Selected quad for the lemma: england_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
england_n	council_n	lord_n	privy_a	4,231	5	10.1951	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A25779	The argument of a learned counsel, upon an action of the case brought by the East-India-Company, against Mr. Thomas Sands, an interloper	Pollexfen, Henry, Sir, 1632?-1691.	1696 (1696)	Wing A3633; ESTC R12992	26,277	82

Kingdom For the King may so do and this without Distinction of Christian or Infidel Country pro hic nunc as Occasion may be 2. It is not the Question whether the King can restrain all his Subjects to such a Country or City It may be done upon particular Occasions as of War or Plague But from hence to argue that the King can grant you and your Successors for ever a sole Trade to such a Country or Place excluding all other his Subjects except with your Leave or Licence Because he can restrain this or that Subject therefore he can grant a sole Trade to the Plaintiff and exclude all others but you and such as you licence for ever Because he can upon particular Occasions as of War or Plague restrain or prohibit his Subjects to go or trade to such a City or Country That when there is neither Plague nor War the King should grant a sole Trade to any particular Person whether Body Politick or Natural and restrain all others for ever Can this be by the Law done If this Foundation will warrant it though in this Case this be with Infidels and upon that ground some difference imagined betwixt an Infidel and a Christian Country Yet remember your Reason or Foundation doth not distinguish or make a Difference For if because the King hath Power to restrain or prohibit Subjects to go out of the Realm Or by Occasion of War or Plague all his Subjects from trading to such a City or Country since this Power you must agree extends as well to Christian as Infidel City or Country The granting of sole Trade to one Subject or Body Politick and restraining all others is the same whether it be to Christian or Infidel City or Country And when you cite the of Statute 3 Jacc. 6. which enacts That the King's Subjects shall freely trade to Spain and Portugal notwithstanding the Charters of Incorporation granted to some Merchants and the Prohibitions in those Charters And from thence argue that because there were Prohibitions or Restraints by Charters as to those Countries which were Christian therefore such a sole Trade to an Infidel Country is well granted You must have it admitted that such a Grant to those Countries is good and legal or else you argue from that which you grant not to be lawful to prove another like Grant to be lawful Or at least by the same Arguments and Reasons maintain such a Grant of sole Trade to be good whether made to Christian or Infidel Country If then it not being the Point or Question in this Case Whether the King can restrain his Subjects from going beyond the Seas Nor Whether the King can lawfully restrain his Subjects to trade to a particular Country or Place whether Christian or Infidel Then the Questions plainly and shortly are 1. Whether this Grant of sole Trade to the Plaintiffs be a good Grant or not 2. Supposing that it should be then whether this Action be maintainable or not 1. By the Common Law Trade is free and open for the King's Subjects And this I shall endeavour to shew from Authorities Commercium jure Gentium commune esse debet non in Monopolium privatum paululorum questum convertendum 3 Inst 381. Iniquum est aliis permittere aliis inhibehere Mercaturam The Taylers of Ipswich's Case That no Trade Mechanick nor Merchant 1 Rols Rep. 4. can be hindered by the Patent of the King a Patent that only 100 Persons shall use such a Trade is void F.N.B. 85. Note that by the common Law every Man may go out of the Realm for Merchandize or travel without demanding Leave of the King Stat. 5R 2. c. 2. Prohibited all but Great Men and Merchants to pass out of the Realm without the King's Licence But this Statute is repealed by 14 Jac. c. 1. Dyer 165. That every one may at his Will go with his Goods and cites F. N. B. for it 2. And in the next place That appropriating Merchandize and Trade to a particular Person or Persons or a Body Politick excluding others is an ingrossing such Trade And that all ingrossing Trade is against the common Law 3 Inst 196. That ingrossing any sort of Merchandize is an Offence at common Law Dom ' Rex vers Crisp al. In this Court lately an Agreement betwixt divers Coprice Makers and Coprice Merchants for the buying of