hous of York that challenged the Crown and died in the quarrel His son was Edward the 4. The Issue of the Duke of Glocester Thomas of Woodstock had onely one childe Anne married to the Lord Stafford whose issue came after in regard of this marriage for Thomas was Earl of Buckingham too to bee Duke of Buckingham som of whose blood are yet in England The Issue of John of Gant by his first Wife John of Gant had three Wives 1 Blanch the heir of Lancaster aforesaid by whom hee had Henry 4. and Philippe married to John King of Portingal from whom are lineally descended such as at this day claim interest in that Crown and Elisabeth married to John Holland Duk of Exceter whose grand-childe Henry left onely Anne married to Sir Thomas Nevil Knight from whom the Earl of Westmerland is lineally descended By his second Wife By his second Ladie Constance daughter of Peter King of Castile hee had onely one daughter Katharine married to Henry the third King of Castile of whom the King of Spain that now is is lineally desended By his third Wife Henry 7. his Title His third Katharine Swinford daughter to a Knight of Henault and attending on his wife Blanch hee used as his Concubine in his wife Constance's time and begat of her three sons and one daughter and after married her to Swinford an English Knight who dead and his wife Constance also hee married her Anno 1396 and caused his said children by her to bee legitimated by Parlament Anno 1397. Henry 7. his Title from Lancaster His sons were 1. John Duke of Somerset 2. Thomas Duke of Excester 3. Henry Bishop and Cardinal of Winchester His daughter Jane married to the Earl of Westmerland The Issues of all these were soon spent except of John of Somerset who had two sons John and Edmund John one onely daughter Margaret married to Edmund Tidder Earl of Richmond by whom hee had Henry 7. Edmund and his three sons all died in the quarrel of the Hous of Lancaster without Issue The line of Clarence and Title of the Earl of Huntington George Duke of Clarence second brother of Edw. 4. had Issue Edw. Earl of Warwick put to death by Henry 7. and Margaret Countess of Salisbury married to Sir Richard Poole of Wales by whom hee had Henry Arthur Geoffroy and Reynald after Cardinal Henry Lo. of Montague put to death with his mother by H. 8. had Katharine married to the Earl of Huntington they the now Earl c. and Wenefred married to Sir Tho. Barrington Arthur Marie married to Sir John Stanny and Margaret to Sir Tho. Fitzherbert Geoffrey Geoffrey Poole hee Arthur and Geoffrey which yet live in Italie Henry 7. his Issue The Title of Scotland and of the Ladie Arbella Henry 7. had by the eldest daughter of Edw. 4. for of all the other three remaineth no issue besides Hen. 8. Margaret first married to the K. of Scots they James 5. who Mary mother to the now King After married to the Earl of Anguis they Margaret married to the Earl of Lenox they Henry married to the last Queen and murthered 1566. and Charles married to Elisa Ca4dish by whom the Ladie Arbella The Title of the Lord Beacham and his brother Marie the second daughter first married to Lewis 12. of France without issue then to Charles Brandon Duke of Suffolk they Francis married to Henry Gray Marquis Dorset after Duke of Suffolk beheaded by Q. Mary they Jane married to Dudley both beheaded Katharine first married to the Earl of Pembroke and left by him to the Earl of Hartfort as themselves affirmed in the Tower from whom descendeth the Lord Beacham and Edward Seymer his brother The Title of the Hous of Derbie Eleonor second daughter to Ch. Brandon and the Queen of France was married to Henry Clifford Earl of Cumberland they had issue Margaret married to Henry Earl of Derbie who had issue the last and the now Earl CAP. IV. The Controversie between the Houses of Lancaster and York The Pretence of the Hous of York BY Richard Duke of York son of Richard Earl of Cambridg aforesaid c. That considering hee had by descent joined in him the right aswell of Lionel Duke of Clarence second son to Edw. 3. as of Edward Duke of York the fourth son of Edw. 3. hee was to bee preferred before the Hous of Lancaster claiming onely from John of Gant the third son of Edward 3. Richard 2. Deposed Edward 3. in his old age for the love hee bare to the black Prince confirmed the Succession by Parlament to Richard 2. his son and caused the rest of his sons to swear thereunto Richard 2. for his misgovernment was deposed by common consent and Henry 4. chosen in his place which himself and his issue possessed about 60 years The question is Whether King Richard were rightfully deposed or no That a King may bee deposed on just causes First that a King on just causes may bee deposed is proved by Reason becaus the rule