Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	king_n	law_n	prerogative_n	1,605	5	10.3114	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A26167	An apology for the East-India Company with an account of some large prerogatives of the crown of England, anciently exercised and allowed of in our law, in relation to foreign trade and foreign parts / by W.A. ...	Atwood, William, d. 1705?	1690 (1690)	Wing A4169; ESTC R223580	23,995	41

or thing purchased Occupancy under the same with absolute Conquest because there were none to make Terms for themselves And if the Agreements between the Conqueror and the Conquered have the force of Laws by Parity of Reason where there is no Agreement as in Places gain'd by Occupancy or absolute Conquest the Prince's Pleasure sufficiently declared and made known will have the same force Though the Soveraignty of what Subjects gain by the Sword or Purchase accrues to the Prince it is not so clear that the Prince acquires for his Subjects for then that Acquistion which W. 1. made by his Victory over Harold would have rendred England an Accession to Normandy as our present Soveraign's Victory over J. 2. would have subjected England to the Low Countries If indeed an absolute Conquest leaving no Property to the Natives were carried on at the charge of a Nation or of any Body Politick or single Persons such would have a fair Pretence to a Legal Interest or share in the Soil though not in the Soveraignty But when the King gains a Soveraignty where the People in general have no Pretence of Interest in the Property it may be a question whether the Laws of Property here and for securing Liberty which follows that can be of any force there And whoever transplants himself without any Property must be presumed to submit to the Laws and Customs of that Place where he expects to gain one The only Question material here as giving Light to the rest is what according to our Law is the Effect of Conquest upon Terms That in such case the former Laws and Customs of the conquered Country remain if stipulated for appears from the Nature of the thing and is confirm'd by our Law of which Wales affords a plain Instance that anciently had been Feudatory to England and afterwards conquer'd by E. 1. that which is called the Statute of Snodon or Ruthland is manifestly no Act of an English Parliament but an Agreement between the King and them wherein he approv'd and allow'd of some of their old Laws and alter'd others by the Advice and Consent of his Peers that were with him at Snodon which being in Wales 't is not likely that an English Parliament should be summon'd thither nor are any Footsteps of one to be found Nay though Wales was afterwards by Act of Parliament incorporated and annex'd to the Realm of England and it was provided that they should enjoy all Rights Laws and Liberties as the Subjects of this Realm notwithstanding any Act Statute or Usage to the contrary Yet it has been held from the Title of the Act That many Welsh Customs remain the English Form of ministring Laws and Justice being observed But there was no Question but till the making that Act all the Welsh Laws and Customs allowed at Ruthland were in full Force And this tho Wales had been conquered at the Expence of the English Nation which cannot be said of any part of the Indies and is by the Statute of Ruthland declared to be united to the Crown of England as a part of the same Body And whatever English-man went to inhabit in Wales before the Act of Union particularly introducing the English Laws though he were within the King's Dominions yet was he subject to the Laws and Customs of Wales Nay farther yet W. 1. gave Power to several of his great Lords to conquer what they could from the Welsh Nation Of which to use the Words of the learned Judg Doderidge The said Lordships and Lands so conquer'd were ordain'd Baronies-Marchers and had a kind of Palatine Jurisdiction erected in every one of them and Power to administer Justice unto their Tenants in every of their Territories having therein Courts with divers Priviledges Franchises and Immunities So that the Writs of ordinary Justice out of the King's Courts were for the most part not currant among them Nevertheless if the whole Barony had come in Question or that the Strife had been between two Barons-Marchers touching their Territories or Confines thereof for want of a Superior they had Recourse unto the King their supream Lord. And in these and such like Cases where their own Jurisdiction failed Justice was administred to them in the superior Courts of this Realm I find a memorable Record of this matter 9. E. 1. before the King in Council Gilbert of Clare Earl of Glocester who claim'd to hold his Lands in Glamorgan sicut regale quidvis as any thing Royal or any Royalty by Order of the King was required to answer a Suit or Complaint against him But he pleads that he holds those Lands of his own and his Ancestors Conquest by reason of which he conceiv'd that he ought not to answer any one for any matter from thence without the Judgment of his Peers of England and of the Marches of Wales who use the same Liberties in their Welsh Lands And I find it rested here In the 20 th of the same King in the great Case between the Earls of Glocester and Hereford A Jury of Peers and others being summon'd the Peers not only refuse to be sworn as being against their Priviledg but say No like Royal Mandat ever came into those parts for Causes concerning the Marches to be tried otherwise than according to the Vsages and Customs of those parts Thus it appears that not only the King 's but the Subjects Conquests enjoyed their peculiar Laws and Customs As I know not that I ever opposed any Royal Prerogative warranted by Antiquity or immediate Necessity neither do I that I have here advanced any not so warranted But if both Common and Statute Law yield such Countenance as I have shewn for the King 's prohibiting to trade to particular Places all but such as he thinks fit upon the Penalty of forfeiting Ship and Goods and that this Forfeiture may be taken at least under the Admiralty-Jurisdiction granted to the Company If Martial Law in Relation to Fact arising beyond the Seas may be exercised according to the Rules of the Civil Law and it appears not that the Company have gone beyond those Rules If yet farther the Rights and Priviledges of English-men may receive Alteration according to the Place to which they come though within the King's Dominions then to punish any Member of the Company for procuring or acting under such Powers as have been complained of may seem very hard APPENDIX A Commission for Martial Law granted to a Governor chosen by the East-India Company 43 Eliz. ELIZABETH by the Grace of God Queen of England France and Ireland Defender of the Faith c. To our Trusty and well beloved James Lancaster Esq greeting Whereas divers of our loving Subjects have been humble Petitioners unto us for our Royal Assent to be granted unto them that they at their own Adventures Costs and Charges as well for the Honour of this our Realm of England as for the Increase and Advancement of Trade of

