vaine the benefit of the lawe that doeth offend against the lawe So is the Queenes Maiestie in her gratious Realme a sanctuarie to euerie king that commeth within the same vnder her highnesse protection vntill he committeth a capitall delict and offence against the same and than vpon the reason of the foresaid lawes he looseth the benefit priuiledge thereof like as the benefite or priuiledge of safeconduit is lost when after the safe conduit graunted any crime is committed but for a farder confirmation of the premisses we shall speake more at large in the next chapter The sixt Chapter containing an aunswere to certaine obiections latelie made by certaine fauorites of the Queene of Scottes FOR asmuch as some partiall and euill affected Aliens and some hollow and dissembling subiects will perhaps in this honourable and iust action maligne the proceedings of the whole Parliament and the sentence and execution thereuppon I thinke it not amisse to meet with some of the best of their Arguments the which at the first showe might seeme to crosse or controll their doings The first obiection The first obiection is That Par in parem non habet imperium that is an absolute Prince ouer and against another absolute Prince hath no iurisdiction or soueraintie And this was by Prince Conradine a Prince more skilfull in feats of warre than in points of law Collinutius lib. 4 hist Neapolit obiected vnto Barius king Charles his Prothonotarie after that he had read the sentence of death giuen against him The like argument doth Matheus Parisiensis alledge in king Iohns case Parisiensis Monachus in sua historia whē the French king wold haue sentenced him for the Dukedome of Normādie Vpon the which maxime or rule it is inferred that forasmuch as our Queen Marie of Scotland were both Queenes and of egall power and authoritie that the one can haue no such power to sentence or punish the other The Answeare For aunswere it may then trulie and iustlie be said that whatsoeuer showe this argument maketh in apparance yet it is nothing at all in substance For to let passe that which is much doubted of by many whether the Scottish Queene were at the time of the sentence giuen Queene of Scotland or no seeing by the three estates of Scotlād she was disabled To omit also that shee relinquished long time before all her right title and interest in the same realme if she had any to the Lord Iemie her sonne now king of Scotland To passe ouer in like maner how euident a thing it is and most notorious that the kinges of Scots haue been feudataries and done homage vnto the kings of England See Hall and Foxes historie reg 4. William Conqerour malconib Edward 1. Richard 2. and haue appeared in person in Parliament at Yorke and had the place of the first Peere in England whereby it may bee inferred that the Scottish Queene was no absolute Queene but had respect was inferior to the crowne of England if we should graunt them all this for dispution sake that shee was still Queene of Scotland and farder that she was an absolute Queen what than what can they infer of this doth equalitie in dignitie giue supreame power and soueraintie in the kindome of England This her soueraintie hath vndoubtedly a necessarie relation to her owne subiects the Scots and kingdome of Scotland not vnto the English and realme of England albeit I do graūt here for argument sake more than may doe to wit that she was still a Queene in dignitie Thomas Grammaticus yet I may right well deny her to be a Queene in soueraintie for she left all her soueraintie behinde her and became a priuate person and no soueraine at what time shee came from Loghléuen castle in Scotlande to the castle of Cokermouth in Englande And this point may soone be tryed by sampling the same in an other Princesse comming into anie forreine countrey If the King of Spaine should come into Fraunce although perhaps the French King mought take him for his brother in the sence of the Poet fratrum concordia rara yet I doubt he would not take him there for his fellow Lucan Tullie in his booke of dutiess Omnisque potestas impatiens consortis erit there is no kingdome that will abide a Copartner D D in l. est receptum f. de iurisd omnium Iudicum And as Tullie saieth Nulla sides nec sancta societas regni est There can be no firme faith nor holy societie of a kingdome ouer and aboue that euerie Prince in his owne principalitie is the greater c cum inferior de maior obed and it is an infallible rule that euerie Kinge out of his owne kingdome is no more but a priuate person Lapus in allegat xcij. Preses saith Paulus in suae prouinciae homines tantùm imperium habet hoc dum in prouincia est I. preses f. de officio presidis nam si excesserit priuatus est A president hath souerainty onely vppon the subiectes of his owne prouince and that whilest he is within his prouince but if he goeth forth of it he is a priuate person Vpon the conclusion of which lawe there grew amongest the learned this question Baratolus lib. 12. de dignitatibus c. whether a Kinge passing thorough or resiant in another kinges Realme and dominion mought make anie of his subiectes knightes and some helde opinion that he could not for that he had not there merum imperium supreme power and soueraintie but Regiam duntaxat dignitatem that is only the honour and dignitie of a king Other resolued thus that albeit in this case hee had