as other heires should VVhervpon it is to be gathered by dew iust cōstruction of the same statute and hath bene heretofore commonly 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 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 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 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
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 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 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 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
coÌ„mon lawe of that realme that hath bene taken by any iust coÌ„struction to extende vnto or bind the King or his Croune I will not denie but that to declare set forth the prerogatiue and Iurisdiction of the King they may shewe many rules of the lawe but to binde hym as I haue sayde they can shewe none 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 obedieÌ„ce 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 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 forâ—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 Aylâ— 1â— 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. vileâ—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 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 coÌ„trouersie 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 shal be 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 shal be equally diuided among 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 shal be 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 coÌ„mon 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 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 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 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 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
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 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 shal be 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 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 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 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