those bookes And yet ye are not ashamed to note them as sufficient authorities for the maintenance of your euil purpose and intēt But as ye would seeme to vnderstand that your rule of dishabilitie is a general Maxime of the law so me thinketh ye should not be ignorant that it is also as general yea a more general rule and 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 your sayd supposed Maxime and yet neither the King nor the Croune is by any of them bound As for example it is very plaine that the rule of the Tenante by the Curtesie is general without any exception at al. And yet the same bindeth not the Croune neither doth extende to geue any benefitte to him that shal marie the Queene of England As it was plainely agreed by all the lawiers of this Realme when King Philippe was married vnto Queene Marie although for the more suertie and plaine declaration of the intentes of King Philippe and Queene Marie and of al the states of this realme it was enacted that King Philip should not claime any Tytle to be Tenaunt by the Curtesie It is also a general rule that if a man dye seased of any landes in Fee simple without issue male hauing diuerse daughters the lande shall be equally diuided amonge the daughters Which rule the learned men in the lawes of this Realme agreed vpō in the lyfe of the late noble Prince Edwarde and also euery reasonable mā knoweth by vsage to take no place in the succession of the Croune For there the eldest enioyeth al as though she were issue male Likewise it is a general rule that the wife after the decease of her husband shal be endowed and haue the thirde parte of the best possessions of her husband And yet it is very clere that any Queene shal 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 that the rule of Possessio fratris beinge generall neither hath bene or can be stretched to the inheritance of the Croune For the brother of the half blood shal succede and not the sister of the whole blood as may appeare by Iustice Moile as may be proued by King Etheldred brother and successor to King Edward the Martyr and by King Edwarde the Confessour brother to King Edmunde and 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 who both in al recordes of our lawe wherein their seueral rightes and titles to the Croune are pleaded as by daily experience aswell in the Exchequer as also in all other Courtes is manifest doe make their conueiance as heires in blood th' one to the other which if they were cōmon or priuate persons they could not be allowed in lawe they as is wel knowen being of the halfe blood one to the other that is to wit begotten of one father but borne of sundrie mothers It is also a general rule in the lawe that the executour shal haue the good and Chattles of the testatour and not the heire And yet is it otherwise in the case of the Croune For there the successour shal 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 Whiche rule although it be general yet it extendeth not to the discente or succession of the Croune although the same Attainder were by acte of Parlamente as may appeare by the Attainder of Richarde 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 Edwarde the fourth nor vnto Henry the seuenth to receaue the Croune by lawful succession But to this you would seeme to answere in your said booke saying that Hēry the seuenth notwithstanding his Attainder came to the Croune as caste vpon him by the order of the lawe forasmuch that when the Croune was caste vpon him that dishabilitie ceassed Wherein ye 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 succession then must ye say that he was not lawful King but an vsurper And therfore in confessing Henry the seuenth to be a lawful King and that the Croune was lawfully caste vppon him ye confesse directly thereby that before he was Kinge in possession there was no dishabilitie in him to take the Croune by lawful successiō his said Attainder notwithstanding which is as much as I would wish you to graunt But in conclusion vnderstanding your self that this your reason can not mainteine your intente you goe about an other way to helpe your self making a difference in the lawe betwene the case of Attainder and the case of foraine byrth out of the Kinges allogeāce saying that in the case of the Attainder neessitie doth enforce the succession of the Croune vpon the partie attaynted For otherwise ye say the Croune shall not descende to any But vpon the birth out of the Kinges allegance ye say it is otherwise And for proufe therof ye 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 ben ye say if A. had ben borne beyond the sea I. S. breaking his allegeāce to the King and after I. S. cometh agayne into the Realme and hath issue B. and dieth for now ye say B. shal inherite his fathers Landes Yf the Croune had bene holden of any person to whome it might haue escheted as in your case of I.S. the lande did then peraduenture there had bene some affinitie betwene your said case and the case of the Croune But there is no such matter Bysides that ye muste consider that the King cometh to the Croune not onely by descente but also and chiefly by succession as vnto a corporation And therefore ye might easely haue sene a difference in your cases betwene the Kinges Maiestie and I.S. a subiecte And also betwene landes holden of a Lorde aboue and the Croune holden of no earthly Lorde but
