BELLAMIƲS ENERVATƲS: OR, A Full Answer to a Book Entitled A Plea for the Commonalty of London.

WHICH IS As the Authour Mr. Bellamy cals it; A Vindication of their Rights (which have been long withholden from them) in the choyce of sundry City Officers.

AS ALSO A Iustification of the power of the Court of Common-Counsell in the making of Acts, or By-Laws, for the good and profit of the Citizens, notwithstanding the negative voyces of the Lord Major, and ALDERMEN.

Refuted by Irenaeus Lysimachus:

Non habenti auferetur
Et habere quod videtur.

LONDON, Printed by Richard Cotes, 1645.

TO THE RIGHT HONORABLE the Lord Mayor of the City of Lon­don; and to the Right Worshipfull the Aldermen, his Brethren:

Right Honorable, Right Worshipfull,

WHen at first I saw this empty Pam­phlet, Entitled, A Plea for the Com­monalty of London, peep out of the Presse; much like a Glow-worm, proud of some counterfeit light, which it pretended to have; I imagined it the best way to let it alone, that it might shame it self by shewing it self, as indeed needing no o­ther enemy to overthrow it but its own weak­nesse.

But finding it since (with more successe then desert) to scatter a large spawn about the City by a second Impression; and that this painted worm began to deceive too many dim-sighted Traveller: I thought fit (from the service I owe to truth and Peace) and order which is a friend to them both) to send abroad this season­able [Page]light, which though it bee but small, is yet true, and I hope cleare enough to discover the other to be no more then a silly worm.

The Honour I beare to this famous City, and to the preservation of its Peace frō all seditious rents, which some turbulent sick braines will be ever hatching in it, causeth me at this time to present to your wisdoms two humble motions: The first as touching this Pamphlet, which I now take upon me to answer; the second as touching the maintenance of that honour and power which God and the Kingdom have in­vested you with, and particular hands cannot justly take from you.

As touching the Book, I will not aggravate the spirit that it carries, and that carries it a­long: nor the mischief that such a brat of too rash a brain, may breed (if not prevented) to your selves and this City. What tumults, up­roares, might in all likelihood follow such da­ring incouragements, in a multitude prickt with desire of power, and power of vindicating pre­tended priviledges? (I blesse God) it hath yet taken no such effect.

Nor will I aggravate the Authours offence, whom (humbly submitting to your better [Page]judgements:) I conceive bound by Oath not thus desperately to have sent abroad (without order from that Court, whereof he is a Member) so dan­gerous a spark as this is, which though it seem little at the first, if not timely quencht, may quickly prove a great Incendiary.

Nor lastly, wil I tell you what power lies in your hands to punish such an offender, thus indevouring to disturb the Cities peace, by disturbing the Ci­ties Order and Government, and thus (I had almost said) violating his Sacred Oath.

My Lord, I am not a man of that spirit: it was Caesars honour that he overcame more, and more overcame by his clemency then his sword; the last overcame but the bodies of men, the other their mindes: it will be your Lordships honour, and the rest of your Brethren, who are all ingaged in this Quarrell, in respect of the Author of this Pamphlet, to indevour as not to lose by him, so if possible to gain him, and if not to more wisedom, to more o­bedience: But in the mean time I remember how Alexander dealt with one of his Souldiers, whom he heard railing at himself, who was his Generall. Though he might have punisht him at his pleasure, yet he took only this revenge upon him: He cau­sed Proclamation to be made throughout his whole Army, that such a Souldier had scandalously railed [Page]against Alexander. And that therefore for the time to come, he should have the liberty to say any thing what he listed, were it good or bad; no bo­dy at all regarding or taking notice of what was spoken by such a fellow as he.

You shall not need to make Proclamation what injury the Author hath done you by this Pamphlet (who is, as it were, one of your Souldiers, and you his General) the Book it self sufficiently shews it; and the Answer a little more then the Book: Let me only commend unto you this Heroicall Reso­lution; Neither to mind it for the present, nor him for the future, nor whatsoever he shall speak or write, till you find him wiser, and Let that be his punishment.

My second Motion which concerns your selves is this: That you would seriously consider, that the honor and power which is conferr'd upon you by Charter, and Custome, (the ancienter of the two) though it be in your hands to use, is not in your power to give away: nor will your famous City turn to be any other then a Monster of many Heads, when its renowned Government, which is now so fully established, and so bravely digested into a fit Method and Order; shall again be thrown into its old Chaos, by confusedly thrusting it into the hands of the Multitude, whom a great Emper­our [Page]long agoe compared to fire and water, that are good Servants, but bad Masters.

My Lord, I doe not any whit hereby charge or asperse those renowned Members of your own Body, the Commoners that sit below you: and with­out whom you your selves are able to do nothing to any purpose: But as it is in the Naturall body, so I would have it in this body Politique; I would not be censured to derogate from the Hand or Foot, because I do not grant them to be the Head: I shall in this insuing Treatise give them all right that belongs to them; indevouring only to with­hold both you and them from usurpation: In which Golden mean to preserve both them and you, and this City from all factions and fractions which turbulent spirits may breed among you: it was the only Argument mov'd me now to set pen to paper, and is all that is desired or intended by him who is

Your Lordships, Worships, and this Cities; in all humble Service, Ire. Lyfim.

To the Reader.

Reader,

THou mayst for ought I know bee a Party ingaged on one side or other in this Quarrell, and so unfit to bee a Judge: thou mayst perhaps look upon this Book with a pleasing eye, as wishing well to the Cause that it presumes to vindicate: or thou mayst perhaps condemn it before thou hast perus'd it: as choo­sing rather to have the Truth silenc'd, then that it should speak what is not pleasing unto thee: Or thou mayst be a third man, a man unconcern'd on either part, and so impartiall.

Which of these soever thou art, let mee give thee this caution: Let Truth bee the Mine thou dig'st for in it, the Treasure thou seekest, the mark at which thou aimest: Read it without Prejudice, and judge it as thou find'st it.

I am not the City Advocate to plead their Rights; rather their Champion to defend them from wrong: I take not upon mee to argue their Cause, but to answer Arguments already made against them: Ʋnder that Notion consider mee, compare mee, and censure mee: only shut not thy Eyes against any cleare light that shall appeare in mee, since to bee wilfully ignorant, ought to bee reckoned among sins of knowledge.

Farewell.

Bellamius Enervatus: OR, An Answer to a Plea for the Commonalty of LONDON.

And first to the Proem.

THe discontent that breeds in some kinde of spi­rits, because they cannot doe what they would, makes them next to doe they cannot tell what.

The occasion of this Mr. Bellamies speech; first spoken, since published, to throw up all en­closures of Order in the City of London, by shuffling the Cards, and taking away all notes of distinction between the Head and Members thereof; did not principally arise from any just claime that hee could make to the Privi­ledges which he pleades for, but (as himself confesseth) hee was put upon this motion because hee had been crost by the Lord Major and Aldermen a little before in a former mo­tion.

Hee tels you that upon the 16th of January last he made a motion that a certain obstruction in the Court of Com­mon-Counsell might be removed; which was caused by the Lord Majors using his Priviledge of taking up the [Page 2]Sword and so dissolving the Court for the present, when hee saw good; without their consents.

The redresse whereof (hee tels you) he prest with much earnestnesse, and Prometheus-like stole fire from heaven to quicken this creature of his own making, for he us'd the Arguments of the Lords and Commons in Parliament, made to the King for the continuance of their sitting as long as they saw good in Parliament, to the Lord Major for the continuance of his sitting, as long as they saw good in Common-Counsell.

But this not taking such offect as hee hoped for, was yet the Spur that prickt him forward upon another designe: that since hee could not court them out of their Priviledges, hee would labour to force them: And Read his own Proem at the latter end, thereupon it was that he in­devoured, 1. By the Charters of the City; 2. By Re­cords witnessing their power in the practise of them; 3. By Equity and Reason; to extend the Commoners Rights a little further: and since it could not bee yeelded that the Lord Major in Common-Counsell must sit still as long as they list, they will now both make him sit when they list; and (which is worse) Act what they list.

Throughout which passage, give mee leave to make these Ob­servations:

  • First, what Equity there was in his first motion upon the sixteenth of January.
  • Secondly, What were the Arguments that hee backt it with.
  • Thirdly, What reason there was that upon the deniall of that first motion hee should now fall upon this.

For his first motion upon the sixteenth of Janary it first argues a great deale of weaknesse in the Lord Major that he doth not know when to sit still, and when to rise for the Cities good, unlesse Mr. Bellamy tell him.

Secondly, it much asperseth the Lord Majors integrity, that [Page 3]hee would not of himself sit as long to do the City or Kingdom service, as Mr. Bellamy would have him.

Thirdly, it wrests the Sword it self out of the Lord Ma­jors hand, it being given him to dispose according to Law in his own best judgement: which notwithstanding must now (during the time that a Common-Counsell will sit,) though it bee all day and all night, and never so much occasion to use it in the City) bee surrendred (as it were) into the hands of Mr. Bellamy, till hee please that the Lord Major shall take it up againe.

