Patents of his own will and power absolute without assent of Parliament he be so lawfully intituled to that he doth impose as that thereby he doth alter the property of his subjects goods and is enabled to recover these impositions by course of Law I think he cannot and I ground my opinion upon these foure reasons 1. It is against the naturall frame and constitution of the policie of this kingdome which is jus publicum regni and so subverteth the fundamentall Law of the Realme and induceth a new forme of state and government 2. It is against the municipall Law of the Land which is jus privatum the Law of property and of private right 3 It is against divers Statutes made to restraine our King in this point 4. It is against the practice and action of our Common wealth contra morem majorum and this is the modestest rule to limit both Kings Prerogatives and Subjects Liberties Upon the first and fourth of these foure principal grounds I will more insist then upon the second and third both for that in their own nature they are a more proper matter for a Councel of State to the judgement of which I apply my discourse and they have not been enforced by others As also for that the other two as more fit for a barre and the Courts of ordinary justice have by some professors of the Law been already most leardnedly and exquisitely discussed For the first it will be admitted for a rule and ground of State that in every Common-wealth and government there be some rights of Soveraignty jurae Majestatis which regularly and of common right doe belong to the Soveraign power of that State unless Custome or the provisional ordinance of that State doe otherwise dispose of them which Soveraigne power is potestas suprema a power that can controule all other powers and cannot be controuled but by it self It will not be denied that the power of imposing hath so great a trust in It by reason of the mischiefes may grow to the Common-wealth by the abuses of it that it hath ever been ranked among those rights of Soveraign power Then is there no further question to be made but to examine where the Soveraigne power is in this Kingdome for there is the right of imposition The Soveraigne power is agreed to be in the King but in the King is a twofold power the one in Parliament as he is assisted with the consent of the whole State the other out of Parliament as he is sole and singular guided merely by his own will And if of these two powers in the King one is greater than the other and can direct and controule the other that is Suprema Potestas the Soveraigne power and the other is subordinata It will then be easily proved that the power of the King in Parliament is greater than his power out of Parliament and doth rule and controule it for if the King make a grant by his Letters Patents out of Parliament it bindeth him and his successors he cannot revoke it nor any of his Successours But by his power in Parliament he may defeate and avoyd it and therefore that is the greater power If a judgement be given in the Kings Bench by the King himselfe as may be and by the Law is intended a writ of Error to reverse this judgement may be sued before the King in Parliament which writ must be granted by the Chancellor upon bill indorsed by the King himself 1. H. 7.19 6. Lib. Intrac fol. 302. c. 1. as the book is 1 H 7.19.6 And the forme of the writ of Error is that it being directed to the Chiefe Justice of the Kings Bench Quia in recordo prâ—cessu ac etiam in redditione judicii lâ—quelae quae fuit in Curiâ nostrâ coram nobis Error intervenis manifestus ad grave damnum c. Nos errorem si quis fuerit modo debito corrigi pariibus praedictis plenam celerem justitiam fieri volentes in hâc parte vobis mandamus quòd Recordum processum loquelae illius cum omnibus ea tangentibus in praesens Parliamentum nostrum sub sigillio tuo distiâ—â—â—è apertèmittas hoc breve ut inspectis c. nâ—s de Consilto advisamento Domi norum spiritualium temporalâ—um ac Communitatis in Parliamento nostro praedicto existentis alterius pro errore illo corrigenâ—o fieri faciamus quâ—d de jure secundum legem consuetudinem Regni nostri Angliae fuerit faciendum So you see the Appeal is from the King out of the Parliament to the King in Parliament the writ is in his name the rectifying and correcting the errours is by him but with the assent of the Lords and Commons The booke is not so that the CoÌ„mons should meddle than which there can be no stronger evidence to prove that his power out of Parliament is subordinate to his power in Parliament for in Acts of Parliament be they lawes grounds or whatsoever whatsoever else the Act and power is the Kings but with the assent of the Lords and Commons which maketh it the most soveraigne and supreame power above all and controulable none Besides this right of imposing there be others in the Kingdome of the same nature As the power to make lawes