sometimes a more large Extension For hee that is an Alien borne out of the kings Dominions vnder the obedience of another king if hee dwell in England and be protected by the king and his Lawes hee oweth to the king the duetie of Allegeance and so hee is Ligatus Regi and Ligeus Regis and if hee commit treason the Indictment shall bee contra ligeantiae suae debitum as it was in Shirley the French-mans Case yet is hee not the Kings subiect for hee was not borne Ad fidem Regis But this is not that Ligeance which wee must finde For in a true and lawfull subiect there must bee Subiectio fides obedientia and those cannot bee seuered no more than true Faith and Charitie in a true Christian And hee that hath these three à natiuitate is Ligeus Regis and can not bee a Stranger or Alien to the King or in his Kingdomes And that it is so may be proued by the Rule of the other two interpretations of Lawe That is Analogica Practica King Iames hath now the Kingdomes of England Scotland and Ireland and the Isles of Gernsey and Iersey by discent all these bee his Dominions and vnder his subiection and obedience King Henry the second had England and Normandy by discent from his mother Mawd the Empresse and Aniow and Maine by discent from his father Geffery Plantagenet and Ireland by conquest Henry the third had England and Ireland by discent from his Grand-father Henry the second and Aquitany by discent from his Grand-Mother Queene Elenor wife to King Henry the second and daughter to the duke of Aquitany Edward the first had all the same by discent and parte of Scotland by Conquest Edward the second and Edward the third had all the same by discent also and besides Edward the third claimed all France by discent from his mother Queene Isabell and had the most part of it in possession and so had Henry the fift and Henry the sixt also Now if in these kings times subiectes borne in those Countries being then vnder their obedience vvere no Aliens but capable of landes in England And if at this time subiects borne in Irelād or Gernsey and Iersey be no Aliens but capable of lands in England then by an Analogicall interpretation why should not subiectes borne in Scotland be at this time in like degree For in proportion and in likenesse and conueniencie there can bee no difference at all But whether the subiects borne in those Countries in the time of those kings vvere then capable of lands in England as naturall subiects or were deemed Aliens is the Question and therein Interpretatio practica is to bee considered and so the Case is brought to be examined per similia And in Diuinitie Praxis sanctorum est interpres praeceptorum Now then the Question is Whether the kings Subiects of England and Scotland that be Post-nati may be resembled to the Kings subiects of Ireland and the Isles of Gernesey c. as now they bee and to the subiectes of Normandie Aniow and Gascoyne and parte of Scotland in former times when the same were the Dominions and vnder the obedience of the King of England for I speake alwaies and would be vnderstoode of kingdomes and dominions in possession and vnder obedience and not of those whereunto the King hath right but hath no possession or obedience I houlde that in all points materiall concerning this Question they are alike though not in all things for then it were Idem and not Simile and this can not bee better vnderstoode than by examining the Obiections to the contrary which in substance may bee reduced to foure in number First for Ireland it was gotten by Conquest and the Conquerour may impose what Lawes hee will vpon them But it is otherwise of kingdomes comming by discent This is a conceipted difference and lacks the foundation of Reason and hath not the true parts of a difference for those that are borue in Ireland and those that are borne in Scotland are all alike for their birth within the Kings Dominions and are borne vnder the like subiection and obedience to the King and haue the like bond Nay euen the same bond of Allegiance That is they are borne Ad fidem Regis Besides where it is said The Conquerour may impose what Lawes hee will Then consider how it was in the Interim before King Iohn gaue lawes to Ireland Nay which is more I aske whether the Conquerour of Ireland can giue new lawes to England and make Irish men to bee as naturall borne subiectes in England if their birth-right doe not giue it them which before the Conquest they were not for that is properly the Question But if any difference bee the Case of descent is the stronger For as Iustice Yeluerton saide that is by an vndoubted Title made by lawe the other by a doubtfull Title wonne by the Sword But leaue Ireland gotten by Conquest vvhat say you to the great kingdome of France which Edward the third had first in right by lawfull descent and after in possession by triumphant Conquest and vvhich Henry the sixt held after in possession by descent Was euer doubt made Whether the subiects borne there so long as it vvas in subiection and obedience to the King vvere capable of landes in England I vvill now turne the Case and aske an other Question If King Iames our Soueraigne had first beene King of England by lavvfull descent as novv hee is and after Scotland had descended vnto him should not the Subiects of Scotland I speake still of Post-nati haue beene iudged as Naturall subiects in England as those of France were in Edward the thirds time Then he hauing now both kingdomes by lineall true and lavvfull descent it can make no difference touching the capacitie of Subiects vvhich kingdome descended to him first and vvhich second but both are to him alike And it is cleere Post-nati in England are now capable and inheritable in Scotland though some haue made a causelesse and needelesse doubt of it and so on the other side those of Scotland are in England It is said Normandie and Aquitanie were no monarchies or kingdomes but dukedomes or seigniories in France and holden of the Crowne of France and therefore not to bee resembled to Scotland which is an ancient and absolute kingdome This Obiection reacheth not to the reason of our Question For bee they kingdomes bee they Seigniories yet the subiectes borne there were borne out of the kingdome of England and so in that respect Aliens But in that they were borne within the kings dominions and vnder his subiection and obedience they were no Aliens but liege and naturall borne subiectes to the King and so capable and inheritable in England I say besides the Dukes of Normandie and Aquitany were absolute Princes and had soueraigne power in those countries although they did not beare the name of kings as at
29. treating of the Court called The Shirifes Turne out of which the Leete seemeth to be extracted For whatsoeuer is not presented in the Leete may bee presented and punished in the Shirifs Turne And M Kitchin citeth Britton in this point for the Leete and alleadgeth also the statute of Marlebridge cap. 10. to the same purpose And at this day the view of Francke-pleges and the putting in of Francke-pleges and the Decennarij are but bare names of things past the vse and substance is obsolete and gone And as it was saide few in this place haue put in such Pleges or taken that Oath and yet I trust wee are good subiects and beare true faith and allegeance But this hath beene so fully answered and cleered by the Lord chiefe Baron and the Lord Coke chiefe Iustice of the Common pleas as I doe wrong to spend time in it But touching the seuerall Lawes I say that seuerall lawes can make no difference in matter of Soueraigntie and in the bond of Allegeance and obedience to one King And so it concludeth nothing for the point in question Normandy and Aquitany had seuerall lawes differing from the lawes of England so had Fraunce in King Edward the 3. and Henry the 6. his time Ireland before king Iohns time continued their auncient Lawes and so for the most part haue done euer since Gernesey and Iersey haue yet at this day seuerall lawes which for the most part were the auncient Lawes and Customes of Normandie Wales had in many things yet haue seuerall Lawes so for the County Palatine of Chester also Yet these neuer were nor must not be cantelled and cut off from their allegeance and obedience to the King nor the Kings subiects borne there be incapable of lands and inheritaunce in England for vvhere there is but one Soueraigne all his subiects borne in all his Dominions bee borne Ad fidem Regis and are bound to him by one bond of Faith and Allegeance And in that one is not greater nor lesser than an other nor one to bee preferred before another but all to bee obedient alike and to be ruled alike yet vnder seuerall Lavves and Customes And as Saint Gregorie sayeth of the Church In vna fide nihil officit Ecclesiae sanctae diuersa consuetudo So I will conclude for this point That diuersitie of Lavves and Customes makes no breach of that vnitie of obedience