their opinion as I conceive is not so much as colourably to be mainteined and that to maintein the same it be not at all necessary to induce my conclusion and although to admit it it may seem perhaps no good policy of Argument but rather a great disadvantage to me to admit that without which the contrary part cannot uphold their opinion and which being admitted cannot make any thing for me yet because we are here not as Arguers at the Bar but as Judges in a high-Court and that all our ends tend to the discovery of the truth I will therefore not only admit it but will maintein it as well as I can That Custom is due by the Common-Law I collect That there was ever some Custome due by the Common Law first by the name thereof for though at this day it bee and so hath beene for more then 350 yeeres as I shall have occasion more fully anon to open unto you called in our law-Latin Custuma yet in ancient time it had no other name here amongst us for I meane not to wander into forreign-learning then Consuetudo as may appeare by the Statute of Magna Charta cap. 30. Per rectas antiquas Consuetudines for I shall anon directly prove unto you that Consuetudo in that place is not to be understood a usage as hath been said but in that sence which I take it This name Consuetudo in the same sense is also found in many ancient Records brought into this house upon the late search That this name then Consuetudo which implies an approved continuance without a known beginning should by the Common-Law be given to this Revenue more then to any other Revenue belonging to the King nay that this terme which is the common and generall name to all common and approved usages of what nature or kinde soever should be applied to this dutie rather then to any other amongst all the ancient usages and Customes which the Common-Law imbraceth cannot but denote the great antiquity thereof and more then so the allowance and approbation thereof by the Common-Law for doubtlesse if beside the antiquity of this dutie the Common-Law had not also alowed the reasonablenesse of it and in a manner the necessity of it it would never have denoted it unto us by this name of excellency above all other Customes which require reasonablenes as well as antiquity Therfore doubtlesse this duty thus favored is a Childe of the Common-Law nay farther it is of the very essence of a Custome to have his only beginning by alowance of the Common-Law for that which beginneth by private contract of partie or by Act of Parliament dependeth not wholly upon the alowance of the Common-Law by one of which three waies all things considerable in Law have their commencements cannot bee called or bee a Custome in Name or Deede moreover considering that this Custome is not limited to any one place within the Realme wee shall so little neede to be curious in affirming it to bee due by the Common-Law as wee may boldly pronounce it to be part of the Common-Law it selfe Thus you see that the very name Consuetudo proves Custome to bee a dutie by Common-Law To this may bee added that Magna Charta cap. 30. which Statute was made little more then 150 yeeres after the Conquest termeth this not only Consuetudo which as I have said implies Antiquity beyond all remembrance of a beginning but Antiqua Consuetudo not onely Custome but old and ancient Custome And in comparison to this old Custome due at Common-Law the Custome upon Staple Commodities given or increased by act of Parliament 3 E. 1. not printed was called Nova Consuetudo Before the making of which Statute of 3 E. 1. you may further see that Custome was due For an 52. H. 3. in the Statute of the Exchequer printed you may read that the Collectors of the Custome of Wools were to yeeld their accompt twice every yeere into the Exchequer But that which most of all moveth me to beleeve that this duty was and is due by the Common-Law is this That in all Cases where the Common-Law putteth the King to sustaine Charge for the protection of the Subject it alwayes yeeldeth him out of the thing protected some gaine towards the maintenance of the Charge As for the protection of Wards Lunatiques and Ideots the profits of their Lands For the maintenance of the Courts of Justice it giveth him Fines for purchase of Originall writs and Fines pro licentia Concordandi which in supposition of Law are no other than Fines paid for not proceeding according to the surety by pledges put in upon purchase of the Originall and for troubling without cause the Kings Justices who are maintained in their places at the Kings charge There are many the like profits of Court given by the common-Common-Law to the King for the maintenance of his charge in the administring of Justice This observation which might be further proved by divers other instances in things of other nature maketh me to think that because the Common-Law expecteth that the King should protect Merchants in their Trades by maintaining repairing and fortifying the Havens at home by clearing the Sea of Pirates and Enemies in their passage and by maintaining Ambassadors abroad to treate with forreigne Princes upon all such occasions That it also giveth him out of Merchandizes exported and imported some profit for the sustentation of this publique charge otherwise were the Law very unreasonable and unjust So as to prove that by the Common-Law Custome is due to the King I shall need to say no more especially considering it hath not onely been yeelded to but proved by those which maintain a contrary Conclusion I will therefore proceed to my second Consideration Whether that profit upon Merchandizes which the Common-Law for these respects gave unto the King were a duty certaine not to be increased or inhaunced at the Kings will and