CASE OF THE POST-NATI OF SCOTLAND. 125 



in the material and concluding place, that is to say, 

 children whose parents were at the time of their 

 birth at the faith and obeisance of the king of Eng 

 land. So that it is manifest by this indifferent and 

 promiscuous use of both phrases, the one proper, the 

 other improper, that no man can ground any infer 

 ence upon these words without danger of cavillation. 

 The second statute out of which they infer, is a 

 statute made in 32 Hen. VIII. touching the policy of 

 strangers tradesmen within this realm. For the par 

 liament finding that they did eat the Englishmen out 

 of trade, and that they entertained no apprentices 

 but of their own nation, did prohibit that they should 

 receive any apprentice but the king s subjects. In 

 which statute is said, that in nine several places there 

 is to be found this context of words, &quot; aliens born 

 &quot; out of the king s obedience ;&quot; which is pregnant, 

 say they, and doth imply that there be aliens born 

 within the king s obedience. Touching this infer 

 ence, I have heard it said, &quot; qui hceret in litere, 

 &quot; hceret in cortice ;&quot; but this is not worthy the name 

 of &quot; cortex,&quot; it is but &quot; muscus corticis, the moss of 

 the bark. For it is evident that the statute meant 

 to speak clearly and without equivocation, and to a 

 common understanding. Now then there are aliens 

 in common reputation, and aliens in precise con 

 struction of law ; the statute then meaning not to 

 comprehend Irishmen, or Jerseymen, or Calaismen, 

 for explanation-sake, lest the word alien might be ex 

 tended to them in a vulgar acceptance, added those 

 further words, &quot; born out of the king s obedience.&quot; 