the power of Naturalization the power of erection of arbitrary Government the power to judge without appeale the power to legitimate all which do belong to the King only in in Parliament Others there be of the same nature that the King may exercise out of Parliament which right is grown unto him in them more in those others by the use and practice of the Common-wealth as denization coynage making warr which power the King hath time out of minde practised without the gain-saying and murmuring of his subjects But these other powers before mentioned have ever been executed by him in Parliament and not otherwise but with the reluctation of the whole Kingdome Can any man give me a reason why the King can only in Parliament make lawes No man ever read any law whereby it was so ordained and yet no man ever read that any King practised the contrary Therefore it is the originall right of the Kingdome and the very natural constitution of our State and policy being one of the highest rights of Soveraigne power So it is in naturalization legitimation and the rest of that sort before recited It hath been alleaged that those which in this Cause have enforced their reasons from this Maxime of ours That the King cannot alter the Law have diverted from the question I say under favor they have not for that in effect is the very question now in hand for if he alone out of Parliament may impose he altereth the Law of England in one of these two maine fundamental points He must either take his Subjects goods from them without assent of the party which is against the Law or else he
THE RIGHTS Of the People of England Concerning IMPOSITIONS Stated in a Learned Argument by Sir Henry Yelverton Knight and Baronet late one of the Justices of the Court of Common-pleas With a Remonstrance presented to the Kings most excellent Majesty by the Honorable House of Commons in the Parliament An. Dom. 1610. Annoque Regis Jac. 7. London Printed for William Leake and John Leake at the Crown in Fleetstreet betwixt the two Temple-Gates 1679. TO THE Courteous READER THis excellent Treatise of the no less worthy Author happily falling into my hands I instantly thought it my duty to make that publick which had given so much useful satisfaction to many learned and judicious in private remembring that antient Adage Bonum quò communius eò praestantius I hope it is needless to commend either the Reverend Author deceased the Treatise its use or stile since the Authority by which it is published is a sufficient argument of their known worth If thou kindly accept of his good meaning whose onely aim in the publishing hereof was the Common good it will be an encouragement to him and others to present to thy view what may hereafter fall into his hands worthy thy further perusal Thine J. B. 20. Maii. 1641. AT a Committee appointed by the Honourable House of Commons for examination of Books and of the licencing and suppressing of them c. It is Ordered That this Treatise be published in Print Sir Edward Deering Kt. and Baronet ☞ There is lately come forth An exact Abridgment of the Records in the Tower of London from the reign of King Edward the Second unto Richard the Third of all the Parliaments holden in each Kings reign and the several Acts in every Parliament together with the Names and Titles of all the Dukes Marquesses Earls Viscounts and Barons summoned to every of the said Parliaments Collected by Sir Robert Cotton Knight and Baronet And are to be sold by William Leak at the Crown in Fleetstreet betwixt the two Temple gates A Remonstrance delivered to His Majesty in writing after the inhibition given by Him to the Commons House of Parliament aswell by word of mouth as by Letters not to proceed in the examining his Right to Impose without assent of Parliament To the Kings most excellent Majesty Most gracious Sovereign WHereas we your Majesties most humble Subjects the Commons assembled in Parliament have received first by message and since by speech from your Majesty a command of restraint from debating in Parliament your Majesties right of Imposing upon your Subjects goods exported or imported out of or into this Realm yet allowing us to examine the grievance of these Impositions in regard of quantity time and other circumstances of disproportion thereto incident We your said humble Subjects nothing doubting but that your Majesty had no intent by that command to infringe the antient and fundamental right of the Liberty of Parliament in point of exact discussing of all matters concerning them and their possessions goods and rights whatsoever which yet we cannot but conceive to be done in effect by this command do with all humble duty make this Remonstrance unto your Majesty First We hold it an antient general and undoubted right of Parliament to debate freely all matters which do properly concern the Subject and his right or estate which freedom of debate