As touching the Arguments brought by Mr. Bellamy to back this motion, there are two things in them considerable: 1. whose they are: 2. what they are.

First, Whose they are: hee tels you they are the same which the Lords and Commons used to his Majesty for the con­tinuance of this present Parliament: all that is his in them, is the Application: to fit those Arguments which were made by them for the Kingdom, to serve his turn for the City.

For Answer to which (if I dare trust my memory) I shall acquaint you with an old story of a certain Recorder of your own City, who had a Malefactor indicted and convicted of murder before him, the Malefactor was called Skillman: the Recorder being somewhat facetious hearing such a name, thus quibbled upon it: Thy name (saith hee) to the Prisoner is Skillman; take away S and it is Killman, take away K and it is Illman; thou hast an ill name which may half hang thee, and an ill cause which will quite hang thee.

This sudden flash being favourably smiled upon by the Court; a certain Magistrate of the Countrey took speciall notice of: put it up in his Table-book, and the next time hee sate upon the Bench, made this use of it: There was a malefactor brought before him, and convicted for stealing a horse, his name was Johnson: Hee presently asks him his name, the other answers [Page 4]his name was Johnson. Johnson (saith hee) take away S, and it is Killman, take away K, and it is Illman, thou hast an ill name, which may half hang thee, and an ill cause which will quite hang thee.

If this were but a Fable, the Morall is good: I will make no other Application of it to Mr. Bellamy, but thus: to let him know that all Arguments will not serve at all turns: nor is it any Plea for him that hee hath brought the Arguments of the Lords and Commons, unlesse hee can make them as fit for himself as they made them for themselves: and therefore we will look no further whose Arguments they are, but wee will come in the next place to see what they are.

And here hee tels you; the particulars which hee insisted upon were these three: 1. the raising of Monies for the

  • Kingdomes
  • Cities

occasions. 2. The Repayment of those mo­nies so raised by the

  • Parliament
  • Common-Counsell

3. The redresse of the grievances of the

  • City
  • Kingdome

These three (hee tels you) the Common-Counsell can­not effect as they should doe without the power of continuing together, till such time as these be throughly considered upon.

All which wee easily grant, but would faine know how these Arguments back his Motion; hee brings us Arguments to prove why the Common-Counsell should sit, till the ne­cessary businesse of the City bee effected; and therefore makes a motion that they may sit as long as they themselves list; whereby they doe not urge for a power to sit while the ne­cessary businesse of the City is effected: but while such trouble-Courts as himself shall please to tire out the Lord Major and Aldermen with as impertinent speeches as hee hath done here with one of almost an houre long, to no purpose at all, unlesse it bee to make divisions.

Dare you deny that there wants either so much wisdome in [Page 5]the Lord Major and Aldermen, that they know not when the Court is full of necessary businesse, and so requires their stay: or when the Court is burdened with Impertinent, long­winded, senselesse Arguments, and is therefore fit to bee dissol­ved, or adjourned? Or will you tye the Lord Major and Al­dermen (though never so weary, by reason of their great age, and perhaps other bodily infirmities) not to rise from Com­mon-Counsell, till you will give him leave? unlesse you will doe this, your Arguments may indeed make good, that it is fit the Lord Major should see necessary businesse effected for the Cities good in convenient time, but can never prove, that hee must therefore sit as long as you would have him.

I come now to the last Observation: which in the third place I must speak unto: and that is this: What reason Mr. Bella­my had, that because this his first unreasonable motion took no effect, hee should thereupon indevour to presse a second, of farre worse consequence then the former. Which was (as I conceive) just none at all: that because my Lord Ma­jor denyed him this motion, hee must therefore in the next presse for more.

Me thinks Mr. Bellamy, it had been enough for you to have said, My Lord Major was to blame, that would not hearken to so wise a man, and a motion so like himselfe: nor throw the City Charters at your feet to bee mended: he was an obstinate, perverse, untoward man to maintain his and the City Priviledges, when Mr. Bellamy had mov'd to have them given away.

But for you upon the deny all of your first motion, presently to fall upon a second farre more desperate; it savours nothing in mine eye, but a thirst of revenge, that because my Lord Major would not give you his Sword, to keep by you as long as you pleased: you would therefore take it from him and cut out his tongue with it: by denying him and his Brethren those [Page 6]negative voyces, which is indeed their Right and the Cities Glory: and because hee would not make your will Law; you would finde out a Law to take away his will; and force the head onely to act at the discretion of the members: as appears by your claime to an absolute power, which the Commoners themselves you say are invested with, of making City Laws, and choosing City Officers, whether the Lord Major and Aldermen will or no, if you bee more per poll then they: the which you undertake in your Plea for the Commonalty of London, fully to maintain, and which I am now underta­king as fully as I can to Answer.

A FVLL ANSVVER TO THE Plea for the Commonalty of LONDON.

THis snarling Pamphlet (Cerberus-like) barks with three heads.

Hee tels you p. 2. that hee will for me­thods sake, deliver, what in this hee hath to speak under three heads: and they are these.

First, That this City by those favours and boun­ties which wee and our Predecessors have received from sundry royall Kings of England, is now in­vested with many excellent immunities, franchises, and priviledges.

Secondly, Who are the proper recipients of those favours, or to whom the power of using and maintaining those favours, and Priviledges gran­ted to us by our royall Kings of England is committed.

Thirdly, The Reasons or Arguments wherefore those persons unto whom this power is committed, should carefully and conscionably maintain and use those priviledges with which they are intrusted.

In the first of these hee spends much time and words, and hath hard travell in Records to prove what no body denies; and is at [Page 8]last delivered of nothing but winde: He speaks no more but what wee know, and acknowledge, and thankfully (I hope) imbrace as wee ought to do.

And truely, I should not spend any time to examine this foun­dation, there is so little in it, that hee can build any thing upon; onely I remember what is taught mee by the wisest of Kings:Prov. 26.5. for which cause I shall trace him step by step; to shew what unjustly hee doth, and what justly I may pick out of these priviledges.

Hee tels you for proofe of his first head: Hee hath a large and pleasant field to walk in: I grant it is a large and pleasant field enough, if men could think it so that walk in it: but it appears it is not large enough for him, which makes him at this time throw up Inclosures, and by intrenching upon the Rights of the Lord Major and Aldermen, strive to make it larger; but I shall desire him to remember, Cursed is hee that removeth his Neighbours Land­mark.

And now hee complements out these Priviledges, both with the Princes that have conferred them, and the City that injoyes them, not knowing (saith hee) whether more to magnifie the favour of the one, or the happinesse of the other: But here hee tels you, (Men do not doe in a large field, as they do in a curious gar­den. having so large a field to walk in) hee must doe men use to doe in a curi­ous garden; pluck here a flower, and there an herbe, (which is an old cast simile, threed bare in his great grand-Fathers dayes) and when hee hath done the best hee can, hee must leave many behinde him for want of time and skill: which I confesse I much wonder at, that want of time and skill should make him leave his gathering of flowers, who in so bad a time, and with so little skill hath notwithstanding ventured to binde up such a bundle of weeds as hee hath in this fardell.

And these flowers (hee saith) hee must leave behinde him for some more able hand to gather them: I scarce beleeve hee thinks there is an abler hand in England then his own, though hee would have you bear him witnesse here of a great deale of modesty that hee doth confesse it.

Hee tels you hee can no way east his eye, but hee beholds many wit­nesses of the great Priviledges of this City: as first that they may sit in the capacity of a Common-Counsell; which is a great Priviledge (I confesse) but not big enough for him: unlesse hee and his Bre­thren [Page 9]the Commoners alone may sit in the capacity of an absolute Court, not at all regarding the presence of a Lord Major and Al­dermen, or at best placing them but for Cyphers there.

Hee acknowledgeth also the Sword (that Emblem of Authority) which is carryed before the Lord Major, is another Argument to prove the power of the Lord Major; and therein the power of the City: but I must make bold here to put him in minde that if the power of the City subsist in the power of the Lord Major, then to take away the power of a Negative voyce in Common-Counsell, as also the power of taking up the Sword when hee shall see time, from the Lord Major; is even to take away the power of the City, which by his own confession is placed in the head thereof, the Lord Ma­jor.

Hee shews you next what London hath anciently been commended for: and summes it all up in Sir Edward Cooks words; who cals it the Chamber of the King, the Heart of the Common-wealth, the Epitome of the Kingdome.

All this wee grant, and blesse God for; onely wee desire that this place which hee cals the heart of the Common-wealth, may never bee sick at the heart of those diseases and distempers which such members thereof as himself, strive to breed, and to cherish in it.

But now hee comes to prove his Proofes: to wit, that they enjoy these their Priviledges, de Jure, as given and bestowed on them, not usurped by them; and those priviledges hee tels you are these two:

  • First, To have the power to choose their own chiefe Governour, and subordinate Officers among themselves.
  • Secondly, To have also the power to make such Laws, which are or shall bee for their own welfare and best accommodation.

For proofe of the first of these (which is the Cities power in choosing their own chiefe Governour, and subordinate Officers among themselves) hee produceth many Charters granted in the time of Richard the first, King John, Edward the second, and Hen­ry the eighth, as you may see in his book at large.