only Of the like weight is his other coÌ„sideration imaginiÌ„g and surmising this statute to be made bicause the King had so many occasioÌ„s to be so oft ouer the sea with his spouse the Queene As though diuers Kings before him vsed not often to passe ouer the seas As though this were a personal statute made of special purpose and not to be takeÌ„ as a declaratioÌ„ of the coÌ„mon law Which to say is most directly repugnant and contrary to the letter of the said statute Or as though his children also did not very often repaire to outward Countries as Iohn of Gaunt Duke of Lancaster that maried Peters the King of Castiles eldest daughter by whose right he claimed the Croune of Castile as his brother EdmuÌ„d Erle of Cambridge that maried the yongest daughter as Lionell Duke of Claraunce that maried at Milaine ViolaÌ„t daughter and heir to Galeatius Duke of Milan But especially 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 Gascome and his other sonne Richard that succeded his grandfather was borne at Burdeaux 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 Philippe to the king of Portingale and his daughter Catherin to the King of Spaine and his Neece Iohan daughter to his sonne Earle 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 Britannie Now by this mans interpretation none of the issue of al 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 Auncestours Which surely had bene against the auncient presidentes and examples that we haue declared and against the common Lawe the whiche muste not be thought by this Statute any thing taken away but only declared and against al good reason also For as we would haue thought this Realme greatly iniured if it had ben defrauded of Spaine or any of the foresaid couÌ„treies being deuolued to the same by the foresaid Mariages as we thincke our self at this day iniured for the withholding of France so the issue of the foresaide noble womeÌ„ might and would haue thought them hardly and iniuriously handled yf any such case had happened Neither suche friuolous interpretation and gloses as this man nowe frameth and maketh vppon the statute woulde then haue serued nor nowe wil serue But of all other his friuolous and folish ghessing vpon the clause of the statute for Infantes de Roy there is one most fond of al. For he would make vs beleue such is the mans skil that this statute touching Infantes de Roy was made for the great doubte more in them then in other personnes touching their inheritance to their Auncestours For being then a Maxime saieth he 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 then others and quite excluded And therefore he saith 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 is rather in the superficial parte of the worde then in effecte Nowe among other thinges he saieth as we haue shewed before that this word Infantes de Roy in this statute mentioned must be taken for the children of the first degree whiche he seemeth to proue by a note taken out of M. Rastal But to this we answer that this maÌ„ swetely dreamed when he imagined this fonde and fantasticall exposition And that he shewed him selfe a very infante in law and reason For this was no Maxime or at lest 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 saith 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 and affirme for euer that the Kinges children shal be hable to inherite the Landes of their Auncesters whereâ—oeuer they be borne Al the doubt was for other persons as appeareth euideÌ„tly by the tenour of the statute whether by the coÌ„mon law they being borne out of the allegeance were heritable to their Auncestours And it appeareth that th' Aduersary is driueÌ„ to the hard wal when he is faine to catch hold vpon a selie poore marginal note of M. Rastal of the Kinges childreÌ„ and not of the Kings childrens children Which yet nothing at al serueth his purpose touching this statute But he or the Printer or who so euer he be as he draweth out of the text many other notes of the matter therin coÌ„prised so vpoÌ„ these FreÌ„ch wordes Les enfants de Roy he noteth in the MargeÌ„t The Kings childreÌ„ but how far that word reacheth he saieth 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 takeÌ„ strictly for the first degree or farther enlarged For if this statute toucheth only the succession of the Kings children to their Auncestours for other inheritaÌ„ce and not for the Cround as most men take it and as it may be as we haue said very wel takeÌ„ and allowed then doth 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 childreÌ„ the Croune also is meant yet neither may we enforce the rule of foraine borne vpoÌ„ the kings children which are by theâ—presse wordes of the statute excepted neither enforce the word Inâ—â—â—s to the first degree only for such reasons presidents and examples and other prouffes largely by vs before set forth to the coÌ„trarie seing that the right of the Croune falling vpoÌ„ them they may wel be called the kings ChildreÌ„ or at the lest the childreÌ„ of the Croune Ther is also one other cause why though this statute reach to the Croune and may and ought to be expouÌ„ded of the same the said Queene is out of the reach and coÌ„passe of the said statute For the said statute can not be vnderstanded of any persons borne in Scotlande or Wales but onely of persons borne beyond the sea out of the allegeance of the King of England that is to wrtte France Flandres and such like For England
