royal power and prerogative, or by other policies | whether it were not convenient to plant and erect or means; and, lastly, which of them is liker to at Carlisle or Berwick some council or court of pass with difficulty and contradiction, and which justice, the jurisdiction whereof might extend with more facility and smoothness. part into England and part into Scotland, with a commission not to proceed precisely, or merely according to the laws and customs either of England or Scotland, but mixedly, according to instructions by your majesty to be set down, after the imitation and precedent of the council of the marches here in England, erected upon the union of Wales?

In continent.

In language.

And now lastly, by the peace by your majesty concluded with Spain, in leagues and confederacies: for now both nations have the same friends and the same enemies.

Yet, notwithstanding, there is none of the six points, wherein the union is perfect and consummate; but every of them hath some scruple or rather grain of separation inwrapped and included in them.

For the sovereignty, the union is absolute in your majesty and your generation; but if it should so be, which God of his infinite mercy defend, that your issue should fail, then the descent of both realms doth resort to the several lines of the several bloods royal.

distinction. But for that, "tempori permittendum," it is to be left to time. For considering that both languages do concur in the principal office and duty of a language, which is to make a man's self understood; for the rest, it is rather to be accounted, as was said, a diversity of dialect than of language: and, as I said in my first writing, it is like to bring forth the enriching of one language, by compounding and taking in the proper and significant words of either tongue, rather than a continuance of two languages.

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

But many of these matters may perhaps be of that kind, as may fall within that rule, “In veste

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

Now to descend to the particular points wherein the realms stand severed and divided, over and besides the former six points of separation, which I have noted and placed as defects or abatements of the six points of the union, and therefore shall not need to be repeated: the points, I say, yet remaining, I will divide into external and internal. The external points therefore of the separation are four.

1. The several crowns, I mean the ceremonial and material crowns.

For matter of religion, the union is perfect in points of doctrine; but in matter of discipline and government it is imperfect.

For the continent, it is true there are no natural boundaries of mountains or seas, or navigable rivers; but yet there are badges and memorials of borders; of which points I have spoken before. For the language, it is true the nations are "unius labii," and have not the first curse of disunion, which was confusion of tongues, whereby one understood not another. But yet the dialect is differing, and it remaineth a kind of mark of

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

3. The third is the several prints of the seals. 4. The fourth is the several stamps or marks of the coins or moneys.

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

For the ceremonial crowns, the questions will be, whether there shall be framed one new imperial crown of Britain to be used for the times to come? Also, admitting that to be thought convenient, whether in the frame thereof there shall not be some reference to the crowns of Ireland and France?

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

The difficulties will be in the conceit of some inequality, whereby the realm of Scotland may be thought to be made an accession unto the realm of England. But that resteth in some cir

cumstances; for the compounding of the two The other, doubt, lest the alteration of the name crowns is equal; the calling of the new crown may induce and involve an alteration of the laws the crown of Britain is equal. Only the place of and policies of the kingdom; both which, if your coronation, if it shall be at Westminster, which majesty shall assume the style of proclamation, is the ancient, august, and sacred place for the and not by parliament, are in themselves satiskings of England, may seem to make an ine-fied: for then the usual names must needs remain quality. And again, if the crown of Scotland be in writs and records, the forms whereof cannot be discontinued, then that ceremony, which I hear is used in the parliament of Scotland in the absence of the kings, to have the crowns carried in solemnity, must likewise cease.

For the name, the main question is, whether the contracted name of Britain shall be by your majesty used, or the divided names of England and Scotland?

altered but by act of parliament, and so the point of honour satisfied. And again, your proclamation altereth no law, and so the scruple of a tacit or implied alteration of laws likewise satisfied. But then it may be considered, whether it were not a form of the greatest honour, if the parliament, though they did not enact it, yet should become suitors and petitioners to your majesty to assume it?

For the seals, that there should be but one great seal of Britain, and one chancellor, and that there should only be a seal in Scotland for processes and ordinary justice; and that all patents of grants of lands or otherwise, as well in Scotland as in England, should pass under the great seal here, kept about your person; it is an alteration inter

Admitting there shall be an alteration, then the case will require these inferior questions : First, whether the name of Britain shall only be used in your majesty's style, where the entire style is recited; and in all other forms the divided names to remain both of the realms and of the people? or otherwise, that the very divided names of realms and people shall likewise be│nal, whereof I do now speak. changed or turned into special or subdivided But the question in this place is, whether the names of the general name; that is to say, for great seals of England and Scotland should not be example, whether your majesty in your style shall changed into one and the same form of image and denominate yourself king of Britain, France, and superscription of Britain, which, nevertheless, is Ireland, &c., and yet, nevertheless, in any com-requisite should be with some one plain or manimission, writ or otherwise, where your majesty | fest alteration, lest there be a buz, and suspect, mentions England or Scotland, you shall retain that grants of things in England may be passed the ancient names, as "secundum consuetudi- by the seal of Scotland, or "e converso?" nem regni nostri Angliæ;" or whether those divided names shall be forever lost and taken away, and turned into the subdivision of South-Britain and North-Britain, and the people to be SouthBritons and North-Britons? And so, in the example aforesaid, the tenor of the like clause to run "secundum consuetudinem Britanniæ australis."

