Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	judge_n	king_n	law_n	5,155	5	5.2571	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A96414	A learned and necessary argument to prove that each subject hath a propriety in his goods shewing also the extent of the kings prerogative in impositions upon the goods of merchants exported and imported out of and into this kingdome : together with a remonstrance presented to the Kings Most Excellent Majesty by the Honourable House of Commons in the Parliament holden anno dom. 1610, annoq[ue] regis Jacobi, 7 / by a late learned judge of this kingdome.	Whitelocke, James, Sir, 1570-1632.; England and Wales. Parliament. House of Commons.	1641 (1641)	Wing W1995aA; ESTC R42765	49,132	72

them must be qualified ere they be confessed but the inference and argument made upon them I utterly deny for in it there is mutatio hypothesis and a transition from a thing of one nature to a thing of another As the premisses are of a power in the King only fiduciary and in point of trust and government the conclusion inferres a right of interest and gaine Admit the King hath Custodiam portuum yet hee hath but the custody which is trust and not Dominium utile He hath power to open and shut upon consideration of publike good to the people and State but not to make gaine and benefit by it The one is protection the other is expilation Portus sunt Publici The Ports in their owne nature are publike free for all to goe in and out yet for the common good this liberty is restrainable by the wisdome and policy of the Prince who is put in trust to discerne the times when this naturall liberty shall be restrained In 1. H. 7. fo 10. 1. H. 7.10 in the case of the Horentines for their Allome the Lord chiefe Justice Hussey doth write a Case that in the time of E. 4. a Legate from the Pope being at Calice to come into England it was resolved in full Councell as the booke saith before the Lords and Judges that he should not have licence to come into England un●esse he would take an oath at Calice that he would bring nothing with him that should be prejudiciall to the King and his Crowne The King by the Common Law may send his Writ Ne exeas regnum to any subject of the Realme but the surmise of the Writ is Quia datum est nobis intelligi quod tu versus partes exteras absque licentia nostra clam destinas te divertere quamplurima nobis coronae nostrae preiudicia prosequi Fitzh N. B. 85. b. Fitzh N. B. 85. b. So in point of government and Common good of the Realme he may restraine the person but to conclude therefore he may take money not to restraine is to sell government trust and common justice and most unworthy the divine office of a King But let us compare this power of the King in forraigne affaires with the like power he hath in Domestique government There is no question but that the King hath the custodie of the gates of all the Townes and Cities in England as well as all the Ports and Havens and upon consideration of the Weal publike may open and shut them at his pleasure As if the infection of the sicknesse be dangerous in places vicine to the City of London the King may command that none from those places shall come into the City May he therefore set an imposition upon those that he suffereth to come into the City So if by reason of infection he forbid the bringing of Wares and Merchandizes from some Cities or Townes in this Kingdome to any great Faire or Mart Shall he therefore restraine the bringing of Goods thither unlesse money be given him by way of imposition The King in his discretion in point of equity and for qualifying the rigour of the Law may enjoyne any of his Subjects by his Chauncellor from suing in his Court of Common Law May he therefore make a benefit by restraining all from suit in his Courts unlesse they pay him an imposition upon their suits 2. E. 3.7 In 2. E. 3. in the case of the Earle of Richmond before cited the King had granted unto the men of great Yarmouth that all the Ships that arrived at the Port of Yarmouth which consisted of three severail Ports great Yarmouth little Yarmouth and Gerneston should arrive all at great Yarmouth and at no other place within that Port. The lawfulnesse of this Patent being in question in the Kings Court it was reasoned in the Kings behalfe for the upholding of the graunt as it is now that the King had the custodie of the Port he might restrain Merchants from landing at all in his Kingdome Therefore out of the same power might appoint where and in what Haven they should land and in no other This Patent was demurred on in the Kings Bench as being granted against the Law but the Case depending was adjourned into Parliament for the weight and consequence of it and there the Patent was condemned 9. E. 3. cap. 1. and a Law made against such and the like graunts The Presidents that were vouched for maintenance of this power of restraint in the King were foure produced almost in so many hundred yeares Rot. parl 2. E. 1. n. 16. Rot. fin 2. E. 1. n. 17. Rot. claus 10. E. 3. dor 31. Rot. claus 17. H. 6. in dors whereof two were in the second yeare of E. 1. one in the tenth yeare of E. 3. another in the seventeenth yeere of H. 6. since which time wee heare of none but by Act of Parliament as they had beene usually and regularly before To these I will give answer out of themselves out of the common law out of divers statutes and out of the practise of the Common-wealth The restraint in the time of E. 1. the one of them was to forbid the carrying of wooll out of the Realme the other was to forbid all Traffique with the Flemings That of 10. E. 3. was to restraine the exportation of ship-timber out of the Realme That of 17. H. 6. to prohibite Traffique with the subjects of the Duke of Burgundy These presidents are rare yet they have in them inducements out of publique respects to the Common-wealth for the rule of Common law in this case I take it to bee as the reverend Judge Sir Anthony Fitzherbert holds it in his writ of Ne exeas regnum in Na. Br. Fitzh N. B. 85. that by the Common law any man may goe out of the Kingdome but the King may upon causes touching the good of the Common-wealth restraine any man from going by his Writ or Proclamation and if hee then goe it is a contempt This opinion of his is confirmed by the booke Dier 1. El. 165. Dier 13. El. 296. 1. Eliz. fol. 165. Dier 12. 13. Etiz Dier 296. In like manner if a subject of England be beyond sea and the King send to him to repaire home if hee doe it not his lands and goods shall bee seised for the contempt and this was the case of William de Brittain E. of Richmond 19. E. 2. 19. E. 2. Hee was sent by the King into Gascoine on a message and refused to returne for which contempt his goods chattels lands and tenements were seised into the Kings hands 2. 3. P. M. Dier 128. the Record is cited 2. 3. Ph. M. in my L. Dier fol. 128. B. and the law there held to bee so at that time upon a question moved in the Queenes behalfe against divers that being beyond the seas refused to returne upon commandment sent unto