no such soueraintie in him yet bicause this act was not cōtentiosae iurisdictionis of a cōtentious iurisdiction as when sutes passe in the kings cōsistory between party party Iason Alexander in L. extra territorium de iurisd omnium iudicum but iurisdictionis voluntariae of a iurisdiction voluntarie such as passe vpon pleasure before himselfe they were of opiniō that he myght make knights like as one Bishop may approue willes and confer orders in the Diocesse of another Bishop because the same is iurisdictionis voluntariae of a iurisdiction voluntarie but that a king in another kings dominiō or a Bishop in the diocesse of another Bishop hath merum imperium or soueraigntie that can neuer be showne but the quite contrarie Neither only is euery one in his owne territorie chiefe and greater than an other who in other respects notwithstanding is many wayes greater than himselfe but also he may punish there such a person greater than himself offending in his territorie insomuch that an Archbishop by a Bishop in the Bishops own territory an Emperor by a king in a kings dominion and countrie and a king by a Magistrate of a free Citie may there be punished for his offence Neither doth the rule Par in parem take anie place
the eternall and Almightie Lorde of his vnspeakable and accustomed goodnesse by a myraculous discouerie preserued the same The second Chapter containing a second Analogie or Resemblance betvveene the Emperor Licinius and the said Marie Queene of Scotland A second president much resembling the case in question is offered vnto vs from our countrieman and most Christian Emperor Constantine the Great who commaunded the death of Licinius the Emperor and yet this act was neuer controlled by any writer The Historie AFter that Constantine had taken in open hostilitie Licinius consort with him in the Empire Eusebius Socrates Sozomenus Sigonius de imperio occidentali Mexia in vitis Constantini Marentii Licinii who fauoured the Heathen persecuted the Christians and came in armes to violate his person yet at the request of Constantia his sister wife to the said Licinius he spared his life bound him to remaine at Nicomedia in the Prouince of Bithinia But when afterwards Constantine was enformed that the saide Licinius attempted a new insurrection and was to that purpose confedered with other Princes Constantine the Emperor put to death his Colledge Emperor Licinius and neuer controuled therefore and sought to flee away from the place appointed than did he foorthwith commaund the said Licinius to be put to death in the xv yeere of the said Constantines raigne when hee was lx yeeres of age and in the yeere of our Lord God 377. The comparison and resemblance betweene these two cases is verie like First Constantine and Licinius vvere both chosen Lordes and Princes of the Empire So Elizabeth Queene of England and Marie Queene of Scotland vvere both called to the state of kinges in the yle of Britanie The Empire of Britanie diuided into two kingdomes as the Empire in Constantines time was into two Empires although in diuers distinct kingdomes and therfore the doinges of Licinius mought seeme to haue more colour of right to the Empire than Mary of Scotland to entitule herselfe in this Realme Marie queene of Scotland but a titularie queene Kings of Scotland haue been feudaturies done homage to the kings of England beeing also but a titularie Queen in her ovvn land as it appeareth by the Chronicles and by auncient recordes her Progenitors haue done homage for their kingdomes to the crovvne of England Licinius notvvithstanding manie princelie benefites receiued at the Emperor Constantins hands Eusebius Socrates insomuch that he vvas aduaunced by him to the mariage of his ovvne sister Constantia vvhich descended from a princelie progenie of kings yet contrarie to his oath and promise like an vngratefull man he became a professed enemie to Constantine Marie of Scotland albeit shee receaued manie great fauours at the hands of Queen Elizabeth in sauing both her honour and life Scotland in an 1568. England 1◠reg Eliz. vvhen she vvas so earnestlie pursued by the Lordes and the commons both of Scotland and England yet like an vnthankfull person shee did shevve her selfe contrarie to her vovved promise an apparant enemie to the Queene of England Her letters to the B. of Glascon to B. Rose Morgan and Mendoza Licinius vvould alone haue bin Lord and prince of the Empire by the remoue of Constantine So Marie vvoulde bee the onelie Queene of Britanie Diuers books and pedegrees published by her agents and fauorites to that effect Resignatio facta 1567. Vide Buconanum fol. 196. And Holingsheds Chronicle fol. 388. and not onlie abandon her ovvne sonne from the kingdome of Scotland after that she had resigned the same vnto him but also expell her Maiestie Queene Elizabeth from her proper vndoubted kingdome of England Licinius vsurped an vniust title calling himselfe the vniuersall Emperor So did Marie of Scotlande giue long since In the booke called Expositio cansarum And she did it at her entrie into Poitiers in Fraunce and would not be reduced from the allowing of the same in all her proceedings ouer since both the title and armes of England vsurping therein the roiall state of her Maiestie and crovvne of England Licinius came not vvillinglie vnto Constantine but by force of armes vvas taken at