48 ARGUMENT CONCERNING 



cannot bind succession, neither can the major part 

 bind the residue: how then should their grants 

 have force ? No otherwise but thus : that the kings 

 power of imposing was only the legal virtue and 

 strength of those grants ; and that the consent of a 

 merchant is but a concurrence, the king is &quot; princi- 

 &quot; pale agens,&quot; and they are but as the patient, and so 

 it becomes a binding act out of the king s power. 



Now if any man doubt that such grants of mer 

 chants should not be of force, I will allege but two 

 memorable records, the one for the merchants stran 

 gers, the other for the merchants English. That 

 for the strangers is upon the grant of &quot; chart, mer- 

 &quot; cator.&quot; of three pence in value &quot; ultra antiquas 

 &quot; custumas ;&quot; which grant is in use and practice at 

 &quot; this day. For it is well known to the merchants, 

 that that which they call stranger s custom, and 

 erroneously double custom, is but three pence in the 

 pound more than English. Now look into the sta 

 tutes of subsidy of tonnage and poundage, and you 

 shall find, a few merchandise only excepted, the 

 poundage equal upon alien and subject ; so that 

 this difference or excess of three pence hath no other 

 ground than that grant. It falleth to be the same 

 in quantity, there is no statute for it, and therefore it 

 can have no strength but from the merchants grants ; 

 and the merchants grants can have no strength but 

 from the king s power to impose. 



For the merchants English, take the notable re 

 cord in 17 E. III. where the commons complained 

 of the forty shillings upon the sack of wool as a mal- 

 toll set by the assent of the merchants without con- 