one rule as a general Maxime is obiected against her And yet the same rule is so vntruely set forth that I can not wel agree that it is any rule or Maxime of the cōmon law of this Realm of Englād Your pretēsed Maxime is whosoeuer is born out of the realm of Englād and of father and mother not being vnder the obediēce of the King of England cannot be capable to inherite any thing in England Which rule is nothing true but altogether false For euery stranger and Alien is hable to purchace the inheritance of landes within this Realme as it may appeare in 7. 9. of king Edward the fourth and also in 11. 14. of king Hērie the fourth And although the same purchace is of some men accounted to be to the vse of the King yet vntil such time as the king be intitled therevnto by matter of Record the inheritance remaineth in the Alien by the opinion of al men And so is a very Alien capable of inheritance within this Realme And then it must nedes fal out very plainly that your general Maxime where vpon you haue talked and bragged so muche is now become no rule of the common law of this Realme And if it be so then haue you vttered very many wordes to smal purpose But yet let vs see fartther whether there be any rule or Maxime in the cōmon Law that may seeme any thing like to that rule wherevppon any matter may be gathered against the Title of the said Marie Queene of Scotland There is one rule of the cōmon Lawe in wordes somewhat like vnto that whiche hath ben alleaged by the Aduersaries Which rule is set forth and declared by a statute made anno 25. of King Edward the third Which 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 al infantes inheritours which after that time should be borne out of the allegeance of the King whose father and mother at the time of their birth were of the feaith and allegeāce of the King of England should haue and enioy the same benefittes and aduantages to haue and carie heritage within the said allegeance as other heires should Whervpon it is to be gathered by dew and iust construction of the statute and hath bene heretofore cōmonly taken that the cōmon law alwaies was and yet is that no person borne out of the allegeāce of the King of England whose father and mother were not of the same allegeāce should be able to haue or demaund any heritage within the same allegeance as heire to any person Which rule I take to be the same supposed Maxime which the Aduersaries do meane But to stretch it generally to al inheritances as the Aduersaries woulde seeme to do by any reasonable meanes can not be For as I haue said before euery strāger 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 and also in his wife and the Alien thereby a purchaser Noman doubteth but that a Denizon may purchase landes to his owne vse but to inherit landes as heire to any person within the allegeāce of England he can not by any meanes So that it seemeth very plaine that the said rule bindeth also Denyzōs and doth only extend to Descētes of inheritance and not to the hauing of any landes by purchase Now wil we then consider whether this rule by any reasonable construction can extende vnto the Lady Marie the Queene of Scotland for and cōcerning her Title to the Croune of England It hath bene said by the Aduersaries that she was borne in Scotland which realm is out of the allegeāce of England her father and mother not being of the same allegeance And therfore by the said rule she is not inheritable to the Croune of this Realm Although I might at the beginning very wel and orderly deny the consequent of your argumēt yet for this time we wil first examine the Antecedent whether it be true or no and then consider vpon the consequent That the Queene of Scotland was borne in Scotlād it must nedes be graūted but that Scotland is out of the allegeāce of Englād though the said Quene and al her subiects of Scotland wil stourly affirme the same yet ther is a great nūber of men in Eng and both lerned and others that be not of that opiniō being lead and persuaded therto by diuers histories Registers Recordes and Instruments of Homage remaining in the treasurie of this Realm wherin is metioned that the Kings of Scotland haue acknowledged the King of Englād to be the superiour Lord ouer the Realme of Scotland and haue done homage and fealtie for the same Which thing being true notwithstanding it be cōmonly denied by al Scotsmen then by the lawes of this realme Scotlād must nedes be accōpted to be within the allegeance of Englād And although sins the time of King 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 our lawe to say that therefore the Realme of Scotland at the time of the birth of the said Ladie Marie Queene of Scotlande being in the thirtie and fourth yeare of the raigne of our late Souereigne Lorde King Henrie the eight was out of the allegeance of the kinges of England For the law of this Realm is very plain that though the Tenant do not his seruice vnto the Lorde yet hath not the Lord thereby lost his Seignorie For the lande still remaineth within his Fee and Seignorie that notwithstanding But peraduenture some wil obiecte and say that by that reason France should likewise be said to be within the allegeance of England forasmuch as the possession of the Croune of France hath bene within a litle more then the space of one hundred yeares now last past laufully vested in the kinges of Englād whose right and title stil remaineth To that obiectiō it may be answered that there is a great difference betwene the right and title which the Kings of Englād claime to the Realme of Fraunce and the right and title which they claime to the Realme of Scotlande Although it be true that the Kinges of Englande haue bene lawfully possessed of the Croune of France yet during such time as they by vsurpation of others are dispossessed of the saide Realme of France 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 subiection which they did owe vnto the Kings of Englande and haue geuen and submitted them selues vnder the obedience and allegeance of the vsurpers But as for the Realme of Scotlande it is otherwise For
