The obiections of the aduersaries touching Aliens borne are clearlie auoided.

OVR aduersaries, in a booke gyuen out by them touching this succession, doe alleige for a Maxime in lawe most manifest, that who so euer is borne out of England, and of father and mother, not being vnder obediēce of the King of England, can not be capable to inherite any thing in En­gland. VVhiche rule being generall, without any wordes of exception, they also say, must nedes [Page] extende vnto the Croune. VVhat they meane by lawe, I knowe not. But if they meane (as I thinke they do) the common lawe of England: I answere, there is no suche Maxime in the common lawe of the Realme of Englande as hereafter I shall mani­festly proue.

But if it were (for argumentes sake) admitted for this time, that it be a Maxime or general rule of the common lawe of England: yet to saye, that it is so general, as that no exception can be taken against the same rule, they shewe them selues either ignorant,25. E. 3. or els very carelesse of their credite. For it doth plainely appeare by the Statute of 25. E. 3. (being a declaration of that rule of the lawe, which I suppose they meane in terminge it a Maxime) that this rule extendeth not vnto the Kinges chil­dren. VVhereby it moste euindently appeareth, that it extendeth not generally to all. And if it extende not to binde the Kinges children in respect of any inheritance descended vnto them from any of their Auncestours: it is an Argument á for [...]iori, that it doth not extende to binde the king or his Croune. And for a full & short answere to their Authorities sett foorth in their marginall Notes, as 5. Edvvard. 3. tt. Ayl [...] 1 [...]. Edvva. 3. tt. Bref. 31. Edvva 3. tt. Cosen. 42 Ed. 3 fol. 2 22 Henric. 6 fol. 42. 11. Henric. 4. 23. & 24. Litleton. ca. vile [...]age: it may plainly appeare vnto all, that will reade and peruse those Bookes, that there is none of them all, that doth so muche as with a peece of a word, or by any colour or shadow seeme to intende, that the title of the Croune is bounde by this their supposed generall rule or Maxime. For euerie one of the said Cases argued and noted in the said Booke are onely concerning the disha­bilitie of an Alien borne, and not Denizon, to de­maunde any landes by the lawes of the Realme by [Page 23] suite and action onely, as a subiect vnder the King:The ad­uersaries case per­teineth to subiectes onely. and nothing touching any dishabilitie to be laied to the King hymselfe, or to his subiectes. Is there any cōtrouersie about the title of the Croune, by reason of any suche dishabilitie touched in any of these Bookes? No verely, not one woord, I dare boldely say: As it may most manifestly appeare to them, that will reade and pervse those bookes. And yet the aduersaries are not ashamed, to note them as suffi­cient authorities for the maintenance of their euill purpose and intent. But as they would seeme to vn­derstand, that their rule of dishabilitie is a generall Maxime of the lawe: so me thinketh they should not be ignorant, that it is also as general,No Maxi­me of the lavve bindeth the Croune, vnles the Croune specially be named. yea a more general rule & Maxime of the lawe, that no Maxime or rule of the lawe can extende, to binde the king or the Croune, vnlesse the same be specially men­tioned therein, as may appeare by diuerse principles and rules of the lawe, which be as general, as is their sayd supposed Maxime: and yet neither the king, nor the Croune is by any of them bound. As for example: it is very plaine,1. Of Tenant by the curtesy. that the rule of Tenante by the Curtesie is general without any exception at all. And yet the same bindeth not the Croune, neither doth extende to geue any benefite to him that shall Marie the Queene of England. As it was plainely agreed by all the lawiers of that Realme, when king Philip was maried vnto Queene Marie: although (for the more suertie and plaine declara­tion of the intentes of King Philip and Queene Marie, and of all the states of that Realme) it was enacted,2. Nor that the landes shalbe di­uided a­mong the daughters. that king Philip should not clame any title to be Tenaunt by the Curtesie. It is also a ge­neral rule, that if a man dye seysed of any landes in Fee simple without yssue male, hauing diuerse daughters: the lande shalbe equally diuided among [Page] the daughters: VVhich rule the learned men in the lawes of that Realme agreed (in the lyfe of the late noble Prince Edwarde) and also euery reasonable man knoweth (by vsage) to take no place in the succession of the Croune. For, there the eldest en­ioyeth all,3. Nor the vvife shall haue the third part. as though she were issue male. Likewise it is a general rule, that the wife after the decease of her husband, shalbe endowed & haue the third parte of the best possessions of her husband. And yet it is verie clere,5. E. 3. Tit. praeroga. 21. E. 3. 9. & 28. H. 6. that a Queene shall not haue the thirde parte of the landes belonging to the Croune, as ap­peareth in 5. E. 3. Tit. praerogat. 21. E. 3. 9. & 28. H. 6. and diuers other bookes. Bysides this, the rule of Posses­sio fratris, 4. Nor the rule of Possessio fratris, &c. being generall, neither hath bene, or can be stretched to the inheritance of the Croune. For the brother of the half blood shall succede, and not the sister of the whole blood, as may appeare by Iustice Moile: and may be proued by King Ethel­dred, brother and successor to king Edward the Martyr: and by kyng Edward the Confessor, bro­ther to king Edmunde: and by diuers other, who succeded in the Croune of England, being but of the halfe blood: As was also the late Queene Marie: and is at this presente her sister. VVho both, in all recordes of the lawe, wherein their seuerall rightes and titles to the Croune are pleaded (as by daily ex­perience, in the Exchequer, & in all other Courtes is manifest) doe make their conueiance as heires in blood the one to the other: whiche, if they were cōmon or priuate persons, they could not be allo­wed in lawe: they (as is well knowen) being of the halfe blood one to the other: that is to wit, begot­ten of one father,5. Nor that the execu­tour shall haue the goods and Chattles of the te­statour. 7. H. 4. fol. 42. but borne of sundrie mothers. It is also a generall rule in the lawe, that the executour shall haue the goodes and Chattles of the testatour, & not the heyre. And yet is it other wise in the case [Page 24] of the Croune. For there the successour shall haue them, and not the executour, as appeareth in 7. H. 4. by Gascoine. It is likewise a general rule, that a man attainted of felony or treason, his heire through the corruption of blood (without pardon and restitu­tion of blood) is vnable to take any landes by di­scente.6. VVhich rule (although it be generall) yet it extendeth not to the descente or succession of the Croune:Nor that a traitour is vnable to take lādes by discēte, and vvith­out pardō. although the same Attainder were by acte of Parlamente: as may appeare by the Attainder of Ricarde Duke of Yorke, and king Edward his son, and also of king Henry the seuenth: who were attainted by acte of Parlament, and neuer restored: and yet no dishabilitie thereby vnto any of them, to receaue the Croune by lawfull succession.

But to this the aduersaries wold seeme to an­swere in their said booke, sayeing, that Henry the seuenth, not with standing his attainder, came to the Croune, as caste vpon him by the order of the lawe: for so much as when the Croune was caste vpon him, that dishabilitie ceassed. VVherein they con­fesse directly, that the Attainder is no dishabilitie at all to the succession of the Croune. For although no dishabilitie can be alleaged in him, that hath the Croune in possession: yet if there were any dishabi­litie in him before to receue and take the same by lawful successiō: then must they say, that he was not lawful King, but an vsurpet. And therfore in con­fessing Henry the seuenth to be a lawful king, and that the Croune was lawfully caste vpon him, they confesse directly thereby, that before he was kinge in possession, there was no dishabilitie in him to take the Croune by lawful succession, his said At­tainder not withstanding, whiche is as muche as I would wish them to graunt.

But in conclusion, vnderstanding them selues [Page] that this their reason can not mainteine their intent:An aun­svvere to the aduer­sary ma­king a dif­ference be­tvvene attainder & the birth out of the allegeance. they goe about an other way to helpe them selues, making a difference in the lawe betwene the case of Attainder, & the case of foraine birth out of the kinges allegeance: sayeinge, that in the case of the Attainder necessitie doth enforce the succession of the Croune vpon the partie attaynted. For other­wise, they say, the Croune shall not descēde to any. But vpon the birth out of the kinges allegeāce they say, it is otherwise. And for proofe thereof they put a case of I. S. being seased of landes, and hauing issue A. and B. A. is attainted in the life of I. S. his father: and after I. S. dieth, A. liuing vnrestored. Nowe the lande shal not descende either to A. or B. but shal goe to the Lorde of the Fee by way of eschete. Otherwise it had bene (they say) if A. had bene borne beyond the sea, I. S. breaking his alle­geance to the king, and after I. S. cometh agayne into the Realme, and hath issue B. and dieth: for now (they say) B. shall inherite his fathers Landes.

Yf the Croune had bene holden of any person, to whome it might haue escheted, as in theyr case of I. S. the lande did: then peraduenture there had bene some affinitie betwene theyr said case, and the case of the Croune. But there is no suche matter. Bysides that they muste consider, that the king co­meth to the Croune, not onely by descent, but also & chiefly by succession, as vnto a corporation. And therefore they might easely haue sene a difference in theyr cases betwene the kinges Maiestie, and I. S. a subiecte: And also betwene landes holden of a Lorde aboue, & the Croune holden of no earthly Lorde, but of God almighty onely.

But yet for arguments sake I woulde faine knowe, where they finde their difference, and what authoritie they can shew for the proof thereof? [Page 26] They haue made no marginal note of any authori­tie: & therefore vnlesse they also saye, that they are Pythagoras, I will not beleue theyr difference. VVel, I am assured, that I can shew good outhoritie to the contrarie, and that there is no difference in theyr cases. Yf they peruse. 22. H. 6:22. H. 6. fol. 43. there may they see the opinion of Iustice Newton, that there is no difference in theyr cases: but that in both theyr ca­ses the lande shall eschete vnto the Lorde. And Prisote, being then of Counsaile with the party that clamed lands by a descent, wher the eldest sonne was borne beyond the seas, durst not abide in lawe vpon the title. This authoritie is against theyr dif­ferēce, & this authoritie I am well asseured is better, then any that they haue shewed to proue their dif­ference. But if we shall admit their difference to be according to the lawe: yet their cases, where vnto they applie their difference, are nothing like, as I haue said before. Now then, to procede on in the proofe of our purpose, as it doth appeare, that neither the King, nor his Croune is bound by these generall rules, whiche before I haue shewed: so do I likewise say of all the residue of the general rules & Maximes of the lawe, being in a manner infinite.The sup­posed Ma­xime of the aduersa­ries tou­cheth not Kinges borne be­yond the sea, as ap­peareth by King Ste­phen and King H. 2. But to retourne againe vnto their onely supposed Maxime, whiche they make so general, concerning the dishabilitie of persones borne beyond the seas: it is very plaine, that it was neuer taken, to extende vnto the Croune of the Realme of Englande, as it may appeare by king Stephen, and by king Henry the second, who were both straungers and Fren­chemen, borne out of the kinges allegeance, and neither were they kinges children immediate, nor their parentes of the allegeance: and yet they haue bene alwaies accompted lawfull kinges of England: nor their title was by any man at any time defaced [Page] or comptrolled for any suche consideration or ex­ception of foraine birth.

The ad­uersaris obiection touching King H. 2. auoided.And it is a worlde to see, how the aduersaries would shifte their handes from the said king Henry the second. They say, he came not to the Croune by order of the lawe, but by capitulation, for asmuche as his mother, by whome he conueied his Title, was then liuing. VVell, admitte that he came to the Croune by capitulation, during his mothers life: yet this doth not proue, that he was dishabled to re­ceaue the Croune, but rather proueth his abylitie. And although I did also admit, that he had not the Croune by order of the lawe during his mothers life: yet after his mothers death, no man hath hither­to doubted, but that he was king by lawfull succes­sion, and not against the lawes and Customes of that Realme. For so might they put a doubt in all the Kinges of that Realme, that euer gouerned sithens. VVhiche thing we suppose they are ouer wise to goe about.

Bysides this, I haue hard some of the aduersa­ries for further helpe of their intention in this mat­ter say, that king Henry the second was a Queenes childe, & so king by the rule of the common lawe. Truely I know, he was an Emperesse childe, but no Queene of Englandes childe. For although Maude the Emperesse, his mother, had a right and a good title to the Croune, and to be Queene of England, yet was she neuer in possession, but kepte from the possession, by king Stephen. And therefore king Henry the second can not iustly be sayed, to be a Queene of Englandes childe, nor yet any kynges childe, vnlesse ye would intend the kinges children, by the wordes of Infantes de Roy &c, to be children of further degree, & descended from the right line of the king: for so ye might say truely, that he was [Page 25] the child of king Henry the first, being in deede the sonne and heire of Maude the Emperesse,As tou­ching Ar­thur King Richardes nephevve. Vt autem pax ista, & sūma dile­ctio, tam multiplici, quam arctiori vin­culo conne­ctatur: praedictis cu­riae vestrae magnatiꝰ id ex par­te vestra tractanti­bus Domi­no disponē ­te condixi­mus, inter Arthurū egregium Ducē Bri­tanniae ne­potē nostrū & haeredē si forte sine prole obire nos cōtige­rit, & filiā vestrā ma­trimonium coatrahen­dum &c. In trasta­tu pacis in­ter Richa. 1. & Tan­credū Regē Siciliae. Vide Reg. Houeden. & Richar­dum Cano­nicum S. Trinitatis Londiu. daughter and heire of kinge Henry the first▪ VVhereby the saide rule of the aduersaries is here fowly foiled.

And therefore they would (for the maintenance of theyr pretensed Maxime) catche some holde vpon Arthur the sonne of Ieffrey, one of the sonnes of the saide Henry the seconde. They say then, like good and ioly Antyquaries, that he was reiected from the Croune, bycause he was borne out of the Realme. That he was borne out of the Realme, it is very true: but that he was reiected from the Croune for that cause, it is very false. Neither haue they any authoritie to proue theyr vaine opinion in this pointe. For it is to be proued by the Croni­cles of that Realme, that king Richarde the first, vn­cle vnto the sayd Arthur, taking his iourney toward Hierusalem, declared the said Arthur (as we haue declared before) to be heire apparent vnto the Croune: which would not haue bene if he had bene taken to be vnhable to receaue the Croune by rea­son of foraine birth.

And although king Iohn did vsurpe, aswell upon the said king Richard the first, his eldest bro­ther, as also vpon the sayd Arthur his nephewe: yet that is no proof, that he was reiected, bycause he was borne out of the Realme. Yf these menne could proue that, then had they shewed some reason and president to proue their intent, whereas hytherto they haue shewed none at all, nor, I am wel assured, shall euer be able to shewe.

Thus may ye see, gentle Reader, that neither this pretensed Maxime of the lawe set forth by the Aduersaries, nor a great nomber more, as general as this is (whiche before I haue shewed) can by any reasonable meanes be stretched, to bind the Croune [Page] of England. These reasons and authorities may for this time suffice, to proue, that the Croune of that Realme is not subiecte to the rules and the Principles of the common lawe, neither can be ru­led and tried by the same. VVhiche thing being true, all the obiections of the Aduersaries made against the title of Marie the Queene of Scotland to the succession of the Croune of that Realme, are fully answered, and thereby clearly wiped away. Yet for further arguments sake, and to the ende we might haue all matters sifted to the vttermost, and therby all things made plaine: let vs, for this tyme, somewhat yeelde vnto the Aduersaries, admitting; that the Title of the Croune of that Realme were to be examined and tried by the rules and princi­ples of the common lawe: and then let vs consider and examin further, whether ther be any rule of the common lawe, or els any statute, that by good & iust construction can seeme to impugne the said title of Marie the Queene of Scotland, or no. For touching her lineal descente from king Henry the seuenth, and by his eldest daughter (as we haue shewed) there is no man so impudent to denie. VVhat is there then to be obiected among all the rules, Maximes, and iugements of the common law of that Realm? Only one rule, as a general Maxime, is obiected against her. And yet the same rule is so vntruely set forth, that I can not well agree, that it is any rule or Maxime of the common lawe of the Realme of England. Their pretensed Maxime is, whosoeuer is borne out of the realme of England, and of father and mother, not being vnder the obe­dience of the king of England,A false Maxime set forth by the ad­uersaries. 7. E. 4. fol. 28. 9. E. 4 fol. 5. 11. H. 4. fol. 25. 14. H. 4. fol. 10. cannot be capable to inherite any thing in England. VVhiche rule is nothing true, but altogether false. For euery stran­ger and Alien is hable to purchace the inheritance [Page 27] of landes within that Realm, as it may appeare in 7. & 9. of king Edward the fourth, and also in 11. & 14. of king Henrie the fourth. And although the same purchasse is of some men accounted to be to the vse of the king: yet vntill such time as the king be intitled there vnto by matter of Record, the inheri­tance remaineth in the Alien by the opinion of all men. And so is a very Alien capable of inheritance within that Realme. And then it must nedes fall out verye plainlye, that this generall Maxime, where vpon the aduersaries haue talked and bragged so muche, is now become no rule of the common lawe of that Realme. And if it be so: then haue they vtered very many woordes to small purpose.

