Selected quad for the lemma: england_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
england_n	britain_n	king_n	lord_n	2,548	5	3.9339	3	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

of England is highly to be commended For of this law there are two grounds of reason The one of equity The other of policy That of Equity was because the common people were in no fault but as the Scripture saith in a like case quid fecerunt oves iftoe It was the cowardise and disloyalty of their Governours that deserved punishmēt butwhat had these sheep done and therefore to have punish't them and deprived them of their lands fortunes had bin unjust That of policy was because if the law had forthwith upon the losse of the Countreyes by an accident of time pronounced the people for Aliens it had been a kind of Cession of their right and a diselaymer in them and so a greater difficulty to recover them And therefore we see the Statute which altered the law in this point was made in the time of a weake king that as it seemed despaired ever to recover his right and therefore thought better to have a little present profit by escheats then the continuance of his claime and the countenance of his right by the admitting of them to enjoy their inheritances as they did before The State therefore of this point being thus opened it resteth to prove our assertion that they were naturalized for the clearing whereof I shall need but to reade the authorities they be so direct and pregnant The first is the very text of the Statute of Praerogativa Regis Rex habebit escaetas de terris Normannorum cujuscunque feodi fuerint salvo servitio quod pertinet ad capitales dominos feodi illius hoc similiter intelligendum est si aliqua haereditus descendat alicui nato in partibus transmarinis cujus antecefsores fuerunt ad fidem Regis Franciae ut tempore Regis Iohannis non ad fidem Regis Angliae sicut contigit de Baronia Monumetae c. By which Statute it appeares plainly that before the time of King Iohn there was no colour of any Escheare because they were the kings Subjects in possession as Scotland now is but onely it determines the Law from that time forward This Statute if it had in it any obscurity it is taken away by two lights the one placed before it and th'other placed after it both authors of great credit the 〈◊〉 for antient th' other for late times The former is 〈◊〉 in his Cap. de exception 〈…〉 lib. 5. fol. 427. and his words are these Est etiam alia exceptie quae tenenti competitex persona petentis propter defectum Nationis quae dilatoria est nonperimit actionem ut si qnis alienigena qui fuerit ad fidem Regis Franciae actionem instituat versus aliquem qui fuerit ad fidem Regis Angliae tali nonrespondeatur saltem donec terrae fuerint communes By these words it appeareth that after the losse of the Provinces beyond the Seas the Naturalization of the Subjects of those Provinces was in no sort extinguished but onely was in suspence during time of warre and no longer for he saith plainly that the exception which we call plea to the person of Alien was not peremptory but onely dilatory that is to say during the time of war and untill there were peace concluded which hee tearmes by these words donec terrae fuerint communes which though the phrase seeme somewhat obscure is expounded by Bracton himselfe in his fourth booke fol. 297. to be of peace made and concluded whereby the Inhabitants of England and those Provinces might enjoy the profits and fruits of their lands in either place communiter that is respectively or as well the one as th'other so as it is cleere they were no Aliens in right but onely interrupted and debarred of Suites in the Kings Courts in time of Warre The authority after the Statute is that of Master Stamfords the best Expositor of a statute that hath bin in our law a man of reverend judgment excellent order in his writings his words are in his expositiō upon the branch of that statute which we read before By this branch it should appeare that at this time men of Normandy Gascoyne Guienne Anjou and Brittaine were inheritable within this Realme aswell as English-men because that they were sometimes Subjects to the Kings of England and under their Dominion untill K. Johns time as is aforesaid yet after his time those men saving such whose lands were taken away for treason were still inheritable within this Realme till the making of this Statute and in the time of peace betweene the two Kings of England and France they were answerable within this Realme if they had brought any action for their Lands and Tenements So as by these three authorities every one so plainly pursuing th' other we conclude that the subjects of Gascoyne Guienne Anjou and the rest from their first union by descent untill the making of the Statute of praerogativa Regis were inheritable in England and to be answered in the Kings Courts in all actions except it were in time of warre Nay more which is de abundante that when the Provinces were lost and disannexed and that the King was but King de jure over them and not de