Selected quad for the lemma: religion_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
religion_n	king_n	prince_n	state_n	2,872	4	5.6626	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A55325	Discourse of trade, coyn, and paper credit, and of ways and means to gain, and retain riches to which is added the argument of a learned counsel upon an action of a case brought by the East-India-Company against Mr. Sands the interloper.	Pollexfen, John, b. ca. 1638.; Pollexfen, Henry, Sir, 1632?-1691. Argument of a learned counsel upon an action of the case brought by the East-India-Company against Mr. Thomas Sands, an interloper.	1697 (1697)	Wing P2778; ESTC R17145	112,364	258

cause may produce with us the same effects and that without a universal change in our course of Living and Practices all good expected by Laws of any kind and all the endeavours of our Superiours will be in danger to be defeated it being impossible that they should have the effect of making us Rich or Happy as long as the generality will conspire and combine to make the Nation poor and miserable But the many Mistakes and Imperfections in this Treatise may justly occasion that the Author be censured for having adventured too far already and that went out of his Trade when undertook this Task But it being not designed to impose or mislead but chiefly to provoke others of more Judgment and Experience in matters of Coyn and Mercantile Affairs to offer their Thoughts being Subjects of so much nicety that few agree in Notions relating to them and yet of so great importance that nothing can more conduce to the inriching of the Nation then that they should be settled on the most advantageous and lasting foundations agreeable to the Rules of Prudence Honour and Justice therefore it is hoped that they that have more Ability will correct the Matter without endeavouring to correct the Author who hath taken this pains only in hopes it may be of some use to the Publick without any design against Mens particular Interests further than as such Interests were understood to be destructive to the common good for if we could agree what is our true Interest in reference to the Publick and to sacrifice our Passions and private Interests thereto then by Gods Blessing on our endeavours we may hope to retrieve our Trade but if instead thereof we should continue wallowing in Luxury and scrambling who shall get most one from another it may be feared we shall indanger the loss of all and justly incur the Sentence pronounced by the Wise Man He that is in love with his folly shall perish in it London July 15. 1696. FINIS 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

Or ordering of any Trade or Merchandize If you say you are saved within the Extent of these Words then must you make a Construction of these Words in this Sense That ordering Trade and Merchandize is excluding all others and taking the whole to your selves A most excellent ordering indeed But the true Sense of these Words in this Proviso is to save the Corporations and Fellowships of Arts Trades Occupations and Mysteries and to Companies of Merchants the Powers and Authorities that they had for the Maintenance Enlargement or ordering of Trade By taking care that the Commodities were honestly and rightly made without Fraud or Deceit in their Measures or Quantities That the Servants and younger sort were honest and industriously educated in their Trades and Mysteries by the Masters and elder sort To place and keep good Order and Decorum amongst those of the same Mystery and Trade For assembling and consulting for the common Good and Management of their respective Trades and Imployments This is that which the Proviso excepts and provides for Not for a sole Trade in a Company in a joynt Stock excluding all others as this is The Company there made a By-Law Taylors of Ipswich Case 11 Rep. 54. to exclude Taylors from using their Trades within that Town unless by the Masters and Wardens of the Company or three of them admitted to be a sufficient Workman In this Case here seemed to be a good End and Meaning to exclude insufficient Workmen and encourage good Workmen a good Order one might think Yet so jealous and careful they then were lest under any Pretence they should exclude Men from their lawful Trades that they adjudged this a void By-Law as tending to restrain Men of their Freedom in using their Trades and introducing Oppression of the young Tradesmen by the old and rich Tradesmen And in that Case adjudged That Ordinances for the good Order and Government of Men of Trades and Mysteries are good but not to restrain Men in their lawful Mystery To the same purpose is Norris and Stop 's Case Hob. 211. So that this being the Sense of this Proviso to except Powers and Authorities that Companies have to regulate Trade for the Maintenance and Enlargement of it but not to restrain any from their Trades or lawful Mysteries it extends not to salve or preserve such Authority or Power in you to have a sole Trade excluding all others 2. For another reason it cannot be the Sense of this Proviso to except or save to any Body Politick the buying in their publick Capacity a sole Trade The Proviso then will be repugnant and contradictory to the enacting Clauses For taking the Proviso as they would have it To save to Bodies Politick