[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 During the debate in committee, a proposal had been made to ask the opinion of the judges whether the Bill repealed any of the privileges, customs, or liberties of the City restored to them or preserved by the Act passed in 2 William and Mary for reversing the judgment on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 [72] This clause was repealed by Stat. 19, Geo.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. [73] Journal 57, fo. 149b. CHAPTER XXXVI. [Sidenote: King George II proclaimed, 15 June, 1727.] On the 15th June, 1727, the Court of Aldermen were informed by Sir John Eyles, the lord mayor, that he had received an order of council dated from Leicester House (the residence of the Prince of Wales) for his lordship and the Court to attend at eleven o'clock the next morning at Temple Bar for the purpose of proclaiming King George II. The Court thereupon agreed to be present, and instructed the lord mayor to see that they were allowed to follow in the procession immediately after the lords of the council.[74] Proclamation having been duly made the mayor and aldermen, accompanied by the Recorder, waited upon the king with an address, and afterwards proceeded to pay their compliments to the queen.[75] Another address had been drawn up by a joint committee of aldermen and common councilmen on behalf of the Common Council. But when it was submitted for approval the aldermen insisted upon exercising their right of veto--recently confirmed by parliamentary authority--and as they and the commons failed to agree on the several clauses of the address it had to be abandoned altogether. The mayor was asked to summon another court, "in pursuance to common usage and ancient right," to consider another address, but after consultation with the aldermen he declined to accede to the request.[76] [Sidenote: The king's coronation, 11 Oct., 1727.]