Reply, That it were wholly needless to add any thing more, did not my Lord Mayors taking upon him, June 25. to dissolve the Poll, and his Lordshsps and some other mens behaviour since, make us apprehensive that there are no Laws, Usages or C●●● which will not 〈◇〉 invaded and broken through, towards the obtaining Sheriffs that may serve particular ends and designs. For as we will not inquire into the late Commitment of the present Sheriffs, nor how any could take Cognizance of it in the manner they did, being in reference to a matter that is still sub judice whether it was so, as it was represented and sworn at the Board; so neither will we take upon us to determine, whether the Commitment of those Officers is consistent with the Statute of the 16th of Charles the first, Cap. 10. being in Relation to a Cause that is triable at the Common Law. But tho we will not inquire, and much less make any Reflections upon these things, yet this we will assume the liberty to say. That either my Lord Mayor is liable to answer, and in due time to account for all the Complaints which some persons have made at White-Hall against their Governours, as well as fellow-Citizens; or else they that did so without his Lordships leave, may find themselves obnoxious to be disfranchised upon that Account. For there is an express Act of Common-Council made in the 8th of Rich. the 2d. That none shall apply to the King, or Queen, or other great Lords for any thing against the Governours and Government of the City, without leave of the Mayor; and that if they do make any such application, they shall thereupon be disfranchised.  
And as to the case and matter before us, there is nothing more certain, than that it hath been the common usage of the City, That the Sheriffs for the time being have always managed and conducted the Election for new Sheriffs; and have, without the interposure of any to hinder or control them, declared upon whom the majerity of Hands or Votes have fallen. Nor do either the Records of the City, or the Books of Entry furnish, or afford us so much as one Instance or Example to the contrary. Nay, so little is my Lord Mayors concernment in this Affair, that it hath been the constant and uninterrupted custom, That immediately after the Nomination of the persons, who stood proposed for the Trust and Office of Sheriffs, the Mayors have always together with their Brethren the Aldermen, left the Court; and as the Record bears so far back as Hen. 6th withdrawn ad Cameras superiores. Where by the way, the reason of my Lord Mayors withdrawing, is not because he hath elected one Sheriff, whom he leaves the Commons only to confirm, but because having secured his Right of a Free-man in the choice of the same Officers, by his Nomination of one to the Hall to be allowed or disallowed, as they see good; he would not lessen the grandeur and Dignity of his place in continuing in a Court, where he is not to have the Direction and Conduct of Affairs. Nor doth his proposing one person to the Hall, to stand candidate for the Shrivalty, debar or preclude his Lordship from a Right and Liberty of voting in the Election of the other. And this we believe he would soon claim, if through the equality of the Votes of the Commons for Mr. Papillon and Mr. Duboise upon the one hand, and Mr. North and Mr. Box upon the other, the choice were not otherwise to be decided but by his and the Aldermens suffrages. And for the Mayor to preclude the Sheriffs from conducting and declaring the Poll, is such a piece of Arbitrariness, which as never any had the Confidence to claim in the Election of those Officers before Sir John More; so it is an high Offence against the Common-Law of the Land, as well as a Contravention of the Customs and Usages of the City. And if any would but discourse this matter with the learned and unbiased persons of the Gown, they would tell them, That a Sheriff is an Officer so interwoven with a Poll, that it is not to be managed without him. Nor is there any thing more certain, than that, when the power of esecting Sheriffs stood vested in the Freeholders of the several Counties of England, the Sheriffs for the time being, did always govern and publish the Choice.  
And as London is not only a County, but still retains the privilege and Right of choosing its own Sheriffs so we may very rationally conclude, that whatsoever anciently belonged to the Sheriffs of the Shires before the suitors in the County-courts, were by Act of parliament deprived of that Jurisdiction and Liberty of choosing their respective Sheriffs, still remains settled and established in the Sheriffs of London.  
Yea we have a Ruled Case, wherein the Mayor is adjudged to have nothing to do, either in the governing of the Poll, or adjourning the Court of Common-Hall, when such an affair lies before them. And seeing nothing but Ignorance of it can be at the bottom of some mens acting as they do, I shall here give a brief account of it from the very Record.  
