In April the Town Clerk and the four clerks of the outer court (_i.e._ mayor’s court) were instructed to search the books and records of the city on the question whether or not it was the province of the lord mayor (1) to direct and put the question in the Common Council, (2) to name committees, and (3) to nominate persons to be put in election to any office.(1413) This last point especially affected the right claimed by the mayor to nominate (if not to elect) one of the sheriffs by virtue of his prerogative—a claim which had already been more than once canvassed and which was destined shortly to bring the City and the Crown into violent opposition. (M718) On the 7th September, 1675, the Court of Aldermen directed that the opinion of counsel should be taken on the power of the mayor and aldermen to put their veto on matters passed by the Common Council.(1414) After the lapse of fifteen months the opinions of Sir William Jones, the attorney-general, Sir Francis Winnington, solicitor-general, Sir John Maynard and Sir Francis Pemberton, sergeants-at-law, and of "Mr. William Steele" (_not_ a former Recorder of that name as some have supposed(1415)) were presented to the court (5 Dec., 1676);(1416) and with the exception of the last mentioned, all the lawyers declared in favour of the mayor and aldermen. There the matter was allowed to rest for a year or more until in February, 1678, the opinions of Sir William Dolben, not long since appointed the city’s Recorder, and of Jeffreys, the Common Sergeant, who was destined in a few months to succeed Dolben on the latter’s promotion to the bench, were taken and found to coincide with the opinions already delivered with the exception of that of William Steele.(1417) (M719) (M720) (M721) (M722)