three speech OF the right honourable sir Francis Bacon knight then his majesty  solicitor general after lord verulam viscount saint Alban concern the post  born naturalize of the Scotch in England union of the law of the kingdom of  England and Scotland may it please your lord ship this case your lord ship do  well perceive to be of exceeding great consequence for whether you do measure  that by place that reach not only to the realm of England but to the whole  island of great britain or whether you measure that by time that extend not  only to the present time but much more to future generation et natinatorum et  who to be born ab strike against and therefore as that be to receive at the  bar a full and free debate so I doubt not but that shall receive from your  lord ship a sound and just resolution accord to law and accord to truth for my  lord though he be think to have say well that say that for his word king  strong yet he be hought to have say better evenin the opinion ofa king he self  that say veritas strong et pravalet and I do much rejoice to observe such a  concurrence in the whole carriage of this cause to this end that truth may  prevail the case no feign or frame case but a true case between true party the  title handle former in some of the king court and free hold upon it use indeed  by his majesty in his high wisdom to give a end to this great question but not  raise opportunity as the schoolman say to creep non to stretch out the case  argue in the king bench by m Walter with great liberty and yet with good  approbation of the court the person assign to be of counsel on that side  inferior to none of their quality and degree in learning and some of they most  conversant and exercise in the question the judge in the king bench have  adjourn it to this place for conference with the rest of their brother your  lord ship my lord chancellor though you be absolute judge in the court where  you sit and may have call to you such assistance of judge as to you have seem  good yet will not forerun or lead in this case by any opinion there to be give  but have choose rather to come your self to this assembly all tend as I say to  this end whereunto I for my part do hearty subscribe ut to conquer veritas  that truth may first appear and then prevail and I do firm hold and doubt not  but I shall well maintain that this be the truth that Calvin the plaintiefe be  Self justice by the law of England a natural bear subject to purchase free  hold and to bring real action within England in this case I must so consider  the time as I must much more consider the matter and therefore though it may  draw my speech into further length yet I dare not handle a case of this nature  confuse but purpose to observe the ancient and exact from of plead which be  first to explain or induce then to confute or answer objection and last to  prove or confirm and first for explanation the outward question in this case  be no more but whether a child bear in Scotland since his majesty happy come  to the crown of England be naturalize in England or no but the inward question  or state of the question evermore begin where that which be confess on both  side do leave it be confess that if these two realm of England and Scotland be  unite under one law and one parliament and thereby incorporate and make as one  kingdom that the post born of such a union shall be naturalize it be confess  that both realm be unite in the person of our sovereign or because I will gain  nothing by surreption in the put of the question that one the same natural  person be king of both realm it be confess that the law and parliament be  several so then whether this privilege and benefit of naturalize be a  accessary or dependency up on that which be one and joint or upon that which  be several have be and must be the depth of this question and therefore your  lord ship do see the state of this question do evident lead I by way of  inducement to speak of three thing the king the law and the privilege of  naturalize for if you well understand the nature of the two principal and  again the nature of the accessary then shall you discern to whether principal  the accessary do proper refer as a shadow to a body or iron to a adamant and  there your lord ship will give I leave in a case of this quality first to  visit and open the foundation and fountain of reason and not to begin with the  position and eruditions of a municipal law for so be that do in the great case  of i and so ought that to be do in all case of like nature and this do not at  all detract from the sufficiency of our law as incompetent to decide their own  case but rather add a dignity unto they when their reason appear as well as  their authority do show they to be as fine money which be currant not only by  the stamp because they be so receive but by the natural metal that be the  reason and wisdom of they and master Littleton himself in his whole book do  commend but two thing to the professor of the law by the name of his son the  one the inquire and search out the reason of the law and the other the observe  of the from of plead and never be there any case that come in judgement that  require more that Littleton advice shall be follow in those two point then do  the present case in question and first of the king it be evident that all  other common wealth monarchy only except do snbsist by a law precedent for  where authority be divide among many officer and they not perpetual but annual  or temporary and not to receive their authority but by election and certain  person to have voice only to that election and the like these be busy and  curious frame which of necessity do presuppose a law precedent write or  unwritten to guide and direct they but in monarchy especial hereditary that be  when several family or Ilneages of people do submit themselves to one line  imperial or royal the submission be more natural and simple which afterward by  law subsequent be perfect and make more formal but that be ground upon nature  that this be so it appear notable in two thing the one the platform and  pattern which be find in nature of monarchy the original submission their  motive and occasion the platform be three the first be that of a father or  chief of a family who govern over his wife by prerogative of sex over his  child by prerogative of age and because he be author unto they of be and over  his servant by prerogative of virtue and providence for he that be able of  body and improvident of mind be nature servus that be a very model of a king  so that be the opinion of Aristotle lib pol cap where he say yes autem kingdom  be come penes One be a thing summa potestas quoth kingdom management household  to imitate and therefore Lyeurgus when one counsel he to dissolve the kingdom  and to establish another from of estate he answer sir begin to do that which  you advice first at home in your own house note that the chief of a family be  as a king and that those that can least endure king abroad can be content to  be king at home this be the first platform which we see be mere natural the  second be that of a shepherd and his flock which zenophon say Cyrus have ever  in his mouth for shepherd be not owner of the sheep but their office be to  feed and govern no more be king proprietary or owner of the people for God be  sole owner of people the nation as the scripture say be his inheritance but  the office of king be to govern maintain and protect people and that be not  without a mystery that the first king that be institute by God David for Saul  be butan untimely fruit be translate from a shepherd as you have it in the  Psal et elegit David slave suum de flock a sheep to lift the dawn  to cause to eat Jacob slave suum Israel inheritance to sew this be the second  platform a work likewise of nature the three platform be the government of God  himself over the world whereof lawful monarchy be a shadow and therefore both  among the heathen and among the Christian the word sacred have be attribute  unto king because of the conformity of a Monarchy with the divine majesty  never to a senate or people and so you find it twice in the lord cokees report  once in the second book the bishop of Winchesters case and his first book  Cawdries case and more ancient in the of h foe king be mask to mix cam  sacerdote a attribute which the senate of Venice or a canton of swiss can  never challenge so we see there be precedent or platform of monarchy both in  nature and above nature even from the Monarch of heaven and earth to the king  if you will in a hive of be and therefore other state be the creature of the  law and this state only subsist by nature for the original submission they be  four in number I will brief touch they the first be paternity or patriarchy  which be when a family grow so great as it can not contain it self within one  habitation some branch of the descendent be force to plant themselves into new  family which second family can not by a natural instinct and inclination but  bear a reverence and yield a obeyseance to the old line of the ancient family  from which they be derive the second be the admiration of virtue or gratitude  towards merit which be likewise natural infuse into all man of this Aristotle  put the case well when it be the fortune of some one man either to invent some  be of excellent use towards man life or to congregate people that dwell  scatter into one place where they may cohabit with more comfort or to guide  they from a more barrenland to a more fruitful or the like upon these desert  and the admiration and recompense of they people submit themselves the three  which be the most usual of all be conduct in war which even in nature induce  as great a obligation as paternity for as man owe their life and be to their  parent in regard of generation so they owe that also to saviour in the war in  regard of preservation and therefore we find in the Chap of the book of judge  verse to say all iris i and Cedeon to be lord our men  TU et son tui quoniam  to make safe our de manu madian and so we read when it be bring to the ear of  Saul that the people sing in the street Saul have kill his thousand David his  ten thousand of enemy he say straightway quid ei to be over and above nisi  Self kingdom for whosoever have the military dependence want little of be king  the four be a enforce submission which be Conquest whereof it seem Nymrod be  the first precedent of who it be say ipse caepit powerful be in land et to be  of oak venator in person domine and this likewise be upon the same root