they had the same right the same prerogative and absolute power that their Predecessors had but because they found other means to make other profit upon transporting of Merchandizes and that in another manner and in so high measure as the trade of Merchandizes in those daies could hardly bear any greater charge without danger of overthrowing all Trade and Comerce And therefore those Princes did in their wisdomes forbear to lay any further Impositions by their Prerogatives For these Kings who reigned after King Edw. 3. who conquered Callis in France and before Queen Mary lost Callis had two principal waies and meanes to raise extraordinary profits upon Merchandizes but proceeding from one cause namely from establishing the Staple at Callis for King Edw. 3. some few yeares before his death did by his Prerogative in point of Government without Act of Parliament erect a Staple at his Town of Callis and did ordain and command that all the Merchandizes exported out of England Wales and Ireland by any Merchant Denison or Alien should presently be carried to the Staple at Callis and to no other place beyond the Seas This Staple at Callis was first setled and fixed there by an Ordinance which the King made by virtue of his Prerogative and absolute power in the government of Trade and Comerce without Act of Parliament And if this Ordinance so made had been thought unlawful and against the liberty of the Subject it would never have been approved and confirmed by the Judgements of so many Parliaments in the times of Rich 2. Hen. 4. Hen. 5. and Edw 4. Neither could there have been such heavy penalties layd by those Parliaments upon the transgressors of those Ordinances Insomuch as in the time of King Henry the sixth it was made Felony to Transport any Merchandizes to any part beyond the Seas but to Callis onely Now the Staple of Callis being thus established there did arise a double profit to the Crown for transportieg of Merchandizes over and above the ancient Customes and other Subsidies granted by Parliament First it came to pass that the Customs and Subsidies for Merchandizes transported out of England Wales and Ireland which before was single and payd but once that is upon the outgate after the establishing of the Staple at Callis the duties for the same Merchandizes became double at the least and for the most part treble and were ever payd twice and for the most part thrice namely once upon the outgate in the Ports of England Wales and Ireland secondly upon the ingate at Callis and because all the commodities brought into Callis could not be vented into the main Land there but the greatest part was to be exported again by Sea into higher or lower Germany and other the North East Countries and some into Spain and Italy and the Ilands of the Levant there did arise a third payment of Customes and Subsidies for so much of their commodities as were exported again cut of Callis by meanes whereof the Customes and Subsidies did amount to threescore thousand or threescore and ten thousand pounds sterling per annum in the latter times of King Edw. 3. and during the reign of Rich. 2. Hen. 4. Hen. 5. and the beginning of the reign of Hen. 6. as appears by the Records of the Exchequer of England which according to the valuation of Moneys at this day the ounce of Silver being now raised from two shillings to five shillings do make two hundred thousand pound sterling per annum which doth equal or surmount all the Customes Subsidies and Impositions received at this day though that plenty of money and price of all things and consequently the expences of the Crown be exceedingly increased in these times And albeit the breach of Amity between the Crown of England and the Duke of Burgundy who was the Lord of the Lower Germany in the weak and unfortunate time of King Hen. 6. did cause a stop of Trade between us and that Country into which the greatest part of our Staple wares especially Wooll and Cloth were vented and uttered and was likewise the cause of loss of all our Territories in France except Callis and all the Merchandizes thereof whereby the Customes and other duties payable for Merchandizes were in the time of that unhappy Prince withdrawn and diminished to a low proportion yet afterwards upon the Mariage of Margaret Sister to King E. 4. unto the Lord Duke of Burgundy as that in honour of the English Wooll which brought so much Gold into his Country he instituted the Order of the Golden Fleece and thereupon the Customes Subsidies and Impositions were raised again to so high a Revenue as our Kings could not well in policy strain that strength of profit upon Merchandizes any higher Secondly albeit the Staple established at Callis being first