faith and allegeance which all liege subiects owe to their liege King and Soueraigne Lord. And as none of them can be Aliens to the king so none of them can bee Aliens or Strangers in any of his kingdomes or dominions nor Aliens or strangers one to another no more than a Kentishman to a Cheshire-man or è contra And therefore all that haue bin borne in any of the kinges dominions since hee was King of England are capable and inheritable in all his Dominions without exception And as to the other parte of the Obiection that there will be defect of triall for things done in Scotland cannot bee tried in England I say that that maketh little to our present Question whether Post-nati in Scotland be Aliens in England and not capable of landes in England but it trencheth to cast some aspersion vpon the common lawe of England That it is not sufficient to giue iustice to the Kinges subiectes for lacke of sufficient meanes of triall of questions of fact but to this baron Altham gaue so full an aunsweare as more cannot bee saied And so hee did both cleare the doubt and did vphould the sufficiencie of the lawe of England in that behalfe And it seemeth strange that this should now bee found out to bee obiected against Scotland since it vvas neuer heeretofore obiected for France Normandie Aquitany nor is at this day for Ireland Gernesey and Iersey c. whereas all stand vpon the same reason for the point of triall But the wisedome of the lawe of England hath beene such as there neuer failed certen rules for triall of all questions in fact and those were fitted and adapted to the Matter which was to bee tried And therefore whosoeuer doth diligently obserue it hee shall finde in the course and practise of the lawes of England aboue twenty seuerall formes of trialls as by Battell by Iurie and that in diuerse kindes by Wager of Lawe by Proofes by Examination by Inspection by Certificates of diuerse kindes and by manie other wayes And lest there should bee any defect in that behalfe the Law hath prouided seuerall formes of Ioyning of issues and in that hath speciall regard of things done out of the Realme as euerie Student may see in the Bookes of Reports Thus I haue passed these foure Obiections and therefore for this part I conclude That if Argumentum à simili were euer good and concludent in Lawe my Lords the Iudges haue prooued this Case by so many plaine and direct Examples and like Cases and by so manie strong arguments solide reasons drawne out of Booke Cases out of Statutes out of the true rules and forme of pleading and out of ancient Records and Precedents some produced by M. Atturney and many moe remembred by the Iudges as no one thing can bee more plainely exemplified nor appeare more like to an other than this Case is to those Cases which they haue remembred But if examples and arguments à simili doe faile then it remaineth Recurrere ad Rationem and what reason that ought to bee and how to bee vnderstoode is to be considered for it is said that Lex est ratio summa iubens ea quae facienda sunt prohibens contraria So it must be the depth of reason not the light and shallow distempered reasons of common Discoursers walking in Powles or at Ordinaries in their feasting and drinking drowned with drincke or blowne away with a whiffe of Tobacco Lucretius noteth that in many there is Rationis egestas And saint Gregory saith Qui in factis Dei rationem non videt infirmitatem suam considerans cur non videat rationem videt For although Reason and Knowledge bee infinite yet no man can haue more of it than hee is capable of Euery man must receiue it and keepe it in his owne vessell he cannot borrow his neighbours braine-pan to put it in And therefore it is not without cause that one of the grauest and best learned Lawyers of our age and a priuie Counsellor to one of the greatest Monarches of Europe describeth those that should bee Interpreters of Lawes by foure speciall qualities That is 1. AEtate graues 2. Eruditione praestantes 3. Vsu rerum prudentes 4. Publica authoritate constituti So there must be grauitie there must be learning there must be experience and there must be authoritie and if any one of these want they are not to be allowed to be Interpreters of the Lawe How all these Qualities concurre in these reuerend Iudges whom wee haue heard in this present Case I
will spare to speake vvhat I thinke For Chrysostome teacheth mee Qui laudatur infacie flagellatur in corde In seeking out this depth of Reason the same Author giueth a caution which is this Vitium quod in hoc genere fugi debet est ne si Rationē non inuenias mox legem sine ratione esse clames And in 36. H. 6. Fortescue saieth the same in effect which is thus We haue many Courses and Formes which bee houlden for Lawe and haue beene houlden and vsed because of Reason and notwithstanding the reason be not ready in memory yet by study and labour a man may finde it Now when wee come to examine by reason whether Post-nati in Scotland shall be disabled as Aliens or shall be capable of lands in England as naturall borne subiects there wee are first to consider vvhat is the reason whie Aliens in the Dominions and vnder the obedience of other forraine Princes are nor capable of landes in England And surely the true reason is that which was noted by baron Altham and hath since beene ofte remembred viz. The danger that might thereby come to the king and the common-weale Specially by drawing hither too great multitudes of them for so the Treasure of the Realme might bee transported by them into other forraine Kingdomes and Countries whereby it might bee vsed against the King and to the preiudice of the State And besides they might vnder-hand practise Sedition and Rebellion in the kingdome and cause many other daungers and inconueniences but that reason cannot serue against Post-nati in Scotland now that there is but one King of both the kingdomes no more than it can serue against those that are borne in Ireland or Gernesey or Iersey and therefore in reason they are as capable of landes in England as the kings subiects of Ireland and Gernesey and Iersey are Against this there haue also beene many Obiections made and Reasons deuised that seeme witty and haue some shew of probability to proue that Post-nati in Scotland are Aliens and ought not in reason to bee capable of landes in England videlicet 1. That England and Scotland were two ancient seuerall kingdomes vnder seuerall kings and seuerall crownes 2. That they continue yet seueral kingdomes 3. That they haue yet seuerall Lawes seuerall Seales seuerall Crownes and seuerall Kings For it is said though king Iames be king of both and hath but one naturall body yet in iudgement of Law he is in respect of his two seuerall kingdomes as two seuerall kings and the subiects of ech seuerall kingdome are bound to him by distinct allegeance according to the seuerall Lawes of the kingdome where they were borne And all this is grounded vpon this rule or fiction in Lawe Quando duo iura concurrunt in vna persona aequum est ac si essent in diuersis And vpon this ground is this new form of pleading deuised which the Defendants haue vsed in this Case such as cannot be found in any Record euer to haue beene pleaded before and may as well serue against the Kinges subiectes of Ireland as against the Post-nati of Scotland And sithence in former times the like forme of pleading vvas neuer seene against any of the Kings of Englandes subiects which were borne in any of his dominions out of England as in Normandie or Aquitanie or in France I meane such part of it as was in the Kinges possession and in subiection and obedience to him and not in that parte of France which his enemies helde it may be probably inferred That it was then generally houlden that neither such a forme of pleading nor the Matter it selfe was sufficient in Lavve to disable anie such Plaintife for against French-men that vvere not vnder the Kings obedience wee finde it often pleaded And as those that were not subiects to the King nor borne vnder his obedience did then presume to bring suites and actions in England So it can not bee thought but that the king hauing then so large and ample Dominions beyond the Seas as Normandy and Aquitany and many other partes of France some of his subiects borne there had cause to haue and did bring the like suites in England And sithence no such Plea is found to haue beene then vsed against them it can not in Lawe and Reason bee now allowed against the Post-nati in Scotland For I may say as Ascue saied in 37. H. 6. Our Predecessors were as sage and learned as we be And I see not but that in this Case a good Argument may bee reasonably deduced from the Negatiue as it was in the Case reported by the great learned and most graue and reuerend Iudge sir Iames Dyer chiefe Iustice of the Common pleas Anno 23. Elizab. The Question there was Whether an erroneous iudgement giuen in