One Turner standing Competitor with another, in the year 1670. for a bridge Masters place, and a Poll being demanded and granted for the decision of the Election between the two persons that were name and put up, Sir Samuel Sterling being at that time Lord Mayor, and perceiving after some proceed in the Poll, that the Election was by the Votes of the Majority, like to fall upon Turner, did from a pique which he bore to the said person, and in order to prevent his being Elected to the place of one of the Bridg-masters, assume and usurp the power of dissolving the Court. Whereupon Turner finding himself aggrieved, did immediately after Sterling was out of his Mayoralty, commence an Action of the Case against him, in one of the Law and Justice Courts at Guild-Hall. And as it is very remarkable, that the foundation of his Action was, That the Mayor had neither power, nor ought to dissolve the Common-Hall without the Consent of the mayor part of the Livery then and there present; so notwithstanding the favour and interest which Sir Samuel was supposed to have in the judge of the said Court where the Cause was tried, he obtained a Verdict against him, and that by a Jury of Citizens, who both best knew the Rights and Usages of the City, and being upon their Oaths, and that at a time when there was none of these rancours and animosities which tempt men to Injustice and Perjury, are to be believed to have proceeded according to the Rules of Law, and the Dictates of their Consciences. And whereas Sterling not thinking fit to acquiesce in the said Verdict, moved for an Arrest of judgement in the Common-Pleas: We desire that all would take notice how that after several days hearing and arguing of the Cau●e before the Judges of the said Court,( of whom wild who had been Recorder of the City, and knew the Laws, privileges and Customs thereof, as well as any man alive, was one● judgement was given against him; which could no ways have been, provided my Lord Mayor had been judge either of the Poll or Court, seeing all acknowledge that whosoever is the proper judge, he may by virtue thereof Adjourn or Dissolve the Court without the leave and approbation of any other persons. And which yet more effectually serves to the silencing of all Gain-sayers who have not renounced Sense and Modesty; it is worthy of our observation, how that Sterling not willing to hold himself condemned by a judgement against him in the Court of Common-Pleas, brought the Cause by a Writ of Error into the Court of Kings-Bench. But instead of obtaining the judgement to be there reversed, that Learned, Just and Excellent Person, my Lord Chief Justice Hales, would not so much as suffer it to be argued, but immediately confirmed the judgement; saying, That if my Lord Mayor should be allowed such a Right, privilege and Prerogative, as to Dissolve the Common Hall without the consent and leave of the greater part of the Free-men, this would directly tend to the subversion of all the privileges of this great and famous City.  
Now I neither find, hear or know but of two things that can with any consistency to sense or reason, be objected against what hath been here thus briefly declared. The first is, That my Lord Mayor hath the power of calling and convening the Commonalty and Citizens of London, and that therefore he is judge of the Court, and hath the governing of all the Affairs transacted in the Assembly. To which I say, That as the calling them together is but a ministerial Office and Service, so it is trusted with my Lord Mayor merely out of Civility and compliment. Nor will any man say that when the Citiz●ns were anciently called together by the Ringing of a Bell, as beyond all contradiction they were for some Ages, that therefore any Jurisdiction over the said Court of Barons and Free-men, was lodged in the Bell, or the person that rung it.  
The second thing alleged by the Advocates of my Lord Mayors Right, is, that the Election of Sheriffs is transacted at the Court of Hustings, and that that Court being properly his, he is therefore judge of all that doth there occur, and comes under management in that place: To which I reply, 1. That the Election of these Officers was anciently at a Court called Falkmout, which assembled in a Field between St. Pauls Church and Baynards Castle; and in that Court did the supreme Power of the Citizens of London, for a long time subsist. And as it was only by reason of the inconveniencies of meeting sub Dio, or in the open Air, and upon the reduction of the Election of all the Free-men to the Livery, that the said Court was removed and transplanted to Guild-Hall, so the meeting of the Citizens there at the Hustings, is only for the accommodating the Mayor and Aldermen, that they may be the better out of the Crowd. 2. I say, That the court of Hustings which my Lord Mayor in conjunction with some of the Aldermen and the Sheriffs useth to Adjourn, is properly a Judicial Court for enrolment of Deeds, and for ordinary Proceedings in Cases between Citizen and Citizen; and by consequence vastly different from a Court of Common-Hall. For were the Court of Hustings the same with a Court of Common-Hall, it would follow that the Citizens were obliged to pay their Attendance there every Tuesday. And as no Summons issues out to warn the Citizens to be Weekly present at the Court of Hustings, so it is a clear Evidence that the Court of Common Hall, which never assemblies but upon Summons, is of a perfect different kind, and altogether distinct from it.  
Thus Fellow Citizens, we can only Discourse to the reasons of men, but we cannot conquer their Prejudiecs. And therefore as we have said enough to vindicate your privileges and Rights; so pray remember, that they are not only all at stake, but that the eyes of the World are upon you how you will maintain and defend them.   

Printed for J. Johnson. 1682.