all Coprice that the Coprice Makers should for three Years make at so much a Tun and restraining them from selling to any others Adjudged an ingrossing upon an Information in this Court And if a Company of Merchants should buy up in like manner all the Merchandize of Spain or Portugal or the Canaries or other Town or Place for three Years to come This I think would be an ingrossing and the Contract against Law For the Consequence of it must be that they would sell at their own Price and thereby exact upon the King's Subjects And your Patent for the sole Trade to the East-Indies invests you in all the Merchandizes of those Countries and ingrosseth them all into your Hands And if a Patent grant to any the ingrossing of Merchandizes this Patent is against Law and void Ingrossing is in Truth but a Species or another Name for monopolizing for all the Difference between them is that ingrossing is commonly by Agreements and Contracts made betwixt Subjects one with another without the King 's Grant but Monopolies are Ingrossings by Colour of the King's Grants 3 Inst 181. The Case there of John Peachy who 50. E. 3. was severely punished for a Grant under the Great Seal for the sole selling of sweet Wines in London Case of Monop. 11 Rep. 84. Moor. 673. and in Noy This was ingrossing by Colour of the King's Grant and a Monopoly Darcey had the sole importing from beyond Seas and selling of Cards granted him by Patent for 21 Years under a Rent prohibiting all others to sell and this Trin. 44. Eliz. adjudged a void Grant And the Statute 21 Jac. c. 3. declares all Monopolies to be against the common Law So that this being so If this Grant be a Grant to you to ingross or monopolize then by the common Law this Grant is void 3. That that this Grant of sole Trade is against Magna Charta 9 H. 3. Mag. Ch. c. 30. and divers other the ancient Statutes All Merchants if they were not openly prohibited before shall have their safe and sure Conduct to depart out of England and to come into England to buy and sell without any manner of evil Tolls by the old and rightful Customs except in Time of War My Lord Cook saith 2 Inst 57. That the Words in this Act nisi publice prohibeantur are intended a Prohibition by the publick Council of the Kingdom by Act of Parliament This Act then being general all Merchants to have safe Conduct to go out and come into England if not prohibited by

Act of Parliament is probably a Declaration of the common Law Stat. 2 E. 3 c. That all Merchants Strangers and Privy may go and come with their Merchandizes into England according to the Form of the Grand Charter Stat. 9 E. 3 c. 1. That all Merchants Strangers and Denizens and all other and every of them of what Estate soever they be shall sell their Merchandizes from whencesoever they come freely without Interruption Except the King's Enemies And that this Act shall be observed and performed notwithstanding any Charters to the contrary And that Charters to the contrary are of no force but are to the King's Damage and to the Oppression of the Commons But your Charter gives you the sole Merchandizing to and from the East-Indies Stat. 14 E. 3. c. 2. Recites Magnae Charta and enacts That all Merchants Aliens and Denizens may without Let safely come with their Merchandizes safely carry and safely return Stat. 25 E. 3. c. 2. Confirms the former Statute of 9 E. 3. and enacts That if any Letters Patents Proclamation or Commandment be made to the contrary it shall be void Stat. 2 R. 2. c. 1. and 11. c. 7. Both confirm the two former Statutes and enact That all Letters Patents and Commands to the contrary shall be void By these four Statutes the Freedom of Trade and Traffick is amply establish'd and all Letters Patents Grants Proclamations and commands to the contrary made void if they had not been so at common Law 2 Inst 63. And my Lord Cook upon Consideration of Magna Charta and these Statutes after Examination of several Grants of Tolls and Duties to be paid upon Merchandize saith That upon this Charter this Conclusion is necessarily gathered that all Monopolies concerning Trade and Traffick are against the Liberty and Freedom declared and granted by this Great Charter and divers other Acts of Parliament which are good Commentaries upon this Charter And then cites the other Statute that I have before cited Object But say they tho we have the sole Trade yet we are no Monopoly Resp To prove it to be a Monopoly 3 Inst 181. let us see how a Monopoly is described My Lord Cook in his Chapter of Monopolies describes