Rie which is a member of the Cinqueportes might bee reuersed in the kinges Bench or Common place at Westminster And it was thus resolued Sed pro eo quod nullū tale breue in Registro nec in aliquibus Praecedentibus curiarum praedictarū inueniri potuerat dominus Cancellarius Bromley per opinionem Capitalium Iusticiariorum vtriusque Banci denegauit tale breue concedere And so Iustice Fenners argument houldeth well viz. There is in this Case no lawe to exclude the Complainant Ergo hee is a liege and a naturall borne subiect But the forme of pleading in the time of king Ed. 1. in Cobledickes case which was cited out of Hengam and the Booke shewed heere by the Lord chiefe Iustice Coke is so direct and plaine for this our Question as nothing can be more plaine and therefore I thinke it not amisse to report it againe That Case was in effect and substaunce thus A woman brought a Writte of Ayel against Roger Cobledicke and declared of the seisin of Roger her Grand-father and conueied the discent to Gilbert her father and from him to the Demaundant as his daughter and heire The Tenant pleaded that the Demaundant was a French-woman and not of the ligeance nor of the fidelitie of England and demaunded iudgement if shee ought to haue the action against him This plea vvas houlden to bee insufficient and thereupon the tenant amended his plea and pleaded further That the Demaundant was not of the ligeance of England nor of the fidelitie of the King and demaunded iudgement c. And against that plea none exception was taken but thereupon the Demaundant prayed licence to depart from her Writ By this it appeareth plainely that the first plea alleadging that she was a French-woman and not of the ligeance nor of the fidelitie of England was insufficient and so declared by Berreford the chiefe Iustice For there can bee no fidelitie nor allegeance due to England respecting the land and soile without a Soueraigne and King But the second Plea alledging that shee was not of the ligeance of England nor of the fidelitie of the King was good and sufficient For to the King fidelitie and
therefore I will presume on your patience and assume to my selfe such conuenient time as others haue done And yet I will husband time as well as I can I will not be abashed to strengthen my weake memory with helpe of some scribled papers as others haue done for I accompt it a point of wisedome to followe wise mens Examples Other Exordium Insinuation Protestation or Preface for the Matter it selfe either to prepare attentiue and beneuolent auditors or to stirre offence or mislike against either partie I meane not to vse it is fit for Oratours I neuer professed the Art I had neuer skill in it And it is not Decorum for Iudges that ought to respect the Matter and not the humours of the Hearers The Exordium the Ciuilians vse in their Sentences I like well In Dei nomine Amen Deo primitùs inuocato other Exordium I care not for The Case now depending in Chauncerie which is adiourned hither is thus Robert Caluine sonne and heire apparant of Iames L. Caluine of Colcrosse in the realme of Scotland an Infant of three yeares of age borne in the saied Realme of Scotland maketh title by his Bill to a Messuage and Garden with th'appurtenaunces in the parish of Saint Buttolph without Bishops-gate in the citie of London and complaineth against Iohn Bingley and Richard Griffin for detaining the Euidences concerning the same Messuage and Lands and taking the profits thereof The Defendants pleade that the Plaintife is an Alien and that in the third yeere of his Maiesties raigne of England and in the nine and thirtieth yere of his Maiesties raigne of Scotland hee was borne in the Realme of Scotland within the ligeance of his said Maiestie of his Realme of Scotland and out of the ligeance of our soueraigne Lord the King of his Realme of England And the Defendants say further That at the time of the birth of the Complainant and long before and euer sithence the saied Kingdome of Scotland was and still is ruled and gouerned by the proper Lawes and Statutes of the said Kingdome of Scotland and not by the Lawes and Statutes of this Realme of England And therfore the Defendants demaund iudgement Whether the Complainant ought to bee answered to his said Bill or shall be receiued to prosecute the said suite against the Defendants being for and concerning the title of Inheritance and euidence touching the same Heereupon the Complainant hath demurred in Law This is the speciall Case now depending in the Chancerie in which and touching all like Cases in generall mine opinion is and since the question was first mooued hath beene That these Post-nati are not Aliens to the King nor to his Kingdome of England but by their Birth-right are liege subiects to the King and capable of estates of Inheritance and freehould of Landes in England and may haue and maintaine as wel Reall as Personall actions for the same And that therefore the now Complainant Robert Caluine ought to bee answered This opinion I did first conceiue vpon those rules and reasons in Lawe as well the Common Law of England as the Ciuile law which heereafter in the course of my Speech I will remember And in this opinion I haue beene since confirmed by many great and weighty reasons First in the Statute made in the first yeare of his Maiesties raigne of England authorizing the Treatie betweene the Commissioners for both the Kingdomes it is said as Iustice Warburton noted well That both the famous ancient Realmes of England and Scotland are now vnited in allegeance and loyall subiection in his royall person to his Maiestie and his posteritie for euer Heere wee haue the Iudgement of the Parliament that there is a Vnitie in allegeance to one Royall person And therefore I see not how wee may out of imaginarie conceipts and by subtile distinctions straine our wittes to frame seuerall allegeances to one and the same Royall person contrary to so plaine a declaration made by Parliament Next followeth his Maiesties Proclamation 20. Octobris 1604. by which hee assumed to himselfe the Name and Stile of King of great Britaine In which Proclamation among many other weighty reasons this is added for one We haue receiued from those that be skilful in the Lawes of the Land That immediatly vpon our succession diuerse of our auncient Lawes of this Realme are ipso facto expired as namely that of Escuage and of the naturalization of the Subiects This was not done sodainely nor lightly but vpon graue and serious deliberation and aduise And therefore seemeth to mee to be a matter of great importaunce and not to be lightly regarded The same twentieth of October these Commissioners beganne their Treatie Of the graue and iudicious Course which they held in debating of the Matter then propounded I will forbeare to speake But for this point of Naturalization now in question their resolution in the end was thus That it shall bee propounded to both the Parliaments at the next Sessions that an Act be made containing a declaration as followeth That all the Subiects of both the Realmes borne since the decease of Elizabeth the late Qu. of England of happie memory and all that shal be borne hereafter vnder the obedience of his Maiestie and his royall Progeny are by the common Lawes of both the Realmes and shall be for euer inhabled to obtaine succeede inherite and possesse all Lands Goods and Chattels c. as fully and amply as the Subiects of either Realme respectiuely might haue done or may doe in any sort within the Kingdome where they were borne This after long debating and graue and deliberate consideration was in the end the resolution of the greater part of the Commissioners not one openly gainesaying it And diuerse of the principall Iudges of the Realme were present at all times when the point was debated And herein I note the wise and iudicious forme of that resolution which was not to propound to the Parliament the making of a new Lawe but a declaration of the common Lawes of both the Realmes in this question Now if wee consider who these Commissioners were what Lords of the higher House and what persons of the common House selected of all degrees most eminent for their learning and iudgement as well in Ciuile and Common Law as in knowledge and experience other waies beeing assisted by the graue Iudges of the Realme If this I say be well considered then this Resolution must be accompted and esteemed as a matter of great and weighty importance and much to be regarded in the deciding of this question According to this Act of the Commissioners the Case was propounded in the next Session of Parliament In the higher House the Iudges were required to deliuer their opinions There were then eleauen Iudges present whereof tenne did with one vniforme consent affirme the Lawe to be That the Post-nati were not Aliens but naturall Subiects one onely dissenting After this the
