A learned commendation of the politique lawes of Englande vvherin by moste pitthy reasons & euident demonstrations they are plainelye proued farre to excell aswell the ciuile lawes of the Empiere, as also all other lawes of the world, with a large discourse of the difference betwene the. ii. gouernements of kingdomes: whereof the one is onely regall, and the other consisteth of regall and polityque administration conioyned. written in latine aboue an hundred yeares past, by the learned and right honorable maister Fortescue knight ... And newly translated into Englishe by Robert Mulcaster.

The Ciuile lawes decre that the yssue euer fo∣loweth the wōbe, that is to saye, the mother. As for example, yf a bōd wo¦man be marryed to a fre¦man, theyr issue shalbe bond. And contrarywise if a bonde man marrie a free woman, he begetteth none but free children But the lawe of Englād neuer iudgeth the issu to folowe the mothers con∣dicion, but alwaye the fa∣thers. So that a free man begetteth free children as¦well of a bonde woman as of a free woman: and a bōde mā in wedlock cā beget nōe other but bōd

childrē. Whether of these lawes is better thynke you in theier sentences. It is a cruell lawe which without offēce subdueth the free mans chylde to bōdage. And no lesse cru∣eltie is to be thought in y^e lawe, whiche without a∣nye deserte oppresseth the free womās chylde with bōdage. Yet the Ciuiliās saye that y^e Ciuile lawes in these their iudgemēts do excell. For an euil tree saye they can not brynge furthe good fruites, nor a good tree beare euyll fruites. And by the cōsēt of all lawes it is agreed that euery plante yeldeth to the nature of y^e groūde wherein it is planted the chylde also hath muche more certeī & sure know∣lege of y^e mother thē of y^e

father, Whereunto the lawyers of Englande aū¦swer on this wyse: That a child laufully begotten hathe no more certein and sure knowlege of y^e mother then of the father For bothe these laws th{us} disagreeynge, agree yet in this poynte, that he is the father, whō wedlock declareth. And is it not then more conuenient y^t the condicion of the childe should haue relation ra∣ther to the fathers condi∣cion, then to the mothers. Seynge that Adam spea∣kīge of marryed couples, sayde▪ They shalbe ii. in one fleshe. which our lord expoundynge in the ghos¦pell sayethe: Nowe are they not ii. but one fleshe And forsomuch as y^e mal’ as more worthi cōteineth the

female, then the whole flesh so vnited must haue relation to the male as to the worthyer. wherefore the lorde called Adam & Eue not by the name of Eue, but because they were bothe one fleshe, he called them bothe in the name of Adam the man, as it apeareth in y^e fifthe chapter of genesis. The Ciuile lawes also holde that women do euer glis∣ter with the shyenynge beames of their husbāds Wherefore in the title begynnynge withe these wordes: Qui se prosessione excusant, in y^e nynth boke L. fi. the text sayeth thus. we auaunce women w^t the honoure of their hus∣bandes, and with the kī∣red of their husbādes we worshippe thē: in y^e court

we decree matters to passe in the name of their husbandes, & into y^e house and surname of their hus¦bandes do we translate them. But if afterward a woman marrye with a man of baser degree, thē leseth she her former dig¦nitie, and foloweth the cō¦diciō of her latter husbād And forsomuche as all children, specially male children bear the fathers name, & not the mothers, whereof then shoulde it cōe, that y^e sonne by reasō of the mother should lese the honour, or chaunge the condiciō of the father whose nāe neuerthelesse he shall styll keepe. Speci¦ally seeynge the mother herself receaueth of the same father honour, wor¦shippe, & dignitie. which honour, worshippe, and

dignitie of the husbande cā neuer be disteined or īpeached through y^e fault of the wyfe. Truely that lawe may well bee de∣med cruell, which with out any cause cōmittethe to bondage the free mās sonne, and which disheri∣tinge the innocent sonne of the īnocent free father adiudgeth his lāde to an vnworthie straunger: whiche also withe y^e base state of bōdage in y^e sōne defaceth the name of the free father. Cruell also of necessite must that lawe be compted, which aug∣menteth thraldom, and diminisheth libertie or freedom. For libertie is y^e thinge that mās nature euer coueteth. For by mā & for synne did bondage first enter. But free∣dome is graffed in mans

nature of god. whereof if men be depriued, he is e∣uer disierous to recouer y^e same agayne, lyke as all other thinges do that are spoiled of their naturall libertie. wherefore wyc∣ked and cruell is he to be deemed that fauoureth not libertie. which thīges the lawes of England duely consydering, do in all respectes shew fauour to libertie. And thoughe the same lawes iudge hī thrall, whom a bounde∣man ī wedlock begetteth of a free womā, yet here by cā not these lawes be reputed seuere and cruel For a woman which by mariage hath submitted herself to a boundeman, is made one fleshe withe him. wherefore, as y^e for∣said lawes determine, she

foloweth the state of his conditiō, and of her owne free wyll hathe made her selfe a bonde womā, not forced thereto by the law muche lyke to such as in kynges courtes become bondemen, or sell thēselfs into bondage without a∣ny compulsiō at all. And howe then can the lawe determine that childe to be free, whom suche a mo¦ther hathe thus borne. For the husband can ne∣uer be in so much subiec∣tion to his wyfe, thoughe she be a right greate la∣dye, as this womā is sub¦iect to the bondeman, whom she hathe made her lorde: insomuche as y^e lorde sayeth to al wifes Thou shalt be vnder the power of thy husbonde, & he shall haue dominion ouer thee. And what is it

that these Ciuilians saye of the fruite of a good or euyll tree. Is not eue∣rye wyfe of a fre or thral condition accordynge to y^• state of her husbād And in whose ground hathe y^t husbande planted, while his wyfe is one fleshe w^t him. Not in his owne? And what thē if he haue graffed a slyppe of a swete nature ī a stock of a sower tree: So y^t y^e tre be his owne, shall not the fruites, thoughe they eū sauer of the stocke, be his owne fruites? So the childe which the wyfe ba¦reth is the husbandes is∣sue, whether the wyfe be free or thrall. Howbeit y^e lawes of England de∣cree that if a bonde wo∣man without the cōsēt of

her lorde bee maryed to a free man, though they can not be deuorced, beecause the ghospell saieth, whom god hathe conioyned let not man seperate, yet shal her lorde recouer agaynst the same free man all the dammages that hee hathe susteyned by reason of the losse of his vassall or bond woman. This nowe as I suppose is the somme and fourm of the law of Eng∣lande in the case nowe de∣clared, What therefore is your opinion most excellēt prince in the same case?

And whether of these two lawes doe you esteeme to be of more worthinesse & excellencye.