To the extent possible under law, the Text Creation Partnership has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to this keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above, according to the terms of the CC0 1.0 Public Domain Dedication (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/). This waiver does not extend to any page images or other supplementary files associated with this work, which may be protected by copyright or other license restrictions. Please go to http://www.textcreationpartnership.org/ for more information.
But then there was Hannibal ad Por∣tas.
Answ. To this I shall answer afterwards, that here the Maritine Towns shall not help the In∣land, but each of them bear their own charge, and defend themselves: But of this I shall speak hereafter; yet undoubtedly 'tis reasonable, that
both should joyn to defend the Kingdom, in case of necessity.
Now I shall endeavour clearly to prove this by Authority in Law, and Precedents in all A∣ges. And first, it is a great Authority in Law, that there is no express Authority against it, though there have been some Books cited by my Brother Hutton, and my Brot••e: Crooke, (which I shall answer in their due place, amongst other Objections) yet there is not one Authority or O∣pinion, much less resolution or judgment in ne∣cessary time of danger, that says the King may not charge the Subjects for the defence of the Kingdom.
Secondly, All these Authorities that prove the King is trusted with the defence of the King∣dom, and in divers Cases gives him Aids, Taxes, Subsidies, &c. prove that the Subject is bound in case of danger and necessity to pay them to the King for defence of the Kingdom.
Thirdly, All the Authorities of Murage, Pon∣tage, Saltpeter, &c. shew, that for the good of the Publick the King is interested in the Estates of the Subjects, and may charge them; much more (if for the well-being then) where the being it self of the Commonwealth is at stake, and in danger.
Fourthly, The Authorities of commanding the Person of the Subject to come out of their own Counties proves it; the power of com∣manding the Person of the Subject into forreign parts is in the King, much more the Estates of men should be at his Command, in Case of neces∣sary defence of the Kingdom.
Fifthly, All the Commissions of arraying men in E. 1. time, E. 3. E. 4. H. 7. and H. 8. time, &c. They are all grounded upon the same rea∣son, and went out for the necessary defence of the Kingdom; these Writs are not to command the person, but a Ship only, ju••ta facultates suas, which are answerable in reason to the Ancient Precedents.
From Authorities ••I come to Precedents; Pre∣cedents though they be not Judgments, yet they shew the practice of the Law; and what better Book have we in the Law, than the Book of Pre∣cedents? or what is there of more Authority than that? for we have not the twelve Tables for our Common Law.
The Common Law is but the common usage of the Land; and therefore the Precedents alledged by the Kings Councel are of good Authority to prove the Law in this Case; wherein I shall not name the particulars, they have been well remem∣bred by Mr. Attorney, and Mr. Solicitor, but I will mention the substance of them.
The first Precedent was, before the Conquest, in the times of Edgar, Alfred, Ethelred, &c. the use was to defend the Kingdom at the charge of the whole Kingdom, by the Edict of the King.
A strong inference from the Precedent of the grant to the Clergy and Church of divers Privi∣ledgos, with these Exceptions of Expedit Po••∣tium, &c. in the time of Edgar, Alfred, and E∣thelred, &c.
The Councel of Enoch in Edgars time, about 606. 621. mentioned by the learned Antiquary Sir Henry Spelman, fo. 510. and after those fol∣lows, Hae sunt Constitutiones, &c. fo. 523. In which are excellent things good for Church and Commonwealth, Cap. 23. Navales expeditiones, if it be no Act of Parliament, yet nothing is more like an Act of Parliament: Take the phrase of those times, and certainly it was either an Act of Parliament, or a proof of the 〈…〉〈…〉 that without Parliament he 〈…〉〈…〉 Subject for the defence of the Kingdom, 〈…〉〈…〉 of danger; and the word 〈…〉〈…〉 used fo•• War, and sometimes for an Army, as 〈◊〉〈◊〉 giving the reason of the name says: In the th••••d place, it shews the practice of the Kings o•• ••••g∣land to charge their Subjects for the defence of the Kingdom, in case of danger.
Now if this charge of 〈◊〉〈◊〉 be no•• taken away by any of the Acts of Parliament, it ••e∣mains still, says my Brother H••••••on, and so I think it doth, or something in lie•• of it, for it is not taken away by the Act of Parliament.
1. In these Precedents, observe first, that th•••• are all upon the same common ••eason th•••• this is.
Secondly, These Writs are not limited 〈◊〉〈◊〉 their number or time; so that they prove the power was in the King to charge his Subjects.
Thirdly, In these Precedents, some were to Inland Counties, as Hu••tington, Bedford, Bucki••∣gham, Leicester, Oxford, Berks, &c. And though they went not generally to all Counties at one time, yet they went to them as occasion was; and if the danger had required, the King might, if he had pleased, have sent to all, as well as to some.
But because there never was any time when all the Munition in the Kingdom was drawn at one time to one place, may it not therefore be done? The commanding sometimes of one, sometimes of another, is an Argument they may all be com∣manded, as occasion requires.
I do not build my Opinion upon confused No∣tions, but on matters digested, on Precedents of weight, the chiefest in respect of time, and after the making of Magna Charta, 9 H. 3. 13 H. ••. m. 48. 18 H. 3. m. 7. & 13 E. 3. m. 77. 23 E. ••. m. 4. 28 E. 1. m. 23. and many other in E. 1. time; there is proving Contribution towards the maintenance of the Sea Coasts from Inlands, as 25 E. 1. m. 13. Abbot of Robertsbridge Case is a full Precedent, notwithstanding all that hath been said against it: So 9 E. 2. pars 1. 20 E. 2. m. 7. 2 E. 3. Scotch Roll. 7 E. 3. m. 9. 10 E. 3. n. 16, 17. 11 E. 3. 12 E. 3. 14, 15, 16. 18 E. 3. 46 E. 3. m. 34. 25 E. 3. Rot. Franc. m. 9. 29 E. 3. 1 R. 2. 1 H. 4. and yet H. 4. had as much reason to please the people as any King of England: So in H. 5. though busied in the glorious Con∣quest, or rather recovery of France, God forbid we should see those times: So in Ed. 4. H. 6. H. 7. H. 8. by▪ way of Offensive War, Writs and Commissions to their Subjects to contribute towards it; so in Queen Elizabeths time, Com∣missions towards the maintenance of the King∣dom, 11 Eliz. 41 Eliz. Commission to the Earl of Nottingham, 88. Letters from the Lords of the Councel, which Letters had the Queens Writ; but my Brother Crooke answered all these with this Rule of Law, Judicandum est legibus non Exemplis: To this I answer him, that Examples and Precedents are good Law; they are Autho∣rities out of the Law, and declare what the Law is, and what of more certainty digest of Writs; these are Instar Oracula Legis.
Precedents drawn up by Clerks sometimes, though they pass sub silentio, yet are they good Authorities in the Law.
The Abbot of Robertsbridge Case is a Prece∣dent of great Authority.
Ob. No Precedents goes to Inland Counties.
Ans. I answer, in truth the Precedents are
quite otherways for ordinary defence, they go to Maritine Coasts only, but where the danger is general to Inland Counties, and after another manner: For this I refer you to my Brother We∣stons Argument, these could not be so frequent; for first this danger was but seldome.
Secondly, Because we had then double hostili∣ty, one from France by Sea, and another by Land from Scotland; examine the Precedents there∣fore.