Linguistic DNA - Concept Modelling Demonstrator

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
country_n	england_n	king_n	normandy_n	1,568	5	11.0951	5	false

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A69269	The speech of the Lord Chancellor of England, in the Eschequer Chamber, touching the post-nati	Egerton, Thomas, Sir, 1540?-1617.	1609 (1609)	STC 7540.5; ESTC S100270	40,281	132

sometimes a more large Extension For hee that is an Alien borne out of the kings Dominions vnder the obedience of another king if hee dwell in England and be protected by the king and his Lawes hee oweth to the king the duetie of Allegeance and so hee is Ligatus Regi and Ligeus Regis and if hee commit treason the Indictment shall bee contra ligeantiae suae debitum as it was in Shirley the French-mans Case yet is hee not the Kings subiect for hee was not borne Ad fidem Regis But this is not that Ligeance which wee must finde For in a true and lawfull subiect there must bee Subiectio fides obedientia and those cannot bee seuered no more than true Faith and Charitie in a true Christian And hee that hath these three Ã natiuitate is Ligeus Regis and can not bee a Stranger or Alien to the King or in his Kingdomes And that it is so may be proued by the Rule of the other two interpretations of Lawe That is Analogica Practica King Iames hath now the Kingdomes of England Scotland and Ireland and the Isles of Gernsey and Iersey by discent all these bee his Dominions and vnder his subiection and obedience King Henry the second had England and Normandy by discent from his mother Mawd the Empresse and Aniow and Maine by discent from his father Geffery Plantagenet and Ireland by conquest Henry the third had England and Ireland by discent from his Grand-father Henry the second and Aquitany by discent from his Grand-Mother Queene Elenor wife to King Henry the second and daughter to the duke of Aquitany Edward the first had all the same by discent and parte of Scotland by Conquest Edward the second and Edward the third had all the same by discent also and besides Edward the third claimed all France by discent from his mother Queene Isabell and had the most part of it in possession and so had Henry the fift and Henry the sixt also Now if in these kings times subiectes borne in those Countries being then vnder their obedience vvere no Aliens but capable of landes in England And if at this time subiects borne in IrelaÌ„d or Gernsey and Iersey be no Aliens but capable of lands in England then by an Analogicall interpretation why should not subiectes borne in Scotland be at this time in like degree For in proportion and in likenesse and conueniencie there can bee no difference at all But whether the subiects borne in those Countries in the time of those kings vvere then capable of lands in England as naturall subiects or were deemed Aliens is the Question and therein Interpretatio practica is to bee considered and so the Case is brought to be examined per similia And in Diuinitie Praxis sanctorum est interpres praeceptorum Now then the Question is Whether the kings Subiects of England and Scotland that be Post-nati may be resembled to the Kings subiects of Ireland and the Isles of Gernesey c. as now they bee and to the subiectes of Normandie Aniow and Gascoyne and parte of Scotland in former times when the same were the Dominions and vnder the obedience of the King of England for I speake alwaies and would be vnderstoode of kingdomes and dominions in possession and vnder obedience