But yet let vs see further, whether there be any rule or Maxime in the common lawe, that may seeme any thing like to that rule, wherevpon any matter may be gathered against the title of the said Marie Queene of Scotland. There is one rule of the common lawe, in woordes some what like vnto that, whiche hath bene alleaged by the aduersaries. VVhich rule is set forth and declared by a statute made anno 25. of king Edward the third. VVhiche statute reciting the doubt that then was, whether infants borne out of the allegeance of England, should be hable to demaund any heritage within the same allegeance, or no: it was by the same sta­tute ordeined, that all infantes inheritours, whiche after that time should be borne out of the allegeāce of the king, whose father and mother at the time of their birth, were of the faith and allegeance of the king of England, should enioy the same benefittes and aduantages, to haue and holde heritage within the said allegeance, as other heires should. VVher­vpon it is to be gathered by dew & iust cōstruction of the same statute, and hath bene heretofore com­monly [Page] taken, that the common lawe alwayes was, & yet is, that no persone born out of the allegeāce of the king of England, whose father and mother were not of the same allegeance, should be able to haue or demaund any heritage within the same al­geance, as heire to any person. VVhiche rule I take to be the same supposed Maxime, that the aduer­saries do meane. But to stretche it generally to all inheritāces (as the aduersaries woulde seeme to do) by any reasonable meanes can not be.The statute of Edvv. 3. An. 25. touchetb inberitance, not pur­chase. 11. H. 4. fol. 25. For (as I haue said before) euery stranger and Alien borne, may haue and take inheritance, as a purchaser. And if an Alien do Marie a woman inheritable, the inheri­tance therby is both in the Alien, & also in his wife, & the Alien thereby a purchaser. No man doubteth, but that a Denizon maye purchase landes to his owne vse: but to inherit landes, as heire to any per­son within the allegeance of England, he can not by any meanes. So that it seemeth very plaine, that the said rule bindeth also Denyzons, & doth onely extend to Descentes of inheritance, and not to the hauing of any lande by purchse.

Now will we then consider, whether this rule by any reasonable cōstruction can extend vnto the Lady Marie the Queene of Scotland, for and con­cerning her title to the Croune of England. It hath bene said by the Aduersaries that she was borne in Scotland, whiche realm is out of the allegeance of England, her father and mother not being of the sa­me allegeāce: & therfore by the said rule, she is not inheritable to the Croune of England. Though. I might at the beginning very wel and orderly deny the consequent of this argumente: yet I wil first ex­amin the Antecedent, euen by the cōmon opinion and sentence of English men: then will I consider vpon the consequent. And this I intend, of purpose [Page 28] only to discouer the improuidence of the aduer­saries, whiche in a matter, where they couet most to looke vnto them selues, there they least of all prouide for the warrantize of theyr cause by their owne pretensed lawes of the Realme of England. But I mynde not hereupon so to ouer rule the matter, as any preiudice may thereby be created against the Kynges of Scotland: who haue alwayes kept, and still doe kepe and enioye, with a plain pro­fession & most iust clame in their owne right, ouer their subiectes a supreme authoritie, & power, not depending by any lawe right or custome vpon any other Prince or potentate in the world. VVell then (to come to the Antecedent) so it is, that the Queene of Scotland was borne in Scotland, it must nedes be graunted: but that Scotland is out of the allegeance of England, though the sayde Queene, and all her subiectes doe iustlye affirme the same, yet there is a verie greate number of men in England, both learned and others, whiche are not of that opinion, but earnestly auouche the contrary, being led & persuaded therunto (as they say) by diuerse Histories, Registers, Recordes, and Instruments, remayninge in the Treasurie of that Realme: wherin is mentioned (as they also saye) that the Kynges of Scotland haue acknouleged the Kyng of England to be the superiour Lorde ouer the Realme of Scotland, & haue done homage and fealtie for the same. VVhich being true, though all Scotsmen denie it, as Iustlie they may: for the homage & fealtie whiche those men speake of was not exhibited nor done in any such respect as they surmise, but in consideration of the tenures of cer­tein Segnories, Lands, tenements, & hereditaments lyeing in Northumberland, Cumberland, & other Shyres of England, whiche now the Kinges of [Page] Scotland want, and then did enioye & holde of the Kyng of England: As cōmonlie it is sene in sondrie parts of Christindome Kyngs and Princes hauyng distinct and absolute regiments, not depending of any other potentate, to holde neuerthelesse one of an other diuerse landes townes and countries lyeing within the marches of the one or the others dominions. But admit it to be true whiche these men doe so auouche: then Scotlande must nedes be accompted within the allegeance of England, euen by their owne lawes of the same Realme, and by the common opinion of their owne nation. And although sins the tyme of Kinge Henry the sixt, none of the Kinges of Scotlande haue done the said seruice vnto the Kinges of England: yet that is no reason in the lawe of England to saye, that therefore the Realme of Scotland at the tyme of the birth of the sayd Ladie Marie Queene of Scot­lande, being in the thirtie and fourth yeare of the raigne of the late Kinge Henrie the eight, was out of the allegeance of the Kinges of England. For the lawe of that Realme is very plain, that though the Tenant do not his seruice vnto the Lorde, yet hath not the Lord thereby lost his Seignorie.The Lorde loseth not his seignorie, though the tenante doth not his seruice. For the lande still remaineth within his Fee & Seigno­rie, that notwithstanding.

But peraduenture some will obiecte and saye, that by this reason, France should likewise be said to be within the allegeance of England: forasmuch as the possessiō of the Croune of France hath bene within a litle more then the space of one hundred yeares nowe last past, laufully vested in the Kinges of England, whose right and title still remaineth.

To that obiection it may be answered, that there is a great differēce betwene the right & title, which the kings of England clame to the Realm of Frāce, [Page 29] & the right & title which they clame to the Realme of Scotlād. For although it be true, that the kings of Englād haue bene lawfully possessed of the Croune of France: yet during such time, as they by vsurpa­tion of others, are dispossessed of the said Realme of Fraunce: the same Realme by no meanes can be said to be within their allegeance: especially consi­dering, how that syns the time of vsurpation, the people of France haue wholy forsaken their alle­geance and subiectiō, which they did owe vnto the kings of England, & haue geuen & submitted them selues vnder the obediēce & allegeāce of the frēsh. But as for the Realme of Scotlande, it is otherwise.

For the Title, whiche the Kinges of England (by the opinion of these men) may clame to the Realme of Scotland, is not in the possession of the lande and Croune of Scotlande: but onely in the seruice of homage and fealtie for the same: And though the Kinges of Scotland, many yeres, haue intermitted to doe the said homage & fealtie vnto the Kinges of Englande: yet for all that the Kinges of Scotland can not by any reason or lawe be cal­led vsurpers, and vniust possessors.

And thus all indifferente men, not ledd by affe­ctions may well see, by the recordes & testimonies of England, that the Realme of Scotlande, is within the allegeance of England. And so is the Antecedēt or first proposition false. And yet that maketh no proufe, that the Realme of France likewise should nowe be sayde to be within the allegeance of the Kings of England, by reason of the manifest and apparent difference before shewed.

But what if the antecedent were true? (as the aduersaries saye it is, and all Scotsmen constantly affirme it to be.) Yet it is very plaine, that the sayde consequent and conclusion can not by any meanes [Page] be true:The causes vvhy the Croune cannot be com­prised vvithin the pre­tended Maxime. and that principallye, for three causes: whereof one is, for that neyther the Kinge, nor the Croune (not being specially mentioned in the said rule or pretended Maxime) can be intended to be within the meaning of the same Maxime, as we haue before sufficently proued by a great number of other suche like generall rules and Maximes of the lawes. An other cause is, for that the Croune can not be taken to be within the woordes of the said supposed Maxime: and that for twoo respectes: one is, bicause the rule doth onely dishable Aliens to demaunde any heritage within the allegeance of England. VVhiche rule can not be stretched to the demaunde of the Croune of England, which is not with in the allegeance of England: but is the verie allegeance it selfe. As for a like example: it is true, that all the landes within the Kinges dominion are holden of the Kinge, either mediatly, or imme­diatly: and yet it is not true, that the Croune (by whiche onely the Kinge hath his Dominion) can be said to be holden of the King.VVithout the Croune there can neither be King nor allegeance. For without the Croune there can be neither King, nor allegeance. And so long as the Croune resteth onelye in demaunde, not being vested in any persone, ther is no allegeance at all. So that the Croune can not be saide by any meanes to be within the alle­geance of England: and therfore not within the wordes of the said rule or Maxime. The title of the Croune is also out of the wordes and meaning of the same rule in an other respect: and that is, bicause that rule doth onely dishable an Alien to demaund landes by descent as heire. For it doth not extend vnto landes purchased by an Alien, as we haue be­fore sufficiently proued. And then can not that rule extende vnto the Croune being a thinge in­corporate: the right wherof doth not descend [Page 30] according to the common course of priuate inhe­ritance, but goeth by succession,40. E. 3. fol. 10. 13. E. 3. Ti [...]. Bref. 264. 16. E. 3. iurans de. sait. 166. 17. E. 3. Tit. s [...]i [...]e sac 7. A Deane, a Person. a Priour be­ing an A­lien may demande lande in the right of his cor­poration. An 3. R. 2. 6. C. 3. fo. 21. tit. droit. 26. lib. Ass. p. 34. 1 [...]. li. Ass. tit. enfant. 13. H. 8. fo. 14. 7. E. 4. fol. 10. 16. E. 3. iurans. de [...]ait. 9. H. 6. fol. 33. 35. H. 6. fol. 35. 5. E. 4 fol. 70. 49. li. Ass. A. 88. 22. H. 6. fol. 31. 13. H. 8. fol. 14. as other corpora­tions do.

No man doubteth, but that a Prior Alien being no denizon, might alwayes in time of peace de­maund land in the right of his corporation. And so likewise a Deane or a Person being Aliens, & no de­nizons, might demaund lande, in respecte of their corporations, not withstanding the said supposed rule or Maxime, as may appeare by diuerse booke cases, as also by the statute made in the time of king Richard the secōd. And although the Croune hath alwaies gone according to the common course of a Descent: yeth doth it not properly descende, but succede. And that is the reason of the lawe, that, although the Kinge be more fauoured in all his doinges, then any common person shalbe: yet can not the King by lawe auoide his grauntes & Letters Patentes by reason of his Nonage, as other infantes may doe, but shall alwayes be said to be of full age in respect of his Croune: euen as a Person, Vicare or Deane, or any other person incorporate shalbe. VVhiche can not by any meanes be said in lawe, to be within age in respect of their corporations, al­though the corporation be but one yere olde.

Bysides that, the Kinge can not by the lawe auoide the Letters Patentes made by any vsurper of the Croune (vnlesse it be by acte of Parlement) no more then other persones incorporate shall auoide the grauntes made by one that was before wrongfullye in their places and romes: whereas in Descentes of inheritance the lawe is otherwise. For there the heire may auoide all estates made by the disseasour, or abatour, or any other persone, whose estate is by lawe defeated. VVhereby it doth plai­nely appeare, that the King is incorporate vnto the [Page] Croune,The King is alvvaies at full age in respecte of his Croune. & hath the same properly by succession and not by Descent onely. And that is likewise an other reason, to proue, that the Kinge and the Croune can neither be sayde to be within the wordes, nor yet with in the meaning of the sayde generall rule or Maxime.

The third and most principall cause of all is, for that in the said statute, wherupon the said sup­posed rule or Maxime is gathered,The Kings childrē are expresly excepted from the surmised Maxime. the children descendantes and descended of the blood royall by the wordes of Infantes de Roy are expresly ex­cepted out of the sayd supposed rule or Maxime. VVhiche wordes the aduersaries do muche abuse, in restraining and construing them, to extende but to the first degree onely: whereas the same wordes may very well beare a more large & ample inter­pretatiō: And that for three causes & cōsideratiōs.

Libe rorū ff. de ver­borum si­gnific.First by the Ciuil lawe this word Liberi (which the worde Infantes, being the vsuall and originall worde of the statute written in the Frenche tōgue, counteruaileth) doth comprehende by proper and peculiar signification not onely the children of the first degree,L. Sed & si de ī ius vo­cā doinstit. de haere. ab intist. but other descendants also in the lawe. As for example, where the lawe sayeth: That he vvho is manumissed or made free, shall not commence any Action against the children of the Patrone or manumis­sour vvithout licence: L. Lucius ff. de haere. instit. L. Iusta. & L. Natorū. & L. Li­berorū de uerb. signi. L. 2. § si mater al S.C. Ter­tul. there not onely the first de­gree, but the other also are conteined. The like is, where the lawe of the twelue Tables saith: The first place and roome of succession, after the death of the parentes that die intestate, is due to the children: there the succession apperteineth as well to degrees remo­ued, as to the first. Yea in all causes fauourable (as ours is) this worde Filius, (a sonne) conteinethe the woord nepos (A nephevv, that is to say, a sonnes sōne or daughters sonne:) though not by the propertie of the [Page 31] voice or speache,L. Filius de S.C. Ma­ced. L. Se­natus de ritu nupt. L. quod si nepo tes. ff. test. cū no­tatis ibid. Infantes in Frenche coūtervai­leth this vvorde li­beri in lat. yet by interpretation admittable in all suche thinges, as the lawe disposeth of. And as touching this word Infants, in French we say, that it reacheth to other descēdantes, as well as to the first degree. VVherein I do referre me to suche as be expert in the saide tongue. There is no worde in English (for the barennes of that tongue) to coū ­terpaise the said French word Infantes, or the Latin word Liberi. Therefore doe they supply it, as wel as they may, by this worde (Children.) The Spaniardes also vse this worde (Infantes) in this ample sense, when they call the nexte heire to the heire appa­rent, Infant of Spaine: euen as the late deceased Lord Charles of Austrich was called, his father & grand­father then liuing.

Yf then then the original woord of the statute, decla­ring the said rule, may naturally & properly apper­teine to all the Descendants: why should we straine and bynde it to the first degree only, otherwise than the nature of the worde or reason will beare? For I suppose verely,The grand fathers call their ne­phues, sonnes. L. Gallus. § Insti­tuens. ff. de liber. Et post. I. ff. C. de impub. Aliis sub­stan. c. 1. q. 4. Father and son cōpted in person, & flesh in maner one that it wilbe very harde for the Aduersarie, to geue any good & substantial reason, why to make a diuersitie in the cases. But touching the contrarie, there are good and probable consi­derations, which shall serue vs for the second cause. As, for that the grandfathers call their nephewes, as by a more pleasant & plausible name, not only their children, but their sonnes also: & for that the sonne being deceased (the grandfather suruiuing) not only the grādfathers affection, but also such right, title and interest, as the sonne hath by the lawe, and by proximitie of blood, growe and drawe al to the nephew, who representeth and supplieth the fathers place, the father and the sonne beinge compted in person and in flesh in manet but as one. VVhy shall then the bare and naked consideration of the ex­ternal [Page] and accidental place of the birth only seuer and sunder suche an entier, inwarde and natural cō ­iunction? Adde there vnto, the many & great absur­dities, that may hereof spring and ensue.

Diuerse of the kinges of the Realme of Englād, as well before the time of King Edwarde the third (in whose time this statute was made) as after him, gaue their daughters out to foraine, and sometimes to meane Princes in mariage.Great ab­surditie, in excluding the true & right suc­cessour, for the place of his birth onely. VVhich they would neuer so often times haue done, if they had thought, that whyle they went aboute to set fotth and ad­uaunce their issue: their doinges should haue ten­ded to the disheriting of them from so great, large and noble a Realme, as that is: whiche might haue chaunced, if the daughter hauing a sonne or daugh­ter, had died, her father liuing. For there should this supposed Maxime haue ben a barre to the childrē, to succede their grandfather.