which  be the save or gift as it be of life and be for the conqueror have power of  life and death over his captive and therefore where he give they themselves he  may reserve upon such a gift what service and subjection he will all these  four submission be evident to be natural and more ancient than law to speak  therefore of law which be the second part of that which be to be speak of by  way of inducement law no doubt be the great organ by which the sovereign power  do move and may be true compare to the sinew in a natural body as the  sovereignty may be compare to the spirit for if the sinew be without the  spirit they be dead and without motion if the spirit move in weak sinew it  cause tremble so the law with out the king power be dead the king power except  the law be corroborate will never move constant but be full of stagger and  trepidation but towards the king himself the law do a double office or  operation the first be to entitle the king or design he and in that sense  Bracton say well lib fol and lib fol law compose quoth ipse sit king that be  it define his title as in our law that the kingdom shall go to the issue  female that it shall not be departable among daughter that the half blood  shall not be respect and other point differ from the rule of common  inheritance the second be that whereof we needs not fear to speak in good and  happy time such as these be to make the ordinary power of the king more  definite or regular for it be well say by a father fullness power be pleuitudo  tempest at be and although the king in his person be to loosen law yet his act  and grant be limit by law and we argue they every day but I demand do these  office or operation of law evacuate or frustrate the original submission which  be natural or shall it be say that all allegiance be by law no more than it  can be say that to be able to be able father the power of the father over the  child be by law and yet no doubt law do diverse define of that also the law of  some nation have give father power to put their child to death other to sell  they thrice other to disinherit they by testament at pleasure and the like yet  no man will affirm that the obedience of the child be by law though law in  some point do make it more positive and even so it be of allegiance of subject  to hereditary monarch which be corroborate and confirm by law but be the work  of the law of nature and therefore you shall find the observation true and  almost general in all state that their lawgiver be long after their first king  who govern for a time by natural equity without law so be Theseus long before  Salo in Ahm for be eiti and long before Lycurgus in Sparta so be Romulus long  before the decemviri and even among our self there be more ancient king of the  Saxon and yet the law run under the name of edgars law and in the resound of  the kingdom in the person of William the conqueror when the law be in some  confusion for a time a man may true say that king Edward the first be the  first lawgiver who enact some law and collect other bring the law to some  perfection and therefore I will conclude this point with the style which  diverse act of parliament do give unto the king which term he very effectual  and true our natural soon reign liege lord and as it be say by a principal  judge here present when he serve in another place and question be move by some  occasion of the title of Bulleins land that he will never allow that queen  Elizabeth I remember it for the efficacy of the phrase shall be a statute  queen but a commonlaw queen so sure I shall hardly consent that the king shall  be esteem or call only our rightful sovereign or our lawful sovereign but our  natural liege sovereign as act of parliament speak for as the commonlaw be  more worthy than the statute law so the law of nature be more worthy than they  both have speak now of the king and the law it remain to speak of the  privilege and benefit of naturalize it self and that accord to the rule of the  law of England naturalize be best discern in the degree whereby the law do  mount and ascend thereunto for it seem admirable unto I to consider with what  a measure hand and with how true poportions our law do impart and confer the  several degree of this benefit the degree be four the first degree of person  as to this purpose hat the law take knowledge of be a alien enemy that be such  a one as be bear under the obeisance of a prince or state that be in hostility  with the king of England to this person the law give no benefit or protection  at all but if he come into the realm after war proclaim or war in fact he come  at his own peril he may be use as a enemy for the law account of he but as the  scripture say as of a spy that come to see the weakness of the land and so it  be of Richard the foe nevertheless this admit a distinction for if he come  with safe conduct otherwise it be for then he may not be violate either in  person or good but yet he must fetch his justice at the fountain head for none  of the conduit pipe be open to he he can have no remedy in any of the king  court but he must complain himself before the king privycouncil there he shall  have a proceed summary from hour to hour the cause shall be determine by  natural equity and not by rule of law and the decree of the Council shall be  execute by aid of the chancery as be Edward a this be the first degree the  second person be a alien friend that be such a one as be bear under the  obeisance of such a king or state as be confederate with the king of England  or at least not in war with he to this person the law allot this benefit that  as the law account that the hold it have over he be but a tranfitory hold for  he may be a enemy so the law do put on he but with a transitory benefit that  be of movable good and personal action but for free hold or lease or action  real or mix he be not enable except it be in auter droit and so it be e foe e  foe ma and diverse other book the three person be a denizon use the word  proper for sometime it be confound with a natural bear subject this be one  that be but to put under ingrafted or of adoption and be never by birth but  only by the king charter and by no other mean come he never so young into the  realm or stay he never so long mansion or habitation will not indenize he no  nor swear obedience to the king in a leet which do inlaw the subject but only  as I say the king grace and gift to this person the law give a ability and  capacity abridge not in matter but in time and as there be a time when he be  not subject so the law do not acknowledge he before that time for if he  purchase free hold after his denization he may take it but if he have purchase  any before he shall not hold it so if he have child after they shall inherit  but if he have any before they shall not inherit so as he be but privilege a  part post as the schoolman say and not a part ante the four and last degree be  a natural bear subject which be evermore by birth or by Act of parliament and  he be complete and entire for in the law of England there be nil ultra there  be no more subdivision or more subtle division beyond these and therein it  seem to I that the wisdom of the law as I say be to be admire both way both  because it distinguish so far and because it do not distinguish further for I  know that other law do admit more curious distinction of this privilege for  the Roman have beside community which answer to naturalize justice a voting  for although a man be naturalize to take land and inheritance yet he be not  enable to have a voice at pass of law or at election of officer and yet  further they have justice candidacy or justice honor for though a man have  voice yet he be not capable of honour and office but these be the devise  common of popular or free estate which be jealous who they take into their  number and be unfit for monarchy but by the law of England the subject that be  natural bear have a capacity or ability to all benefit whatsoever I say  capacity or ability but to reduce force in sharply be another case for a earl  of Ireland though he be naturalize in England yet have so voice in parliament  of England except he have either a call by Writ or a creation by patent but he  be capable of either but upon this quadripartite division of the ability of  person I do observe to your lordship three thing be all effectual pertinent to  the question in hand the first be that if any man conceive that the reason for  the post born may serve as well for the ante born he may by the distribution  which we have make plain perceive his error for the law look not back and  therefore can by any matter ex post facto after birth after the state of the  birth wherein no doubt the law have a grave and profound reason which be this  in few word nemo subito to touch other be to be born other fieri we indeed  more respect and affect these worthy gentleman of Scotland who merit and  conversation we know but the law that proceed upon general reason and look  upon no man face affect and privilege those which draw their first breath  under the obeisance of the king of England the second point be that by the  former distribution it appear that there be but two condition by birth either  alien or natural bear nam for the third time inside not know amus it be  manifest then that if the post born of Scotland be not natural bear they be  alien bear and in no better degree at all than Fleming French Italian Spanish  germane and other which be all at this time alien friend by reason his majesty  be in peace with all the world the three point seem to I very worthy the  consideration which be that in all the distribution of person and the degree  of ability or capacity the king Act be all in all without any manner of  respect to law or parliament for it be the king that make a alien enemy by  proclaim a war wherewith the law or parliament intermeddle not so the king  only grant safe conduct wherewith law and parliament intermeddle not it be the  king likewise that make a alien friend by conclude a peace wherewith law and  parliament intermeddle not it be the king that make a denizon by his charter  absolute of his prerogative and power wherewith law and parliament intermeddle  not and therefore it be strong to be infer that as all these degree depend  whole upon the king act and no way upon law or parliament so the four although  it can by the king patent but by operation of law yet that the law in that  operation respect only the king person without respect of subjection to law or  parliament and thus much