Selected quad for the lemma: enemy_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
enemy_n	ambassador_n	king_n	send_v	1,788	5	5.7207	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A86390	The libertie of the subject against the pretended power of impositions. Maintained by an argument in Parliament an[o]. 7[o]. Jacobi Regis. / By William Hakevvil of Lincolns Inne Esq.	Hakewill, William, 1574-1655.	1641 (1641)	Wing H210; Thomason E170_2; ESTC R9193	77,405	152

Kings and that he may open them and shut them upon what conditions he pleaseth answered and in regard thereof he may open and shut them upon what conditions he pleaseth I answere I. That the Position that all the Ports are the Kings is not generally true For Subjects may also be owners of Ports as may appeare by the Patent Roll of 3. E. 1. M. 1. Parl. where you shall finde that King Ed. 1. granted to the Lords of Port Townes the forfeitures granted to him by Parliament for not duly paying the new Custome of the demy-Marke within every severall Port of theirs where the Merchandizes should happen to be imported or exported But admitting the truth of the position yet is the consequence as weake and dangerous as of any of the rest of their arguments For are not all the gates of Cities and Townes and all the Streets and Highwayes in England the Kings and as much subject to be open or shut at his pleasure as the Ports are Nay whensoever we speake of the Highway in any law businesse we call it via Regia the Kings Highway and the King in his Commissions speaking of London or any other Citie calls it Civitas nostra London or Civitas nostra Exon Doth it follow therefore that the King may lay Impositions upon every man or upon all Commodities that shall passe through any of these places Nay the gates of the Kings owne house for the purpose his Pallace of Westminster are his in a farre neerer degree then any of these may he therefore by his Proclamation impose upon every man that shall passe in or out at Westminster Hall doore a summe of money Doubtlesse he may not because the King is a person publike and his Subjects ought to have accesse to him as to the fountaine of Justice and to the Courts of Justice sitting by his authoritie I make little doubt but his Majestie may upon just occasion cause any of these passages to be shut as he may also the passage at the Havens But when the Passage may without danger to the State be open and that the Subjects may passe his Majestie may not then exact money for their passage For the law hath given the King power over these things for the good of the Common-wealth and not thereby to charge and burden the Subject If the King may not exact money for passage in and out of his Court gates because of the publikenesse of his Person Nor for passage through the gates of Cities much lesse may he for passage out at the Ports which are the great gates of the Kingdom and which the subject ought as freely to enjoy as the ayre or the water Another of their arguments is this The fourth argument that the King is bound at his owne charge to protect Merchants therefore it is necessary it should be in his power to lay moderate Impositions upon Merchandizes for raising of money to defray his charge Answered The king is bound to protect Merchants from spoile by the enemie he ought to fortifie the Havens that their ships may there abide in safety he ought if occasion be to send Ambassadors to forrein Princes to negotiate for them and many the like charges is the King by the Law to undergoe for the protection of his Merchants It is reason therefore that his expence be defraied out of the profit made by Merchants and consequently that he may impose upon Merchandize a moderate charge thereby to repay himself The consequence of this Argument is thus farre true The law expects that the King should protect Merchants therefore it alloweth him out of Merchandize a revenue for the maintenance of his charge which is the old Custome due as at first I said by the Common law But it is no good consequence The Fifth Argument that all forraine Princes have power to impose and if our King had not the like it might be very inconvenient to this State Answered that therefore he may take what he list no more then he may at his pleasure increase that old revenue which the law giveth him for protecting of Subjects in their suits or for protecting Wards c. Another Argument of theirs is this All other Princes of the world may impose upon merchandize at their pleasure and so may make our Merchandizes lesse vendible with them by laying an Imposition upon them to be paid by us when they are brought into their Territories whereby their owne Commodities of the same nature may be sold more to the gaine of their Merchants and our Merchant impoverished or driven from his Trade They may also lay Impositions upon our Merchants fetching Commodities from thence and leave their owne Merchants free from any Imposition in the same case by which their merchants shall reape all the profit by that commoditie in affording it better cheape to us here then we can fetch it and consequently our merchants shall be undone Many the like cases have been put to prove That if the King of England may not impose as other Princes may they shall be able at their pleasure to destroy our trading This I conceive was the same as now it is during all that time from Ed. 3. till Queen Mary and doubtlesse it could not but sometimes during that long space so fall out that forreine Princes did put their power in practise to our prejudice and yet we heare not of any Imposition laid by any of our Kings by their absolute power which may give any man assurance that they tooke some other course to meet with the inconvenience and in deed the meanes are divers which these our Kings used to prevent it First they were carefull in all their Leagues and Treaties with forrain Princes specially to provide for it as may appeare by the Records of the ancient Leagues Neither is there any League of late time that hath not had an Article for provision in this point which Leagues for the most part are upon oath on both parts And yet for further securitie our Kings have always had Ambassadors resident in the Courts of such forrain Princes to put them in minde of their Leagues if upon any occasion our Merchants have in that case happened to be never so little wronged by them if upon complaint of the Ambassador our merchants have not found redresse our Kings have held the League as broken and denounced Warre or seised all the goods of the same Princes Subjects within England and I dare say there have been more warres undertaken by our Princes against forrain nations onely for this cause then for any one other cause whatsoever Besides our Kings have in this case sometimes made use of that their Prerogative of restraint either by prohibiting our Merchants from carrying our Commodities into those parts where they are charged with Impositions that so by the want of our Commodities forraine Princes might be enforced to abate their Impositions laid upon them or by restraining the Merchants of forrain Princes to import or export commodities from hence By which meanes forraine Princes have been compelled to deale favourably with our Merchants for the good of their owne Subjects All these are lawfull and ordinary means to prevent or redresse the inconvenience which may grow by the Impositions of other Princes If all these ordinary means should happen to faile which can hardly so fall out and that the laying of Impositions be indeed the only means that is left to redresse the inconvenience why should not that be done by Act of Parliament as well in these times as it was in 7. H. 7. cap. 7. to take downe the Imposition of Foure Ducates upon a But of Malmsey imposed by the Venetians And as it was done by Queen Eliz. the 19. yeere of her Reigne to prevent the laying of Impositions by forraine Princes upon Salt-fish as may appeare by the printed Statutes of 19. Eliz. cap. 10. But as I have said the providence of the Prince and ordinary power of restraint may very well meet with the inconvenience These are the chiefe reasons made in maintenance of impositions the weaknesse of them and their dangerous consequence you cannot but perceive For by the same reasons Taxes within the Land may be as well proved to be lawfull On the contrary part you have heard the reasons against impositions fortified by many Records and Statutes in the point So as I conclude that Impositions neither in the time of warre or other the greatest necessitie or occasion that may be much lesse in the time of peace neither upon forraine nor inland Commodities of whatsoever nature be they never so superfluous or unnecessary neither upon Merchants Strangers nor Denizens may be laid by the Kings absolute power without assent of Parliament be it for never so short a time much lesse to endure for ever as ours Though this be now my opinion yet am not I so obstinate therein but if yet I heare better reason I will once againe change my minde in the meane while you see I had reason to alter my first opinion as being grounded upon very weak Reasons as now they appeare unto me And so I suppose they doe also unto you FINIS 7o. Julii 1641. AT a Committee of the Honorable House of Commons for Examination of books and of the Licensing and Suppressing of them c. It is Ordered That this Argument upon Impositions be forthwith published in print EDWARD DERING