This absurditie would haue bene more nota­ble, if it had chaunced about the time of Kinge Henry the second, or this King Edward, or King Henry the firste and sixte, when the possessions of the Croune of that Realme were so amply enlargid in other Countries beyond the seas. And yet neuer so notable, as it might haue bene hereafter in our fresh memorie and remēbrance, if any such thing had chaunced (as by possibilitie it might haue chaunced) by the late mariage of King Philippe and Queene Marie.

For, admitting their daughter maried to a foraine Prince, should haue dyed before them, she leauing a sonne furuiuing his father and grandmother, they hauing none other issue so nigh in degree: then would this late framed Maxime haue excluded the same sonne lamentably and vnnaturally from the succession of the Croune of Englande: and also [Page 32] the same Croune from the inheritance of the Realmes of Spain, of both Sicilies, with their ap­purtenances, of the Dukedom of Milan, and other landes and Dominions in Lumbardy and Italie: as also from the Dukedomes of Brabant, Luxemburg, Geldres, Zutphan, Burgundie, Friseland: from the Countreies of Flādres, Artois, Holland, Zealand & Namurs, and from the new found lands, parcel of the said kingdome of Spaine. VVhich are (vnlesse I be deceiued) more ample by dubble or treble, than all the Countreies now rehearsed. Al the whiche Countreies by the foresaid Mariage should haue bene by al right deuolued to the said sonne, if any such child had bene borne.

If either the same by the force of this iolie new found Maxime had bene excluded from the Croune of England, or the saide Croune from the inheritance of the foresaid Countreies: were there any reason to be yelded, for the maintenance of this supposed rule or Maxime in that case? Or might there possibly rise any commodity to the Realme, by obseruinge there in this rigourous pretensed rule, that should by one hundred part counteruaile this importable losse and spoile of the Croune, and of the lawfull inheritour of the same?

But perchāce for the auoiding of this exceptiō limited vnto the blood roial, some wil say,An eua­sion auoi­ded, pre­tending the priuilege of the Kīgs children not to be in respect of the Croune, but of other lādes. that the same was but a priuilege graunted to the kinges children, not in respect of the succession of the Croune, but of other landes descending to them from their Auncestours. VVhiche although we might very well admit & allowe: yet can it not be denied, but that the same priuilege was graunted vnto the Kinges children and other descendantes of the Blood royall, by reason of the dignitie and worthines of the Croune, whiche the King their [Page] father did enioy, and the great reuerence, whiche the lawe geueth of dewtie therevnto. And there­fore if the aduersaries would go about, to restraine & withdraw from the Croune that priuilege, which the law geueth to the kings childrē for the Crounes sake: they should doo therein contarie to al reason, & against the rules of the Arte of Reasoning, which saith, that: Propter quod vnumquodque & illud magis.

Beside that, I would faine knowe, by what reason might a man saye, that they of the Kinges Blood born out of the allegeance of England, may inherite landes within that Realme, as heires vnto theyr Ancestours, and yet not to be able to inheri­te the Croune. Truly in mine opiniō it were against all reason. But on the contrarie side, the very force of reason muste driue vs to graunt the like,The royall blood bea­reth his ho­nour vvith it, vvhere­so euer it be. Yea more great and ample priuilege and benefit of the lawe in the succession of the Croune. For the Roial blood, where so euer it be found, will be taken as a pretious and singular Iewell, and will carie with it his worthie estimation & honour with the people, and, where it is dew, his right withall.

Vide An­to. Corsetū de potest. et excell. regi. q. 100.By the Ciuill lawe the right of the inheritance of priuate persones is hemmed and inched within the bandes of the tenth degre. The Blood Roial runneth a farther race, & so farre as it may be found: therfore the great & mightie Conquerors are glad & faine to ioyne in affinitie with the blood Roial:Oōquerors glad to ioine vvith the royall blood. Henry the first. euer fearing the weaknes of their owne bloddie sworde, in respect of the greate force and strength of the other. For this cause was Henrie the firste, (called for his learning & wisedome Beauclerke.) glad to consociate and couple him selfe with the auncient Roial blood of the Saxons, whiche con­tinueing in the Princely succession from worthie king Alured, was cutte of by the death of the good [Page 33] king Edward: and by the mariyng of Mathildis, being in the fourth degree in lineal descent to the said king Edward, was reuiued and reunited. From this Edward my sayd souueraine ladie the Queene of Scotland taketh her noble auncient Pedegrue. These then, and diuers other reasons & causes mo, may be alleaged for the weighing & setting foorth of the true meaning and intent of the said law.

Now, in case these two causes and consideratiōs will not satisfie the aduersaries: we wil adioine there vnto an other whiche they shall neuer by any good and honest shift auoid. And that is the vse and practise of the Realme as wel in the time foregoing the said statute, as afterward.

VVe stand vpon the interpretation of the com­mon law recited and declared by the said statute,L. fin. ff. de legibus. & how shal we better vnderstand, what the law is the­rein, then by the vse and practise of the said lawe? For the best interpretation of the law, is custome.Common vse and practise the best in­terpreta­tion of the lavve. Eodē anno Rex cū in diebus suis processisset Aeldredū Vigornen­sē Episco­pū ad Re­gē Hunga­riae trans­mittens, re­uocauit in­de filium fratris sui Edmundi Eduardum cū tota fa­milia sua vt vel ipse. ver filii eiꝰ sibi succe­derent in regnum. Flor. histo. 1057. But the Realme before the statute, admitted to the Croune not only kings children and others of the first degre, but also of a farther degre, and suche as were plainely borne out of the kinges allegeance. The foresaid vse and practise appeareth as wel be­fore, as sithens the time of the Conquest. Among other, king Eduard the Confessour, being destitute of a lawful Heire whithin the Realme, sent into Hungary for Edward his Nephew surnamed Out law, son to king Edmūd called Ironside, after many yeres of his exile, to returne into England, to the intent the said Outlaw should inherite that Realme whiche neuerthelesse came not to effect, by reason the said outlaw died before the sayd king Edward, his Vncle.

After whose death the said king appointed Eadgar Adeling sonne of the said Outlaw, (being [Page] his next cosen) to be his heire, (as he was of right) to the Croune of England. And for that the said Eadgar was but of yong and tender yeres, and not able to take vpon him so great a gouernement: the said king committed the protection, as wel of the yong Prince, as also of the Realm, to Harold, Earle of Kent, vntil suche time, as the said Eadgar had ob­teined perfit age to be hable to welde the state of a king.Flor. bislo. 1066. Aelredus Regional lēf. de reg. Anglorū ad Regem Henr. [...]. VVhich Harold neuerthelesse contrary to the trust, supplanted the said yong Prince of the king­dome▪ and put the Croune vpon his owne head.

By this it is apparent, that foraine birth was not accōpted, before the time of the Conquest, to be a iust cause to repel and reiect any man, beinge of the next proximitie in blood from the Title of the Croune. And though the said king Edward the Confessors will and purpose tooke no suche force and effect,King Ste­phen. and King. H. 2. as he desired, and the lawe craued: yet the like succession tooke place effectuouslye in king Stephen and king Henry the second, as we haue al­ready declared. Neither will the Aduersaries shift of forainers borne of father and mother, which be not of the kings allegeance,The ad­uersaries fond ima­gination, that H. 2. should co­me to the Croune by compositiō: not by pro­ximitie of blood. Rex Stephanus omni haerede vi­duatus, praeter solū modo Ducē Henricum, recognouit in conuētu Episcoporū & aliorum de regno Optimatum quod Dux Henr. ius haeredita­riū ī regnū Angliae habebat. Et Dux be­nigne con­cessit, vt Rex Ste­phanꝰ tota vita sua suū Regnū pacifice possideret. Ita tamen confirmatū est pactū, quod ipse Rex, & ipsi tunc praesentes cū caeteris regni opti­matibꝰ iu­rarēt, quod Dux Henr. post mortē Regis (si il­lum super­ [...]iueret) re­gnum sine aliqua cōntradictione obtineret. Flor. histo. An. 1153 The like fond ima­gination touching King Ri­chardes nephevv. Diuersitie of opinions touching the vncle & nephue vvhetherof them ought to be pre­ferred in the royall gouuerne­ment. help them: forasmuche as this clause of the said statute is not to be applied to the kings children, but to others, as appeareth in the same statute. And these two kings, Stephen and Henrie the .2. as they were borne in a forain place: so their fathers and mothers were not of the kings allegeance, but mere Aliens and strangers. And how notorious a vaine thing it is, that the Aduersaries would perswade vs, that the said King Henrie the second rather came in by force of a composition, then by the proximitie and nearenes of blood: I leaue it to euery man to consider, that hath any ma­ner of feling in the discours of the stories of that realm. The composition did procure him quietnes [Page 34] and rest for the time, with a good and sure hope of quiet and peaceable entrance also after the death of King Stephen. and so it followed in deede: but ther grew to him nomore right thereby, than was due to him before. For he was the true heir to the Croune, as appeareth by Stephen his Aduersaries owne confession. Henry the firste maried his dau­ghter Mathildis to Henry the Emperour, by who­me he had no children. And no dout in case she had had any children by the Emperour, they should haue ben heires by successiō to the Croune of England. After whose death she retourned to her father: yet did king Henry cause all the Nobi­litie by an expresse othe, to embrace her after his death as Queene, and afrer her, her children.

Not long after, she was maried to Ieffrey Plan­tagenet a Frenchman borne, Earle of Aniowe, who begat of her this Henry the second, being in Frāce. VVhervpon the said king did reuiue and renue the like othe of allegeance, aswell to her, as to her sonne after her. VVith the like false persuasion the Aduersaries abuse them selues, and their Readers, touchinge Arthur Duke of Britanie, Nephewe to king Richard the first. As though forsooth he were iustly excluded by kinge Iohn his vncle, by­cause he was a forainer borne. If they had said, that he was excluded, by reason the vncle ought to be pre­ferred before the Nephewe, though it should haue ben a false allegation, and plaine against the rules of the lawes of that Realme: (as may well appeare, among other thinges by king Richard the second who succeded his grand father king Edward the third, which Richard had diuerse worthie and no­ble vncles, who neither for lacke of knowledge, coulde be ignorant of the right, neither for lacke of frendes, courage and power, be enforced to for­beare [Page] to chaleng their title & interest) then should they haue had some countenāce of reason & proba­bilitie, bicause many arguments & the authoritie of many learned and notable Ciuilians doo concurre for the vncles right, before the Nephewe.

But to make the place of the natiuitie of an in­heritour to a kingdome, a sufficiēt barre against the right of his blood, it seemeth to haue but a weake and slender holde and grounde. And in our case it is a moste vnsure and false grounde, seeing it is moste true, that Kinge Richard the first (as we haue said) declared the said Arthur (borne in Bri­tanie, and not sonne of a King, but his brother Geffreys sonne, Duke of Britanie) to be heire ap­parent, his vncle Iohn yet liuing. And for such a one is he taken in all our stories. And for such a one did all the worlde take him, after the said King Richard his death: neither was King Iohn taken for other, than for an vsurper by excluding him: and after­ward for a murtherer, for imprisoning him, and priuily making him away.The pos­sessions of the Croune of England that vvere beyond the seas, seased into the Frenche kings hāds for the murther of Arthur For the whiche facte the French king seased vpon all the goodly Countries in Fraunce belonging to the kinge of England, as forfeited to him being the chiefe Lorde. By this outragious deede of king Iohn the kings of Englād lost Normandie withal, and their possibilitie to the inheritance of all Britanie: for the right and Title to the saide Britanie was dewe to the said Arthur and his heires by the right of his mother Constāce. And though the said king Iohn, by the practise & ambition of Queene Eleonour his mother, and by the special procurement of Hubert then Arche­bishop of Caunterburie, & of some other factious persones in England, preuented the said Arthur his nephew (as it was easy for him to do) hauing gotten into his handes all his brother Richardes treasures, [Page 35] besides many other rentes then in England: and the said Arthour being an infant, & remaining beyond the sea in the custody of the said Constance: yet of this fact, being against all Iustice, aswell the said Ar­chebishop, as also many of the other, did after most earnestly repent, considering the cruell and the vniust putting to death of the said Arthur procured and (after some Authours) committed by the said Iohn himselfe.Polid 15. Flor histo. An. 1208 VVhich most foul and shameful act the said Iohn neded not to haue committed, if by foraine birth the said Arthur had bene barred to inherit the Croune of England. And much lesse to haue imprisoned that moste innocent Ladie Eleo­nour, sister to the sayd Arthur, in Bristow Castle wher she miserably ended her lyfe: if that gay Ma­xime would haue serued, to haue excluded these two children, bicause they were strangers borne in the partes beyond the seas. Yea, it appeareth in other doinges also of the said time, and by the storie of the sayd Iohn, that the birth out of the allegeance of England, by father & mother forain, was not taken for a sufficient repulse and reiection to the right and title of the Croune. For the Barons of England, being then at dissention with the said king Iohn, and renouncing their allegeance to him, receaued Lewis the eldest sōne of Philip the Frēch king, to be their king, in the right of Blanche his wife, which was a stranger borne, all be it the lawful Neece of the said Richard, & daughter to Alphōse king of Castil, begotten on the bodie of Eleonour his wife,Levvis the French Kings son claimed the Croune of that Re­alme in the title of his vvyf. Pro here­ditate vxo­ris meae, scilicet neptis Re­gis Ioan­usque ad mortem si necessitas exigere, decertabo. Flor histo. Anno. 1216. Haroldus muneribus & genere fretꝰ, regni diadema inuasiit. H. Hunte. hist. Angli. lib. 6. Cui re­gnum iure heredita­rio debeba­tur Ealre­dus Rhiual in histo. R. Angliae ad H. 2. Cui de iure debebatur regnū an­glorum Io. Lond. in Chro. An­gliae. Eadē ver­ba sunt in Math. VVestmon. in flor. hist. a. 1066. VVhat ca­lamities fell to the Realme by the vsur­ping of King Ha­rolde, King Stephen, and Iohn. Rex Edwardus misit &c. vt vel ipse Eduardus filius ieus sibi succederēt &c. Rich. Cicest. vid. VVil. Malmest. de reg. Angl. E. 2 c. 4 [...]. lib. 3. c. 5. one of the daughters of king Henrie the second, and sister to the said king Richard and king Iohn. VVhich storie I alleage only to this purpose, thereby to gather the opinion of the time, that so raine birth was then thought no barre in the Title of the Croune. For ortherwise, how could Lewis [Page] of France pretend title to the Croune in the right of the said Blanche his wife borne in Spaine?

These examples are sufficient, I suppose, to sa­tisfie and content any man (that is not obstinatly wedded to his own fond fantasies, and froward fri­uolus imaginations, or otherwise worse depraued) for a good sure and substantial interpretation of the common law. And it were not altogether from the purpose, here to consider and weigh, with what & how greuous plagues that Realme hath bene oft afflicted and scourged, by reason of wrongfull & vsurped titles. I will not reuiue by odious rehearsal the greatenes and number of the same plagues, as well otherwise, as especially by the contention of the noble houses and families of York and Lan­caster: seeing it is so fortunately, and almost within mans remembrance extinct and buried.

I will now put the gentle Reader in remēbrance of those only, with whose vsurping Titles we are nowe presently in hand. And to begyn with the most auncient: what became, I pray you, of Harold, that by briberie and helpe of his kinred, vsurped the Croune against the foresaid yong Eadgar, who (as I haue said, and as the old monuments of Histo­riographers do plainly testifie) was the true & law­ful Heire? Could he, think you, enioy his ambitious and naughty vsurping on whole entier yere? No surely: ere the first yere of his vsurped reigne tur­ned about, he was spoiled and turned out of both Croune, and his life withal. Yea his vsurpatiō occa­sioned the cōquest of the whole realme by VVilliā Duke of Normandie, bastard sonne to Robert the sixt Duke of the same. And may you thinke al safe & sound now from like dāger, if you should tread the said wrong steppes with Harolde, forsaking the right and high way of law and iustice?

