[63] By the custom of the City a freeman disposing by will of his personal estate was obliged to leave his wife one-third of that estate, and to his children, if any, another third.
[64] Journal House of Commons, xx, 383, 387, 389.
[65] Repertory 129, fo. 123.
[66] Repertory 128, fos. 149-150, 204. Journal 57, fo. 110.
[67] Journal 57, fos. 119b. 120.
[68] Journal House of Commons, xx, 403, 426, 462.
[69] Journal 57, fos. 121, 121b.
[70] Journal House of Lords, xxii, 472, 474, 483. Journal 57, fo. 121. Repertory 129, fo. 218.
[71] Journal House of Lords, xxii, 499, 500. During the debate in committee, a proposal had been made to ask the opinion of the judges whether the Bill repealed any of the privileges, customs, or liberties of the City restored to them or preserved by the Act passed in 2 William and Mary for reversing the judgment on the Quo Warranto and for restoring the City its ancient rights and privileges. The proposal was negatived; but 16 lords entered a formal protest against rejecting it, whilst 25 lords protested against passing the Bill.
[72] This clause was repealed by Stat. 19, Geo. ii, c. 8. On the 24 April, 1746, the Common Council passed a general vote of thanks to the lord mayor and Aldermen who had assisted in bringing about the repeal of a clause which had been "productive of great jealousies and discontents and might, if continued, have proved subversive of the rights and liberties of the citizens of London."—Journal 59, fo. 29b.