which nevertheless is requisite should be with some one Also, whether this alteration of form may not be done For the Moneys, as to the real and internal consideration thereof, the question will be, whether your Majesty should not continue two mints; which (the distance of territory considered) I suppose will be of necessity. The Standards and Monies. Secondly, how the standards (if it be not already done, as I hear some doubt made of it in popular rumour) may be re- Stamps, duced into an exact proportion for the time to come; and likewise the computation, tale, or valuation to be made exact, for the moneys already beaten. That done, the last question is (which is only proper to this place) whether the stamp or the image and superscription of Britain for the time forwards should not be made the self-same in both places, without any difference at all. A matter also which may be done, as our law is, by your Majesty's prerogative, without Act of Parliament. These points are points of demonstration, ad faciendum populum. But so much the more they go to the root of your Majesty's intention; which is to imprint and inculcate into the hearts and heads of the people, that they are one people and one nation. In this kind also I have heard it pass abroad in speech of the erection of some new order of knighthood, with a reference to the Union, and an oath appropriate thereunto, which is a point likewise deserveth a consideration. So much for the external points. The internal points of separation are as followeth. 1. Several parliaments. 2. Several counsels of estate. 3. Several officers of the crown. 4. Several nobilities. 5. Several laws. 6. Several courts of justice, trials, and processes. 7. Several receipts and finances. 1 Separation and om, in Res. Internal points of [separation and] union.1 1. Parliaments. 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. 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 which is comprehended under the name of England is two parts of Britain; leaving to speak of any difference of wealth or population, and speaking only of quantity. So then if, for example, Scotland should bring to Parliament as much nobility as England, then a third part should countervail two parts; nam si 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 the particulars : For the Parliaments, the consideration of that point will fall into four questions. 1. The first, what proportion shall be kept between the votes of England and the votes of Scotland. 2. The second, touching the manner of proposition, or possessing of the Parliament of causes there to be handled; which in England is used to be done immediately by any member of the Parliament, or by the Prolocutor; and in Scotland is used to be done immediately by the Lords of the Articles; whereof the one form seemeth to have more liberty, and the other more gravity and maturity: and therefore the question will be, whether of these shall yield to other; or whether there should not be a mixture of both, by some commissions precedent to every Parliament, in the nature of Lords of the Articles; and yet not excluding the liberty of propounding in full Parliament afterwards. 3. The third, touching the orders of Parliament, how they may be compounded, and the best of either taken. 4. The fourth, how those, which by inheritance or otherwise have offices of honour and ceremony in both the Parliaments, as the Lord Steward with us, etc., may be satisfied, and duplicity accommodated. sels of For the Counsels of Estate, while the kingdoms stand 2. Coundivided, it should seem necessary to continue several coun- Estate. sels; but if your Majesty should proceed to a strict union, then howsoever your Majesty may establish some provincial counsels in Scotland, as there is here of York, and in the Marches of Wales, yet the question will be, whether it will not be more convenient for your Majesty, to have but one Privy Counsel 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 3. Officers 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. The second, admitting the duplicity of officers should be continued, yet whether there should not be a difference, that one should be the principal officer, and the other to be but special and subaltern: As for example, one to be Chancellor of Britain, and the other to be Chancellor with some special addition; as here of the Duchy, etc. of the Crown. 4. Nobili ties. 5. Laws. 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 provisos that they shall not intromit themselves but within their several precincts. For the Nobilities, the consideration thereof will fall into these questions. The first, of their votes in Parliament (which was touched before), what proportion they shall bear to the nobility of England: wherein if the proportion which shall be thought fit be not full, yet your Majesty may, out of your prerogative, supply it; for although you cannot make fewer of Scotland, yet you may make more of England. The second is, touching the place and precedence. Wherein to marshal them according to the precedence of England in your Majesty's stile, and according to the nobility of Ireland1; that is, all English Earls first, and then Scottish, will be thought unequal for Scotland. To marshal them according to antiquity, will be thought unequal for England; because I hear their nobility is generally more ancient. And therefore the question will be, whether the indifferentest way were not to take them interchangeably; as for example, first, the ancient Earl of England, and then the ancient Earl of Scotland, and so alternis vicibus. For the Laws, to make an entire and perfect union, it is a matter of great difficulty and length, both in the collecting of them, and in the passing of them. For first, as to the collecting of them, there must be made by the lawyers of either nation a digest, under titles, of their several laws and customs, as well common laws as statutes; that they may be collated and compared, and that the diversities may appear and be discerned of. And for the passing of them, we see by experience that patrius mos is dear to all men, and that men are bred and nourished up in the love of it; and therefore how harsh changes and innovations are. And we see likewise what disputation and argument the alteration of some one law doth cause and bring forth; how much 1 So in Res. more the alteration of the whole corps of the law? Therefore the first question will be, whether it be not good to proceed by parts, and to take that that is most necessary, and leave the rest to time. The parts therefore or subject of laws, are for this purpose fitliest distributed according to that ordinary division of criminal and civil, and those of criminal causes into capital and penal. The second question therefore is; allowing the general union of laws to be too great a work to embrace, whether it were not convenient that cases capital were the same in both nations; I say the cases, I do not speak of the proceedings or trials; that is to say, whether the same offences were not fit to be made treason or felony in both places. The third question is, whether cases penal, though not capital, yet if they concern the public state, or otherwise the discipline of manners, were not fit likewise to be brought into one degree; as the case of Misprision of Treason, the case of Præmunire, the case of Fugitives, the case of Incest, the case of Simony, and the rest. But the question that is more urgent than any of these is, whether these cases at the least, be they of an higher or inferior degree, wherein the fact committed or act done in Scotland may prejudice the state and subjects of England, or e converso, are not to be reduced into one uniformity of law and punishment. As for example, a perjury committed in a court of justice in Scotland cannot be prejudicial in England, because depositions taken in Scotland cannot be produced and used here in England. But a forgery of a deed in Scotland, I mean with a false date of England, may be used and given in evidence in England. So likewise the depopulating of a town in Scotland doth not directly prejudice the state of England: but if an English merchant shall carry silver and gold into Scotland (as he may), and thence transport it into foreign parts, this prejudiceth the state of England, and may be an evasion to all the laws of England ordained in that case; and therefore had need to be bridled with as severe a law in Scotland as it is here in England. Of this kind there are many laws. The law of the 5o of Richard II. of going over without licence, if there be not the like law in Scotland, will be |