[Page 36]VVhat shal I now speake of the cruel ciuil war­res betwene king Stephen and king Henry the se­cond, whiche warres rose, by reason that the said Henry was vniustly kept from the Croune, dew to his mother Maude, and to him afterwardes? The pitiful reigne of the said Iohn who doth not lamēt with the lamentable losse of Normandie, Aqui­taine, & the possibilitie of the Dukedome of Brita­nie, and with the losse of other goodly possessions in France, whereof the Croune of England was robbed and spoiled by the vnlawfull vsurping of him against his nephew Arthur? VVell, let vs leaue these greuouse and lothsome remembrances, & let vs yet seeke, if we may finde any later interpretatiō, either of the said statute, or rather of the common law for our purpose. And lo, the great goodnes and prouidence of God, who hath (if the foresaid exā ­ples would not serue) prouided a later: but so good, so sure, apt & mete interpretatiō for our cause, as any reasonable hart may desire. The interpretatiō directly toucheth our case: I meane by the mariage of the Lady Margaret (eldest daughter to King Hēry the vij.) vnto the fourth king Iames of Scot­land: and by the opinion of the same most prudent Prince in bestowing his said daughter into Scotlād: a matter sufficient enough, to ouerthrow all those cauilling inuētiōs of the aduersaries. For what time King Iames the fourth sent his Ambassadour to King Henry the seuenth to obteine his good will to espouse the said Lady Margaret,Polid. 26. there were of his Counsaile, not ignorant of the lawes and Customes of the Realme, that did not well like upon the said Mariage, saying, it might so fal out, that the right & title of the Croune might be deuolued to the Lady Margaret and her children, and the Realme therby might be subiect to Scotland. To the whiche the [Page] prudent and wise king answered,King. H. 7. vvith his Counsaile is a good interpretor of our pre­sent cause. that in case any suche deuolution should happen, it would be no­thing preiudiciall to England. For England, as the chief, and principal, and worthiest parte of the Ile, should drawe Scotland to it, as it did Normandie from the time of the Conquest. VVhich answere was wonderfully well liked of all the Counsaile. And so consequently the Mariage toke effect, as ap­pereth by Polydor, the Historiographer of that Realme, and suche a one, as wrote the Actes of that time by the instruction of the king him selfe.

I say then, the worthy wise Salomon foreseeing that such deuolution might happen, was an inter­pretour with his prudente and sage Counsaile for our cause. For els, they neaded not to reason of any such subiection to Scotlande, if the children of the Ladie Margaret might not lawfully inherite the Croune of England. For, as to her husband Englād could not be subiect, hauing him selfe no right by this mariage to the Title of the Croune of that Realme. VVherevpon I may well inferre, that the said newe Maxime of these men (whereby they would rule, and ouer rule the successiō of Princes) was not knowen to the said wise king, neither to any of his Counsaile: Or if it were, yet was it taken not to reache to his blood royall borne in Scot­lande. And so on euery side the Title of my Soue­raigne Lady Queene Marie is assured. So that now by this that we haue said, it may easely be seen, by what light and slender cōsideration the aduersaries haue gone about to strayne the worde Infantes or children to the first degree only. Of the like weight is their other consideration imagining and surmi­sing, this statute to be made, bicause the king had so many occasions to be so oft ouer the sea with his spouse the Queene. As though diuers kings before [Page 37] him vsed not oftē, to passe ouer the seas: As though this were a personal statute made of a special pur­pose, and not to be taken as a declaration of the common law. VVhiche to say, is most directely re­pugnant and contrary to the letter of the said sta­tute: Or as though his children also did not very often repaire to outward Countries:The ma­riages of King E. 3. sonnes. as Iohn of Gaunt, Duke of Lancastre, that Maried Peters the king of Castiles eldest daughter, by whose right he clamed the Croune of Castile: as his brother Ed­mund Erle of Camhridge, that maried the yongest daughter: as Lionell Duke of Clarence, that maried at Milaine Violant daughter and heir to Galeatius Duke of Milan: But especialy Prince Edwarde, whiche moste victoriously toke in battaile Iohn the French King, and brought him into England his prisoner, to the great triumphe and reioysing of the realme, whose eldest sonne Edward (that died in short time after,) was borne beyond the seas in Gascoine, and his other sonne Richard (that succe­ded his grandfather) was borne at Burdeaux. And as these noble King Edwardes sonnes maried with fo­rainers: so did they geue out their daughters in ma­riage to foraine Princes, as the Duke of Lancaster, his daughter Philip to the King of Portugall: and his daughter Catherin to the king of Spaine: & his Neece Iohan, daughter to his sonne Erle of Somer­set, was ioyned in mariage to the king of Scottes: Iohan, daughter to his brother Thomas of wod­stocke Duke of Gloucester was Queene of Spaine: and his other daughter, Marie, Duchesse of Britānie.

Now by these mennes interpretation, none of the issue of all these noble women could haue en­ioyed the Croune of England, when it had fallen to them (though they had bene of the neerest roial blood) after the death of their Aūcestours. VVhich [Page] surely had bene against the auncient presidentes & examples that we haue declared, and against the common Lawe (the whiche must not be thought by this Statute any thing taken away, but only de­clared) and against all good reason also. For as the kings of England would haue thought that Realme greatly iniuried, if it had bene defrauded of Spaine or any of the foresaid countreies, being deuolued to the same by the foresaid Mariages: so the issue of the foresaide noble women might and would haue thought them hardly and iniuriously handled, yf any such case had happened. Neither suche friuo­lous interpretations and gloses, as these men nowe frame, and make vpon the statute, woulde then haue serued, nor nowe will serue.

A fond imagina­tion of the Aduersa­ries of the statute of 25. E. 3.But of all other their friuolous and folish ghes­sing vpō the clause of the statute for Infantes de Roy, there is one most fond of all. For they would make vs beleue, (suche is their skill,) that this statute touching Infantes de Roy, was made for the great doubte (more in them, than in other persones) tou­ching their inheritance to their Auncestours. For being then a Maxime (saie they) in the lawe, that none could inherite to his Auncestours being not of father and mother vnder the obedience of the king: seing the king him selfe could not be vnder obedience: it plainely seemed, that the kinges children were of farre worse condition, than others, & quite excluded. And therefore they saie that this sta­tute was not to geue them any other priuilege, but to make them equall with other. And that therefore this statute, touching the Kinges children, standeth rather in the superficial parte of the woorde, than in any effect.

Nowe, among other thinges they saye (as we haue shewed before) that this word Infantes de Roy [Page 38] in this statute mentioned,There vvas no doubt made of the Kinges children borne be­yonde the seas. must be taken for the children of the first degree, whiche they seeme to proue by a note taken out of M. Rastal. But to this we answer, that these men swetely dreamed when they imagined this fonde and fantasticall exposi­tiō: And that they shewed them selues very infants, in lawe and reason. For this was no Maxime, or at least not so certaine, before the making of this sta­tute: whiche geueth no new right to the kinges children, nor answereth any doubt touching them, and their inheritance: but this it saieth, that the law of the Croune of England is, and alwaies hath bene (which lawe, saith the king, say the Lordes, say the Commons, we allowe & affirme for euer) that the kinges children shalbe hable to inherite the landes of their Auncesters, wheresoeuer they be borne.

All the doubt was for other persones▪ (as appea­reth euidētly by the tenour of the statute) whether by the cōmon law they being born out of the alle­geance of the king, were heritable to their Aunce­stours. And it appeareth, that the aduersaries are driuē to the hard wall, when they are faine to catch holde vpō a selie poore marginal note of M. Rastal, of the kinges children, & not of the kings childrens childrē. VVhich yet nothing at al serueth their pur­pose touching this statute. But they, or the Printer, or whosoeuer he be▪ as they drawe out of the text many other notes of the matter therin cōprised: so vpon these French wordes, Les enfants de Roy, they note in the Margent, The Kinges Children: but how farre that worde reacheth, they saie neither more, nor lesse.

Neither it is any thing preiudicial to the said Queenes right or Title, whether the said wordes Infants, ought to be taken strictly for the first de­gree, or farther enlarged. For if this statute tou­cheth [Page] only the succession of the Kings children to their Auncestours for other inheritance, and not for the Croune, as moste men take it, and as it may be (as we haue said) very well taken and allo­wed: then doeth this supposed Maxime of forain borne, that seemeth to be gathered out of this sta­tute, nothing anoy or hinder the Queene of Scot­landes Title to the Croune, as not therto appertei­ning▪ On the other side, if by the inheritance of the Kings children, the Croune also is meant: yet nei­ther may we enforce the rule of foraine borne vpō the kings childrē, which are by the expresse wordes of the statute excepted, neither enforce the word Infants to the first degree onely, for such reasons presidents, and examples, and other proouffes lar­gely by vs before set forth to the contrarie: seing that the right of the Croune falling vpon thē, they may well be called the kings Children, or at the lest the children of the Croune. Ther is also one other cause why though this statute reach to the Croune,This statute toucheth not the Q. of Scotlād, as one not borne be­yond the seas. and may, and ought to be expounded of the same: the said Queene is out of the reach and compasse of the said statute. For the said statute can not be vnderstanded of any persones borne in Scotlande or wales, but onely of persones borne beyond the sea, out of the allegeance of the king of England: that is to witte, France, Flādres, & such like For England, Scotland and wales be all within one Territorie, and not diuided by any sea. And all old Recordes of the law, concerning seruice to be done in those two Countries, haue these words In­fra quatuor Maria within the fower seas, which must nedes be vnderstād, in Scotland & wales, aswel as in England, bicause they be all within one continent, compassed with fower seas. And likewise be many auncient statutes of that Realme written in the [Page 39] Normane French, whiche haue these wordes, deins les quatre mers, that is, within the fower seas. Nowe concerninge the statute, the title of the same is, of those that are born beyond the sea: the doubt mo­ued in the corps of the said statute, is also of childrē borne beyond the sea out of the allegeance,Vide sta­tuta VValliae in magna Charta. VVales vvas vn­der the allegeance of England before it vvas vni­ted to the Croune. with diuers other branches of the statute tending that way. VVherby it seemeth, that no part of the statute toucheth these that are born in VVales or Scotlād. And albeit at this time, and before in the reigne of Edward the first, VVales was fully reduced, anne­xed & vnited to the proper Dominion of England: yet was it before subiected to the Croune and King of England, as to the Lorde and Seigniour. VVherefore if this statute had bene made before the time of the said Edward the first: it semeth, that it could not haue bene stretched to VVales, no more then it can now to Scotland. I doe not there­fore a litle meruaile, that euer these men, for pure shame, could finde in their hartes so childishly to wrangle vpon this word Infants, and so openly to detort, depraue, and corrupt the common law, and the Actes of Parlament.

And thus may you see, gentle Reader, that nothing can be gathered, either out of the saide supposed generall rule or Maxime, or of any other rule or Principle of the lawe, that by any good and reasonable construction can seeme to impugne the title of my said soueraign Lady Mary now Queene of Scotland, of, and to the Croune of the Realme of England, as is aforesaid.

VVe are therefore now last of all to consider, whether there be any statute or acte of Parlament, that doth seeme, either to take away, or preiudice the title of the said Queene. And bycause touching the foresaid mentioned statute of the 25. yere of [Page] King Edward the thirde, being onely a declaration of the common lawe, we haue already sufficiently answered: we will passe it ouer, and consider vpon the statute of 28 and 35. of King Henrye the eight, being the onely shoteanker of all the Aduersaries, whether there be any matter therein conteined or depending vpon the same, that can by any meanes destroye or hurt the title of the said Queene of Scotland to the succession of the Croune of En­gland.

The obiections of the aduersaries touching the pretensed vvill of King Henry the eight are clearlie auoided.

The sta­tutes of King H. 8. touching the succes­sion of the Croune.IT doth appeare by the said statute of .28. of king Henry the eight, that there was authoritie ge­uen him by the same, to declare, limite, appoint, & assigne the succession of the Croune by his Let­ters Patentes, or by his last VVill signed with his owne hande. It appeareth also by the foresaid sta­tute made .35. of the said King, that it was by the same enacted, that the Croune of that Realme of England should go and be to the said King, and to the heires of his body lawfully begotten: that is to say, vnto his Highnes first sonne of his body be­twene him and the Ladie Iane then his wife, begot­ten: & for default of such issue, then vnto the Lady Marie his daughter, and to the heires of her body lawfully begotten: & for defaut of such issue, then vnto the Ladie Elizabeth his daughter, and to the heires of her body laufully begotten: & for defaut of such issue, vnto suche person or persones in re­mainder or reuersion, as should please the said king Henry the eight, and according to such estate, and after such manner, order and condition, as should be expressed, declared, named and limited in his Letters Patentes, or by his last VVill in writing, signed with his owne hande.

[Page 40]By vertue of which said Acte of Parlament the Aduersaries doo alleage, that the said late King Henry the eight afterward by his last VVill in wri­ting signed with his owne hand, did ordeine and appoint, that if it happen, the said Prince Edward, Ladie Marie, and Ladie Elizabethe to dye without issue of their bodies lawfully begotten: then the Croune of that Realme of England should goe and remaine vnto the heires of the bodie of the Ladie Francis, his Neece, and the eldest daughter of the French Queene: And for the defaulte of suche issue, to the heires of the body of the Ladie Eleonour, his Neece, second daughter to the French Queene, lawfully begotten: And if it happened, the sayd Ladie Eleonour to dye without issue of her body lawfully begotten, to remaine and come to the nexte rightfull heires. VVherevpon the aduersaries do inferre, that the succession of the Croune ought to go to the chyldren of the said Ladie Francis, and to their heyres, according to the sayd supposed will of the said king Henry the eight: and not vnto Ladie Marie Queene of Scotlande that nowe is.

To this it is,An an­svver to the foresaid sta­tute. on the behalf of my said soueraign Lady, Marie, Queene of Scotland, among other things, answered, that King Henry the eight neuer signed the pretensed will with his own hand: and that therfore the said will can not be any whit pre­iudicial to the said Queene.The effect of the ad­uersaries arguments for the ex­clusion of the Queene of Scotlād by a pretē ­sed vvil of King H. 8. Against which answere for the defence and vpholding of the saide will, it is replied by the Aduersaries: first, that there were diuers copies of his wil found, signed with his own hande, or at the least wise enterlined, and some for the most part written with his owne hande: out of the whiche it is likely, that the original will, com­monly called King Henry the eightes will, was ta­ken & fayer drawen out. Then, that there be great [Page] and vehement presumptions, that, for the fatherly loue that he bare to the common wealth, and for the auoiding of the vncerteintie of the succession, he well liked vpon and accepted the authoritie geuen him by Parlament, and signed with his owne hande the said originall will, whiche had the said limitation and assignation of the Croune.

And these presumptiōs are the more enforced, for that he had no cause, why he should beare any affectiō either to the said Queene of Scotlād, or to the Lady Leneux: and hauing withal no cause to be greeued or offended with his sisters, the Frenche Queenes children: but to put the matter quite out of all ambiguitie and doubte, it appeareth (they say) that there were eleuen witnesses purposely called by the King, who were present at the signing of the said VVill, and subscribed their names to the same: Yea that the chief Lordes of the Counsaile were made and appointed executours of the said VVill, and that they and other had greate Legacies geuen them in the said VVill, which were paid, and other thinges, comprised in the VVill, accompli­shed accordingly.

There passed also purchases, and Letters Pa­tentes betwene King Edward, and the executors of the said VVill, and others, for the execution and performāce of the same. Finally the said Testament was recorded in the Chancerie. VVherefore they affirme, that there ought no manner of doubt moue any man to the contrarie, and that either we must graunt this VVill to be signed with his hand, or that he made no VVill at all: bothe must be graunted, or both denied. If any will deny it, in case he be one of the witnesses, he shall impugne his own testimonie: if he be one of the executours, he shall ouerthrow the foundation of all his doinges, in procuring the [Page 41] said will to be inrolled, & set forth vnder the great Seale. And so by their dublenes they shall make them selues no mete witnesses.

Nowe a man can not lightly imagine, how any other, bysids these two kind of witnesses (for some of them, and of the executors, were suche, as were continually wayting vpon the kinges person) may impugne this will, and proue, that the king did not signe the same. But if any such impugne the will, it would be considered, how many they are, and what they are: & it wil be very harde to proue negatiuam facti. But it is euidēte, say they, that there was neuer any such lawful proofe against the said will produ­cted. For if it had ben, it would haue bene published in the Starrechamber, preached at Poules Crosse, declared by Acte of Parlamēt, proclamed in euerie quarter of the Realm. Yea, admitting, say they, that it were proued, that the said pretensed will lacked the kinges hande: yet neuerthelesse (say they) the very copies we haue spoken of, being written & signed, or at least interlined with his owne hande, may be saide a sufficient signing with his owne hande.