by way of explanation and inducement which be all  matter in effect confess I the strong ground work to that which be contradict  or controvert there follow the confutation of the argument on the contrary  side that which have be material object may be reduce to four head the first  be that the privilege of naturalize follow allegiance and that allegiance  follow the kingdom the second be draw from that common ground come two jura  concarrunt in One mask water be ac si make real in dvobus a rule the word  whereof be take from the civil law but the matter of it be receive in all law  be a very line or rule of reason to avoid confusion the three consist of  certain inconvenience conceive to ensue of this general naturalize Self jure  the four be not proper a objection but a preoccupation of a objection or proof  on our part by a distinction devise between country devolute by descent and  acquire by Conquest for the first it be not proper to observe that those which  maintain this new opinion whereof there be deeply silence in our book of law  be not well agree in what from to utter and express that for some say that  allegiance have respect to the law some to the crown some to the kingdom some  to the body politic of the king so there be confusion of tongue among they as  it common come to pass in opinion that have their foundation in subtlety and  imagination of man wit and not in the ground of nature but to leave their word  and to come to their proof they endeavour to prove this conceit by three  manner of proof first by reason then by certain inference out of statute and  last by certain book case mention and recite the from of plead the reason they  bring be this that naturalize be a operation of the law of England and so  indeed it be that may be the true genus of it then they add that grant that  the law of England be of force only within the kingdom and dominion of England  and can operate but where it be in force but the law be not in force in  Scotland therefore that can endure this benefit of naturalize by a birth in  Scotland this reason be plausible and sensible but extreme erroneous for the  law of England for matter of benefit or forfeiture in England operate over the  world and because it be true say that respublica to hold together penalty  prize I will put a case or two of either it be plain that if a subject of  England have conspire the death of the king in foreign part it be by the  commonlaw of England treason how prove I that by the statute of of h can  wherein you shall find no word at all of make any new case of treason which be  not treason before but only of ordain a from of trial ergo it be treason  before and if so then the law of England work in foreign part so of contempt  if the king send his privy seal to any subject beyond the sea command he to  return and he disobey no man will doubt but there be a contempt and yet the  fact endure the contempt be commit in foreign part therefore the law of  England do extend to act or matter do in foreign part so of reward privilege  or benefit we needs seek no other instance then the instance in question for I  will put you a case that no man shall deny where the law of England do work  and confer the benefit of naturalize upon a birth neither within the dominion  of the kingdom nor king of England by the statute of e which if you will  believe Hussey be but a declaration of the commonlaw all child bear in any  part of the world if they be of English parent continue at that time as liege  subject to the king and have do no act to forfeit the benefit of their  allegiance be Self facto naturalize nay if a man look narrow into the law in  this point he shall find a consequence that may seem at the first strange but  yet can well be avoid which be that it diverse family of englishmen and woman  plant themselves at Middleborough or at roan or at Lysoone and have issue and  their deseendents do intermarry among themselves without any intermixture of  foreign blood such descendent be naturalize to all generation for every  generation be still of liege parent and therefore naturalize so as you may  have whole tribe and lineage of English in foreign country and therefore it be  utter true that the law of England can operate of confer naturalize but only  within the bind of the dominion of England to come now to their inference upon  statute the firstis out of this statute which I last recite in which statute  it be say that in four several place there be word bear within the allegiance  of England or again bear without the allegiance of England which say they  apply the allegiance to the kingdom and not to the person of the king to this  the answer be easy for there be not trope of speech more familiar then to use  the place of addition for the person so we say common the line of York or the  line of Lancaster for the line of the duke of York or the duke of Lancaster so  we say the possession of Somerset or Warmick intend the possession of the duke  of Somerset or earl of Warmick so we seeEarles sign Salisbury Northampton for  the earl of Salisbury or Northampton and in the very same manner the statute  speak allegiance of England for allegiance of the king of England nay more if  there have be no variety in the pen of that statute this collect on have have  a little more force for those word may have be think to have be use of purpose  and in propriety but you may find in three other several place of the same  statute Allegeange and obeisance of the king of England and special in the  material and conclude place that be to say child who parent be at the time of  their birth at the faith and obeisance of the king of England so that be  manifest by this indifferent and indifferent use of both phrase the one proper  the other unproper that no man can ground any inference upon these word  without danger of cavillation the second statute out of which they infer be a  statute make in of h can touch the policy of stranger trade man within this  realm for the parliament find that they do eat the englishmen out of trade and  that they entertain no apprentice but of their oh d'un nation do prohibit that  they shall receive any Apprentize but the king subject in which statute be say  that in several place there be to be find this context of word alien of the  king obedience which be pregnant say they and do imply that there be alien  bear within the king obedience touch this inference I have hear it say Qi  to hang in litter baeret in made from bark but this be not worthy the name of  cortex it be but moss the moss of the bark for it be evident that the statute  mean to speak clear and without equivocation and to a common understanding now  then there be alien in common reputation alien in precise construction ofLaw  the statute then meaning not to comprehend irishman or Gesie-men or Calize-men  for explanation sake leave the word alien may be extend to they in a vulgar  acceptance add those further word bear out of the king obedience nay what if  we shall say that those word accord to the receive law of speech be no word of  difference or limitation but of declaration or description of a alien as if it  have be say with a videlicet alien that be such as be bear out of the king  obedience they can put we from that construction but sure I be if the bark  make for they the pith make for we for the privilege or liberty which the  statute mean to deny to alien of entertain apprentice be deny to none bear  within the king obedience call they alien or what you will and therefore by  their reason a post born of Scotland shall by that statute keep what stranger  apprentice he will and so be put in the degree of a English the three statute  out of which inference be make be the statute of e can solon which have be say  to be our very case and I be of that opinion too but direct the other way  therefore to open the scope and purpose of that statute after that the title  to the crown of France be devolute to king e that he have change his style  change his arm change his seal as his majesty have do the subject of England  say the statute conceive a fear that the realm of England may become subject  to the realm of France or to the king as king of France and I will give you  the reason of the double fear that it shall become subject to the realm of  France they have this reason of fear Normandy have conquer England Normandy be  feudal of France therefore because the superior Seignery of France be now  unite in right with the tenancy of Normandy and that England in regard of the  conquest may be take as a perquisite to Normandy they have propable reason to  fear that the kingdom of England may be draw to be subject to the realm of  France the other fear that England may become subject to the king as king of  France grow no doubt of this before sight that the king of England may be like  to make their mansion and seat of their estate in France in regard of the  climate wealth and glory of that kingdom and thereby the kingdom of England  may be govern by the king mandate and precept issue as from the king of France  but they will say what soever the occasion be here you have the difference  authorize of subjection to a king general and subjection to a king as king of  a certain kingdom but to this I give a answer three fold first it preffeth not  the question for do any man say that a post born of Scotland be naturalize in  England because he be a subject of the king as king of England no but general  because he be the king subject second the scope of this law be to make a  distinction between crown and crown but the scope of their argument be to make  a difference between crown and person last this statute as I say be our very  case retort against they for this be a direct statute of separation which  presuppose that the commonlaw have make a union of the crown in some degree by  virtue of the union in the king person if this statute have be make to stop  cross the course of the commonlaw in that point as if Scotland now shall be  suitor to the king that a Act may pass to like effect and upon like fear and  therefore if you will make good your distinction in this present case show we  a statute for that but I hope you can show no statute of separation between  England and Scotland and if any man say that this be a statute declaratory of  the commonlaw he do not mark how that be pen for after a kind of historical  declaration in the preamble that England be never subject to France the body  of the Act be pen thus the king do grant and establish which be word mere  introductive novae