I must confesse it is a fine and easie thing to prove what no body denies: onely let mee observe thus much from his proofes, if the City can prove they have a power by Charter to choose their own chiefe Governour, the Lord Major, as I do not deny but they may [Page 10]yet ought they by that Charter, and are bound when they doe choose, to choose a Lord Major indeed, and not a Sword-bearer in stead of a Lord Major. I say they ought to choose themselves a Lord Major, and therefore to grant him the power of a Lord Major to dispose of the Sword that is given him, according to his best ability, and understanding for the good of the City: but not to choose him to bee no more then the City Sword-bearer, to lay down his Sword in Common-Counsell when they list, and not to take it up againe till they will give him leave, as Mr. Bellamy would have it to bee, although they should injoyn him to sit all day or all night, hee being never so old, weak, and unable to sit, or never so much tyred with impertinences, and such frothy speeches as this is: or though hee hath never so much necessary occasion to use the same Sword at the same time, either in the Court of Alder­men, the seat of Justice, or else-where, for the necessary good, and safety of the City.

The next Priviledge of the City that hee goes about to prove is: that they have also the power to make such Laws, as shall bee for their own welfare and best accommodation.

And this hee proves by the Charter of Edward the third, in the fifteenth year of his Reigne: where indeed hee draws a knife to cut his own throat: for I doe not know how hee could have pickt out any Charter, which doth invest the Lord Major and Aldermen with a negative voyce, and put the power of making Laws into their hands more then this Charter of Edward the third.

I will relate the Charter it self in Mr. Bellamies own words, it runs thus.

Wee have granted further, for us and our Heires, and by this our present Charter confirmed to the Major and Aldermen of the City a­foresaid; That if any Customes in the said City, hither to obtained and used, bee in any part difficult or defective, or any thing in the same newly happening, where before there was no remedy ordained, and have need of amending, the same Major and Aldermen, and their Suc­cessed with the assent of the Commonalty of the same City, may adde [...] ordaine a remedy meet, faithfull, and consonant to Reason, for the common pr [...]s [...] of the Citizens of the same City, as oft and at such time as to them shall bee thought expedient.

[Page 11]Wee will consider in this Charter but two things:

  • First, to whom the Charter itselfe is confirmed.
  • Secondly, how the power of this Charter must bee used.

First, to whom it is confirmed: it speaks plainly that it is gran­ted to the Lord Major and Aldermen of the City, without so much as naming any interest that the Commons have in the grant of it.

Whence I conclude, that the Lord Major and Aldermen of the City of London, were thought fit by the same King that granted this Charter, to bee intrusted with the absolute power of the Char­ter to use it for the Cities Good: even as Counsell is given to the Head, to use for the benefit of the whole body.

Secondly, Wee are to observe how the power of this Charter, which is the power of making Laws, must bee used.

Read the words of the Charter, and they tell you thus: The Lord Major, Aldermen, and their Successors, have a power thereby given them, to make or mend what Laws they see necessary with the as­sent of the Commoners.

From whence it will necessarily follow, that the Active power of making Laws, (nay of proposing Laws otherwise then by way of Counsell) rests wholly in the hands of the Lord Major, and Al­dermen: and no more power is left in the Commoners, but to assent or to dissent from those Laws, that shall seem good to bee made by the Lord Major and Aldermen, and by their assent to ratifie, or by their dissent to hinder them.

So that now where lies the Negative voyce?

If the Commoners in regard of the greatnesse of their number shall out-vote the Lord Major and Aldermen (which at all times they easily may) and thereupon undertake to make or mend a Law: then is the very Charter it self absolutely and apparently broken.

For it doth not say, wee have granted to the Commons, that by the consent of the greater part of the Common-Councell: nor yet by the consent of the Lord Major and Aldermen, (much lesse with­out their consent) that they (to wit the Commoners) shall have power to make or mend a Law: But it faith, wee have granted to the Lord Major and Aldermen to make the Law by consent of the Commoners.

So that it must needs follow: that the Lord Major and Alder­men [Page 12]must either use their power to the making of a Law, or else let the Commons consent what they will, though they have a pow­er to consent, they have no power by consenting to make a Law: And I would faine know whether that Law can bee said truely to bee made by the Lord Major, Aldermen, and their Successors: which is onely carryed by the Plurality of the voyces of the Com­moners, and thereupon made, though contrary to the consent of the Lord Major and Aldermen, as Mr. Bellamy would have them to bee: and I would fain know whether the proper meaning of this Charter must not needs bee thus: that the Lord Major and Aldermen (who being chosen by the City) are intrusted with the care and charge of the welfare of the same) shall have there­fore power to make or mend Laws for the Cities good: onely this must bee done with the Commons consent: that is, the Laws that are proposed by the Lord Major and Aldermen shall not passe without the consent of the major part of the Commonalty: which in such cases are alwaies put for the whole: And this is all the Pri­viledge the Commoners can glean out of this Charter.

I confesse I do not see that wee need any more to prove the ne­gative voyces of the Lord Major and Aldermen, that they do of right and necessity belong to them, then this very Charter; which, First, is granted to them alone, without so much as naming the Commons: and secondly, placeth the power of making or mending a Law in them onely, giving the Commoners no more power then is now granted them: which is either to assent or dissent, when a Law is proposed, as I said before.

I conclude this first head in Mr. Bellamies own words: When I seriously consider what Priviledges are thus granted to this City, I know nothing wanting to them, if they bee not wanting to themselves to make them happy: that is, if this power of making or mending Laws, thus placed by Charter in the hands of those, who are chosen by, and intrusted with the care of the City, bee still con­tinued in its own proper place: But if the Commoners will usurpe this power (contrary to Charter) into their owne hands; and make their head, a head of clouts, if they then suffer at the present, by having such Laws made as shall bee set up by faction, not wisdome, and if they suffer hereafter by the severity of fu­ture Princes, which may perhaps deny them the lawfull use of [Page 13]those Charters which they have thus abused, they may thank themselves, and such instruments of their suffering, as Mr. Bella­my is; and I therefore pray God give you grace (as Mr. Bellamy saith) wisely and humbly to make use of them.

I come now to the second head, or to the second thing handled, which is this: Who are the proper Recipients of those priviledges, or to whom the power of using and maintaining those priviledges and fa­vours, granted to us by our Royall Kings of England, is commit­ted.

And in this Head hee tells you hee hath two things to speak to.

  • 1. To shew to whom these priviledges have been granted.
  • 2. To prove by whom these priviledges have been practised.

And here I must tell you this Argument deales like Hocus Po­cus, that swallows hurds and spits fire, it repeats of the former Char­ters, enough to choake it self, but that it spits desperate conclusi­ons from them.

Desperate conclusions I call them in two respects: first, be­cause they are contradictory: secondly, because they are false.

First, I say, they are contradictory, hee contradicteth himself in them; hee tels you p. 9. in these words. If you take a Survey of all the Charters granted to this City, since the date of that grant of King John to this day, which are very many, they all run thus, or to this effect: To the Major, Aldermen and Commonalty of the City of London; or, To the Major and Commonalty of the City of London: and yet in the very same page, nay the same clause of that sentence, reciting the Charter of Edward the second, in the twelfth of his Reigne hee tels you, That that Charter leaves a certain power in making, and amoving Sheriffes, and some other City Officers, wholly to the pleasure of the Commonalty, without any refe­rence to the Major and Aldermen.

So that you see how plainly hee contradicts himselfe: hee tels you first, That all Charters that ever were made run thus: viz. To the Major, Aldermen and Commonalty. And yet hee recites a Charter in the very next words, where hee labours to exclude both the Major and Aldermen.

In the next place I am to prove his Conclusions drawn from these Charters are false: which I shall do by proving two things.

[Page 14]First, That hee falsely interprets the Charters themselves.

Secondly, Hee argues falsely from his owne Interpretations.

First, Hee falsely interprets the Charters recited by himselfe: as In that Charter of Edward the second, which hee saith is made to the Commons onely, without reference to the Major and Aldermen: his Interpretation there is false, for that very Charter cannot but have a reference as well to them as to the Commoners.

And that appeares by the words of the Charter, which are these: That the Major and Sheriffes may bee chosen by the Citizens of the said City: as Mr. Bellamy relates the Charter in his Book, p. 5. the latter end: Now it cannot bee denyed but the Major and Aldermen are Citizens of the City of London, and the principall of them. as Mr. Bellamy confesseth; if therefore the power of that Election bee granted in generall termes to the Citizens of London, though the Lord Major and Aldermen bee not exprest in that Char­ter, (as there was no need they should) yet they are necessarily included, because they are Citizens, and so that very Charter (contrary to Mr. Bellamies opinion) hath reference to the Major and Aldermen.

Secondly, Hee argues falsely from his own interpretations; for Mr. Bellamy from this Charter thus interpreted, argues, or rather concludes two things in the very next words.

First, That it is cleare that in the City Priviledges, the Commoners have an equall share with the Lord Major and Aldermen.

Secondly, That if there bee any difference, the advantage is to the Commons.