For seing the scope and final purpose of the statute was, to haue the succession prouided for, and asserteined, whiche is sufficiently done in the said will: and seing his owne hande was required but onely for eschewing euil & sinister dealing, where­of there is no suspicion in this will to be gathe­red: what matter in the worlde, or what difference is there, when the king fulfilled and accomplished this gratiouse Acte, that was loked for at his hādes, whether he signed the wil with is owne hāde, or no?

If it be obiected, that the king was obliged and bound to a certaine precise order and forme, which he could in no wise shift, but that the Acte without it muste perish, and be of no valewe: then, say they, [Page] wee vndoe whole Parlamentes, aswel in Queene Maries time, as in kings Henry the eightes time. In Queene Maries time, bicause she omitted the Style appointed by Parlamente, Anno Henrici octaui trice­simo quinto: An. H. 8.35. An. H. 8.33. & 21. In kinge Henries tyme, by reason there was a statute, that the kinges royal assent may be geuen to an Acte of Parlamente by his Letters Pa­tentes signed with his hāde, though he be not there personally. And yet did the saied king supplie full ofte his consente by the stampe only. This yet not­withstanding, the said Parlamentes for the omission of these formes so exactely and precisely appoin­ted, are not destroyed and disannulled.

An an­svver by the vvay of reioin­der to the same.After this sorte in effecte haue the Aduersaries replied for the defence of the said pretensed will. To this we will make our reioynder, & saye: Firste, that our principal matter is not to ioyne an issewe, whether the saide kinge made and ordeyned any sufficient will, or no. VVe leaue that to an other time. But, whether he made any Testamēt, in suche order and forme, as the statute requireth. VVhere­fore if it be defectiue in the said forme, as wee affir­me it to be, were it otherwise neuer so good and perfect, though it were exemplified by the great Seale, and recorded in Chancerie, and taken com­monly for his VVil, and so accomplished: it is no­thing to the principal question. It resteth then for vs to cōsider the weight of the aduersaries presum­ptions whereby they would inforce a probabilitie that the Testamēt had the foresaid requisite forme. Yet first, it is to be considered, what presumptions, and of what force & number, do occurre to auoide and frustrate the Aduersaries presumptions, and all other like.

Diuers presumptions & reasons against this supposed vvill.VVe say then, there occurre many likelyhoddes many presumptions, many great and weightie rea­sons, [Page 42] to make vs to thinke, that as the king neuer had good and iuste cause, to minde & enterprise suche an Acte, as is pretended: so likewise he did enterpri­se no such Acte in deede. I deny not, but that ther was such authoritie geuen him: neither I deny, but that he might also in some honorable sort haue practised the same, to the honour and wealthe of the Realme, and to the good contentation of the same Realme. But that he had either cause, or did exercise the said authoritie in suche strange & dishonorable sort, as is pretended: I plainely denie. For being at the time of this pretēsed will furnished and adorned with issue, the late king Edward, and the Ladies Marie, and Elizabeth, their state and suc­cession being also lately by Acte of Parlament esta­blished: what neede or likelyhod was there, for the king then to practise such newe deuises, as neuer did, I suppose, any King in that Realme before, and fewe in any other byside? And where they were practised, commonly had infortunate and lamenta­ble successe.

VVhat likelyhode was there, for him to practise such deuises, especially in his later daies (when wis­dome, the loue of God, and his Realm should haue bene moste ripe in him) that were likely to sturre vppe a greater fier of greeuouse contention and wofull destruction in England, then euer did the deadly faction of the read Rose & the white, lately by the incorporation and vnion of the house of Yorke and Lancastre, in the person of his father through the mariage of Ladye Elizabeth, eldest daughter of King Edwarde the fourth, moste happily extinguished and buried? And though it might be thought or said, that there vould be no such cause of feare, by reason the matter passed by Parlament: yet could not he be ignorāt, that neither [Page] Parlamēts made for Hēry the fourth, or cōtinuance of twoo Descentes (which toke no place in geuing any Title touching the Croune) in King Henry the sixt: nor Parlamentes made for King Richard the third, nor Parlaments of attainder made against his father, could either preiudice his fathers right, or releaue other against such, as pretended iust right and title.

And as he could not be ignorant therof: so it is not to be thought, that he would abuse the great confidence put vpon him by the Parlament, and disherite without any apparent cause the next roial blood, and thinke all thinges sure by the colour of Parlamēt: The litle force whereof against the right inheritour, he had (to his fathers and his owne so ample benefit) so lately and so largely sene and felt. And yet if he minded at any time, to preiudice the said Lady Marie Queene of Scotland, of all times he would not haue done it then, when all his care was, by all possible meanes to contriue and com­passe a mariage, betwene his sonne Edward, and the said Lady and Queene. Surely he was to wise of him selfe, and was furnished with to wise Counsailours, to take such an homely way, to procure and pur­chase the said mariage by.

And least of all can we say he attempted that dishonorable disherison for any speciall inclinatiō or fauour he bare to the French Queene, his sisters children. For there haue bene of his neere & priuie Counsaile, that haue reported, that the King neuer had any great liking of the mariage of his sister with the Duke of Suffolke, who maried her first priuily in France, and afterward openly in England: And, as it is said, had his pardon for the said priuy mariage in writing. Howesoeuer this matter goeth, certeine it is, that if this pretensed will be true, he [Page 43] transferred and transposed the reuersion of the Croune, not only from the Queene of Scotland, from the Ladie Leneux and their issue, but euen from the Lady Francis, & the Ladie Eleonour also, daughters to the Frēche Queene, whiche is a thing in a manner incredible, and therefore nothing likely.

I must now, gentle Reader, put thee in remem­brance of two other most pregnant and notable cōiectures and presumptions. For among all other inconueniences, and absurdities, that do, and may accompanie this rash & vnaduised acte by this pre­tensed wil inconsiderately mainteined: it is princi­pally to be noted,The suppo­sed vvill is preiudicial to the Croune of England for the clame of the Croune of France. that this Acte geueth apparent & iust occasion of perpetual disherison of the Style & Title of France incorporated and vnited to the Croune of England. For whereby do or haue the Frenchemen hitherto excluded the kinges of that Realme, claming the Croune of France by the title of Edward the third, fallen vpon him by the right of his mother, other than by a politike and ciuil law of their owne, that barreth the female frō the right of the Croune? And what doeth this pretensed Act of king Henrie, but iustifie and strengthen their quarel, and ouerthrow the foundatiō & bulworke, wherby the kings of England maintene their fore­said title and clame? For if they may by their muni­cipial lawe of England exclude the said Queene of Scotland, being called to the Croune by the Title of generall heritage: then is the municipial law of France likewise good and effectual: & consequētly the kings of England haue made all this while an vniust & wrongfull clame to the Croune of Frāce.

But now to go somewhat further in the matter, or rather to come neerer home, and to touche the quicke, we say: as there was some apparent & good [Page] cause, why the king should the twentie and eight yeare of his reigne thinke vpon some limitation & appointement of the Croune (king Edward as yet vnborne:) so after he was borne, and that the Title and interest of the reuersion of the Croune after him was the thirtie and fifte yeare by Parlament confirmed to the late Queene Marie and her sister Queene Elizabeth: it is not to be thought, that he would afterward ieoparde so great a matter by a Testament and will, whiche may easely be altered and counterfeyted: and least of all make suche assi­gnation of the Croune, as is nowe pretended.

For being a Prince of such wisdome and expe­rience, he could not be ignorant, that this was the next and rediest way, to put the state at least of both his daughters to great peril and vtter disherison.This sup­posed vvill geueth oc­casion of ambitious aspiring. For the Kinges example and boldnes in interru­pting and cutting away so many branches of the neerest side and line, might soone breede in aspi­ring and ambitious hartes a bolde and wicked at­tempte, the way being so farre brought in and pre­pared to their handes by the Kinge him selfe: and their natures so readie and prone to follow euil presidents, and to clime high by some colourable meanes or other, to spoile and depriue the said daughters of their right of the Croune, that should descend and fal vpon them, and to conuey the same to the heires of the said Ladie Francis. And did not, I pray you, this drift and deuise fall out euen so, tending to the vtter exclusion of the late Queene Marie, and her Sister Queene Elizabeth: if God had not repressed and ouerthrowen the same?

These reasones then & presumptions may seme wel able and sufficient, to beare doune, to breake doune and ouerthrow the weake and slender pre­sumptions of the Aduersaries, grounded vpon vn­certaine [Page 44] and mere surmises, ghesses and cōiectures: as among other that the king was offended with the Queene of Scotland, and with the Ladie Leneux. VVhich is not true. And as for the Ladie Leneux, it hath no māner of probabilitie: as it hath not in dede in the said Queene. And if it had: yet it is as proba­ble, and much more probable, that the king would haue especially at that time (for suche cause, as we haue declared) suppressed the same displeasure. Graunting now, that there were some such displea­sure: was it honorable, either for the King, or the Realme: or was it, thinke ye, euer thought by the Parlament, that the king should disherite them for euery light displeasure? And if (as the Aduersaries confesse) the king had no cause to be offēded with the Frenche Queenes children: why did he disheri­te the Ladie Francis, and the Ladie Eleonor also?

Their other presumption, which they ground, vpon the auoyding of the vncertenty of the suc­cession, by reason of his will, is of smal force and ra­ther turneth against them. For it is so farre of, that by this meanes the succession is made more certai­ne and sure: as contrarywise it is subiecte to more vncerteintie, and to lesse suertie, than before.Succession to the Croune more vn­certen by the suppo­sed vvill, than be­fore. For whereas before, the right and clame to the Croune hong vpon an ordinarie and certaine course of the common lawe, vpon the certaine and assured right of the royall and vnspotted blood, yea vpon the very lawe of nature, whereby many inconuenien­ces, manie troubles, daungers and seditions are in al Countries politikely auoyded: so now depending vpon the statute onely, it is as easie by an other sta­tute to be infringed and ouerthrowen: and depen­ding vpon a Testament, it is subiect to many corru­ptions, sinister dealinges, cauillations, yea and iust ouerthrowes, by the dishabilitie of the Testatours [Page] witnesses, or the Legatorie himselfe, or for lacke of dewe order to be obserued, or by the death of the witnesses vnexamined, & for many other like cōsi­deratiōs. The Monuments of all antiquitie,Much for­gerie and counter­feyting of Testamēts. the me­morie of al ages, & of our owne age, & dayly expe­rience can tel and shewe vs many lamentable exam­ples of many a good & lawfull Testamēt, by vndue and craftie meanes, by false & suborned witnesses, by the couetous bearing and maintenance of such as be in authoritie, quite vndone and ouerthrowne. VVherefore Valerius Maximus crieth out against M. Crassus, Valerius Maximus dict. et fa. lib. 9. 6. 4. and Q Horiensius: Lumina Curiae, ornamenta Fori, quod [...]celus vindicare debebant, inhonesti lucri ca­ptura inuitati, authoritatibus suis texerunt. This presū ­ption then of the Aduersaries rather maketh for vs, and ministreth to vs good occasion, to thinke, that the king would not hasard the weight and impor­tance of such a matter, to reste vpon the validitie or inualiditie of a bare Testament only.

By this that we haue said we may probably gather, that the King had no cause to aduenture so great an interprise by a bare will and Testament. Ye shall nowe heare also, why we thinke he did neuer attempt or enterprise any such thing. It is well knowen, the King was not wonte lightly to ouer­slippe the occasion of any great commoditie pre­sently offered. And yet this notwithstanding, hauing geuen to him by Acte of Parlament the ordering and disposition of all Chantries and Colleges, he did neuer or very litle practise and execute this authoritie. And shall we thinke, vnlesse full and suf­ficient proofe necessarily enforce creditte, that the King, to his no present commoditie and aduantage, but yet to his greate dishonour, and to the greate obloquie of his subiectes and other Countries, to the notable disherison of so may the next royall [Page 45] blood, did vse any such authoritie, as is surmised?

Againe, if he had made any suche assignation: who doubteth, but that as he cōditioned in the said pretensed will with his noble daughters,In this supposed vvill is no condition for the ma­riage of the heires of the L. Francis, as is for the Kinges ovvne daughters. to marie with his Counsels aduise, either els not to enioy the benefitte of the succession: he would haue tyed the said Ladie Francis and Ladie Eleonours heirs to the same condition.

Further more, I am driuen to thinke, that there passed no such limitation by the said king Henries will, by reason there is not, nor was these many yeares any original copy therof, nor any authenti­cal Record in the Chācerie, or els where to be she­wed in all England, as the Aduersaries them selues confesse: And in the copies that be spread abrode, the witnesses pretended to be presēt at the signing of the said will, be suche, for the meanesse of their state on the one side, & for the greatnesse & weight of the cause on the other side, as seme not sufficient in suche a case.

The importāce of the cause, being no lesse than the disherison of so many heires of the Croune (as well from the one sister, as from the other) re­quired and craued some one or other of the priuie Caunsaile, or some one honorable and notable per­sone to haue bene present at the said signing: or that some notificatiō should haue bene made afterward to suche persones by the King him selfe, or at least before some Notarie and authētical person for the better strengthening of the said will.

Here is now further to be cōsidered, that (seing the interest to the Croune is become a plaine testa­mentarie matter and clame, and dependeth vpon a last will) when, and before what Ordinarie this will was exhibited, allowed and prooued? VVhere, and of whome toke the Executours their othe for [Page] the true performāce of the will?No order taken for the pro­bate of the supposed vvill. VVho committed to them the administration of the kings goods and chattles? VVhen, and to whome haue they brought in the Inuentory of the same? VVho examined the witnesses vpon their othe, for the tenour & trueth of the said Testament? Namely vpon the signement of the kinges hand, wherein onely consisteth the weight of no lesse, then of the Croune it selfe: whe­re, or in what spiritual or temporal Courte may one find their depositions? But it were a very hard thing to finde that, that (as farre as men can learne) ne­uer was.

And yet if the matter were so plaine, so good & so sound, as these men beare vs in hand: if the origi­nal Testement had ben such, as might haue bidden the touchstone, the triall, the light and the sight of the worlde: why did not they, that enioyed most commoditie therby (and, for the sway and authori­tie they bare, might and ought best to haue done it) take conuenient and sure order, that the originall might haue bene duely and safely preserued: or at least, the ordinary Probate (which is in euery poore mans Testament diligently obserued) might haue bene procured or sene, by one or other authentical Instrument therof reserued? The Aduersaries them selues see wel enough, yea and are faine to confesse these defectes.The enro­lement in the chan­cerie is not a probate. But to helpe this mischief, they wold faine haue the Enrolment in the Chancerie to be taken for a sufficient Probate, bycause (as they say) both the spiritual and temporall authoritie did cō ­curre in the kings person.

Yet do they know wel inough, that this plaister will not cure the sore, and that this is but a poore helpe and a shift. For neither the Letters Patents, nor the Enrolment may in any wise be counted a sufficient Probate. The Chancerie is not the Court [Page 46] or ordinarie place for the probate of willes, nor the Rolles for recording the same. Both must be done in the Spiritual Courts: where the executours also must be impleaded, and geue their accompt: where the weakenes or strengh of the will must be tried, the witnesses examined, finally the probate, & al other thinges thereto requisite, dispatched. Or if it may be done by any other persone: yet must his authoritie be shewed. The probate and all thinges must be done accordinglye. And amonge other things the vsual clause of Saluo iure cuiuscūque, must not be omitted. VVhiche things, I am assured, the recording in the Chancerie cannot import.