Chrysopolis a Citie vvithin the prouince of Bithinia and brought to Constantine Marie of Scotland came not vvillinglie into the lande and dominion of our Soueraigne Queen Elizabeth Hollingsheds Chronicle fol. 392. but being encountred vvith her nobilitie enforced to leaue the field came by boate into Werkington Hauen in the vvest marches of England Licinius had his life once pardoned for open hostilitie against the Emperor Constantine Mexia in vita Cōstantini ca. 1. Eusebius Socrates Sozomenus Marie of Scotlande hath had her life spared for murdring her husbād also for hostilitie and treason practised against Elizabeth Queene of England 13. regni Reginae Elizabethae published in Parliament Licinius although pardoned Mexia cap. 10. Socrates lib. 1. cap. 2. Sozomenus lib. 1 cap. 2. yet vvas not too far trusted by Constantine but first cōfined to Nicomedia aftervvards to Thessalonica and there had a noble gard about his palace and person Marie of Scotland Iustlie mistrusted for giuing the armes and title of England and refusing to ratifie the treatie of Edingburg and afterward for procuring the rebellion in the North and manie other treasons since she had for her abode Carlile castle Bolton Castle Sheffeld castle all at the Queene of Englands great charges and expenses and great fauours vvas vpon most iust cause mistrusted and therefore confined to certaine statelie houses in England there had princely maintenance and an honourable gard attending her person Licinius did seeke to flee avvay from the place vvhereunto he vvas enioyned Marie of Scotlande did manie times practise the like in England Confessed by her before the Lords at Fodringa castle Licinius did treat vvith diuers princes and captaines to make nevv vvarres against Constantine Marie of Scotland did not onlie practise vvith diuers princes The practise of bringing in of forces cōfessed by her before the Lords Noblemen and others to bring in forreine forces into the Realme of Englande The rest confessed by Babington Ballard and other of that conspiracie and most horrible treason but also did conspire and contriue vvith euil disposed subiectes to England the chaunge of the state the ouerthrovve of religion the death of her Maiesties sacred person the massacre of the nobilitie and an vniuersal desolation of the vvhole Realme To conclude Mexia in vita Constantini ca. 1 Socrates Sozomenus in the foresaid places Licinius for endangering againe Constantines person and seeking by nevv troubles to aspire to the Empire like as Maximinianus before had done vvas by the appointment of Constantine adiudged to die Marie of Scotland hath giuen far greater cause to our Constantine Elizabeth Queen of England to fear nevv conspiracies both against her Maiestie the state of the vvhole realme like as the said
from her to the Queenes most excellent Maiestie allow and giue her assent to the same Neuerthelesse after the making of this acte and her sayde consent giuen therunto the monstrous conspiracie of Babington by her priuie consent and promise of rewarde for the murdering of her Maiesties sacred person and atcheiuing the crowne and diademe in full possession was practised and miraculously discouered Which I neede not heere particularly to deduce since there was a most honorable sentence giuen thereof by the most part and the most auncientest of the nobilitie since their proceedinges were declared to the whole body of the Realme assembled in Parliament of them receiued all allowance since both the houses often sued vnto her Maiesty that according to lawe iustice might be administred and since her highnesse at the great intreatie of her subiects suffered the sentence by Proclamation to be published it plainly appeareth that the intention of the lawe makers was that the lawe should reach vnto the Queene of Scots and to euerie other person whosoeuer being a Competitour of the kingdome Wherefore it is manifest that although this is statute law yet since it was the minde and intent of the makers that this lawe shoulde reache to the Queene of Scots that by offending she is made subiect vnto it Neither is the statute lawe heerein repugnant in substance to the lawe of Nations howbeit there bee some difference in some matter of circumstaunce but the same agreeth with the lawes both ciuill of Nations in substance which generally do inflict the penaltie of death vpon euery one that is a worker of treason Besides if the statute lawes of England wil bind the king himself for any matter within his realme when the intentiō of the makers of the law is such as it is verie plaine and cleere without all controuersie that it doth shall not a statute law bind the queene of Scots especially for mattter perpetrated within the realme And as touching the said statute of the 27. shee could not pretend ignorance for that she had vnderstanding of it nor alledge a mislike therof for that by her voluntarie subscription she had approued it nor except against the seueritie of the law because it is agreeable both to the ciuill law of the Romanes also to the law custome of her owne countrie and therefore it may be said to her Non potest quis improbare quod ipse approbauit a man may not bee contrary to himselfe in disalowing that which himselfe hath allowed Also Patere legem quam ipse tuleris suffer the same lawe which you haue made your selfe Shee meant death to the queene