Selected quad for the lemma: england_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
england_n	john_n	king_n	richard_n	10,255	5	8.9631	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A26173	Jus Anglorum ab antiquo, or, A confutation of an impotent libel against the government by king, lords, and commons under pretence of answering Mr. Petyt, and the author of Jani Anglorum facies nova : with a speech, according to the answerer's principles, made for the Parliament at Oxford.	Atwood, William, d. 1705?; Brady, Robert, 1627?-1700. Full and clear answer to a book.; Petyt, William, 1636-1707. Antient right of the Commons of England asserted.; Atwood, William, d. 1705? Jani Anglorum facies nova.	1681 (1681)	Wing A4175; ESTC R9859	138,988	352

not the whole Kingdom by Advice and Consent of their Privy-Councils only until the Stat ' de Tallagio non concedendo That is as Tallage is confest to be a Publick Tax because some of King John's Successors Tax't their Demeans without publick consent Therefore 't was provided in King John's time by way of Prophesy that no publick Tax Aid or Escuage should be raised without publick consent So that what was done after was a moral cause or occasion of what preceded 'T will be said that the thing that the Doctor went to prove was that the Common-Council mentioned in the Charter was the Great and Common-Council of the Kingdom to all intents and purposes Not that the King was restrained from levying a publick Tax without the consent of the Great Council But surely when he goes to give the reason why the Charter must be taken in such a sense we are to expect the proof of that not of something else quitting the thing to be proved If I can understand his dark meaning he was proving that Nullum Scutagium c. intended to restrain the King from levying publick Taxes without publick Consent That is to explain what he very obscurely drives at the restraint was only from Taxing the whole Kingdom not from Taxing his Tenants in Chief And the reason of this Article p. 118. viz. as taken in this sense is that several times after this Charter was granted Hen. 3. and Edw. 1. Taxed their Demeasns through England though not the whole Kingdom by Advice and Consent of their Privy-Councils only until the Statute De tallagio non concedendo was made 34 E. 1. And both Richard the First and King John had Taxed the whole Kingdom without common Assent before the grant of Magna Charta And when he has made good the Premises in this Argument for the meaning of the Article which will be ad graecas Calendas then he may conclude that this Article intended to restrain the King Na. he should have added only Nullum Scutagium c. only from levying of publick Taxes without publick Consent not to provide about Escuage or Tallage which none but his immediate Tenants were liable to And from hence when prov'd we might with some more colour and coherence raise the Consequence that the Common-Council mentioned in King John's Charter was the Great and Common-Council of the Kingdom to all intents and purposes But how that should appear from the mention of Aid and Escuage only will be a Question ' T is by him observ'd of Richard the First Accepit de unaquâque carucatâ terrae totius Angliae sex solidos But what proof is there from the word accepit or the collecting of a Tax ex praecepto Regis that he took it without publick consent Bracton Lib. 1. cap. 16. I am sure Bracton as good an Author as the Historian whom he Vouches tells us Carvage and such this was could never be raised but Consensu communi totius regni But if the King in his Privy-Council might Tax the Kingdom its self till the making King John's Charter and was restrain'd then I wonder our Reverend Author has made the Constitution of the House of Lords that is according to him the whole great Council to have been no earlier than the 49th of H. 3. And unless such a Council as is mentioned in that Charter were Constituted before Nay sometimes he Argues that it was not before p. 56. how comes it to pass that the Clerus and Populus which were of the Kings Council for making Laws and giving Taxes were not till 17. Jo. confin'd to such of them as were of the Privy-Council as well as Communitas populi after Magnates was meant of such people as were Magnates and Milites p. 110. liberè tenentes besides Barons were the Tenents in Capite 112. who by their Acts oblig'd all that held of them by Knights Service 113. that is all the Milites but not the liberè tenentes We are taught that in the 6 of King John Tenents in Capite only Against Jani c. p. 125 126 127. provided that every nine Knights should find a tenth for the defence of the Kingdom and that they who were to find them were all