the having the sole buying and selling and using any Merchandize or Trade as a Corporation and then compare the Proviso with the enacting Clause and it will be just thus Enacted That Letters Patents to any Body Politick for sole buying selling or using any thing shall be void And that no Body Politick shall be capable of having using or exercising any such Patent Inhibition or Restraint Provided that Bodies Politick may have the sole buying selling and using any Trade Is not this in plain English repugnant and contradictory Examine it as much as you can and it will be no other than a down-right Contradiction Suppose the Statute that enacts that no Man shall use a Trade that he hath not served an Apprentice to by the Space of seven Years had a Proviso That Men might use a Trade that they had not served an Apprentice to by the Space of seven Years This had ben a void repugnant Proviso This is as plainly repugnant That no Body Politick shall be capable of having a sole Trade Provided that a Body may have a sole Trade And repugnant Provisos are in Law void Statute gives the Land of J. S. to the King 1 Rep. 46. Pl. Com. 563. Then a Proviso comes to save the Right of all Persons This shall be construed all Persons besides J. S. not to destroy the Premises Therefore when the Act saith That all Patents granted to Bodies Politick for sole buying and selling or using any thing c. Shall the Proviso that saith That it shall not extend or be prejudicial to Companies of Merchants erected for the Maintenance Enlargement or ordering of Trade If construed in the same Sense that they would have it to give the Companies sole buying selling and using any thing as Companies in their Corporate Capacity it is repugnant and contradictory But to give the Companies the Management Order and Government is the Sense as I conceive And this is the general Practice of the Societies and Companies allowed in all times But a sole Trade under the Colour and Pretence of Order and Management never as I believe hath had any judicial Allowance Object Another thing that the Counsel of the other side have objected to evade this Act hath been this The Proviso is That the Act shall not extend to Companies of Merchants erected for Maintenance and Ordering of Trade but that their Charters Liberties and Privileges shall be of like Force as they were before the making this Act. And therefore say they Patents to Companies of Merchants for ordering Trade if good before this Act shall be good still and therefore say they the Act can't hurt us This is curious but if examined is but the same Objection in other Words For the Conclusion of this Proviso extends no further than the Charters mentioned in the Beginning of it It extends but to the same Charters so are the very Words What Charters or Patents then shall remain in the same Force they were before the Act Those that are excepted What are excepted Those that are for Order and Management as I have before shewn Not those that are for sole Trade granted to a Body Politick That is repugnant to the enacting Clause therefore those as I have said are not excepted or within the Proviso If then not excepted you are most plainly and fully within the enacting Clause and your Patent quite contratrary to and void by this Act unless the matter of Infidel will save you Object But this is a sole Trade with Infidels and such a Trade the Subject had never any Right to have without the King's Licence And to prove it they cite Michelburne's Case Wherein Mr. Brownlow being Prothonotary 2. Brownlow 296. doth relate what my Lord Coke said That no Subject of the King might trade with any Realm of Infidels without the King's Licence And that the Reason was because he might relinquish the Catholick Faith and adhere to Infidelism And that he had seen a Licence in the Time of E. 3. where the King recited the Confidence that he had in his Subject that he would not decline his Religion and so licenced him And that this did arise upon the Recital of a Licence made to trade to the East-Indies They cite also Calvin's

Case 7 Rep. 17. where 't is said That Infidels are perpetui inimici there is perpetual Hostility there can be no Peace an Infidel can maintain no Action nor have any thing within this Realm and to prove this there is cited R. 282.12 H. 8.4 1. Supposing the Law to be as these Books intend and as the other side urge them and the Consequence will be that the Plaintiff can't maintain this Action but that the Charter granted to them is void The Reason that is given in Michelburn's Case is grounded upon this That the King hath the Care and Preservation of Religion by the Law vested in him That his Subjects shall not trade with Infidels lest thereby they may be brought to relinquish the Catholick Faith and adhere to Infidelism And that the King shall take care that Licences to trade be only given to such as the King hath Confidence in that they will not decline their Religion Supposing this then your Patent must be naught for then it is only grantable to Persons in whom such Confidence may be 1. Your Corporation or Body Politick is indefinite as to Persons the Members thereof are daily changeable some go out sell their Stocks or dye others buy their Stocks and are daily coming in to be Members of your Company I doubt you do not much examine nor care how fixed or certain those are in Religion that come into your Company How then can there be any Confidence in a Body Politick The Law saith that a Body Politick hath neither Soul nor Conscience What Confidence then concerning their Religion can there be in a Body Politick 2. 