Obj.
In the Statute of 1 E. 3. it is objected that there is no Precedent for Inland Counties.
Ans. But I answer, If not from Inland Coun∣ties, yet there is for Maritine; as in 14 E. 3, Ter∣mino Michaelis: But I reply not upon Precedents for either, but only upon these Precedents that went out to the Ports and Maritine Towns: For it was well observed by the Kings Councel, that they were not grounded upon any Precedents or Charters, but only upon Ancient Customs. But if the Precedents to the Maritine Towns were di∣rected in case of necessity, then I see no reason but that it may be done now, which was indeed intended by the Statute of 1 E. 3. as the Prece∣dents do plainly declare; and they were then more common than Writs of this nature issuing forth in this Case. And the Commons were then bound to Land-service, and the Mariners to Sea∣service, and they were compelled unto it at their own Charge, meerly upon their Allegiance, both in Bedford, Bucks, Lincoln, with many other Shires.
If then they may be compelled to go out of their own proper Counties to defend that part of the Realm that they live near unto, why may they not also be compelled to go to defend the Sea Coasts. The Seamen were willing to bear some Char••e for the Defence of the Sea, because the Inland Counties did bear their charges for the Land-service, and of the Ports.
And if they may be compelled in the Inland Counties to defend their Inland Counties, and the Seamen to defend the Sea-Coasts, then I know no reason but that they may be compelled all in general to bear a publick Charge in case of Ne∣cessity
I am yet upon the Statute of 1 E. 3. wherein I find Mr. Selden in his Mare Clausum fol. saith, That it was an ancient use to charge the Inland and Maritine Counties in case of Necessity; and therefore in my understanding I hold it to be Se∣cundum Legem Anglicanam.