Selected quad for the lemma: england_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
england_n	france_n	king_n	sovereign_a	2,743	5	8.9902	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A71317	Three speeches of the Right Honorable, Sir Francis Bacon Knight, then his Majesties Sollicitor Generall, after Lord Verulam, Viscount Saint Alban. Concerning the post-nati naturalization of the Scotch in England union of the lawes of the kingdomes of England and Scotland. Published by the authors copy, and licensed by authority.	Bacon, Francis, 1561-1626.	1641 (1641)	Wing B337; ESTC R17387	32,700	73

they be of English Parents continuing at that time as liege Subjects to the King and having done no act to forfeit the benefit of their allegeance are ipso facto naturalized Nay if a man looke narrowly into the Law in this point he shall find a consequence that may seeme at the first strange but yet cannot well be avoided which is that it divers Families of English-men and women plant themselves at Middleborough or at Roane or at Lysoone and have issues and their deseendents doe intermarry amongst themselves without any intermixture of forraine blood such descendents are naturalized to all generations for every generation is still of liege Parents and therefore naturalized So as you may have whole tribes and lineages of English in forraine Countries And therefore it is utterly untrue that the Law of England cannot operate of conferre naturalization but onely within the bounds of the Dominions of England To come now to their inferences upon Statutes The firstis out of this Statute which J last recyted In which Statute it is said that in foure severall places there are words borne within the allegeance of England or againe borne without the allegeance of England which say they applies the allegeance to the Kingdome and not to the person of the King To this the answer is easie for there is not trope of speech more familiar then to use the place of addition for the person So we say commonly the lyne of Yorke or the lyne of Lancaster for the lynes of the Duke of Yorke or the Duke of Lancaster So we say the possessions of Sommerset or Warmick intending the possessions of the Dukes of Sommerset or Earles of Warmick So we seeEarles signe Salisbury Northampton for the Earles of Salisbury or Northampton And in the very same manner the Statute speakes allegeance of England for allegeance of the King of England Nay more if there had been no variety in the penning of that Statute this collect on had had a little more force for those words might have beene thought to have been used of purpose and in propriety but you may find in three other severall places of the same Statute Allegeange and obeysance of the King of England and specially in the materiall and concluding place that is to say children whose Parents were at the time of their birth at the faith and obeysance of the King of England so that is manifest by this indifferent and indifferent use of both Phrases the one proper the other unproper that no man can ground any inferēce upon these words without danger of cavillation The second Statute out of which they inferre is a Statute made in 32. of H. 8. ca. touching the policy of strangers trades men within this Realme For the Parliament finding that they did eate the Englishmen out of trade and that they entertained no Apprentizes but of their o vne Nation did prohibite that they should receive any Apprentize but the Kings Subjects In which Statute is said that in 9. severall places there is to be found this context of words Aliens 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Kings obedience which is pregnant say they and doth imply that there bee Aliens borne within the Kings obedience Touching this inference I have heard it said Q●i haeret in litera baeret in cortice but this is not worthy the name of Cortex it is but muscus 〈◊〉 the mosse of the barke For it is evident that the Statute meant to speake clearely and without equivocation and to a common understanding Now then there are aliens in common reputation aliens in precise construction ofLaw The Statute then meaning not to comprehend Irish-men or Ge●sie-men or Calize-men for explanation sake left the word alien might be extended to them in a vulgar acceptance added those further words borne out of the Kings obedience Nay what if we should say that those words according to the received Lawes of Speech are no words of difference or limitation but of declaration or description of an alien as if it had beene said with a videlicet aliens that is such as are borne out of the Kings obedience they cannot put us from that construction But sure I am if the barke make for them the pyth makes for us for the Priviledge or liberty which the Statute meanes to deny to Aliens of entertaining Apprentizes is denyed to none borne within the Kings obedience call them Aliens or what you will And therefore by their reason a post-Natus of Scotland shall by that Statute keepe what stranger Apprentizes he will and so is put in the degree of an English The third Statute