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
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
come in and out of his Streams and Ports with their Ships and Merchandizes Podagium in Mari debet solvi sicut in terra si sit impositum per dominum Maris saith Baldus and the rights belonging to the Lord of the Sea saith another Doctor are Ius navigandi jus piscandi jus imponendi vectigalia pro utroque Again the Kings of England have the like Prerogative in the government of Trade and Comerce belonging to this Kingdome as other Princes and States have within their Dominions he must of necessity have the like absolute power as they all have to lay Impositions upon Merchandizes imported and exported otherwise he cannot possible hold the ballance of Trade upright or perserve an equality of Traffique between his own Subjects and the Subjects of Forein Princes and consequently it will lye in the power of our Neighbours to drain and draw away all our wealth in a short time or else to overthrow all Trade and Comerce between us and them at their pleasure and we shall have no means to encounter or avoid the mischief for their Princes having sole power to impose will have the sole making and managing of the Market between their Subjects and us and consequently may set what price they please upon all Merchandizes enforcing us to sell our Commodities cheap and buy their Commodities dear onely by this advantage of laying Impositions And therefore the King of England must of necessity have the same absolute power to lay Impositions upon Merchādizes as other Princes have as well ut evitetur absurdum as to prevent the ruin of the Common-wealth by the equall ballancing of Trade Comerce between his Subjects and the Subjects of Forein Princes Upon this reason when the Duke of Venice in the time of Q. Eliz. as is before expressed had laid an Imposition of one Ducket upon a 100 li. weight of Currans carried out of his Dominions by any English Merchant the Queen by speciall Patent in the twelfth year of the Reign did enable the Merchants which did Trade into the Levant to levie five shillings and six pence upon every 100 livre. weight of Currans brought into England by any Merchant Stranger Upon the like reason when in the time of King Hen. 8. the Emperor and the French King had raised the valuation of their monies both so high as there grew not only an inequality of Trade between their Subjects and the Subjects of England but our monies standing at their former values were carried out of the Realm in great quantities The King in the 24 year of his Reign granted a Commission unto Cadinall Woolsey to enhance the values of English monies likewise by that means to set ballance of trade even again and to keep our monies within the Realm Upon the same reason of State when the King of Spain that now is in the year 1614. had laid an Imposition of thirty upon the hundred on all Merchandizes imported and exported by Strangers the French King Hen. 4. was quickly sensible of it and did forthwith impose the like in his Kingdom then it followed of necessity that other Nations should follow and imitate them whereby it came to passe that Comerce of Merchants generally throughout Christendome began to decay which being perceived by these two great Princes they agreed to take away those excessive Impositions upon severall Treaties between them and the Italians and after between them and the English and the Dutch Briefly we find examples in all ages that whensoever by reason of Warre or for any other cause any Forein Prince gave the least impediment to Merchants in their Trade our Princes gave the like entertainment to their Merchants again This is declared in Magna Charta cap. 30. where it is plainly expressed what entertainment the Merchants of all Nations should expect in England Habeant Salvum securum conductum saith the Charter Praeterquam in tempore guerrae si fuerint de terra contra nos guerrina then as our Merchants are used with them so shall their Merchants be used with us 46 Edw. 3. The Countesse of Flanders having arrested the goods of the English Merchants there the King in recompence of their losses granted unto them all the goods of the Flemings in England whereof there is a notable Record mentioned before 1 Edw. 3. pat m 19. in Arch. Turris There are many other examples of mutuall embarments of Trade between the Flemings us and also between us and the French men during our Wars with France which I omit I will recite onely one president in the 40 year of Queen Elizabeth at which times the Merchants of the Haunce Towns having by sinister information procured the Emperour to banish our English Merchants out of the Empire the Queen by her speciall Commission did authorize the Mayor and Sheriffs of London to repair to the Still-yard being the Hostell of the Haunces to seize that House into her Majesties hands and there to give warning to the Merchants of the Haunce Towns to forbear Traffique with any of her Subjects in England and to depart the Realm upon that very day which was assigned to our Merchants to depart out of the Empire Lastly for the ordering and government of Trade among our own Merchants in Forein Countries and at home our Kings by their Prerogatives have instituted divers Societies and Companies of Merchants as the Company of Merchant Adventures the Muscovia Company the Turkie Company the East India Company c. all which are created upholden and ruled by the Kings Charter only whereupon I may conclude that the Kings of England having the same power in governing and ballancing Trade as other Princes have may justly execute the same power as well by laying Impositions upon Merchandizes as by the other means which are before expressed CHAP. XXII Of the several objections that are made against the Kings Prerogative in laying Impositions upon Merchandizes and the several Answers thereunto THE first Objection touching the property which all free Subjects have in their goods First it is objected that under a Royal Monarchy where the Prince doth govern by a positive Law the Subjects have a property in their Goods and inheritance in their Lands Ad Reges potestas omnium pertinet ad singulos proprietas So as the King hath no such Prerogative say they whereby he may take away the Lands or Goods of a Subject without his consent unless it be in a case of Forfeiture And therefore though Samuel foretold the people when they desired a King Hoc erit Ius Regis tollere agros vestros vineas oliveta dare servis suis Yet Ahab though he were a wicked King did not claim that Prerogative when he coveted Naboths Vineyard neither did he enter into it untill Naboth by false witnesses was condemned and stoned to death for blasphemy and then he took it for a lawfull Escheat but when the King doth