Tenents in Military Service Though the Record shews that besides the Miles vel Serviens Alius terram tenens was Charged with this And he vouchsafes not to take notice of my Argument that every Knight being bound by his tenure to find a man if this had not extended to all that had to the value of a Knights Fee Jani c. p. 225. though not held by Knights Service it would have been an abatement of the Services due and a weakning of the Kingdom Besides admit that Tenents in Capite only laid this Charge and only Tenents by Knights Service were bound by it here is such a Commune Concilium of Tenents as I say King John's Charter Exhibits and no Charge laid by them upon others Whereas he should have prov'd that they did oblige others without their consent But suppose Tenents only were Charged why might not the Charge have been laid by Omnes fideles in my sense as we find Omnes de Regno taxing Knights Fees only The Doctor in his Margin gives us an admirable nota p. 119. that Liberi were Tenants in Military Service or Gentlemen Rustici Socagers possessors or Freeholders in Socages only which is as much as to say that Freeholders were not Freemen unless they held in Military Service and yet a Tenement or Possession neither added to Glos. p. 10. or detracted from the person of any man if free or bond before But surely Mr. Professor has some colourable proof for his remark here For that let others judge Hoveden acquaints us with the manner of collecting a Carvage in the ninth of Richard the First which was that in every County the King appointed one Clergyman and one Knight who with the Sheriff of the County to which they were sent Galls M●lites and lawful Knights chose and sworn to execute this business faithfully Fecerunt venire coram se senescalos Baronum istius comitatûs de qualibet villâ Dominum vel Ballivum villae prepositum cum quatuor legalibus hominibus villae sivae liberis sive rusticis who were to swear how many Plough Lands there were in every Town If here liberi and rustici are not meant for two denominations of the same sort of men that is ordinary Freeholders I will leave him to fight it out with Hoveden since he himself is directly contrary to the old Mun● Hoveden shews us that these Socagers were legales homines such as chose Juries and serv'd on Juries themselves Against Mr. Petyt p. 36. c. but our new light

●●eton to prove either that every ●s the same with a Burrough or else 〈◊〉 taken as different from a Bur●● and indeed here are Burgi 〈◊〉 they must be small Towns incor●●ed not holding in Chief ●●ttleton's Words from which I have ●eason to dissent are these Chescun 〈◊〉 est un Ville Against Jan. p. 7. mes nemy e converso ● he translates Every Burrough is a 〈◊〉 but not e converso Now if from ●e infers that every Town is a Bur●● his Argument is thus every Town ●●urrough because every Town is not ●●rough A man of the weakest parts ●ell us a thing is so because it is ●e is a wise man indeed that can ● it to be so because it is not so Well but 't is a Town incorpora●● and to strengthen his Argument produces Writs of Summons to Vills which if he argues at all sh● That he allows the free Customs more than Tenants in Capite to com● Parliament to be hereby provided under the words which I insist on But pray did Littleton explain ● self that none but Towns incorp● were Vills Oh! but it must be What Liberties What free Customs common ordinary Towns and Parishe● enjoy Against Jan. Anglorum c. p. 7. What municipal Laws Wha● vate Laws and Priviledges Alas I have no Laws whereby they enj●● any Lands If others had Land they were free from the Feudal Law for the Laws were bro● in by and exacted upon only the ● mans themselves who all held in 〈◊〉 by Knights Service too Against Mr. Petyt p. 43. and 〈◊〉 could not have had so much as p●● Customs or By Laws neither ha● other Incorporated Towns any for are not within the Charter of Libe● which was to Tenants in Capite What says Fortescue to all this can he answer 't when he make● the Genus to all Divisions under Hundred So that either a Bu●● corporated Town other Town and a ●●arish Vid. the Franck-pledge in every Vill. Vid. etiam Jan. Angl. or Village may be a Vill mes ne●e converso But is it possible that ●ortescue can gain Credit when such an ●●thor says the contrary However ●●'s hear him for methinks the man ●●oks as if he had some weight in him Hundreds are divided into Villages Fortescue de laudibus Legum Angl p. 52● ●●der which Appellation are contained ●●rroughs and by Burroughs must be ●●ant such as held in Capite Towns in●●porated without such Tenure or not ●orporated or else these were no Divi●●ns within an Hundred And to be ●e an ordinary Village is a Village here Burrough is made the