pleasure without a common assent in Parliament Or otherwise Whether the Common Law hath left an absolute power in the King to demand in this case more or lesse at his owne pleasure and to compell his Subjects to pay it The resolving of which question will as I conceive make an end of this controversie between us for what are these Impositions which wee complaine of other than the enhauncing of the Custome by the Kings absolute pleasure That this duty given by the Common-Law as I have proved unto the King That Custome due by Common Law was a Sum certain was and is a duty certain not to be enhaunced by the King at his owne pleasure without assent Parliament I hope I shall be able cleerly to prove unto you In mainteinance of which I will use some Arguments of direct proofe and others of great presumption and probability And first I lay this as a ground which will not be denyed me by any man That the Common-Law of England as also all other wise
Kings and that he may open them and shut them upon what conditions he pleaseth answered and in regard thereof he may open and shut them upon what conditions he pleaseth I answere I. That the Position that all the Ports are the Kings is not generally true For Subjects may also be owners of Ports as may appeare by the Patent Roll of 3. E. 1. M. 1. Parl. where you shall finde that King Ed. 1. granted to the Lords of Port Townes the forfeitures granted to him by Parliament for not duly paying the new Custome of the demy-Marke within every severall Port of theirs where the Merchandizes should happen to be imported or exported But admitting the truth of the position yet is the consequence as weake and dangerous as of any of the rest of their arguments For are not all the gates of Cities and Townes and all the Streets and Highwayes in England the Kings and as much subject to be open or shut at his pleasure as the Ports are Nay whensoever we speake of the Highway in any law businesse we call it via Regia the Kings Highway and the King in his Commissions speaking of London or any other Citie calls it Civitas nostra London or Civitas nostra Exon Doth it follow therefore that the King may lay Impositions upon every man or upon all Commodities that shall passe through any of these places Nay the gates of the Kings owne house for the purpose his Pallace of Westminster are his in a farre neerer degree then any of these may he therefore by his Proclamation impose upon every man that shall passe in or out at Westminster Hall doore a summe of money Doubtlesse he may not because the King is a person publike and his Subjects ought to have accesse to him as to the fountaine of Justice and to the Courts of Justice sitting by his authoritie I make little doubt but his Majestie may upon just occasion cause any of these passages to be shut as he may also the passage at the Havens But when the Passage may without danger to the State be open and that the Subjects may passe his Majestie may not then exact money for their passage For the law hath given the King power over these things for the good of the Common-wealth and not thereby to charge and burden the Subject If the King may not exact money for passage in and out of his Court gates because of the publikenesse of his Person Nor for passage through the gates of Cities much lesse may he for passage out at the Ports which are the great gates of the Kingdom and which the subject ought as freely to enjoy as the ayre or the water Another of their arguments is this The fourth argument that the King is bound at his owne charge to protect Merchants therefore it is necessary it should be in his power to lay moderate Impositions upon Merchandizes for raising of money to defray his charge Answered The king is bound to protect Merchants from spoile by the enemie he ought to fortifie the Havens that their ships may there abide in safety he ought if occasion be to send Ambassadors to forrein Princes to negotiate for them and many the like charges is the King by the Law to undergoe for the protection of his Merchants It is reason therefore that his expence be defraied out of the profit made by Merchants and consequently that he may impose upon Merchandize a moderate charge thereby to repay himself The consequence of this Argument is thus farre true The law expects that the King should protect Merchants therefore it alloweth him out of Merchandize a revenue for the maintenance of his charge which is the old Custome due as at first I said by the Common law But it is no good consequence The Fifth Argument that all forraine Princes have power to impose and if our King had not the like it might be very inconvenient to this State Answered that therefore he may take what he list no more then he may at his pleasure increase that old revenue which the law giveth him for protecting of Subjects in their suits or for protecting Wards c. Another Argument of theirs is this All other Princes of the world may impose upon merchandize at their pleasure and so may make our Merchandizes lesse vendible with them by laying an Imposition upon them to be paid by us when they are brought into their Territories whereby their owne Commodities of the same nature may be sold more to the gaine of their Merchants and our Merchant impoverished or driven from his Trade They may also lay Impositions upon our Merchants fetching Commodities from thence and leave their owne Merchants free from any Imposition in the same case by which their merchants shall reape all the profit by that commoditie in affording it better cheape to us here then we can fetch it and consequently our merchants shall be undone Many the like cases have been put to prove That if the King of England may not impose as other Princes may they