lay an Imposition upon Merchandizes without the consent of the Merchants and doth cause the Officers of his Customes to take and levie the same it seems sat they they take away the goods of the Subject without his consent and without cause of forfeiture which is not warranted either by Law of Nations which brought in property nor by the Law of the Land which doth maintain property CHAP. XXIII The Answer to the first Objection TO this Objection we answer That the King doth not take the Land or Goods of any without his consent but here we must distinguish there is a particular and expresse consent and there is an implicit and general consent when a man doth give his Goods or surrender his Lands to the King by deed enrolled or when in Parliament which representeth the body of the whole Realm and wherein everyman doth give his consent either by himself or his Deputy A subsidy is granted to the King there is an expresse consent but when subjects who live under a Royall Monarchy do submit themselves to the obedience of that Law of that Monarchy whatsoever the Law doth give to that Monarch the subjects who take the benefit of the Law in other things and doe live under the protection of the Law doe agree to that which the Law gives by an implicit and general consent and therefore there are many cases where the King doth lawfully take the goods of a Subject without his particular expresse consent though the same be not forfeited for any crime or contempt of the Owner If a Theef do steal my goods and waive them the King may lawfully take those goods without my particular consent and without any fault or forfeiture of mine but in regard I live under the Law which giveth such wayves unto the King he taketh not the same without my implicit consent so if my Horse kill a man the King may lawfully take my Horse a Deodand without my fault or consent in particular but in that I have consented to the obedience of the law which giveth all Deodands to the King he taketh not my Horse without the implicit or generall consent of mine In the time of War the King doth take my House to build a Fort or doth build a Bulwark upon my Land he doth me no wrong though he doth it without my consent for my implicit consent doth concur with it for that I being a member of the Common-weal cannot but consent to all Acts of necessity tending to the preservation of the Common-wealth So if the King doth grant me a Fair or Market with a power to take a reasonable Toll If a man will buy any thing in my Fair or Market I may take Toll of him though I give no particular consent to the grant because the Law whereunto every Subject doth give consent and obedience doth warrant the taking of Toll in every Market and Fair granted by the King So it is in case of Impositions the Law doth warrant the Kings Prerogative to impose upon Merchandizes as is before declared and therefore though the Merchants give not their particular consents to the laying of these Impositions yet in regard they live under the protection and obedience of the Law which submits it self to this Prerogative and allow and approve the same it cannot be said that the King doth take these Impositions of them without their implicit and generall consent CHAP. XXIV Of the second objection touching the uncertainty and unbounded largenesse of this Prerogative THe second Objection is against the uncertainty and unlimited largenesse of this Prerogative for in other cases they say where the King taketh the goods of a Subject by his Prerogative there is a certainty what he may take as in the case of way vs he may take onely the goods wayved and no more In case of Deodand he may take only the thing that causeth the death of a man and no more In case of wreck he may take only the goods that are wreckt and no more In case of Wardship of Land holden in Capite the King may take the profits of the Land till the Heir sues his Livery and no longer In case where the King hath Annum Diem vastum hee may retain of the Lands of the Felon attainted which are holden of other Lords for a year and a day and no longer In all these cases there is a certainty what the King shall have and how long he shall have it but in case of Imposition the quantity or rate thereof high or low is left to the Kings own will or pleasure so as if he should be mis-led as many Princes have been with evill Counsell he might with his Prerogative doe hurt the Cōmon-wealth by laying too heavy burthens upon his Subjects for though hetherto his Majesty hath imposed upon Merchandizes only twelve pence on the pound over and above the ancient Custome and the Subsidies granted by Parliament yet this Prerogative being unlimitted he may hereafter say they set five shillings or ten shillings upon the pound if it please him and so undoe the Merchants or discontinue and overthrow all Trade and Comerce CHAP. XXV The Answer to the second Objection TO this Objection the fittest answer is That it is an undutifull Objection and withall too busie too bold and too presumptuous for it is an Objection against the wisdome of the King in point of Government and against the bounty and goodnesse of the King towards his people the Text of the Civil Law cited before doth call it a kind of Sacrilege to dispute of Princes Judgments or Actions and for the Law of England sure I am that it trusteth the Wisdome and Judgement of the King alone in matter of greater importance than in laying of Impositions or setting of rates upon Merchandizes Is not the Kings wisdome only trusted with the absolute power of making War and Peace with forein Nations whereby hee may when hee pleaseth interrupt all Trade of Merchandizing Is not the King alone trusted with the like power of making and decrying of monies which is the onely Medium of all Traffique and Comerce Is not he solely and without limitation trusted with the nomination and creation of all Judges and Magistrates who are to give Judgement in cases concerning the Liberties Lands and Lives of all his Subjects hath not he a sole and unlimited power to pardon all Malefactors to dispence with all penal Laws to distribute all Honours to grant to whom he pleaseth Protections Denizations Exemptions not only from Juries but from all other Services of the Common-wealth and yet these Prerogatives if the same be not used with judgement and moderation may prove prejudicial to the Common-wealth as well as the laying of Impositions upon Merchandizes Shall therefore any undutifull Subject make these conclusions The King may have a continuall Warre with Forein States and Princes and so continually corrupt all courses of Merchandizes Ergo he shall lose his
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 Parliaments against Impositions laid by that King upon Merchandizes upon view of the Record wherein these Petitions are contained with
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