beeing given by the Common-wealth on condition of just government that much violated the condition is broken and the same Common-wealth may take the forfeiture This proved by the autoritie of all Law-makers Philosophers Divines and Governors of Common-wealths and by example of divers Depositions which God himself hath blessed with good success Proved by reasons and examples of Divinitie An ill Prince is an armed enemie with his feet set on the Realm's head whence hee cannot bee plucked but by force of Arms Object God may cut him off by sickness or otherwise and therefore wee are to attend his good pleasure Answ. God alwaies bindeth not himself to work miracles nor often with extraordinary means but hath left upon earth unto men and Common-wealths power to do justice in his Name upon offendors Examples hereof are Ehud stirr'd up by God to kill Eglon King of the Moabites by a stratageme Judg. 3. and the Philistins to kill David to persecute Saul Jeroboam to rebell against Roboam the son of Solomon 2 Reg. 11. 12. Jehu to depose Joram and Q. Jezabel his mother 4. Reg. 9. The Captains of Jerusalem at the persuasion of Jehoiada the high-Priest to conjure against Q. Athalia whom they deposed and Joash chosen in her room 4. Reg. 11. All which hee might have removed without blood-shed if hee would But hee appointed men to work his Will by these violent means to deliver that Common-wealth from oppression and for the greater terror of all bad Princes Allegations of the Lancastrians that King Richard 2. was justly Deposed Just causes of Deposing Richard 2. were Hee murthered his Uncle the Duke of Glocester without form of Law or process Hee put to death the Earl of Arundel banished Warwick Thomas Arundel Archbishop of Canterbury and Henry Duke of Hereford and Lancaster and after King whose goods and inheritance descending to the said Henry from his Father hee wrongfully seized on Hee suffered the Earl of Oxford
either for Valor Prowess length of Reign acts of Chivalrie or the multitude of famous Princes his Children left behind him was one of the noblest Kings that ever England had RICHARD 2d Richard the 2d Son to the black Prince of Wales for having suffered himself to be misled by evil Counsellers to the great hurt and disquietness of the Realm was deposed also after 22. years reign by a Parliament holden at London the year 1399. and condemned to perpetual Prison in the Castle of Pomfret where he was soon after put to death and in his place was by free Election chosen the noble Knight Henry * Duke of Lancaster who proved afterwards so notable a King as the world knoweth HENRY 6th Henry 6th after almost 40. years reign was deposed imprisoned and put to death also together with his Son the Prince of Wales by Edward 4th of the House of York And this was confirmed by the * Commons and afterwards also by publick Act of Parliament because the said Henry did suffer himself to be over-ruled by the Queen his Wife and had broken the Articles of Agreement made by the Parlament between him and the Duke of York and solemnly sworn on both sides the 8th of Octob. 1459. though otherwise for his particular life he were a good man and King Edward 4th was put in place who was one of the renownedest for Martial Acts and Justice that hath worn the English Crown RICHARD 3d. This man having left two Sons his Brother Richard Duke of Glocester put them to death and being the next Heir Male was authorised in the Crown but Deposed again afterwards by the Common-wealth which called out of France Henry Earle of Richmond who took from him both life and Kingdom in the Field and was King himself by the name of Henry 7. And no man I suppose will say but that he was lawfully King also which yet cannot be except the other might lawfully be deposed If the said Deprivations were unjust the now Pretences are unlawful Moreover is to be noted in all these Mutations what good hath succeeded therein to the Common-wealth which was unjust and is void at this day if the Changes and Deprivations of the former Princes could not be made and consequently none of these that do pretend the Crown of England at this day can have any Title at all for that from those men they discend who were put in place of the deprived If Kings established may be Deprived much sooner Pretenders And if this might be so in Kings lawfully set in Possession then much more hath the said Common-wealth power and authoritie to alter the succession of such as do pretend Dignitie if there be due reason and causes to the same Wherein consisteth principally the lawfulness of Proceedings against Princes which in the former Chapter is mentioned What interest Princes have in their Subjects Goods or Lives How Oaths do Binde or may be Broken by Subjests