Yea, in France its not lawful to shoot wt the gun in another mans ground; so that if a man take another guning in his ground, he usualy takes the gun from him and breaks over his shoulders.  If he can hinder a man to shoot in his ground, much more may be hinder him to hunt, since the on is more praeiudicial to him then the others; for its done wt greater noice, also does more damnage to the cornes or wines.

What might be the reasons that have moved the Princes to hem in so narrow bounds the rights of Hunting by the right of nature and civil Law so patant to all are to be found in Vesembec,[328] paratitlo de acquir[endo rerum dominio. ], For fear that the whole race of beasts sould soon or sin[329] be totally exstirpated wt the multitude of hunters, if al ware permitted to hunt. 2do, Least to many (as we sie at present) being to much taken wt the plaisir of the sport sould forget their businesses of consequence.  As to that obiection, that hunting being from the right of natur, which is unchangable, it cannot be prohibited by any civil Law, I say hunting is not from the rights of nature commanding but permitting.

    [328] Matthew Wesenbec, Dutch jurist, 1531-1586.

    [329] Sooner or later.

Its a custome in France that when a young woman unmarried is condemned to dy for some offence (unlesse the fault be al the grivevuser) that if the hangman be unmarried he may sick hir in marriage and get hir hir life that way:  that their hes bein seweral that have refused it and choosen rather to die.  This hes great resemblance wt that custome in England that a man being sentenced to dy, if a common whore demand him in marriage she wil get him; it being a charitable work to recal a whore from hir loose and prophan life by making hir marry.  Yet surely both the on custome and the other is but a corruptel and a mocking at Justice.

The accent the French gives the Latin is so different from ours that sometymes we would not have understood some of them (for the most part I understood them weil enought), nor some of them us.  Ether we or they most be right, but I dout not to affirm but that the accent they give it, straining it to the pronuntiation of their oune language, is not natural, but a vicious accent, and that we have the natural.  My reason is, because if their be any wayes to know what was the Accent the ancient Romans prononced the Latin wt it is the Accent that the Italians gives it and their oune language, which is a degenerated Latin, who be the Romans posterity; but so be they give it the same very accent that we do:  the French ware never able to answer me this.

As to ther pronuntiation of the Greek I could never keip myselfe from laughting when they had occasion to read Greek or any Greek sentence, even their Doctors of Law:  vitnesse le Berche at Orleans whom I attended 2 moneths, that Greek that occurres in the 2 T. 1 book of the instituts,[330] [Greek:  ton nomon hoi], he pronunced it [Greek:  hi; men agraphoi], prononced it [Greek:  hagraphi; hoi, i; men engraphoi, phi]:  as we observed also in Mr. Filleau at Poictiers, [Greek:  dunamenon] esti, he pronunced the 2 last syllabes damned long. [Car [Greek:  son kaphson] urens.][331] We could give infinite mo instances wheir they prononce it undoubtedly wrong.