relie vpon Doctours opinions deliuered in their Prelections and Treatises And when they finde them varying and differing one from another as sometimes they doe then they preferre that which is Communior opinio And so in good reason they may For Pluralitas idem sentientium semper superat quia faciliùs inuenitur quod à pluribus quaeritur But to conclude this point I would aske of these Nouelists what they would haue done in Sibill Belknappes case if they had liued in Henry the fourths time Sir Robert Belknappe that reuerend and learned Iudge of whome sundrie noble and worthy persons and some now of great eminent place in England are descended was banished out of the Realme Relegatus in vasconiam not for any desert or offence of his but by the might of his potent enemies and malice of the time The Lady his wife continued in England she was wronged she brought a Writ in her owne Name alone not naming her Husband Exception was taken against it because her husband was liuing and it was adiudged good and shee recouered and the Iudge Markeham said Ecce modo mirū quòd foemina fert breue regis Non nominando virum coniunctū robore legis Here was a rare and a new case yet it was not deferred vntill a Parliament it was iudged and her wrong was righted by the common Law of England and that Ex arbitrio Iudicum ex responsis prudentum and yet it was counted Mirum with an Ecce Now to apply this to R. Caluines case his case is rare and new so was that There is no direct Law for him in precise and expresse tearmes There was neuer iudgement before touching any borne in Scotland since King Iames beganne his happie raigne in England Hee is the first that is brought in question So there was no direct Lawe for Sibill Belknap to sue in her owne name without her husband who was then liuing nay rather there was direct Lawe against it yet by the Lawe of England shee had iudgement to recouer with an Ecce modo mirum So by the lawe of England iudgement ought to bee giuen for Robert Caluine but not with an Ecce modo mirum but vpon strong Arguments deduced à similibus and ex dictamine rationis But before I come to those arguments I wil vse a few words more touching some Rules which I haue read for the interpretation of lawes There is a graue and learned Writer in the Ciuile Lawe that setteth downe foure waies formes of interpretation of lawes that is first Interpretatio historica secondly Etymologica thirdly Analogica fourthly Practica In the Argument of this Case all these formes haue beene vsed and largely handled and the two first be those that seeme but light to me and therefore in mine opinion haue beene too much stoode vpon and ouer-weighed For the Historicall interpretation it is alwaies darke obscure and vncerten of what kingdome countrey or place soeuer you speake I doe alwaies and onely except the diuine Histories written in the Bible Liuy saith In tanta rerum vetustate multi temporis errores implicantur Saint Augustine speaking of the supposed Bookes of Henoch saieth Libri isti ob nimiam antiquitatem reijciuntur Wherefore for this parte let this suffice whether in the beginning there were one or seuerall Kingdomes in great Britaine or one or seuerall Monarches and Kings of these two great famous Kingdomes in great Britaine The King our Soueraigne is lawfully and lineally descended of the first great Monarchs and Kings of both the Kingdomes and that by so long a continued line of lawfull discent as therein he exceedeth all the Kings that the world now knoweth and therefore to inquire further of Historicall knowledge in this Case I hould it needelesse For the Etymologicall interpretation there hath beene very much saied euen as much as Wit and Art could deuise There haue beene alleadged manie Definitions Descriptions Distinctions Differences Diuisions Subdiuisions Allusion of wordes Extension of wordes Construction of words and nothing left vnsearched to finde what is Ligeantia Allegiantia Fides Obedientia Subiectio Subditi And who bee Aborigines Indigenae Alienigenae Aduenticij Denizati c. And much of this hath beene drawne out of some Writers of the Ciuile Lawe amongst whome the Etymologicall interpretation of the words Ligeus and Ligeantia is as vncerten and doubtfull as it is with our common Lawyers And so vpon any of these there cannot be any certen Rule found for Iudges to iudge by especially in new and rare Cases As for Definition Vlpian teacheth vs Omnis definitio in iure Ciuili est periculosa and it is said that Definitio est duplex Propria quae constat ex genere differentia Impropria quae descriptio vocatur est quaelibet rei designatio So Definition and Description are often confounded and both vncerten Then since both be vncerten and dangerous I will leaue both and seeke a more certen Rule to iudge by As for Etymologie of words I agree with him which saieth It is Leuis fallax plerumque ridicula It is a Pedant Grammarians fault Marcus Varro and others haue beene noted for it And if you examine the Examples which some doe bring you will perceiue how ridiculous and vaine it is So this Rule will not serue to finde out that which wee seeke for These bee but Tendiculae verborum Aucupationes syllabarum as one calleth them It may haue some vse and serue a turne in Schooles but it is too light for iudgements in Lawe and for the seates of Iustice Aquinas setteth downe a more certen Rule In vocibus videndum non tà m à quo quà m ad quid sumantur And words should be taken Sensu currenti for Vse Custome is the best Expositor both of Lawes and Wordes Quem penes arbitrium ius norma loquendi Wherefore of the many and diuerse distinctions diuisions and subdiuisions that haue beene made in this Case I will say no more but Confusum est quicquid in puluerem sectum est and will conclude with Bishop Iuel A man may wander and misse his way in Mists of Distinctions Then leauing these Historicall and Etymologicall interpretations and these curious and subtile Distinctions and Diuisions I say Ligeantia or Allegiantia vnderstood Sensu currenti is vinculum fidei obedientiae as Iustice Daniel said well And hee that is borne in any of the Kings Dominions and vnder the Kings obedience is the Kings liege subiect and borne Ad fidem Regis for that is the proper and ancient word which the lawe of England hath vsed Ad fidem Regis Angliae Ad fidem Regis Franciae and therefore hee cannot bee a Stranger or Alien to the King or in any of his Kingdomes and by consequence is inhabled to haue lands in England and to sue and be sued in any Reall action for the same And Ligeantia hath
this time the Duke of Sauoy the duke of Florence the Duke and State of Venice and of late the great Duke of Russia the Duke of Burgundy the Archduke of Austria c. So the difference in Stile and Name makes no difference in Soueraignty For king Henry the eight had as absolute soueraignetie in Ireland vvhen his Stile was Lord of Ireland as when hee changed his Stile and was called King of Ireland And to say That the tenure of the Crowne of Fraunce should giue any priuiledge to them of Normandie and Aquitanie in England is a strange conceipt It might rather bee obiected against them But as I saied before they were borne within the kings Dominions and vnder his obeisance and therefore as subiects borne in England And if men may beleeue some auncient Stories Aquitany and Normandy had sometimes kings and were kingdoms of themselues and not depending nor subiect to the Crowne of France and the kingdome of France was then a small portion of Gallia and but a little one in comparison of that which it is at this day And some say that there were foure and tvventie kings in Gaule But as the kings of France increased in povver and strength they subdued their neighbor-Princes and so that kingdome grew to that greatnesse that novv it is at euen as the Heptarchie in England was dissolued and made an intire kingdome when one of the kings mightier than the rest subdued his neighbors It is saied further that Normandy and Aquitany vvere subiects to the Crovvne of England and to the great Seale of England but so is not Scotland Ergo c. This standeth not wel with that which was obiected before That they were but Seigniories houlden of the Crowne of Fraunce And it is true that before Edward the thirds time those Kings of England that held those great Seigniories did acknowledge that they held the same of the Crowne of Fraunce But these Obiections be light and not worth the time that hath beene spent about them The Soueraignetie is in the person of the King the Crowne is but an Ensigne of Soueraignety the Inuesture and Coronation are but Ceremonies of honour and maiestie the King is an absolute and perfect king before he be crowned and without those Ceremonies The Seale is to be altered and changed at the will and pleasure of the King hee may haue one hee may haue many as pleaseth him The King did vse Queene Elizabeths Seale for diuerse moneths after his comming