Selected quad for the lemma: duty_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
duty_n	authority_n	king_n	subject_n	1,333	5	6.6132	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A46717	The Argument of the Lord Chief Justice of the Court of King's Bench concerning the great case of monopolies, between the East-India Company, plantiff, and Thomas Sandys, defendant wherein their patent for trading to the East-Indies, exclusive of all others, is adjudged good.	Jeffreys, George Jeffreys, Baron, 1644 or 5-1689.; Sandys, Thomas.; England and Wales. Court of King's Bench.; East India Company.	1689 (1689)	Wing J526; ESTC R17792	37,073	36

other Felons and make use of his Prerogative to let all Malefactors escape The King is the Fountain of Honour as well as of Justice and in vertue of that Prerogative may ennoble as many of his Subjects as he pleases and thereby exempt them from Arrests and other common Processes of the Law by means whereof Men do more speedily recover their just Debts and have redress for Injuries Is it therefore to be presumed the King will make such a glut of Noblemen because he may do it And as this is against his Inclination so certainly it is against his Interest to make such Grants as the Defendant's Councel seems to fear for it is more for the King's benefit than it can be for his Subjects the greater the Importation of Foreign Commodities is for from thence arise his Customs and Impositions those necessary supports of the Crown and therefore in some sence the King is the only Person truly concerned in this Question For this Island supported its Inhabitants in many Ages without any Foreign Trade at all having in it all things necessary for the Life of Man. Terra suis contenta bonis non indiga mercis Says the Poet. And truly I think if at this day most of the East-India Commodities were absolutely prohibited tho it might be injurious as to the profit of some few Traders it would not be so to the generality of the Inhabitants of this Realm And therefore as I have offered these few Instances to prove the King should have such a Prerogative in the next place I come to shew that the Kings of England have exercised this their Prerogative in all Ages and as the King has the power of restraint of Foreign Trade so he is the only Judge when it is proper to use that power which seems plainly to be for the same reason And I think Mr. Williams's remark of the difficulty of this Case that it should necessitate the King to call a Parliament to assist him with power to determine this Question is not to be passed by without some Observation God be praised 't is in the King's power to call and dissolve Parliaments when and how he pleases and he is the only Judg of these Ardua Regni that he should think fit to consult with the Parliament about and Mr. Williams would do well to save himself the trouble of advising the King of what things are fit for him to consult with his Parliament about till such time as he be thereunto called but it hath been too much practised at this and other Bars in Westminster-Hall of late years to captivate the Lay Gens by lessening the power of the King and advancing I had almost said the Prerogative of the People and from hence comes the many mischiefs to the King's Subjects in parts abroad by making the Power of the King thought so inconsiderable as tho he were a mere Duke of Venice being absolutely dependent upon his Parliament Would it not be mightily for the Honour and Dignity of the Crown of England think ye That the Emperor of Fez and Morocco or any Prince of the remote parts of the World should be told that Mr. Sands one of the King of Great Britains Subjects came into the Emperour's Territories against his Prince's consent and that he had no power to hinder him unless he would consult with all his Nobles and the Representatives of all his common Subjects to assist therein Would not the Emperour believe Sands to be the greater Prince of the two But though such sort of Declamations are so much for the service of the Crown and for the Honour of the Kingdom as they would have it believed yet I think they have the same tendency of Duty and Service to the King with some other matters that of late have happened amongst us viz. Some have been so concerned as well for the safety and security of his Majesties sacred Person and to make him formidable to his rebellious Subjects at home as to desire that his Guards might be discharged because it looked as tho he designed to rule by a Standing Army and to shew their tenderness to his Sacred Life would have him removed from the assistance of evil Counsellours as they called them and put himself into the hands of Assassinates as though one murdered Prince were not sufficient to satisfie that piece of State-policy in one and the same Age and in order that he might have sufficient to support the Necessity as well as Dignity of a Crown which all good Subjects are zealous for some of late have industriously endeavoured to have prevented him from being able to borrow any Money upon the Credit of any part of his Revenue a priviledg that the meanest of the Persons concerned in that Question would think themselves highly injured to be debarred of These and the like attempts if not prevented will render the King and his Government low and despicable in all other parts of the World and as for the instance between a Denizen and a Man Naturalized I think it rather makes against than for Mr. Williams's Conclusion as to the main Question for though the King cannot Naturalize a Man and thereby give him inheritable bloud as a natural born Subject to inherit Lands yet he may make an Alien a Denizen and by that means he becomes to have as much priviledg as any of the King 's natural Subjects hath as to Trade and Commerce which is the onely question now before us and I cannot help being of Opinion that this Kingdom was in greater regard abroad and the Inhabitants thereof more prosperous at home when the Prerogative of the Crown was more absolute than now it is therefore it is our Duty as good Judges as well as good Subjects to endeavour to support it as much as we can by Law. And so I proceed to mention some Presidents and Authorities whereby the Kings of England have in all ages exercised this part of their Prerogative of Restraining disposing and ordering matters of Commerce and Forein Trade by Royal Licences Charters and Dispensations And herein I shall content my self with as much brevity as I can onely in producing some few of those many instances which were with great care and industry found out by Mr. Attorney and Mr. Sollicitor and by them so learnedly and properly applied to the Case in question I. Therefore it has been well observed that the Staples which were the common and publick Marts for all Merchants to resort to were first erected by the King's Prerogative without any Act of Parliament as it doth plainly appear by the several Acts of Parliament mentioned at the Bar either for setting the Places or enlarging the Commodities that were permitted to be brought to the Staple for surely in all times when the Staple was fixed in the Dominions of any other Prince that must be done by League which none can make but the King. To instance one Authority for all the Stat. 2 Ed. 3. Cap. 9.

