Page images
PDF
EPUB

Sovereignty, For the sovereignty, the union is line royal. absolute in your Majesty Hnd your generation: but if it should so be, which God of his infinite merey defend, that your issue should fail, then the descent of both realms doth resort to the several lines of the several bloods royal.

For subjection, I take the law of obedience!' F.ngland to be clear, what the law of

Scotland is I know not, that all Scotsmen from the very instant of your Majesty's reign

begun are become denizens, and the ralUati(m.U post-nati are naturalized subjects of

England for the time forwards: for by our laws none can be an alien but he that is of another allegiance than our sovereign lord the king's: for there be but two sorts of aliens, whereof we find mention in our law, an alien ami, and an alien enemy; whereof the former is a subject of a state in amity with the king, and the latter a subject of a state in hostility: but whether he be one or other, it is an essential difference unto the definition of an alien, if he be not of the king's allegiance; as we see it evidently in the precedent of Ireland, who, since they were subjects to the crown of England, have ever been inheritable and capable as natural subjects; and yet not by any statute or act of parliament, but merely by the common law, and the reason thereof. So as there is no doubt, that every subject of Scotland was, and is in like plight and degree, since your Majesty's coming in, as if your Majesty had granted particularly your letters of denization or naturalization to every of them, and the post-nati wholly natural. But then on the other side, for the time backwards, and for those that were ante-nati, the blood is not by law naturalized, so as they cannot take it by descent from their ancestors without act of parliament: and therefore in this point there is a defect in the union of subjection. Religion, ^or matter of religion, the union is

church go- perfect in points of doctrine: but in vemment. - ,t , .. , ..

matter of discipline and government it

is imperfect.

For the continent, it is true there are no natural boundaries of mountains or seas, or navigable rivers; but yet there are badges and memorials of borders; of which point I have spoken before.

For the language, it is true the rtuJectf^*' nations are unius labii, and have not the first curse of disunion, which was confusion of tongues, whereby one understood not another. But yet the dialect is differing, and it remaineth a kind of mark of distinction. But for that, tempori permittendum, it is to be left to time. For considering that both languages do concur in the principal office and duty of a language, which is to make a man's self understood: for the rest, it is rather to be accounted, as was said, a diversity of dialect than of language: and, as I said in my first writing, it is like to bring forth the enriching of one language, by compounding and taking in the proper and significant words of either tongue, rather than a continuance of two languages.

ontinent, orders.

For leagues and confederacies, it is

Leagues, eon

true, that neither nation is now in hos- lederacies, tility with any state, wherewith the other nation is in amity: but yet so, as the leagues and treaties have been concluded with either nation respectively, and not with both jointly; which may contain some diversity of articles of straitness of amity with one more than the other.

But many of these matters may perhaps be of that kind, as may fall within that rule, " In veste varietas sit, scissura non sit."

Nor to descend to the particular points wherein the realms stand severed and divided, over and besides the former six points of separation, which I have noted and placed as defects or abatements of the six points of the union, and therefore shall not need to be repeated: the points, I say, yet remaining, I will divide into external and internal.

The external points therefore of the

.1 External separation are four. points of the

1. The several crowns, I mean the separation

'and union,

ceremonial and material crowns.

2. The second is the several names, styles, or appellations.

3. The third is the several prints of the seals.

4. The fourth is the several stamps or marks of the coins or moneys.

It is true, that the external are in some respect and parts much mingled and interlaced with considerations internal; and that they may be as effectual to the true union, which must be the work of time, as the internal, because they are operative upon the conceits and opinions of the people; the uniting of whose hearts and affections is the life and true end of this work.

For the ceremonial crowns, the ques- The ^j^fy.

tion will be, whether there shall be nial and ma- . ... - terial crowns,

framed one new imperial crown of

Britain to be used for the times to come? Also,

admitting that to be thought convenient, whether in

the frame thereof there shall not be some reference

to the crowns of Ireland and France?

Also, whether your Majesty should repeat or iterate your own coronation and your queen's, or only ordain that such new crown shall be used by your posterity hereafter?

The difficulties will be in the conceit of some inequality, whereby the realm of Scotland may be thought to be made an accession unto the realm of England. But that resteth in some circumstances; for the compounding of the two crowns is equal; the calling of the new crown the crown of Britain is equal. Only the place of coronation, if it shall be at Westminster, which is the ancient, august, and sacred place for the kings of England, may seem to make an inequality. And again, if the crown of Scotland be discontinued, then that ceremony, which 1 hear is used in the parliament of Scotland in the absence of the kings, to have the crowns carried in solemnity, must likewise cease.

