He observed that those kings, even in the acts whereby they did break the law, did really affirm the subject’s liberty, and disclaim that right of imposing which is now challenged: for they did usually procure the merchants’ consent to such taxes as were laid, thereby to put a color of justice upon their proceeding; and ordinarily they were limited to a short time, and then propounded to the ratification of the Parliament, where they were cancelled or confirmed, as the necessity and state of the kingdom did require. But for the most part such charges upon merchandise were taken by authority of Parliament, and granted for some short time, in a greater or lesser proportion, as was requisite for supply of the public occasions—six or twelve in the pound, for one, two or three years, as they saw cause to be employed for the defence of the sea: and it was acknowledged so clearly to be in the power of Parliament, that they have sometimes been granted to noblemen, and sometimes to merchants, to be disposed for that use. Afterward they were granted to the King for life, and so continued for divers descents, yet still as a gift and grant of the Commons. Betwixt the time of Edward III. and Queen Mary, never prince (that he could remember) offered to demand any imposition but by grant in Parliament. Queen Mary laid a charge upon cloth, by the equity of the statute of tonnage and poundage, because the rate set upon wool was much more than upon cloth; and, there being little wool carried out of the kingdom unwrought, the Queen thought she had reason to lay on somewhat more; yet not full so much as brought them to an equality, but that still there continued a less charge upon wool wrought into cloth, than upon wool carried out unwrought; until King James’ time when upon Nicholson’s project, there was a further addition of charge, but still upon pretence of the statute, which is that we call the pretermitted custom.