towards Princes And finally the difference between a good King and a Tyrant CAP. IV. 1. Objection against the Assertions in the last Chapter BUt although by Nature the Common-wealth hath authoritie over the Prince to chuse and appoint him at the beginning yet having once made him and given up all their authoritie unto him he is no more subject to their correction but remaineth absolute of himself As every particular man hath authorised to make his Master or Prince of his inferior but not afterwards to put him down again howsoever he beareth himself towards him 2. Objection When the Children of Israël being under the Government of the High Priest demanded a King of Samuel he protesting unto them Well quoth he you will have a King hearken then to this that I will say Hoc erit jus Regis qui imperaturus est vobis He shall take away from you your Children both Sons and Daughters your Fields and Vineyards c. and shall give them to his servants and you shall cry unto God in that day from the face of this your King and God shall not hear you for that you have demanded a King to Govern over you Assertions of Bellay Yea Bellay and some other that wrote in flatterie of Princes in these our days do not only affirm That Princes are lawless and subject to no accompt or correction whatsoever they do But also That all goods chattels possessions and whatsoever else commodities temporal of the Common wealth are properly the Kings and that their Subjects have only the use thereof so as when the King will he may take it from them by right Answer to Bellay his First Assertion But for the first That Kings are subject to no Law Is against the very Institution of a Common-wealth which is to live together in Justice and Order for if it holdeth so insteed of Kings and Governors to defend us we may set up publick murtherers ravishers theeves and spoylers to devour us Then were all those Kings before mentioned both of the Jewes Gentiles and Christians unlawfully deprived and their Successors unlawfully put up in their places and consequentlie all Princes living at this day are intruders and no lawful Princes Answer to Bellay his Second Assertion Of the second saying also That all temporalities are properly the Princes and that Subjects have only the use thereof no less absurdities do follow First it is against the very first principle and foundation of the Civil Law which at the first entrance maketh this division of Goods That some are common by Nature to all men as the Aër the Sea c. Others are publick to all of one Citie or Countrie but yet not common to all in general as Rivers Ports c. Some are of the Communitie of a Citie or Common-wealth but yet not common to every particular person of that Citie as common Rents Theaters the publick hous and the like Some are of none nor properly of any man's Goods as Churches and Sacred things And some are proper to particular men as those which every man possesseth of his own Besides it overthroweth the whole nature of a Common-wealth maketh all Subject to be but very slaves for that slaves and bondmen in this do differ from freemen that slaves have only the use of things without property or interest and cannot acquire or get to themselves any dominion or true right in any thing but it accreweth all to their Master Lastly If all Goods be properly the King's why was Achab and Jezabel so reprehended and punished by God for taking away Naboth's vineyard Why do the Kings of England France and Spain ask Money of their Subjects in Parlament and that termed by the names of Subsidies Helps Benevolences Loans Prests Contributions c How have the Parlament oftentimes denied them the same Why are there Judges appointed for matter of Suits and Pleas between the Prince and the People Why doth the Canon Law inhibit all
Book of Knox of the Monstrous Government of Women 6. And John Leisley Bishop of Ross in Scotland confuteth the first point 1 That the Statute that beareth the inheritance of Aliens made 25 Edw. 3. is only to be understood of particular men's inheritance 2 There is express exception of the King's Children and Off-spring in the Statute 3 The Practice both before and since the Conquest to the contrary 7. The second If Henry 8. made such a Testament it could not hold in Law But that he made it not besides many probabilities the testimonies of the Lord Paget Sir Edw. Montague Lord Chief Justice and William Clark who set the King's stamp to the Writing avowed before the Council and Parlament in Queen Maries time That the testament was signed after the King was past sens and memory 8. Robert Heghington Secretary to the Earle of North writeth in favor of the King of Spain as next Heir to the House of Lancaster Another writeth in the behalf of the Dukes