But this caution and prouiso of Saluo iure cuius­cunque (whiche is most conformable to all law and reason) did litle serue some mens turne. And there­fore there was one other caution and prouiso: that though the poorest mans Testament in all England hath this prouiso at the probate of the same: yet for this Testament, the weightiest, I trow, that euer was made in England, no suche probate or clause can be found, either in the one, or the other Court. Yet we nedes must, al this notwithstanding, be borne in hande, and borne doune, that there was a Testamēt & will, formably framed, according to the purpose and effect of the statute: yet must the right of the imperiall Croune of England be conueied and ca­ried away with the colour & shadow only of a will. I say, the shadow only, by reason of an other conie­cture and presumption, whiche I shall tel you of. VVhiche is so liuely and effectual, that I verily sup­pose, it will be very harde for any mā, by any good and probable reasō, to answere & auoide the same: And is so important and vehement, that this only might seeme, vtterly to destroie al the Aduersaries coniectural prooffes, concerning the maintenance [Page] of this supposed will.

VVe say therfore and affirme, that in case there had bene any good and sure helpe and handfast, to take and hold the Croune for the heirs of Lady Frā ­cis by the said will: that the faction, that vniustly in­truded the Lady Iane, eldest daughter to the said Lady Frācis to the possessiō of the Croune, would neuer haue omitted to take, receaue and imbrace the occasion and benefit therof to them presently offered. They neither would, nor could haue bene driuen, to so harde & bare a shifte, as to colour their vsurpation against the Late Queene Marie only, & her Sister Queene Elizabeth, with the Letters Pa­tents of King Edward the sixt, and with the cōsent of suche as they had procured.A great presūption against the suppo­sed vvill, for that the late pretensed Q. Iane did not vse the benefit of the same against the Q. of Scot­land and others. VVhich king by law had no autoritie (as it is notorious) to make any limitation and assignation of the Croune otherwise than the common lawe doth dispose it. It was nede for them, I say, as they procured suche Letters Pa­tentes, so to haue set forth also the said pretensed will, if there had bene then any such will in deede sufficiently and dewly to be proued, as is now sur­mised there was. The Recorde of the said surmised will was in the Chancerie, whiche they might haue vsed with the pretensed witnesses, and with the original pretēsed will, & with al other things therto belonging, to their best aduantage. It can not be thought, that either they were ignorant of it, or that they would forbeare and forgoe so greate a commoditie offered, and suche a plausible pretext of their pretensed vsurpation, bearing the counte­nance and authoritie of the kings will, and of the whole Parlament, for the exclusion of the Queene of Scotland and others of the nerer royal blood. Neither can it be said, that the Letters Patētes were made, as it were for a stronger corroboration and [Page 47] confirmatiō only of the said pretensed will:See the proclama­tion made the x. of Iulie the first yeare of her pretensed reigne. for that there is not so muche as one worde in their whole pretensed letters patents for the supposed right of the said Lady Ian, by the force of that surmised will: whereby it might any thing appeare, that king Henry the eight made any manner of limitation or assignatiō of the Croune to the heires of the Lady Francis. VVherevpon it may well be gathered, that either they knew of no suche limitation to the chil­dren of the Lady Francis by the said supposed will: or toke it to be suche, as could geue no good and lawfull force and strength, to ayde and mainteine their vsurpation for the manifest forgerye of the same. And therfore they purposely (for, ignorance can not be pretended in them) kepte backe & sup­pressed in the said Letters Patentes this pretensed limitation surmised to be made for the children of the said Lady Francis. VVhiche neuethelesse the Aduersaries do nowe with so great and vehement asseueration blowe into al mens eares: yet is it vtter­ly reiected and ouerthrowen, if it were by nothing els than by these letters patēts for the pretensed title of the said Lady Iane. So that we nede to trauaile no further for any more proofe against the said asseueration.

But yet in case any man do loke for any other and more persuasion and proofe, whiche, as I sayd, neede not: ô the great prouidence of God, ô his great fauour and goodnes to that Realme, of the which it hath bene said:Polid. li. 8 Regnum Angliae, est regnum, Dei, and that God hath euer had a speciall care of it: ô his great goodnes, I say, to this Realme euen in this case also. For he hath opened and brought to light the verie truth of the matter, whiche is burst out, though neuer so craftily supressed and kept vnder. VVe say then, that the King neuer signed the [Page] pretensed will with his owne hande: neither do we say it by bare hearsay, or gather it by our former coniectures and presumptions onely, though very effectuall and probable: but by good and hable witnesses, that auouche and iustifie, of their owne certaine knowledge, that the Stampe onely was put to the said wil, & that euen when the King him selfe was now dead, or dyeing and past all remembrance.

The forge­rie of this supposed vvill dis­closed be­fore the Parlament by the L. Paget.The Lorde Paget being one of the priuie Counsaile with Queene Marie, of his owne free will and godly motion, for the honour of the Realme, for reuerence of truth and iustice (thoughe in the facte him selfe perhappes culpable, but thereto by great authoritie forced,) did first of all men disclose the matter, first to the said Counsaile, & then before the whole Parlament. Sir Edward Mountegue also the chief Iustice, that was priuie and present at the saide doinges, did confesse the same, as well before the Counsaile, as before the Parlament. Yea, VVil­liam Clarke, (ascribed among other pretensed wit­nesses) confessed the premisses to be true. And that him selfe put the stampe to the said will, and after­ward purchased his Charter of pardon for the said fact.

Vpon the which depositions well and aduisedly weighed and pondered, Queene Marie with the aduise of her Counsaile, to the honour of God, and that Realme, to the maintenance of trueth and iu­stice, & the rightful successiō of the Croune, for the eschewing of many foule mischieffes, that might vpon that forgerie ensue,A vvor­thy deede for a Prin­ce to cancell false Re­cordes. caused the Recorde of the said forged will remaining in the Chancerie, to be cancelled, defaced and abolished, as not worthy to remaine among the true and sincere Recordes of that noble Realme. VVhiche her noble facte deserueth immortalitie of eternall prayse and fame, [Page 48] no lesse, than the fact of the Romaines that abo­lished the name and memorie of the Tarquinians, for the foule acte of Sextus Tarquinius in defiling Lucretia: No lesse, than the fact of the Ephesians,Cicero. 3. offic. who made a lawe, that the name of the wicked He­rostratus should neuer be recorded in the bookes of any their Historiographers:Sueton. de viris illu­strib. No lesse thā the fact of the familie of the Manlians at Rome, taking a so­lemne othe, that none among them should euer be called Capitolinus, bycause M. Manlius Capitolinus had sought to oppresse his Countrey with tyrannie. And to come nerer home, no lesse than in England their forefathers deserued,Bed. lib. 3. histor. Ec­clesiast. c. i. whiche quite rased out of the yeares and times the memorie and name of the wicked Apostates Osricus and Eanfridus, num­bring their tyme vnder the reigne of the good King Oswald.

The aduersaries therfore are muche to be bla­med, going about to staine and blotte the memorie of the said Queene and Magistrats, as though they had done this thing disorderly, and as though there had bene some special cōmoditie therein to them: which is apparently falfe. For as the said abolition was nothing beneficiall to other Magistrats: so if it hadde bene a true and an vndoubted will, the said Queene vould neuer haue caused it to be cancel­led, as well for her honour and conscience sake, as for priuate respect, seeing her owne royall estate was by the same set foorth & cōfirmed. Yet would they faine blemish and disgrace the testimonie of the said Lorde Paget, and S. Edward Mountague. They set against them eleuen witnesses, thinking to matche and ouermatche them with the number.

But here it muste be remembred, that though they be eleuen, yet they are too slender and weake for the weight and importance of the matter. It is [Page] againe to be remembred, that often times the lawe doth as well weigh the credit, as number the per­sons of the witnesses. Aliàs (saith Calistratus) nume­rus, aliàs dignitas & authoritas confirmat rei, L. testiū. ff. de testibus. L. Ob car­men ibid. de qua agi­tur, fidem. According to this, saith also Archadius: Confirmabit Iudex motum animi sui ex argumentis & testimoniis, quae rei aptiora, & vero proximiora esse compe­rerit. Non enim ad multitudinem respicere oportet, sed ad sinceram testimoniorum fidem & testimonia, quibus potius lux veritatis assistit.

It hath not lightly bene heard or sene, that men of suche state & vocation in so great and weightie a cause would incurre first the displeasure of God, then of their Prince, and of some other of the best sorte, if their depositions were vntrue: and would purchase them selues dishonour, slaūder & infamie: yea disclose their owne shame to their owne no manner of way hoped cōmoditie, nor to the com­moditie of other their frendes,No iust cause to repel the testimo­nie of the L. Paget and o­hers. or discommoditie and hurte of their enemies. This sufficently doth purge them from all sinister suspicion for this their deposition and testimonie: their deposition pro­ceding, as it plainly seemeth, from no affectiō, cor­ruptiō or partialitie, but from a zeale to the trueth, and to the honour of the Realme. And though perchance, if they had bene thereof iudicialy con­uicted & condemned, and had not by dew penance themselues reformed: some exceptions might haue bene layed against them by any partie iudiciallye conuented for his better aduantage: yet as the case standeth nowe,L. Famosi ff. and l. Tul. maies. l. muliere. ff. de ac­cusat. there is no cause in the worlde, to discredit their testimonie: yea and by the waye of accusatiō also, suche persons, as be otherwise disha­bled, are in treason and other publike matters, tou­ching the state, enhabled both to accuse, & testifie.

As for the eleuen witnesses, the best of them [Page 49] Sir Iohn Gates, we know, by what meanes he is de­parted out of this life. One other, the said VVilliam Clarke is so gone from them, that he geueth good cause, to misdeeme and mistrust the whole matter. Howe many of the residue liue, I know not. To whom perchaunce some thing might be said, if we once knowe, what them selues say. VVhich seeing it doth not by authenticall recorde appeare, bare names of dumme witnesses can in no wise hinder & deface so solemne a testimonie of the foresaid L. Paget and Sir Edwarde Mountague. Neither is the difficultie so great, as the Aduersaries pretend,Hovv a negatiue may be proued. in prouing Negatiuam facti. VVhich as we graunt it to be true, when it stādeth within the limites of a mere negatiue: so being restraigned and referred to time and place, may be as well proued, as the affirmatiue. It appeareth nowe then by the premisses:Gloss. & Doct. c. bona de elect. that the Aduersaries argumentes, whereby they would weaken and discredit the testimonie, either of the witnesses, or of the executours, that haue or may come in against the said pretensed will, are but of smal force and strength. And especially their slēder exaggeration by a superficial Rhetorike enforced. VVhereby they would abuse the ignorance of the people, and make them beleue, that there was no good and substātial prooffe brought foorth against the forgerie of this supposed will, bycause the vn­trueth of the same was not preached at Poules Crosse, and declared in al open places and assembles through the Realm: when they knowe wel inough, that there was no necessitie so to doe. And that it was notoriously knowen, by reason it was disclosed by the saide Lorde Paget, as wel to the Counsaile, as to the higher and lower house of the Parliament. And the foresaid forged Recorde in the Chancerie therevpon worthely defaced, and abolished. The [Page] disclosing whereof, seing it came foorth by such, & in such sort & order, as we haue specified: as it doth nothing deface or blemish the testimonie geuen against the said supposed will, whether it were of any of the witnesses, or executours: so is ther no nede at all, why any other witnesses, bysides those that haue already impugned the same, should be now farther producted.

Hovv and vvhen the later testi­monie is to be acce­pted be­fore the former.I denie not, but that if any suche witnesse or executour had vpon his othe before a lawfull Iudge, deposed of his owne certaine notice and knoweledge, that the said will was signed with the Kinges own hande: in case he should afterward cō ­tratrie and reuoke this his solemne deposition, it ought not lightly to be discredited for any suche contradiction afterward happening. But, as I haue said, such authenticall and ordinarie examinatiōs & depositiōs we find not, nor yet heare of any such so passed. Now cōtrariwise if any of the said witnesses or executours haue or shall before a competent Iudge, especially not producted of any partie, or against any partie for any priuate suit commēced, but, as I haue said, moued of conscience onely, and of a zeale to truth, and to the honour of God & the Realme, freely & voluntarilie discouer and detecte suche forgerie (although perchance it toucheth them selues for some thing done or said of them to the contrary,) or being called by the said cōpetent Iudge, haue or shall declare and testifie any thing against the same: this later testimonie may be well credited by good reason and law.

VVhereas they would nowe inferre, that either this pretensed will was King Henries will, or that he made none at all: I doo not (as I haue said) enten­de, nor neede not curiously to examine and discusse this thing, as a matter not apperteining to our prin­cipal [Page 50] purpose. And well it may be, that he made a will conteining the whole tenour of this pretensed will (sauing for the limitation of the Croune) and that these supposed witnesses were present, either when he subscribed the same with his own hand, or when by his cōmaundement the Stampe (of which and of his owne hand, the cōmon sort of men make no difference, as in dede in diuers other cases there is no difference, whiche these witnesses might take to be as it were his owne hand) was set to the wil.

This, I say, might after some sort so be. And yet this notwithstanding there might be (as there was in deede) an other will touching the pretensed limi­tation of the Croune by the Kinges owne hande counterfeyted and suborned after his death falsly and colourably, bearing the countenance of his owne hand, and of the pretensed wittnesses names. How so euer it be, it is but to smal purpose, to goe about any full and exquisite answere touching this point, seeing that neither the original surmised wil, whereof these witnesses are supposed to be priuy is extant: nor their depositions any where appeare: nor yet that it appeareth, that euer they were (as we haue said) iudicially examined.

Seeing nowe then, that if it so falleth out, that the principal will, and that whiche was by the great Seale exemplified, and in the Chancery recorded, had not (at least touching the clause of limitation & assignement of the Croune) the Kings hand to it: we neede not, nor wil not tarie about certain scrol­les and copies of the said will, that the Aduersaries pretēd to haue ben either writtē, or signed with his hand. A kingdom is to heauy to be so easely caried away by suche scrolles and copies. VVhen all this faileth, the Aduersaries haue yet one shift left for the last cast. They vrge the equitie of the matter and [Page] the mind of the Parlament. VVhich is, they say, ac­complished and satisfied, by making this assignatiō for the establishing of the succession, & prouiding, that the Realme should not be left void of a Go­uernour. And therefore we must not subuert the sta­tute, in cauilling for the defect of the Kings hand: forasmuch as the Parlament might haue had autho­rised his consent onely, without any hand writing. VVhiche as I doe not denie, so in these great affaires and so ample a commission, in suche absolute au­thoritie geuen to him, it was prouidently and ne­cessarily foresene, to binde the Acte to the Kings owne hand, for auoyding al sinister & euill dealing, the whiche the Aduersaries would haue vs in no case to misdoubt or mistrust in this will. VVhereas the notoriousnes of the fact, & the lamentable euēt of things do openly declare the same, and pitifully crieth out against it.

Neither wil we graunt to them, that the minde and purpose of the Parlament is satisfied, for such causes, as we haue and shall hereafter more largely declare. And if it were otherwise true: yet doth this only defect of the Kinges hand breake & infringe the whole Acte.VVhy the stampe can not coun­teruaile the Kinges hand in this case. For this is a statute correctorie, and derogatorie to the commō course of the lawe, as cutting away the succession of the lawfull & true inheritours. It is also, as appeareth by the tenour of the same, a most greuouse penal lawe, and therfore we may not shift or alter the wordes of the lawe, Neither may we supply the manner and doing of the acte prescribed, by any other act equiualent. So that albeit in some other thing the Stampe or the Kinges certaine & knowen consente may counter­paise his hande: yet, as the case standeth here, it will not serue the turne, by reason there is a precise or­der and forme prescribed & appointed. VVerfore [Page 51] if by a statue of a Citie,Ioan An­dr. in adit. specul tit. derequisit consul ad finem. there be certaine persones appointed to do a certaine acte, and the whole peo­ple do the same acte in the presence of the said persones: the acte by the iudgement of learned Ci­uilians is vitious, & of no valewe: yea though the reason of the lawe cease, yet must the forme be ob­serued. For it is a rule and a maxime, that where the law appointeth & prescribeth a certaine platforme,L. Si fun­dus ff. de rebus eo­rum: c. de rebus Ec­clesiae in 6. whereby the Acte must be bound and tyed: in that case though the reason of the lawe ceasse, yet is the acte voyd and naught.