law as if the king give a charter of franchise and do  invest by a donative the subject of England with a new privilege or exemption  which by the commonlaw they have not to come now to the book case which they  put which I will couple together because they receive one joint answer the  first be of e foe where the book say exception be take that the plaintiff be  bear in Scotland at rise out of the allegiance of England the next be h foe  Adrians case where it be plead that a woman be bear at Burgis out of the  allegiance of England the three be Elizabeth dyer foe where the case begin  thus doctor story who information dignoscituresse to put under royal power  England in all these three say they that be plead that the party be subject of  the kingdom of England and not of the king of England to these book I give  this answer that they be not the plea at large but the word of the reporter  who speak Compendious and narrative and not accord to the solemn word of the  plead if you find a case put that it be plead a man be seize in feesimple you  will not infer upon that that the word of the plead be in kid simple but  Himself heir n'est but show I some precedent of a plead at large of born sub  legeantia royal power England for whereas mr Walter say that plead be variable  in this point he will feign bring it to that but there be no such matter for  the plead be constant and uniform in this point they may vary in the word  fides or legeantia or obedience and some other circumstance but in the from of  royal power and king they vary not neither can there as I be persuade be any  one instance show forth to the contrary see Elizabeth Baggots assize f where  the plead at large be enter in the book there you have stranger born extra  legeantiam domini king England see the precedent in the book of entry pl and  two other place for there be no more and there you shall find still sub  legeantia domini king or extra legeantia domini king and therefore the from of  plead which be thing so reverend and be indeed towards the reason of the law  as Palma and a fist contain the reason of the law open or unfold or display  they makeall for we and for the very word of reporter in book you must  acknowledge and say you may go with you to overwhelm rhythm for you have ass  pl the prior of skees case pl h f h f h in my lord dyer fol in all these book  the very word of the reporter have the allegiance of the king and not the  allegiance of England and the book in the of eltz which be your best book  although while it be toss at the bar you have sometime the word allegiance of  England yet when it come to Thorpe chief justice to give the rule he faith we  will be certify by the role whether Scotland be within the allegiance of the  king nay that further from of plead Beatrice down your opinion that it suffice  not to say that he be bear out of the allegiance of the king and stay there  but he must show in the affirmative under the allegiance of what king or state  he be bear the reason whereof can be because it may appear whether he be a  friend or a enemy for that in a real action be all one not it can be because  issue shall take thereupon for the issue must arise on the other side upon  indigena plead and traverse and therefore it can have no other reason but to  apprise the court more certain that the country of the birth be none of those  that be subject to the king as for the trial that it shall be impossible to de  try I hold it not worth the answer for the ovenire facias shall go either  where the natural birth be lie although it be but by fiction or if it be lie  accord to the truth it shall try where the action be bring otherwise you fall  upon a main rock that break your argument in piece for how shall the birth of  a irishman be try or of Gersie man nay how shall the birth of a subject be try  that be bear of English parent in Spain or Florence or any part of the world  for to all these the like objection of trial may be make because they be  within no county and this receive no answer and therefore I will now pass on  to the second main argument it be a rule of the civil law say they come two  jura c when two right do meet in one person there be no confusion of they but  they remain still in eye of law distinct as if they be in several person and  they bring example of one man bishop of two sea or one person that be rector  of two church they say this unity in the bishop or the rector do not create  any privity between the parishioner or Dioceseners more then if there be  several bishop or several parson this rule I allow as be say to be a rule not  of the civil law only but of common reason but receive no force or coin but a  true and sound distinction or limitation which be that it evermore fail and  deceive in case where there be any vigour or operation of the natural person  for general in coporations the natural body be but suffulcimentum  substantial object corporat it be but as a stock to uphold and bear out the  corporate body but otherwise it be in the case of the crown as shall be  manifest prove in due place but to show that this rule receive this  distinction I will put but two case the statute of the Henry ordain that a  marquis may retain six chaplain qualify a lord treasurer of England four a  privy counselor three the lord treasurer Paulet be Marqueffe of Winchester  lord treasurer of England and privy counsellor all at once question be whether  he shall qualify chaplain now by the rule come two justice he shall but  adjudge he shall not and the reason be because the attendance of chaplain  concern and respect his natural person he have but one soul though he have  three office the other case which I will put be the case of homage a man do  homage to his lord for a tenancy hold of the manor of dale there descend unto  he afterward a tenancy hold of the manor of sale which manor of sale be  likewise in the hand of the same lord now by the rule come two jura he shall  do homage again two tenancies and two signory though but one tenant and one  lord level ground be ac si be in dvobus but rule that he shall not do  homageagaine nay in the case of the king he shall not pay a second respect of  homage as upon grave and deliberate consideration it be resolve h and use  scaccarii as be there say accord and the reason be no other but because when a  man be swear to his lord he can be swear over again he have but one conscience  and the obligation of this oatli trench between the natural person of the  tenant and the natural person of the lord and certain the case of homage and  tenure and of homage liege which be one case be thing of a near nature save  that the one be much inferior to the other but it be good to behold these  great matter of state in case of low element as the eclipse of the sun be use  to be in a pail of water the three main argument contain certain suppose  inconvenience which may ensue of a general naturalize Self jure of which kind  three have be special remember the first be the lose of profit to the king  upon letter of denization and purchase of alien the second be the concourse of  Scottishmen into this kingdom to the enfeeble of that realm of Scotland in  people and the impoverish of this realm of England in wealth the three be that  the reason of this case stay not within the compass of the present case for  although it be some reason that Scottishmen be naturalize be people of the  same island and language yet the reason which we urge which be that they be  subject to the same king may be apply to person every way more estrange from  we then they be as if in future time in the king descendent there shall be a  match with Spain and the dominion of Spain shall be unite with the crown of  England by one reason say they all the west Indies shall be naturalize which  be people not only of one another soli but of one another Caeli to these  conceit of inconvenience how easy it be to give answer and how weak they be in  themselves I think no man that do attentive ponder they can doubt for how  small revenue can arise of such Denizations and how honourable it be for the  king to take escheat of his subject as if they be forreyners for seizure of  alien land be in regard the king have no hold or command of their person and  service every one may perceive and for the confluence of Scottishmen I think  we all conceive the spring tide be pass at the king first come in and yet we  see very few family of they throughout the city borough of England and for the  naturalize of the Indies we can ready help that when the case come for we can  make a act of parliament of separation if we like not their consort but these  be reason politic and not legal and we be not now in parliament but before a  judgement seat I will not meddle with they special since I have one answer  which avoid and confound all their objection in law which be that the very  self same objection do hold in country purchase by Conquest for in subject  obtain by Conquest it be more profit to indenizate by the Poll in subject  obtain by Conquest they may come in too fast and if king Henry have accept the  offer of Christopher Columbus whereby the crown of England have obtain the  Indies by conquest or occupation all the Indies have be naturalize by the  confession of the adverse part and therefore since it be confess that subject  obtain by Conquest be naturalize that all these objection be common and  indifferent as well to case of Conquest as case of descent these objection be  in themselves destroy and therefore to proceed now to overthrow that  distinction of descent and Conquest Plato say well the strong of all authority  be if a man can allege the authority of his adversary against he self we do  urge the confession of the other side that they confess the Irish be  naturalize that they confess the subject of the isle of Gersie and garnsey and  Barwick to be naturalize and the subject of Calais and tourney when they be  English be naturalize as you may find in the e in dyer upon the question put  to the judge by sir Nicholas Bacon lord keeper to avoid this they fly to a  difference which be new coin and be I speak not to the disadvantage of the  person that use it for they be drive to it tanquam and ultimum refugium but  the difference it self it be I say full of ignorance and error and therefore  to take a view of the support of this difference they allege four reason the  first be that country of Conquest be make parcel of England because they be  acquire by the arm and Treasure of England to this I answer that it be a very  strange argument