into England Queene Elizabeth vsed king Philips queene Maries Seale for a time and queene Marie vsed king Edwards seale And all that vvas so done was well and lawfully done Many things were done by auncient kings of England before the Conquest by their signature and signe manuell without anie seale at all and some such since the Conquest also as Graunts made by Maude the Empresse to Albericke de Vere and others The King may by his great seale commaund all his subiectes that bee vnder his obedience wheresoeuer they bee in the world So he did in Normandie so he did in Aquitany so hee did in that part of Scotland that he had in possession And in 24. Edw. 1. his Iudges kept ordinary Courts of iustice there and I haue seene the Records of Placita Exercitus Regis apud Edinburgh Apud Roxburgh Apud S. Iohns-towne c. in Scotia So hee may commaund his subiects if they be in France Spaine Rome or Turkie or the Indies And for seuerall seales the Earle of Chester had a speciall seale for that his auncient County Palatine The Duke of Lancaster had a speciall seale for his new Countie Palatine And after when these Counties came to the kinges possession the Kinges continued seuerall seales in them both for the administration of iustice but as subordinate to the great Seale of England And I make little doubt but if the King shall now commaund any of his subiects of Scotland vnder his great seale of England they will as they ought duetifully obey him As in king Edward the 1. Edward the 2. and Edward the 3. times they commanded many of the Lordes of that parte of Scotland which then was vnder their obedience I finde that in 13. Edw. 2. quarto die Iunij the King Constituit Adomarū de Valentia comitem Pēbrochiae Custodem Regni sui ac locum suum tenentē quamdiu Rex in partibus transmarinis morā fecerit And the next day viz. Die Iouis quinto die Iunij Rex ordinauit quod magnum Sigillum suum remaneret clausum in liquo loco securo dum Rex esset in partibus transmarinis Et ordinauit quoddam aliud paruum Sigillum interim pro regimine Regni ad breuia c. Consignanda sub Teste Adomari de Valentia Comitis Pembroch Nota heere was a petty Seale pro regimine Regni wherein are comprised Commissions for Iustice Mandatoria ad breuia consignanda which is for Remedialia as they are termed It is saide that Scotland hath Lawes that are proper for that kingdome that they are not subiect to the lawes of England and so è contra And lastly it was saide that in England euery person was within the iurisdiction of some Leete and at the age of twelue yeares euery one is to bee sworne in the Leete to bee Foiall and Loiall to the King of England That is to the Lawes of England for so hee vnderstoode Loiall But Post-nati in Scotland can not be so and that they haue an other forme of oathe in Scotland Ergo c. For this last parte of the Oathe in the Leete the Lord chiefe Baron did cleere it so plainely as more needes not to be said This is Legalis ligeantia It is not Alta ligeantia by birth which is that which we haue now in question The Historicall discourse that hath bin made of Leetes of Law dayes of Decenna Decennarij of the Tenne-mens Tale and the Oathe of all Male children of twelue yeeres c. taken at the Leete is no newes indeede it is very olde Master Lambard hath it all and more too at large in Explicatione verborum in the word Centuria It vvas before the Conquest But it maketh no hing to this naturall Allegeance and subiection of birth it is not Alta ligeantia by birth-right it is but Legalis ligeantia by Policie And Fitzherbert calleth it Swearing to the Lawe And if that were the onely Bond and Marke of Allegeance many are out of it and so at libertie As children vnder twelue yeeres yet sometimes they may commit treason and felony where Malitia supplet aetatem So women of all sortes yet they may bee shrewd and daungerous traitours and if they bee women nobly borne or widowes that were wiues to noble men they shall be tried per pares Also Noble men of all sortes who are neither bound to attend the Leete nor to take that Oathe as appeereth by Britton cap.
allegeance is due and therefore since shee failed in that she was not to be answered and thereupon she praied licence to departe from her Writte and so she left her suite Now for the reasons which haue beene drawne and strained out of the statute An. 14. Edw. 3. if they bee well examined they serue little for this point which we haue in hand It is to be considered at what time and vpon what occasion that Statute was made King Edw. the third being right heire to the Crowne and Kingdome of Fraunce by descent from his Mother and hauing spent many yeeres for the recouering of the same resolued to take vpon him the Name and Stile of King of France being aduised thereunto by them of Flaunders Hereupon he did take the Stile of King of Fraunce and altered his Seale and his Armes and after a while placed the Armes of France before the ancient Armes of England as they are borne at this day This gaue occasion for the making of this statute for some people Ascun gentes saith the statute seeing this change and considering the large and ample extent and the magnificence of that great Kingdome beganne to doubt that the king would make his Imperiall seate there and conceiued thereby that the kingdome of England being the lesser should bee in subiection of the king and kingdome of France being the greater and to bee gouerned and ruled by a Vice-Roy or Deputy as they saw Ireland was And though in the Kings Stile England was placed before France yet they sawe the Armes of France marshalled before the Armes of England though at the first bearing thereof some say it was not so To cleere this doubt and to take away this feare from the Subiects of England was this Statute made as doth plainely appeare by the wordes of the statute it selfe Now if you will make an apt and proper application of that Case then betweene England and Fraunce to this our Case now betweene Scotland and England it must be thus 1. Edw. 3. then king of England being the lesser had afterwardes the kingdome of France being the greater by descent and tooke the Stile of King of France King Iames king of Scotland beeing the lesser hath afterward the kingdome of England being the greater by descent and taketh the Stile of King of England 2. King Ed. 3. altered his Seale and his Armes and placed the Armes of Fraunce before the Armes of England King Iames hath changed his Seale and his Armes in England and hath placed the Armes of England before the Armes of Scotland 3. It was then doubted that King Edw. 3. would remoue his Court out of England the lesser and keepe his Imperiall seate and state in France the greater King Iames hath indeede remooued his Court out of Scotland the lesser and doth in his royall person with the Queene and Prince and all his Children keepe his Imperiall seate in England the greater 4. In al these the cases agree but yet one difference there is and that is in the Stile For king Ed. 3. in his Stile placed England the lesser being his ancient kingdome before France the greater being newly descended vnto him But King Iames in his Stile placeth England the greater though newly descended vnto him before Scotland the lesser being his ancient kingdome 5. Now this being thus perhappes Scotland might out of this Example haue conceiued the like doubt against England as England did then against France But as there was then no doubt made whether the kings subiects borne in England should be capable of lands in France so out of this statute and vpon this example no doubt can bee inferred whether the kings subiects now borne in Scotland shall be capable of lands in England But all these Obiections and the ground whereupon they are framed viz. Quando duo iura c. haue beene so thorowly and profoundly examined and so learnedly and fully answered and cleered by the Iudges as I make no doubt but all wise and indifferent hearers be well satisfied therein And if there bee any so possessed with a preiudicate opinion against Trueth and Reason that will say in their owne heartes licèt persuaseris non persuadebis so either Serpent-like stop their eares or else wilfully absent themselues because they would not heare the weaknesse and absurdities of their owne conceipts laied open and confuted If there bee any such I say as I trust there bee but few and yet I feare there bee some I would they had learned of Tertullian That Veritas docendo suadet non suadendo docet And I wish that they bee not found among the number of those to whome Saint Paul saieth Si quis ignorat ignoret And Saint Iohn in the Apocalips Qui sordidus est sordescat adhuc And I will exhort with Saint Paul Qui tenet teneat and not wauer or doubt by such weake arguments and obiections But in this new learning there is one part of it so strange and of so daungerous consequent as I may not let it passe viz. That the king is