Let us see how these will follow:

If wee should take it for granted that in choosing some City Officers the Lord Major and Aldermen are by Charter excluded, (which notwithstanding is absolutely false, and can never bee proved,) as I have already shewed) yet if it were true, a very lit­tle Logick will tell us, ‘Syllogizari non est ex particulari.’

It is no good Argument that shall conclude, that because the Commoners have a right to this Priviledge by Charter; (which is onely the choosing of the Major, Sheriffes, and some City Officers, that therefore they have a right to all) nor will it follow that because the Lord Major and Aldermen have not a negative voyee [Page 15]in the choosing of some City Officers, but the Commons have a pow­er in themselves to do it without them: that therefore the Lord Major and Aldermen have no negative voyce in the making of Lawes, when the Charter of Edward the third plainly gives it them.

I shall desire you to take a little notice what a grosse slur hee puts upon you here.

First, Hee tels you that all the Charters run thus: To the Major, Aldermen and Commons.

Secondly, Hee brings you a Charter cleane contrary in the next words, which hee takes to bee made only to the Commons with­out reference to the Major and Aldermen.

Thirdly, Hee grounds from that Charter, and all the rest, 1. An equality that is between the Major, Aldermen and Commons. 2. If there bee any difference, the advantage is to the Commons.

First, Hee saith the Commons have an equall share with the Lord Major and Aldermen, in City Priviledges, because all Charters joyn them.

Secondly, They have an advantage, if there bee any difference, be­cause that one Charter of Edward the second is made (saith hee) onely to the Commons, without any reference to the Major and Alder­men.

Both which I thus disprove: first, because all the Charters, or any of them do not make them equall with the Lord Major and Aldermen: secondly, this Charter of Edward the second, gives them no advantage.

First, I say no Charter makes them equall, which I prove two waies.

First, Because the Charters cannot bee so understood, as to make the Commoners equall with Lord Major and Aldermen.

Secondly, The Charters themselves expresse the contrary.

First, The Charters cannot bee understood of an equality: for there is a great deale of difference in giving or granting things joyntly, and granting or giving things equally.

Things may bee given joyntly to many receivers, yet to one more, to another lesse, but if they bee given equally, then the one hath as much share as the other.

For example: in the naturall body, strength is given to a Lyon, [Page 16]and to every part of the Lyon joyntly, for hee hath some strength in every part: but yet strength in the Lyon is not given to every part of the Lyon equally, because one part of him is stronger then another.

Againe, that may bee said to bee given joyntly, in the bene­fit whereof many things have a joynt interest, and yet not a joynt exercise of the thing which is given them: thus wisdome is gi­ven to man, and to every part of man joyntly, because every part of man receives benefit by it: and yet the exercise of this wisdome is onely placed in the understanding, to whom is committed the power and charge of benefitting all other parts of the body by that wisdome which is onely exercised by the understanding.

In both these respects Charters may bee made, and Priviledges granted to the City joyntly, and yet not equally▪ Joyntly in the first sense, that is, the Priviledge of making Laws, choosing Of­ficers, or the like, may bee granted to the City joyntly, yet the Lord Major and Aldermen may have a greater power in the ma­king of Laws, and choosing Officers, then the Commoners. Or else in the last sense; These Priviledges may bee conferred upon the City joyntly, and yet the acting power of them may bee committed onely to the Lord Major and Aldermen, as in the two foregoing examples plainly appeares.

And that the power of making Laws, (which is the greater of the two City Privildges) though it bee granted to the City joynt­ly, yet it is not granted to the City equally, the Charter of Ed­ward the third, which I explained before, doth clearely prove and that beyond all contradiction or objection.

Thus you see the first thing is made good, viz. that none of the Charters give the Commons an equall (though a joynt) share and power in City Priviledges with the Lord Major and Alder­men.

Secondly, I shall shew you that the Charter of Edward the second, (which Mr. Bellamy saith, hath reference to another of King John) in point of difference gives the Commons no advan­tage.

And that appeares by the same Charters, which doe conferre a power into the hands of the Citizens without any distinction. Whence I thus Argue: 1. The Lord Major and Aldermen are [Page 17]Citizens, therefore they have an equall share in those Charters. 2. They are the principall head of the City as Mr. Bellamy con­fesseth; therefore if there bee any difference, the advantage rather is to them.

And thus much for the first particular, viz. to whom these City priviledges have been granted. I come now to the second, viz. By whom they have been practised.

Where Mr. Bellamy tels you, they have been practised alwaies, as by the Charter of Edward the third they were granted, which must bee by the Lord Major and Aldermen, with consent of the Commons, and for my part I desire no more but that they may continue so still: That in Laws propos'd in Common-councell to bee made, the Lord Major and Aldermen may have the power of making, accor­ding to that Charter, and the Commons the power of assenting or dissenting and no more, which is according to the same Charter.

And here Mr. Bellamy gives you many needlesse instances of things done by the joynt and concurrent power of the Lord Ma­jor, Aldermen and Commons in Common-Councell: all which wee know to bee true, but must tell him thus much, if hee would bring an instance for his own purpose, to doe himself any good, hee must shew us when and where any thing hath passed in Common-Councell, which the Lord Major and Aldermen have refu­sed to joyn with the Commons in: For, for such Acts to passe in Common-Councell, which the Lord Major and Aldermen think fit to joyne with the Commons in, this makes nothing against the negative voyces of the Lord Major and Aldermen; but if hee can give us an instance of an Act in Common-Councell, where a Law was made and established by the sole power of the Commoners, which though it were protested against by the Lord Major and Al­dermen, yet the Commoners by their priviledge made it passe: when hee shews us such an example, hee saith something towards the taking away of the negative voyces of the Lord Major and Al­dermen.

But in the beginning of p. 11. he undertakes to prove this also, in these words:

That all the determinative, binding, and concluding power of the Court of Common-Councell is in the plurality of the votes of the [Page 18]Lord Major, Aldermen, and Commons, joyntly. (By which word [joyntly] hee meanes equally, or else wee doe not deny it) And that the Lord Major and Aldermen have no more power of a nega­tive voyce, then as single persons, which every member of that Court hath as fully as they, if their judgements in the Debate, sway them to the negative. And that the Aldermen alone, and by themselves can­not hold the negative against the Commons affirmative.

I must needs confesse Mr. Bellamy now speaks to the purpose: if hee can but prove this, as hee saith hee will; hee shall have my consent to have his motion very speedily granted

And here, I commend him, hee takes the choyce of three wea­pons to make this good; and I am afraid all too short.

1. Hee proves it by practise. 2. By Argument. 3. By Equity and Reason.

First, By practise, That it hath not been so; which hee instanceth in a Case upon 17. of Feb. 1641. But as I told you, the whole speech had three heads, I must tell you this part of it wants a tayle; this Example brought in by way of Argument, hath no Conclusion.

But I shall first tell you what the Argument is; secondly, what the Conclusion must bee.

The Argument lies hid in the whole story, which is this, Feb. 17. 1641. A Petition was brought into the Court of Common-councell, directed onely to the Lord Major and Aldermen, and be­cause it was not directed to the Lord Major, Aldermen and Com­mons, in Common-Councell assembled, the Court refused to take any cognizance of it. But the then Lord Major, Sir Richard Gur­ney, with the major part of the Aldermen then present in that Com­mon-Councell, would have the Court to admit of that Petition; and the Court refusing, for the reason aforesaid; the Lord Major and Al­dermen conceiving, (as I suppose, (saith hee) that they should carry it by plurality of votes:) would have the Court divide, and num­bred by the Poll: and so it was done, there was for the Petition, the Lord Major, seven Aldermen, and 61 Commoners, and against the Petition, five Aldermen, and 85 Commoners, and thus the mem­bers of the Court, (saith hee) both Aldermen and Commoners, being reckoned together by the Poll, as members of the Court, the Question was determined, the Petition rejected, and the Authority of Common-Councell maintained.

[Page 19]This is the example that hee brings, by way of Argument, now what must bee the Conclusion? By the Law of Logick, that thing which at first hee undertakes to prove, must (after the Ar­gument) bee plainly in the same words laid down in the Con­clusion. So then you must turn back to the beginning of the 11 page, to finde the Conclusion, which must bee thus. There­fore the Lord Major and Aldermen in this Court, have no more power of a negative voyce then as single persons, which every member of the Court hath as fully as they, if their judgement in the Debate sway them to the Negative, and the Aldermen alone and by themselves cannot hold the negative against the Commons affirmative; This by the rules of Logick, and no other must bee the conclusion.

For Answer to which, give mee leave to make these Observa­tions out of Mr. Bellamies own instance of Feb. 17. 1641.

1. What the occasion of this difference was. 2. How it was managed.

First, The occasion of the difference was, because the Petition was directed onely to the Lord Major and Aldermen, and not to the Commoners.

Secondly, How was this difference managed: first, The Lord Major and Aldermen mov'd to have the Petition accepted. Where I ob­serve, therein they did but their duty, whose Office it is in all such cases, to move the Commons for their assent to whatsoever they think fit to have passed by them.

Secondly, The Commons refus'd it; and herein they us'd but their Priviledge, which is, when any Law is proposed by the Lord Major and Aldermen, to shew their assent, or dissent.