and not of those whereunto the King hath right but hath no possession or obedience I houlde that in all points materiall concerning this Question they are alike though not in all things for then it were Idem and not Simile and this can not bee better vnderstoode than by examining the Obiections to the contrary which in substance may bee reduced to foure in number First for Ireland it was gotten by Conquest and the Conquerour may impose what Lawes hee will vpon them But it is otherwise of kingdomes comming by discent This is a conceipted difference and lacks the foundation of Reason and hath not the true parts of a difference for those that are borue in Ireland and those that are borne in Scotland are all alike for their birth within the Kings Dominions and are borne vnder the like subiection and obedience to the King and haue the like bond Nay euen the same bond of Allegiance That is they are borne Ad fidem Regis Besides where it is said The Conquerour may impose what Lawes hee will Then consider how it was in the Interim before King Iohn gaue lawes to Ireland Nay which is more I aske whether the Conquerour of Ireland can giue new lawes to England and make Irish men to bee as naturall borne subiectes in England if their birth-right doe not giue it them which before the Conquest they were not for that is properly the Question But if any difference bee the Case of descent is the stronger For as Iustice Yeluerton saide that is by an vndoubted Title made by lawe the other by a doubtfull Title wonne by the Sword But leaue Ireland gotten by Conquest vvhat say you to the great kingdome of France which Edward the third had first in right by lawfull descent and after in possession by triumphant Conquest and vvhich Henry the sixt held after in possession by descent Was euer doubt made Whether the subiects borne there so long as it vvas in subiection and obedience to the King vvere capable of landes in England I vvill now turne the Case and aske an other Question If King Iames our Soueraigne had first beene King of England by lavvfull descent as novv hee is and after Scotland had descended vnto him should not the Subiects of Scotland I speake still of Post-nati haue beene iudged as Naturall subiects in England as those of France were in Edward the thirds time Then he hauing now both kingdomes by lineall true and lavvfull descent it can make no difference touching the capacitie of Subiects vvhich kingdome descended to him first and vvhich second but both are to him alike And it is cleere Post-nati in England are now capable and inheritable in Scotland though some haue made a causelesse and needelesse doubt of it and so on the other side those of Scotland are in England It is said Normandie and Aquitanie were no monarchies or kingdomes but dukedomes or seigniories in France and holden of the Crowne of France and therefore not to bee resembled to Scotland which is an ancient and absolute kingdome This Obiection reacheth not to the reason of our Question For bee they kingdomes bee they Seigniories yet the subiectes borne there were borne out of the kingdome of England and so in that respect Aliens But in that they were borne within the kings dominions and vnder his subiection and obedience they were no Aliens but liege and naturall borne subiectes to the King and so capable and inheritable in England I say besides the Dukes of Normandie and Aquitany were absolute Princes and had soueraigne power in those countries although they did not beare the name of kings as at