Genus to all ●●wns but not to Villages but as he ●ws wherin a Village consists it whol●roves to my mind For the bounds of Villages are not con●ed within the Circuit of Walls p. 52. b. Build●s or Streets but within the Compass Fields great Authorities certain Ham●● and many other as of Waters Woods 〈◊〉 Wast-grounds which it is not needful set forth by their Names Here not any one of the Particu●● seem necessary to be added to the ●●er unless all must but even a certain Compass of Fields or of Woods 〈◊〉 make a Village without any great A●thorities and within that space mig●● be certain free Customs which the Ow●ers enjoy nay though not inhabitin● And for an Evidence of our Autho● great Love to Truth he observes 〈◊〉 what is said in the Comment upon th●● very words which he cites out of ●●tleton 1. Inst. fol. Villa ex pluribus mantionibus v●mata collecta ex pluribus vici● And if a Town be decayed so as no ●●ses remain yet it is a Town in Law But what need I resort to forei● Proof when in effect this is granted my hand For Against Jan. c. p. 61. ib. p. 63. King John's Charter and Ki●● Henry the Third's were the very same King Henry the Third's was but ●ward the First 's and Ed. 1. in the ● of his Reign rather explained or enlar●● that Charter of King John than c●●firmed the Charter of H. 3. Well to be sure nothing of S●●stance was left out So that the Rig●●● of coming to Parliament which inde● could not be omitted out of the Ch●●ter of all the then Liberties and Rig●●● of the Subject were included in 〈◊〉 Charter of Ed. 1. Wherefore in those ●imes and in Henry the Third's if the Charter were in his time made and confirmed with that Omission of the Te●ants in Chief as not material the Rights of all were comprehended under the Li●erties and Free-Customs of the Civitates Portus Burgi Villae being from the ●9 H. 3. by the 25. Ed. 1. to be sure he Villae the Inhabitants holding Free-●ands in any Village or Parish came by Representation So that in the Charter of King John Villae must signifie inferiour Towns or Parishes as well as in the 25. of Ed. he First But p. 64. 't is an absurd Supposal that by he 25. of E. 1. the Constitution was not ●etled even though himself says that the House of Lords was constituted before ●nd that a new Government was not on●y framed Against Mr. Petyt pa. but set up Nay I shall prove ●hat the Representations of the Commons were then setled but to urge almost he same Argument from other words of his If Hen. the Third's Charter accord●ng to Matthew Paris p. 62. on whom he ●elies in nothing differs from King John's As I have seen in several Manuscripts of great Antiquity affirming that they were some 2. aud some 9. H. 3. and which the Charter inrolled 28 Ed. 1. proves beyond Dispute and yet in that of Henry the Third the Clause relating to the Tenants in Capit● is left out Is it not Demonstration to him that the Right● of small Towns and Parishe● were preserved by the general Words I insist upon And that according to the Sense of the Charter 15 Ed. 1. when the Commons were no● obliged to be represented by Tenants i● Capite only he himself contends for no● more than the Fact that sometimes mo●● of the Knights for the Counties we●● such as held in Capite by Knights Service But why was not Henry the Third Confirmation of King John's Charter 〈◊〉 much the Charter or Grant of H. 3. ● Ed. the First 's Confirmation made it hi● Charter So that here is another Contradiction if he insist upon it that it was not as properly the Charter of Hen. 3. as Ed. 1. And in Truth Henry the Third's was most properly his since he granted it not as a Confirmation of King John's Charter but as the Liberties which were in England in the time of his Grand-father Hen. 2. For although the King says Ma. Paris 305. 〈…〉 Omnes illas libertates juravimus which I take it referred to the Confirmation 20 yet one of his Councellors insists upon it in the King's name that they were extorted by Force from King John for his Charter they

Rich. 2. tells us out of Sprot and others though some would have us think that he took it only out of Sprot He himself tells us that even where he follows Sprot Quaedam superflua à compilatione dicti Thomae resecans quaedam notabilia suis in locis eidem addens ib. he not only cut off many things but added many remarkable Passages Thorne gives us a particular Account of Stigand's raising the men of Kent to ●ight for their old Laws and Liberties Thorne fol. 1786. which many others not being Kentish ●en would not mention lest their Magnanimity should upbraid the sud●en yielding of the rest This I take to have been between October and Christmas when he was ●rowned and that having entred into Treaty and concluded on Terms