THE Courts of Wardmotes are Court Leets, and are an ancient Franchise of the City of London: Which have been held Time out Mind, and are confirmed by divers Acts of Parliament. The Government of these Courts is in the Court of Aldermen: who are a Court of Record, and Conservators of the Rights and Franchises of the said City; and are sworn to uphold and maintain the same.

The said Courts of Wardmote are held by the Lord Maiors as Stewards thereof, or by their Deputies. And all Returns of Officers chose, and other Matters which concern the Government of the said City, transacted in the said Courts of Wardmotes, are always made to the Court of Aldermen: who have Cognizance thereof.

By ancient Custom the Aldermen of each respective Ward were chosen by the Inhabitants of the same; paying Scot, and bearing Lot, which by some late Acts of Common Council, is restrained to Freemen only; viz.

By an Act made the 20th of September, 1711. It is (inter alia) Enacted, that from thenceforth in all Elections of Aldermen of this City, there shall be named, elected, and presented to the Court of Lord Maior and Aldermen, for the Time being, by the Housholders of that Ward which shall be destitute of an Alderman, being Freemen of the said City, and paying Scot, and bearing Lot, an Alderman, and one able and sufficient Citizen and Freeman of this City, &c.

An Election is lately made of an Alderman for the Ward of Bishopsgate, pursuant to the said Act of Common Council.

The Lord Maior makes a Return to the Court of Aldermen of * A.B. as duely elected, and called for him to be sworn into the Office.

A Petition was presented to the Court of Aldermen by many Inhabitants of the said Ward, complaining of an undue Return.

Which said Petition his Lordship refused to be read in the said Court, before the Person he had returned, should be sworn.

Quer. I. Whether the Court of Aldermen ought not first to read and and consider the Petition, before the Person he returned, be sworn?

I am of Opinion, that the Court of Aldermen are in Justice bound to read the Petition; and likewise to conclude, and come to a Resolution upon it, before the Person returned by the Lord Maior, be sworn and admitted into Office; if the Court of Aldermen have Power to do Right to the Petitioners; as I think they have. It must be a great Injustice to them, as well as Reproach to their own Proceedings, to defer the Consideration of a Petition, till it shall be too late to give relief upon it.

Quer. II. Hath the Court of Aldermen a Right to judge and determine concerning the Merits of the Election, notwithstanding any thing contained in the said Act of Common Council?

I think the Court of Aldermen have an unquestionable Right to judge of the Election. It has upon former Occasions appeared, that they have immemorially exercised such Power, of reconsidering the Election upon the Petition of the Electors: And that they have, as the Case was done right to the Ward, even against the Report of the Lord Maior, by admitting the Person, who appeared to them to be duly chosen into such Office, tho' not returned. And this Power of the Court of Aldermen, I conceive, neither is, nor can be abridged, or taken away by the Act of Common Council.

Quere III. If so, is the Court at Liberty to judge upon the same ab integro? Or, are they confined to the Objections delivered to my Lord Maior, by the Scrutiners in such Elections?

The Court of Aldermen are at Liberty, nay, I think, they must in Justice adjudge upon the Merits of the Election ab integro, if insisted on by either side, and cannot be confined to the Objections of the Scrutiners. The Order of the Common Council in that respect is but directory, as to the Proceeding of the Lord Maior, and does not extend to the Court of Aldermen: who are in nature of a Superiour Court, and must re-examine the State of the whole Election, if required; as necessary to do Justice to the Parties.
N. LECHMERE, May 11th 1713.

IT is there enacted, (inter alia) that the Scrutiners in any Scrutiny upon an Election of Alderman, shall within ten Days after a Receipt of a Copy of the Pole-Book, deliver to the Lord Maior, a Copy of their Objections with their Reasons.

Quer. I. Whether Shopkeepers, paying Scot, and bearing Lot, lodging in such Ward, and being Freemen of the said City, have not a Right to vote in such Elections?

Answer. A Shopkeeper is in Law, and within the Intent of this By-Law, as I conceive, Domus Mansionis: And therefore a Shopkeeper within the Ward, being otherwise qualified, hath a Right to Vote in such Elections, as I conceive.

Quer. II. Hath the Court of Aldermen a Right to judge and determine concerning the Merits of the Election; notwithstanding any thing contained in the said two Acts of Common Council?

Answ. The Lord Maior and Court of Aldermen are not concluded by the Report of the Lord Maior; but being obliged to admit, and swear the Person that is elected, and presented to them by the Housholders, must of necessity, as incident thereto, have a Power to enquire into the Merits of the Election: especially, if complaint be made by the Electors, that the Report is wrong.

Quer. II. If so, is the Court at Liberty to Judge upon the same ab integro? Or, are they confined to the Objections delivered to my Lord Maior?

Answ. The last By-Law was intended only to prevent Delays by the Lord Maior. And therefore hath prescribed a Method for his Proceeding; but doth not, as I conceive, extend to the Court of Aldermen. But they may enquire into the Right of Election without regard had to any such Proceedings: to the End that they might admit and swear the right Person who is not bound by any respect of the Scrutiners.
JOHN PRATT.

There was also a notable Case lately of Alderman Conyers (now Sir Gerard Conyers Kt.) and Alderman Delme (now Sir Peter Delme Kt.) and the Common Council, opposing their Election, which was as follows.

THE Courts of Wardmotes are Courts Leet, and are an ancient Franchise of the City of London,