of other nations where they resided. Why were not the Scotch and English united in like manner into one people?
A. King James at his first coming to the crown of England did endeavour it, but could not prevail. But for all that, I believe the Scots have now as many privileges in England as any nation had in Rome, of those which were so as you say made Romans. For they are all naturalized, and have right to buy land in England to themselves and their heirs.
B. It is true of them, that were born in Scotland after the time that King James was in possession of the kingdom of England.
A. There be very few now that were born before. But why have they a better right that were born after, than they that were born before?
B. Because they were born subjects to the King of England, and the rest not.
A. Were not the rest born subjects to King James? And was not he King of England?
B. Yes, but not then.
A. I understand not the subtilty of that distinction. But upon what law is that distinction grounded? Is there any statute to that purpose?
B. I cannot tell; I think not; but it is grounded upon equity.
A. I see little equity in this: that those nations that are bound to equal obedience to the same King, should not have equal privileges. And now seeing there be so very few born before King James’s coming in, what greater privilege had those ingrafted Romans by their naturalization in the state of Rome, or in the state of England the English themselves, more than the Scots?
B. Those Romans, when any of them were in Rome, had their voice in the making of laws.
A. And the Scots have their Parliaments, wherein their assent is required to the laws there made, which is as good. Have not many of the provinces of France their several
