CASE O*F THE POST-NATI OF SCOTLAND. 127 



was now united in right with the tenancy of Nor 

 mandy, and that England, in regard of the conquest, 

 might be taken as a perquisite to Normandy, they 

 had probable reason to fear that the kingdom of 

 England might be drawn to be subject to the realm 

 of France. The other fear, that England might 

 become subject to the king as king of France, grew 

 no doubt of this foresight, that the kings of England 

 might be like to make their mansion and seat of 

 their estate in France, in regard of the climate, 

 wealth, and glory of that kingdom ; and thereby the 

 kingdom of England might be governed by the 

 king s mandates and precepts issuing as from the 

 king of France. But they will say, whatsoever the 

 occasion was, here you have the difference authorised 

 of subjection to a king generally, and subjection to 

 a king as king of a certain kingdom : but to this 

 I give an answer threefold : 



First, it presteeth not the question ; for doth any 

 man say that a &quot; post-natus&quot; of Scotland is na 

 turalized in England, because he is a subject of the 

 king as king of England ? No, but generally because 

 he is the king s 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 between 

 crown 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 crowns in 

 some degree, by virtue of the union of the king s 