Also, if the former of these shall be thought convenient, whether it were not better for your majesty to take that alteration of style upon you by proclamation, as Edward the Third did the style of France, than to have it enacted by parliament? Also, in the alteration of the style, whether it were not better to transpose the kingdom of Ireland, and put it immediately after Britain, and so place the islands together: and the kingdom of France, being upon the continent, last; in regard that these islands of the western ocean seem by nature and providence an entire empire in themselves; and also, that there was never king of England so entirely possessed of Ireland, as your majesty is: so as your style to run, king of Britain, Ireland, and the islands adjacent, and of France, &c.

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

The one, point of honour and love to the former

names.

VOL. II.-19

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

For the moneys, as to the real and internal consideration thereof, the question will be, whether your majesty shall not continue two mints? which, the distance of territory considered, 1 suppose will he of necessity.

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

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

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

In this kind also I have heard it pass abroad in speech of the erection of some new order of knightN

hood, with a reference to the union, and an oath | sition, or possessing of the parliament of causes appropriate thereunto, which is a point likewise deserves a consideration. So much for the external points.

The internal points of separation are as followeth.

1. Several parliaments.

2. Several councils of state.

3. Several officers of the crown.

4. Several nobilities.

5. Several laws.

there to be handled; which in England is used to be done immediately by any member of the parliament, or by the prolocutor; and in Scotland is used to be done immediately by the lords of the articles; whereof the one form seemeth to have more liberty, and the other more gravity and maturity and therefore the question will be whether of these shall yield to other, or whether there should not be a mixture of both, by some commissions precedent to every parliament in the nature of lords.

6. Several courts of justice, trials, and pro- of the articles, and yet not excluding the liberty

cesses.

7. Several receipts and finances.

8. Several admiralties and merchandisings. 9. Several freedoms and liberties. 10. Several taxes and imposts.

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

In these points of the strait and more inward union, there will intervene one principal difficulty and impediment, growing from that root, which Aristotle in his Politics maketh to be the root of all division and dissension in commonwealths, and that is equality and inequality. For the realm of Scotland is now an ancient and noble realm, substantive of itself.

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

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

For the councils of estate, while the kingdoms stand divided, it should seem necessary to continue several councils; but if your majesty should proceed to a strict union, then, howsoever your majesty may establish some provincial councils in Scotland, as there is here of York, and in the marches of Wales, yet the question will be, whe-ther it will not be more convenient for your majesty: to have but one privy council about your person, whereof the principal officers of the crown of Scotland to be for dignity sake, howsoever their abiding and remaining may be as your majesty shall employ their service? But this point belongeth merely and wholly to your majesty's royal will and pleasure.

For the officers of the crown, the consideration> thereof will fall into these questions.

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

But when this island shall be made Britain, then Scotland is no more to be considered as Scotland, but as a part of Britain; no more than England is to be considered as England, but as a part likewise of Britain; and consequently neither of these are to be considered as things entire of themselves, but in the proportion that they bear to the whole. And therefore let us imagine, "Nam id mente possumus, quod actu non possumus," that Britain had never been divided, but had ever been one kingdom; then that part of soil or territory, which is comprehended under the name of Scotland, is in quantity, as I have heard it esteemed, how truly I know not, not past a third part of Britain; and that part of soil or territory The second, admitting the duplicity of officers which is comprehended under the name of Eng. should be continued, yet whether there should not land, is two parts of Britain, leaving to speak of be a difference, that one should be the principal any difference of wealth or population, and speak-officer, and the other to be but special and ing only of quantity. So, then, if, for example, subaltern? As, for example, one to be chancellor Scotland should bring to parliament as much nobility as England, then a third part should countervail two parts; "nam si inæqualibus æqualia addas, omnia erunt inæqualia." And this, I protest before God and your majesty, I do speak not as a man born in England, but as a man born in Britain. And therefore to descend to particulars: For the parliaments, the consideration of that point will fall into four questions.

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

2. The second, touching the manner of propo

of Britain, and the other to be chancellor with some special addition, as here of the duchy, &c.

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

For the nobilities, the consideration thereof will. fall into these questions: