William IIId. and Anne. See Willis Not. Parl. in Carlifle. In 1692, a proceeding of this corporation respecting C. Mufgrave, Efq; at that time its reprefentative, and. the perfons concerned in it, received the cenfure of the Houfe of Commons. I have extracted the following account of it, from the Journals, (Vol. X. p. 700, &c.) for the use of those who are more particularly interested in this caufe, viz. November 16, 1692, “The House being informed, that the council of the city of Carlisle had disfranchifed Christopher Mulgrave, Efq; a member of this Houfe, by an order of the faid council, of the twentyninth day of july laft; which order was delivered in at the clerk's table, and there read; and is as followeth; viz. The City of Carlife. At the Council held the twenty ninth day of july, Anno Domini 1692; present the Mayor and the major part of the aldermen, and capital citizens of the city aforef•!; The question being put, Whether or no Mr. Christopher Musgrave, a reprefentative for this city of Carlisle, be disfranchifed from his freedom within the faid city; It is anfwered, Nemine contradicente, That he be diffranchised; And he is hereby accordingly deprived from his freedom, as aforefaid." "And the town clerk of the faid city being called in, and at the bar examined touching the fame; and being withdrawn ; Refolved, Nemine contradicente, That the disfranchifing of Chriftopher Mufgrave, Efq; a Member of this House, by the Mayor, aldermen and citizens of the city of Carlile, is a breach of the privilege of this Houfe. Whereupon Mr. Mufgrave defiring That only fuch as were mostly concerned in the faid matter, might be punished for the faid breach of privilege; which were John How, fenior, late Mayor of Carlisle, William Nicholson, Robert Jackson, fenior, Robert Jackfon, junior, Thomas Jackson, and Edward Monckhouse: Ordered, That the said John How, &c. be fent for in cuftody of the Serjeant at arms attending this House, for fuch their breach of privilege of this House." On the 5th of december following, they submitted themselves to the Houfe by petition, afking pardon for their offence. On the 7th they were brought to the bar : "Where, upon their knees, they received a reprimand from Mr. Speaker. Ordered, That the faid John How, &c. be, for the prefent, difcharged out of cuftody, paying their fees; Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Houfe, acquainting them, that the House expected, That Chriftopher Mufgrave, Efq; fhould forthwith be restored to his freedom in that city." Pa. 570. (C.) Nothing appeared in this cause, to fhew what the state of the corporation was, before the charter of Charles the firft. A cafe reported in Sir Thomas Raymond, pa. 435, contains a return made by the corporation, to a mandamus brought by one T. Haddock,,to be reftored to the office of an alderman of Carlisle, in 1681, wherein the whole inftitution is described. This cafe was a little commented upon, in the trial of Mr. Chriftian's petition, but was not not mentioned upon the prefent trial, on either fide. The return there ftates the corporation, before the charter, to have confifted of twelve counfellors or aldermen, including the Mayor; and a common-council, confifting of the twelve counsellors, and thirty two citizens chosen è gildâ mercatoriâ : Which corresponds with the different entries in the corporation books, relating to the Four of every occupation. The return is ftated at large in Tremaine Ent. 524, 535, from whence it appears, that Sir T. Raymond's account of the decision upon it is mistaken. Haddock had been removed from the office of alderman, or counfellor, for misbehaviour, by the council of aldermen. The charter of Charles the first impowered the new commoncouncil created thereby, to remove aldermen for just caufe. But the corporation prefcribed for this power, in the old council of twelve. And the court upon the argument held, that the power fo belonging to them before the charter, continued after it; although they were made a part of a new created council, to whom the fame power had been given: Because their inftitution, in this refpect, was not altered by the charter. A fhort note of the fame cafe in 1 Vent. 355, compared with the return in Tremaine, confirms the above obfervation upon Sir T. Raymond's report; viz. "It was faid by the Court, That if a corporation that hath been by prefcription, accept a new charter, wherein fome alteration is of their name, and likewise of the method in the governing part; yet their power to remove, and other franchifes which they had de temps d'ont, &c. do continue." Sir T. Raymond states the removal to have been by the common-council. I N DE X TO THE THIRD VOLUME. A. ABERBROTHICK, case, 276. Adjournment, of appeal from a poor rate, 86. ́ of Committee to give parties time, 433. Adjudging, right by, 420. Admillion to corporation, how to be ftamped, 184, 7- Agency, evidence of, in bribery, 451, 2. Airfhire cafe in 1781, 366. Aldborough cafe in 1696, 480, 494, 5, 500. Appeal, from poor rate, 65, 86, 90-97. from Court of Seffion, effect of, 366, 7. Attorney, privilege of, as a witness, 451. B. Baker and Jardine, cafe of, 189, 192. Banker's drafts and books, evidence from, 448, 451. Barony, burghs of, in Scotland, 310. Bath, corporation, cafe of, 324. Bennett, cafe of, as freeman of Carlisle, 574. Bishopfcaftle cafe in 1696, 435. Black's Treatife on Scotch boroughs cited, 283, 309, 323. Blackflone's Commentaries cited, 46, 7, 212, 479, 495. Blamire, George, his evidence in Carlifle, 514. Blennerhallet's cafe in Carlifle, 519, 551, 565. Bribery, |