162 CASE OF THE POST-NATI OF SCOTLAND. 



Nay, more, which is &quot; de abundanti,&quot; that when the 

 provinces were lost, and disannexed, and that the 

 king was but king &quot; de jure&quot; over them, and not 

 &quot; de facto ;&quot; yet nevertheless the privilege of na 

 turalization continued. 



There resteth yet one objection, rather plausible 

 to a popular understanding than any ways forcible 

 in law or learning, which is a difference taken 

 between the kingdom of Scotland and these duchies, 

 for that the one is a kingdom, and the other was 

 not so ; and therefore that those provinces being of 

 an inferior nature, did acknowledge our laws, and 

 seals, and parliament, which the kingdom of Scotland 

 doth not. 



This difference was well given over by Mr. Walter; 

 for it is plain that a kingdom and absolute dukedom, 

 or any other sovereign estate do differ &quot; honore,&quot; and 

 not &quot; potestate :&quot; for divers duchies and countries 

 that are now, were sometimes kingdoms : and divers 

 kingdoms that are now, were sometimes duchies, or 

 of other inferior stile : wherein we need not travel 

 abroad, since we have in our own state so notorious 

 an instance of the country of Ireland, whereof king 

 H. VIII. of late time, was the first that writ himself 

 king, the former stile being lord of Ireland, and no 

 more; and yet kings had the same authority before, 

 that they have had since, and the same nation the 

 same marks of a sovereign state, as their parliaments, 

 their arms, their coins, as they now have : so as this 

 is too superficial an allegation to labour upon. 



And if any do conceive that Gascoigne and 