And whereas the Aduersaries obiecte against this rule, the Parlamentes made by Queene Marie,An an­svvere to the aduer­saries, tou­chinge Actes of Parlament alleaged to proue, that the Kinges ovvne hād vvas not necessarie to the sup­posed vvil. without the vsual style called & somoned: this ob­iection may sone be answered. For it may sone ap­peare to all them, that reade and pervse the said sta­tute of Anno 35. Henrici octaui, conteining the said style, that by any especial words therin mētioned, it is not there limited & appointed, that the forme of the style therin sette foorth should be obserued in euery writ. And therfore not to be compared vnto the said statutes of 28. and 35. Henrici octaui, wherein by special wordes one expresse forme & order for the limiting of the succession of the Croune by the King, is declared and set forth.

Bysides that, the said writtes being made both according to the auncient forme of the Regester, and also by expresse commaundement of the Prin­ce, vtterly refusing the said style, could neither be derogatorie to the said Queenes Maiestie and her Croune, nor meaning of the said statute. Cōcerning the said style, and for a final and ful answere vnto this matter: it is to be noted, that the writtes being the Actes of the Court, though they want the pres­cript forme set foorth either by the cōmon law, or statute: yet are not they, nor the iudgements subse­quent [Page] ther vpon abated or void, but only abatable and voidable by exception of the partie by iudge­mēte of the the Court.18. E. 3. fo 30. 3. H. 4 fol. 3. & 11. 11. H. 4. fol. 67. 9. H. 6. fol. 6. 19. H. 6 fo. 7. & 10 35. H. 6. fo. 12. 10. H. 6. fol. 16. 3. H. 6 fo. 8. 33. E. 3. fo. 13. Vide Pri­sot. 33. H. 6. fol. 35. For if the partie without any exceptiō doe admitte the forme of the said VVritte, and pleade vnto the matter, whervpon the Court doth procede: then doth the VVritte, & the iudge­ment there vpon following remanine good and effectual in lawe. And therefore admiting, that the said statute of 35. H. 8. had by speciall wordes ap­pointed the said style to be put in euery VVritte, and that for that cause the said VVritts of Somons were vitious, wanting their prescript forme: yet when the parties vnto the said VVrittes had admit­ted them for good, both by theyr election, and also by their appearence vpon the same: the lawe doth admit the said VVrittes, & al actes subsequent vpon the same, to be good and effectuall. And yet this maketh no prooffe, that therfore the said supposed will, wanting the prescript order & fourme, should likewise be good and effectual in lawe.

For as touching specialties, estates and conuei­ances, or any other externall acte to be done or made by any person, whose forme and order is prescribed, either by the common lawe, or by sta­tute:9. H. 6. fol. 35. 35. H. 6. fo. 34. 40. E. 3. fol. 2. if they want any part of their prescript forme, they are accompted in law to be of no validitie or effect. As for example: the lawe doth appoint euery Specialtie or Deede to be made, either in the first persone, or in the third persone. Therefore if parte of a Deede be made in the first person, and the resi­due in the third person: that Deede is not effectual, but void in the Law. Bysides that, the lawe hath ap­pointed,40. E. 3. fol. 35. 21. E. 4. fo. 97 7. H. 7. fo. 15. that in euery Deede mentioned should be made, that the partie hath put to his Seale to the same. If therfore any Deede doth want that special clause and mention, although the partie in deede [Page 52] hath put his Seale vnto the same: yet is that Dede or Specialtie void in law.

So lykewise the lawe geueth authoritie to the Lord, to distraine vpon the land holden of him for his rentes & seruices due for the same. And farther doth appoint, to carie or driue the same distresse vnto the pound, there to remaine as a gage in lawe for his said rentes & seruices.9. E. 4. fol. 2. 22. E. 4 fo. 47. 29. H. 6. fo. 6. 29. lib. Assis. P. 64. If the Lord shal either distraine his Tenant out of his Fee or Seignory, or if he shal labour and occupie the Chatles distrained: the distresse so taken by him is iniurious & wrōgful in law, forasmuch as he hath not done according to the prescribed order of the lawe. The statute made An. 32. H. 8. geueth authoritie vnto Tenant in taile and to others being seised of land in the right of their wiues or Churches, to make leases of the same: VVherin also a prescript order and forme for the same is set foorth, If any of the said persons shal make any Lease, wherin he doth not obserue the same prescribed order in all pointes, the same lease is not warranted in any point by the said statute.

Likewise the statute made in Anno 27.27. H. 8. 6. 10. Henrici octaui, of Bargaines and sales of land appointeth a forme and order for the same, that they must be by writing indented, sealed and enrolled within six monethes next after the dates of the same wri­tings. If any bargaine and sale of land be made, wherein any of the thinges appointed by the said statute are omitted, the same is vitious and voide in the lawe. So likewise the statute made in Anno 32.32. H. 8. 6. 1. H. 8. geueth authoritie, to dispose landes and Testa­mentes by last VVil and Testement in writing. If a man do deuise his lande by his last VVil and Testa­ment nuncupatiue without writing, this deuise is insufficiēt in law, & not warrāted by the said statute.

VVe leaue of a number of like cases, that we [Page] might multiplie in the prooff of this matter wherein we haue taried the longer, bycause the Aduersa­ries make so great a countenance therevpon: and bycause all vnder one, it may serue for the answere also touching the Kinges royal assente to be geuen to Parlamentes by his Letters Patentes signed with his hande: which is nothing else but a declaration & affirmance of the common lawe, & no newe autho­ritie geuen to him, to do that he could not doo be­fore, or any forme prescribed to bind him vnto. Bi­sides that, in this case there is no feare in the worlde of forging and counterfeyting the Kinges hande: whereas in the Testamētarie cause it is farre other­wise, as the worlde knoweth, and dayly experience teacheth. And so withall do we conclude, that by reason this surmised will was not signed with the Kinges hand: it can not any way hurt or hinder the iuste right and clame of the Queene of Scotland, to the succession of the Croune of England.

Now supposing, that neither the L. Paget, nor Sir Edward Montague, and VVilliam Clarke had testified or plublished any thing to the infringing & ouerthrowing of the Aduersaries assertiō, touching the signing of the said will: yet is not therby the Queene of Scotlandes title altogether hindred. For she yet hath her iust and lawful defence for the op­pugning of the said assertion, as well against the per­sones and sayings of the witnesses, if any shall come foorth, as otherwise shee may iustly require the said wil to be brought forth to light, and especially the signing of the same with the Kings hande, to be duely and consideratly pondered, weyghed and conferred. She hath her iust defence and exeptions and must haue. And it were against al lawes, and the lawe of nature it selfe, to spoile her of the same. And all good reason geueth, that the said original will [Page 53] standing vpon the triall of the Kings hande, be ex­hibited: that it may be compared with his other certaine and well knowen hand writing. And that other things may be done that are requisite in this behalfe.

But yet all this notwithstanding, let vs nowe imagine & suppose, that the King him selfe, whose hart and hand were doubtlesse farre from any such doings: lette vs yet, I say, admitte, that he had signed the said will with his owne hande. Yet for all that, the Aduersaries perchance shal not finde, no not in this case, that the Queenes iuste Title, right and interest doth any thing fayle or quayle.The suppo­sed vvill can not preiudice the Quene of Scotlād, though it had ben signed vvi h the Kinges ovv e hand. Or rather lette vs without any perchance say, the iustice and equitie of her cause, and the inuincible force of trueth to be suche, that neither the Stampe, nor the Kinges owne hande can beare and beate it downe. VVhiche thing we speake not without good pro­bable and weightie reasons.

Neither do we at this time minde, to debate & discourse, what power and autoritie, and how farre the Parlament hath to doe, in this and like cases. VVhiche perchance some other would here do. VVe will only intermedle with other thinges, that reache not so farre, nor so high, and seeme in this our present question worthy and necessarie to be considered.

And first, before we enter into other matters, we aske this reasonable and necessarie question, whether these general words, wherby this large & ample authoritie is cōueied to king Henry, must be as generally, and as amply taken, or be restrained by some manner of limitation and restriction agreable to such mind and purpose of the Parlament, as must of very necessitie or great likelihod be construed, to be the very mind and purpose of the said Parla­ment [Page] Ye wil say perchance, that the power and au­thoritie of assignation must be taken generally and absolutely, without exception, sauing for the out­ward signing of the wil. Trueth it is, there is nothing els expressed: but yet was there some thinges els principally intended, and yet for all that, needed not to be specified.

The outward manner was so specially and pre­cisely appointed and specified, to auoyde suspitious dealing, to auoide corruption and forgery. And yet was the will good and effectual, without the Kinges hande.Ther must needes be some qua­lification and re­straint of the general vvordes of the sta­tute. Yea and the assignation to had ben good, had not that restrainte of the Kinges hande bene added by the Parlament. But for the qualification of the person to be limited and assigned, and so for the ne­cessarie restriction and limitation of the wordes, were they neuer so large & ample: there is (though nothing were spoken thereof) an ordinary helpe & remedie. Otherwise, if the Realme had ben set ouer to a furious or a madde man, or to an idiote, or to some foraine and Mahometical Prince (and to such a one as stories testifie that King Iohn would haue submitted him selfe & his Realme) or to any other notorious incapable or vnhable person:Matthaeus Parisieusis in Iohan. the gene­ralitie of the wordes seeme to beare it, but the good minde and purpose of the Parlament, and mans reason doe in no wise beare it. If ye graunt, that these wordes must nedes haue some good and honest construction and interpretation, as reason doth force you to graunt it: yet will I aske further, whether as the King cutte of in this pretensed will the whole noble race of the eldest sister, and the first issue of the yongest sister: so if he had cutte of also al the ofspringes as wel of the said yongest sister, as of the remnante of the royal blood, & placed some, being not of the said blood, & perchāce otherwise [Page 54] vnable: this assignation had bene good and vailable in lawe, as conformable to reason, and to the mind and purpose of the Parlamēt? It were surely to great an absurdity, to graunt it.

There must be therefore in this matter some reasonable moderation and interpretation, as wel touching the persones comprehended within this assignation, & their qualities, & for the persons also hauing right, & yet excluded, as for the manner of the doing of the act, & signing the wil. For the king as King, could not dispose the Croune by his will: & was in this behalfe but an Arbiter and Cōmissio­ner. VVherefore his doinges must be directed and ruled by the lawe, & according to the good minde and meaning of those, that gaue the authoritie. And what their minde was, it will appeare well enough, euen in the statute it selfe. It was for the auoiding of all ambiguities, doubtes and diuisions, tou­ching the Succession. They putte their whole trust vpon the King, as one, whome they thought most earnestly to minde the wealth of the Realme: as one that would, and could best and most prudently consider and weigh the matter of the Succession, and prouide for the same accordingly.

If the doinges of the King do not plainely and euidently tende to this ende and scope: if a Zealous minde to the common wealth, if prudence & wis­dome did not rule & measure all these doinges: but contrariewise partial affection and displeasure: if this arbitrement putteth not away all contentions and striffes: if the mind and purpose of the honora­ble Parlament be not satisfied: if there be dishono­rable deuises & assignements of the Croune in this will and Testament,L. 1. ff. qui Testamēta fac [...]re. if there be a new Succession vnnaturally deuised: finally if this be not a Testa­ment and last will, such as Modestinus defineth: Testa­mentum [Page] est iusta voluntatis nostrae sententia de eo, The defi­nition of a Testament. quod quis post mortem suā fieri velit: then though the Kinges hand were put to it, the matter goeth not altoge­ther so wel & so smothe. But that there is good and great cause further to consider and debate vpon it, whether it be so, or no: let the indifferent, when they haue wel thought vpon it, iudge accordingly.

The Aduersaries them selues can not altogether denie, but that this Testament is not correspondēt to such expectation, as men worthely should haue of it. VVhiche thing they do plainly confesse. For in vrging their presumptions, whereof we haue spoken and minding to proue, that this wil, whiche they say is commonly called King Henries VVill, was no new VVil deuised in his sicknes but euen the very same, wherof (as they say) were diuers olde copies: they inferre these wordes, saying thus.

For if it be a nevve vvill then deuised, vvho could thinke, that either h m selfe vvould, or any man durst haue moued him, to put therin so many thinges contrary to his honour? Much lesse durst they them selues deuise any nevv succession, or moue him to alter it, othervvise then they found it, vvhen they savv, that naturally it could not be othervvise disposed. VVherein they say very truely. For it is certaine, that not only the common lawe of that Realm, but nature it selfe telleth vs, that the Queene of Scotland (after the said Kinges chil­dren) is the next and rightful Heire of the Croune. VVherefore the King, if he had excluded her, he had done an vnnatural act Ye will say, he had some cause to doo this, by reason she was a forainer, and borne out of the Realme. Yet this notwithstan­ding he did very vnnaturally, yea vnaduisedly, in­consideratly and wrongfully, and to the great pre­iudice and danger of his owne Title to the Croune of France▪ as we haue already declared.

[Page 55]And moreouer it is well to be weighed, that reason, and equitie, and Ius Gentium, doth require & craue, that as the kings of that Realm would thinke them selues to be iniuriously handled and openly wronged, if they mariyng with the heires of Spaine, Scotland, or any other Countrey (where the suces­sion of the Croune deuolueth to the woman) were shutte out, and barred from their said right due to them by the wiues (as we haue said:) so likewise they ought to think of womē of their royal blood, that marie in Scotland, that they may wel iudge and take them selues muche iniuried, vnnaturally and wrongfully dealt withall, to be thruste from the succession of that Croune, being thereto called by the nexte proximitie of the royal blood. And such deuolutions of other Kingdoms to the Croune of England by foraine mariage, might by possibilitie often times haue chaunced, and was euen nowe in this our time very like to haue chanced for Scot­land, if the intended mariage with the Queene of Scotland that nowe is, and the late King Edward the sixt with his longer life, & some issue had taken place.

But now, that she is no suche forainer, as is not capable of the Croune, we haue at large already discussed. Yea I will now say farther, that supposing the Parlament minded to exclude her, and might rightfuly so doe, and that the King by vertue of this statute did exclude her in his supposed will: yet is she not a plaine forainer, and incapable of the Croune. For if the lawfull heires of the said Ladie Francis, and of the Ladie Eleonour should happen to faile (whiche seeme now to faile, at the least in the Ladie Katherin and her issue, for whose title, great sturre hath lately ben made, by reason of a late sentēce definitiue, geuen against her pretensed [Page] mariage with the Earle of Herford) then is there no stay or stoppe, either by the Parlament, or by the supposed VVill, but that she the said Quene of Scotlande, and her Heires, may haue and obteine their iust Title and clame. For by the said pretensed will it is limited, that for default of the lawfull Hey­res of the said Ladie Francis & Elenour, the Croune shall remaine and come to the next rightful Heires.

But if she shall be said to be a forainer for the time, for the induction of farther argument: then what saye the Aduersaries to the Ladie Leneux, borne at Herbottel in England, and from thirtene yeares of age brought vppe also in England, and commonly taken and reputed as well of the King and Nobilitie, as of other, the lawefull Neece of the said king? Yea to turn now to the other sister of the King maried to Charles Brādon Duke of Suffolke, and her children, the Ladie Francis, and the Ladie Eleonour: why are they also disherited? Surely, if there be no iust cause, neither in the Lady Leneux, nor in the other: it seemeth the King hath made a plaine Donatiue of the Croune. VVhiche thinge whether he could doe, or whether it be conforma­ble to the expectation of the Parlament, or for the Kinges honour, or for the honour of the Realme, I leaue it to the further consideration of other.

Nowe, what causes should moue the Kinge, to shutte them out by his pretensed will from the Title of the Croune: I minde not, nor neede not (especially seeing I take no notice of any suche will, touching the limitation of the said Croune) here to prosecute or examine.

Yet am I not ignorant, what impedimentes many doo talke of, and some as well by printed, as vn­printed Bookes, doe writte of. VVherein I will not take vpon me any asseueration, any resolution or [Page 56] iudgement.