that if I wax rich upon the manor of dale and upon the  revenue thereof purchase a close by it that it shall make that parcel of the  manor of dale but I will set this new learning on ground with a question or  case put for I oppose they that hold this opinion with this question if the  king shall conquer any foreign country by a Army compound of englishmen and  scottishmen as it be like whensoever war be so it will be I demand whether  this country conquer shall qe naturalize both in England and Scotland because  it be purchase by the joint arm of both and if yea whether any man will think  it reasonable that such subject be naturalize in both kingdom the one kingdom  not be naturalize towards the other these be the intricate consequence of  conceit a second reason they allege be that country win by Conquest become  subject to the law of England which country patrimonial be not and that the  law do draw the allegiance and allegiance naturalize but to the major  proposition of that argument touch the dependency of aliegeance upon law  somewhat have be already speak and full answer shall give when we come to it  but in this place it shall suffice to say that the minor proposition be false  that be that the law of England be not superinduce upon any country by  Conquest but that the old law remain un till the king by his proclamation or  letter patent declare other law and then if he will he may declare law which  be utter repugnant and differ from the law of England and hereof many ancient  precedent and record may be show that the reason why Ireland be subject to the  law of England be not Self jure upon conquest but grow by aCharter of king  John and that extend but to so much as be then in the king possession for  there areRecords in the time of king S and of diverse particular grant to  sundry subject of Ireland and their heir that they may use and observe the law  of England the three reason be that there be a politic necessity of  intermixture of people in case of subjection by Conquest to remove alienation  of mind to ax  the position which hold not in case of descent here I perceive  mr have read somewhat in matter of state and so have I likewise though we may  both quick lose ourselves in cause of this nature I find by the best opinion  that there be two mean to assure and retain in obedience country conquer both  very differ almost in extreme the one towards the other the one be by colony  and intermixture of people and transplantation of family which mr Walter speak  off and it be indeed the Roman manner but this be like a old relic much  reverence and almost never use but the other which be the modern manner and  almost whole in practice use be by garrison and citadelles and listen or  company of man of war and other like matter of terror and bridle to the first  of these which be little use it it true that naturalize do conduce but to the  latter it be utter opposite as put too great pride and mean to do hurt in  those that be mean to be keep short and low and yet in the very first case of  the Roman proceed naturalize do never follow by Conquest during all the growth  of the Roman empire but be ever confer by charter or donation sometime to city  and town sometime to particular person sometime to nation until the time of  Adrian the emperor and the law in orb Romano and that law or constitution be  not refer to title of Conquest and arm only but to all other title as by the  donation and testament of king by submission and dedition of state or the like  so as this difference be as strange to they as to we and certain I suppose it  will sound strange in the hear of foreign nation that the law of England shall  Self saint naturalize subject of Conquest and shall not naturalize subject  which grow unto the king by descent that be that it shall confer the benefit  and privilege of naturalize upon such as can at the first but bear hatred and  rancour to the state of England and have have their hand in the blood of the  subject of England and shall deny the like benefit to those that be conjoin  with they by a more amiable mean and that the law of England shall confer  naturalize upon slave and vassal for people conquer be no better in the  beginning and shall deny it to freeman I say it will be marvel at abroad of  what complexion the law of England be make that breed such difference but  there be little danger of such scandal for this be a difference that the law  of England never know the four reason of this difference be that in case of  Conquest the territory unite can never be separate again but in case of  descent there be a possibility if his majesty line shall fail the kingdom may  severe again to their respective heir as in the case of h where it be say that  if land descend to a man from the ancestor on the part of his father and a  rend issue out of it from a ancestor on the part of the mother if the party  die without issue the rend be revive as to this reason I know well the  continuance of the king line be no less deer to those that allege the reason  then to we that confute it so as I do not blame the pass of the reason but it  be answer with no great difficulty for first the law do never respect remote  and foreign possibility as noteably appear in the great case between sir Hugh  Cholmley and Houlford in the exchequer where one in the remainder to the end  to bridle tenant in tail from suffer a common recovery grant his remainder to  the king and because he will be sure to have it out again without charge or  trouble when his turn be serve he limit it to the king during the life of  tenant in tail question grow whether this grant of remainder be good yea or no  and it be say to be frivolous and void because it can never by any possibility  execute for tenant in tail can surrender and if he die the remainder likewise  cease to which it be answer that there be a possibility that it may execute  which be thus put case that tenant in tail shall enter into religion have no  issue then the remainder shall execute and the king shall hold the land during  the natural life of tenant in tail notwithstanding his civil death but the  court One vate explode this reason and say that monastery be down and entry  into religion go and they must be up again ere this can be and that the law do  not respect such remote and foreign possibility so we may hold this for the  like for I think we all hope that neither of those day shall ever come either  for monastery to be restore or for the king line to fail but the true answer  be that the possibility subseque remote or not remote do not alter the  surgical operation of law for the present for that shall be as if in case of  the rend which you put you shall say that in regard that the rend maybe sever  it shall be say to be in be in the mean time and shall be grantable which be  clear otherwise and so in the principal cafe if that shall be which God of his  goodness forbid to be remiss cause be remiss execution the benefit of  naturalize for the time to come be dissolve but that alter not the operation  of the law rebus such to stand and therefore I conclude that this difference  be but a devise full of weakness and ignorance and that there be one and the  same reason of naturalize subject by descent and subject by conquest and that  be the union in the person of the king and therefore that the of Scotland be  as clear as that of Ireland and they that grant the one can deny the other and  so I conclude the second part touch confutation to proceed therefore to the  prooses of our part your lordship can but know many of they must be already  spend in the answer which we have make to the objection for corruption One  generation of one another hold aswell in argument as in nature the destruction  of a objection beget a proof but neverthelefse I will avoid all iteration  least I shall seem either to distract your memory or to abuse your patience  but will hold my self only to these proof which stand substantial of  themselves and be not intermix with matter of confutation I will therefore  prove unto your lordship that the post born of Scotland be by the law of  England natrall and ought foe to be adjudge by three course of proof Bit upon  point of favour of law second upon reason and authority of law and last upon  former precedent example favour of law what mean I by that the law be equal  and favour not it be true not person but thing or matter it do favour be it  not a common principle that the law favour three thing life liberty dower and  what be the reason of this favour this because our law be ground upon the law  of nature and these three thing do flow from the law of nature preservation of  life natural liberty which every beast or bird seek and affect natural the  society of man and wife whereof dower be the reward natural it be well do the  law favour liberty so high as a man shall infranchise his bondman when he  think not of it by grant to he land or good and be the reason of it because  nature all man to be unconstrained and that servitude or villeinage do cross  and abridge the law of nature and do not the self same reason hold in the  present case for my lord by the law of nature all man in the world be  naturalize one towards another they be all make of one lump of earth of one  breath of God they have the same common parent nay at the first they be as the  scripture show One lip of one language until the curse which curse thank be to  God our present case be exempt from it be civil and national law that bring in  these word and difference of fellow citizen and Exterus alien Native and  therefore because they tend to abridge the law of nature the law favour not  they but take they strict even as our law have a excellent rule that custom of  town burrow shall be take and construe strict precise because they do abridge  and derogate from the law of the land so by the same reason all national law  whatsoever be to be take strict and hardly in any point wherein they abridge  and derogate from the law of nature whereupon I conclude that your lordship  can judge the law for the other side except the case be luce aloud and if it  appear to you but doubtful as I think no man in his right sense but will yield  it to be at least doubtful then ought your lordship under your correction be  it speak to pronounce for we because of the favour of the law furthermore as  the law of England must favour naturalize as a branch of the law of nature so  it appear manifest that it do favour it accord for be it not much to make a  subject naturalize by the law of England it shall