For the name, the main question is, The styles whether the contracted name of Britain a"cl "ames shall be by your Majesty used, or the divided names of England and Scotland?

Admitting there shall be an alteration, then the case will require these inferior questions:

First, whether the name of Britain shall only be used in your Majesty's style, where the entire style is recited; and in all other forms the divided names to remain both of the realms and of the people? or otherwise that the very divided names of realms and people shall likewise be changed or turned into special or subdivided names of the general name? that is to say, for example, whether your Majesty in your style shall denominate yourself king of Britain, France, and Ireland, &c. and yet nevertheless, in any commission, writ, or otherwise, where your Majesty mentions England or Scotland, you shall retain the ancient names, as "secundum consuetudinem regni nostri Anglise;" or whether those divided names shall be for ever lost and taken away, and turned into the subdivisions of South-Britain and NorthBritain, and the people to be South-Britons and North-Britons? And so in the example aforesaid, the tenour of the like clause to run "secundum consuetudinem Britanniee australis."

Also, if the former of these shall be thought convenient, whether it were not better for your Majesty to take that alteration of style upon you by proclamation, as Edward the third did the style of France, than to have it enacted by parliament?

Also, in the alteration of the style, whether it were not better to transpose the kingdom of Ireland, and put it immediately after Britain, and so place the islands together; and the kingdom of France, being upon the continent, last; in regard that these islands of the western ocean seem by nature and providence an entire empire in themselves; and also, that there was never king of England so entirely possest of Ireland, as your Majesty is: so as your style to run, king of Britain, Ireland, and the islands adjacent, and of France, &c.

The difficulties in this have been already thoroughly beaten over; but they gather but to two heads.

The one, point of honour and love to the former names.

The other, doubt, lest the alteration of the name may induce and involve an alteration of the laws and policies of the kingdom; both which, if your Majesty shall assume the style by proclamation, and not by parliament, are in themselves satisfied : for then the usual names must needs remain in writs and records, the forms whereof cannot be altered but by act of parliament, and so the point of honour satisfied. And again, your proclamation altereth no law, and so the scruple of a tacit or implied alteration of laws likewise satisfied. But then it may be considered, whether it were not a form of the greatest honour, if the parliament, though they did not enact it, yet should become suitors and petitioners to your Majesty to assume it?

For the seals, that there should be but one great seal of Britain, and one chancellor, and that there should only be a seal in Scotland for processes and ordinary justice; and that all patents of grants of lands or otherwise, as well in Scotland as in England, should pass under the

The seals.

great seal here, kept about your person; it is an alteration internal, whereof I do not now speak.

But the question in this place is, whether the great seals of England and Scotland should not be changed into one and the same form of image and superscription of Britain, which, nevertheless, is requisite should be with some one plain or manifest alteration, lest there be a buzz, and suspect that grants of things in England may be passed by the seal of Scotland, or e converso?

Also whether this alteration of form may not be done without act of parliament, as the great seals have used to be heretofore changed as to their impressions P

For the moneys, as to the real and internal consideration thereof, the question will be, whether your Majesty shall not continue two mints? which, the distance of territory considered, I suppose will be of necessity.

Secondly, how the standard, if it be ne , not already done, as I hear some doubt and s made of it in popular rumour, may be moneJ,sreduced into an exact proportion for the time to come; and likewise the computation,.tale, or valuation to be made exact for the moneys already beaten?

That done, the last question is, which is only proper to this place, whether the stamp or the image and superscription of Britain for the time forwards should not be made the self-same in both places, without any difference at all? A matter also which may be done, as our law is, by your Majesty's prerogative, without act of parliament.

These points are points of demonstration, ad faciendum populum, but so much the more they go to the root of your Majesty's intention, which is to imprint and inculcate into the hearts and heads of the people, that they are one people and one nation.

In this kind also I have heard it pass abroad in speech of the erection of some new order of knighthood, with a reference to the union, and an oath appropriate thereunto, which is a point likewise deserves a consideration. So much for the external points.

The internal points of separation are Internal points r r or union.

as followeth.