as a king diuided in himselfe and so as two kings of two seuerall kingdomes and that there be seuerall allegeances and seuerall subiections due vnto him respectiuely in regarde of his seuerall kingdomes the one not participating with the other This is a daungerous distinction betweene the King and the Crowne and betweene the King and the kingdome It reacheth too farre I wish euery good subiect to beware of it It was neuer taught but either by traitours as in Spencers Bill in Edward the seconds time which Baron Snig and the Lord chiefe Baron and Lord Coke remembred or by treasonable Papists as Harding in his Confutation of the Apologie maintaineth that Kings haue their authority by the positiue Lawe of Nations and haue no more power than the People hath of whome they take their temporall iurisdiction and so Ficlerus Simanca and others of that crew Or by seditious Sectaries and Puritans as Buchannon De Iure Regni apud Scotos Penry Knox and such like For by these and those that are their followers and of their Faction there is in their Pamphlets too much such traiterous seede sowne But leauing this I will adde a little more to prooue that in reason Robert Caluine and other like Post-nati in Scotland ought by Lawe to be capable of landes in England and for that I wil remember one rule more which is certen and faileth not and ought to bee obserued in all Interpretation of Lawes and that is Ne quid absurdum ne quid illusorium admittatur But vpon this subtle and dangerous Distinction of Faith and Allegeance due to the King and of Faith and Allegeance due to the Crowne and to the Kingdome which is the onely Basis and fundamentall maine reason to disable the Plaintife and all Post-nati there follow too many grosse and fowle absurdities whereof I will touch some few and so conclude that in Lawe and
vntill the Lawes and Customes of both Kingdomes bee made one and the same then I aske how and when shall that be done And it may bee that the Constitutions of the Countries bee such as there can hardely in all things bee such an absolute and perfect reconciling or vniting of Lawes as is fancied Is it yet so betweene England and VVales or betweene Kent and Cornewall or betweene many other parts of this Kingdome I say no and I speake it confidently and truely it is not so nor well can be so Therefore let England and Scotland be in like degree now as England and VVales were for many hundred yeeres and in many things are yet still and yet let Vnion and Loue increase amongst vs euen in secula seculorum Let vs not be such as Saint Bernard noteth Amant quod non decet timent quod non oportet dolent vanè gaudent vaniùs And let vs no longer make question whether seuerall Lawes and Customes bee markes of seperation and dis-vnion or of seuerall Allegeances for certainely they are not One other Reason remaines against these Post-nati and that is out of a prouident foresight or as it were a prophesying What if a seperation of these Kingdomes fall hereafter Of this I can say but Absit omen It is Potentia remota as Iustice VVilliams saied and I trust in God Remotissima And I will euer pray to God that it neuer fall so vntill the King of all Kinges resume all Scepters and Kingdomes into his owne hands And let vs take heede of sinnes of Ingratitude and Disobedience and remember that Adam and Eue were punished Non propter pomum sed propter vetitum And for such Prophets let the Prophet Ezechiel ca. 13. answer them Vae Prophaetis insipientibus qui sequuntur spiritum suum nihil vident And the Prophet Esay speaketh to all such with an other Vae Vae illis qui dispergunt Now then as M. Solicitor beganne with seeking out the truth so I will conclude with Esdras words Magna est Veritas praeualet And with this further Eatenus rationandum donec veritas inueniatur Cùm inuenta est veritas figendum ibi Iudicium Et in victoria veritatis soli veritatis inimici pereunt The Conclusion THus I haue heere deliuered my concurrence in opinion with my Lordes the Iudges and the reasons that induce and satisfie my conscience That Ro. Caluine and all the Post-nati in Scotland are in Reason and by the Common Lawe of England naturall borne subiects within the allegeance of the King of England and inhabled to purchase and haue free-hould and inheritance of lands in England and to bring reall actions for the same in England For if they haue not this benefit by this blessed and happie Vnion then are they in no better case in England than the king of Spaines subiects borne in Spaine c. And so by this Vnion they haue gotten nothing What they haue lost Iustice Yeluerton did well note And therefore I must giue Iudgement in the Chancerie That the Defendants there ought to make direct answer to Ro. Caluines Bill for the Lands and Euidences for which he complaines T. Ellesmere Canc. The Case The proceeding in the generall Case of Post-nati Stat. 1. Iac. 19. Mart. 1603 The Proclamation 2. Iacobi 20. Octobr. 1604. The Commissioners authorized by Parliament did begin 20. Octob. and did continue vntill 6. Decemb. 2. Iacobi The resolution of the Cōmissioners The Iudges opinion in Parliament The force and strength of the Kings proclamations Fitzh Dower 17◠Fitzherbert Nat. Br. 32. Anno 6. Ed. 1. Explan stat Gloucestr A Proclamation 15. Ed. 3. How the Iudges opinion deliuered in parliament ought to be regarded Obiect Respons Writs of Errour sued in parliament The processe and forme of proceeding in the Case of R. C. now in question How this Case is to be iudged and by what Law What is the common Law of England whether it be Ius scriptum Questionists The ground of the Common Law The common Law is not originally Lex scripta How the common Law of England may be knowne Obiect Respons Maximes and Principles Responsa prudentum Lambard in explicatione verbi Hyde Anno 36. H. 6. In nouo casu nouum remedium St. W. 2. ca. 24. Anno 13. Ed. 1. Vbi non est directa Lex c. Rex solus iudicat c. A request to the professors of the Ciuile Lawe Blacwood ca. 10 Recurrend ad Rationem c. Quod non lego non credo Exposition of Statutes Exposition of Lawes Lawes obsolete Lawes changed Construction of words Iudges consulted with the priuie Counsell 39. E. 3 li. As p. 1. M. 19. Ed. 3. Iudgemēt 174 M. 39. Ed. 3. 35 M. 40. Ed. 3. 34 Iudges to be directed by reason and discretion Obiect That the common Lawe is vncerten Respons M. 2. H. 4. 7. Note foure formes of interpretation of Lawes Historica Fergus Inas Etymologica Ligeantia sensu currenti est vinculum fidei c. Analogica Practica sic ad similia Ireland Obiect 1. Respons France Normandy and Aquitany Obiect 2. Respons The Crowne and great seale of England Obiect 3. Respons Seueral Laws Obiect 4. Respons Lambard in explicatione verbi Centuria Defect of Triall Recurrend ad Rationem Hopperus de vera Iuris prudentia pag. 118 Hopperus ibid. pag. 119. Obiections P. 23. Elizab. Dyer 376. Stat. 14. Ed. 3. That the Realme of England shall not be subiect to France A dangerous distinction betweene the King and the Crowne Absurdities in this dangerous distinctiō Rex solus iudicat c. Prou. ca. 8. Cod. li. 1. Tit. 14 le 1. Ibidem le 12. Obiect of Inconueniencie and frugalitie Obiect vpon diffidence Ante-nati A Question how long this suspition and dis-vnion shall continue Bernard Obiection vpon Diuination Respons
And whatsoeuer the Spirites the Learning the Wisedome and Knowledge of all the others vpon long study could affoorde was put into the mouth of those few to serue as Organs and Instruments to deliuer it vnto vs which they haue so well and sufficiently performed that they deserue great praise and commendation For in my poore opinion the witte of man could not deuise to say more touching this Question in Lawe than they haue saied And whatsoeuer hath beene sithence spoken for that part it is for the Matter but the same in substance which the counsell at the Barre did deliuer though it hath beene varied in forme and amplified with other wordes and phrases and furnished with shew of some other strained Cases and authorities The handling of it by the learned and reuerend Iudges hath beene such as it may appeare to the world that euerie one hath spoken his owne heart and conscience and hath laboured by long studie to search out the Lawe and the true reason of the Lawe in this rare Case and so they haue spoken as Coram Deo Angelis None with desire to seeme popular for nothing ought to bee tam populare quam veritas None to seeme to be Time-seruers or Men pleasers for the King whome vnder God they serue being Pater patriae and soueraigne head of both these great vnited Kingdomes is to them both like as the head of a naturall body is to all the Members of the same and is not nor can not bee partiall more to one than to an other Hee deliteth in truth and desireth it and without truth hee can not bee pleased Hee ruleth by his Lawe and commaundeth his Iudges to minister to all his Subiects Lawe and Iustice sincerely