Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	case_n	court_n	judgement_n	1,563	5	5.9494	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A08939	The case of shipmony briefly discoursed, according to the grounds of law, policie, and conscience and most humbly presented to the censure and correction of the High Court of Parliament, Nov. 3. 1640.	Parker, Henry, 1604-1652.	1640 (1640)	STC 19216; ESTC S114002	21,342	52

The Case of SHIPMONY Briefly Discoursed ACCORDING TO THE Grounds of Law Policie and Conscience AND MOST HVMBLY presented to the Censure and Correction of the High Court of PARLIAMENT Nov. 3. 1640. Printed Ann. Dom. 1640. THE Case of SHIP-MONEY Briefly discoursed GREAT ● Fires happening in Townes or Cities are sometimes the cause that other contiguous houses are spoyld and demolisht besides those which the flame it selfe ceazes So now in the case of Shipmony not onely the judgement it selfe which hath beene given against the subject doth make a great g●p and breach in the rights and Franchises of England but the arguments and pleadings also which conduced to that judgement have extended the mischiefe further and scarce left anything unviolated Such strange contradiction there hath beene amongst the pleaders and dissent amongst the Judges even in those Lawes which are most fundamentall that we are lef● in a more confused uncertainty of our highest priviledges and those customes which are most essentiall to Freedome then we were before To introduce the legality of the Ship-scot such a Prerogative hath been maintained as destroyes all other Law and is incompatible with popular liberty and such art hath beene used to deny traverse avoid or frustrate the true force or meaning of all our Lawes and Charters that if wee grant Ship-money upon these grounds with Ship-money we grant all besides To remove therefore this uncertainty which is the mother of all injustice confusion and publike dissention it is most requisite that this grand Councell and Tres●ault Court of which none ought to thinke dishonourably would take these Ard●a Regni these weighty and dangerous difficulties into serious debate an solemnly end that strife which no other place of Judicature can so effectually extinguish That the King ought to have aid of his subjects in time of danger and common aid in case of common danger is laid down for a ground and agreed upon by all sides But about this aid there remain●s much variety and contrariety of opinion amongst the greatest Sages of our Law and the principall points therein controverted are these foure First by what Law the King may compell aid Secondly when it is to bee levied Thirdly how it is to be levied Fourthly what kinde of aid it must be 1 Some of the Judges argue from the Law of Nature that since the King is head and ●ound to protect therefore he must have wherewithall to protect but this proves only that which no man denies The next Law insisted upon is Prerogative but it is not punctually explained what Prerogative whether the Prerogative naturall of all Kings or the Prerogative legall of the Kings of England Some of the Judges urge that by Law there is naturall allegeance due to the King from the subject and it doth not stand with that allygeance that the Princes cannot compell aid but must require the common consent therein Others presse that the Law hath ●etled a property of goods in the subject and it doth not stand with that property that the King may demand them without consent Some take it for granted that by Royall Prerogative as it is part of the Lawes of England the King may charge the Nation without publike consent and therefore it being part of the Law it is no invasion upon Law Others take it for granted that to levie money without consent is unjust and that the Kings prerogative cannot extend to any unjust thing So many contrary points of warre doe our Trumpets sound at once and in such confusion doe our Judges leave us whilest either side takes that for granted which by the other is utterly denied By these grounds Royall prerogative and popular liberty may seeme things irreconciliable though indeed they are not neither doth either side in words affirme so much though their proofes bee so contradictory King Charles his maxime is that the peoples liberty strenghteus the Kings prerogative and the Kings prerogative is to maintain the peoples liberty and by this it seemes that both are compatible and that prerogative is the more subordinate of the two The Kings words also since have beene upon another occasion That he ever intended his people should enjoy property of good● and liberty of persons holding no King so great as he that was King of a rich and free people and if they had not property of goods and liberty of persons they could bee neither rich nor free Here we see that the liberty of the subject is a thing which makes a King great and that the Kings prerogative hath only for its ends to maintaine the peoples liberty Wherefore it is manifest that in nature there is more favour due to the liberty of the subject then to the Prerogative of the King since the one is ordained onely for the preservation of the other and then to salve these knots our dispute must be what prerogative the peoples good and profit will beare not what liberty the Kings absolutenesse or prorogative may admit● and in this dispute it is more just that we appeale to written Lawes than to the breasts of Kings themselves For we know Nationall Lawes are made by consent of Prince and people both and so cannot bee conceived to be prejudiciall to either side but where the meere will of the Prince is Law or where some few Ministers of his may alleage what they will for Law in his behalfe no mediocrity or justice is to be expected we all know that no slave or villaine can be subjected to more miserable bondage than to be left meerly to his Lords absolute discretion and we all see that the thraldome of such is most grievous which have no bounds set to their Lord discretion Let us then see what Fortescue writes not regard what Court-dependants doe interpret and his words are ●ol 84. cap. 36. Rex Angliae nec per se nec per suos Ministros Tollagia subsidia aut quaevis onera alia impo●it l●gis suis aut leges corum 〈◊〉 aut nova condit sine concessione vel asse●su totius regni sui in Parliamento suo expresso These words are full and generall and plain and in direct affirmance of the ancient Law and usage of England and it is not sufficient for the Kings Counsell to say that these words extend not to Ship-money for if there were any doubt the interpretation ought rather to favour liberty than Prerogative It is not sufficient for Judge Iones to say that it is proprium quarto modo to a King and an inseparable naturall Prerogative of the Crowne to raise monies without assent unlesse he first prove that such Prerogative be good and profitable for the people and such as the people cannot subsist at all without it nay such as no Nation can subsist without it This word Prerogative hath divers acceptions sometimes it is taken for the altitude of Honour sometimes for the latitude of Power So we say the Prerogative of an Emperour is greater than that of