Thirdly, Upon dissent of the Commons, The Lord Major and Aldermen would have the Court divided, and numbred by the Poll.

Where observe; first, it was the Act of the Lord Major and Aldermen, upon dissent of the Commons, to put the businesse to the Poll, so that it was not then done by the Commons, which is the power they plead for: secondly, The Lord Major and Al­dermen would have the businesse put to the Poll, which shews it was their voluntary Act to put it to Poll, they were not constrain­ed by the Commons against their own wills to put it to the Poll.

Fourthly, Wee are here to examine the reasons, why the Lord [Page 20]Major and Aldermen would have the businesse put to the Poll; and that Mr. Bellamy supposeth to bee, Because they thought they should carry it by plurality of votes.

Lastly, What was the up-shot of the businesse: The Lord Ma­jor and Aldermen trusting to their own strength, and thereupon put­ting it to the Poll, lost it.

In laying all these together you shall see what conclusions na­turally flow from this Argument.

First, That the Commons did at that time no more but dissent from the motion of the Lord Major and Aldermen: and therefore they did no more then, but what wee now grant them.

Secondly, The putting off the businesse to the Poll was the Act of the Lord Major and Aldermen; therefore it proves nothing that the Commons have any power to put any businesse to the Poll; but that that power rests in the Lord Major and Aldermen.

Thirdly, The putting the businesse to Poll, was the Lord Major and Aldermens voluntary Act. Therefore not binding, nor necess­sary, ever to bee followed againe, in such a case.

Fourthly, The reason why the Lord Major and Aldermen put the businesse to the Poll, was Because they conceived they should car­ry it by plurality of Votes. Therefore if the Lord Major and Alder­men doe not at any time conceive they shall carry their businesse through by plurality of Votes, they may choose to put it to the Poll.

Lastly, The Lord Major and Aldermen thus unadvisedly rely­ing on their own strength, putting the businesse to the Poll, quite lost it. Therefore let the Lord Major and Aldermen take heed of waving their own Rights, and putting any more busi­nesses to the Poll, which they need not, lest they accordingly lose by it.

And thus All in this Instance, draws a contrary way to that Mr. Bellamy would have it; and is so farre from making up his Conclusions, that it makes every Conclusion against him: so farre is it from shewing any reason why the Lord Major and Al­dermen by this practise should lose their negative voyce, that it more confirms them in it: and gives them faire warning for putting any more businesses to the Poll, lest they bee polled of all their Rights and Priviledges by it: and least (bee their Cause [Page 21]never so good) they should bee over-voted and lose it, which may easily come to passe when they think otherwise, as it did in this Instance with Sir Richard Gurney.

But a little more to weaken this Mr. Bellamies practicall Argu­ment, I must tell you it is nothing to the purpose, either to prove any thing for, or against a negative voyce in the Lord Major and Aldermen, for it is plain all along the Story, that in this instance the voyces of the Lord Major and Aldermen, were alwaies affir­mative, and never negative. They were first affimative to have the Petition accepted; they were also affirmative, to have the Court numbred by Poll: Now wee doe not maintain that the Lord Major and Aldermen have any more in an affirmative voyce then the Commons: which is plainly against Charter: but wee say their Priviledge lyes, in that they have a negative voyce, whereby they can hinder the Commons from making Laws with­out them: Now Mr. Bellamy in this Instance proves nothing, but that the Lord Major and Aldermen had not an Affirmative voyce granted them by the Commons, which nothing at all proves that therefore they have not a Negative.

Thus I have shewed you what hee hath proved by Practise: I come now to shew you how hee proves by Argument that the Lord Major and Aldermen can have no Negative voyce in making of a Law, but that the Commons as touching the making of a Law are above them.

Hee undertakes it by way of Syllogisme in this manner.The Major proposition.

That Court which hath the power to make a Law, and by that Law to conferre a Power upon the Lord Major and Aldermen, which they as Lord Major and Aldermen, had not before, is quoad hoc, that is, so far as to the making of a Law above the Lord Major and Aldermen.

But this Court of Common-Councell hath such a power. The Minor proposition. The conclusion

Therefore quoad hoc, that is, so farre as to the making of a Law, they are above the Lord Major and Aldermen.

In which Syllogisme the fallacy lies in the minor proposition, in the word Common-Councell.

For if Mr. Bellamy by the word Common-Councell, meane the whole body of that Court; which consists of the Lord Major, Aldermen, and Commons joyntly, without which there can bee no Common-Councell: then I am of Mr. Bellamies minde, and grant, [Page 22]that the whole Body of the Common-councell, consisting as afore­said; may conferre a power not onely upon the Lord Major and Aldermen, which they had not before, But upon any other ca­pable person or persons, and in that respect are above them, as the whole is above any part.

But if by the word Common-councell, hee meanes onely a part of the Common-councell, which are the Commons there Assembled: then (though, as wee said before, the Common-councell may, yet) the Commoners of themselves cannot make any such Law, contrary to the negative voyces of the Lord Major and A dermon: nor are the Commons as towards the making of a Law above them: for it cannot hold that because the whole man is greater then the head, and (as the whole in respect of the parts above it) that therefore the hands or feet or any other particular part of the bo­dy is above the head.

I shall give you an Example or two to make this cleare.

It is in the power of the Body, to move by the joynt power of the Head, and so to doe that which the Head cannot do other­wise, or which the head could not have done before: Therefore it is in the power of the hands alone, or any other member to do this whether the head will or no, and so to bee in respect of that action above the head.

Or thus, It is in the power of an Army (that consists of a Generall, Officers and Souldiers) to fight when they shall think fit. Therefore it is in the power of the Souldiers alone, to fight whether the Generall think fit or no, and so in that respect to bee above the Generall.

Just so looks Mr. Bellamies Syllogisme like one of these, when it is uncased.

Hee tells you it is in the power of the Common-councell, which consists of Lord Major Aldermen and Commons, to make a Law, and by that Law to confer a power upon the Lord Major and Aldermen, which they had not before: Therefore it is in the power of the Commons alone to doe this, and in this respect to bee above the Lord Major and Aldermen.

His second Argument is of the same hatch, about the power of Common-councell to take away a power which the Lord Major and Aldermen had before.

[Page 23]One Answer serves them both, and that's this: if Mr. Bellamy will attribute that power and superiority to the Commons alone, which is in the Common-councell rightly considered, hee gives that to a part, which belongs to the whole: but if by Common-coun­cell, hee meanes as I meane, and hee ought to meane; then this Argument proves a great power and superiority in the Lord Ma­jor, Aldermen and Commons joyntly above any part asunder, but no power at all in the Commons to make any Law without the Lord Major and Aldermen, nor any way to bee above them.

I shall ask him but one Question, and I have done with these Arguments.

Whether a power was at any time given to the Lord Major and Aldermen which they had not before, or whether there was a pow­er at any time taken from them which they had before, in Com­mon-councell, by the Commons alone, against the consents of the Lord Major and Aldermen.

If there were ever such a power granted to, or taken away from the Lord Major and Aldermen in Common-councell against their will, then that proves something towards the power of the Commons, that as touching the making of such a Law, they are a­bove the Lord Major and Aldermen.

But if not, though there have such Lawes beene made in Com­mon-councell; by joynt consent of the Lord Major, Aldermen, and Commons, when the Lord Major and Aldermen saw no reason to use their negative voyces; yet it doth not follow that they had no Negative voyces, because they did not use them: or because they suffered such Laws to bee made, that therefore (if they had pleased) they could not have hindred them.

Thus his Arguments brought to prove that it cannot bee so that the Lord Major and Aldermen should have a Negative voyce in Common-councell, but that the Commons as touching the making of Lawes are above them: you see when they are throughly can­vast, what they are; falsely pretending much Truth and sound­nesse, but indeed containing nothing lesse.

I handle him now at his last weapon, with which hee under­takes to prove, that by Equity and Reason, it ought not to bee so.

And what is his Equity and Reason for it? it is because the Al­dermen are in number but 26. the Commoners 230. Therefore [Page 24](saith hee) it is not Equity and Reason that so few should have a Negative voyce over so many; but on the contrary that the greater number, as touching the making of a Law should bee a­bove them.

This Argument is of the same litter with the other two and much favours them. Tis a pretty consequence if you marke it well. I shall give it you in another Instance or two.

The Souldiers of an Army are farre more in number then the Generall and his Officers; Therefore it is not Equity or Justice, That (if at any time the Souldiers have a minde to fight) the Commanders should have a Negative voyce over them or power to hinder them, because the Commanders are farre fewer in num­ber then the Soulders are.

Or thus, The head in the naturall Body is but one; the hands are two, so are the feet. Therefore the head ought not to re­strain the hands or feet from doing any thing whatsoever (if it bee from striking or hurting the head) because the hands and feet are more in number then the Head.

Just thus holds Mr. Bellamies Equity and Justice, in this place hee acknowledgeth the Lord Major and Aldermen to bee the Head, the Commons to bee the Members, but these members (saith hee) are farre more then the head, Ergo, the head ought not in the passing of a Law to have a Negative voyce over the Members, but the members as touching the making of a Law, ought to bee a­bove the Head.