out of which inference is made is the Statute of 14. E. 3. ca. solo which hath been said to be our very case and I am of that opinion too but directly the other way therefore to open the scope and purpose of that Statute After that the title to the Crowne of France was devolute to K. E. 3. that he had changed his Stile changed his Armes changed his Seale as his Majestie hath done the Subject of England saith the Statute conceived a feare that the Realme of England might become subject to the Realme of France or to the K. as K. of France And I will give you the reasons of the double feare that it should become subject to the Realme of France they had this reason of feare Normandy had conquered England Normandy was feudall of France therefore because the superiour Seignery of France was now united in right with the Tenancy of Normandy and that England in regard of the conquest might be taken as a perquisite to Normandy they had propable reason to feare that the Kingdome of England might be drawne to be subject to the Realme of France The other feare that England might become subject to the K. as K. of France grew no doubt of this fore-sight that the Kings of England might be like to make their mansion and seate of their estate in France in regard of the Climate wealth and glory of that Kingdome and thereby the Kingdome of England might be governed by the Kings mandates and precepts issuing as from the King of France But they will say what soever the occasion was here you have the difference authorised of subjection to a K. generally and subjection to a King as K. of a certaine Kingdome but to this I give an answer three-fold First it preffeth not the question for doth any man say that a Post-natus of Scotland is naturalized in England because he is a subject of the King as K. of England No but generally because he is the K. Subject Secondly the scope of this Law is to make a distinction between Crown and Crown But the scope of their argument is to make a difference betweene Crowne and person Lastly this Statute as I said is our very case retorted against them for this is a direct Statute of separation which presupposeth that the Common Law had made an union of the Crownes

in some degree by vertue of the vnion in the Kings person ● if this statute had 〈◊〉 beene made to stop crosse the course of the common Law in that point as if Scotland now should be suitors to the King that an Act might passe to like effect and upon like feare And therefore if you will make good your distinction in this present case shew us a Statute for that But I hope you can shew no Statute of separation betweene England and Scotland And if any man say that this was a Statute declaratory of the Cōmon Law he doth not marke how that is penned for after a kind of Historicall declaration in the Preamble that England was never subject to France the body of the Act is penned thus The King doth grant and establish which are words meerly introductive novae legis as if the King gave a Charter of Franchise and did invest by a Donative the Subjects of England with a new Priviledge or exemption which by the Cōmon Law they had not To come now to the booke-cases which they put which I will couple together because they receive one joynt answere The first is 42. of E. 3. fo. where the booke saith exception was taken that the plaintife was borne in Scotland at Rosse out of the allegeance of England The next is 22. H. 6. fo. 38. Adrians Case where it is pleaded that a woman was borne at Burgis out of the allegeance of England The third is 13. Eliz. Dyer fo. 300 where the case begins thus Doctor Story qui notorie dignoscituresse subditus regni Angliae In all these three say they that is pleaded that the party is subject of the Kingdome of England and not of the King of England To these bookes I give this answer that they be not the Pleas at large but the words of the Reporter who speakes compendiously and narrative and not according to the solemne words of the pleading If you find a case put that it is pleaded a man was seized in Fee simple you will not inferre upon that that the words of the pleading were in fe●do simplici but sibi haeredibus suis But shew mee some president of a pleading at large of Natus sub legeantia Regni Angliae for whereas Mr. VValter said that pleadings are variable in this point he would faine bring it to that but there is no such matter For the pleadings are constant and uniforme in this point they may vary in the word fides or legeantia or obedientia and some other circumstances but in the forme of Regni and Regis they vary not neither can there as J am perswaded be any one instance shewed forth to the contrary See 9. Eliz. 4. Baggots Assize f. 7. where the pleading at large is entred in the booke There you have alienigena natus extra legeantiam domini Regis Angliae See the presidents in the Booke of Entries Pl. 7. and two other places for there be no more and there you shall find still sub legeantia domini Regis or extra legeantiā Domini Regis And therefore the formes of pleading which are things so reverend and are indeed towards the Reasons of the Law as Palma and Pugnus conteyning the Reason of the Law opened or unfolded or displayed they makeall for us And for the very words of Reporters in bookes you must acknowledge and say Ilicet obruimur numera for you have 22 Ass. Pl. 25. 