suffice either place or  parent if he be bear in England it be matter no though his parent be Spaniard  or what you will on the other side if he be bear of English parent it skill  not though he be bear in Spain or in any other place of the world in such sort  do the law of England open her lap to receive in people to be naturalize which  indeed show the wisdom and excellent composition of our law and that it be the  law of a warlike and magnanimous nation sit for empire for look and you shall  find that such kind of estate have be ever liberal in point of naturalize  whereas merchant like and envious estate have be otherwise for the reason of  law join with authority I do first observe to your lordship that our assertion  or affirmation be simple and plain that it suffice to naturalize that there be  one king and that the party be born and if king agreeable to the definition of  Littleton which be alien be he which be bear out of the allegiance of our lord  the king they of the other side speak of respect and quoad and quatenus and  such subtlety and distinction to maintain therefore our assertion I will use  three kind of proof the first be that allegiance can be apply to the law or  kingdom but to the person of the king because the allegiance of the subject be  more large and spacious and have a great latitude and comprehension then the  law or the kingdom and therefore it can be a dependency of that without the  which it may of it self subsist the second proof which I will use be that the  natural body of the king have a operation and influence into his body politic  aswell as his body politic have upon his body natural and therefore that  although his body politic of king of England and his body politic of king of  Scotland be soverall and distinct yet nevertheless his natural person which be  one have a operation upon both and create aprivity between they and the three  proof be the bind text of five several statute for the first of these I shall  make it manifest that the allegiance be of a great extent and dimension then  law or kingdom and can confist by the law mere because it begin before law it  continue after law and it be in vigour where law be suspend and have not their  force that it be more ancient then law appear by that which be speak in the  beginning by way of inducement where I do endeavour to demonstrate that the  original age of kingdom be govern by natural equity that king be more ancient  then lawgiver that the first submission be simple and upon confidence to the  person of king and that the allegiance of subject to hereditary monarchy can  no more be say to consist by law then the obedience of child to parent that  allegiance continue after law I will only put the case which be remember by  two great judge in a great assembly the one of they now with God which be that  if a king of England shall be expalsed his kingdom and some particular subject  shall follow he in flight or exile in foreign part and any of they there shall  conspire his death that upon his rocoveryof his kingdom such a subject may by  the law of England be proceed with for treason commit and perpetrate at what  time he have no kingdom and in place where ethe law do not bind that  allegiance be in vigour and force where the power of law have a cessation  appear notable in time of war for silent law inter arms  and yet the  sovereignty and imperial power of the king be so far from be then extinguish  or suspend as contrariwsse it be raise and make more absolute for then he may  proceed by his supreme authority and martial law without observe formality of  the law of his kingdom and therefore whosoever speak of law and the king power  by law and the subject obedience or allegiance to law speak but of one half of  the crown for Bracton out of Justinian do true define the crown to consist of  law and arm power civil and martial with the latter whereof the law do not  intermeddle so as where it be much speak that the subject of England be under  one law and the subject of Scotland be under another law it be true at  Edinburgh or sterling or again in London or York but if englishmen and  Scottishmen meet in a Army royal before Calais I hope then they be under one  law so likewise not only in time of war but in time of peregrination if a king  of England travail or pass through foreign territory yet the allegiance of his  subject follow he as appear in that not able case which be report in where one  of the train of king Edward I as be pass through France from the holy land  embezzle some silver plate at parish and jurisdiction be demand of this crime  by the French king counsel at law and demand likewise by the officer of king  Edward ration personae and after much solemnity and contestation and  interpleading it be rule and determine for king Edward and the party try and  judge before the knight martial of the king house and hang after the English  law and execurion in saint germane meadow and so much for my first proof for  my second main proof that be draw from the true legal distinction of the king  several capacity for they that maintain the contrary opinion do in effect  destroy the whole force of the king natural capacity as if it be drown and  swallow up by his politic and therefore I will first prove to your lordship  that his two capacity be in no sort confound and second that as his capacity  politic work so upon his natural person as it make it differ from all other  the natural person of his subject so e turning his natural body work so upon  his politic as the corporation of the crown utter differ from all other  corporation within the realm for the first I will vouch you the very word  which I find in that notable case of the duchy where the question be whether  the grant of king Edward for duchy land shall be avoid in point of nonage the  case as your lordship know well be report by mr Plowden as the general  resolution of all the judge of England and the king learned counsel Ruswell  the solicitor only except there I find the say word comment fol there be in  the king not a body natural alone nor a body politic alone but a body natural  and politic together put corporat in corpore physical scientist corpus natural  in corpore material the like I find in the great case of the lord Berkeley set  down by the same reporter comment fol though there be in the king two body and  that those two body be conjoin yet be they by no mean confound the one by the  other now then to see the mutual and reciprocal intercourse as I may term it  or influence or communication of quality that these body have one upon the  other the body politic of the crown endue the natural person of the king with  these perfection that the king in law shall never be say to be within age that  his blood shall never be corrupt and that if he be attaint before the very  assumption of the crown purge it that the king shall not take but by matter of  record although he take in his natural capacity as upon a gift in tail that  his body in law shall be say to be as it be immortal for there be no death of  the king in law but a demise as it be term with many other the like privilege  and difference from other natural person too long to rehearse the rather  because the question labour not in that part but on the contrary part let we  see what oporations the king natural person have upon his crown and body  politic of which the chief and great be that it cause the crown to go by  descent which be a thing strange and contrary to the course of all corporation  which evermore take in succession and not by descent for no man can show I in  all the corporation of England of what nature soever whether they consist of  one person or of many or whether they be temporal or ecclesiastical any one  take to he and his heir but all to he and his successor and therefore here you  may see what a weak course that be to put case of bishop and parson and the  like and to apply they to the crown for the king take to he and his heir in  the manner of a natural body and the word successor be but superfluous and  where that be use that be ever due place after the word heir the king his heir  and successor again no man can deny but wife thread are nomina nature a  corporation can have no wife nor a corporation can have no son how be it then  that it be treason to compass the death of the queen or of the prince there be  no part of the body politic of the crown in either of they but it be entire in  the king so likewise we find in the case of the lord Berkeley the question be  whether the statute of h for that part which concern queen Katherine Pars  jointure be a public act or no of which the judge ought to take notice not be  plead and judge a public Act so the like question come before your lordship my  lord chancellor in sergeant heal case whether the statute of of Edward concern  the entail of the dukedom of Cornwall to the prince be a public Act or no and  rule likewise a public Act why no man can affirm but these be operation of law  proceed from the dignity of the natural person of the king for you shall never  find that another corporation whatsoever of a bishop or master of a college or  major of London work any thing in law upon the wife or son of the bishop or  the major and to conclude this point and withal to come near to the case in  question I will show you where the natural person of the king have not only a  operation in the case of his wife and child but likewise in the case of his  subject which be the very question in hand as for example I put this case can  a scottishman who be a subject to the natural person of the king and not to  the crown of England can a scottishman I say be a enemy by the law to the  subject of England or must he not of necessity if he shall invade England be a  rebel and no enemy not only as to the king but as to the subject or can any  letter of Marte or reprisal be grant against a scottishman that shall spoil a  Englishmans good at sea and certain this case do press exceed near the  principal case for it prove plain that the natural person of the king have  such a communication of quality with his body politic as it make the subject  of either kingdom stand in another degree of privity one towards the other  then they do before and so much for the second proof for the five act of  parliament which I speak of which be conclude to this question the first of  they be that concern the banishment of Hugh Spencer in the time of king Edward  in which act there be contain the charge and accusation whereupon his exile  proceed one article of