and intent of the said law Now in case these two causes and cōsiderations wil not satisfie th Aduersarie we wil adioine therevnto a third which he shal 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 We stand vpon the interpretation of the cōmon law recited and declared by the said statute And 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 lawe is custome 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 such as were plainely borne out of the Kings allegeance The soresaid vse and practise appeareth as wel before as sithens the time of the Conquest Among other King Edward the Confessour being destitute of a lawful Heire within the Realme sent into Hūgary for Edward his Nephew surnamed Outlaw son to King Edmūd called Irōside after many yeres of his exile to returne into Englād to th' intent the said Outlaw should inherite this Realme whiche neuerthelesse came not to effect by reason the said outlaw died before the said king Edward his Vncle. After whose death the said king apointed Eadgar Etheling sonne of the said Outlaw being his next cosen and heire as he was of right to the Croune of Englād And for that the said Eadgar was but of yong and tender yeares and not able to take vpō him so great a gouernement the said king cōmitted 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 weld the state of a King Which Harold neuerthelesse cōtrary to the trust supplanted the said yong Prince of the Kingdome and put the Croune vpon his own head By this it is apparent that foraine birth was not accōpted of before the time of the Cōquest a iust cause to repel and reiect any man being of the next proximitie in blood frō the Title of the Croune And though the said king Edward the Cōfessors wil and purpose toke no such force and effect as he desired and the law craued yet the like succession toke place effectuously in king Stephen and king Hēry the secōd as we haue already declared Neither wil th' Aduersaries shift of foramers borne of father and mother which be not of the kings alegeāce help him forasmuch as this clause of the said statut is not to be applied to the kings childrē but to others as appeareth in the same statute And these two kings Stephē and Henrie the 2. as they were borne in a forain place so their fathers and mothers wer not of the kings allegeāce but mere Aliens and strāgers And how notorious a vaine thing is it that th' Aduersarie would perswade vs that the said K. Henrie the secōd rather came in by force of a cōposition then by the proximitie and nearenes of blood I leaue it to euery man to cōsider that hath any maner of feling in the discours of the stories of this realm The cōpositiō did procure him quietnes 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 therby then 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 childrē And no dout in case she had had any children by th'Emperour they should haue ben heires by succession 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 after 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 France Whervpon the said King did reuiue and renue the like othe of allegeāce aswel to her as to her sonne after her With the like false persuasiō the Adueruersarie abuseth him selfe and his Reader touching Arthur Duke of Britanie Nephew to King Richard the first As though forsooth he were iustly excluded by Kinge Iohn his vncle by cause he was a forainer borne If he 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 this Realme as may wel appeare among other thinges by King Richard the second who succeded his grādfather 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 to chalenge their title and interest yet should he haue had some countenance of reason and probabilitie bicause many arguments and 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 kingdom 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 most vnsure and false ground seeing it is moste true that King Richard the first as we haue said declared the said Arthur borne in Britanie and not son of a King but his brother Geffreys sonne Duke of Britanie heire apparent his vncle Iohn yet liuing And for such a one is he taken in al 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 then for an vsurper by excluding him and afterward for a murtherer for imprisoning him and priuily making him away For the which facte the French King seased vpon al the goodly Coūtries in France belonging to the King of England as forfeited to him being the chiefe Lorde By this outragious deede of King Iohn we lost Normandie withall and our possibilitie to the inheritance of all Britanie the right and Title to the said Britanie being dewe to the said Arthur and his heires by the right of his mother Constance And though the said king Iohn by the practise and ambition of Quene Elenour his mother and by the special procurement of Huberte then Archebishop of Caunterburie and of some other factious persons in Englād preuēted the said Arthur his nephew as it was easy for him to do hauing gotten into his handes al his brother Richardes treasure by sides many other rentes then in England and the said Arthur being an infante