of Parma as next Heir of Portugal another for the Infanta of Spain as the Heir of Brittanie CAP. II. Of the Succession of the Crown from the Conquest unto Edward the Third's time The issue of VVilliam the Conquerer WILLIAM the Conqueror had four Sons and five Daughters Sons 1. Robert Duke of Normandie 2. Richard died in his youth 3. William Rufus 4. Henry the first Daughters 1. Sicilie a Nun 2. Constantia wife of Alain Fergant Duke of Britanie 3 Adela or Alice wife of Stephen Earle of Bloys c. The other two died yong Robert Duke of Normandie Robert of Normandie and his Son William were ruined by Henry 1. Robert pined away in the Castle of Cardiff William slain before Alost in Flanders whereof he was Earl by an arrow Henry 1. Of all the Children of Henry 1. Mande first married to Henry 5. Emperor had issue Henry 2. by Geoffrey Plantagenet Duke of Anjou c. her second Husband he Reigned after King Stephen The beginning of the House of Britanie Constantia the Conquerors second Daughter had issue Conan 2. le Gros who had issue Hoel and Bettha wife of Eudo Earle of Porrhet in Normandie her Father made her his Heir on his death bed disadvowing Howel she had issue Conan 3. He Constantia wife to Geoffrey third Son to Henry 2. by whom she had Arthur whom King John his Uncle put from the Crown of England and murthered After which Constantia married Guy Vicount of Touars a Britan and their issue have continued till this in the infanta of Spain and the Dutchess of Savoy her sister whose Mother was sister unto the last King of France Anna the Heir of Britanie had by Lewis the 12. of France one Daughter Claudia of whom and Francis the first came Henry 2. whose Daughter was Mother to the Infanta c. King Stephen Adela or Alice the Conquerors third Daughter had issue Stephen Earle of Bouloyne chosen King after Henry 1. before Mande his Daughter because a Woman and before her Son Henry 2. because he was but a Child and a degree further off from the Conqueros but especially by force and friends whereby he prevented also the Duke of Britain Son to his Mothers eldest sister He had two sons who left no issue and Mary wife to the Earle of Flanders whose right if any is discended to the Spaniard Henry 2. his Sons Henry 2. had issue by Eleonora the Heir of Aquitaine William who died yong Henry Crowned in his Fathers time and died without issue 3. Richard Coeur de Lyon who died without issue 4. Geoffrey who married Constance the Heir of Britain as aforesaid 5. John the King who had issue Henry the third Henry 2. his Daughters His Daughters were 1. Eleonora married to Alphonso 9. of Castile 2. to Alexis the Emperor 3. to the Duke of Saxonie 4. to the Earle of Tholouse Eleonora had Henry of Castile who died without issue and Blanche married to Lewis of France of the Race of Valois whose issue continueth and Berenguela married to the Prince of Leon whose Son Ferdinando by the death of his Uncle Henry without issue was chosen King of Castile before Saint Lewis the son of Blanche aforesaid because a stranger 16. The right which France had to Aquitain Poictiers and Normandie came to them by the aforesaid Blanche who was married thither on condition to have for her dower all that John had lost in France which was almost all hee had Henry 3. his Issue Henry 3. had Edward 1 hee Edw. 2. hee Edw. 3. and Edmund Crook-back Earl or Duke of Lancaster whose heir Lady Blanch married John of Gant the third son of Edw. 3. from whom came the hous of Lancaster Also Beatrix married to John 2. Duke of Britain from whom descended the Infantas Mother That Edward Crook-back was not elder then Edward 1. Edward Crook-back was not Edw. 1. elder brother and put by onely for his deformitie 2. hee was born 18 Junii 1245 and Edward 16 Junii 1239. Matth. West who lived at the same time 2. hee was a wise Prince and much imploied by his father and brother in their wars 3. his father advanced him in England and would have made him King of Naples and Sicilie 4. having the charge of the Realm at his father's death and his brother absent hee attempted no innovation nor hee nor any of his children made any claim to the Crown after that 5. If hee had been elder the title of Lancaster in John of Gant his Issue whose mother was heir unto Edmund had been without contradiction nor could the house of York have had any pretence of right The Issue of Edward Crook-back Henry the second Earl of Lancaster and grand-childe to the aforesaid Edmund was created Duke of Lancaster by Edward 3. Hee had but one childe the Ladie Blanch wife of John of Gant by whom hee became also Duke of Lancaster His three sisters were matched one to the Lord Maubery of whom the Howards of Norfolk Joane 2. Mary married to the Earl of Northumberland from whom the