1. Several parliaments.

2. Several councils of state.

3. Several officers of the crown.

4. Several nobilities.

5. Several laws.

6. Several courts of justice, trials, and processes.

7. Several receipts and finances.

8. Several admiralties and merchandisings.

9. Several freedoms and liberties.

10. Several taxes and imposts.

As touching the several states ecclesiastical, and the several mints and standards, and the several articles and treaties of intercourse with foreign nations, I touched them before.

In these points of the strait and more inward union, there will intervene one principal difficulty and impediment, growing from that root, which Aristotle in his Politics maketh to be the root of all division and dissension in commonwealths, and that ] Parliament.

is equality and inequality. For the realm of Scotland is now an ancient and noble realm, substantive of itself. But when this island shall be made Britain, then Scotland is no more to be considered us Scotland, but as a part of Britain; no more than England is to be considered as England, but as a part likewise of Britain; and consequently neither of these are to be considered as things entire of themselves, but in the proportion that they bear to the whole. And therefore let us imagine, "Nam id mente possum us, quod actu non possumus," that Britain had never been divided, but had ever been one kingdom j then that part of soil or territory, which is comprehended under the name of Scotland, is in quantity, as I have heard it esteemed, how truly I know not, not past a third part of Britain; and that part of soil or territory, which is comprehended under the name of England, is two parts of Britain, leaving to speak of any difference of wealth or population, and speaking only of quantity. So then if, for example, Scotland should bring to parliament as much nobility as England, then a third part should countervail two parts; "nam si incequalibus sequalia addas, omnia erunt ineequalia." And this, I protest before God and your Majesty, I do speak not as a man born in England, but as a man born in Britain. And therefore to descend to the particulars:

For the parliaments, the consideration of that point will fall into four questions.

1. The first, what proportion shall be kept between the votes of England and the votes of Scotland?

2. The second, touching the manner of proposition, or possessing of the parliament of causes there to be handled: which in England is used to be done immediately by any member of the parliament, or by the prolocutor; and in Scotland is used to be done immediately by the lords of the articles; whereof the one form seemeth to have more liberty, and the other more gravity and maturity ; and therefore the question will be, whether of these shall yield to other, or whether there should not be a mixture of both, by some commissions precedent to every parliament, in the nature of lords of the articles, and yet not excluding the liberty of propounding in full parliament afterwards?

3. The third, touching the orders of parliament, how they may be compounded, and the best of either taken?

4. The fourth, how those, which by inheritance or otherwise have offices of honour and ceremony in both the parliaments, as the lord steward with us, &c. may be satisfied, and duplicity accommodated?

For the councils of estate, while the estat°eUDCUs °f kingdoms stand divided.it should seem necessary to continue several councils; but if your Majesty should proceed to a strict union, then howsoever your Majesty may establish some provincial councils in Scotland, as there is here of York, and in the marches of Wales, yet the question will lie, whether it will not be more convenient for your Majesty, to have but one privy council about Your person, whereof the principal officers of the

crown of Scotland to be for dignity sake, howsoever there abiding and remaining may be as your Majesty shall employ their service? But this point belongeth merely and wholly to your Majesty's royal will and pleasure.

For the officers of the crown, the 3. officers of consideration thereof will fall into these tne crownquestions.

First, in regard of the latitude of your kingdom and the distance of place, whether it will not be matter of necessity to continue the several officers, because of the impossibility for the service to be performed by one P

The second, admitting the duplicity of officers should be continued, yet whether there should not be a difference, that one should be the principal officer, and the other to be but special and subaltern P As for example, one to be chancellor of Britain, and the other to be chancellor with some special addition, as here of the duchy, &c.

The third, if no such speciality or inferiority be thought fit, then whether both officers should not have the title and the name of the whole island and precincts? as the lord chancellor of England to be lord chancellor of Britain, and the lord chancellor of Scotland to be lord chancellor of Britain, but with several provisos that they shall not intromit themselves but within their several precincts.

For the nobilities, the consideration 4 N0t,iuties. thereof will fall into these questions.

The first, of their votes in parliament, which was touched before, what proportion they shall bear to the nobility of England ? wherein if the proportion which shall be thought fit be not full, yet your Majesty may, out of your prerogative, supply it; for although you cannot make fewer of Scotland, yet you may make more of England.

The second is touching the place and precedence wherein to marshal them according to the precedence of England in your Majesty's style, and according to the nobility of Ireland; that is, all English earls first, and then Scottish, will be thought unequal for Scotland. To marshal them according to antiquity, will be thought unequal for England. Because I hear their nobility is generally more ancient: and therefore the question will be, whether the indifferentest way were not to take them interchangeably; as for example, first, the ancient earl of England, and then the ancient earl of Scotland, and so alternis vicibus?