at London which however they tell us that ●e broke he went towards Dover Vt ●llam cum caeteris partibus comitatûs suae ●ubjiceret potestati It seems Dover was then the Strength of Kent and he thought by the get●ing of that he should be able to keep all that Country under Upon this Arch-bishop Stigand and Abbot Egelsine and all the great men of Kent perceiving that an ill Fate lay upon the whole Kingdom and that whereas before none of the English were Servants now Nobles as well as Plebeians were brought under the Yoke of Slavery represented to the People assembled together the misery of their Neighbours the Insolence of the Normans and the hardship of a servile Condition and animated them all as one man to a resolution of dying or maintaining their Liberties I know many learned men look upon this part as suspicious taking the Sense to be that there were no Villains in England Sylas Taylor of Gavel p. 167. in Kent especially before that time which they are at pains to shew that there were But I conceive the meaning of the words is no more than that there had ever been in England a Distinction between Free-men and Slaves and therefore that none of the English that is the People of the Land which the Law has ever confin'd to Free-holders they that depend upon the Will of others Villains or Servants being no Cives any part of the Nation in that sense ought to bear that Slavery which the Violence of the Normans threatned to all in common Nor wants there Authority for the Freedom of all the Kentish-men in the largest Extent for in an ancient Roll of the Customs of Kent Lambert's Perambulation of Kent 21 Ed. 1. 't is said to have been allowed in Eire before John of Berwick and his Companions the Justices in Eire in Kent the 21 of King Edward the Son of Henry that is to say that all the Bodies of Kentish men be free as well as the other free-bodies of England Lambert's Perambulation p. 632. And this confess'd to be true 30. Ed. 1. in the Title of Villenage 46 in Fitzherbert where it is holden sufficient for a man to avoid the Subjection of Bondage to say that his Father was born in the Shire of Kent The just value of this Freedom Thorne made all the Free-holders of Kent with all that depended upon them resolve to put a stop to William's Depredations At Swanscomb was their general Randezvouz and their numbers were so great that as the Norman Prince advanc'd he found himself hem'd in with an armed Wood for that they might secure themselves of his making no Escape so confident were they of Victory or forcing their own Terms every man by Agreement took a Bough in his hand to block up the way The Arch-bishop and the Abbot in the name of the rest told him that the whole People of Kent were come out to meet him and to acknowledge him their Leige Lord if they might enjoy their Liberties and Laws otherwise they denounc'd War and bid him Defiance Upon this William calls a Council of War and he finds it expedient to give them their Terms they knowing how he had used those who trusted to his Generosity or Justice took Hostages as well as gave and then in full Assurance of his Performance yielded him their County or the Government of it not all the Land and Property there and as what would secure the Government there to him resigned up the Castle of Dover To this Relation Perambulation of Kent p. 25. the great and faithful Antiquary Mr. Lambart gives sufficient Reputation Mr. Camden says Camden ' s Brit. Ut verè quamvis minùs purè in antiquo libro sit scriptum that no man before Sprot has told these Circumstances but he cites an ancient Authority which was a Plea not oppos'd and which could not be taken from Sprot in which he confesses the Substance of this to be contained and though not elegantly writ yet with Truth So that Mr. Camden is on our side being convinc'd by the truth of his own quotation Dicit Cantii Comitatus quod in Comitatu ipso de jure debet de ejusmodi gravamine esse liber quia dicit quod Comitatus iste ut residuum Angliae nunquam fuit conquestus sed pace facta se reddidit Conquestoris dominatui salvis sibi omnibus libertatibus liberis consuetudinibus primò habitis usitatis The County of Kent says that in that County of right it ought to be free from such a Grievance because it sayes that that County was never conquered like the rest of England But having made a Peace yielded its self to the Conquerour's Dominion saving to themselves all their Liberties and free Customes at first had and from that time us'd It seems in standing up for their own Rights they reflected upon the rest as an humble conquer'd People And indeed whereas it has past into a Maxim Nemo miser nisi comparatus No man's condition is unhappy thought But when into