established by an order made by the Kings Prerogative and absolute power was afterwards approved and confirmed by sundry Acts of Parliament yet did the King by another Prerogative retain a power to dispence with that Ordinance and those Acts of Parliament and to give license to such and so many Merchants as himself thought fit to export any Merchandizes out of England Wales and Ireland unto any other parts beyond the Seas besides à non obstante of the first Ordinance and of the Statutes which did establish the Staple at Callis By virtue of this Prerogative and power the several Kings who had Callis in their possessions did grant so many Licences to Merchants as well Aliens as Denizens to transport our Staple commodities immediately into other places without coming to Callis for which Licenses whereof there are an incredible number found in the Records of England the Merchants payd so dear for their commodities especially the Genoeses and the Venetians and other Merchants of the Levant as by the profits made of those Licences did amount to double the value of those Customes and Subsidies payable for exportation thereof and thereof those Princes as they had the less need so had they no reason at all to charge the Trade of Merchandizes with any other or greater Impositions In these two points before expressed doe consist the principal cause why the Princes of England who succeeded King Edw. 3. who won Callis untill the reign of Queen Mary who lost Callis did not directly use their Prerogative in setting any other Impositions upon Merchandizes above the ancient Customes and Subsidies granted by Parliament For it is to be observed that most part of those Princes who reigned after K. Edw. 3. and before Queen Mary had the Subsidy of Tonnage and Poundage granted unto them by Parliament which being added to the gain of the Staple of Callis did augment not a little the profit layd upon Merchandizes And may be a reason likewise why those Kings did forbear to lay any other Impositions by their Prerogative We may adde hereunto other reasons First Rich. 2. was a Minor and over-ruled by the great Princes of the
trade and traffique with Forrein Nations and to Strangers that trade traffick with us for the Administration of coÌ„mutative Justice within the Land the King receiveth sundry profits which grew first by way of Imposition A man cannot recover a Debt in the Kings Court but first he payeth the King a Fine for his first Process Land cannot be conveighed by a Common Recovery but a Fine for the Original must be payd to the King Neither can Land be passed from one to another by Fine in the Kings Court but the Kings Silver must be payd pro licentia concordandi Adde hereunto the profit of the Seals in all the Kings Courts for all manner of Writs And yet the King in Charta magna did promise Nulli negabimus nulli vendemus Iustitiam vel rectum but the Kings taking of these and the like Duties is no breach of the great Charter for that the same was imposed by the King long before the Charter was made and taken ut Ministerii sui stipendia as the Schoolman speaketh and withall to recompence the charge of the Crown in maintaining the Court of Justice See Bodin lib. 6. de Repub. cap. 2. where hee speaketh of the like profit made upon the Process in France And shews that the antient Romans did the like And the Emperour Caligula took the fortieth penny of that which was demanded in every several Civil Action If then such profits be taken for the King in his Courts of Justice within the Land towards the charge which he sustaineth in the maintainance of these Courts and the Offices thereof which duties were at first limitted and imposed by the King himself without any Act of Parliament for who ever heard of an Act of Parliament whereby the same were granted Is there not as good reason why the charge of the King in doing Justice and procuring Justice to be done unto Merchants whose residence and comerce is for the most part out of the Land should be recompenced out of Merchandizes imported and exported not according to the will of the Merchant and pleasure of the people out proportionable according to the Kings charge which being best known to himself it is most meet that the recompence should be limitted by himself Touching the charge of the King in doing and appointing Justice to be done to Merchants Are not all Leagues Truces and Treaties of State with Forein Princes wherein the publique Trade and Comerce of Merchants are ever included concluded and made at the Kings charge Did not the Kings Council of State and high Court of Chancery give more speedy hearing to the causes of Merchants than to the causes of other Subjects Doth not the King maintain a Court