it An Institution or Allowance by the King 's Grant to any Person or Persons Bodies Politick or Corporate of or for the sole buying or selling or using of any thing whereby any Person or Persons are to be restrained of any Freedom or Liberty that they had before or are hindred in their lawful Trade This Description I think exactly suits with your Patent For 1. By your Patent you have the sole Trade granted to you Sole Trade is sole buying and sole selling for Merchandizing consists in buying and selling The sole using any thing is another general Part of this Description Is not sole Trade sole using or merchandizing And for the latter Part of it whereby any Person is restrained or hindred in his Liberty 2. Your Patent grants to you to seize the Ships and Goods of any that come thither And your bringing this Action shews you are sufficiently a Hinderer of the Liberty of others to trade So that I think you can't deny but that you are comprehended under this Description But for further Evidence of its being a Monopoly let us see what the Evils and Mischiefs are that were in Monopolies which the Law speaks so hard of The Evils and Mischiefs are First That the Price of the Commodity they sell shall be kept and risen higher than otherwise it would be For he that hath the sole Trade will keep up the Price as he pleaseth And this is one of the Evils mentioned in the Case of Monopolies 11 Rep. 86. b. The Truth hereof I think is evident enough and no Man in Reason thinks but he that hath the sole Trade trades for his Advantage And the highest and dearest Rates he can sell at and the cheapest he can buy at are his Advantage Secondly A second Mischief or Evil is that Monopolies or sole Trade is pro privato paululorum quaestu So it is said to be in the Margent of the Book before cited 3 Inst 181. No Man will doubt hereof that considers the present State or Condition of this Company Thirdly Another Evil or Mischief of Monopolies or sole Trade is the Impoverishment and Oppression of the King's Subjects Trade is not in its own Nature fix'd and stable but varying and altering sometimes better sometimes worse Sometimes one Trade beneficial another not according as Wares Sicknesses Scarsity of this or that sort of Commodity or Merchandize in this or that Country Modes Fashions Customs and Habits of Men do occasion And the Merchants by their Education and Observation manage and govern this Trade for the Maintenance of themselves and their Families and the general Good of Men. And direct and imploy their Estates and traffick into this or that Part of the World as Time and Occasion shall give them best Encouragement But sole Trade into this or that Part of the World granted to one Company and of another to another sets up the particular Men that head the Companies but destroys all other Merchants and inferior People Such Patents must undo all other Parts of this Kingdom besides London For the Companies can't drive these great Trades but must manage them in London and consequently the other Parts of the Kingdom must be excluded All shipping must be subjected to the Rates and Prizes these Appropriators of Trade will give them or else lye still and be destroyed And so must all Masters of Ships Mariners all Artificers Labourers Factors and Servants whose Employments depend upon these Trades must all be subjected to their Wills And of how great Consequence that may be deserves Consideration The Instances of your Oppressions and Dealings with your Factors Captains Servants and Seamen that got any thing in their Service are well known So that if the Evils and Mischiefs which the Common Law forbids and endeavours to prevent by judging all Monopolies Ingrossings and sole Trade unlawful be to be avoided The Evils and Mischiefs attending your Patent and sole Trade are perhaps the greatest because your sole Trade is the greatest that ever England knew That every Grant of the King hath this Condition implied in it viz. F. N. Br. 222. Quod Patria per talem donationem magis solito non oneretur seu gravetur Grant le Roy al charge ou prejudice del Subject est void 13 H. 4. 14. And if the Evils and Mischiefs of this Grant be as I have stated them 'T is a Grant to the Oppression and Prejudice of the Subject And therefore the King is deceived in it and the Grant by the common Law void as I have before shewn Object But perhaps it may be objected that this Patent is granted for good Government and Order and Preservation of this Trade which will otherwise be destroyed and for the Good of the Kingdom