There are some singular passages in this last speech, which may be worth taking notice of, especially as they came from a member who was no courtier; for he argues against the subsidy.

"And first," says he, "for the _necessity_ thereof, I cannot deny, but if it were a charge imposed upon us by her majesty's commandment, or a demand proceeding from her majesty by way of request, that I think there is not one among us all, either so disobedient a subject in regard of our duty, or so unthankful a man in respect of the inestimable benefits which by her or from her we have received, which would not with frank consent, both of voice and heart, most willingly submit himself thereunto, without any unreverend inquiry into the causes thereof.

For it is continually in the mouth of us all, that our lands, goods, and lives, are at our prince's disposing.
And it agreeth very well with that position of the civil law, which sayeth, 'Quod omnia regis aunt,' But how?
'Ita tamen ut omnium sint.

Ad regem enim potestas omnium pertinet; ad singulos proprietas.' So that although it be most true that her majesty hath over ourselves and our goods 'potestatem imperandi,' yet it is true, that until that power command, (which, no doubt, will not command without very just cause,) every subject hath his own 'proprietatem possidendi.' Which power and commandment from her majesty, which we have not yet received, I take it, (saving reformation,) that we are freed from the cause of _necessity_.
And the cause of necessity is the dangerous estate of the commonwealth," etc.

The tenor of the speech pleads rather for a general benevolence than a subsidy; for the law of Richard III.