For the laws, to make an entire and perfect union, it is a matter of great difficulty and length, both in the collecting of them, and in the passing of them.

For first, as to the collecting of them, there must be made by the lawyers of either nation a digest under titles of their several laws and customs, as well common laws as statutes, that they may be collated and compared, and that the diversities may appear and be discerned of. And for the passing of them, we see by experience that patrius mos is dear to all men, and that men are bred and nourished up in the love of it; and therefore how harsh changes and innovations are.' And we see likewise what

5. Laws.

disputation and argument the alteration of some one law doth cause and bring forth, how much more the alteration of the whole corps of the law? Therefore the first question will be, whether it be not good to proceed by parts, and to take that that is most necessary, and leave the rest to time? The parts therefore or subject of laws, are for this purpose fitliest distributed according to that ordinary division of criminal and civil, and those of criminal causes into capital and penal.

The second question therefore is, allowing the general union of laws to be too great a work to embrace; whether it were not convenient that cases capital were the same in both nations; I say the cases, I do not speak of the proceedings or trials; that is to say, whether the same offences were not fit to be made treason or felony in both places?

The third question is, whether cases penal, though not capital, yet if they concern the public state, or otherwise the discipline of manners, were not fit likewise to be brought into one degree, as the case of misprision of treason, the case of pnemunire, the case of fugitives, the case of incest, the case of simony, and the rest.

But the question that is more urgent than any of these is, whether these cases at the least, be they of a higher or inferior degree, wherein the fact committed, or act done in Scotland, may prejudice the state and subjects of England, or e converso, are not to be reduced into one uniformity of law and punishment? As for example, a perjury committed in a court of justice in Scotland, ennnot be prejudicial in England, because depositions taken in Scotland cannot be produced and used here in England. But a forgery of a deed in Scotland, I mean with a false date of England, may be used and given in evidence in England. So likewise the depopulating of a town in Scotland doth not directly prejudice the state of England: but if an English merchant shall carry silver and gold into Scotland, as he may, and thence transport it into foreign parts, this prejudiceth the state of England, and may be an evasion to all the laws of England ordained in that case; and therefore had need to be bridled with as severe a law in Scotland as it is here in England.

Of this kind there are many laws.

The law of the 5th of Richard II. of going over without licence, if there be not the like law of Scotland, will be frustrated and evaded: for any subject of England may go first into Scotland, and thence into foreign parts.

So the laws prohibiting transportation of sundry commodities, as gold, and silver, ordnance, artillery, corn, &c. if there be not a correspondence of laws in Scotland, will in like manner be deluded and frustrate; for any English merchant or subject may carry such commodities first into Scotland, as well as he may carry them from port to port in England; and out of Scotland into foreign parts, without any peril of law.

So libels may be devised and written in Scotland, and published and scattered in England.

Treasons may be plotted in Scotland, and executed in England.

And so in many other cases, if there be not the like severity of law in Scotland to restrain offences that there is in England, whereof we are here ignorant whether there be or no, it will be a gap or stop even for English subjects to escape and avoid the laws of England.

But for treasons, the best is that by the statute of 26 K. Henry VIII. cap. 13, any treason committed in Scotland may be proceeded with in Kngliind, as well as treasons committed in France, Rome, or elsewhere.

For courts of justice, trials, processes, and other administration of laws, to jUStiCe and make anv alteration in either nation, aiministrait will be a thing so new and unwonted to either people, that it may be doubted it will make the administration of justice, which of all other things ought to be known and certain as a beaten way, to become intricate and uncertain. And besides, I do not see that the severalty of administration of justice, though it be by court sovereign of last resort, I mean without appeal or error, is any impediment at all to the union of a kingdom: as we see by experience in the several courts of parliament in the kingdom of France. And I have been always of opinion, that the subjects of England do already fetch justice somewhat far off, more than in any nation that I know, the largeness of the kingdom considered, though it be holpen in some part by the circuits of the judges; and the two councils at York, and in the /narches of Wales established.

But it may he a good question, whether, as commune vinculum of the justice of both nations, your Majesty should not erect some court about your person, in the nature of the grand council of France: to which court you might by way of evocation, draw causes from the ordinary judges of both nations; for so doth the French king from all the courts of parliament in France: many of which are more remote from Paris than any part of Scotland is from London.