not to be traversable The Statute which excepts notable Merchants from need of Licences to go beyond Sea 1. Gives no Power against a Prohibition Nor 2. Were any Merchants notable in the Eye of the Law but those of the Staple which at the beginning were only Foreigners as appears not only by Magna Charta which provides for no other Merchants but more particularly by the Statute of the Staple which prohibits English Irish and Welsh from carrying Staple Commodities out of the Realm This the King had dispensed with but our Merchants Denizens not thinking that sufficient Warrant obtained an Act 34 Ed. 3. to give them the same Liberty with Foreigners which was a manifest Departure from the ancient Policy of the Kingdom for bringing Foreign Merchants with their Monies hither Secondly The King might at Common Law erect Societies or Companies for the Maintenance Enlargement or ordering of any Trade of Merchandize and none to have Liberty to trade in such Commodities or to such Parts as are limited but those that are free of such Societies or licensed by them this appears in the Statute of Monopolies which excepts such Companies out of that Law and the East-India Company having Existence then is manifestly within the Exceptions This Power of erecting such Societies exclusive of others appears more antiently 12 H. 7. The Merchants Adventurers of several Parts of England petitioned the King in Parliament setting forth the Liberty they had to trade to many Places in League and Amity with the King but that the Merchants Adventurers of London exacted of them 40 l. Fine for Liberty to buy and sell at the Marts The Act gives them free Passage Resort Course and Recourse to the Marts in Flanders Holland Zealand Brabant and the Places adjoining thereto paying only ten Marks to the Company This gives no larger Liberty only lessens the Payment for it and but to such Places as are specified in the Act. The Case of the Taylors of Ipswich and others of the like Nature wherein Restraints of Trade by the By-Laws of Companies have been condemned come not within this For 1. They are of Inland Trade 2. In that case no Man was to exercise the Trade but such as the Master and others of the Company should approve of which might occasion a total Restraint Thirdly The King might erect Staples or Treasuries for Commodities of home-Growth or Manufacture and no Man could without the King's Licence engross Quantities of these to carry elsewhere than to Domestick or Foreign Staples Nor as appears by the foregoing Head could carry to the last unless he were a Merchant of the Staple or licensed by them Foreign Staples depended upon the King's Treaties with Foreign Princes and upon any Inconveniences arising either the King 's Grant of the Staple his Treaty with the Prince or the Prince's Ambassador residing here were to be consulted And the Statute 18 Ed. 3. shews that the King alone had granted a Staple at Bruges which Grant they do not in the least question but pray redress upon some Inconvenience which had arisen by an Ordinance made in Flanders Till the Staples came to be fix'd in Parliament the King of his own Authority appointed them within his own Dominions as is evident by the Statute of 2 E. 3. which says that the Staples ordained by Kings in times past shall cease at least as this is explained by subsequent Parliamentary Proceedings The Commons 47 E. 3. petition that the Staple may be at Calais and that no Patent or Grant be made to the contrary Res The King will appoint the Staple as by Counsel he shall think best Yet it appears that before the 50 th the King had of his own Authority appointed it at Calais for the Commons then in their Complaint against evil Counsellers desired it may be enquired of such of the King's Council as transported Staple-Ware and Bullion to other Places than Calais Nay though it seems it had been discontinued he had by Assent of his Council appointed it at Calais before the 47 th for in the 41 st reciting such his Establishment he gave special License to some to carry Goods elsewhere And the Statute of 25 E. 3. c. 2. takes special Care to preserve the Staple at Calais by a saving to that Act. In the 50 th of E. 3. The Countries of Lincoln c. pray that the Staple may be at Lincoln as it was at the first Ordinance and not at St. Botolph's 'T is answered it shall continue at Botolph's at the King's Pleasure The Resolution 1 Eliz. that a Grant for Malmsy to be imported only at South-hampton was void is not contrary to this Power of the King in confining Trade to a particular Place because it was by an express Act of Parliament made lawful to carry Wine to any Port And I am treating here only of a supposed Liberty at Common-Law and the Restraint of such Liberty If then the King can prohibit Trading to any Parts of the World but where he fixes his Staple unless the Trade be opened by Act of Parliament and yet may license some to trade elsewhere much more may he prohibit Trading in or to some one Place yet license others to trade there for a Prohibition of Trade to any Place but one or some few certainly argues a greater Power than to prohibit only in Relation to some particular Places Fourthly As the King might prohibit the carrying out Staple-Commodities elsewhere than to the Staple so he might when he saw cause prohibit even the carrying such thither Thus tho Wool was a Staple Commodity I find a Pardon for the Exportation of prohibited Merchandize of Wool upon Submission and Fine to the King But because this may possibly be for trading elsewhere than to the Staple this Power will not fully appear till we come to that Exception for the King's Prohibition which as I shall shew runs through those Statutes which are the most in Favour of Merchants yet it was admitted in the Argument of Sand's Case against the Company that in time of Plague or when the Commodities are needful here the King may prohibit the exporting even those of the Staple Fifthly The King might prohibit the Exportation or Importation of any Commodities not of the Staple as appears beyond Contradiction from the Petition of the Commons 1 H. 5. with the King's Answer to it The Commons pray that all Merchants may export to any place or import from any place any Goods except Goods of the Staple at their Pleasure notwithstanding any Proclamation to the contrary This is denied for the Answer is Le Roy voet estre advise This indeed some will have to be occasioned by an Embargo in time of War but it appears by the Circumstances of the time that there was none then or any immediate Preparation for one besides if there were Wars