27. 〈◊〉 the Pryor of Ske●●es case Pl. 48. 14. H. 4. f. 19. 3. H. 6. f. 35. 6. H. 8. in my Lord Dyer fol. 2. In all these bookes the very words of the Reporters have the allegeance of the King and not the allegeance of England And the booke in the 24. of Eltz. 3. which is your best booke although while it is tossed at the Bar you have sometimes the word allegeance of England yet when it comes to Thorpe chiefe Iustice to give the rule he faith we will be certified by the Role whether Scotland be within the allegeance of the King Nay that further forme of pleading beateth downe your opinion That it sufficeth not to say that he is borne out of the allegeance of the King and stay there but he must shew in the affirmative under the allegeance of what King or state he was borne The Reason whereof cannot be because it may appeare whether he be a friend or an enemy for that in a reall action is all one not it cannot be because issue shal be taken thereupon for the issue must arise on the other side upon indigena pleaded and traversed And therefore it can have no other reason but to apprise the court more certainly that the countrey of the birth is none of those that are subject to the King As for the tryall that it should be impossible to de tryed I hold it not worth the answering for the ovenire facias shall goe either where the naturall birth is laid although it be but by fiction or if it be laid according to the truth it shal be tryed where the action is brought otherwise you fall upon a maine Rock that breaketh your Argument in pieces for how should the birth of an Irish-man be tryed or of 2 Gersie man Nay how should the birth of a subject be tryed that is borne of English Parents in Spain or Florence or any part of the world for to all these the like objection of tryall may be made because they are within no Counties and this receives no answer And therefore I will now passe on to the second maine Argument It is a rule of the Civill Law say they cum duo jura c. when two rights doe meete in one person there is no confusion of them but they remain still in eye of law distinct as if they were in severall persons and they bring examples of one man Bishop of two Seas or one person that is Rector of two Churches They say this unity in the Bishop or the Rector doth not create any privity between the Parishioners or Dioceseners more then if there were severall Bishops or severall Parsons This rule I allow as was said to be a Rule not of the Civill Law onely but of common reason but receiveth no forced or coyned but a true and sound distinction or limitation which is that it evermore faileth and deceiveth in cases where there is any vigor or operation of the naturall person for generally in coporations the naturall body is but suffulcimentum corporis corporati it is but as a stock to uphold and beare out the corporate body but otherwise it is in the case of the Crown as shall be manifestly proved in due place But to shew that this rule receiveth this distinction I will put but two cases The statute of the 21. Hen. 8. ordaineth that a Marquesse may retaine sixe Chaplaines qualified a Lord Treasurer of England foure a Privie Counsellour three The Lord Treasurer Paulet was Marqueffe of Winchester Lord

can a Scottishman who is a Subject to the naturall person of the King and not to the Crowne of England can a Scottishman I say be an enemy by the Lavv to the Subjects of England or must he not of necessity if he should invade England be a Rebell and no enemy not onely as to the King but as to the Subject Or can any Letters of Marte or reprisall be granted against a Scottishman that should spoyle an English-mans goods at Sea and certainly this case doth presse exceeding neere the principall case for it prooveth plainly that the naturall person of the King hath such a communication of qualities with his body politique as it makes the Subjects of either Kingdomes stand in another degree of privity one towards the other then they did before And so much for the second proofe For the five Acts of Parliament which I spoke of which are concluding to this question The first of them is that concerning the banishment of Hugh Spencer in the time of King Ed. 2. In which act there is contained the charge and accusation whereupon his exile proceeded One Article of which charge is set downe in these words Homage and Oath of the Subject is more by reason of the crowne then by reason of the person of the King So that if the King doth not guide himselfe by reason in right of the Crowne his lieges are bound by their oath to the Crowne to remoove the King By which act doth plain'y appeare the perilous consequence of this distinction concerning the person of the King and the Crowne And yet J doe acknowledge Justice and ingeruously a great difference betweene that