the Scales with happier men he 's brought On the other side men are apt to think their Happiness incompleat without comparing themselves with those whom they look upon as deprived of the Advantages which they enjoy Thus our late Author enhances the value he puts upon himself by the Contempt which he thinks his Adversaries deserve though in truth how low soever they lye he rises no higher but it may be disgraces his Mastership by the comparison But to return to the Men of Kent the generality of which how free soever they were Against Mr. Petyt p. 39. were by his Rule no Freemen of the Kingdom for all the Freemen of the Kingdom were Tenants in Military Service Feudalibus Legibus non 〈…〉 Spel. Glos. tit Gavel kind Which was of the Feudal Law whereas their Gavel-kind was exempt from it I can imagine no other Reason why they above others constantly maintained their old Laws and Customes than that they were a sturdy People more than ordinary tenacious of their Rights and sensible of the least Violation And possibly for a long time they retained the Power of taking Satisfaction upon

If a man holding of the King in Capite by the Service of two Knights alien'd one or two Knights Fees with Licence without particular Exemption from the King's Duty in this Case the Burden went along with the Land but if he had according to Licence made sufficient Provision for the King's Service the rest he might have rais'd for his own use and though the Service continued to be reserved to the King yet the Alienee before the Statute of Quia emptores terrarum which was introductory of a new Law was Tenant to the immediate Feoff●r this Tenant had no Right to be at the King's Council of Tenants and yet was to answer Escuage and all manner of Charges as assest by the Tenants in Chief who were the only Council for the purposes of such Tenure Si quid novisti rectius istis Candidus imp●rti si non his utere mecum If our wise Author greater Truths have taught Shew me wherein or take what I have brought To go on with Great and General Councils 21 H. 3. we find at a Great Council Comites Barones Milites liberi homines Whereas 't is said on the other side that none under the Degree of Knights came At another Jani c. p. 244. Barones Proceres Magnates ac Nobiles Portuum Maris habitatores nec non Clerus Populus universus 'T is a ridiculous Answer to this that all these are put together only to make an Impression upon the Pope as if the Sense of the whole Nations Representative whatever it were were not as much to move a Foreign Prince as the whole Nations 45 Hen. 3. Three are chosen out of every County to represent the Body of the County An Agreement was made between King and People 48. H 3. Jan. c. p. 246. A Domino Rege Domino Ed. filio suo Prelatis Proceribus omnibus et communitate regni Angliae To all this p. 265. may be added that long before where the ingenuitas regni were consulted Here are Instances enough of greater Councils than such as King John's Charter settles as I have observed those there were made a Council only for the matters of their Feud they met ordinarily three times a Year and in that were ordinarily a Court of Justice and he betrays his Ignorance not to say more who affi●ms the contrary 'T is no Objection to this that sometimes we find Regnum Angliae at it for still 't was ad Curiam pro more Not that the Kingdom used to come of Course but then came to that Court which was ordinary or of Course That the Kings great Officers and Ministers of Justice were there I have always yielded and that 't was no Grievance to the Tenants to have Justice administred without them at other times and therefore it makes not against my Sense that these often sat without the Tenants Yet their sitting was not at stated times and therefore they were not Curia pro more Either way there was a great Council distinct from the less 1. As to the persons composing the one and the other The Great Council had the whole Nation of Propriet●rs or of Representatives of their Choice in the other at the most the King had only his Tenants in Chief and Officers and Ministers of Justice 2. As to the matters treated of the one treated of matters of extraordinary Justice the other but ordinary 3. For time the great Council was summon'd as often as the State of the Kingdom required it the other as a Court of Tenants and Officers had times ascertain'd not but that as occasion might offer it self they might be summon'd according to King John's Charter Nay may be after that they never met but upon Summons the lesser Court of Officers and Ministers of Justice met oftner than either but not of Course And thus have I answered his Arguments from King John's Charter by which he labours to prove