facto Yet neverthelesse the priviledge of naturalization continued There resteth yet one objection rather plausible to a popular understanding then any waies forcible in law or learning which is a difference taken between the Kingdome of Scotland and these Dutchies for that the one is a Kingdome and th' other was not so and therefore that those Provinces being of an inferiour nature did acknowledge our Lawes and Seales and Parliament which the Kingdome of Scotland doth not This difference was well given over by Mr. Walter for it is plaine that a Kingdome and absolute Dukedome or any other Soveraigne estate doe differ honore and not potestate For divers Dutchies and Countries that are now were sometimes Kingdomes and divers kingdomes that are now were sometimes Dutchies or of other inferiour Style wherein we neede not travaile abroad since we have in our owne state so notorious an instance of the Countrey of Ireland whereof King H. 8. of late time was the first that writ himselfe King the former Style being L. of Ireland and no more and yet Kings had the same authority before that they have had since and the same Nation the same marks of a Soveraigne State as their Parliaments their Armes their Coynes as they now have so as this is too superficiall an allegation labour upon And if any doe conceive that Gascoyne and Guyenne were governed by the Lawes of England First that cannot be in reason for it is a true ground that wheresoever any Princes Title unto any Countrey is by Law he can never change the Lawes for that they create his Title and therefore no doubt those Dutchies retained their owne Lawes which if they did then they could not be subject to the Lawes of England And next againe the fact or practize was otherwise as appeareth by all consent of Story and Record For those Dutchies continued governed by the Civill Law their tryalls by witresses and not by Jurie their lands Testamentary and the like Now for the colours that some have endeavoured to give that they should have beene subordinate to the government of England they were partly weake and partly such as make strongly against them for as to that that writs of Habeas corpus under the great Seale of England have gone to Gascoyne it is no manner of proofe for that the Kings writs which are mendatory and not writs of ordinary Justice may goe to his Subjects into any forraine parts whatsoever and under what Seale it pleaseth him to use and as to that that some Acts of Parliament have beene cited wherein the Parliaments of England have taken upon them to order matters of Gascoyne if those Statutes be well looked into nothing doth more plainly convince the contrary for they intermeddle with nothing but that that concerneth either the English Subjects personally or the territories of England locally and never the Subjects of Gascoyne for looke upon the Statute of 27. of Ed. 3. ca. 5. there it is said That there shall be no fore-stasting of Wines but by whom onely by English Merchants not a word of the Subjects of Gascoyne and yet no doubt they mighr be offenders in the same kind So in the sixt Chapter it is said That all Marchants Gascoyoes may safely bring Wines into what part it shall please them here now are the persons of Gascoynes but then the place whether● into the Realme of England and in the 7. Chap. that erects the Ports of Burdeaux and Bayonne for the staple Townes of wine the Statute Ordaines that if any but who English Marchant or his Servants shall buy or bargaine other where his body shall be arrested by the Steward of Gascoyne or the Constable of Burdeaux true for the Officers of England could not catch him in Gascoyne but what shall become of him shall he be proceeded with within Gascoyne No but he shall be sent over into England into the Tower of London And this doth notably disclose the reason of that custome which some have sought to wrest the other way that custome I say whereof a forme doth yet remaine that in every Parliament the King doth appoint certaine Committees in the Upper-House to receive the Petitions of Normandy Guyenne and the rest which as by the former Statute doth appeare could not be for the ordering of the governments there but for the liberties and good usage of the Subjects of those parts when they came hither or via versa for the restraining of the abuses and misdemeanors of our Subjects when they went thither Wherefore I am now at an end For us to speake of the mischiefes I hold it not fit for this place left we should seeme to bend the Lawes to policy and not to take them in their true and naturall sense It is enough that every man knowes that it is true of these two Kingdomes which a good Father said of the Churches of Christ Si inseparabiles insuperabiles Some things I may have forgot and some things perhaps I may forget willingly for I will not presse any opinion or declaration of late time which may prejudice the liberty of this debate but ex dictis ex non dictis upon the whole matter I prove Judgement for the Plaintiffe

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