of Englands person let her not therefore mislike if the queene of England doth minister the like measure to her person for as it hath been neere fifteene hundred yeeres agoe trulie written Non est lex aequior vlla Quà m necis artifices arte perire sua No iuster lavv can reason craue Thē seeking death the same to haue Also it is a rule of the ciuill law grounded vpon the law of nature Id debet cuique placere in sua persona quod placuerit in aliena that euerie man ought to like that in his own person which he would haue done in the person of another neither doth the priuiledge of dignity in the person alter the nature and qualitie of the offence in case of treason howsoeuer it doth in other cases as before I haue sundrie wayes confirmed The 4. obiection THE fourth obiection made against the sentence and excution of the Scottish queene is another exception taken against the law of the lande because in the case of treason it punisheth as seuerelie the intent as the deede the minde in conspiring as the hand in executing for thus they reason It is both against the lawe of nations and the law of nature howsoeuer it bee according to the lawe of your lande to put a queene to death for a bare and naked intent an imagined treason be it neuer so haynous when there followeth no hurt For whē her desseines neither did nor could hurt the Queene of England as neuer hauing their intended effect what reason is it to punishe a fancie and feare of treason with so great a punishment as death The Aunswere TO this I make this aunswere that the lawe of England heerein inflicteth none other punishement for treason than the ciuill law and law of nations throughout the whole world commandeth vseth and practiseth The ciuill law hath these wordes Eadem seueritate voluntatem sceleru quae effectum puniri iura voluerunt L. quisquis C. ad L. Iuliam maiestatis the lawes will haue him that conspireth treason to be punished with the same seueritie as him that doth commit it Againe not onlie in the case of high treason but also in omnibus atrocioribus delictis punitur affectus licet nō sequatur effectus in al criminal offences of the highest degree the affect is punished although no effect follow And this lawe hath not only been so obserued generally in all nations aboue twelue hundred yeeres past but there was many hundred yeeres before Christes time in casu perduellionis in the case of treason committed against the state the like law called lex 12 tabularum established 12. Tabularum ff ad L. Iuliam maiestatis which inflicteth death for the will and intent of treason And therefore the said two Emperors Arcadius Honorius in their cōstitution made against treason said not volumus D. L. quisquis ad L. Iuliam sed sic iura voluerunt the lawes were so before their time But to say that there ought in offences of the highest degree no punishmēt to ensue vnles the act were consummate were most against law for two speciall causes The one for that such hope of impunitie would encourage malefactors to practise most daungerous and audacious attempts against kinges and common weales Secondly if they stay to punish till the fact be done the losse will be irrecuperable and the offence as this case is in a competitor though most haynous dispunishable For in this case in question the death of her Maiestie whom God euer preserue being taken away all commissions and magistracies for iudicial places should cease so that this being contriued by a cōpetitor to the kingdome as the Queen of Scots by open and expresse accord hath often declared herselfe the same offence by the accesse or taking vpon her the crowne and dignitie should by lawe be purged and the competitor cleared For king Henrie the sixt after the ouerthrowe giuen him by king Edwarde the fourth was by act of Parliament disabled from his crowne and dignitie And yet afterwardes the saide king in his redemption helde Parliament and in the same the question did growe whether there needed any reuersall of the saide former acte made against the sayde king It was resolued that no reuersall was needfull but ipso facto that the sayd king Henrie the vj. tooke vpon
in that case and so in the case of an Archbishoppe Panormitan and Felin expressely set downe C cum inseriors de maior obed that he may by his inferiour Byshoppe being not his suffragan receiue condigne punishment for the offence that hee hath committed within the sayde Byshoppes diocesse Anchoranus addeth farder Anchoran clem 1. de fore comperente that if a patriarche should offende within the territorie of Bononie the Byshop there mought punish him accordingly And that an Emperour may be in like manner punished by an other Prince in whose territorie he hath offended Vaskins lib. 1. contr f. illustrium Ferdinandus Vaskins in his booke of princely controuersies doeth affirme in these wordes Imperatorem ab alio principe in cuius territorio deliquisset puniri posse non dubitauerim And that a Magistrate in like maner of a free Citie may punish a king offending within the territorie of the Citie we reade examples in sundrye histories as howe Iustinian a king Functius in cronologia was put to death by Helias a patrician c. And the reason of the premisses is grounded vpon two conclusions of the lawe The one is that the Emperour the King the Archbishoppe and the Bishoppe are out of their owne kingdomes countryes and diocesse but as priuate persons The other that euerie Prince and ruler within his own kingdome and rule is greater than any other although hee were the greatest monarche in the worlde The which a great learned man called Lapus de castello in plaine words most apparantly showeth his wordes be these Lapus de castello alleg 91. nu 7. 