Selected quad for the lemma: life_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
life_n	grant_v	tail_n	tenant_n	4,330	5	10.6160	5	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

the Minor proposition is false that is that the Lawes of England are not superinduced upon any Countrey by Conquest but that the old Lawes remaine untill the King by his Proclamation or Letters pattents declare other Lawes and then if he will hee may declare Lawes which be utterly repugnant and differing from the Lawes of England And hereof many antient Presidents and Records may be shewed that the Reason why Ireland is subject to the Lawes of England is not ipso jure upon conquest but grew by aCharter of K. John and that extended but to so much as was then in the Kings possession For there areRecords in the time of King S. 1 and 2 of divers particular Grants to sundry Subjects of Ireland and their Heires that they might use and observe the Lawes of England The third Reason is that there is a politique necessity of intermixture of people in case of subjection by Conquest to remove alienations of mind to securo the Stato which holdeth not in case of descent Here I perceive Mr. 〈◊〉 hath read somewhat in matter of State and so have I likewise though we may both quickly lose ourselves in cause of this Nature I find by the best opinions that there bee two meanes to assure and retaine in obedience Countreyes conquered both very differing almost in extreames the one towards the other The one is by Colonies and intermixture of people and transplantation of families which Mr. Walter spoke off and it was indeed the Romane manner but this is like an old relique much reverenced and almost never used But th'other which is the modern manner and almost wholly in practice use is by Garrisons and Citadelles and Lists or Companies of men of Warre and other like matters of terrour and bridle To the first of these which is little used it it true that naturalization doth conduce but to the latter it is utterly opposite as putting too great pride and meanes to do hurt in those that are meant to be kept short and low And yet in the very first case of the Romane proceeding Naturalization did never follow by Conquest during all the growth of the Romane Empire but was ever conferred by Charters or Donations sometimes to Cities and Townes sometimes to particular persons sometimes to Nations untill the time of Adrian the Emperour and the Law in Orbe Romano and that Law or constitution is not referred to title of Conquest and Armes onely but to all other titles as by the Donation and Testament of Kings by submission and dedition of States or the like So as this difference was as strange to them as to us And certainly I suppose it will sound strangely in the hearing of forreigne Nations that the law of England should ipso sacto naturalize subjects of Conquest and should not naturalize Subjects which grow unto the King by descent that is that it should conferre the benefit and priviledge of naturalization upon such as cannot at the first but beare hatred and rancor to the state of England and have had their hands in the bloud of the Subjects of England and should deny the like benefit to those that are conjoyned with them by a more amiable meane And that the law of England should conferre naturalization upon slaves and vassals for people conquered are no better in the beginning and should deny it to Free-men I say it will be marvelled at abroad of what complexion the lawes of England bee made that breedeth such differences But there is little danger of such scandals for this is a difference that the law of England never knew The fourth reason of this difference is that in case of Conquest the territory united can never be separated againe But in case of descent there is a possibility if his Majesties line should faile the Kingdomes may severe againe to their respective heires as in the case of 8. H. 6. where it is said that if Land descend to a man from the Ancestor on the part of his Father and a rent issuing out of it from an Ancestor on the part of the mother if the party dye without issue the Rent is revived As to this Reason I know well the continuance of the Kings line is no lesse deare to those that alleadge the reason then to us that confute it So as I doe not blame the passing of the reason but it is answered with no great difficulty for first the law doth never respect remote and forrein possibilities as noteably appeared in the great case betweene Sir Hugh Cholmley and Houlford in the Exchequer where one in the remainder to the end to bridle tenant in tayle from suffering a common recovery granted his remainder to the King and because he would be sure to have it out again without charge or trouble when his turne was served he limitted it to the King during the life of tenant in tayle Question grew whether this grant of remainder were good yea or no And it was said to be frivolous and void because it could never by any possibility execute for tenant in tayle cannot surrender and if he dyed the remainder likewise ceased To which it was answered that there was a possibility that it might execute which was thus Put case that tenant in tayle should enter into Religion having no issue then the remainder should execute and the King should hold the land during the naturall life of tenant in tayle notwithstanding his civill death But the Court una vate exploded this reason and said that Monasteries were downe and entries into Religion gone and they must be up againe ere this could be and that the Law did not respect such remote and forreine possibilities so we may hold this for the like For I think we all hope that neither of those days shall ever come either for Monasteries to be restored or for the K. line to faile but the true answer is that the possibility subsequēt remote or not remote doth not alter the operatiō of law for the present For that should be as if in case of the Rent which you put you should say that in regard that the rent maybe severed it should be said to be in esse in the meane time and should be grantable which is cleerely otherwise And so in the principall cafe if that should be which God of his goodnesse forbid cessante causa cessat effectus the benefit of naturalization for the time to come is dissolved But that altereth not the operation of the Law Rebus sic stantibus And therefore I conclude that this difference is but a devise full of weaknesse and ignorance and that there is one and the same reason of naturalizing subjects by descent and subjects by conquest and that is the union in the person of the King and therefore that the 〈◊〉 of Scotland is as cleere as that of Ireland and they that grant the one cannot deny the other And so I conclude the second part touching confutation To