this kingdome which is jus publicum regni and so subverteth the fundamentall Law of the Realme and induceth a new forme of state and government 2 It is against the municipall Law of the Land which is jus priuatum the Law of property and of private right 3 It is against Divers statutes made to restraine our King in this point 4 It is against the practice and action of our Common wealth contra morem majorum and this is the modestest rule to limit both Kings Prerogatives and subiects liberties Upon the first and fourth of these foure principall grounds I will more insist then upon the second and third both for that in their owne nature they are a more proper matter for a Councell of State to the judgement of which I apply my discourse and they have not beene enforced by others As also for that the other two as more fit for a barre and the Courts of ordinary justice have by some professors of the Law beene already most learnedly and exquisitely discussed For the first it will be admitted for a rule and ground of State that in every Common-wealth and government there be some rights of Sovereignty jura Majestatis which regularly and of common right doe belong to the Soveraign power of that State unlesse Custome or the provisionall ordinance of that State doe otherwise dispose of them which Soveraigne power is potestas suprema a power that can controule all other powers and cannot be controuled but by it selfe It will not be denied that the power of imposing hath so great a trust in it by reason of the mischiefes may grow to the Common-wealth by the abuses of it that it hath ever beene ranked among those rights of Soveraigne power Then is there no further question to be made but to examine where the Soveraigne power is in this Kingdome for there is the right of imposition The Soveraigne power is agreed to be in the King but in the King is a twofold power the one in Parliament as he is assisted with the consent of the whole State the other out of Parliament as he is sole and singular guided merely by his owne will And if of these two powers in the King one is greater than the other and can direct and controule the other that is Suprema Potestas the Soveraigne Power and the other is subordinata It will then be easily proved that the power of the King in Parliament is greater than his power out of Parliament and doth rule and controule it for if the King make a grant by his Letters Patents out of Parliament it bindeth him and his successours he cannot revoke it nor any of his successours But by his power in Parliament he may defeate and avoyd it and therefore that is the greater power If a judgement be given in the Kings Bench by the King himselfe as may be and by the Law is intended a writ of Errour to reverse this judgement may be sued before the King in Parliament which writ must be granted by the Chancellor upon bill indorsed by the King himselfe as the book is 1 H. 1 H. 7.19.6 7.19.6 And the forme of the writ of Error is that it being directed to the Chiefe Justice of the Kings Bench Lib. ntrac fol. 302. c. 1. Quia in recordo processu ac etiam in redditione judicii loquelae quae fuit in Curiâ nostrâ coram nobis Error intervenit manifestus ad grave damnum c. Nos errorem si quis fuerit modo debito corrigi partibus praedictis plenam celerem justitiam fieri volentes in hâc parte vobis mandamus quòd Recordum processum loquela illius cum omnibus ea tangentibus in praesens Parliamentum nostrum sub sigillo tuo distinctè apertè mittas hoc breve ut inspectis c. nos de Consilio advisamento Dominorum spiritualiū temporalium ac Communitatis in Parliamento nostro praedicto existentis ulterius pro errore illo corrigendo fieri faciamus quod de jure secundum legem consuetudinem Regni nostri Angliae fuerit faciendum So you see the Appeale is from the King out of the Parliament to the King in Parliament the writ is in his name the rectifying and correcting the errours is by him The book is not so that the Cōmons should meddle but with the assent of the Lords and Commons than which there can be no stronger evidence to prove that his power out of Parliament is subordinate to his power in Parliament for in Acts of Parliament be they lawes grounds or whatsoever else the Act and power is the Kings but with the assent of the Lords and Commons which maketh it the most soveraigne and supreame power above all and controulable by none Besides this right of imposing there be others in the Kingdome of the same nature As the power to make lawes the power of Naturalization the power of erection of arbitrary government the power to judge without appeale the power to legitimate all which doe belong to the King only in Parliament Others there be of the same nature that the King may exercise out of Parliament which right is growne unto him in them more in those others by the use and practice of the Common-wealth as denization coynage making warre which power the King hath time out of minde practised without the gain-saying and murmuring of his subjects But these other powers before mentioned have ever beene executed by him in Parliament and not otherwise but with the reluctation of the whole Kingdome Can any man give me a reason why the King can only in Parliament make lawes No man ever read any law whereby it was so ordained and yet no man ever read that any King practised the contrary Therefore it is the originall right of the Kingdome and the very naturall constitution of our State and policy being one of the highest rights of soveraigne power So it is in naturalization legitimation and the rest of that sort before recited It hath been alleaged that those which in this Cause have enforced their reasons from this Maxime of ours That the King cannot alter the Law have diverted from the question I say under favor they have not for that in effect is the very question now in hand for if he alone out of Parliament may impose he altereth the Law of England in one of these two maine fundamentall points He must either take his Subjects goods from them without assent of the party which is against the Law or else he must give his owne Letters Pattents the force of a Law to alter the property of his subjects goods which is also against the Law That the King of England cannot take his subjects goods without their consent it need not be proved more then a principall it is jus indigena an old homeborne right declared to be Law by divers statutes of the Realme As in 34. E. 3. cap.