8. Extra territorium suum quilibet Rex censetur ad instar priuati constat quòd vnusquisque in suo territorio maior est vndè populus Senensis in suo territorio magis potest quà m Dominus Rex illustrissimus perpetuus Anglorum Euerie kinge out of his owne kingdome is accompted as a priuate person and it is apparant that euerie person in his owne territorie is the greater And therefore the people of Senes in Italy can in their owne state and territorie doe more than the mightie and illustrious Lord the King of England Againe we may further shew in this case that although shee were a Queen and by her royall prerogatiue not to be touched yet if she doth deuest herselfe of her prerogatiue or make herselfe subiect to the iurisdiction of another than can she not claime her priuiledge nor exempt her selfe from the others iurisdictiō For as Vlpian praefectus praetorio to Alexander the Emperor saith Est receptum eoque iure vtimur L. 14. ff de iurisdict omniū Iud. vt si quis maior vel aequalis subijciat se iurisdictioni alterius possit ei aduersus eum ius dici It is receiued and is a lawe which wee haue daily in vre that if the greater or egall doe submit himselfe vnto the iurisdiction of an other the lawe may there bee ministred to him and against him vpon which law Paulus Castrensis Iason diuers other learned mē do note that there are two kinds of submission Expressa tacita expresse commission by giuing open consent secrete submission by making any contract or cōmitting any offence so within their territories Vnus Princeps vel Baro potest alium principē vel Conbaronē punire One Prince or Baron may punish an other prince or Baron Than since the Scottish Queene in her Maiesties Realme against her Maiestie not of ignorance but wittinglie desirous of her crowne hath offended and that in no lesse case than the case of high treason by her treasonable fact shee hath yeelded a secrete submission to the iurisdiction of Englande and therefore there rightfullie to bee punished by law Wherfore to conclude since some doubt whether shee were a Queen as which had resigned vp and thereby had no kingdome since if shee were a Queene in dignitie yet in soueraintie she was no Queene but a priuate person comming into another Princes dominion since euerie Prince in his owne kingdome is chiefest and other there are inferiour to him since an inferiour person may punish his superiours for such offences they commit within his iurisdiction since a Prince by offending submitteth himselfe to the state of that countrie where he offendeth and may haue the law passe against him for it This obiection of Par in parem little serueth their purpose as which is to bee vnderstood of facts committed in their seueral kingdoms territories For than may not the queene of England punish her for ought shee hath done amisse in Scotland because they are in this case Pares that is of egall authoritie but for her demerites in England where they are not Pares but the Queene of Scots inferiour to the Queene of England there the queene of England reteineth only the supreme soueraintie and therefore there may notwithstanding the said obiection lawfully sentence the Scottish queene The 2. Obiection AN other obiection is made thus The Scottish queene pursued by her owne subiects fled into the realme of England as a suppliant for succour and therfore of common curtesie she ought to be well entreated there nor to be deteined as a prisoner or if she were deteined yet to haue the libertie to be put vnto her raunsome The Aunswere TO this may be answered first that euerie person passing through or resiaunt in another kingdome without a safe conduct or pasport being not in amitie or league with the other is a lawfull prisoner in the same And therefore in all the leagues that we make with the house of Burgūdie or kingdome of Fraunce or they with vs there is an expresse article or capitulation set downe vt sit amicitia foedus pax vt liceat per dulces aquas c. commeare that there bee an amitie league and peace and that it may be lawfull for the subiects to passe by water or land through the realme freely and without impeachment Which being graunted than must we farther in this case consider howe that vntill the last yeare there neuer was Foedus vel pax inita any league or peace made beween Scotland and Englande but only Cessatio à billo an abstinence from the warres whereby the Scottish Queene comming into England could not challenge any libertie or freedome within that kingdome Than the law standing thus that no man Nisi confederatus retinet sibi libertatē in aliquo regno c. L. non dubite ff de captiuis No man can reteyne liberty in an other kyngdome without he be in league confederated with the king or come into the realme by safe conduct I thinke it will not be gaine-said but she was staide here and deteined lawfully Againe it is not heere to be past ouer in silence how the Queene of Scots vsurped the stile and armes of the crowne of England a thing most notorious to the whole worlde Since therefore shee was a Competitor of