of Admiralty for deciding of Marine causes which doe for the most part concern Merchants Doth he not bear the charge of several Leâ—ger Ambassadors in Italy in Spain in France in the Low Countries in Turkie whose principal Negotiation doth consist in procuring Justice to be done to our Merchants And if our Merchants doe suffer wrong in any Forein Country by reason of any defective neglect in doing Justice there doth not the King by his Prerogative grant them Letters of Mart or Reprisal that they may right themselves which is a Species justi Belli as the Civilians call it And if the injury done to the Merchants bee multiplyed and continued with a high hand Is it not the Kings Office to denounce and prosecute War against such a people as doth refuse to doe Justice unto his Merchants For this cause the Romans began the first Punick War saith Appian Cicero in his Oration pro Lege Manlia affirmeth Populum Romanum saepe Mercatoribus Injuria suis tractata bella gessisse Briefly the plenty of Money being greater in this Age than ever was there by reason of so many Millions of Gold and Silver brought from the Indies into Europe and the price of all Merchandizes being withall greatly enhanced and the charges and expences of Princes exceedingly encreased is it meet or just that the King at this day should be stinted or bound to that old Demimark onely for Native commodities or the three pence of the pound for the Forein commodities which Edw. 1. was content to accept of four hundred years since or a single poundage onely which in the time of King Edw. 4. was not sufficient to maintain the necessary charges of keeping the Sea as the Acts of Parliament 12 Edw. 4. cap. 5. which granteth that Subsidy to the King reciteth all the Kings charge in supporting the Trade of Merchants being unlimited and infinite And shall the duties payable for Merchandizes be stinted and restrained to such a proportion only as the Subject shall bee pleased to grant unto him Assuredly if the King had not a Prerogative of his own absolute power without Act of Parliament to increase the duties payable for Merchandizes at this day a Merchants Counting-house would be richer than the Kings Exchequer and the Subject who may live privately and moderate his expences and yet raise the Fines of his Coppy-holds and Rents of his Demeans without controlement would be in better case than the King who by reason of the Majesty of his Estate cannot abridge his charges and yet should have no power of himself without leave of his Subjects to increase his Revenue Again the King is not only at charge in doing of Justice to his Merchants at home and in procuring Justice to bee done to them abroad but the doth withall maintain a Royall Navy of Ships the best the fairest the strongest in the world at this day to protect all Merchants from spoyl and Piracy on the sea In the maintainance of this Navy the King doth expend more Treasure than the whole Revenue of some of his Predecessors did amount to And he doth not onely secure Merchants by Sea but he gives them safe conduct by Land also as appeareth by the great Charter So as they may well give our King that title which Virgil gives to the King of Bees Ille operum custos And seeing Merchants are most likely resembled to those Industrious creatures because they bring the hony to the Kings Hives to wit to his Havens and Ports where they and their Merchandizes bee protected and reserved why should they not imitate the Bees in observing their King and in making him partaker of the fruit of their labours Neither is it a new thing or an invention of this Age to lay Impositions upon Merchants for their Wastage and Protection at Sea for Plinius tels us lib. 19 cap 4. Merces praetiosae ut ex India Arabia Ethiopia tuto in Europam à Mercatoribus conveherentur necessariò classem parandam esse adversas Piraticas incursiones inde maritimi exercitus habendi causa vectigal rubri maris institutum A third reason drawn from the Interest the King hath in the parts of the Kingdom and the custody thereof which giveth him