Scotland and Wales be al within one Territorie and not diuided by any sea And al 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 vnderstaÌ„d in ScotlaÌ„d and Wales aswel as in EnglaÌ„d bâ—cause they be al within one continent coÌ„passed with fower seas And likewise be many auncient statutes of this Realm writreÌ„ in the NormaÌ„ FreÌ„ch which haue these wordes deins les quatre mers that is within the fower seas Now coÌ„cerning 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 statut is also of childreÌ„ born beyond the sea out of the allegeance with diuers other braÌ„ches of the statute teÌ„ding that way Wherby it seemeth that no part of the statute toucheth these that are born in Wales or Scot laÌ„d And albe it at this time and before in tho reigne of Edward the first Wales was fully reduced annexed and vnited to the propâ—â— Dothinion of England yet was it before subrected to the Croune and King of England as to the Lorde and Sâ—igniour aswel as Scotland Wherefore if this statute had 〈◊〉 made before the time of the said Edwarde the 〈◊〉 it seemeth that it could not haue bene stretched to Wales no more then it can now to Scotland I doe not therefore a litle meruaile that euer this man for pure shame could finde in his harte so childishly to wrangle vpon this word Infantes and so openly to detorte depraue and corrupt the common lawe and the Actes of Parlament And thus may you see gentle Reader that nothing can be gathered either out of the said supposed general 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 the said Ladie Marie now Queene of Scotland of and to the Croune of this Realme of England as is aforesaid We are therefore now last of al to consider whether there be any statute or Acte of Parlament that doth seeme either to take away or preiudâ—ce the title of the said Lady Marie And bycause touching the foresaid mentioned statute of the 25. yeare of King Edward the thirde being only a declaration of the common law we haue already sufficiently answered we wil passe it ouer and consider vppon the statute of 28. and 36. of King Henry the eight being the only shoteanker of al the Aduersaries whether there be any matter therein conteined or depending vpon the same that can by any meanes destroie or hurt the title of the said Ladie Marie Queene of Scotland to the successioÌ„ of the Croune of England 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 and assigne the succession of the Croune by his Letters Patentes or by his last Wil 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 this Realme 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 son of his body betwene him and the Ladie Iane then his wife begotten and for default of such issue then vnto the Lady Marie his daughter and to the heires of her body lawfully begotten and for default of such issue then vnto the Ladie Elizabeth his daughter and to the heires of her body laufully begotten and for default of such issue vnto suche person or persons in remainder or reuersion as should please the said King Henry the eight and according to such estate and after such maÌ„ner order and conditioÌ„ as should be expressed declared named and limited in his Letters Patentes or by his last Wil in writing signed with his owne hande By vertue of whiche said Acte of Parlament the Aduersaries doo alleage that the said late King Henry the eight afterward by his last Wil in writing signed with his owne hand did ordeine and appoint that if it happen the said Prince Edward Ladie Marie and Lady Elizabeth to dye without issue of their bodies lawfully begotten then the Croune of this Realme of Englande should goe and remaine vnto the heires of the bodie of the Ladie Francis his Neece and th' eldest daughter of the Fâ—eÌ„ch Quene And for the defaulte of suche issue to the heires of the body of the Ladie Elenour his Neece seconde daughter to the Frenche Queene lawfully begotten And if it happened the said Ladie Elenor to dye without issue of her body lawfully begotten to remaine and come to the nexte rightfull heires Wherevpon the Aduersaries do inferre that the successioÌ„ of the Croune ought to go to the childreÌ„ of the said Ladie FraÌ„cis and to their heyres according to the said supposed Wil of our late Souereigne Lorde King Henry the eight and not vnto the Ladie Marie Queene of Scotlande that nowe is To this it is on the befalf of the said Lady Marie Queene of Scotland among other things answered that King Henry the eight neuer signed the preteÌ„sed Wil with his own hand and that therfore the said Wil can not be any whit preiudicial to the said Queene 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 owne hande or at the leastwise enterlined and some for the most part writen with his owne hande out of the whiche it is likely that the original Wil commonly called King Henry the eightes Will was taken and fayer drawen out Then that there be great and vehement presumptions that for the fatherly loue that he bare to the coÌ„mon wealth and for the auoiding of the vncerteintie of the successioÌ„ he welliked vpoÌ„ and accepted the authoritie geuen him by Parlament and signed with his owne hande the said original Wil whiche had the said limitation and assignation of the Croune And these presumptions are the more enforced for that he had no cause why he should beare any affection either to the said Queene of Scotland or to the Lady Leneux and hauing withal no cause to be greaued or offended with his sisters the Frenche Queenes children but to put the matter quite out of al ambiguitie and doubte it appeareth they say that there were eleuen witnesses purposely called by the king who were presente at the signing of the said Wil and subscribed their names to the same Yea the chief Lordes of the CouÌ„saile were made and appointed executours of the said Wil and they and other had great Legacies geuen them in the said Wil which were paid and other thinges comprised in the Wil accomplished accordingly There passed also purchases and Letters Patentes betwene King Edwarde and the executors of