Selected quad for the lemma: parliament_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
parliament_n	abate_v	petition_n	revive_v	30	3	12.6795	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A49392	Reports in the Court of Exchequer, beginning in the third, and ending in the ninth year of the raign of the late King James by the Honourable Richard Lane ... ; being the first collections in that court hitherto extant ; containing severall cases of informations upon intrusion, touching the King's prerogative, revenue and government, with divers incident resolutions of publique concernment in points of law ; with two exact alphabeticall tables, the one of the names of the cases, the other of the principall matters contained in this book.	Lane, Richard, Sir, 1584-1650.; England and Wales. Court of Exchequer.	1657 (1657)	Wing L340; ESTC R6274	190,222	134

it seems to me it is apparant by the Statute of the 26. H. 8. Cap. 10. which gives power to the King by his letters Patents to limit the time for importing of Wines against the Statute of 23. H. 8. Cap. 7. which was no more but a restoring of his power abridged before and so was the Statute of 31. E. 3. for otherwise the Parliament would never have given him Authoritie to contradict an Act of Parliament by his letters Patents or to revive these Acts Impositions are meerly a new custome and so are they stiled in the Margent of the Roll of the 3. E. 1. in this Court where it is Recorded that the King had assigned Merchants to receive using the same words which are used here half a Mark for every Sack of Wool and a Mark of every Last of Leather and that if the Merchant who is so appointed Transport any after that it shall be forfeited and out of this record I observe that three hundred Pelts make a Sack of Wooll from the 21. Ed. 1. unto the 28. E. 1. the customs for Wools was 40. s. a Sack and in 25. E. 1. the Imposition of Maletolt was repealed by Act of Parliament which Maletolt was an increase of Impost upon staple commodities and therfore was given to the King a great subsidie with this cause that it should never be drawn into president which shews that this Maletolt was rightly imposed otherwise the Parliament would never have given him so great a Recompence for the Abrogation of it but after in the 13. of E. 3. because it was a thing of so great consequence to the Crown it was revived and made 40. s. for Wool and Woolfels and 3. l. for Leather for denizens and double for strangers in the 14. Ed. 3. a Petition in Parliament to abate it and for a great subsidie it was released and in the 18. of Ed. 3. it was again revived and a new petition was made in Parliament and this petition was continued until the 36. of Ed. 3. and then it was abated and also by the 45. E. 3. it was again abated so that it seem that between these times it was revived but after it did not continue long for in 48. E. 3. it was again revived and for Wool the Impost was 50. s. et sic de singulis and in 1. R. 2. after it was answered to the King as it appears in the accompts here and in 5. R. 2. it was again suppressed by Parliament for a subsidie granted to the King with a saving of antient rights all these Statutes prove expresly that the King had power to increase the Impost and that upon commodities of the land and that he continually used this power notwithstanding all Acts of Parliament against it and so much for commodities of this land but for forrain commodities it appears by no Act of Parliament or other president that never any petition or suit was made to abate the Impost of forrain commodities but of them the Impost was paid without denial as for example for Wines in the 16. E. 1. as appears in this Court upon Record it was commanded to the Bailiff of Dover to levie and Gollece of every Tun of Wine of a stranger 4. s. and in the 22. E. 1.2 s. thereof was released at the suit of the French Ambassador in the 26. of E. 3. the King granted priviledges to Merchants strangers but there was given for it an increase of custome and this was answered as it appears upon accompt in the times of E. 1. and E. 2. the case of Allom was as it hath been recited by my brother Clark it is objected that the Merchant ought to have free passage upon the Sea but that both not conclude the King but that he shall have his Impost if he cometh into his Ports and here the question is for Merchandise after that they are brought into the Port but it is said that they cannot come into the Port but by the Sea that is true but if this reason should hold then the King could not grant Murage Pontage and the like because the common Channel to them is free and Average is for securitie aswel as Ports another objection that the Defendant here is not restrained but that is answered for if a pain be inflicted upon them who import this is an inhibition upon a pain to all another objection was that there was no consideration of the Imposition and if it be demanded what differences between the cases I answer as much as is between the King and a subject and it is not reasonable that the King should express the cause and consideration of his Actions for they are arcana Regis and no satisfaction needeth for if the profits to the Merchant faileth he will not trade and it is for the benefit of every subject that the Kings Treasure should be increased an objection was made against the form of proceeding because it was by the great Seal to the Treasurer and that he by the customers Peteret et reciperet and this could not be better as it was answered before it was objected that it should be by Proclamation and that needs not for it toucheth not all the subjects but only those who are Traders in Merchandising the best and aptest means to give them notice by the customers and it is alledged by the information expresly that he had notice It was lastly objected that there ought to be a quod damnum in the case before the grant that is not so for that shall be only when the King granteth any thing which appertaineth to his prerogative and not when he maketh Charters to his servants to levy his duties due to his Crown wherefore I think that the King ought to have judgement which was after given accordingly 6. Jac. in the Exchequer An Information against Sir Edward Dimock THe Bishop of Carlisle called John May in A. 26. Eliz. made a lease in reversion to Queen Eliz. of the Mannor of Horncastle whereof the Bishop was seised in right of his Bishoprick and this was for 4. years and it was acknowledged before Commissioners appointed for this purpose and the Bishop prayed it to be inrolled and this prayer is indorsed but not inrolled and in 37. Eliz. this lease was confirmed by the Dean and Chapter in the life of the lessor and in 44. Eliz. the successor Bishop leased this land to Sir Edward Dimock the Statute of the 43. of Eliz. hath a proviso that it shall not extend to any lease before made by the Bishop of Carlisle to Queen Eliz. then not inrolled and after the death of the Queen viz. 5. Jac. this lease in 26. Eliz. is returned and certified to be acknowledged and is then also inrolled and Sir Edward Dimock had entred and was in possession by vertue of his lease in the 3. Jac. and the information was for entrie and intrusion in 3. Jac. and upon the Bar all this matter was discovered and a

