112 



NOTES AND QUERIES. 



C2»<» S. X. Aug. 11. '60. 



" 2 He may impose to keepe the ballance even be- 

 tweene hymself and forrayne princes. Agreeable to state, 

 polUcy and lawe. 



" The presidents in 27 H. 6 & 7 H, 7 * prove 



alld not that the kinge could not impose of right, 



Venice, perhaps the other princes in those cases did it 



by a publick edict, and therefore the kinge would observe 



the like course. 



"3 If a forrayne prynce growe greate and wealthj' by 

 our comodities and wee weeke the kinge may impose. 

 " 4 In tyrae of. 



" Reasons. 



" That he may Impose by the como lawe. 

 " 2 kyndes of Imposs. 

 " I'bj' way of Custome or tolle. 

 " 2 by way of penalty. 

 " The questio is not now of the first. He thinkes be 

 can hardly impose in poynt of custome, thoecustome be 

 due by the ComO lawe. He cannot impose a pew custome, 

 the series of the statutes make against it. 



♦'Neith lawe nor statute against this. 

 wayof^naTty. ^^ *^® coinon lawe had sett dowiie an order 

 in poynt of merchandise it were to be ob- 

 served ve Brook Denise 16. So the Statutes are but ex- 

 planacio of the como lawe. Imposs may be layd upo 

 merchants strangers 13 E 4. But the merchants of Engla^ 

 trade, not bj' the como lawe of the^land, but by the lawe 

 of nations, but for Imposs upo comodities w'Mn land as 

 upO Alehouses, they are against lawe because the como 

 lawe hathe pscribed a forme. 



" 22 E 3 f 10, Tryall apoynted p medietat Linguaa be- 

 fore any Statute. 



" Yet he altred not the equity of the lawe w'^'' apoynted 

 an indifferent triall to all ; but he altred preceptu legis. 



" Gran* to Londoners that the need not 



20^^: Crown? joyne battell : a good patent. It stands f 



w''' the equity of the lawe to compell a citi- 



zene to ioyne battell w'^^ a souldier. 



"40 E 3. f. 15. Grant to merchants of the Staple to 



("take anj' mans howse in Westn fro hym. It 



o "^ re"* S '^ intended that it was p bono publico, and that 



'* {stands w*'' the equity of the lawe. 



"Wee are where the como lawe cannot iudge. The 



merchant hathe no remedy against hym that spoyles at 



sea. He is not under the protectio of the lawe, thoe 



under the ptect of the king. An outlary thearfore 



voj'd of one beyond sea. He is under the Jurisdictio of 



the king by the lawe of nations, 6 K. 2 protect 46, the 



king onely Lorde of the sea. 



" Freeborne goods the king makes theyme alien, and 

 therefore he may have a fine for that. 



" So strange goods he makes theyme denisons. 

 "The como law cannot iudge of m"' at Sea, and there- 

 fore the law setts no rule. 



" In what kinde hathe he imposed. Not as any other 

 before hym. 

 "By way of penalty upo a restraynt precedent. 

 "Magn:'Cart. If they be not openly restrayned — so 

 no freedome of trade granted except they be not re- 

 strayned. 

 " Bates Impos was upo a restraynt you shall bring in 



* These two precedents had been quoted by Fuller 

 (fol. 44. b.). The second is also mentioned bv Hakewill 

 (state Trials, ii. 451.) 



t ? " not." 



X Does this mean that Yelverton expressed doubts as 

 to the correctness of his statement; or that the reporter 

 was not quite sure of the accuracy of his notes in this 

 place? 



no Currants. If you doe you shall pay go much, 4 E. 4. 

 f. 35. 1 H. 7. f. 10. Allpm. 



" The Judges could not help theyme. But the lawe of 

 nations must help theyme, 2 E. 3. Brytons Case. The 

 thfe good in poynt of lawe. But remedied by the statute 

 of 9 E. 3. 



" Theise were the evill tolles taken by corporatio. 



" If a statute be made that the kinge shall not govern 



the trade of merchants but in this manner: the statute 



were voyd, for it concernes the king in his prerog and 



government, 21 E. 1., quid est talent? goe aske the 



coyne. j^j^ge. 



" A privy seale to the officers of euery porte is an open 

 Kestraynt. It is open to thej'me whome it concernes. 

 There needs no proclam. Fitz. ne exeas regno. 



" 10 Eliz. M3'ne8, the prerog of the kinge to have royall 

 raynes is_not grounded upo the combn lawe. No sillable 

 in the como lawe concerng that matter. 



" It stands w* reaso of government oportet adaptari 

 politeia legibus et nO leges politeise ; that is to be under- 

 stood in cases where the como lawe hathe sette downe a 

 certayne order. 



" Thoe the Impos be excessive yet none can iudge it 

 but the king, no more then the restra3'nt." 



It may perhaps make this somewhat dry paper 

 more interesting, if I add the substance of a few- 

 notes which I have made on the history of the 

 imposition on currants. These details, some of 

 which will probably be new to most readers, al- 

 though they certainly throw no new light on the 

 legality of the imposition, certainly place the cha- 

 racter of the government in a more favourable 

 light, and are opposed to the popular notion that 

 in the early part of the seventeenth century all 

 public men were either great heroes or great 

 rascals. 



In 1575, a patent was granted* to Acerbo Ve- 

 lutelli, a native of Lueca, giving him the sole 

 right of importing into England currants and oil 

 from the Venetian territories. On the strength 

 of this he exacted from all English and foreign 

 merchants fines for licences to carry on the trade. 

 The Venetians, dis.«iatisfied that tlieir merchants 

 should be compelled to pay Velutelli for permis- 

 sion to carry their own productions into -England, 

 set a duty of 5s. 6d. per cwt. on currants exported 

 from their ports in other than Venetian bottoms, 

 with other duties on oil and wine. At the re- 

 quest of the English merchants a similar impost 

 was laid by Elizabeth upon these products if 

 landed in England from foreign ships.f 



Soon after this Velutelli's patent was cancelled, 

 and a new one granted to a very small number of 

 English merchants, who were formed into a com- 

 pany having the monopoly of the Venetian trade. 

 The duty on currants imported in foreign vessels 

 was thus changed into a total prohibition. This 

 patent expired in 1593, and the company was 



* S. P. 0., Domestic, Memoranda, April 11, 1606, vol. 

 XX. 25. 



t S. P. 0., Domestic, Statement bj the Levant Com- 

 pany, Feb. 1604, vol. vi. 69.;- Observations on two 

 Special Grievances, Nov. 1604, vol. x. 27. 



