On the 9th July the Common Council approved of the presentation of a petition to the king for a confirmation of the City’s charter.(1226) The time was not inopportune, inasmuch as a "free and voluntary present" to Charles had recently been set on foot,(1227) and the maxim of _do ut des_ was one well understood between the City and the Crown. It is not surprising, therefore, that on the 17th an Order in Council was passed to the effect that the lord treasurer should assure the City that his majesty was highly sensible of their loyalty and affection, and would renew their charter with additions if desired and found fit.(1228) The lord chancellor happening to be in the city one day (8 Aug.) on the business of the "free and voluntary present," the civic authorities embraced the opportunity of urging him to press their suit with the king, whereupon "it pleased my lord chancellor to express much affection and forwardness to this great concernment of the city," and he promised to see the king on the matter that same evening, and to get the attorney-general, who was about to leave town, to defer his journey if the City would at once forward its old charter to Mr. Attorney for the purpose of renewal. This the Common Council readily agreed to do.(1229) In spite, however, of the exertions of the lord chancellor and of the City, no renewal of the charter of Charles I was obtained until nearly two years had elapsed. (M636) In October the mayor, aldermen and recorder attended his majesty in council, by request, when Charles repeated the promise made in his letter from Breda not to diminish or alter the rights of the City; but at the same time he informed them of his intention to make one exception, _pro hac vice_, by removing four or five of the aldermen who had been "faulty in the late troubles," and of putting others "of known worth and ability" in their places. He promised also to safeguard the City’s interest in the Act then pending in parliament relative to corporations.(1230) The City could not do otherwise than submit,(1231) and the king carried out his threat. The commissioners who had been appointed under the Great Seal to "regulate" the Corporation removed at least two of the aldermen, viz., Tempest Miller, of Candlewick ward, and William Love, of Portsoken, who had recently been elected one of the city’s representatives in parliament, their places being filled up by Sir Thomas Rich and Sir Thomas Bludworth, the king’s own nominees.(1232) (M637)