being once fore-closed the essence of the liberty of Parliament is withthal dissolved And whereas in this case the Subjects right on the one side and your Majesties Prerogatives on the other cannot possibly be severed in debate of either We alledge that your Majesties Prerogatives of that kinde concerning directly the Subjects right and interest are daily handled and discussed in all Courts at Westminster and have been ever freely debated upon all fit occasions both in this and all other former Parliaments without restraint which being forbidden it is impossible for the Subject either to know or to maintain his Right and Propriety to his own Lands and Goods though never so just and manifest It may further please your most excellent Majefty to understand that we have no minde to impugn but a desire to inform our selves of your Highness Prerogative in that point which if ever is now most necessary to be known and though it were to no other purpose yet to satisfie the generality of your Majesties Subjects who finding themselves much grieved by these new Impositions do languish in much sorrow and discomfort These Reasons Dread Sovereign being the proper Reasons of Parliament do plead for the upholding of this our antient Right and Liberty Howbeit seeing it hath pleased your Majesty to insist upon that Judgment in the Exchequer as being direction sufficient for us without further examination Upon great desire of leaving your Majesty unsatisfied in no one point of one of our intents and proceedings We profess touching that Judgement that we neither do nor will take upon us to reverse it but our desire is to know the Reasons whereupon the same was grounded and the rather for that a general conceit is had That the Reasons of that Judgement may be extended much further even to the utter ruine of the antient liberty of this Kingdom and of your Subjects Right of propriety to their Goods and Lands Then for the Judgment it self being the first and last that ever was given in that kind for ought appearing unto us and being onely in one Case and against one man it can binde in law no other but that person and is also reversible by Writ of error granted heretofore by Act of Parliament and neither he nor any other Subject is debarred by it from trying his Right in the same or like cafe in any of your Majesties Courts of Record at Westminster Lastly We nothing doubt but our intended proceeding in a full examination of the right nature and measure of these new Impositions if this restraint had not come between should have been so orderly and so moderately carried and imployed to the manifold necessities of these times and given your Majesty so true a view of the state and right of your Subjects that it would have been much to your Majesties content and satisfaction which we most desire and removed all causes of fears and jealousies from the loyal hearts of your Subjects which is as it ought to be our careful endeavour Whereas contrariwise in that other way directed by your Majesty we cannot safely proceed without concluding for ever the right of the Subject which without due examination thereof we may not do We therefore your loyal and dutiful Commons not swerving from the approved steps of our Ancestors most humbly and instantly beseech your gracious Majesty that without offence to the same we may according to the undoubted Right and Liberty of Parliament proceed in our intended course of a full examination of these Impositions That so we may chearfully pass on to your Majesties business from which this stop hath by diversion
But the matter so depending in the ordinary Court of Justice a Writ came out of the Parliament and did adjourn it thither again where it gave occasion of a good Law to be made to prevent the like Grants and to make them void notwithstanding any Judgment given upon them and to make such Judgments also void The Statute is 9 E. 3. c. 1. And in the Parliament Rolls 9. E. 3. c. 1. Every Alien and Denizen may carry his Merchandise where it pleaseth him notwithstanding any Charter granted or Judgment thereupon 16 17. R. 2. 2 H. 4. num 109. we finde a notable Record which gives warrant for the proceeding in Parliament in this manner as hath been in this Case notwithstanding the Judgment in the Exchequer and declares to the Kingdom that notwithstanding the great wonder made by some men nothing hath been done in this business by those that serve in the Parliament but in imitation of their worthy Predecessors in the like case In the second year of H. 4. the Commons shew that in the time of R. 2. by the means of John Waltham Bishop of Salisbury Treasurer of England wrongfully without authority of Parliament and by reason of a Judgemet given in the Exchequer 16 17. R. 2. by the Barons there against certain Merchants of Bristol and other places passage had been taken for Wines otherwise then in ancient times had