'T is not only the Members of the Company that were at the Time of the Corporation but those that after should be Members and their Sons their Apprentices Factors and Servants that are licensed by this Patent If licensing to trade with Infidels be a Trust and Prerogative in the King to be given to such Persons in whom the King can have Confidence that they will not be conversing with Infidels change or prejudice This can't be granted to a Body Politick and their Successors which may have Continuance for ever or to their Sons Factors Apprentices and Servants Persons altogether unknown not born nor in rerum natura when the Patent was made Suppose such a Licence to you to trade with Enemies I say 3. Supposing it to be in the King's Prerogative in Preservation of Religion to licence yet he can't grant this Prerogative to you that you shall have Power to grant Licence to whom you will Yet all this is done by your Patent for you have not only thereby Power granted you for your Apprentices Factors and Servants which are Persons that you your selves nominate and appoint at your Discretions and undoubtedly very religious But by your Patent it is expresly granted that the Company for any Consideration or Benefit to themselves may grant Licences to any Merchant Stranger or other to trade to or from the Indies And that the King will not without the Consent of the Company licence any other to trade Can this be a good Grant Can the King grant from himself his Kingly Care and Trust for Preservation of Religion to you that you shall manage it and that the King will not use such his Power without your Consent So that supposing that there is by the Law such a Trust reposed in the King for Preservation of Religion as you would have it yet the Grant to you is void in it self and then you have no more Right than we and consequently can maintain no Action against us 2. To consider the Books that you have cited to maintain this religious Point 1. Brownlow's Reports a Book printed in the late Times not licensed by any Judge or Person whatsoever The Roll is Michelburn against Bathurst Mich. 7 Jac. B. C. Rot. 3107. setting forth that the King had granted the Plaintiff his Commission to go with his Ship Tiger to the East-Indies to spoil and suppress the Infidels and to take from them what he could That there were Articles betwixt the Parties for Account and Shares of what should be got and upon those Articles a Suit in the Admiralty And what is it that is in the Case Nothing to the purpose but the Book mentions only what my Lord Coke said upon the Motion for the Prohibition Only a sudden occasional Saying not upon any Argument or Debate nor to the then Case So that a Man must be very willing that will much rely upon such a Saying I can't call it an Authority 2. For Calvin's Case That an Infidel is perpetuus Inimicus and can maintain no Action or have any thing and that we are in perpetual Hostility and no Peace can be made with them It is true that this is said in Calvin's Case but there was nothing there in Judgment that gave Occasion for it so that I can't think that it was much considered before it was spoken The Books there cited to prove it are Reg. 282. And all that I can find therein is that in a Writ of Protection granted to the Hospitallers of the Hospital of St. John's of Jerusalem it is said that the Hospital was founded in Defence of Holy Church against the Enemies of Christ and Christians But doth this prove that Infidels are perpetui Inimici with whom no Peace can be made that can maintain no Action The other Book cited is 12 H. 8.4 a Trespass brought for taking away a Dog and in the debating whether this Action did lye or not it is said That if the Lord beat his Villain an Husband his Wife or a Man outlawed or a Traitor or a Pagan they shall have no Action because they are not able to sue an Action So that this also is but Discourse and sudden Thoughts and Sayings where the thing was not in Question And what Authority is there in such Sayings It is true that Christian Religion and Pagaism are so contrary one to the other as impossible to be reconciled no more than Contradictions can be reconciled But because they can't be reconciled that therefore there should be perpetual War betwixt them and us perhaps is an irreligious Doctrine and destroys all Means of convincing Infidels to the Faith And besides these extrajudicial and occasional Sayings in these Books cited are of little Authority For I can't find any Book or Case much less Judgment or Authority for such Opinions in so great a Point as this is But on the other side if a Man considers the general Course and Practice Trade and Commerce and legal Proceedings a Man would think That my Lord Coke could not be in earnest in what he hath said about Infidels For let a Man consider what a great Part of the World we have Commerce with that are Infidels as Turks Persians the Inhabitants of Barbary and other Countries Spain and Portugal were also possessed by the Moors who were Infidels till about the Year 1474. about 200