That Tenants in Chief only composed the Great Council or were all the Nobility of England and have given a clear Account of that unintelligible piece as he is pleased to represent it leaving out what I offer'd upon the Question of the Bishops Voting in Capital Cases since he had no other way of answering it than by calling it impertinent Rhapsody Tho if 't is no better to be answer'd 't is not Rhapsody and fancyful Stuff and if the first ground from our Laws to dispute their Right mentions it in relation to the Curia Regis 't was not surely impertinent to consider their Right the Curia from whence 't was excluded being so directly to my purpose There are other things incidentally coming in which I divide not into Heads being they serve but to explain those which I have rais'd To which may be added That our Author by the Exercise of his Faculty of Story-telling and setting forth the Power of the great rebellious Barons Against Mr. Petyt p. 210. has given us to understand That the Commons were not first brought into the Great Councils in the 49 of Hen. 3. unless we believe that the great men would co●sent to ballance and weaken their own Power I may put the Question in his own words upon another Occasion Can it be reasonably imagined Against Mr. Petyt p. 234. 235. that they should give way to or establish such Laws as would undoe and destroy their own Settlement in Power Wherefore the Argument is strong that till then the Commons came in their own Person but that then the Great men having the Power in their hands clip'd their Wings But let us see his weighty Arguments against my sense of this Charter In Answer to my third Head he puts me off with the Fallibility of a Parlialiament but if moral Certainty without Infallibility will not satisfie him in matters of the greatest Concern we may know what he would be at But forsooth this was not a full Court of Tenants because as was usual only some few attested the Fact In Opposition to my Fifth p. 10. 11. he tells us that even voluntary Gifts to the Crown are called auxilia nay even such as were more than Advances upon Services But what proof is there that such were here meant when not only Services because of Tenure with the Advances upon them but what came from more than Tenants are called Auxilia too As general Objections against my Sense 1. If Tenants in Capite were a great Council of the Kingdom p. 12. for Aids and Escuage only which is hardly reconcileable to Sense Why so good Dr. May there not be a great Council especially a Common-Council to a particular Purpose Nay you your self confine it's Power to the raising of Taxes Why was the Cause of Summons to be declared Because of the occasion requiring greater or less Aid 2. Lastly If all Free-men or as our Author saith in other places all Proprietors were Members of the Great and General

Auxilium which is there meant of voluntary aid not due upon the account of their Houses being o● of the Kings Demeasn though indeed 't is then shewn that they had several● times before been talliated Quid a new Paragraph Quid es● quod in hâc Causâ defensionis egeat must needs say I take all this to be s● plain that I know not which part ought to add any light to Is the difference between Tallage and a Voluntar● Aid obscure Or is it not well known that the Kings Demeasns only were tal●●liated and that the City having bee● talliated 't was in vain to urge tha● they paid only voluntary Aid But perhaps in the two next the o●scurity may lye and yet by the Doctor● Art of multiplying faults they ma● make three obscure Paragraphs 2. This explains that part of the Charter He adds such to Cases to render it obscure Jani c. p. 26. Simili modo fiat de Civitate London that is as in all Cases besides those excepted Escuage or Tallage should not be raised but by a Common-Council of the Kingdom that is of all the persons concerned to pay so for the City of London unless the Aid was ordered in Common-Council wherein they and all other Tenants in chief were assembled none should be laid upon any Citizens but by the consent of their own Common-Council Na. So if a sum in gross were laid upon them and if the Ordinance were only in general Terms that all the Kings Demeasns should be talliated the proportions payable there should be agreed by the Common-Council of the City This consists of two parts First That where there was not the consent of a Common-Council of all the Tenents in chief the Citizens might of themselves give a Tallage which is not in dispute between us but is with admirable ingenuity turned into an assertion Viz. To such payment as T●●lage that Cities and Burroughs were not taxed or assessed towards any payments but by their own Common-Councils which