For receits and finances, I see no 7. neceit*, question will arise, in regard it will be finances,

, . , ,. , . „ and patn

matter of necessity to establish in Scot- monies orthe land a receit of treasure for payments crownand erogations to be made in those parts: and for the treasure of spare, in either receits, the custodies thereof may well be several; considering by your Majesty's commandment they may be at all times removed or disposed according to your Majesty's occasions.

For the patrimonies of both crowns, I see no question will arise, except your Majesty would be pleased to make one compounded annexation, for an inseparable patrimony to the crown out of the lands of both nations: and so the like for the principality of Britain, and for other appennages of the rest of your children: erecting likewise such duchies and honours, compounded of the possessions of both nations, as shall be thought fit.

For admiralty or navy, I see no great *■ Admiralty,

* nsivy, tint*

question will arise; for I see no incon- merchamlis

venience for your Majesty to continue "*

shipping in Scotland. And for the jurisdictions of the admiralties, and the profits and casualties of them, they will be respective unto the coasts, over-against which the seas lie and are Niluated ; as it is here with the admiralties of England.

And for merchandising, it may be a question whether that the companies, of the merchant adventurers, of the Turkey merchants, and the Muscovy merchants, if they shall be continued, should not be compounded of merchants of both nations, English and Scottish. For to leave trade free in the one nation, and to have it restrained in the other, may percase breed some inconvenience.

For freedoms and liberties, the charaiifulbertTes. ters °^ ^oth nations may be reviewed: and of such liberties as are agreeable and convenient for the subjects and people of both nations, one great charter may be made and confirmed to the subjects of Britain; and those liberties which are peculiar or proper to either nation, to stand in state as they do.

But for imposts and customs, it will antMmposts. ^e a 8reat question how to accommodate them and reconcile them: for if they be much easier in Scotland than they be here

in England, which is a thing I know not, then this inconvenience will follow; that the merchants of England may unlade in the ports of Scotland; and this kingdom to be served from thence, and your Majesty's customs abated.

And for the question, whether the Scottish merchants should pay strangers custom in England? that resteth upon the point of naturalization, which I touched before.

Thus have I made your Majesty a brief and naked memorial of the articles and points of this great cause, which may serve only to excite and stir up your Majesty's royal judgment, and the judgment of wiser men whom you will be pleased to call to it; wherein I will not presume to persuade or dissuade any thing; nor to interpose mine own opinion, but do expect light from your Majesty's royal directions; unto the which I shall ever submit my judgment, and apply my travails. And I most humbly pray your Majesty, in this which is done, to pardon my errors, and to cover them with my good intention and meaning, and desire I have to do your Majesty service, and to acquit the trust that was reposed in me, and chiefly in your Majesty's benign and gracious acceptation.

THE MOST HUMBLE

CERTIFICATE OR RETURN

OF

THE COMMISSIONERS OF ENGLAND AND SCOTLAND,

AUTHORIZED TO TREAT OF AN UNION FOR THE WEAL OF BOTH REALMS:

[ocr errors][merged small]

We the commissioners for England and Scotland respectively named and appointed, in all humbleness do signify to his most excellent Majesty, and to the most honourable high courts of parliament of both realms, that we have assembled ourselves, consulted and treated according to the nature and limits of our commission; and forasmuch as we do find that hardly within the memory of all times, or within the compass of the universal world, there can be showed forth a fit example or precedent of the work we have in hand concurring in all points material, we thought ourselves so much the more bound to resort to the infallible and original grounds of nature and common reason, and freeing ourselves from the leading or misleading of examples, to insist and fix our considerations upon the individual business in hand, without wandering or discourses.

It seemed therefore unto us a matter demonstrative by the light of reason, that we were in the first

place to begin with the remotion and abolition of nil manner of hostile, envious, or malign laws on either side, being in themselves mere temporary, and now by time become directly contrary to our present most happy estate; which laws, as they are already dead in force and vigour, so we thought fit now to wish them buried in oblivion; that by the utter extinguishment of the memory of discords past, we may avoid all seeds of relapse into discords to come.

Secondly, as matter of nature not unlike the former, we entered into consideration of such limitary constitutions as served but for to obtain a form of justice between subjects under several monarchs, and did in the very grounds and motives of them presuppose incursions, and intermixture of hostility: all which occasions, as they are in themselves now vanished and done away, so we wish the abolition and cessation thereof to be declared.

Thirdly, for so much as the principal degree to

« PreviousContinue »