the Bar. For the Writ in Fitz. N. B. 85. and the Register import no such thing and our Books say the Surmises mentioned in those Writs are not traversable so is Dyer 165. 296. for surely the King may restrain his Subjects from going beyond Sea and is not bound to give any reason for his so doing but that is not now in Question II. In the next place I do not conceive there is any difference tho much discourse hath been about Indians and Infidels whether the East-Indies were at the time of the Grant of this Patent inhabited by Christians or Infidels tho by the way in the debating of this Case I shall shew perhaps that matter may in some measure affect the Defendant but will not at all affect the Grant to the Plaintiffs So that I conceive that whether this Country or Place or any other be inhabited by Christians or Infidels that is not otherwise provided for by Act of Parliament will make but the same Question III. Whether every Clause and Article in these Letters Patents viz. Touching forfeiture of Ship and Goods Imprisonments or divers other clauses contained in the Charter be legal or not is not now in question For surely it would be hard to maintain them all and therefore the Plaintiffs Councel have avoided those Questions by bringing this Action and tho the Defendants Councel have mentioned them yet surely it was onely intended to fully the Cause and not that they thought them to affect the Question IV. Nor is it the Question Whether by this Grant to the Plaintiffs the King has fettered or confined his Prerogative by putting in a Covenant to exclude himself from granting Licences to others of his Subjects to trade within the limits of the Plaintiffs Charter tho Mr. William's always a friend to the Kings Prerogative in tenderness and care thereof seemed to be surprised by the inconsiderate extravagancy of the Grant and would have us believe that he was afflicted with the dismal Consequences that must necessarily ensue by the King 's parting with so great a Prerogative and that either by the advice consent or the inadvertency of his Attorney General and the rest of his Councel by having a greater regard to the East India Company for the sake of their Money than they had to the King in discharge of their duty To acquit them and us therefore of that Dilemma I am of opinion though it makes nothing to the question that is now before us The King may grant Licences to any of his Subjects to trade to the Indies notwithstanding the Charter or any Article Clause or Condition therein contained to the contrary and notwithstanding any Caution or advertisement that in his argument he gave to the King or his reflection that he made upon his Councel either for their ignorance or hasly inadvertency in the passing of that Grant and I am the rather induced to be of that persuasion for that the most learned of our Profession whose Opinions have been quoted by him and others that have argued on the Defendants side were then of the Kings Councel and were privy to and advised both these Letters Patents and all others of the like nature that have been granted for these hundred years last past I therefore think fit to say that I believe Mr. Attorney General and the rest of the King's Councel have discharged their Duty as well to the King by maintaining of this Grant as Mr. Williams has in this instance manifested his Loyalty by endeavouring to destroy it In short therefore as I said before every Clause in this Charter is not to be maintained and therefore is not to affect the Question now to be determined V. Whereas it has been objected that tho upon the Pleadings it is agreed that the Defendant never was a Member of the East-India Company nor had any Licence from them to trade to the Indies yet he might have a Licence from the King which as I conceive the King is not debarred to grant by any Clause in the Letters Patents yet I am of opinion that if the Defendant had any such License it ought to have been shewn on his part which not being done it ought to be taken by us as I believe the truth of the Fact is the Defendant never had any such Licence VI. It was observed that the Plaintiffs in their Declaration had alledged that this Trade could not be managed but per hujusmodi Corpus Corporatum and by this means they had excluded the King from Constituting any more Companies to trade within their Limits tho perhaps the advantage of this Kingdom might hereafter require it Nay tho the Indians might desire a further Treaty of Commerce or that the Trade of these places might require more Companies to be erected yet say they this Grant hath made the Plaintiffs a mere Republick and thereby has altered the Constitution of England in the management of Trade by Common-wealths by placing it in Companies who were they Independant upon the Crown are truly so called Yet in as much as I did before observe that the King is not by this Grant either excluded from making any new Treaties with the Indians or from making any Corporations or granting any other Licences to any of the rest of his Subjects notwithstanding any of the Clauses in the Charter So I am of opinion that that Objection also does not affect the Question now to be determined and for that reason amongst others I thought it not improper to mention that Clause in the Charter that was omitted at the Bar which the King has annexed as a Condition to his Grant that if it should hereafter appear to his Majesty or his Successors that that Grant or the continuance thereof in the whole or in any part should not be profitable to his Majesty his Heirs and his Successors or to this Realm that after three years warning by War under the Kings Seal or Sign Manual should be made utterly void So that it appearing that the King hath neither divested himself of the power nor at the time of the Grant did design to be prevented to shew his inclination for the promoting of the advantage of his Kingdom has given himself scope enough to obviate all those Emergencies Yet by the way I cannot but observe that Mr. Williams to shew his dislike to a Commonwealth declared it to be absolutely opposite to the interest of a Single Person but the Single Person he concerned himself for was not the King and his Prerogative but his Client the Defendant and his Trade who tho I cannot in propriety of Speech call a Commonwealth yet I cannot but think this opposition of his seems to proceed from a Republican Principle for he by his Interloping has been the first Subject that within this Kingdom for near an hundred years last past hath in Westminster-Hall publickly opposed himself against the King's undoubted Prerogative in the Grant now before us and I hope by this Example