and truely and equally and indifferently without any partiall respect It was neuer seene but that in all rare and difficult Cases there haue beene diuersitie of Opinions but yet without breach of Charitie which is the Bond of Vnitie So it hath happened in this Case The Case hath beene argued at large by foureteene learned Iudges twelue of them haue concurred in iudgement but vpon seuerall reasons for as many wayes may leade to one end of the iourney so diuerse and seuerall reasons may conduce to one true and certaine conclusion And here I may not omit the woorthie memorie of the late graue and reuerend Iudge Sir Iohn Popham chiefe Iustice of the Kings Bench deceased a man of great wisedome and of singular learning and iudgement in the Lawe who was absolutely of the same opinion as he often declared as well in open Parliament as otherwise The Apostle Thomas doubted of the Resurrection of our Sauiour Iesus Christ when all the rest of the Apostles did firmly beleeue it But that his doubting confirmed in the whole Church the Faith of the Resurrection The two woorthy and learned Iudges that haue doubted in this Case as they beare his Name so I doubt not but their doubting hath giuen occasion to cleare the doubt in others and so to confirme in both the Kingdomes both for the Present and the Future the truth of the iudgement in this Case Thus my Lords haue you hitherto nothing from mee but Amen to that which all the Iudges sauing two haue saied and much more you cannot expect from mee Yet since I must giue iudgement in this Case and I saied in the beginning that I would render the reasons of my iudgement for that is the course of argument I must houlde I will now deliuer vnto you what are the speciall and principall reasons that first haue induced mee and still mooue mee to houlde the opinion that I doe And as I goe I will indeuour to cleere some doubts and questions that partly in the conference in Parliament and partly otherwise I haue heard made not onely touching this Case it selfe but also touching the forme and manner how it is to be decided and iudged The Case is rare and new as it hath beene often saied it was neuer decided Terminis terminantibus It was neuer iudged by any Statute Lawe which is a positiue Lawe nor by iudgement of the Iudges of the common Lawe Now the first Question is as some would haue it How it is to be iudged and by what Lawe and haue wished that it might haue stayed vntill the Parliament and so bee decided by Parliament They that make this doubt I will let them demurre and die in their doubts For the Case beeing adiourned hither before all the Iudges of England is now to be iudged by them according to the common Lawe of England and not tarrie for a Parliament For it is no transcendent Question but that the common Lawe can and ought to rule it and ouer-rule it as Iustice Williams said well But then this Question produceth another That is What is the Common Lawe of England Whether it be Ius scriptum or non scriptum and such other like niceties For wee haue in this Age so many Questionists and Quo modo and Quare are so common in most mens mouthes that they leaue neither Religion nor Lawe nor King nor Counsell nor Policie nor Gouernment out of question And the end they haue in this Question What is the Common Lawe is to shake and weaken the ground and principles of all gouernement And in this particular Question of the Law of England to ouerthrow that Law whereby this Realme hath many hundred yeares beene gouerned in all honour and happinesse or at least to cast an aspersion vpon it as though it were weake and vncertaine I will therefore declare mine opinion in this point plainely and confidently as I thinke in my conscience and as I finde to be sufficiently warranted by ancient Writers and good authorities voide of all exception The common Law of England is grounded vpon the Law of God and extendes it selfe to the originall Lawe of Nature and the vniuersall Lawe of Nations When it respects the Church it is called Lex Ecclesiae Anglicanae as Magna Charta ca. 1. Ecclesia Anglicana habeat omnia sua iura integra illaesa When it respects the Crowne and the King it is sometimes called Lex Coronae as in Stat. 25. Edw. 3. cap. 1. Lex Coronae Angliae est semper fuit c. And it is sometimes called Lex Regia as in Registro fo 61. Ad iura Regia spectat And Ad conseruationem iurium Coronae nostrae ad iura Regia ne depereant c. When it respectes the common subiects it is called Lex Terrae as in Magna Charta ca. 29. Nisi per legale iudicium parium vel per legem Terrae Yet in all these Cases whether it respectes the Church the Crowne or the Subiects it is comprehended vnder this generall tearme The common Lawes of England Which although they bee for a great parte thereof reduced into writing yet they are not originally Leges scriptae This I first learned of the late Lord Treasurer
Reason this subtile but absurd and dangerous distinction ought not to be allowed This Bond of Allegeance whereof wee dispute is Vinculum fidei it bindeth the soule and conscience of euery subiect seuerally and respectiuely to be faithfull and obedient to the King and as a Soule or Conscience cannot bee framed by Policie so Faith and Allegeance cannot bee framed by Policie nor put into a politike bodie An oath must be sworne by a naturall bodie homage and fealtie must be done by a naturall bodie a politike body cannot doe it Now then since there is but one king and soueraigne to whome this faith and allegeance is due by all his subiects of England and Scotland can any humane policie diuide this one King and make him two kings Can cor Regis Angliae be in manu Domini and cor Regis Scotiae not so Can there bee warres betweene the King of England and the king of Scotland or betweene the kingdome of England and the kingdome of Scotland so long as there is but one king Can the king of England now send an army roial into Scotland against the king of Scotland Can there bee any Letters of Marke or Reprisall now graunted by the king of England against the subiects of the king of Scotland Can there bee any Protections now Quia profecturus in exercitu Iacobi Regis Angliae in Scotiam Nay shortly Can any man bee a true subiect to King Iames as King of England and a traitor or rebell to king Iames as king of Scotland Shall a foote breadth or an inch breadth of ground make a difference of birth-right of subiects borne vnder one king Nay where there are not any certen bounds or limites knowne at all but an imaginarie partition wall by a conceipted fiction in Lawe It is enough to propound these and such like Questions whereof many more might be remembred they carry a sufficient and plaine answeare in themselues Magis docet qui prudentèr interrogat As the King nor his heart cannot bee diuided for hee is one entire King ouer all his subiectes in which soeuer of his Kingdomes or Dominions they vvere borne so hee must not bee serued nor obeyed by halues hee must haue intire and perfect obedience of his subiects for Ligentia as Baron Heron saied well must haue foure qualities It must bee 1. Pura simplex 2. Integra solida 3. Vniuersalis non localis 4. Permanens continua illaesa Diuide a mans heart and you lose both parts of it and make no heart at all so hee that is not an intire subiect but halfe faced is no subiect at all and hee that is borne an intire and perfect subiect ought by Reason and Lawe to haue all the freedomes priuiledges and benefites pertaining to his Birth-right in all the Kinges Dominions and such are all the Post-nati in England and Scotland And the inconuenience of this imaginary locall allegeance hath beene so lately and so fully declared by the Lorde chiefe Iustice Coke as more needes not bee saied in it In some speciall Cases there sometime may bee a king of subiects without land in possession as Iustice Fenner noted in the gouernement which Moses had ouer the people of Israel in the wildernesse and as in the Case which sir Iohn Popham the late Lord chiefe Iustice did put in the Parliament If a King and his subiects bee driuen out of his kingdome by his enemies yet notwithstanding hee continueth still King ouer those subiects and they are still bound vnto him by their bond of allegeance wheresoeuer hee and they bee But there can not bee a King of land without subiects For that were but Imperium in belluas and Rex subditi sunt relatiua I saied there was an other generall rule for expounding of Lawes which I reserued to bee last spoken of I will now but touch it for I will not stand to examine by humane reasons whether Kings were before Lawes or Lawes before Kinges nor how Kings were first ordained nor whether the kings or the people did first make Lawes nor the seuerall constitutions and frames of states and common-weales nor what Plato or Aristotle haue written of this argmment They were men of singuler learning and wisedome but wee must consider the time