been and therefore they prayed they might pay their prise Wines in the manner they had used to pay notwithstanding any Judgment given in the Exchequer or other Ordinance made by the said Treasurer contrary to the antient usage which Petition the King granted and the Judgment thereupon became void and the prisage Wine hath been paid contrary to the Judgment ever since In 1. El. Dier 165. upon the complaint 1. El. Dier 265. made by the Merchants of the impositions set upon Cloth by Queen Mary by her absolute power without assent of Parliament The Cause was thought too weighty to be decided in any one Court but as it appeareth in the Book it was referred to all the Judges of England who divers times had conference about it So it may well be there is nothing against it in our year books for there is nothing of it Another Objection was this which was made in the last argument viz. That Custom is originally due by the Common Law of England it can then have no other ground or cause but meerly by the Kings royal Prerogative as a right and duty originally belonging to his Crown which if it be it must necessarily follow he may impose for that is but the exercising of that right To prove this was alleadged the case 39. E. 3.13 by which case it appeareth 39 E. 3.13 that King John had a Custom of eight pence on a Tun of Wine in the Port of Southampton but the Book doth not tell you that the King had it by prerogative and he might have it as well otherwise as by prescription or convention which shall rather be intended by reason of the certainty of the sum paied for if it were by prerogative he might take sometimes more sometimes less at his will the right being indefinite and the quantity limited onely by his own discretion A common person may have such a custom certain as 18. El. Dier 352. The Mayor of London hath the twentieth part of Salt brought into the City by Aliens 18 El. Dier 352 which is a great Imposition but is good by prescription originally and that received greater strength since by Acts of Parliament made for the confirmation of the Liberties and Customs of the City of London So it appeareth that John of Britain had Custom of the ships that arrived at his Port of Little Yarmouth Dier 43. worth twenty pounds per annum And these instances do inefer that a Custom may be otherwise then by prerogative and therefore it is no good argument to conclude the King had such a custom Therefore he had it by Prerogative The Book in 30. H. 8. Dier 43. 30 Hen. 8. Dier 43. was much pressed on this point which saith that Custom belonged to the King at Common Law and doth instance in Wooll Wooll-fells and Leather begun at the Common Law but abridged by the Statute of 14 E. 3. ca. 21. stat 1. 14 Ed. 3. c. 21. stat but this appeareth to be a great error and mistaking in the Book for we do finde that that Custom of Woolls Wooll-fells and Leather was begun by a Grant in Parliament as appeareth in Statute 15 E. 1. cap. 7. The words be granted to us by the Commonalty aforesaid and the last mention before was that the King had granted to the Bishops Earls Barons and all the Commonalty of the Land c. Novemb. 3. Ed. 1. The King recited in his Letter Patents That Prelati magnates ac tota communitas mercatorum Regni granted this new Custom And so the ground and motive of that opinion being false all grounded upon that must needs be erroneous It was objected That the King holdeth at this day the encrease of four pence in the pound over due Custom paid by Merchants Aliens according to the purport of the Charta mercatoria 31 E. 1. by meer right of Prerogative at the Common Law Rot. char 31. E. 1. num 42. in Turri for by that Grant of the Merchants he cannot hold it they being no Body Politick at the time of the Grant and therefore the Grant is meerly void to binde in succession and yet the Merchants Aliens do pay it at this day It is agreed That by the Common Law a contract with a number not incorporate bindeth not succession but we must take notice that they by whom that Grant was made of the augmentation of Custom by three pence in the pound and other encreases 31. E. 1. were Merchants Aliens who by the Law of Merchants and Nations may contract to bind their successors in matters of Traffick For their contracts are not ruled by the Common Law of the Land but by the Law of Nations per legem Mercatoriam as the Book case is 3. Ed. 4.10 and there was a good consideration given them by the King for this encrease of Custom as discharge of prise Wines for two shillings the Tun and other Immunities which all Merchants Aliens hold and enjoy at this day by force of that contract made 21 E. 1. For a stranger paieth now but two shillings the Tun for prisage whereas it standeth an Englishman in much more so as the rule of commutative Justice maketh the contract available to the King against the Merchants because he parteth with part of his prisage to the Merchant and maketh it available to the Merchant against the King because he giveth him encrease of Custom above that is due by Law But the Statute of 27 E. 3. cap. 26. heretofore cited doth make this point clear without scruple 27 E.