people we find in 6 Edw. 3 Rot. Parliament numb. 4. 13 Ed. 3. Rot. Parliament numb. 5. 18 Edw. 3. Rot. Parliament numb.10.26.in Arch. Turris In 28 Edw. 3. Rot. Parliament numb. 26. The Commons complain of an excessive Imposition upon Wooll-fells and desire that the old Custome might he paid The Kings Answer is the old Custome ought not to be withdrawn In 38 Edw. 3. Rot. Parliament numb. 26. The Commons desire that an Imposition of three shillings and four pence upon every Sack of Wooll at Callis and all unreasonable Impositions bee repealed The Kings answer unto this is It pleaseth the King that all unreasonable Impositions be repealed like unto this is that answer which is contained in the Parliament Rolls of 6 Edw. 3. numb. 4. in Arch. Turris When Petition was made for remittall of Impositions I shall saith the King assesse no such Tallages in time to come but in manner as it hath been in time of mine Ancestors and ought to be by reason Can any wit of man pick any Arguments out of these Answers against the right of the Crown in setting Impositiout upon Merchandizes Lastly in 13 Edw. 3. Rot. Parliament numb. 13. the Commons pray that the Maletolts of Wooll may be taken as it was used in former times being then enhaunsed without the Assent of the Commons To this Petition there is no answer found of Record the King is silent and gives no answer at all which doubtless the King had not refused to do if the Petition had been exhibited in point of right and not in point of favour Thirdly touching the punishing of the persons before mentioned for procuring of new Impositions to be set upon Merchandizes we are to consider two circumstances first the time when and next the causes wherefore these persons were called in question The time when these persons were called to account was a Parliament holden in 50 Edw. 3. the last year of that Kings Reign at which time that great and renowned Prince who had been formerly assisted by a most wise and politique Councell was become weak and stupid and almost in despair through sicknesse age melancholy conceipted upon the death of his eldest Son the Black Prince and suffered himself to be â—ll-governed by a Woman called Alice Perrey and her Favourite the Lord Latimer upon which occasion and advantage the Commons grew more bold than they were wont to be in former Parliaments and therefore if ought had been done in that Parliament which might prejudice the Kings Prerogative it is â—ot to be urged as an example or presiâ—ent in these times but in truth the â—auses for which these persons were cenâ—ured do rather approve the right of the Crown in laying Impositions than any way disaffirm the same First Richard â—ions a Farmer of the Customes was accused in this Parliament by the Commons that he had set and procured to be set upon Wooll and other Merchandizes certain new Impositions without assent of Parliament converting the same to his own use without controule the High Treasurer not being acquainted therewith the said Richard assuming to himself in divers things as a King 50 Edw. 3. Rot. Parliament numb. 17 18 19 20. This was his Accusation and though his answer were that he set those Impositions by the Kings Commandment yet did he shew no Warrant for it and therefore was justly punished with fine ransome disfranchisment and imprisonment But how may this insolency and misdemeanour of a Subject be an argument against the right or Prerogative of the King Lions a Merchant of his own head cannot set Impositions upon Merchandizes Ergo King Edw. 3. a Monarch of his royall Authority cannot do it what an absurd argument were this as if a man should say it were High Treason in a Subject to Coyn money Ergo the King himself cannot do it or cause it to bee done besides the accusation it self doth imply that the King hath power to impose upon Merchandizes because Lions is charged being a Subject to take upon him as a King in divers things namely in setting of ImpositioÌ„s as if they should have said a King may do it but not a Subject according to the rules of the Imperial Law Solus Princeps instituit vectigalia Regni tantum juris muneris est indicere vectialia imponere vectigalia maximi Imperii est inferior a Principe non potest imponere and the like And the Bill exhibited by the Commons in this Parliament 50 Edw. 3. Rot. Parliament 191. praying that those that should set new Impositions by their own Authority encroaching unto themselves Royal Power might have Judgement of life and member seemeth to be grounded upon good reason and doth prove it is a Mark of Soveraignty and Royall Power to set Impositions and therefore if a Subject of his own head of his own authority wil presume to do it he is worthy to dye for it and yet this Bill did receive but a general answer viz. Let the Common Law run as it hath been used heretofore Touching the Lord Latimers censure he had not only upon his own head and authority set sundry Impositions upon Merchandizes at Callis where the Staple there was much decayed but he was charged with sundry other misdemeanors mentioned in the said Roll namely that he brought in divers Tallies and Tickets whereby the King was indebted unto his Souldiers and Pensioners for which he gave little or nothing to the parties and yet had an entire allowance in the Exchequer to the great damage of the King and scandall of the Court that he