Selected quad for the lemma: kingdom_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
kingdom_n	prince_n	state_n	subject_n	1,779	5	6.3897	4	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

THE ARGUMENT OF A Learned Counsel UPON AN Action of the CASE Brought by the East-India-Company AGAINST Mr. Thomas Sands an Interloper LONDON Printed for B. Aylmer at the Three Pigeons in Cornhill 1696. De Termino Paschae Anno xxxvi Caroli II. Regis In Banco Regis Gubernator Societas Mercator ' de London in Oriental ' Indiam negotiant ' against Tho. Sands AN Action upon the Case wherein the Plaintiff declares That Our Lord the King 3. Apr. 13 C. II. by his Letters Patents reciting that the Company of Merchants trading to the East Indies have been long a Corporation and enjoyed divers Liberties and Privileges by divers Grants from Queen Elizabeth and King James That the King was informed that divers Inconveniences and Disorders were committed to the Prejudice of the Company at the Petition of the Company the King grants ratifies and confirms to the Governour and Company of Merchants of London trading to the East Indies That they should for ever be a Body-Politique by the Name of Gubernatoris Societatis Mercator ' de London in Oriental ' Indiam negotiant ' Ac eos per Nomen Gubernatoris Societatis Mercator ' in Oriental ' Indiam negotiant ' Vnum Corpus Corporal ' politicum in facto nomine realiter in perpetuum fecit ordinavit constituit stabilivit declaravit per Literas Patentes illas With Powers to purchase sue and be sued by the Name of Governor and Society of Merchants of London c. And that they and all those that then were or should be of the said Company and all their Sons at their Ages of 21 or more and all their Apprentices Factors and Servants who should be imployed by the Company in the said Trade to the East Indies beyond the Seas might traffick and use the Trade of Merchandize by Sea by the Passages and Ways discovered to the East-Indies Beyond the Cape de Bona Speranza unto the Straits of Magellan in such Order Manner and Form Freedom and Condition as from time to time at any publick Assembly or Court holden by or before the said Governor and Company by or betwixt them of the said Company or the greater Part of them present at such Assembly or Court shall be limited or agreed and not otherwise any Diversity of Religion notwithstanding so as the Trade be not with any Christian Prince or State in League with our King who shall not accept of their Commerce but refuse to accept the same And that the Company their Factors Servants and Assigns in the Trade of Merchandize shall for ever have the whole and sole Trade and Traffick and the whole Freedom Use and Privilege of trading and merchandizing to and from the East-Indies in such manner as before mentioned And that the East-Indies or the Isles and Places thereof shall not be used or haunted by any of the King's Subjects against the true Intent of the Letters Patents And by the same Letters Patents the King commands all his Subjects that none of them shall visit or frequent or trade in the East-Indies unless with the Licence and Agreement with the Company first had under their common Seal That by Vertue of this Patent the Plaintiffs have been and still are a Corporation trading to the East-Indies with the Inhabitants thereof who at the Time of the Letters Patents granted were not nor yet are Christians nor Subjects of any Christian Prince or State but Infidels Enemies and Adversaries of the Christian Faith And that their Trade hath been to the Profit of the whole Kingdom and Encrease of the King's Customs That this Trade cannot be carried on but by a Company or Body Politick And that from the making the Letters Patents they have had and ought to have had the sole Trade there That the Defendant Sands being a Subject of the King 's but no Member of the Company nor being Son Factor Apprentice or Servant or Assignee after the Letters Patents viz. 19 Jan. 34. Car. nunc to the East-Indies beyond the Cape de Bona Speranza and this Side the Straits of Magellan in certain Places called Atcheon Mecklapaton and Porto Novo with a Ship called the Expectation hath traded and merchandized And divers Wares in the said Ship to these Places transported there bargained and sold and other Merchandize there bought and into this Kingdom Imported without the Licence and against the Will of the Company in eorum praejudicium depauperationem manifestam and against the Form of the Letters Patents ad damnum of the Company 1000 l. Plea The Defendant demands Oyer of the Letters Patents which are set forth in haec verba And thereby after the naming the Governor the 24. and constituting a general Court of Assembly and the Powers of Elections of their Officers That the King doth grant as in the Declaration so far as there mentioned But then in the Clause of Grant of sole Trade at the End thereof they have omitted this And that the said Governour and Company and every particular and several Person that now is or hereafter shall be of the Company shall have full and free Liberty and Licence in form aforesaid to and from the said East-Indies according to the Orders Ordinances and Agreements hereafter to be made at their publick Courts In the Recital of the Clause prohibiting others to trade without Licence under the common Seal they leave out a Part of that Clause which is this Upon Pain that every such Person that shall trade to or from the East-Indies shall incur the Forfeiture of his Merchandize he shall bring into the King's Dominions contrary to the Purport of this Charter or which the Company shall find in the East-Indies where they traffick and also of the Ship wherein the Merchandizes are transported one half to the King the other to the Company and Imprisonment of the Offender Then follows a Clause of Grant That the Company for any Consideration or Benefit to be taken to their own Use may grant Licence to any Stranger or other to trade to or from the Indies Then the King grants to the Company That the King will not without the Consent of the Company give Licence to any to or from those Places Then there is a Clause That none of the Company shall have a Vote in the general Assembly unless he have 500 l. in the Stock And after Oyer the Defendant pleads the Statute of the 5 E. 3. c. whereby 't is enacted That the Seas shall be open for all Merchants to pass with their Merchandizes wherever they please And that he by Vertue thereof did trade as in the Declaration alledged prout ei bene licuit To this the Plaintiff hath demurr'd Before I come to state the Points and Questions upon which this Question truly depends I desire to shew what are not the Points or Questions in this Case 1. It is not the Question whether the King by Law can restrain any of his Subjects to go out of the

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