assertion and this which is now maintained for it is one thing to make things distinct another thing to make them separable Aliud est distinctio aliud separatio and therefore J assure my selfe that those that now use and urge that diftinction dee as firmely hold that the subjection to the Kings person and to the Crowne are inseparable though distinct as I doe And it is true that the poyson of the opinion assertion of Spencer is like the poyson of a Scorpion more in the taile then in the body For it is the inference that they make which is that the King may be deposed or removed that is the treason and dislayalty of that opinion But by you leave the body is never a whit the more wholesome meare for having such a tayle belonging to it therefore we see that is Locus lubricus an opinion from which a man may ea●ly slide into an absurdity But upon this act of Parliament I will onely note one circumstance more and so leave it which may adde authority unto it in the opinion of the wisest and that is that these Spencers were not ancient nobles or great Patriots that were charged and prosecuted by upstarts and favourites for then that might be said that it was but the action of some flatterers who use to extoll the power of Monarches to be infinite but it was contrary a prosecution of those persons being favourites by the Nobility so as the Nobility themselves which seldome doe subscribe to the opinion of an infinite power of Monarches Yet even they could not endure but their blood did rise to heare that opinion that subjection is owing to the Crowne rather then to the person of the King The second Act of Parliament which determined this case is the act of recognition in the first yeare of his Majestie wherein you shall find that in two severall places the one in the Preamble the other in the body of the Act the Parliament doth recognize that these two Realmes of England and Scotland are under one Imperiall Crowne The Parliament doth not say under one Monarchie or King which mought referre to the person but under ono Imperiall Crowne which cannot be applyed but to the Soveraigne power of Regiment comprehending both Kingdomes And the third act of Parliament is the Act made in the fourth yeare of his Majesties Raigne for the abolition of hostile Lawes wherein your Lordships shall find likewise in two places that the Parliament doth acknowledge that there is an union of these two Kingdomes already begun in his Majesties person So as by the declaration of that act they have not onely one King but there is an union in inception in the Kingdomes themselves These two are Judgements in Parliament by way of declaration of Law against which no man can speake And certainly these are righteous and true Iudgements to be relyed upon not onely for the authority of them but for the verity of them for to any that shall well and deeply weigh the effects of Law upon this conjunction it cannot but appeare that although partes integrales of the Kingdome as the Philosophers speake such as the Lawes the Officers the Parliament are not yet commixed yet neverthelesse there is but one and the selfe-same fountaine of soveraigne power depending upon the ancient submission whereof I spake in the beginning and in that sense the Crownes and the Kingdomes are truly said to be united And the force of this truth is such that a grave and learned Gent. that defended the contrary opinion did confesse thus farre That in ancient times when Monarchies as he said were but heapes of people without any exact forme of policy that the Naturalization and communication of Priviledges did follow the person of the Monarch But otherwise since States were reduced to a more exact forme So as thus farre we did consent but still I differ from him in this that those more exact formes wrought by time and custome and Lawes are neverthelesse still upon the first foundation and doe serve onely to perfect and corroborate the force and bond of the first submission and in no sort to disanullor destroy it And therefore with these two acts doe J likewise couple the Act of 14. Ed. 3. which hath beene alleadged of the other side For by collating of that Act with this former too the truth of that we affirme will the more evidently appeare according unto the rule of reason Opposita juxta se posita magis elucescunt That act of 14. is an act of separation These two Acts formerly recited are Acts tending to union This Act is an act that maketh a new Law it is by the words of grant and establish these two Acts declare the common law as it is being by words of Recognition and Confession And therefore upon the difference of these lawes you may fubstantially ground this position That the Common-law of England upon the adjunction of any Kingdome unto the King of England doth make some degree of union in the Crownes and Kingdomes themselves except by a speciall Act of Parliament they be dissevered Lastly the 5. Act of Parliament which I promised is the Act made in the 42. of E. 3. cap. ● 10. which is expresse decision of the point in question The words are Item upon the Petition put