now-Earl 3. Eleonor married to the Earl of Arundel of whom the late Earle descended CAP. III. The Succession from Edward 3. The houses of Lancaster and York Edward 3. his Issue EDward the third had five sons 1. the Black Prince hee Richard second in whom his line ceased 2 Lionel Duke of Clarence 3. John of Gant Duke of Lancaster by his wife Blanche 4 Edward of Langley Duke of York 5. Thomas of Woodstock Duke of Glocester The Title of the Hous of York Lionel of Clarence had one onely daughter and heir Philippe married to Edmund Mortimer Earl of March they Roger hee Anne Mortimer married to Richard Earl of Cambridg second son of Edmund L. of York His son Richard by the death of his Uncle slain at Agincourt came to bee Duke of York his father of Cambridg beeing executed for a Conspiracie against Henry 5. And was the first of the
his minion to put away his wife a goodly young Ladie daughter of Isabell his father's sister and to marrie another openly to her disgrace And in the last evil Parlament hee made would needs have all absolute autoritie granted to 6 or 7 his favorites to determine of all matters Grieved with these exorbitant indignities the more or better part of the Realm called home by their Letters Henry 4. deposed Richard 2. by Act of Parlament by his own confession of unworthie Government and his voluntarie resignation of the Crown to the said Henry by publick instrument All this without blood-shed And in almost all this Edmund L. D. of York the head of that familie together with Edward Duke of Aumale his eldest son and Richard Earle of Cambridge his yonger the Grand-father of Edward 4. assisted the said Henry That Henry 4. had more right to Succeed unto Richard 2. than Edmond Mortimer heir of Clarence much more any other King Richard 2. deposed the question is Whether Edmond Mortimer then alive his Father Roger being slain in Ireland a little before Nephew removed of Lionel Duke of Clarence or Henry Duke of Lancaster son of John of Gant should have Succeeded in right For Henry is alleged his being neerer to the former King by two degrees and proximitie of Blood though not of the elder Line is to be or hath been preferred in these cases 2. His Title came by a Man the others by a Woman not so much favored by Law nor Reason 3. The said Edmond being offered the Crown by Richard Earle of Cambridge who had married his Sister Anne and other Noblemen at Southampton he judged it against equitie discovered the Treason to Henry the fifth by whose command those Noblemen were executed 1415. Thirty years after which Richard Duke of York son of the aforesaid Earle and Anne for Edmond her brother died without issue set his Title on foot And whereas Roger Mortimer Father of this Edmond was declared Heir apparent by a Parlament 1382 that was done by Richard 2. from the hatred he bore to John of Gant and his son Henry rather than for the goodness of the others Title the cause whereof was Because immediately after the death of the Black Prince divers learned and wise men held opinion That John of Gant eldest son of Edward 3. then living should rather succeed than Richard jure Propinquitatis This made the old King Edward 3. confirm the Succession to Richard 2. by Parlament and the Oaths of his Uncles and made the yong King Richard 2. hold first and his son in jealousie and hatred ever after as distrusting the likelihoods of their Title Declaration of the Heir Apparent in the Princes life being Partial no sure president Partial establishing of Succession by Parlament is no extraordinary thing with Princes which yet most commonly have been to little purpose So did Richard 3. cause John de la Pole Earle of Lincoln and Son to his sister Elisabeth Dutchess of Suffolk to be declared Heir apparent thereby excluding his Brother Edward's four Daughters c. So did Henry 8. prefer the issue of his yonger sister before that of his elder So did Edward 6. declare the Lady Jane Gray his cozen Germain removed to be his Heir and Successor excluding his own two sisters Such say they was the aforesaid Declaration of Roger Mortimer by Richard 2. to as little purpose as from little equity Uncle preferred before the Nephew divers times Contra Sect. 83. That John of Gant should have in right succeeded his father rather than Richard himself as neerer to his father is proved by the course of divers Kingdoms where the Uncle was preferred before the Nephew 1. In Naples much about the same time Robert before Charles the son of Martel his elder Brother 2. In Spain Don Sancho Bravo before the Children of Prince Don Alonso de la Cerda from whom the House of Medina Celi is discended by sentence of Don Alonso the wise and of all the Realm and Nobility Anno 1276. 