to be eased of part because it was too great 36. E. 3. nu 26. Three shillings and four pence upon a sacke of VVool ibid. 38. E. 3 n. 26 21. E. 3. n. 11. all taken off and no excuse made for the smalness for 21 E 3. nu 11 two shillings a sacke two shillings tonnage and six pence poundage 50 E. 3. nu 163. R. Parl. 25. E. 3. nu 163. A great complaint was made in Parliament by the Commons that an imposition of a penny was set upon wools for Tonage over and above the ancient due which was but a penny and so the subject was charged with two pence Also that a penny was exacted for Mesonage which was but an halfe penny which Impositions the Record doth express did amount to an hundred pounds a yeere This petty imposition was as much stood upon in point of right as the other great one of fourty shillings and was taken off upon complaint in Parliament without either justification or excuse for the smalness of it My sixth observation is that those which have advised the setting on of impositions without assent of Parliament have been accused in Parliament forgiving that advice as of a great offence in the State and have suffered sharpe censure and great disgrace by it Neither doe I finde that the quality of the person hath extenuated the blame as 50. E. 3 William L. Latimer Chamberlaine to the King and one of his private Councell was accused by the Commons in Parliament of divers deceits and extortions and misdeeds and among other things that he had procured to be set upon Wooll Wooll-fells and other Merchandizes new Impositions to wit upon a sack of Wool eleven shillings which the L. Latimer sought to excuse because he had the consent and good liking of the Merchants first But judgment was given against him that he should be committed to prison be fined and ransomed at the Kings will and be put from being of the Council and this procuring of Impositions to be set on without assent of Parliament is expresly set down in the entry of the judgment for one of the causes of his censure Richard Lyons a Farmer of the Customs in London the same year was accused in Parliament for the same offence Rot. Par. 50. E. 3. n. 17 18.19 20. he pleaded he did it by the Kings command and had answered the money to the Kings Chamber Yet was condemned and adjudged in Parliament to be committed to Prison and all his Lands and Goods were seised into the Kings hand and at the last the hate against these authors of Impositions grew so that 50. E. 3. in the same Parliament an petition was exhibited in Parliament to make this a capital offence The Record is very short and therefore I will set it down verbatim Item prie le dit Common que soit ordaine per Statute en cest present Parliament de touts ceux queux â—y en avant mittont ou font pur lour singuler profit novels Impositions per lour authoritie dâ—mesâ—n accrocheants al eux â—ny ul power de rien que soit establi en Parliament sans assent de Parliament que ils eyent judgement de viâ— member de forisfacture To this rough Petition the King gave a milde and temperate Answer Courre la Common ley come estoit al avant use My seventh Observation is the cessation between 50. E. 3. after this censure in Parliament and 4. Mariae almost two hundred years during which time no King did attempt to impose without assent of Parliament And yet we finde in the Parliament Rolls that there was not one of those Kings that reigned in that time but had Impositions granted him upon fit occasion by Act of Parliament upon all Goods and Merchandizes and at divers times during their reigns sometimes more sometimes less upon the Ton and pound but ever for a time certain and indefinite so the use of them was not given over but the power of imposing was so clearly and undoubtedly held to be in the Parliament as no King went about to practice the contrary But to this cessation that was of great weight and credit in our evidence a colour was given by the other side to avert the inference made upon it against the Kings right that is that during that time there was so great a Revenue grew to the Crown by double Custom paid for all Merchandizes both in England and at Callis by reason of an Act of Parliament made 8. H 4. which was that no goods should be carried out of the Realm but to Callis and by reason that the Merchants paid Custom both there and here for the same goods that in the seven and twentieth year of Henry the sixth the Custom of Callis was 68000. pounds the year a great sum if you consider the weight of money then what price it bare and by reason hereof Princes not delighting to charge their murmuring Subjects but when need is being so amply supplied otherwise did not