Parliaments and to abhorre the grosse delusive suggestions of such as disparage that kinde of Councell May lie rather con●ide in that Community which can have no other end but their owne happinesse in his greatnesse thè● in Papists Prelates and Projectors to whom the publick disunion is advantagious May he affect that gentle Prerogative which stands with the happinesse freedome and riches of his people and 〈◊〉 that terrible Scopter which does as much avert the hearts as it doth deb●lita●e the hands and exhaust the purses of his Subjects May he at last learnd by 〈◊〉 that the grievance of all 〈◊〉 that that mischiefe which makes all mischiefes 〈◊〉 and almost hopelesse in England at this day is that Parliaments are clouded and disused and suffered to be 〈◊〉 by the ill boding incendi●ries of our State May it lustly enter into his beleefe that it is impossible for any Kingdome to deny publicke assent for their 〈…〉 when publicke danger is 〈…〉 and when it is fairely required and not by projects extorted that no Nation can unnaturally seeke its owne 〈…〉 may make their Subjects purses their owne private coffers if they will demand due things at due times and by due meanes 4. I come now to the last difficulty about the condition and nature of such aydes as are due by Law from the Subject to the King Though much have beene argued both at the barre and on the Bench for the King that he may raise moneyes from his Subjects without consent by Law Prerogative and necessity Yet at last because the Petition of Right absolutely crosses this tenet it is restored to us backe againe and yeelded that the King may not impose a pecuniary charge by way of Tollage but onely a personall one by way of service And now all our controversie ends in this that we must contest whether the Ship-scot be a ●ecuniary or a personall charge For though the intent of the Writ and the office of the Sh●●iffe be to raise moneyes onely yet the words of the Writ and the pretence of State is to build and prepare Ships of warre The Kingdome generally takes this to be a 〈◊〉 delusion and imposture and doubtlesse it is but a pick lock tricke to overthrow all liberty and propriety of goods and it is a great shame that so many Judges should be abetters to such fraudulent practice contrived against the State It is not lawfull for the King to demand moneyes as moneyes but it is lawfull to demand moneyes under another wrong name and under this wrong name all former Lawes and Liberties shall be as absolutely cancelled as if they had beene meere cobwebs or enacted onely out of meere derision If former lawes made to guard propriety of goods were just and grounded upon good reason why are they by this grosse fallacie or childish abuse defeated If they were not just or reasonable what needes such a fond subtiltie as this why should they not be fairely avoided by Law Why were they made at all But be this invention what it will yet we see it is new if it be quashed the State is but where it was we are still as our Ancestors left us and since our preceeding Kings never heretofore put it in use in the most necessitous calamitous times we may from hence infer●e that the plea of State necessity falls off of it selfe if we admit not of this innovation then the State suffers not but if we admit it no necessity being of it we can frame no other reason for our so doing but that our former franchises and priviledges were unjust and therefore this way they must be annulled Some of our Judges doe prove that if this were a personall service yet it were void and they cite the case of Barges and Ballingers vessells built truly for Warre in time of Imminent danger and yet these charges upon complaint made by the Subject were revoked and disclaimed But here in this case many other enormities and defects in Law Lare for if ships be intended to be built in Inland Countries a thing impossible is injoyned and if moneyes be aimed at that very ayme is against Law and if the Kingdome were to be disfranchised it were not to be done by all illegall way Besides in the Writ in the Assessement in the Sheriffes remedy against Recusants of it in the execution of Law by or after judgment many inconveniences errors and mischiefes arise many wayes and sure take the whole case as it is and since the Creation no whole Kingdome was ever cast in such a cause before Besides though the Iudges ought wholly to have be●● themselves upon this to have proved this a personall service and no pecuniary charge they have roved after necessity presumption of Law and Prerogative and fearce said any thing at all hereof My Lord Brainston argues very eagerly that personall services by Sea and Land are due to the King in cases of extremity and all their records case and presidents prove no more and that men may be arrayed and ships pressed and that sumptibus populi but there is nothing proved that the meere raising of moneyes in this case is a personall service I. Iones indeed argues to this purpose If the Law intrust the King with so great a power over mens persons why not over their estates There is cleare reason for the contrary because the King if he should abuse mens personall aides could not inrich or profit himselfe thereby and we know it is gaine and profit it is Auri sacra fames which hath power over the breasts of men It is not ordinary for Tyrants to imbattaile hoasts of men and make them charge upon the Sea-billowes and then to gather up Cockles and Piwinckle shells in lieu of spoile as one did once but the World abounds with stories of such Princes as have offended in abusing their power over mens estates and have violated all right divine and humane to attaine to such a boundlesse power Good Kings are sometimes weake in coveting boundlesse power some affect rivality with God himselfe in power and yet places that power in doing evill not good for few Kings want power to doe good and therefore it misbecomes not sometimes good Subjects to be jealous in some things of good Kings But J. Iones farther sayes that Ships must be built and without money that cannot be done ergo This necessity hath beene answered and disproved already and I now adde that for the good of the Kingdome there is more necessity that Ship-money be damned then maintained Such unnaturall slavery seems to mee to be attendant upon this all-devouring project and such in●amy to our Ancestors our Lawes and our selves nay and such danger to the King and his posterity that I cannot imagine how any forraigne conquest should induce any thing more to be detested and abhorred Those Kings which have beene most covetous of unconfined immoderate power have beene the weakest in judgment and commonly their lives have beene poore and