shall be able at their pleasure to destroy our trading This I conceive was the same as now it is during all that time from Ed. 3. till Queen Mary and doubtlesse it could not but sometimes during that long space so fall out that forreine Princes did put their power in practise to our prejudice and yet we heare not of any Imposition laid by any of our Kings by their absolute power which may give any man assurance that they tooke some other course to meet with the inconvenience and in deed the meanes are divers which these our Kings used to prevent it First they were carefull in all their Leagues and Treaties with forrain Princes specially to provide for it as may appeare by the Records of the ancient Leagues Neither is there any League of late time that hath not had an Article for provision in this point which Leagues for the most part are upon oath on both parts And yet for further securitie our Kings have always had Ambassadors resident in the Courts of such forrain Princes to put them in minde of their Leagues if upon any occasion our Merchants have in that case happened to be never so little wronged by them if upon complaint of the Ambassador our merchants have not found redresse our Kings have held the League as broken and denounced Warre or seised all the goods of the same Princes Subjects within England and I dare say there have been more warres undertaken by our Princes against forrain nations onely for this cause then for any one other cause whatsoever Besides our Kings have in this case sometimes made use of that their Prerogative of restraint either by prohibiting our Merchants from carrying our Commodities into those parts where they are charged with Impositions that so by the want of our Commodities forraine Princes might be enforced to abate their Impositions laid upon them or by restraining the Merchants of forrain Princes to import or export commodities from hence By which meanes forraine Princes have been compelled to deale favourably with our Merchants for the good of their owne Subjects All these are lawfull and ordinary means to prevent or redresse the inconvenience which may grow by the Impositions of other Princes If all these ordinary means should happen to faile which can hardly so fall out and that the laying of Impositions be indeed the only means that is left to redresse the inconvenience why should not that be done by Act of Parliament as well in these times as it was in 7. H. 7. cap. 7. to take downe the Imposition of Foure Ducates upon a But of Malmsey imposed by the Venetians And as it was done by Queen Eliz. the 19. yeere of her Reigne to prevent the laying of Impositions by forraine Princes upon Salt-fish as may appeare by the printed Statutes of 19. Eliz. cap. 10. But as I have said the providence of the Prince and ordinary power of restraint may very well meet with the inconvenience These are the chiefe reasons made in maintenance of impositions the weaknesse of them and their dangerous consequence you cannot but perceive For by the same reasons Taxes within the Land may be as well proved to be lawfull On the contrary part you have heard the reasons against impositions fortified by many Records and Statutes in the point So as I conclude that Impositions neither in the time of warre or other the greatest necessitie or occasion that may be much lesse in the time of peace neither upon forraine nor inland Commodities of whatsoever nature be they never so superfluous or unnecessary neither upon Merchants Strangers nor Denizens may be laid by the Kings absolute power without assent of Parliament be it for never so short a time much lesse to endure for ever as ours Though this be now my opinion yet am not I so obstinate therein but if yet I heare better reason I will once againe change my minde in the meane while you see I had reason to alter my first opinion as being grounded upon very weak Reasons as now they appeare unto me And so I suppose they doe also unto you FINIS 7o. Julii 1641. AT a Committee of the Honorable House of Commons for Examination of books and of the Licensing and Suppressing of them c. It is Ordered That this Argument upon Impositions be forthwith published in print EDWARD DERING
Magna Charta cap. are called old and ancicient duties this is Vectigal Patrimoniale of which sort I could produce many others all which have like certainty Nay there is one duty well known to us all which the Common-Law giveth to the King and is in his nature a Custome our very case in which the King is bound to a certainty which he cannot exceed and that is Prisage a duty given by the Common-Law to the King upon every shiploading of Wine brought into the kingdom by English Merchants and is one Tun of Wine before the Mast and another behinde I am unwilling to trouble you with any more particulars of this kinde but let any man shew me one particular to the contrary and I will then yeeld that my position being false in one may be in more But till my position hath been in this point infringed this generall concordance of the Law in all these particulars is argument enough for me without having aleadged other reasons to conclude that Custome being as all these are a revenue due to the King by the Common-Law arising out of the Property and interest of the Subject is as all these are limited and bounded by the Common-Law to a certainty which the King hath not power to increase Vbi eadem Ratio eadem Lex It may perhaps be here objected that the Ayd paid to the King upon the Knighting of his eldest Sonne or marriage of his eldest Daughter was by the Common-Law uncertaine and that the King did take more or lesse at his pleasure untill he was bound to the contrary by Statute To this I make divers answers Though