But hee tels you presently how much mischiefe would follow if a Negative voyce should bee left to so few as the Lord Major and Aldermen, over so many as the whole Body of the Com­mons assembled in Common-councell.

First, Hee saith, It would obstruct all good Laws from passing: To make which good, hee must either prove there is lesse wise­dome in the Lord Major and Aldermen, to know how to make a good Law, then there is in the Commons, or else there is lesse integrity in the Lord Major and Aldermen, to passe such Laws for the Cities good, then there is in the Commons: Till one or both of these bee prov'd, I shall give this Objection no further Answer.

His second Argument is, that by this meanes the City would fall [Page 25]into a remedilesse way of Ruine: and hee instanceth in the case of Sir Richard Gurneys standing out against the just desires and commands of the Parliament.

I shall throw his own Instance at his head, and beat him with his last weapon.

In the case of Sir Richard Gurney, I would fain know how the City fell into a remedilesse way of ruine.

When it was found that Sir Richard Gurney was a man uncor­diall and unfaithfull to the Parliaments Service, was hee not pre­sently apprehended, removed, and committed by Authority of the same Parliament? and was not the City soon reduced from this remedilesse way of ruine? and a faithfull and active Lord Major placed in his roome?

And doe you not think it would happen so again, either in the Lord Major or Aldermen, if they should not bee men of that integrity which is expected; would the Parliament think you, sit still, and look on, and provide the City no Remedy?

Away then, for shame, with such senselesse Arguments,See his own book, p. 16. l. 17. and let us heare no more of your sitting still, and sighing with your fin­gers in your Eyes; and cannot tell what you would have; which are Arguments fitter for a childe to begge Plums with, then a Common-Councell man, Priviledges.

But next hee tels you what hee hath done all this while, what hee hath fully and clearely proved both by Charters and by Practice, I shall give it you in his own words: They are these, That the Lord Major, Aldermen and Commons conjunctim, and not either alone as separated or dis-junct from the other, are the proper recipients of those Grants and Priviledges which our Royall Kings have in their bounty and favour invested this City with.

And hath hee rais'd all this dust, spent all this time and mat­ter to prove this? I know no body that offers to deny it him: for my part, I have already granted, and will not now recall, that the proper Recipients of the City Priviledges are the Lord Major, Aldermen and Commons conjunctim, that is, joyntly, but not equal­ly, as, the Lord Major and Aldermen may bee joyned with the Commons in one Commission, and yet have a greater power then they, by vertue of the same Commission, or the Commons may have joynt Right with the Lord Major and Aldermen, to the Ci­ty [Page 26]Charters, that is, to the benefit that is received by them, yet the power of acting and exercising those Charters may bee intrusted in the Lord Major and Aldermen, as I have shewed before.

But here I must tell you what I may well feare, lest Mr. Bellamy in this claim (made to usurpe the Rights of the Lord Major and Aldermen) doe not sin against knowledge.

My reason is, because if you compare but two things; what before hee said hee would prove; and what here hee saith hee hath proved: you will finde hee doth acknowledge a weaknesse in his own Arguments, that they cannot make good what hee would have them.

For Example, read p. 9. lin. 24. and pag. 11. lin. 1. of his book, and in those hee tels you hee will make cleare:

First, That the Commons have equall share with the Lord Major and Aldermen, in City priviledges.

Secondly, That if there bee any advantage, it is to the Commons.

Thirdly, That the Lord Major and Aldermen have no more nega­tive voyce t [...]en the inferiour members of the Court.

These things hee undertakes to prove: and yet when hee hath brought all the Arguments hee can to prove them: hee concludes his Arguments in the last line of the 16. and beginning of the 17. page, by telling you that hee hath proved; what?

First, Hee doth not say hee hath proved That the Commons have an equall share with the Lord Major and Aldermen, in City pri­viledges.

Secondly, Hee doth not say there, that hee hath proved any advantage to the Commons.

Thirdly, Hee doth not say, hee hath proved any thing at all to take away the Lord Major and Aldermens negative voyce.

All that hee saith hee hath proved, is, that the City priviledges belong to the Lord Major, Aldermen and Commons joyntly, which is no more then wee grant: whence I conclude thus much.

That Mr. Bellamy at first would have proved those things which hee undertook to prove with all his heart: but finding when hee had brought in all his Arguments, they were too weak to prove what hee would have, though hee said hee would prove them at first, yet hee dares not say, hee hath proved them at last: but faith onely hee hath proved a joynt share that the Lord Major, Al­dermen [Page 27]and Commons have in City priviledges, which for my part never was, or shall bee denyed him.

But for all this, though hee dares not say hee hath proved what hee undertook, (and if hee should say so, no wise man would be­leeve him) yet hee layes as hard claim to the same Priviledges, as if hee had proved all before him: which makes mee feare hee sins against knowledge; for to indevour by violence to gain, what a man cannot make good his right unto, is a plain sin of covetous­nesse, and against knowledge.

And now with a faire glozing conclusion, having thus prepared a Pill, hee tryes to make it work.

It is a Linsey-wolsey-conclusion, and the last part spoyles the first: In the first part, hee tells your Lordship hee honours you, with your Brethren, hee acknowledgeth you to bee the Cities Head, and that in eclipsing your Honour they wound themselves.

I would fain know if any man will beleeve this? when

First, The honour hee gives you, is to pull you downe from be­ing so high as your own Rights and Charters have made you: and to make your Lordships power in a Common-councell, no more then the youngest and meanest Commoner, who hath a voyce as well (nay as good) as your Lordship, if your negative voyce bee once taken away.

Secondly, Hee tels you, hee acknowledgeth you under his Majesty to bee head of this City: and yet the head must not have a negative voyce to whatsoever the members will have done.

Thirdly, Hee tels you that if they should goe about to Eclipse your Honour they would wound themselves; when how can hee goe more about to Eclipse your honour, nay to destroy it, then hee doth? by leaving you in a Common-councell but the name of a Lord Ma­jor, but making you a Commoner onely like himselfe. When 1. you shall have no more power of the Sword; when you have laid it down, you shall not take it up till hee please. 2. When you shall have no more power or voyce in Common-councell, then the meanest Commoner that sits with you.

But wee are not yet come to the snake that lies hid in this grasse, that appeares in the next words, which are these.

As wee give you the honour of head-ship, take not from us the right of membership.

[Page 28]If hee would have spoke plaine, hee should have said rather, since wee make you the head, wee beseech you make us the hat, that wee may bee above our head.

I know no body denies you the right of membership; if you could bee content with that: but as it was thought strange by St. Paul that the members of the naturall body should thus argue: that the hands or the feet should say thus to the head, because wee are not the head, therefore wee are not of the body: so is it no lesse strange in the body Politicke; when the Commoners in Common-councell, (whom Mr. Bellamy would have us suppose to bee the bands and feet of the City) shall upbraid their head, as St. Paul saith, and tell him thus: Because wee are not the head, therefore wee are not of the body: Because wee doe not act the head in ordering the rest of the body; Because wee have not as much power as the head, to make Laws without, and against our head; and because our head will presume to have a negative voyce ouer us, and will not rather suffer us to have a negative voyce over him; therefore hee denies us the right of member-ship: No, if you unmaske your claim, and let it appeare with its own face, you doe not begge of the Lord Major and Aldermen, the right of membership, for that is granted you, in your assenting and dissenting voyces, when any Law is proposed, but you either would bee the hat above your head, or at least have an equall power with him, which were to make two heads, and create a monster.

But hee tells you in the naturall body; the head cannot act without the members, and therefore the Lord Major and Aldermen, though they bee the head of this great City, yet they cannot act without the concurrent pow­er of the Commons, as hands and feet to assist them.

I answer, it is granted, that the Lord Major and Aldermen can­not act without the Commons; and hence it is that they may pro­pose Lawes as long as they will, but can make none without your consent: and this is the height of your priviledge.

But did you ever know in the naturall body, that the hands and feet could act without the power of the head? this is that that you would doe, wee yeeld the Lord Major and Aldermen cannot work without you, but you would work without them, making what Laws you think good, without their consent, nay against their consent, if by plurality of voyces you can but carry them.

[Page 29]Wherein consider seriously what injury you would do them. If you should take away the power of a Negative voyce from them, you think thereby you make them but equall with your selves: you are mistaken; for you make them farre lower then your selves: for, for your parts you have a negative voyce (though not formally, yet in effect) since if the Lord Major and Aldermen propose a Law, you are able at any time, by reason of your num­ber, if you but dissent, to hinder it from passing; but as for them, when at any time the Commons shall propose a Law (unlesse you grant them a negative voyce, to stop what they think not fit to passe) their number is so small, compared with yours, that they can never stop any thing from passing that you shall propose, (though you may stop any thing, that they propose) because they are so unequall to you in number.

Thus it is cleare what you goe about, not to make your head equall with the rest of the members, but even farre below the feet; unlesse you will make as great a number of Aldermen as there are of Commons: that if they have their negative voyces taken away, they may have some hopes left to carry on, or stop some things in Ci­ty Government, by plurality of voyces as you now doe.