and the countrie in which they liued and in all their great learning they lacked the true learning of the knowledge of God They were borne and liued in Greece and in popular States they were enemies or at least mislikers of all Monarchies yet one of them disdained not to bee a seruant or mercenarie hireling to a Monarch They accompted all the world barbarous but their owne Countrey of Greece their opinions therefore are no Cannons to giue Lawes to kinges and kingdomes no more than sir Thomas Moores Vtopia or such Pamphlets as wee haue at euerie Marte I beleeue him that saieth Per me Reges regnant Principes iusta decernunt And I make no doubt but that as God ordained kings and hath giuen Lawes to kings themselues so hee hath authorized and giuen power to Kings to giue Lawes to their subiects and so kings did first make lawes and then ruled by their lawes and altered and changed their Lawes from time to time as they sawe occasion for the good of themselues and their subiects And this power they haue from God almighty For as Saint Augustine saieth In hoc Reges Deo seruiunt sicut eis Diuinitùs praecipitur in quantum sunt Reges si in suo Regno bona iubeant mala prohibeant non solum quae pertinent ad humanam societatem verumetiam quae ad diuinam religionem And I hould Thomas Aquinas his opinion to be good Rex solutus à Legibus quòad vim coactiuam subditus est legibus quòad vim directiuam propria voluntate And for this opinion there is a stronger authoritie euen from God himselfe in Ecclesiastes ca. 8. ver 2. Ego os Regis obseruo Et praecepta iuramenti Dei ver 4. Sermo illius potestate plenus est Nec dicere ei quisquam potest quare ita facis Now beeing led a little from the Common Lawe to the Ciuile Lawe I finde in the ciuile Lawe a direct Text warranting that generall Rule which I reserued to this place which is this Inter aequitatem iusque interpositam interpretationem nobis solis licet oportet inspicere And another like Text in these words Sententia Principis Ius dubium declarans Ius facit quòad omnes And some graue and notable Writers in the ciuile Lawe say Rex est lex animata Some say Rex est lex loquens Some others say Interpretantur legem consuetudo Princeps Another saieth Rex solus iudicat de causa à iure non definita And as I may not forget Saint Augustines words which are these Generale pactum est societatis humanae regibus suis obtemperare So I may not wrong the Iudges of the common Lawe of
England so much as to suffer an imputation to bee cast vpon them That they or the Common lawe doe not attribute as great power and authoritie to their Soueraignes the kinges of England as the Romane lawes did to their Emperours For Bracton the chiefe Iustice in the time of king Henry the third hath these direct wordes De Chartis Regijs factis regum non debent nec possunt Iusticiarij nec priuatae personae disputare Nec etiam si in illa dubitatio oriatur possunt eam interpretari Et in dubijs obscuris vel si aliqua dictio duos contineat intellectus domini Regis erit expectanda interpretatio voluntas Cum eius sit interpretari cuius est condere And Britton in the time of king Ed. 1. writeth as much in effect So as now if this question seem difficult that neither direct law nor Examples Precedents nor application of like cases nor discourse of reason nor the graue opinion of the learned and reuerend Iudges can resolue it here is a true and certen Rule how both by the Ciuile Lawe and the ancient Common lawe of England it may and ought to be decided That is by sentence of the most religious learned and iudicious king that euer this kingdome or Iland had But this Case is so cleare as this needeth not at all And in this I would not be mis-vnderstoode as though I spake of making of new Lawes or of altering the Lawes now standing I meane not so but I speake only of interpretation of the Lawe in new questions and doubts as now in this present case neither doe I meane hereby to derogate any thing from the high court of Parliament farre be it from my thought It is the great Councell of the kingdome wherein euery subiect hath interest And to speake of the constitution or forme of it or how or when it was first begunne is for busie Questionists It ought to bee obeyed and reuerenced but not disputed and it is at this time impertinent to this Question But certen it is it hath beene the wisedome of the Kinges of this Realme to reserue in themselues that supreame power to call their Nobles Clergie commons together when they sawe great and vrgent Causes and by that great Councell to make Edicts and Statutes for the weale of their people and safetie of the Kingdome and State as in Anno 10. Edw. 3. the Assembly at Nottingham for the great wars in France And in Anno 20. H. 3. Prouisiones Merton which I remembred before There haue beene made some Obiections of inconueniencie as for bearing of Scot and Lot and such other charges and some out of frugalitie that the king shall lose his profit of making Denizens and such like These are so light as I leaue them to the winde They are neither fit for Parliament nor Councell nor Court Another argument and reason against the Post-nati hath beene lately made out of diffidence and mistrust that they will come into England sans number and so as it were to surcharge our Common and that this may be in secula seculorum I know not well what this meanes The Nation is ancient noble and famous they haue many honourable and woorthie Noble men and Gentlemen and many wise and worthie men of all degrees and qualities they haue lands and faire possessions in Scotland Is it therefore to bee supposed or can it in reason bee imagined that such multitude sans number will leaue their natiue soile and all transport themselues hither Hath the Irish done so Or those of Wales or of the Isles of Man Gernesey and Iersey Whie should we then suspect it now more for Scotland Nay doe you suppose that the Kinge of England will euer suffer so great a parte of his Dominions and so great and famous a Kingdome as Scotland is to be dispeopled It is a doubt imagined without any foundation or ground of reason But if it were to bee doubted the twelue Iudges that haue concurred in opinion and that late worthy Iudge Popham had as great cause to feare it as any others They are wise they are learned they haue faire possessions and good estates They haue posteritie to care for as others haue Yet admit it bee a matter worth the doubting of what is that to the yoong Post-nati that are not like in many yeares to come hither in such number Shall we vpon this causlesse feare depriue them of their lawfull Birth-right Haue wee seene in these fiue yeeres past anie moe of them than this one alone that haue gotten any Lands in England And this little that he hath is so small and poore a portion that his purchase is not great and therefore no iust cause of offence to any Nay if you looke vpon the Ante-nati you shall find no such confluence hither but some few and very few in respect of that great and populous kingdome that haue done long and worthie seruice to his Maiestie haue and still doe attend him which I trust no man mislikes For there can bee none so simple or childish if they haue but common sense as to thinke that his Maiesty should haue come hither alone amongst vs and haue left behinde him in Scotland and as it were caste off all his ould and worthie Seruants And if these Noble and worthie Gentlemen of Scotland I meane the Ante-nati be louingly and brotherly entertained amongst vs with mutuall loue beneuolence that so we may coalescere be vnited together by marriage and otherwise as in some particular cases wee see it already happily begunne no doubt God will blesse this Vnion of both these Nations and make them and the King and great Britaine to be famous through the world and feared redoubted of our enemies and of all that wish vs ill For Vis vnita fortior concordia multos facit vnum But what may follow vpon such arguments of diffidence and suspition which seeme but to hinder Vnion and to breede discord and dissention I will not speake Let euery wise man consider it well For Humana consilia castigantur vbi coelestibus se praeferunt And remember Saint Paules caution Si inuicem mordetis videte ne ab inuicem consumamini And for the resemblance that hath bin made of this Case of Post-nati but indeed for the Vnion of both Kingdomes with the houswifes cutting of her cloth by a threede I will say but this That if shee cut her peece of cloth in length aswell as in breadth all the threeds will bee cutte and the cloth marred And this cutting in this our Case is to cutte all aswell in length as in breadth euen through all the Kinges Dominions and so will rent asunder the whole frame of the Vnion and cut in peeces all the threeds of Allegeance But now I wil aske this question How long shall this suspition and doubt continue Shall there bee a dis-vnion for euer If it bee saied No but