In March of this year (1673) an individual named Philip De Cardonel came forward with a scheme for raising money by way of annuities to be granted by the city to every subscriber of £20 or more.(1394) The matter was in the first instance brought before the Court of Aldermen, who, upon consideration, declared that the proposal appeared to them "very faire and reasonable, and in all likelihood of very great advantage to the city," and forthwith resolved themselves into a committee of the whole court to treat with Cardonel and take such further proceedings as might be thought requisite.(1395) In the following month (11 April) the same proposals were submitted to the Common Council, where they met with similar favour. The court also appointed a committee to take them into further consideration, promising in the meantime that no advantage should be taken or benefit derived from the scheme without the special leave and consent of the proposer.(1396) Although the committee reported favourably on the scheme(1397) it was allowed to drop. (M705) By February of the next year (1674) trade had become so bad that a number of the inhabitants of the city petitioned the Common Council (13 Feb.) to seek some relief from parliament. An address was accordingly drawn up, setting forth the miserable state to which the city had been reduced by the ravages of the plague and the fire, the increase of new buildings in the suburbs, which not only injured the trade of the city, but afforded a retreat for disorderly persons, and excessive taxation (the city being called upon to pay the same amount of taxes as in its most prosperous days), and praying the Commons to apply some timely remedy. The address was to have been laid before the house on Monday, the 23rd February,(1398) but no mention of it appears in the Commons Journal. On the 24th the House was prorogued. (M706) In September (1674) the old question again cropt up as to the power of the Court of Aldermen to veto matters ordained by the Common Council. The question had arisen, it will be remembered, in January, 1649,(1399) when Reynardson, the mayor, got up and left the Common Council, followed by the aldermen, and the court, instead of breaking up according to custom, proceeded to pass measures in their absence. Its action on this occasion was reported to parliament, and the house signified its approval of the court’s proceedings and passed an ordinance which practically deprived the Court of Aldermen of all control over the Common Council. Since that time the matter had remained dormant, until jealousy between the two bodies was again excited by the Common Council passing an Act (17 Sept., 1674) for compelling the aldermen to reside within the city under the penalty of a fine of £500.(1400) Against the passing of any such Act the Recorder, on behalf of the Court of Aldermen, formally reported their protest to the Common Council, and the Commons as formerly protested against that protest (13 Nov.).(1401)