avoidance and after confirms the lease here the lease is not good in respect the next avoidance interrupts it for his life but after the death c. the term will be good as it was here lately adjudged and so he thought that in this case the confirmation is not good and also that the Commission not being returned is not good and after one of the Commissioners die before the return it cannot be recurned and by the inrolment here made the lease cannot take his effect with any relation and so be concluded that judgement ought to be given against the King Tanfield chief Baron the Commission for the acceptance of the acknowledgement of the Bishop touching that it is to be known whether this makes it the Deed of the Bishop and that the Commissioners should return c. the confirmation in this case was made in the life of the Bishop Lessor and of the Queen Lessee although that some of my brethren conceive the Record to be otherwise also in this case Dimock entred by vertue of his lease before the inrolment of the lease made to the Queen as the Record purporteth to the points First I conceive that nothing resteth in the Queen without inrolment but if Lessee for years be outlawed the King shall have this lease by the outlawry for the outlawry is intended to be upon Record but of a wardship for land that is not in the Queen by the death of the Queens Tenant without an office because there is no matter of Record if an Alien hath a lease of land this is forfeited yet he shall have personal Chattels and as to the Book of 18. E. 3. cited on the other side where the King brought a quare impedit c. this may be well agreed for the Prior of Durham confessed by Record that he had made a grant and this is a sufficient Record and as to the book of 20. E. 4. where the Patron was outlawed and before the outlawry the Church became void that the King shall present it may be well agreed although that no office be found for this presentation is but a thing personal and transitory and therefore those Books prove nothing in this case Secondly he said that when this lease was acknowledged before Commissioners yet that was not sufficient to make a record to intitle the King and it is here expresly denied in the Bar that this lease was certified into the Chancery in the life of the Queen and therefore he thought that here was no Record to intitle the Queen and to this purpose he cited a case in 19. Eliz. Robins and Greshams case if a Recognizance were acknowledged before a Master of the Chancery and not inrolled this is no Reco●d and an Action of debt lieth not thereupon and the 34. Eliz. in Brock and Bainhams case in this Court a Recognizance was taken before a Baron of this Court yet this was no Record without inrolment and therefore the bare acknowledgement in our case is no Record also he denied the opinion of Davers in 37. H. 6. to be Law but only for personal Chattels and the 12. Eliz. Brook and Latimers case was adjudged against the opinion of Davers for land or leases Thirdly he said that the successor of the Bishop comes in paramount the lease made to the Queen and the new Lessee entring before any inrolment hath made the successor of the Bishop as in his remitter and when an antient right comes this prevents the relation which otherwise might be by the inrolment and he said that the first lease here made to the Queen is meerly dead until inrolment and he vouched the 11. E. 4. fo 1. Vactons case the discontinuor enters upon the discontinuee after the discontinuee dieth his heir within age the discontinuor dieth this causeth a remitter and so by him if the disseissee enter upon the heir of the disseissor being an infant and dieth this avoids the descent by reason of the antient right which the disseissee had and by 7. H. 7. and 11. H. 7. Eriches case it appears that an Act of Parliament will not revive a thing that is meerly dead by reason of any inrolment and much more here an inrolment cannot revive this lease which is meerly void by the death of the Lessor and the entrance of the Lessee of the Bishops successor and there is a great difference betwixt the inrolment in this case and the inrolment of a bargain and sale in regard that the sale is dead before the inrolment and yet in the case of bargain and sale it was adjudged in the Common Pleas Pasch 2. Jac. in Sir Thomas Lees case called Bellinghams case that if a man bargain land to A. and before inrolment of the Deed A. bargaines the land to B. which second bargain is inrolled this inrolment makes not the bargain good to B. for the relation of the first is only to perfect and make good the conveyance to A. from all incumbrances after his bargain but not to make the second Deed good which was void before also in 36. Eliz. in Sir Thomas Smiths case if the Bargainee suffer a recovery before the Deed inrolled yet that doth not make the recovers good and he said that in this case until an inrolment of the lease made to the Queen there is no Lessee and a lease cannot be without a Lessor and Lessee and before an inrolment of the lease the Lessor is dead so that there never was a Lessor and Lessee in life together and therefore the inception of this lease was altogether imperfect before the consummation came and so it leemeth by him that the death of the Bishop Lessor intervening before the inrolment is the principal cause that the first lease is not good as to the 4 th point of confirmation it seems to me in regard that the Bishop was seised in right of his Bishoprick and the Dean and Chapter have no interest in the land so that an assent is only sufficient in this case it seems to me that the confirmation as you call it is good enough for it is clear that an assent may be aswell before the lease as after for it passeth no interest no more then an Attornment Cook lib. 5. Foords case proveth this diversity plainly and by the same reason also it seems to me that this assent of parties who have no interest is good enough without inrolment but otherwise it should be if a confirmation were required in the case and as to the pleading I think the Bar is good and as to the exceptions which have been made viz. if the lease supposed to be made to the Queen be answered and he said it was good enough for the purpose of the Defendant is to bring the matter in Law before the Iudges and the matter in Law is if it were any lease or not as the information supposeth and therefore the Defendant ought not to agree with the information for the matter in Law and