Page:William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England (3rd ed, 1768, vol I).djvu/386

This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.
370
The Rights
Book I.

hence as well as now. For it is a principle of univerſal law[1], that the natural-born ſubject of one prince cannot by any act of his own, no, not by ſwearing allegiance to another, put off or diſcharge his natural allegiance to the former: for this natural allegiance was intrinſic, and primitive, and antecedent to the other; and cannot be deveſted without the concurrent act of that prince to whom it was firſt due. Indeed the natural-born ſubject of one prince, to whom he owes allegiance, may be entangled by ſubjecting himſelf abſolutely to another; but it is his own act that brings him into theſe ſtraits and difficulties, of owing ſervice to two maſters; and it is unreaſonable that, by ſuch voluntary act of his own, he ſhould be able at pleaſure to unlooſe thoſe bands, by which he is connected to his natural prince.

Local allegiance is ſuch as is due from an alien, or ſtranger born, for ſo long time as he continues within the king's dominion and protection[2]: and it ceaſes, the inſtant ſuch ſtranger transfers himſelf from this kingdom to another. Natural allegiance is therefore perpetual, and local temporary only: and that for this reaſon, evidently founded upon the nature of government; that allegiance is a debt due from the ſubject, upon an implied contract with the prince, that ſo long as the one affords protection, ſo long the other will demean himſelf faithfully. As therefore the prince is always under a conſtant tie to protect his natural-born ſubjects, at all times and in all countries, for this reaſon their allegiance due to him is equally univerſal and permanent. But, on the other hand, as the prince affords his protection to an alien, only during his reſidence in this realm, the allegiance of an alien is confined (in point of time) to the duration of ſuch his reſidence, and (in point of locality) to the dominions of the Britiſh empire. From which conſiderations ſir Matthew Hale[3] deduces this conſequence, that, though there be an uſurper of the crown, yet it is treaſon for any ſubject, while the uſurper is in full poſſeſſion of the ſovereignty, to practice any thing againſt his crown and dig-

  1. 1 Hal. P. C. 68.
  2. 7 Rep. 6.
  3. 1 Hal. P. C. 60.
nity: