Selected quad for the lemma: death_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
death_n	act_n	king_n	parliament_n	4,616	5	7.4258	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A37240	The question concerning impositions, tonnage, poundage, prizage, customs, &c. fully stated and argued, from reason, law, and policy dedicated to King James in the latter end of his reign / by Sir John Davies ...	Davies, John, Sir, 1569-1626.	1656 (1656)	Wing D407; ESTC R1608	63,423	186

Sweet Wines by Letters Patents and by colour thereof had extorted three shillings and four pence out of every Pipe or Vessell of Wine vented by others was also fined and imprisoned and made satisfaction to the parties grieved 50 Edw. 3. Rot. Parli numb. 33. and more than this a Bill was preferred by the Commons in this Parliament that such as should set new Impositions should have Judgement of life and member 50 Edw. 3. Rot. Parliament num 191. in Arch. Turris These examples strook such a terrour at that time as from the time of King Edw. 3. till the Reign of Queen Mary being a hundred and fifty years and upwards there was no man found that would advise the King of England to set or levie any Impositions upon Merchandizes by Prerogative and therefore we find no Imposition laid upō Merchandizes all that space of time Queen Mary indeed began to set on foot this Prerogative again and laid an Imposition of three shillings and eight pence upon every Cloth transported out of the Kingdome but what doth the Lord Dyer report 1 Eliz. f. 165 the Merchants of London saith he found themselves greatly grieved and made exclamation and sute to Queen Elizabeth to be disburthened of that Imposition because it was not granted by Parliament but assessed by Queen Mary her absolute power these frequent Petitions complaints and exclamations these suspensions and remitalls of Impositions are good arguments say they against the right of this Prerogative CHAP. XXI The Answer to the third Objection THis Objection consisteth of several parts and shall recieve an Answer consisting of divers parts the first part of this answer King Edw. 1. being a prudent and resolute Prince did not onely impose the three pence upon the pound upon Merchant Strangers by his Charta Mercatoria but justified and maintained that Imposition during his life True it is that after his death King Edw. 2. it was repealed as is before objected but whose Act was this by whom was this Ordinance made which did repeal this Charter not by the King and his Parliament but by certain rebellious Barons who took upon them the Government of the Realm and called themselves Ordainers Wherefore King Edw. 3. in the first year of his Reign did revive that Charter and commanded by his Writ that the Customes and Duties therein contained should be collected and levied to his use He maketh mention of these Ordinances of 5 Edw. 2. and saith the same were made per quosdā Magnates and not by the King as appeareth by the Record 1 Edw. 3. Rot. fin memb. 30. in Arch. Turris which in another place before I have recited by which Record it likewise appeareth that those Ordinances 5 Edw. 2. were before that time repealed and made void and therefore that which was done in that time of that unfortunate Prince over-ruled by his unruly Barons is not to be urged and used as an example especially since they that urge this repeal of Charta Mercatoria might if they would find any thing which makes against their contradicting humour find in the said Roll of Ordinance made in 5 Edw. 2. divers Arcles wherein those Ordainers did wrong and wound the Prerogative in matter of greater importance than in the repeal of that Charter for they might have found among the same Ordinances these things ordained First that the King should not make gifts of Lands Rents Franhises Wards or Escheats without the consent of the Ordainers Secondly that all gifts and grants formerly made by the King not only of Land and other things in England but in Gasconie Ireland and Scotland should be resumed and made void Thirdly that the King should not depart out of the Realm nor make Warre without the assent of his Barons and of his Parliament That because the King was misguided and counselled by evill Counsellers it was ordained that all his Counsel should be renewed and new Officers and Servants appointed for him These traiterous Ordinances were made against the King at that time and therefore it is a shame that any part of these Ordinances should be made an argument against the right of the Crown in laying Impositions upon Merchandizes for with the same reasons they might argue the King had no right to grant his Lands Rents Wards or Escheats that he might not go out of the Realm nor make Warre nor choose his own Counsellers or Servants without an Act of Parliament and it is manifest that those factious Barons did cause the King to forego the said Impositions rather ad faciendum populum and to gratifie the Cōmons and to draw them to their party than for the good of the Cōmon-wealth for if they had been good Counsellers they would have done as the Senate of Rome did when Nero in a glorious humor to please the people would needs have discharged at once all Customes and Impositions the Senate gave him thanks for his favour towards the people but utterly diswaded him so to doe telling him that in so doing he would ruine the state of the Common-wealth for indeed no Common-wealth can stand without these duties they are Nervi they are succus sanguis Reipublicae and therefore no Cōmon-wealth was ever without them but the imaginary Common-wealths of Plato and Sir Thomas More for they doe both agree for in the Common-wealths of which they dream there was nothing to be paid for Merchandizes exported and imported But to return to King Edw. 2. what followed upon the Repeal of Charta Mercatoria and the discharge of Impositions which King Edw. 1. established was not that poor Prince King Edw. 2. enforced to take up great sums of money of his Merchants by way of loan which he never repaid again 11 Edw. 2. Rot. fin m. 12. whereby the Merchants received a greater detriment than if they had made a double payment of Customes and Impositions which the King had discharged and therefore the example of this weak Prince doth make but a weak argument against the right of the Crown in laying Impositions upon Merchandizes and here I think it fit to observe that they were all wise and worthy Princes which are spoken of in former ages to have laid Impositions upon Merchandizes namely Solomon in the Holy Land Iulius Caesar and Augustus Caesar in the Empire King Ed. 1. and King Ed. 3. in England but on the other part they which released all Customes and Impositions were but weak Princes and destroyed themselves and the Common-wealth wherein they lived namely Nero in the Empire of Rome King Edw. 2. and King Rich. 2. with us and truly by the rule of our Common Law the King cannot if he would release all Subsides and Aids of his Subjects that they should be for ever discharged of all Subsidies to be given to the Crown such a grant were made void and against the Law Secondly touching the Petitions exhibited to the King in sundry

they wanted right so to doe or because they doubted of their right in that behalf for they well knew 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 Merchandizés 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 Hands 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 Licences 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

their freedom from Impositions at so high a rate or price The like conditionall agreement between the King and the 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 ill-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 not to be urged as an example or president in these times but in truth the causes for which these persons were censured do rather approve the right of the Crown in laying Impositions than any way disaffirm the same First Richard Lions 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 Impositiōs 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 it 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