is not to be inferred from the priviledge of one City suppose it were so for London nor can be gathered from my words which yield that even London might be Taxt or Assessed by the consent of the Common-Council of Tenents or that they Against Jani c. p. 113. as part of the Common-Council of the Land taxed themselves which is true but no man of sense can understand that to be the meaning of this part of the Obscure Paragraph but that something farther was intended 2. The second I need not explain since he understands for all his affected ignorance Indeed he would take in more places that after a Tax was imposed upon the City of London the Inhabitants or those who composed its Council met to proportion it so as it might be paid with as much equality as could be Na. the King did perhaps require a certain sum after a general Ordinance made by the Council of Tenents for a Rationabile auxilium Jani c. p. 26. This he yields to my hand that they always did if they would it seems convinced by that Record which shews that when the Council of the City would not agree to the Sum demanded by the King 't was de voluntate omnium Baronum nostrorum Civitatis ejusdem that the King talliated his Tenents per se or per Capita so much upon every head 3. This clears the last Paragraph which I need not recite it having no meaning differing from the Record but if my Record give not sufficient light and strength he I thank him according to his usual Curtesie cites one clear enough Dr. p. 115. Et cum praedicti Cives noluissent intrare finem praedict ' trium mille marcarum praedicti Thes. alii voluerint assidere illud Tal. per Capita So that till the Citizens refused the the Sum in gross the King did not Talliate each man in particular But I am told that this is nothing to my purpose 't is strange that he who blames me in other places for not quoting more than is for my purpose when nothing behind makes against me should now tax me for not skipping over any part of that Clause which 't was needful to take and explain entire To clear up his understanding if possible though I thought to have left this Task I will obviate an objection which such as our Answerer may make that 't is obscure how the Record of the Common-Council of London's concerning its self about the Charge laid upon the City should explain that part of the Charter which sayes Simili modo fiat de Civitate London but surely practice is a good Interpreter of a Law and there is this further evidence that here is provision for the power of the Common-Council of the City because that holding in Capite and being mentioned distinct from all the other Tenents there named in general it must be for something else besides that for which 't is joyned with the other Tenents But Excedimus tenebris in crepusculum from this obscurity and darkness to be felt by the Doctors groaping hand we come to broad day light When in the 39th H. 3. Against Jani p. 115. 117. Provisum fuit per Consilium Regis apud Merton that he should talliate his Demeasns though this was after King John's Charter which was intended to restrain the King from levying publick Taxes without publick consent yet it seems to be plain by the Record that the King by the advice of his Privy Council taxed the City of London even without the consent of the Common Council of his immediate Tenents whom he makes the Common-Council for all manner of Aid and Escuage But it may be said a Tallage was no publick Tax though the Tax here spoke of is made no more publick than the consent required to charge it Which consent according to him was from immediate Tenents only so that Tallage might be a publick Tax as well as any other And to be sure Scutagium concerning the Kings Tenents only and the Cases in which the King reserv'd to himself power of taxing without publick consent in his sense relating only to them the Tax because of tenure must be provided for as well as other if any other were there meant by Auxilium vel Scutagium Nay he owns expresly that according to the Law in King John ' s Charter London and other Cities and Burghs were to be Assessed and Taxed by the Common-Council of the Kingdom p. 117. 118. And he makes a reason of that provision to be the usage in the time of H. 2. for the King to Talliate or Tax them without such a Council The Doctor has doubtless the most particular convincing way of reasoning of any man he says that Law in King John ' s Charter intended to restrain the King from levying of publick Taxes without publick consent And the reason of this Artice in King John ' s Charter is Argument sufficient to prove it for mark the weighty reason H. the Third after this was granted and Edw. 1st taxed their Demeasns through England though