had also deceived the King of the pay and wages which he had sent unto his Souldiers in Britain that he had sold a great quantity of the Kings provisions for his Army there and converted the same to his own use and that he had delivered up the Town of Saint Saviours in Normandy and the Town and Fort of Betherell in Britainy not without suspition of Corruption and Treason How can the Lord Latimers censure for these deceits and misdemeanors make an argument against the right of the Crown in laying Impositions upon Merchandizes And the like may be said of the punishment of Iohn Peachy who having got a Patent that none should sell sweet Wines within the City of London but himself his Deputies and Assignes by colour thereof did extort three shillings and four pence out of every Pipe or Vessell of sweet Wine sold by others within the City Shall this extortion committed by a Subject by colour of a Patent where perhaps the Patent doth not warrant it be objected as an argument that the King himself might not lay the like Imsition upon every Pipe or Vessel by vertue of his Prerogative therefore the punishment of these persons was not the cause that for an 150. yeares after that no Impositions were layd upon Merchandizes by Prerogative but the Princes who succeeded Edw. 3. untill Queen Mary did
loss which certain Merchants of London had sustained by an arrest made of their goods made by the Countesse of Flanders doth grant unto them all the Merchandizes whereof the Flemings were possest in England Rot. Pa. 3 E.1.m. 19. in Archivis turris London Whereupon the Lord Mayor of London did seize so much goods of the Flemish Merchants as amounted to 730. Marks and delivered the same to Thomas Debassing and other Merchants who had suffered loss by that arrest and in the same Roll of 3 Ed. 1. the Lord Mayor of London and Bailiffs of Southampton are commanded by the Kings Writ Quodomnes Mercatores Londienses ad partes Angliae accedentes per bona catalla sua distrin guantur sed in legem mercatoriā consueti dinem Regni ad satisfaciendum Mercatoribus Florentinis de pecuniis ipfi mutuo tradiderunt Willielmo Episcopo Leodiensi Here we see that Lex mercatoria which doth apparently differ from the ordinary Cōmon Law of this Kingdom is said to be Consuetudo Regni And lastly in a sute at the Common Law no mans Writing can be pleaded against him as his Act and Deed unlesse the same be sealed and delivered but in a sute between Merchants Bills of Lading Bills of Exchange being but Tickets without Seals Letters of advice and credences Policies of assurance Assignations of debts all which are of no force at the Common Law are of good credit and force by the Law Merchant Thus we see how Merchandizes do differ from other goods and Chattles in the eye of the Law and how the Law Merchant doth differ from the common Law of England and how the Common Law doth admit and allow thereof Our Parliaments likewise have not onely made extraordinary provision for the more speedy recovery of Debts due unto Merchants for their Merchandizes than is provided by our Common Law as appeareth by the Statute of Acton Burnell made the 11 Ed. 1. and the Statute de Mercatoribus made 13 Ed. 1. but also have course of proceedings in cases of Merchants differing from the course of our Common Law for by the Statute of 27 Ed. 3.cap 2 it is declared that the proceedings in causes of Merchants shall be from day to day and hour to hour according to the Law of the Staple and not according to the course of the Common Law and by another Article in the same Parliament that all Merchants comming to the Staple should be ruled according to the Law of Merchants touching all things comming to the Staple and not by the Common Law of the Land and by another Article that neither of the Benches nor any ordinary Judges of the Common Law shall have any Jurisdiction in those cases and lastly that the Law of Marque and Reprisall which is a branch of the Law Merchant shall be used as it had been used in times past So as the Parliament doth but declare the ancient Law and doth not introduce a new Law in those cases Untill I understood this difference between Merchandizes other goods and between the Law Merchant and the Common law of England I confess I did not a little marvell England being so rich and entertaining Traffique with all Nations of the World having so many fair Ports and so good Shipping the King of England also being the Lord of the Sea and also a principall part of his Royal Revenue consisting in duties payable for Merchandizes so as many Questions must of necessity arise in all ages touching Merchants and Merchandizes What should be the cause that in our Books of the Common Law of England there are