will spare to speake vvhat I thinke For Chrysostome teacheth mee Qui laudatur infacie flagellatur in corde In seeking out this depth of Reason the same Author giueth a caution which is this Vitium quod in hoc genere fugi debet est ne si RationeÌ„ non inuenias mox legem sine ratione esse clames And in 36. H. 6. Fortescue saieth the same in effect which is thus We haue many Courses and Formes which bee houlden for Lawe and haue beene houlden and vsed because of Reason and notwithstanding the reason be not ready in memory yet by study and labour a man may finde it Now when wee come to examine by reason whether Post-nati in Scotland shall be disabled as Aliens or shall be capable of lands in England as naturall borne subiects there wee are first to consider vvhat is the reason whie Aliens in the Dominions and vnder the obedience of other forraine Princes are nor capable of landes in England And surely the true reason is that which was noted by baron Altham and hath since beene ofte remembred viz. The danger that might thereby come to the king and the common-weale Specially by drawing hither too great multitudes of them for so the Treasure of the Realme might bee transported by them into other forraine Kingdomes and Countries whereby it might bee vsed against the King and to the preiudice of the State And besides they might vnder-hand practise Sedition and Rebellion in the kingdome and cause many other daungers and inconueniences but that reason cannot serue against Post-nati in Scotland now that there is but one King of both the kingdomes no more than it can serue against those that are borne in Ireland or Gernesey or Iersey and therefore in reason they are as capable of landes in England as the kings subiects of Ireland and Gernesey and Iersey are Against this there haue also beene many Obiections made and Reasons deuised that seeme witty and haue some shew of probability to proue that Post-nati in Scotland are Aliens and ought not in reason to bee capable of landes in England videlicet 1. That England and Scotland were two ancient seuerall kingdomes vnder seuerall kings and seuerall crownes 2. That they continue yet seueral kingdomes 3. That they haue yet seuerall Lawes seuerall Seales seuerall Crownes and seuerall Kings For it is said though king Iames be king of both and hath but one naturall body yet in iudgement of Law he is in respect of his two seuerall kingdomes as two seuerall kings and the subiects of ech seuerall kingdome are bound to him by distinct allegeance according to the seuerall Lawes of the kingdome where they were borne And all this is grounded vpon this rule or fiction in Lawe Quando duo iura concurrunt in vna persona aequum est ac si essent in diuersis And vpon this ground is this new form of pleading deuised which the Defendants haue vsed in this Case such as cannot be found in any Record euer to haue beene pleaded before and may as well serue against the Kinges subiectes of Ireland as against the Post-nati of Scotland And sithence in former times the like forme of pleading vvas neuer seene against any of the Kings of Englandes subiects which were borne in any of his dominions out of England as in Normandie or Aquitanie or in France I meane such part of it as was in the Kinges possession and in subiection and obedience to him and not in that parte of France which his enemies helde it may be probably inferred That it was then generally houlden that neither such a forme of pleading nor the Matter it selfe was sufficient in Lavve to disable anie such Plaintife for against French-men that vvere not vnder the Kings obedience wee finde it often pleaded And as those that were not subiects to the King nor borne vnder his obedience did then presume to bring suites and actions in England So it can not bee thought but that the king hauing then so large and ample Dominions beyond the Seas as Normandy and Aquitany and many other partes of France some of his subiects borne there had cause to haue and did bring the like suites in England And sithence no such Plea is found to haue beene then vsed against them it can not in Lawe and Reason bee now allowed against the Post-nati in Scotland For I may say as Ascue saied in 37. H. 6. Our Predecessors were as sage and learned as we be And I see not but that in this Case a good Argument may bee reasonably deduced from the Negatiue as it was in the Case reported by the great learned and most graue and reuerend Iudge sir Iames Dyer chiefe Iustice of the Common pleas Anno 23. Elizab. The Question there was Whether an erroneous iudgement giuen in Rie which is a member of the Cinqueportes might bee reuersed in the kinges Bench or Common place at Westminster And it was thus resolued Sed pro eo quod nulluÌ„ tale breue in Registro nec in aliquibus Praecedentibus curiarum praedictaruÌ„ inueniri potuerat dominus Cancellarius Bromley per opinionem Capitalium Iusticiariorum vtriusque Banci denegauit tale breue concedere And so Iustice Fenners argument houldeth well viz. There is in this Case no lawe to exclude the Complainant Ergo hee is a liege and a naturall borne subiect But the forme of pleading in the time of king Ed. 1. in Cobledickes case which was cited out of Hengam and the Booke shewed heere by the Lord chiefe Iustice Coke is so direct and plaine for this our Question as nothing can be more plaine and therefore I thinke it not amisse to report it againe That Case was in effect and substaunce thus A woman brought a Writte of Ayel against Roger Cobledicke and declared of the seisin of Roger her Grand-father and conueied the discent to Gilbert her father and from him to the Demaundant as his daughter and heire The Tenant pleaded that the Demaundant was a French-woman and not of the ligeance nor of the fidelitie of England and demaunded iudgement if shee ought to haue the action against him This plea vvas houlden to bee insufficient and thereupon the tenant amended his plea and pleaded further That the Demaundant was not of the ligeance of England nor of the fidelitie of the King and demaunded iudgement c. And against that plea none exception was taken but thereupon the Demaundant prayed licence to depart from her Writ By this it appeareth plainely that the first plea alleadging that she was a French-woman and not of the ligeance nor of the fidelitie of England was insufficient and so declared by Berreford the chiefe Iustice For there can bee no fidelitie nor allegeance due to England respecting the land and soile without a Soueraigne and King But the second Plea alledging that shee was not of the ligeance of England nor of the fidelitie of the King was good and sufficient For to the King fidelitie and

Selected quad for the lemma: country_n

Text snippets containing the quad