3. In the Earldom of Arthois Mande before Robert son to her Brother Philip by sentence of Philip le Bel of France confirmed by the Parlament of Paris and by his Successor Philippes de Valois whom he the said Robert had much assisted in the recovery of France from the English 4. In Britanie John Breno Earle of Montfort before Jane Countess of Bloys Daughter and Heir of Guy his elder brother by sentence of Edward 3. and the State of England who put him in possession of that Dukedom 5. In Scotland where albeit Edward 1. of England gave sentence for John Baliol Nephew to the elder Daughter excluding thereby Robert Bruse son to the yonger yet that sentence was held to be unjust in Scotland and the Crown restored to Robert Bruse his son whose posterity holds it to this day 6. The like whereof in Naples Lewis Prince of Taranto son to Philip prevailed before Joan the Neece of Robert aforesaid who was Philip's elder brother though Philip died before Robert because he was a man and a degree neerer to his Grand-father than Joan. 7. And in England it self Henry 1. preferred before William son and Heir of Robert of Normandie his elder brother And King John preferred before Arthur D. of Britanie the son and Heir of his elder brother Geoffrey because he was neerer to Richard his brother then dead than was Arthur Which Right of his the English inclined still to acknowledge and admit and thereupon proclaimed him King notwithstanding that the French and other Forrein Princes of stomach opposed themselves against it King John rightfully preferred before his Brother Arthur Against this last King Richard when he was to go to the Holy Land caused his Nephew Arthur to be declared Heir apparent to the Crown thereby shewing his Title to be the better Answ 1. It was not by Act of Parlament of England for Richard was in Normandie when he made it 2. Richard did it rather to repress the amhitious Humor of John in his absence 3. This Declaration was never admitted in England but renounced by consent of the Nobility in his absence 4. Richard himself at his return disadvowed it appointing John to be his Successor by his last Will and caused the Nobles to swear Fealtie unto him as to his next in blood The Opinion of Civil Lawyers touching the Right of the Uncle and Nephew Contra Sect. 83. This Controversie divided all the Lawyers in Christendom Baldus Oldratus Panormitanus c. for the Nephew Bartolus Alexander Decius Alciatus Cujatius c. for the Uncle Baldus himself at length concludeth That seeing rigor of Law runneth only with the Uncle being properly neerest in blood by one degree and that only indulgence and custom permitteth the Nephew to represent his Father's place whensoëver the Uncle is born before the Nephew and his elder brother dieth before his Father as in the case of John of Gant and Richard 2. he may be
preferred for the elder brother cannot give or transmit that thing to his Son which is not in himself before his Father die nor can his son represent what the Father never had The Common-Law dealeth not with the Point of Succession to the Crown Touching the Common Law the right and interest to the Crown is not expresly decided in it nor is it a Plea subject to the rules thereof but superior and more eminent nor are the Maxims thereof alwayes of force in this as in others As in the case of Dower Copercenars and Tenancie by the courtesie No more ought they to be in this case of inheritance as by the former eight Presidents hath been shewed The Common Lawyers then refer this point of the Crown to Custom nothing being in effect written by them touching it Only the best of our old ones favored that title of Lancaster and Chancelor Fortescue and Sir Tho. Thorope chief Baron of the Exchequer in Henry 6. his time were much afflicted for it by the contrary faction The Princes of York often Attainted The Princes of York forfeited their Right by their Conspiracies and Attainder thereupon as R. Earle of Cambridge put to death therefore by the Judgment of his Peers his elder brother the Duke of York being one of the Jury that condemned him His son Richard Duke of York was also attainted of treason after many oaths to Henry 6. sworn and broken by him and his son Ed. 4. with the rest of his off-spring to the ninth degree at a Parlament at Coventry Anno 1459. But the House of Lancaster was never attainted of any such crime The Hous of York came to the Crown by Violence and Crueltie Edward 4. entred by violence wilfully murthering besides divers of the Nobilitie Henry 6. a good and holy King and his son Prince Edward dispossessing the Hous that had held the Crown about 60 years together in which time their Title had been confirmed by many Parlaments Oaths Approbations and publick Acts of the Common-wealth and the consent of all forreign