to be found so few cases concerning Ships or Merchants or concerning Customes or Impositions payable for Merchandizes But now the reason thereof is apparent for the Common Law of the Land doth leave these cases to be ruled by another Law namely the Law Merchant which is a branch of the Law of Nations The Law Merchant as it is a part of the Law of Nature and Nations is universall and one and the same in all Countries in the World for as Ciccro saith of the Law of Nations Non orit alia lex Romae alia Athenis alia nune alia posthac sed omnes gentes omni tempore unalex eademque perpetua continebit c. So may we say of the Law Merchant there is not one Law in England another in France another in Spain another in Germany but the same rules of reason and the like proceedings of the Law Merchant are observed in every Nations for as our Chancellor of England affirmeth 13 E. 4. 9. That the proceedings of the Law Merchant ought to be according to the Law of Nature which is universall so say the Civilians of severall Nations The Italian Doctor saith In curia mercatorum naturalis aequitas praecipue expectanda ex aequo bono causas dirimendas esse The French man saith In curia mercatorum proceditur de mer a aequitate omissis solemnitatibus apicibus juris The Spaniard likewise saith Apices subtilitas juris non considerantur in foro mercatorio whereby it is manifest that causes concerning Merchants and Merchandizes are not wont to be decided by the peculiar and ordinary Laws of every Country but by the generall Law of Nature and Nations out of which resulteth this Conclusion Suppose it be admitted that by the positive Law of the land Taxes and Tallages may not be laid upon our goods within the land without an Act of Parliament yet by the Law of Nations and by the Law Merchant which are also the Law of England in cases of Merchandizes the King of England as well as other Kings may by vertue of his Prerogative without Act of Parliament lay Impositions upon Merchandizes crossing the Seas being goods whereupon the Law doth set another character than goods possessed in the land as is before expressed CHAP. IV. Of the Imperial or Civil Law and of the extent of the Iurisdiction thereof of what force it is at this day within the Monarchies of Europe and in what case it is received within the King of Englands Dominions and how it warranteth all Kings and Absolute Princes to lay Impositions upon Merchandizes WHen the City of Rome was Gentium Domina Civitas illa magna quae regnabat super Reges terrae The Roman Civil Law being communicated unto all the Subjects of that Empire became the Common Law as it were of the greatest part of the inhabited world yet the extent thereof was never so large as that of the general Law of Nature as it is noted by Cicero offic. lib. 2. Majores nosiri aliud jus Geutium aliud Civile jus esse voluerunt quod enim civile non idem continue Gentium quod autem idem civile esse debet whereby it is manifest that the Law of Nations is and ought to be a binding Law in all States and Countries as
it is binding so it is perpetuall and cannot be rejected as the Roman Civil Law is rejected in most of the Kingdoms in Europe in such cases as do arise within the body of every Kingdom In France Philip le Bell saith Bodin de Repub. lib. 2. cap. 8. when he erected the Courts of Parliament at Paris and Mountpelier did expresly declare That they should not be bound in their judgments by the rule of the Roman Civil Law and in erecting of all the Universities of France they are charged in their severall Charters not to revive the profession of the Civil and Common Law as of binding Laws in that Kingdom and therfore Earum non imperio sed ratione utimur saith another learned Doctor of France In Spain saith Bodin in the same place several Kings have made Edicts that no man upon pain of death should allege the Roman Civil Law as a binding Law in their Dominions And that Stephen King of Spain did forbid the publique pleading of the Civill Law As for England to omit what Pope Elutherius wrote in his Epistle to Lucius the first Christian Monarch of the Britains and whereof mention is made in Saint Edwards Laws de protestate Regia Ecclesiastica published in the time of 3 Hen. 8 petiistis saith he leges Romanas Caesaris vobis transmitti quibus in regno Britaniae uti voluistis leges Romanas Caesaris reprobare possumus legem Dei nequaquam c. In a Parliament holden in England 11 R. 2. when a course of proceedings in Criminal causes according to the Civil Law was propounded an answer was made by all the States assembled That the Realm of England neither had been informer times nor hereafter should be ruled and governed by the Civil Law Rot. Parliament 11 R. 