The next clause I forbeare to answer, because it is a plaine Bull.

He tels you, The best and soundest bodies are apt to distempers, and those maladies in the noblest parts are most dangerous; if therefore there be an Ʋlcer or Tumor in the bead (saith hee) that hinders the necessary and naturall motion of the rest of the members, and endangers the life of all: Oh then blame not the feet if they run forth to seeke a Remedy, nor yet the bands if they apply it. A most grosse Bull, as if it were possible for the feet to run, or the hands to act in applying a Remedy, when the distem­per of the head (as he himself confesseth) hinders the naturall and ne­cessary motion of the rest of the members.

But now to avoid all exceptions, lest any man should say, hee hath not more then cleared all that hee undertakes: you shall see he will not let an objection be in possibility to bee made; but like one of Pharaohs Midwives he brings it into the world, and then de­stroyes it.

Hee tells you he foresees an objection that may be made against a part of that which he hath spoken: viz. The election of some City [Page 30]Officers, hath been time out of minde in other hands, and not the hands of the Commons.

Mee thinks if Mr. Bellamies spectacles had been true, when hee foresaw this Objection, hee might have foreseen a bigger, and that's this.

The Active power in making a Law, & the Negative voice in hin­dering a Law, have been time out of mind in the hands of the Lord Major and Aldermen, what say you to that?

But it may bee the same answer will serve both these Objections: Or because he gives a twofold Answer, we will try if the one will not serve the one, and the other the other.

His Answer to this Objection is twofold.

First, The same that Christ gave to the Pharisees in the case of Divorce: which is a little too bold in my Opinion. It is this, From the beginning it was not so: It was easie for Christ who was from the beginning, and is the beginning and ending; to tell what was so, or what was not so from the beginning: but for Mr. Bellamy thus to answer, I scarce see how hee can fadome so great Antiqui­ty as to make it good; nor indeed doth hee goe about it: for you must take his own word for it, that it was not so from the begin­ning, while hee doth not alleadge any Charter, Record, or Autho­rity to prove it by.

His second Answer is this, If this power hath been time out of minde out of the Commons hands, then it was either lost by usurpation, or consent.

If by usurpation (saith hee) it is just it should bee restored.

Wee grant it, but leave him to prove the usurpation.

But if by consent; then if cause and Reason require, the Common-councell may reassume this lost power into their hands again, as they have done in another case.

This wee grant also: if Mr. Bellamy doe not here again equi­vocate with the word Common-councell.

For wee know the Charter of Edward the third, confirmes a power to the Common-councell of altering, as well as making Laws; and as any thing is made for the Cities good by power of Com­mon-councell, so upon good reason it may bee by the same pow­er reverst: but then it must bee done by power of Common-coun­cell indeed: which cannot bee meant of the Commons alone, but [Page 31]of the Lord Major, Aldermen and Commons, joyntly.

And so I grant it: that if the Lord Major, Aldermen and Com­mons shall consent to reinvest you in that power; which (I con­fesse, I doe not beleeve you ever had in the beginning) though you confidently say so) no doubt but then you may reassume it.

But if that power were heretofore (as you conceive) made o­ver or given away, by your forefathers (upon solid reasons in their esteeme) into the hands of the Lord Major and Aldermen, then (though you can shew, it may bee, better reasons, why to reassume it, then they had to give it away) it is not in your pow­er (that is, it is not in the power of the Commons of themselves) to reassume it, without the consent of the Lord Major and Alder­men, who are now possest of it: no more then it is in my power, when I list, without the consent of the possessor, to enter upon any Land or meanes, which my Father lawfully sold heretofore, upon pretence that I can shew better reasons why I should keep it, then my Father shewed why hee should sell it.

Thus you see you have made but one objection where you might have made many, and but the least, when you might have found farre greater, and yet both your Answers will not serve to sa­tisfie that.

First, You tell us from the beginning it was not so, which you ne­ver prove, and therefore wee deny.

Secondly, You tell us why, If your Priviledges have been lost, they ought to bee reassumed.

First, If they were usurpt, which wee say they were not.

Secondly, If given away by consent, which wee say, without the consent of the Lord Major and Aldermen, who are the now pos­sessours of those Priviledges which you pretend to have lost, you of your selves cannot reassume them.

And thus like Heroules, I have cut off two of the heads of this Hydra, the third follows, which as it riseth, I shall likewise la­bour to destroy. And it is this,

The Reasons or Arguments why those persons unto whom this power is committed, should carefully and conscionably maintain and use those Privi­ledges with which they are intrusted.

The Reasons hee gives for this, are these two:

First, From the dammage and losse which our Predecessors have suffe­red [Page 32]for mis-usage and non-usage of those Priviledges, and Immunities, which by the favour of former Princes have been bestowed on us.

In prosecuting whereof, though hee cite the Charter of Edward the third, the first of his Reigne, to free the City from bearing the offences of particular ministers of Justice, yet hee tels you, If the Com­mon-councell either not use, or mis-use their Priviledges, they may ex­pect to smart for it, as their Predecessours did; and here hee instanceth in the fifteenth yeer of Edward the third, What it cost the City for not fully using their free Customs and Liberties: whence hee observes, That it is not enough for us to use some of our Priviledges, but wee must use them all.

My Lord, I shall urge no more upon your Lordship, and the rest of your Brethren in this place, then that you would remem­ber Mr. Bellamies observation: which is, That your Predecessors have smarted for not fully using their Priviledges, and therefore it is not enough for you to use some of your Priviledges, but you must use them all.

I say so too, my Lord, Mr. Bellamy and I in this are both of a mind, it is not therefore enough for your Lordship to use the power of the Sword at home, or abroad in the City onely, which is but some of your Priviledge, but you must use it in Common-councell too, by reserving in your selfe, the power of laying it by when you please, and taking it up againe when you please, whether with, or with­out the Commons consent, or else you doe not use all your Privi­ledge.

Nor is it enough for you to use your assenting and consenting voyces in Common-Councell onely, as the Commons doe use them, (which is indeed all their Priviledge, but onely some of yours,) but you must use your Negative voyce also in Common-councell, when your judgement tels you, it is for the Cities good, or else you doe not use all your Priviledge.

Yet doe I not close with Mr. Bellamy, in that Conclusion that hee draws from hence, That because you are bound to use all your Priviledges, therefore you must use more then all.

Nor doe I conclude, that because you grant to the Commons, the choyce of some Officers, are you therefore bound to grant them the choyce of all, as Mr. Bellamie would have you? which is the same as this: that because the Law grants mee an interest in some of the Land [Page 33]of the Kingdome, it ought therefore to grant mee an Interest in all.

For I think, as Mr. Bellamy thinks, but something more: Hee thinks it much better to use and keep what you have then to lose all; so think I by your Negative voyces: but then hee would have you to require more then all; that, I think, is usurpation.

But the more to back this observation of his own, well raised, but ill managed, that you must use not onely some, but all your Pri­viledges; hee tels you they are not wanting about the King, that would bee glad to fill their Coffers with City coyn, if they could pick a hole in its Coat.

And hee recites a Record of the sixteenth of Richard the second, wherein the Major, Aldermen, and Sheriffes were deeply fined, and the City Liberties seized by the King, because they had abused City Pri­viledges.

My Lord, I shall commend to your consideration, a short view of the Record it selfe, which is here cited by Mr. Bellamy, as if it made much for his Argument, when indeed nothing can make more against him.

The Record runs thus: The King granted a Commission to inquire of all and singular errors, defects, and misprisions in the City of London, for want of good government in the Major, Sheriffes and Aldermen of the said City.

Herein I shall desire your Lordship to take notice of two things:

First, from whom this Government was expected: which was not from the Commons, but from the Major, Sheriffes and Aldermen; so runs the Commission.

Secondly, for whose fault did both they and the City suffer? it was not for the fault of the Commons, but for the fault of the Ma­jor, Sheriffes and Aldermen.

My Lord, if ever the like businesse come upon the stage againe, that enquiry bee made into the Government of the City of Lon­don, how it stands, it will bee after the same manner.

The Commission will run thus: to enquire what hath befaln for want of good Government in the Major, Sheriffes and Aldermen, not in the Commons, and how will you answer it? by saying the fault is not ours, for wee gave up the City Government into the hands of the Commons, let them look to it; wee gave them an ab­solute [Page 34]power of making Common-councels to sit as long as they pleased; and of making what Laws they pleased, by plurality of their own voyces, without us or our consent: Doe you think such an answer will serve your turn? No, (my Lord) it will bee re­plyed, you were by your Charters invested in this Power, You, not the Commons, were made the City Governours. The Com­mission will not bee answered thus, that Mr. Bellamy laid a claim to your Priviledges, and therefore you let them goe, but it will fall heavy upon you, because you therefore let them goe, and your punishment will bee just, when you, from whom good Govern­ment is expected, give up all government out of your hands in­to the hands of the Commons, at the motion of Mr. Bellamy.