it were indeed a summe uncertaine yet the Common-Law did in some sort give it a limitation for it is by a speciall name called Reasonable Ayd So as if the summe demanded doe exceed Reason it became from a Reasonable Ayd an unjust exaction Besides this revenue was a thing happening very rarely and therefore the certainty thereof not so much regarded by the Law and yet it is to be observed how the frame of this Common-wealth could not long indure incertainty even in this casuall Revenue but it was reduced to a certainty of twenty shillings upon a Knights fee and 20s. upon every twenty pounds Soccageland by the Stat. of West 1. cap. 35.3 Ed. 1. If in this casuall Revenue they were so carefull to be at a certainty to avoid unreasonable exactions as the words of the Statute are how much more carefull would they have been for the same cause to have reduced the great and annuall Revenue of the Custome to a certainty if they had not thought it to have been certaine by the common-Common-Law or limited by Statute-Law before that time made But Sir that which I rely upon for answer to this objection is this Reasonable Ayd was and is by the Common-Law due as well to meane Lords as to the King But meane Lords were not limited to a certainty otherwise than in generall that it must be reasonable as I have said therefore to limit the King any further was no reason And this answer may be given for all uncertaine Revenues belonging to the King the like of which mean Lords have of their Tenants for the incertainty of which there may also be given especiall reason because these duties first began by speciall contract and agreement between the Lord and the Tenant and not directly by operation of the Common Law and so were certain and uncertain as they did at first agree and therefore you may be pleased to remember how in laying my positiō I was wary to say That such revenues as are due to the King as to the head of the Common wealth by which I purposely excluded such revenues as are common to him with other mean Lords are alwayes certaine I am now according to promise and in maintenance of a second part of my position to shew you That where the Common-Law giveth the King a Revenue not certaine at the first that is alwayes reduceable to a certainty by a legal course as by act of Parliament Judges or Jury and not at the Kings pleasure Every man that by his tenure is bound to serve the King in his warres and faileth is to pay according to the quantity of his Tenure a fine by the name of Escuage this cannot be assessed but in Parliament Upon forfeitures for treason or otherwise to the King though it be a kinde of a certainty that the Law giveth in giving him all the estate of the party convict both in goods and Lands or in goods onely as the case is yet for reducing it to a more expresse certainty the Law requireth that it be found by Office Wayfe Stray Wreck Treasure-Trove and such like are no lesse certaine for the King hath the things themselves in kinde Fines for misdemeanors are alwayes assessed by the Judges Amercements in all cases are to be afferred by the Country and not to be assessed by the King though the forme of the Judgement be Et sit in misecordia Domini Regis in the Kings mercy pro contemptu predict Nay though for punishment of an offence it be by Statute-Law enacted that an offendor shall make Fine and Ransome at the Kings pleasure the Law even in this case which is as strong a case as may be will not leave the assessing of the Fine to the Kings pleasure to be by him rated privately in his Chamber but it must be solemnly and legally done in an open Court of Justice by the Judges who in all other cases are to judge between the King and his people where the interest or property of the Subject or any charge or burden upon them doth come in question as may be proved by the booke of 2 R. 3. fo 11. Insomuch that I am of opinion that if a Statute were made that the King might raise the Customes at his pleasure yet might it not be done as now it is by the Kings absolute power but by some other legall course of which the Common-Law doth take notice as in the case of the Fine and Ransome much lesse then will the Common-Law permit that it should depend upon the Kings absolute pleasure there being no such Statute in the case You have heard out of what grounds I first deduced this my position That the Law requireth certainty in matter of profit between the King and his people You have heard likewise the particular reasons of that position you have also heard what proofe I have made by particular cases of like nature to this in question and how I have applyed them to the point And so leaving the Judgement of the whole to your wisedomes who can best discerne whether the Argument be of weight I proceed to my second Reason which is drawne from the policy and frame of this Common-wealth and the providence of the Common-Law The which as it requires at the Subjects hands loyalty and obedience to their Soveraigne so doth it likewise
