Selected quad for the lemma: kingdom_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
kingdom_n	lord_n	time_n	word_n	2,444	5	3.7698	3	false

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

Inst 507. My Lord Coke saith that 15060 Jews thereupon departed the Kingdom But for the Use that in arguing is made of this matter of the Jews and of the King 's seizing their Estates and pardoning for dealing with them 1. As for those ancient Records in general Time hath hidden the Knowledg of the Laws and Transactions of those Times It is impossible to know what the Laws of those Times were or rightly to distinguish betwixt legal and violent Acts And to bring Inferences from thence to conclude in Judgment now is Notum per Ignotius Or like Dependencies which unless latter Times have concurred or agreed with are only fit to make Disorder and Confusion 2. But that which is deducible from thence is not as I conceive what hath been endeavoured That is that they had no Property because the Princes of those Times took from them their Estates when they pleased or taxed them how and in what manner they pleased But perhaps the Reason was because those People lying under the Curse and being a vagrant People without Head Prince or Governour or Country it was no Difficulty to tax or take from them at Pleasure being hated of the People where they lived For it could not be as they would have it that they should be amongst us as alien Enemies for an alien Enemy can make neither Bargain nor Contract nor be capable of Property But the Subject may at his Will and Pleasure fall upon and take all that he hath to his own Use as upon the King's Enemies and what he can take from him is his own Acquisition as the Prize of his Adventure and Conquest over his Enemy And to prove this two Books are cited 17 E. 4. and 2 H. 7. But by what is admitted by them that they were great Usurers and had great Estates It is evident that they were treated as alien Amies How could they else in such Multitudes live amongst us How could they be Usurers or get Estates if they could not make Contracts How is it possible they could preserve their Bodies or Estates against the King's Subjects unless they had the King's Protection and treated as alien Amies And of latter Times how many of them have lived amongst us driven great Trades have had and have at this present considerable Estates Let it be now adjudged that any Man that will may take away their Estates that they can have no Remedy or Action for any Debt owing to them but instead thereof may be beaten and imprisoned as Enemies to the King And we shall probably see what the Success of such a Judgment will be 12 Car. 2. cap. 18. The Act of Navigation made the 12 Year of the King concerning Trade shews that Infidels have the same Liberty of Trade as others That Act being made for Encrease of Shipping and Navigation and prohibiting Goods to be imported by any foreign Ships except the Ships of the same Country where the Goods do grow or arise distinguisheth not betwixt Infidel and Christian Countries But expresly saith That Currants nor Commodities of the Growth of the Turkish or Ottoman Empire shall be imported but by English Ships except Ships of the Built of that Country or Place where the Growth is and whereof the Master of the Mariners is of that Country or Place This Clause shews plainly that the Infidels of the Turkish and Ottoman Empire have Liberty of Trade here And the Acts of Tunnage and Poundage tax all their Merchandizes without saying brought in In Southern How 's Case 2 Cr. 469. where a Man imployed another to sell Jewels for him in Barbary as true Jewels and he sold them to the King of Barbary for 800 l. as true Jewels when they were counterfeit and thereupon the King of Barbary finding himself cheated imprisoned the Plaintiff that sold them to him till he repaid his Mony In that Case 't was of all sides admitted and not as much as objected that this Contract was void because the King of Barbary was an Infidel So that this Opinion that Infidels are perpetual Enemies and in perpetual Hostility can maintain no Action nor have any thing amongst us hath no Authority for its Foundation but only some extrajudicial Sayings without Debate or Consideration And is against all the continual Practices of Princes and People at all Times Perhaps 't is no small Part of Religion that Men should speak and deal plainly and uprightly one with another We do know that Religion hath been too often made a Cloak and Vail for other Ends and Purposes It should not be so And I hope will not be so used in this Case The Statutes that I have cited of Magna Charta c. 9. E. 3. 25 E. 3. 2. and 11 R. 2. All declare and enact the Freedom of Trade in general Words except only such as are in War with the King In none of them is there any Exception of Trade with Infidels Can it be imagined that in those Days we had no Trade with Turkey or Barbary Our Kings went with Armies to the Holy Land King had made War and Peace with the Turks Had we no Trade there but with our Swords But to look nearer home Spain and Portugal were Infidels and in the Hands of the Moors until anno 1474. which was 14 E. 4. Can it be thought that in all those Times betwixt Magna Charta H. 3. and E. 4. we had no Trade with Spain or Portugal Stat. 12 H. 7. c. 6. was made in the Year 1497. which is but 23 Years after the Moors were driven out and in that Statute 't is Recited That the Merchants Adventurers dwelling in divers Parts of England out of London did shew That whereas they have had free Passage Course and Recourse with their Goods Wares and Merchandizes in divers Coasts and Parts beyond the Seas as well into Spain Portugal Venice Danzick East-land Frize-Land and divers and many other Regions and Countries in League and Amity with the King That they were imposed upon by the Company of Merchants in London and forced to pay Duties I only make use of this Recital to prove the free Passage there mentioned to Spain and Portugal and to other Countries and Regions There is no Distinction of Infidel from Christian Country though Spain and Portugal had been so lately Infidel and though most probably the Trade they had then was with Turkey and Barbary as well as with Venice The Words other Regions and Countries seem to imply as much and the Freedom equal So that I think as to this Objection that Infidels are perpetual Enemies that we have no Peace with them nor they maintain any Action or have any Property by our Law I think the Authority to maintain it is none at all The constant Practice as well by Princes as People has been always against it But be that Point of trading with or without Licence how it will That Point can't be sufficient to found a Monopoly upon that can't