2. in Archivis turris London and accordingly Chopinus the French Lawyer in his Book de Domino Franciae tit. 28. speaking of the Civil law hujus Romani juris saith he nullus apud Anglos usus sed ex veteri gentis instituto Britani reguntur legibus municipialibus quas illis majorum mores praescripserunt But this is to be understood of causes arising within the Land onely for all Marine and Sea causes which doe arise for the most part concerning Merch and Merchandizes crossing the seas our Kings have ever used the Roman Civil Law for the deciding determining therof as the Romans did use the Law of the Rhodians in those cases according to the memorable rescript of the Emperour Anthonius terram suis legibus Rhodiis Regi How be it now those Laws of the Rhodians are digested and incorporated into one body of the Civil Law the jurisdiction touching causes arising upon the Sea is committed by the King of England to his Admirall who in his Court of Admiralty doth proceed in those cases according to the rule of the Civil Law Now for the Rules of the Civill Law touching the power of Kings in laying Impositions upon Merchandizes the same are clear without question and observed without contradiction in all the nations of the world Regiitantum juris ac muneris est vectigalia imponere redditus seu vectigalia portus quae perveniant ex his quae in portum vel ex portu vehentur regalia sunt Rex qui non recognoscit superior em potest instituere nova vectigalia c. hoc est jus totius mundi totus mundus hoc jure utitur the D. Doctors who interpret the Imperiall Law have their Books full of these Rules And if it be objected That these rules of the Imperiall Law are onely intended of the Emperour a learned Civilian hath this position plus juris habet Rex in Regno quam Imperator in imperio quia Rex transmittit regnum ad successionem quod non facit imperator quiest tantum electionis c. Lastly when I speak of the rules of the Civil Law and make use thereof I do apply the same onely in cases of Merchandizes crossing the Seas which I do expresse by way of protestation that I may not be mistaken here and in other places where I cite the Text of the Imperiall Law as if I intended that Law to be of force in England generally as in other places CHAP. V. Of the Canon or Ecelesiastical Law and how far forth it doth examine and resolve this Question in cases of Conscience only THe Canon Law is received and admitted in England as a binding-Law in cases Ecclesiasticall which are indeed the proper Subjects of that Law But this question of Imposition is meerly Civil and therefore the Canon Law doth not handle it but in cases of Conscience only so indeed it doth examin and determine in what cases an absolute Prince may with a good conscience lay and demand new Impositions Decret. causae 24. Quaesti 3. Princeps potest indicere nova vectigalia and in Summa Summarum tit. degabellis exactionibus these rules and distinctions are laid down Quilibet Monarcha potest imponere novum vectigal quod tamen boni viri arbitrio moderaudum est potest Princeps imponere vectigal ultra conventiouem in duobus casibus i. quando redditus ejus non sufficiunt ad segimē boni cōmunis decentiam status ejus 2. quando non sufficiunt ex nova emergentia principes enim sunt à Deo instituti ut nō quaerant propria Lucra sed cōmunem utilitatem populorum lilia agri neque arant neque nent which may be applyed saith a French Monk to all Princes but espicially to the Kings of France because they bore the Lilies The Canonists do likewise allege the example of our Saviour who paid an Imposition of Poll-money and wrought a miracle to enable himself to do it that the Tribute-money which Christ commanded to be paid Date Caefari quae sunt Caesaris and the Custome which Saint Paul willeth every Christian to pay willingly reddite omnibus cui tributum cuivectigal were but Impositions raised by the Emperours Edict only without the consent of the people and yet Saint Paul requires obedience to Princes in that case not only for fear of the Princes displeasure but for conscience sake non solum propter iram sed propter conscientiam CHAP. VI That this Question of Imposition may be examined and decided as well by the rules of the Laws before mentioned as by the rules of our Municipiall Laws or Common Law of England FOrasmuch as the general Law of Nations which is and ought to be Law in all King doms and the Law Merchant is also a branch of that Law and likewise the Imperiall or Roman Law have been ever admitted had received by the Kings and people of England in causes concerning Merchants and Merchandizes and so are become the Law of the Land in those cases why should not this Question of Impositions be examined and decided by