fourteene twelve yeeres her age of consent and nine yeeres capable to bee endowed a yeere and a day given to sue an appeale the like limitation of a yeere and day in very many other Cases In effect who reduced all the known grounds of the Common law to that certainty that now they are Because wee cannot tell how or when they began shall wee therfore conclude that they began by the kings absolute power and inferre that by the same reason they may bee changed at his pleasure If the king may increase his Fines upon the purchase of Originall writts which by the same reason hee may doe that hee may doe his Custome nay hee hath more colour for this then for that because there is no Statute against this hee might easily raise that revenue to the value of his Customes But no man can nor will I hope offer to mainteine it to bee lawfull You see the weakenesse and the dangerous consequence of this argument by comparing it to other cases of like nature To say the truth all these things began no man can say certainly when or how but by a tacit consent of king and people and the long approbation of time beyond the memory of any man and yet no man can directly affirm but that most of them might begin by Act of Parliament though now there bee no Records extant of such antient Parliaments The first Parliament was not kept 9 H. 3 though it be the first in our bookes If we will give credit to other Records and to our best Chroniclers The antiquity of Parliaments we shall heare and reade of divers Parliaments in the Reigne of King John and of his Predecessor Rich. 1. and in the Reign of H. 2. of two famous Parliaments one at Claringdon in Wiltshire the other at Gedington in North-Hamptonshire And although our Chronicles say that the first Parliament kept in this Realm was held 19 Aprilis 16 H. 1. yet I am of opinion that William the Conqueror held Parliaments for what can be else understood by these words Per commune consilium totius Regni nostri stabilitum fuit which I finde in Mr. Lamberts collection of the ancient Lawes of England in the beginning of the Lawes of W. the Conqueror Many of the Statutes of E. 1. have no other words Nay long before him in the yeere of our Lord 712. in the time of Inas King of the West-Saxons I assure my selfe there were Parliaments held and that of the three Estates as at this day as may appeare by these words in the beginning of the Lawes of King Inas in Mr. Lambert Suasu Instituto Episcoporum nostrorum omnium Senatorum nostrorum natu majorum populi nostri in frequentia magna And more plainly in the conclusion of some other of his Lawes Hoc factum fuit per commune consilium assensum Procerum Comitum omnium Sapientium Seniorum Populorum totius Regni per praeceptum Regis Inae which are the same in Latine which ours is in English By the King the Lords Spirituall and Temporall and the Commons VVhy might not the Custome upon Woolls be first granted at one of these Parliaments as well as to have it first begun by the Kings absolute power There is no more probability of the one than the other because most of the ancient Records were burnt in H. 2. time when the Exchequer was burnt shall we conclude therefore that there were neâ—er any such You see the weaknes of this Argument in all the points thereof I leave it and passe to another The King may say they restrain the passage of Merchants at his pleasure The second Argument that the King may totally restrain the importing and exporting of merchandizes therfore he may do it sub modo by laying of an Imposition answered which they prove by divers Records 2 E. 1. m. 18. Ro. Par. 2 E 1. m. 17. Ro. fin 31 E. 1. n. 44. Ro. Pat. 17 H. 6. Ro. Clo. in dorso Upon which they inferre that if he may restraine a Merchant that he shall not passe at all he may much more so restraine him that he shall not passe except he pay a certaine sum of money For this say they is lesse than totally to restraine him And Cui licet quod majus licet etiam quod minus Of this Argument my L. Dyer gave light in his case of Impositions 1 Eliz. and this hath been diversly inforced by all that have argued for Impositions In answer of which I will consider how farre the king may restrain the passage of Merchants and then will examine the consequence of the Argument For my part I think the king cannot restrain the passage of Merchants but for some speciall cause wherein to define certainly and resolutely to say for what causes he may and for what not I will not undertake Onely let me inform you that there is not one of these presidents vouched by them to prove the kings power to restraine but they are upon speciall reasons as by reason of Enmity with such a Nation from whence they are restrained or because such a Commodity may not be spared within the kingdome Besides they are not restraints from all places and of all manner of Merchandizes but from certain places onely and for certain sorts of Merchandizes And for my part I thinke that restraints in all these cases and of like nature are by the Common-Law left to the kings absolute power For if it were otherwise it should be in the power of a Merchant for a little private lucre to enrich the kings Enemies or to furnish them with munition to be imployed against the State or utterly to ruine the Common-wealth by carrying out a Commodity which may not be spared or by bringing in of some that may be hurtfull Nay which is more such may be the occasion that the king may I doubt not stop the passages of all Merchants from all places for a short time as upon the death of the late Queene it was put in practise to prevent Intelligence there may likewise be such necessary use of their ships as the want of them upon some sodaine attempts may be a cause of the overthrow of the whole State In such cases as these if the Common law did not give the King leave to restraine their passage by his absolute power it were very improvident in the highest points which cannot be imagined of so wise a law And yet the Kings of this Realme have alwayes been sparing in the practise of their absolute power in this point For there are little lesse then 30. Acts of Parliament touching the opening and shutting up of the passage of Merchants most of which as I conceive were made rather for the increase of punishment then for want of power in the King For the breach of a restraint by absolute commandment is punishable as all other contempts onely by Fine and Imprisonment and not by forfeiture of the Merchandizes