Nations All which had been enough to have autorized a bad Title Those of Lancaster better Princes than those of York The 4 Henries of the hous of Lancaster were far more worthie Princes then the 4 Princes of the Houses of York as Edw. 4. Rich. 3. Hen. 8. Edw. 6. And if the affairs of any the former especially the 3d succeeded not the chief caus thereof was the sedition rebellion and troubles raised by those of York and their contention against the Princes of the Houses of Lancaster The Cruelty of the Princes of York one to the other The Princes of York have not been onely cruel to their enemies but to themselvs too embrewing their hands in their own blood Then when they had ruined th'other George Duke of Clarence conspired against Edw. 4. his own brother with whom reconciled Edw. caused him afterwards to bee murthered at Calis Rich. 3. murthered his two young Nephews and Henry 8. a great number of that Hous as Edmund de la Poole his Cousin German Henry Duke of Buckingham his great Ant 's son extinguishing that and ruining this familie Also Henry Courtney Marquis of Exceter his own Cousin german the Ladie Margaret Countess of Salisbury and daughter to George D. of Clarence and her son the L. Montague c. The kindness of the Princes of Lancaster But the Love Union Confidence Faithfulness Kindeness and Loialtie of the Princes of Lancaster towards th'other was very notable as in the 2 brothers of Henry 4 and the 3 brothers of Henry 5. and in five or six Dukes of Somerset their near Cosens which argueth both a marvellous confidence those Princes had in that quarrel and a great blessing of God unto the whole familie that agree'd so well The Successes of such noble Houses as followed either partie Another blessing seemeth to bee bestowed on them That no antient great Houses are remaining at this day in England but such as chiefly took their parts as Arundel Oxford Northumberland Westmerland and Shrewsbury whereas the chief partakers of the other Faction are all destroied as Mowbray Duke of Norfolk De la Poole Duke of Suffolk th' Earl of Salisbury th' Earl of Warwick and many others CAP. III. Examination of the Title of the Hous of Scotland Sect. 28. Allegations for the K. of Scots 1. THat hee is descended of the eldest daughter of Henry 7. without bastardie or other lawful impediment and therefore hath the right of prioritie 2. The benefit would accrew unto the Common-wealth by the uniting of England and Scotland a point long sought for 3. The establishing of true Religion in England Hee is not of the Hous of Lancaster but rather of York Hee is not descended truly of the Hous of Lancaster becaus not of the Ladie Blanch the true heir thereof but of Kathathine Swinford whose children were unlawfully begotten though afterwards legitimated by Parlament so that his best Title is by York inferior to that of Lancaster and therefore is to com in after them of that Hous Forrein birth not just impediment in Succession to the Crown of England Hee is Forrein born and therefore excluded by the Laws of England from inheriting within the land Answ 1. This Assertion in an universal sens is fals for a stranger may purchase and inherit by the right of his wife 7 9 Edw. 4. 11 14 Henrie 7. 2. The Statute of 25 Edw. 3. is to bee restrained unto proper inheritance onely viz. That no person born out of the Allegiance of England whose father and mother were not of the same Allegiance at the time of his birth shall not demand inheritance within the same Allegiance 3. This Statute toucheth not the Crown nor any except express mention bee made thereof 4. The Crown cannot properly bee called an inheritance of Allegiance or within Allegiance beeing held immediately from God 5. The Statute meaneth inheritance by descent onely but the Crown is a thing incorporate and therefore goeth as by Succession Now if a Prior Dean c. or other head incorparate though an alien may inherit or demand Lands in England notwithstanding the Statute much more may the Inheritor to the Crown 6. Express exception is made in the Statues of Enfants du Roi which word cannot but include all the King's off-spring and blood-Roial 7. King Stephen and Henry 2. born out of the Realm and of parents that were not of the Allegiance of England when they were born were yet admitted to the Crown without contradiction which argueth that by the cours of the Common Law there was no such stop against Aliens and that if the Statute would have abridged the antient libertie in this case of Succession it would have made special mention there which it doth not The King of Scots excluded by the last Will of Henry 8. Henry 8. his Will whereby he excludeth the off-spring of Margaret S. 4. Which though somwhat infringed by the testimony of two