Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	court_n	great_a	king_n	2,817	5	3.7634	3	true

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

publike invasion we agree that the subject may be charged The quaere then is whether the King bee sole Judge of the danger and of the remedy or rather whether he be so sole Judge that his meere affirmation and notification of a danger foreseene by him at a distance or pretended onely to be foreseene shall be so unquestionable that he may charge the Kingdome thereupon at his discretion though they assent not nor apprehend the danger as it is forewarned J. Crooke proves the contrary thus If danger sayes he be far distant if it be in report only of French Armadoes and Spanish preparations c. though it be certaine and not pretensive yet Parliamentary aid may be speedy enough and if it be imminent then this way of Ship-scot will not be speedy enough for either the design● is really to have new Ships built and that will require longer time than a Parliament or else money onely is aimed at whereby to arme other Ships and for this the Law hath provided a more expedite way than by Ship-scot in case of imminent danger If then the King have power to presse all mens persons and Ships and all are bound exponere se sua and to serve propriis sumpti●us when imminent danger is and this defence hath alwayes beene held effectuall enough it is consequent that if he be not destitute of competent aid in present distresses he cannot pretend a greater necessity in dangers more remote when they are but suspected or perhaps pretended onely My Lord Bramston sayes here that there is a necessity of preventing a necessity and that the Sea is part of the Kingdome and therefore of necessity to be guarded as the Kingdome The answer is That the safety of the Kingdome does not necessarily depend upon the Ship-scot and so this necessity being removed the necessity grounded upon this fals off of it selfe For if the Kingdome may escape ruine at hand when it is a storme without Ship-money it may much more escape it afar off being but a cloud But grant the Sea to be a part of the Kingdome to some purposes yet how is it a part essentiall or equally valuable or how does it appeare that the fate of the Land depends wholly upon the dominion of the Sea France subsists now without the regiment of the Sea and why may not we as well want the same If England quite spend it selfe and poure out all its treasure to preserve the Seigniory of the Seas it is not certaine to exceed the Navall force of France Spaine Holland c. And if it content if selfe with its ancient strength of shipping it may remaine as safe as it hath formerly done Nay I cannot see that either necessity of ruine or necessity of dishonour can be truly pretended out of this that France Spaine Holland c. are too potent at Sea for us The dominion of the Seas may be considered as a meer right or as an honour or as a profit to us As a right it is a theame fitter for schollers to whet their wits upon then for Christians to fight and spill bloud about and since it doth not manifestly appeare how or when it was first purchased or by what Law conveyed to us we take notice of it only as matter of wit and disputation As it is an honour to be masters of the Sea and to make others strike saile to us as they passe it s a glory fitter for women and children to wonder at then for States-men to contend about It may bee compared to a chaplet of flowers not to a diadem of gold but as it is a profit to us to fence and inclose the Sea that our neighbours ●hall not surprise us unawares its matter of moment yet it concernes us but as it doth other Nations by too insolent contestations hereupon wee may provoke God and dishonour our selves we may more probably incense our friend● then quell our enemies we may make the land a slave to the sea rather than the sea a servant to the land but I pray Master Selden to pardon me for this transition and I returne my matter if the Kingdome could not possibly subsist without Ship-money in such a danger yet there is no necessity that the King should be so sole Judge of that danger as that he may judge therein contrary to the opinion and perhaps knowledge of other men I allow the King to be supreame and consequently sole Judge in all cases whatsoever as to the right and as to the diffusion of Judgement but as to the exercise and restraint of judgement he is not nor ought not to be accounted sole Judge In matters of Law the King must create Judges and sweare them to judge uprightly and impartially and for the sub●ect against himselfe if Law so require yea though he be of contrary judgement himselfe and by his Letters sollicite the contrary The Kings power is as the disgestive faculty in nature all parts of the body contribute heat to it for their owne benefit that they may receive backe againe from it a better concocted and prepared supply of nourishment as it is their office to contribute so it is the stomacks to distribute And questionlesse sole judgement in matters of State does no otherwise belong to the King then in matters of Law or points of Theologie Besides as sole judgement is here ascr●bed to the King he may affirme dangers to be foresee●e when he will and of what nature he will if ●e say onely Datum est nobis intelli●i as he does in his Writ c. To his sole indisputable judgement it is left to lay charges as often and as great as ●e pleases And by this meanes if he regard not his word more than his profit he may in one yeare draine all the Kingdome of all its treasure and leave us the most despicable slaves in the whole world It is ridiculous also to alleage as J. Iones does that it is contrary to presumption of Law to suspect falsity in the King for if Law presume that the King will not falsly pretend danger to vex his subjects of his owne meere motion yet no Law nor reason nor policy will presume that the King may not be induced by mis-information to grieve the people without cause The Sunne is not more visible than this truth our best Kings King Charles King Iames Queene Elizabeth and all the whole ascending line have done undue illegall things sometimes contrary to the rights and Franchises of England being mis-informed but having consulted with the Judges or States in Parliament they have all retracted and confessed their error Nay there is nothing more knowne or universally assented to than this that Kings may be bad and it is more probable and naturall that evill may be expected from good Princes than good from bad Wherefore since it is all one to the State whether evill proceed from the King mediately or immediately out of malice or ignorance and since wee know