put that Prerogative in practice To this I Answer That if that were true that was urged it might be some probable colour of the forbearance of imposing but I finde it quite contrary and that by Record For there was no such restraint of all Commodities not to be transported to any place but Gallis but onely Woolls Wool-fells Leather Tinn and Lead that were staple Wares which by the Statute 37 E. 3. were to be transported thither and not to any other place and the staple continued at that place for the most part from that time untill long after 27. H. 6. but there was no double Custom paid both here and there by the same owner Callais at those times were so far short of that which hath been alledged in 27. H. 6. that it appeareth in an Act of Parliament 27. H. 6. cap. 2 printed in the book at large 27. H. 6. cap. 2. That the Commons do complain That whereas in the time of E. 3. the Custom of Callais was 68000 pounds per annum at that time which was 27. H. 6. by reason of the ill usage of Merchants it was fallen to be but 12000 pounds the year so then there was great cause in that respect to have set on Impositions by reason of that great abatement of Customs and yet it was not then offered to be done without assent of Parliament But if you look a little further into the extreme necessities of those times you shall finde there never was greater cause to have strained Prerogatives for it appeareth in an Act of Parliament 28. H. 6. that it was then declared in Parliament by the Chancellor and Treasurer who demanded relief of the people for the King both for payment of his debts and for his yearly livelioood that the King was then indebted 372000. pounds which now by the weight of money amounteth to above 1100000. pounds and that his ordinary expences were more then his yearly revenue by 19000. pounds
must give his own Letters Pattents the force of a Law to alter the property of his Subjects goods which is also against the Law That the King of England cannot take his subjects goods without their consent it need not be proved more than a principle it is jus indigena an old homeborne right declared to be Law by divers statutes of the Realme 34 E. 3. c. 2. As in 3â— E. 3. cap 2. That no office of the Kings or of his heires shall take any goods of any manner of person without the assent and good will of the party to whom the goods belonged The same is declared in many other Statutes made against prisages and purveyances Neither have ever any Kings attempted to go plainly and directly against that right but have devised certaine legal colours and shadowes for their wrongfull doing in that kind which I doe find were of three sorts Commissions Loans or Privie Seales Benevolence by way of Commission by way of Loan by way of Benevolence Commission of all other were the most insolent for they went out as it were by authority to levy ayd of the people upon great necessity of the commonwealth These were condemned in Parliament 21 E. 3. Num. 16 upon a greivous complaint made of the use of them by the Commons unto the King in Parliament wherein the people doe pray the King that he would be pleased to remember how at the Parliament held the 17 year of his raign and at the last Parliament That is the Parliament it was then accorded and granted by their said Lord the King and his Councell that there should goe out no Commissions out of Chauncery for Hobbeleries Archers and other charges to believed upon the people if they were not granted in Parliament which ordinances were not observed by reason whereof the people were impoverished acd decayed for which they prayed the King that he would be pleased to take pity of his people and the ordinances and grants made to his people in Parliament to affirme and hold And that if such Commissions goe out without assent or Parliament that the Commons which are grieved thereby may have writs of supersedeas according to the said Ordinance and that the people be not bound to obey them To this the Kings answer is Si ul tiel imposition fuit fait per grand necessitis ceo del assent des Prelates Counies Barons aut grandes ausomes des Commons adonque presents Neant moins nostre Seignior le Roy ne voet que tiel imposition non duement fait soit treit in consequence eins voet que les ordinances dont cest petition fait mention soit bienment gardes The last time that ever King attempted the course of exaction was 17 H. 8. Stowes annals 17. H. 8. upon the taking of the French King at Pavia by the forces of Charles the fifth Cardinal Wolsey having a purpose to put the King into a warre about that quarrell and finding a warre about that quarrell and finding his cophers empty advised this way to send out Commissions and by them to levie ayd of the people according to the value of their estate But this gave such discontent to the whole Realme that it caused in many places an actuall rebellion and the Cardinal