Thus, my Lord, You see good reason why you should fit fast in the power which the mercy of God, the favour of sundry Kings, and your own Charters have seated you in: and use not onely some, but all your Priviledges, so you doe not use more then all; fince, if ever enquiry bee made, and a hole bee sought in the Cities coat, it will bee no excuse for you, that you at the request of Mr. Bellamy, gave over your priviledges into the hands of the Commons: it being your duty to use them, and to use them fully your selfe, to whose charge they are committed.

Mr. Bellamies second Argument is drawn from the obligation of a sacred Oath.

Where you finde him Common-placing about the distinctions, antiquity, authority, and binding power of an Oath.

To which I leave him, and come to make mine own observa­tions out of what hee here saith.

And first let mee ask whether Mr. Bellamy himselfe have not in some sense or degree violated this sacred Oath, by publishing with­out the consent of the Common-councell, (whereof hee is a mem­ber) so desperate a clamor against the very ancient customes of the City as this, to the disturbance of its peace.

Secondly, Let mee tell your Lordship, that you and your Bre­thren the Aldermen, are tyed also by another Oath to maintaine the Priviledges, not onely of the City in generall, but your own Priviledges in particular; and till it bee proved that a Negative voyce in Common-councell doth not belong to the Lord Major and Aldermen, nor taking up the Sword in Common-councell, and de­parting [Page 35]when hee sees good, doth not belong to the Lord Major, (which I would bee loath to fast, till either of them bee proved) I must put you in minde of your last Oath; that as you tender that, you keep them still in your hands, and maintain them.

Thirdly, I must tell you that you violate the very Oath of a Free-man if you doe not so.

I shall give you that Oath, as Mr. Bellamy layes it down: It is this. The Franchises and Customes of this City you shall maintain. Now it is apparent, that the Lord Major and Aldermens Negative voyce in making Laws, their absolute power in choosing some City-Officers, and the Lord Majors power to take up the Sword in Common-councell at his discretion, and goe away: These are all Cu­stomes of the City, and have been so time out of minde; and there­fore I must put every Free-man of the City in minde to take heed, lest thus indevouring to overthrow the City Charters and Cu­stomes, as Mr. Bellamy doth, hee violate his Oath, which runs thus: The Franchises and Customes of this City you shall main­taine.

Thus you see Mr. Bellamy hath now gone through all that hee proposed to himselfe, and I have traced him. Hee hopes he hath fully proved every particular, and I hope I have fully disproved him in every particular.

And now as St. Paul said to Philemon in the behalf of Onesimus; hee also speakes to you, telling you, Though hee might injoyne you to that which is convenient, yet for Loves sake bee rather intreats you.

You are beholding to him, if hee doe there intreat you, where hee might injoyn you.

But by what Law might hee injoyn you? by none that I know of unlesse it bee Club-law, for all other Law is for you, and I am something afraid lest his injunction should bee of that nature.

For you may remember hee tels you in his Epistle, That bee deales like a forward and unexperiented Souldier, who more hardy then wary, loving his Countries Liberty, adventures to begin the Onset, to provoke and stirre up more grave and skilfull Commanders, to follow on in hope of victory: which simile, though I may not construe in the worst sense, and though I will charitably beleeve, it means no more then to encourage others by like claime and more earnest­nesse rather to word you out of your Priviledges then Sword [Page 36]you out, yet I cannot assure you that the multitude will all take it in that sense.

Nor can I bee perswaded, that when Mr. Bellamy hath raised but the tongues of a City in clamor, that it will bee then in his power to hold their hands: especially when hee gives them this encouragement, that it is in their power to injoyn you.

But (I hope) God will preserve your Lordship, and your Brethren in more safety, and indue this City with more wise­dome and peace, and therefore I leave the matter of injoyning to see what it is that hee intreats for.

And that is, For Love and Peace sake to joyn with them by your con­sent and assistance to settle all their Rights and Priviledges upon their own basis.

I confesse this is but a reasonable motion, and so just, that I am confident your Lordship, together with your Brethren, will not deny, only you may please, first to see it proved, that they are not so already.

And this hee argues will much make for the Cities safety, and for the service of the King and Parliament.

But I must answer, the City will neither bee in a good condi­tion themselves, nor any way serviceable to the State, by being all head; but by being a well-composed body of Head and mem­bers.

And here (hee saith) hee could weep out his owne eyes: and let out his own bowels, if thereby hee could but penetrate into the breast of your Lordship, and those worthy Aldermen your Brethren in this nick of time (it seems hee is upon the spur, and cannot stay) to save a sinking City, if not a dying Kingdome.

I Answer, hee shall not need to doe any of this if hee will bee quiet: Let him but hold his Tongue, and it shall bee all ready done for him: the City shall bee preserved from sinking from a Body into a monster by beeing all head: and the dying kingdome will bee in a farre easier way to bee preserved; when every member of the City in his proper sphere, and not in ano­ther mans Office, shall contribute helpe and influence into it.

And now hee puts you in minde, what is the Enemies maxime, Divide & impera, divide and rule.

I grant it is their maxime, but I conceive it is meant rather of [Page 37]such a Division as hee goes now about to make in the City, by setting the Lord Major, Aldermen and Commons together by the ears under pretence of Charters, Priviledges, and I know not what; such a Division as this will make for the enemies advantage, and not an orderly Division of the City into head and members.

Hee tels you, that the God of unity, the Charters of the City, and constitution of the Court of Common-councell makes you one.

Still I answer, it is one Body, not one Head.

And now (hee saith) hee wants words to expresse his sorrow; hee might have added, as hee wants Arguments to make good his claime.

Hee tels you, the Commons stand ready with stretcht out armes, to embrace you, and therefore you must afford them like mutuall embraces.

What's meant by that? The Commons stretch out their armes, would have you rise from your seats of distinction and order, and come and incorporate your selves into them, and bee no greater, or rather lower then they; this hee meanes by their embraces, and you on the other hand must doe so, and that is his mutuall embraces.

And now hee Conjures you in the Apostles words, If therefore there bee any consolation in Christ, if any comfort of Love, if any fel­lowship of the Spirit, if any bowels and mercies in you. What then? that you would grant their just desires; That is, doe them Justice, right or wrong; secondly, In love and peace to settle, and estate them in their Rights and Dues: and under that pretence, settle and estate them in your Rights and Dues; and lastly, to bee of the same minde with them; hee meanes, to give away your own Rights and Pri­viledges, because they would have it so: and then, Oh quam bo­num & jucundum! Oh how good and pleasant a thing is it for Brethren thus to live together in unity!

And here hee brings a fresh supply of Arguments, which hee hath all this while kept in reserve: I must tell him it is high time to bring them out, (if not too late) for his other are quite routed.

First, That as you are the head, and Governours of this City; What of that? you therefore ought to continue so, and not misplace the Government committed to your charge in the hands of others.

Secondly, As you are bound by severall sacred Oaths. viz. You shall maintain the Customes of the City; which you cannot doe by letting goe your Negative voyces.

Thirdly, As you tender the welfare and Liberties of your posterity; which [Page 38]bindes you not to give from them what you cannot give to them a­gain, that is, the very life and glory of the City, which is their Pri­viledges.

But hee forbeares, and so will I, and joyn issue with him in clo­sing up all with the same City History upon Record; which hee himself relates, beseeching you to consider seriously of it, and to make such application of it, as wisdome it selfe shall dictate to you.

The Story is this; In the yeere 1389. William Vennor Major, and John Walcut, and John Lony Sheriffes, with the then Aldermen, who all by name stand blemisht upon Record; that for the errors, defects, and misprisions in their Government, they were fined at 3000 marks, and the City Liberties seised on by the King: can you imagine that ever any wa­ter or Aqua fortis will wash and weare off this obloquy and reproach from them? no nor the like obloquy and reproach or a greater from you, when for a worse fault then mis-government, I mean for not government at all, but resigning your own power and trust into the hands of others, it shall fall heavy upon you.

Consider on the other hand, what the wisest of Kings will tell you, that a good name is better then oyntment; better then the daubing flatteries of Mr. Bellamy.

But suffer mee to give you notice, that this good name will scarce belong, or bee given to you: If for your lasting fame, but lasting shame, it shall stand upon Record to after ages when wee are dead and gone; That in Anno 1645. when the Right Honourable Thomas At­kin was Lord Major, the Right Worshipfull William Gibbs, and Ri­chard Chambers, were Sheriffes, and that learned and able Lawyer and Patriot of his Countries Libertie, John Glynn was Recorder: and such and such worthy Knights and Gentlemen (all which men will very hardly beleeve you to bee by such an action) were Aldermen: that then (as Diogenes prophecyed of the world) the City was turned upside down, the head was laid lower then the feet; The Antipodes of Government was placed in the Commoners, and then by your assistance and consent; London, (I say the Commonalty of London) was not restored, but invested; not to their, but with your for ever lost Liberties and Priviledges. Consider what I say, and the Lord give you understanding in all things.

FINIS. [...].

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Text Creation Partnership. Searching, reading, printing, or downloading EEBO-TCP texts is reserved for the authorized users of these project partner institutions. Permission must be granted for subsequent distribution, in print or electronically, of this EEBO-TCP Phase II text, in whole or in part.