which charge be set down in these word homage and oath  of the subject be more by reason of the crown then by reason of the person of  the king so that if the king do not guide himself by reason in right of the  crown his liege be bind by their oath to the crown to remove the king by which  act do plain'y appear the perilous consequence of this distinction concern the  person of the king and the crown and yet I do acknowledge justice and  ingeruously a great difference between that assertion and this which be now  maintain for it be one thing to make thing distinct another thing to make they  separable other be distinction other separation and therefore I assure my self  that those that now use and urge that diftinction thou as firm hold that the  subjection to the king person and to the crown be inseparable though distinct  as I do and it be true that the poison of the opinion assertion of Spencer be  like the poison of a scorpion more in the tail then in the body for it be the  inference that they make which be that the king may be depose or remove that  be the treason and dislayalty of that opinion but by you leave the body be  rever a whit the more wholesome mere for have such a tail belong to it  therefore we see that be locus slippery a opinion from which a man may ealy  slide into a absurdity but upon this act of parliament I will only note one  circumstance more and so leave it which may add authority unto it in the  opinion of the wise and that be that these Spencer be not ancient noble or  great patriot that be charge and prosecute by upstart and favourite for then  that may be say that it be but the action of some flatterer who use to extol  the power of monarch to be infinite but it be contrary a prosecution of those  person be favourite by the nobility so as the nobility themselves which seldom  do subscribe to the opinion of a infinite power of monarch yet even they can  not endure but their blood do rise to hear that opinion that subjection be owe  to the crown rather then to the person of the king the second Act of  parliament which determine this case be the act of recognition in the first  year of his majesty wherein you shall find that in two several place the one  in the preamble the other in the body of the Act the parliament do recognise  that these two realm of England and Scotland be under one imperial crown the  parliament do not say under one monarchy or king which may refer to the person  but under ono imperial crown which can be apply but to the sovereign power of  regiment comprehend both kingdom and the three act of parliament be the Act  make in the four year of his majesty reign for the abolition of hostile law  wherein your lordship shall find likewise in two place that the parliament do  acknowledge that there be a union of these two kingdom already begin in his  majesty person so as by the declaration of that act they have not only one  king but there be a union in inception in the kingdom themselves these two be  judgement in parliament by way of declaration of law against which no man can  speak and certain these be righteous and true judgement to be rely upon not  only for the authority of they but for the verity of they for to any that  shall well and deep weigh the effect of law upon this conjunction it can but  appear that although part integrales of the kingdom as the philosopher speak  such as the law the officer the parliament be not yet commix yet nevertheless  there be but one and the self same fountain of sovereign power depend upon the  ancient submission whereof I speak in the beginning and in that sense the  crown and the kingdom be true say to be unite and the force of this truth be  such that a grave and learned gentleman that defend the contrary opinion do  confess thus far that in ancient time when monarchy as he say be but heap of  people without any exact from of policy that the naturalize and communication  of privilege do follow the person of the Monarch but otherwise since state be  reduce to a more exact from so as thus far we do consent but still I differ  from he in this that those more exact from wrought by time and custom and law  be nevertheless still upon the first foundation and do serve only to perfect  and corroborate the force and bind of the first submission and in no sort to  disanullor destroy it and therefore with these two act do I likewise couple  the Act of Edward which have be allege of the other side for by collate of  that Act with this former too the truth of that we affirm will the more  evident appear accord unto the rule of reason opposing juxta see situation  to greater extent to shine forth that act of be a act of separation these two  act former recite be act tend to union this Act be a act that make a new law  it be by the word of grant and establish these two act declare the commonlaw  as it be be by word of recognition and confession and therefore upon the  difference of these law you may fubstantially ground this position that the  commonlaw of England upon the adjunction of any kingdom unto the king of  England do make some degree of union in the crown and kingdom themselves  except by a special Act of parliament they be dissever last the Act of  parliament which I promise be the Act make in the of e cap which be express  decision of the point in question the word be item upon the petition put into  parliament by the Commons that infant bear beyond the sea in the signory of  Calais and elsewhere within the land and signory that pertain to our sovereign  lord the king beyond the sea be as able and inheritable of their heritage in  England as other infant bear within the realm of England it be accord that the  commonlaw and the statute former make be hold upon this Act I infer thus much  first that such as the petition mention be naturalize the practice show then  if so it must be either by commonlaw or statute for so the word report not by  statute for there be no other statute but of e and that extend to the case of  birth out of the king obedience where the parent be English ergo it be by the  commonlaw for that only remain and so by the declaration of this statute at  the commonlaw all infant bear within the land and signory for I give you the  very word again that pertain to our sovereign lord the king it be not say as  be the dominion of England be as able and inheritable of their heritage in  England as other infant bear within the realm of England what can be more  plain and so I leave statute and go to precedent for though the one do bind  more yet the other sometime do satisfy more for precedent in the produce use  of that kind of proof of all other it behoof they to be faithful vouch for the  suppress or keep back of a circumstance may change the case and therefore I be  determine to urge only such precedent as be without all colour or scruple of  exception or objection even of those objection which I have to my think full  answer confute this be now by the providence of God the four time that the  line and king of England have have dominion signory unite unto they as  patrimony and by descent of blood four union I say there have be inclusive  with this last the first be of Normandy in the person of William common call  the conqueror the d be of gascoigne and Guienne and Anjou in the person of  king Henry the d in his person I say though by several title the be of the  crown of France in the person of king Edward the three and the that of the  kingdom of Scotland in his majesty of these I will set aside such as by any  cavillation can be except unto first I will set aside Normady because it will  be say that the difference of country accrueing by conquest from country annex  by descent in matter of communication of privilege hold both way as well of  the part of the conquer kingdom as the conquer and therefore that although  Normandy be not conquest of England yet England be a conquest of Normandy and  so a communication of privilege between they again set aside France for that  it will be say that although the king have a title in blood and by descent yet  that title be execute and recover by arm so as it be a mix title of conquest  descent and therefore the precedent not so clear there remain then gascoigne  Anjou and that precedent likewise I will reduce and abridge to a time to avoid  all question for it will be say of they also that after they be lose and  recover in over gladii that the ancient title of blood be extinct that the  king be in upon his new title by conquest mr Walter have find a book case in  of h abridge by mr Fitzherbert Herbert in title of protection plea where a  protection be cast way to make headway in gasconiam with the earlo of  Huntingdon and challenge because it be not a voyage royal the justice  thereupon require the sight of the commission which be bring before they  purport power to pardon Felouies treason power to coin money power to conquer  they that resist whereby m Walter find the word conquest collect that the king  title at that time be repute to be by Conquest wherein I may not omit to give  obiter that answer which law and truth provide namely that when any king  obreyneth by war a country whereunto he have right by birth that he be ever in  upon his ancient right not upon his purchase by Conquest and the reason be  that there be as well a judgement and recovery by war and arm as by law and  course of justice for war be a tribunal seat wherein God give the judgement  the trial be by battle or duel as in the case of trial of private right and  then it follow that whosoever come in by eviction come in his remitter so as  there will be no difference in country whereof the right come by descent  whether the possession be obtain peaceable or by war but yet nevertheless  because I will utter take away all manner of evasion subterfuge I will yet set  apart that part of time in and during the which the subject of gascoigne  guyenne may be think to be subdue by a reconquest and therefore I will not  meddle with the prior of shellies case though it be a excellent case because  it be in that time of e neither will I meddle with any case record or  precedent in the time of king h or king h for the same reason but will hold my  self to a portion of time from the first unite of these province in the time  of king h until the time of king John at what time those province be lose and  from that time again unto the year of the reign of king Edward at what time  the statute of proerogativa funeral pyre be make which alter the law in the  point in hand that both in these time the subject of gascoyn