being called to give an account of this bad advice did justifie this fact by the example ot Joseph who advised Pharaoh to take the fifth part of his subjects goods But when he saw that would not serve the turne he falsely laid it upon the Judges informing the King he did it by their advice being resolved by them of the lawfulness of the fact So you see that great Church-men found more safety in matter of government of our Commonwealth in making a false report of a point of the Common Law then in a true Text of the Scripture And if any Church men will endeavor by application of the Text of Scripture to overthrow the antient Laws and Liberties of the Kingdom I would advise them to be admonished by the ill success of the Cardinal in this particular action and by the miserable catastrophe of his whole life and fortunes Loans and Privy Seals Loans and Apprests were those which we call Privy Seals which though they were more moderate in shew yet being made against the good will of the parties were as injurous indeed as the other The Commons in Parliament Rot. pat 25. E. 3. num 16. 25. E 3. Num. 16. made a grievous complaint to the King against the use of them and prayed that none from thenceforth should be compelled to make Loans against their will and they gave this reason in their petition for that it is against reason and the franchise of the land and prayed that restitution might be made to those that have made such Loans To this the Kings rescript was It pleaseth our Lord the King it be so Lastly Benevolence Came in those kinde of exactions which were termed by the fair name of Benevolences but they became so odious as they gave the occasion of a good Law to be made against themselves and against all other shifts and devices by what new terms soever imposed upon the Subjects 1 R. 3. c. 2 the Law is 1 R. 3. cap. 2 and is thus The King remembring how the Commons of this his Realm by new and unlawful inventions and inordinate covetise against the Law of this Realm have been put to great servitude and important charges and exactions and especially by a new Imposition called a Benevolence enacteth by the advise c. that the Subjects and Commons of this Land from henceforth shall in no wise be charged by any such charges or impositions called the Benevolence nor by such like thing But if you will deny that the King doth in this case take the goods of his Subject without his assent then you must other fall upon mine alternative proposition That the Kings Patent hath in this case the power of a Law to alter property for how can he recover the imposed by a legal course of proceeding and by judgment in his Court but upon a title precedent him before the action brought which title must be a property in the same imposed and how commeth he by that property but by his own Letters Patents by which he declareth he will have that same as an imposition For the Judgment giveth not the right but onely doth manifest and declare it and giveth execution of it So in this point the question is whether the Kings Patent hath the force and power of the Law or not for if it be not maintained that it hath it can never be concluded that he can transfer the property of his Subjects goods to himself without the assent of them for quod meum est sine facto meo alterius fieri non potest And if you give this power to the Kings Patent you subject the Law and take away
all rules and bounds of settled government and leave in the Subject no property of his own neither do you by this advance the Kings power and prerogative Bracton l. 1. c. 8. but you make him no King for as Bracton saith Rex est ubi dominatur lex non voluntas So we see that the power of imposing and power of making Laws are convertibilia coincidentia and whosoever can do the one can do the other And this was the opinion of Sir John Fortescue that reverend and honorable Judge a very learned professor of the Common Law and Chief Justice of the Kings Bench in the time of Henry 6. Fortese de laudibus Leg. Aug. c. 9. His words are these in his Book De laudibus Legum Angliae cap. 9. Non potest Rex Angliae ad libitum leges mutare rognisui principatu namque nedum regali sed politico ipse dominatur Si regali tantum praeesses iis leges mutare posset tallagia quoque caetera onera imponere ipsis inconsultis quale dominium leges civiles indicant cum dicunt quod principi placuerit legis habet vigore◠sed longè aliter potest Rex politicis imperans quia nec leges ipse sine subditorum assensu mutars poterit nec subjectum populum reuitentem onerare peregrinis impositionibus In which place I must interpret unto you that peregrina impositiones be not strange and unheard of impositions as was urged by the worthy Gentleman that spake last but impositions upon traffick into and out of forain Countries which is the very thing in question Further in the thirty sixth Chapter Fortesc de laud. Leg. Ang. cap. 