CASE OF THE POST-NATI OF SCOTLAND. 149 



duly placed after the word, heirs, &quot; the king, his 

 &quot; heirs, and successors.&quot; 



Again, no man can deny but &quot; uxor et films sunt 

 &quot; nomina naturae.&quot; A corporation can have no wife, 

 nor a corporation can have no son : how is it then 

 that it is treason to compass the death of the queen 

 or of the prince ? There is no part of the body politic 

 of the crown in either of them, but it is entirely in 

 the king. So likewise we find in the case of the 

 lord Berkley, the question was, whether the statute 

 of 35 Henry VIII. for that part which concerned 

 queen Catharine Par s jointure, were a public act or 

 no, of which the judges ought to take notice, not 

 being pleaded ; and judged a public act. So the 

 like question came before your lordship, my lord 

 Chancellor, in serjeant Heale s case : whether the 

 statute of 11 Edward III. concerning the entailing 

 of the dukedom of Cornwall to the prince, were a 

 public act or no ; and ruled likewise a public act. 

 Why ? no man can affirm but these be operations of 

 law, proceeding from the dignity of the natural per 

 son of the king ; for you shall never find that another 

 corporation whatsoever of a bishop, or master of a 

 college, or mayor of London, worketh any thing in 

 law upon the wife or son of the bishop or the mayor. 

 And to conclude this point, and withal to come near 

 to the case in question, I will shew you where the 

 natural person of the king hath not only an operation 

 in the case of his wife and children, but likewise in 

 the case of his subjects, which is the very question in 

 hand. As for example, I put this case : Can a 



