CASK OK TIII l I OST-NATI or SCOTLAND. I . I I 



tried, I hold it not worth the answering; Tor the 

 * Venire facias&quot; .shall jjo either where the natural 

 hirtli is laid, although it ho hut hy fiction, or if it ho 

 laid according to the Irutli, it shall he died where 

 the action i.s brought, otherwise you fall upon a 

 main rock, that hreaketh your argument in pieces ; 

 for how should the birth of nn Irishman bo tried, or 

 of n Jersey man ? nay, how should the birth of a sub 

 ject be tried, that is horn of Kn^lish parents in Spain 

 or Florence, or any part of the world ? For to all 

 these the like objection of trial may be made, 

 because they are within no countries : and this 

 receives no answer. And therefore 1 will now pass 

 on to the second main argument. 



It is a rule of the civil law, say they, &quot; Cum duo 

 &quot; jura,&quot; &e. when two rights do meet in one person, 

 there is no confusion of them, but they remain still 

 in the eye of law distinct, as if they were in several 

 persons : and I bey brinj^ examples of one man bishop 

 of two sees, or one parson that is rector of two 

 churches. They say this unity in the bishop or I IK 

 rector doth not create any privity between the 

 parishioners or diocescncrs, more than if there wero 

 several bishops, or several parsons. This rule I 

 allow, as was said, to be a rule not of the civil law 

 only but of common reason, but reeeiveth no forced 

 or coined hut a true and sound distinction or limi 

 tation, which is, that it evermore faileth and do- 

 ceiveth in cases where there is any vigour or 

 operation of the natural person ; for generally in 

 corporations the natural body is but &quot; suindcimentum 