36. he saith of the King of England Neque Rex ibidem per se aut ministros suos tallagia Subsidia aut alia quaevis onera imponit ligeis suis aut leges eorum mutat vel novas condit sine concessione vel assensu totius regni sui in Parliamento So he maketh these two powers of making Law and imposing to be concomitant in the same hand and that the one of them is not without the other he giveth the same reason for this as we do now but in other words because as he saith in England it is principatus mixtus politicus the King hath his soveraign power in Parliament assisted and strengthened with the consent of the whole Kingdom and therefore these powers are to be exercised by him only in Parliament In other Countries they admit the ground of the Civil Law quod principi placuerit legis habet vigorem Because they have an absolute power to make Law they have also a power to impose which hath the force of a Law in transferring property Philip Comines Ph. Com. l 4. cap. 1. l. 5. cap. 8. that lived at that times in his fourth Book the first Chapter the fifth Book the eighth Chapter taketh notice of this policy of England and commends it above all other States as settled in most security And further to our purpose laieth this ground That a King cannot take one penny from his Subjects without their consent but it is violence And you may there note the mischiefs that grew to the Kingdom of France by the voluntary impositions first brought in by Charles the Seventh and ever since continued and encreased to the utter impoverishment of the Common people and the loss of their free Councel of three Estates And if this power of imposing were quietly setled in our Kings considering what the greatest use they make of assembling of Parliaments which is the supply of money I do not see any likelihood to hope for often meetings in that kind because they would provide themselves by that other means And thus much for my first reason grounded upon the natural constitution of the Policy of our Kingdom and the publike Right of our Nation 2. For the point of Common Law Com. Law which is my second reason it hath been well debated and nothing left unspoken that can be said in it and therefore I will decline to speak of that which other men have well discussed and the rather for that there is nothing in our Law-book directly and in point of this matter neither is the word imposition found in them Diec. 1. E. 165. until the case in my L. Dier 1. Eliz. 165. for we shall finde this business of an higher strain and alwaies handled elsewhere as afterwards shall appear yet I will offer some Answers to such Objections as have been made on the contrary in point of Common Law and have not been much stood upon by others to be answered The Objections that have been made are these That from the first Book of the Law to the last no man ever read any thing against the Kings power of imposing No Judgement was ever given against it in any of the Kings Courts at Westminster Other points of Prerogative as high as this disputed and debated his excess in them limited as in the book of 42. Ass pl. 5. 42. Aff. p. 9. where the Judges took away a Commission from one that had power given by it to him under the great Seal to take ones person and to seise his goods before he was indicted So Master Scrogs case 1 2 E. Dier 175 1. 2. El Dier 175 the power of the King in making a Commission to determine a question of right depending between two parties notably debated and ruled against the King that he could not grant it To this I answer That cases of this nature of which the question now handled is have ever been taken to be of that extraordinary consequence in point of the Common right of the whole Kingdom that the States would never trust any of the Courts of ordinary Justice with the deciding of them but assumed the cognisance of them unto the high Court of Parliament as the fittest place to decide matters so much concerning the whole body of the Kingdom as 2. Ed. 3.7 it appears that Ed. 1. had granted a Charter to the men of Great Yarmouth that all the ships of Merchants coming to the Port of Yarmouth should land their goods at their Haven and not at any other Haven at that Port as at Garneston and Little Yarmouth which were members of that Port. This was very inconvenient for the Merchants and a great hurt to Traffick and therefore the Charter was questioned in the time of Ed. 2. and adjudged good by the Council But the parties not contented with this judgment in the second year of King E. 3. by an order in Parliament made upon a Petition there exhibited against this Grant brought a Scire facias out of the Chancery returnable in the Kings Bench to question again the lawfulness of the Patent and in that Suit the cause was notably debated and those Reasons much insisted upon that have been enforced in this case as that of the Kings power in the custody of the Ports