and guyenne and  Anjou be naturalize for inheritance in England by the law of England I shall  manifest prove and the proof proceed as to the former time which be our case  in a very high degree a those inferior in rank and majus and as we say a much  strong for if this privilege of naturalize remain unto they when the country  be lose and become subject in possession to another king much more do they  enjoy it as long as they continue under the king subjection therefore to open  the state of this point after these province be through the perturbation of  the state in the infortunate time ofK John lose and sever the principal person  which do adhere unto the French be attaint of treason and their efcheats here  in England take and seize but the people that can not resist the tempest when  their head and leader be revolt continue inheritable to their possession in  England and reciprocal the people of England inherit and succeed to their  possession in gascoigne and be both account and faith a bag of hide king until  the statute of Proerogativa king wherein the wisdom and justice of the law of  England be high to be commend for of this law there be two ground of reason  the one of equity the other of policy that of equity be because the common  people be in no fault but as the scripture say in a like case quid to make  sheep iftoe it be the cowardice and disloyalty of their governor that deserve  punishmet butwhat have these sheep do and therefore to have punish they and  deprive they of their land fortune have be unjust that of policy be because if  the law have forthwith upon the lose of the country by a accident of time  pronounce the people for alien it have be a kind of session of their right and  a diselaymer in they and so a great difficulty to recover they page duplicate  page duplicate and therefore we see the statute which alter the law in this  point be make in the time of a weak king that as it seem despair ever to  recover his right and therefore think better to have a little present profit  by escheat then the continuance of his claim and the countenance of his right  by the admit of they to enjoy their inheritance as they do before the state  therefore of this point be thus open it rest to prove our assertion that they  be naturalize for the clear whereof I shall needs but to read the authority  they be so direct and pregnant the first be the very text of the statute of  tribe which voted first king king to have escaetas de terris Normannorum  pron. interrog. fee to be salvo slavery quoth to stretch out and capital lord  fee that hoc similiter to come to know be si largely heir to climb down some  born in birth beyond sea pron. interrog. antecefsores to be and faith king  France ut tempore king John non and faith king England as to touch de baronia  Monumetae c by which statute it appear plain that before the time of king John  there be no colour of any Escheare because they be the king subject in  possession as Scotland now be but only it determine the law from that time  forward this statute if it have in it any obscurity it be take away by two  light the one place before it and the other place after it both author of  great credit the for ancient the other for late time the former be in his cap  de exception lib fol and his word be these be now too other exceptie who  to hold competitex mask to strive for near diminution nation who delaying be  nonperimit act ut si qnis stranger who to be and faith king France act  to put in place versus  once who to be and faith king England tali  nonrespondeatur at least while terrae to be communes by these word it appear  that after the lose of the province beyond the sea the naturalize of the  subject of those province be in no sort extinguish but only be in suspense  during time of war and no long for he say plain that the exception which we  call plea to the person of alien be not peremptory but only dilatory that be  to say during the time of war and until there be peace conclude which he term  by these word while terrae to be communes which though the phrase seem  somewhat obscure be expound by Bracton himself in his four book fol to be of  peace make and conclude whereby the inhabitant of England and those province  may enjoy the profit and fruit of their land in either place in common that be  respective or as well the one as the other so as it be clear they be no alien  in right but only interrupt and debar of suit in the king court in time of war  the authority after the statute be that of master stamford's the best  expositor of a statute that have be in our law a man of reverend judgement  excellent order in his write his word be in his exhibition  upon the branch of  that statute which we read before by this branch it shall appear that at this  time man of Normandy gascoigne Guienne Anjou and Britain be inheritable within  this realm aswell as englishmen because that they be sometime subject to the  king of England and under their dominion until king John time as be aforesaid  yet after his time those man save such who land be take away for treason be  still inheritable within this realm till the make of this statute and in the  time of peace between the two king of England and France they be answerable  within this realm if they have bring any action for their land and tenement so  as by these three authority every one so plain pursue the other we conclude  that the subject of gascoigne Guienne Anjou and the rest from their first  union by descent until the make of the statute of tribe which voted first king  be inheritable in England and to be answer in the king court in all action  except it be in time of war nay more which be de abundant that when the  province be lose and disannexed and that the king be but king de jure over  they and not de facto yet nevertheless the privilege of naturalize continue  there rest yet one objection rather plausible to a popular understanding then  any way forcible in law or learning which be a difference take between the  kingdom of Scotland and these duchy for that the one be a kingdom and the  other be not so and therefore that those province be of a inferior nature do  acknowledge our law and seal and parliament which the kingdom of Scotland do  not this difference be well give over by mr Walter for it be plain that a  kingdom and absolute dukedom or any other sovereign estate do differ honor and  not potestate for diverse duchy and country that be now be sometime kingdom  and diverse kingdom that be now be sometime duchy or of other inferior style  wherein we needs not travail abroad since we have in our own state so  notorious a instance of the country of Ireland whereof king h of late time be  the first that writ himself king the former style be l of Ireland and no more  and yet king have the same authority before that they have have since and the  same nation the same mark of a sovereign state as their parliament their arm  their coin as they now have so as this be too superficial a allegation labour  upon and if any do conceive that gascoigne and guyenne be govern by the law of  England first that can be in reason for it be a true ground that wheresoever  any prince Title unto any country be by law he can never change the law for  that they create his Title and therefore no doubt those duchy retain their own  law which if they do then they can not be subject to the law of England and  next again the fact or practice be otherwise as appear by all consent of story  and record for those duchy continue govern by the civil law their trial by  witresses and not by jury their land testamentary and the like now for the  colour that some have endeavour to give that they shall have be subordinate to  the government of England they be partly weak and partly such as make strong  against they for as to that that writ of habeas corpus under the great seal of  England have go to gascoigne it be no manner of proof for that the king writ  which be mendatory and not writ of ordinary justice may go to his subject into  any foreign part whatsoever and under what seal it please he to use and as to  that that some act of parliament have be cite wherein the parliament of  England have take upon they to order matter of gascoigne if those statute be  well look into nothing do more plain convince the contrary for they  intermeddle with nothing but that that concern either the English subject  personal or the territory of England local and never the subject of gascoigne  for look upon the statute of of Edward can there it be say that there shall be  no before stasting of wine but by who only by English merchant not a word of  the subject of gascoigne and yet no doubt they mighr be offender in the same  kind so in the six chapter it be say that all merchant Gascoyoes may safe  bring wine into what part it shall please they here now be the person of  gascoynes but then the place whether into the realm of England and in the Chap  that erect the port of bordeaux and Bayonne for the staple town of wine the  statute ordain that if any but who English merchant or his servant shall buy  or bargain other where his body shall be arrest by the steward of gascoigne or  the constable of bordeaux true for the officer of England can not catch he in  gascoigne but what shall become of he shall he be proceed with within  gascoigne no but he shall be send over into England into the tower of London  and this do notable disclose the reason of that custom which some have seek to  wrest the other way that custom I say whereof a from do yet remain that in  every parliament the king do appoint certain committee in the Upper house to  receive the petition of Normandy guyenne and the rest which as by the former  statute do appear can not be for the order of the government there but for the  liberty and good usage of the subject of those part when they come hither or  way line for the restrain of the abuse and misdemeanour of our subject when  they go thither wherefore I be now at a end for we to speak of the mischief I  hold it not fit for this place leave we shall seem to bend the law to policy  and not to take they in their true and natural sense it be enough that every  man know that it be true of these two kingdom which a good father say of the  church of Christ si inseparable insurmountable some thing I may have forget  and some thing perhaps I may forget Willing for I will not press any opinion  or declaration of late time which may prejudice the liberty of this debate but  ex speech ex non speech upon the whole matter I prove judgement for the  plaintiff