This onely will I propound, as it were by the way of consideratiō, duely & depely to be wayghed and thought vpon: that is, for as muche as the bene­fitte of this surmised will tendeth to the extrusion of the Queene of Scotland, and others altogether, and to the issue of the French Queene: whether in case the King had no cause to be offended with his sisters the Frenche Queenes Children (as the Ad­uersaries them selues confesse he had not, and that there was no lawfull impediment in them, to take the succession of the Croune) it were any thing reasonable, or euer was once meant of the Parlamēt, that the King without cause should disherite and exclude them from the title of the Croune. On the other side, if ther were any such impedimēt (where­of this surmised will geueth out a great suspicion) it is to be considered, whether it standeth with rea­son and iustice, with the honour of the king, and the whole Realme, or with the minde, purpose and in­tente of the said Parlament, that the King should not onely frustrate and exclude suche, whose right by the common lawe is moste euidente and noto­riouse, but call and substitute suche other,L. si pater. ff. Quae in frau credit. L. fili. fami. ff. de D [...] ­rat. L. 1. 6. quae res pign. l. obligation. ff. de pigno. c. in gener. de Regum iuris in 6. L. quidā. ff. de ver. sig. L. vt grad. §. 1. de uumer. & hono. L. permit­tēdo cū no­tatis. ff. de iure dotiū. In geuing generall authoritie, that see­meth not to be com­prised, that the partie vvould not haue graunted, being spe­cially de­maunded. Generall vvordes must be referted to hable per­sons. L. 2. c. de Nopall. L. sin. §. in computa­tione. De iure de­liber. & ibi notat Alciat. in l. 1. de ver. significat. as by the same lawe are plainely excluded. In consideration whereof many notable Rules of the Ciuil lawe doo concurre.

First, that who soeuer geueth any man a generall authoritie, to do any thing, seemeth not to geue him authoritie, to do that thing, whiche he would not haue graunted, if his minde therein had bene seuerally and specially asked and required. Againe, generall wordes either of the Testatours, or of such as make any contract, & especially of statutes, touching any persons, to doe or enioy any thing, ought to be restrained and referred to hable, mete, [Page] and capable persons onely.

It is furthermore a rule and a Principle, that statutes must be ruled, measured and interpreted, according to the minde and direction of the ge­nerall and common lawe. VVherefore the King in limiting the succession of the Croune in this sorte, as is pretended, seemeth not to answere and satisfie the expectation of the Parlament: putting the case there were any suche surmised impediment, as also on the other side likewise, if there were no suche supposed impediment.

For here an other rule must be regarded: which is, that in Testaments, Contractes, and namely in statutes, the generalitie of wordes must be gently and ciuily moderated, and measured by the cōmon lawe, and restrained, when so euer any man should by that generalitie take any dammage and hurte vndeseruedly. Yea, the Statute shall rather in that casse ceasse and quaile, and be taken as void. As for example, it appe eth by the Ciuill lawe, that if it be enacted by statute in some Cities, that noman shall pleade against an Instrument, no not the Executour: yet this notwithstanding, if the Executour make a true and perfect Inuentorie of the goodes of the Testatour, if he deale faithfully and truely, rather than he should wrongfully and without cause paie the Testatours debt of his owne, he may come and pleade against the Instrumēt. VVherefore the kings doings seeme either muche defectiue in the said Ladie Francis, & Ladie Elenour, or much excessiue in their children. And so though he had signed the said will with his hand: yet the said doings seme not conformable to the mind and purpose of the Par­lament.

VVe will now go forward, and propound other great and graue cōsiderations seruing our said pur­pose [Page 57] and intent. VVhereof one is that in limiting the Croune vnto the heires of the bodie of the Lady Francis, the same Ladie then, and so long after liuing, the said King did not appoint the Successiō of the Croune, according to the order & meaning of he honorable Parlament: forasmuch as the said Acte of Parlament gaue to him authoritie, to limi­te and appoint the Croune to such persone, or per­sones in reuersiō or remainder, as should please his Highnes. Meaning thereby some persone certaine, of whome the people might haue certaine know­ledg & vnderstanding, after the death of king Hen­rie the eight. VVhich persones certaine the heires of the Ladie Francis could not by any meanes be intended:11. H. 4. fo 72. 9. H. 6 fo. 24. 11. H. 6. fol. 15. forasmuch as the said Ladie Francis was then liuing, and therfore could then haue no heires at al. By reason whereof the people of that Realme could not haue cettaine knowledge and perfit vn­derstanding of the Succession, according to the true meaning & intent of the said Acte of parlamēt.

But to this matter some peraduenture would seeme to answere and say, that although at the time of the said King Henries death, the Heires of the bodie of the said Ladie Francis begotten, were vn­certaine: yet at suche time, as the said remainder should happen to fal, the said heires might then cer­tainly be knowen. In deede I will not deny, but that peraduēture they might be then certainly knowen. But what great mischieffes and incōueniēces might haue ensued, and yet may, if the wil take place vpō that peraduenture & vncertaine limitation: I would wishe all men well to note and consider.

It is not to be doubted, but that it might haue fortuned, at such time as the remainder should hap­pen to fall to the said heires of the Ladie Francis, the same Ladye Francis should then be also liuing: [Page] who, I pray you, then should haue had the Croune? Paraduenture ye wold say, the heires of the body of the Ladie Eleonour, to whome the next re­mainder was appointed. Vndoubtedlye that were contrarie to the meanyng of the sayde supposed will: forsomuch as the remainder is therby limited vnto the heires of the body of the Ladie Eleonour onely for default of issue of the Ladie Francis. VVherby it may be very plainly gathered vpō the said supposed wil, that the meaning therof was not, that the children of the Lady Eleonour should en­ioye the Croune, before the children of the Lady Frācis. But what if the said Lady Eleonour had bene then also liuing (which might haue happened, fo­rasmuch as both the said Ladie Francis and Ladie Eleonour, by common course of nature, might haue liued longer, then vntil this day) who then should haue had the Croune? Truly the right Heire (whome this supposed will meante to exclude) so long as there should remaine any issue, either of the body of the said Ladie Francis, or of the bodie of the said Ladie Eleonour lawfully begotten. And therefore quite contrarie to the meaning of the said supposed will, wherefore I doe verely thinke, that it would hardly sinke into any reasonable mans head, that had any experience of the great wisdome and aduised doings of King Henry the eight about other matters being of nothing like weight, that he would so slenderly and so vnaduisedly dispose the successione of the Croune (wherevpon the whole estate of that Realme doth depend) in suche wise, that they, to whome he meant to geue the same by his wil, could not enioye it by the lawe. VVherevpon ye may plainely see, not onely the great vnlikelihod, that King Henry the eight would make, any such wil with such slender aduise, [Page 58] but also, that by the limitation of the said will, the succcession of the Croune is made more vncertaine and doubtfull, then it was before the making of the said Actes of Parlament. VVhich is contrary to the meaning and intent of the said Actes, and there­fore without any sufficient warrant in law.

But peraduenture some here will say, that al­though these daungers & vncertainties might haue ensewed vpō the limitation of the said wil: yet for­asmuch as they haue not happened, neither be like to happen, they are therefore not to be spoken of. Ye as verely, it was not to be omitted. For although these things haue not happened, and therefore the more tolerable: yet for as much as they might haue happened, by the limitation of the said supposed will, contrary to the meaning of the said Actes, the will can not by any meanes be said to be made ac­cording to the meaning and intent of the makers of the said statutes. And therefore in that respect the said will is insufficient in lawe. And to aggrauate the matter farther, ye shall vnderstand of great incon­ueniences and imminent daungers, which as yet are likely to ensue, if that supposed will should take place.

It is not vnknowen, but that at the time of the making of the said will, the said Lady Frācis had no issue male, but onely three daughters betwene her, & Henrie Duke of Suffolke. Afterward in the time of the late soueraigne Lady Queene Marie, the said Duke of Suffolke was attainted, and suffered accor­dingly. After whose death the said Ladie Francis, to her great dishonour and abasing of her selfe, toke to husbande one Adrian Stokes, who was before her seruant, a man of very meane estate and voca­tion, and had issue by him. VVhiche issue (if it were a sonne, & be also yet liuing) by the wordes of the [Page] said supposed will, is to inherite the Croune of that Realme, before the daughters betwene her and the said late Duke of Suffolke begotten, whiche thing was neither intended, nor meant by the makers of the said Actes. VVho can with any reason or cōmō sense thinke, that al the states of the Realme assem­bled together at the said Parlament, did meane, to geue authoritie to King Henry the eight, by his let­ters Patents or last will to disherit the Queene of Scotland linially descended of the blood royal of that Realme, and to appoint the sonne of Adrian Stokes, then a meane seruing man of the Duke of Suffolks, to be King & Gouernour ouer that noble Realme of England. The inconueniences whereof, as also of the like that might haue followed of the pretensed Mariage of M. Keies the late Sergeante Porter, I referre to the graue considerations and iudgementes of the honorable and worshipfull of that Realme.

Some peraduenture will say, that King Henry the eight meant by his will, to dispose the Croune vnto the Heires of the body of the said Ladie Fran­cis by the said Duke lawfully begotten, & not vnto the heires by any other person to be begotten. VVhich meaning although it might very hardly be gathered vpon the said supposed will: yet can not the same be without as great inconueniences, as the other. For if the Croune should now remaine vnto the heires of the bodie of the said Ladie Francis by the said Duke begotten then should it remaine vn­to two daughters ioyntly, they both being termed and certainly accompted in law but one heire. And by that meanes the state and gouernment of that Realme should be changed from the auncient Mo­narchie, into the gouernement of many. For the Title of the Ladie Francis being by way of remain­der, [Page 59] whiche is cōpted in law a ioynt purchase, doth make all the issue female inheritable a like, and can not go according to the aunciēt law of a descent to the Croune: which is, that the Croune by descent must go to the eldest daughter only, as is aforesaid. For great differences be in law, where one cometh to any Title by descent, and where, as a purchassor. And also if the one of those issues female dye, then were her heire in the Title, as a seueral tenant in tayle. And so there should follow, that so many daughters, so many general Gouernors, & so might their issue, being heirs femals, make the gouernmēt grow infinite. VVhich thing was most farre frō the meaning of the makers of that Acte of Parlament.

VVhat if the said King had by his last will di­sposed that realme into two or three parts, diuiding the gouernement thereof to three persons, to rule as seueral Kinges: as for example, wales vnto one, the Northe partes vnto an other, the South partes vnto the third, and by that meanes had miserably rent that Realme into partes? Had this bene accor­ding to the entent and meaning of the said Acte of Parlament? Or had it bene a good and sufficient li­mitation in law? No verily, I thinke no man of any reasonable vnderstanding wil so say. And no more can he either say, or thinke of the remainder limi­ted vnto the heires of the body of the said Lady Francis by the said supposed will.

Now to complete and finish this our Treatise touching the Queene of Scotlāds Title to the suc­cession of the Croune: as we haue done, so let vs freely and liberally graunt the Aduersaries that, whiche is not true, that is, that the said supposed wil was signed with the kings own hand. Let the heires of the Lady Frācis come forth in Gods name, & lay forth to the world their demaund & supposed right [Page] against the said Q. of Scotlāds interest. The Queene on the other side, to fortifie & strēghten her clame, layeth foorth to the open sight of all the worlde her iust title and interest, signed, and alwaies a fore this time allowed, not onely as with the Seales, but with the othes also of al the kings, that euer were in England, taken at the time of their Coronation, for the continuance of the lawes of that noble Realme of England, signed and allowed, I say, almost of all the world by sides: yea signed with God and natures owne fingers. Her right is as open, and as clere, as the bright Sonne. Now, to darken and shadow this glorious light: what doe the heires of the said Ladie Frācis, or others bringe foorth, to ground their iust clame and demaund vpon? VVhen all is done, they are faine to runne and catche hold vpō king Henry the eightes written will, signed with his owne hāde. VVel, let them take as good handfast thereon, as they can: but yet lette them shewe the said Queene the said original will. It is well knowen, that they themselues haue said, that that to doe they can not: Yet let them at least lay forth some authentical re­cord of the same. It is also notorious, that they can not. If then the foundation of their clame, being the will of such a Prince, & of so late and fresh memo­rie made, neither the original, nor yet any good and woorthy Recorde sufficiently authorised, remaine of the same: by what colour will they exclude the saide Queene? They must clame either by proxi­mitie of blood, or by Charter. For the first, nature hath excluded thē: Charter thei haue none to shew.

They wil perchaunce crie out, & cōplain of the losse and imbeaseling of the same, and say, that such a casualtie should not destroye and extinguish their right. This were some thing perchaunce, if it were in a priuate mans case. It were somewhat, if their [Page 60] demaund did not destroy the common law, and the lawe of nature also. It were somewhat, if their sup­posed Charter were perished, or by any fraudulent meanes intercepted by the said Queene. Vpon whome, in this point, it is not possible to fasten any the very least sinister suspicion. It were somewhat, if they did not aspire to take gaine and lucre, or if the Queene sought not to auoide dammage. For dammage it is, when any person is spoiled of any right due to him by lawe and reason. And there is a great oddes in the consideration of the lawe and reason, betwene aduancing our gaine (& gaine wee do that, that doth grow & accrew vnto vs by more gifte or legacie, as doth the Croune,Non est par [...]io lu [...]ra non capere, & damna sentire L. fin C [...]de o­di [...]il &. I. Pr [...]ui [...] ff. de dāno inject. Inst de legat. Si re [...]. to these com­petitours and Heires of the Lady Francis) and es­chewing dammage and losse. And losse the lawe ac­compteth to be, whē we are defeated of our Auncestours inheritance. So that both being put in the indifferent balance of reason, lawe & consciēce: the dammage shall ouerweigh the mere lucre & gaine. Yea, I wil say more, that in case either the sayed Queene of Scotlande, or any other were in posses­sion of the Croune, hauing no right to the same: yet if the issue of the Lady Francis had no further, nor better right, than these pretended writings, the de­fendants cleauing to the only possession, were false and sure, and were not bound to shew to them their Title. For it is a rule of the lawe,Liqui ac­cusare C. de edendo Accommo­dum [...]inst. de indict. that if the Plaintife faile in his prooffe, the Defendant shalbe dischar­ged: yea, though he haue no better right, than bare and naked possessiō. Neither could they any thing be releeued, though the pretensed Recorde of the Chācerie were yet extant, not for such cause only, as we haue specified, but for diuers other. For it may well be doubted, though the said Recorde might beare a sufficient credit among the subiectes of that [Page] Realme, whether it may beare the same against one that is no subiect.

L. si quis in aliquo do­cumento C. de edendo.Againe it is a rule, that the publike Instrument, making mention of an other, doth nothing proue against the partie, in respecte of any thing so men­tioned, vnlesse the original it selfe be produced. If therfore these competitours haue lost their instru­ments and Euidences, where vpon they must of ne­cessitie build their demaund and Clame, to the ex­clusion of an other notorious right and Title: they must beare the discommoditie therof, that sought thereby their lucratiue aduancement and commo­ditie: and not the person, that demaundeth nothing els, but that to him lawfully and orderly is due.

Yea, they, and wee to, haue good cause to think, that this thing (in case any suche will were) is won­derfully wrought by Gods permission and pro­uidence. For it is almost incredible, to heare and beleeue, such kinde of writtings (and in so great & weightie a matter, as this pretensed will cōpriseth) to be so sone extinguished, and perished, as it were, for special purpose, to preserue to that noble Realm the true and sincere succession of the next royal blood. VVhich if it should, by certaine (I can not tel what) interlined papers & scrolles be deriued and transferred to any other wrongfull heires: it woulde be a wonderfull and strange thing to the worlde to heare, and too importable to that na­tion of England and their posteritie, to beare it. It will then be so farre of, that that thing whiche the Parlament most regarded in this Commission, shal by this pretensed will be procured and pur­chased to that Realm, as to haue a certaine knowen vndoubted lawfull Gouernour and King: to haue striffe, contention & diuisions for the Croune cut awaye: that euen the very thing that the Parlament [Page 61] most feared, is most vnfortunately & most lamenta­bly like soonest to chaunce. He that remēbreth the tragical procedings of the last (by name, and not by right) King Richard: needeth not greatly to doubt: but that as he could finde in his hart, to bastard his eldest brother and lawfull king, and to defame his own natural mother as an harlot: euen so now there will some be found, that wil easely be enduced, for aduancing & setting forth of their supposed right and Title to the Croune, to seeke meanes, to wring them out that shal iustly sit in the royal Throne, & to seeke to extort the Croune from their possession.

VVhich vnhappy day, if it should once chaunce (as God forbid) then may the English nation cri out, and sing a woful & doleful song: then may the (not without cause) loke for the botomelesse Ocean sea of infinite troubles, miseries and mischieffes to ouerwhelme that Realme. The whiche my mind and harte abhorreth to thinke vpon, and my penne in my hand trembleth to write thereof.