| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
 Bad Advertisement? News & Reviews: Are you a Christian? Online Store: |
APPENDIXPREVIOUS CHAPTER - NEXT CHAPTER - HELP
OF ORIGINAL PAPERS; REFERRED TO IN THE ANNALS. BOOK I. NUMBER 1. Thomas Cartwright, B.D. lady Margaret professor, to sir William Cecil, knight, chancellor of the university of Cambridge; in vindication of his readings. COMMUNIS totius literatorum hominum nationis (hono-ratissime vir) patronus et propugnator cum sis, in bonam spem venio, ut ipse quoque in aliqua parte curae et solicitu-dinis tuae maneam. Et cum multi docti vid singularem tuam experti sint, et praedicarint humanitatem, patere, quaeso, me hominem non a literis prorsus alienum, illius quoque fieri participem. Video, et quidem meo cum magno malo sentio, quam sit verbum illud verum, Nihil esse magis quam calumnia volucre; nihil citius emitti, facilius nihil dilatari. Quae si nostris parietibus constitisset calum-nia, et aulae et tui imprimis honoratissimi viri aures non pulsasset, multum esset de dolore meo detractum. Mihi vero homuncioni te virum honorafissimum objici, et tan-quam adversarium opponi, id me demum pungit acriter. Hic ego primum eujquglw>ssouv (ut ille loquitur) desidero, qui si non defuissent, nulla mihi apud te purgandi fuit necessitas. Liceat enim mihi apud te, quod vere possum, libere etiam profiteri, me esse a seditione et contentionis studio aversissimum, nihil docuisse quod ex contextu quem tracta-bam, non sponte flueret: oblatam etiam de vestibus occa- sionem, praetereundo dissimulasse. Non nego quin docuerim ministerium nostrum ab avitae et apostolicae ecclesiae mini-sterio deflexisse: cujus ad puritatem nostram exigi et effor-mari cupiebam. Sed dico hoc a me placide et sedate factum esse, ut in nullius nisi aut ignari aut maligni auditoris, et calumniarum aucupis, reprehensionem potuisset incurrere. De quibus tamen universis audio me apud tuam Praestan-tiam insimulari. Quaeris, qui ista confirmem? En! fero tibi (honoratissime vir) plurimorum et incorruptissimorum hominum, qui inter-fuerunt, testimonium. Parum certe abfuit, quin academiam innocentiae meae testem protulissem. Nam nisi mihi ro-ganti vicecancellarius concionem cogere abnuisset, equidem non dubitarem, quin illa a me, contra quae perhibentur ca-lumnias, sententiam diceret. Non possum omnia, quae ea ipsa lectione, quae istum ru-morem pepererit, continebantur, kata< lepto Honoris tui studiosissimus, T. Cartwright.
NUMBER 2.
Letters wrote from divers of the university to their chancellor, in behalf of Cartwright, MAGNUM sane acrbumque dolorem cepimus, hono-ratiss, vir, ex eo, qui ad nos pervenit nuper, rumore, de molestiis tuis, et alienata a Cartwrighto nostro voluntate. Nam cum tibi omnes tanquam patrono singulari, ac acade-miae parenti unico devinciamur, Cartwrightum vero singu-lare literarum ornamentum eximie diligamus, nihil potuit nobis accidere quam ut ad curas et labores tuos a nobis quicquam adderetur, aut ille in discrimen nominis et existimationis suae cuique bono veniret. Putavimus itaque officii nostri esse, et ejus quam tibi debemus observantiae, aegritu-dinem illam ex falsa tantum opinione contractam levare, et Cartwrightum, si fieri potest, in veterem locum apud te, et gratiam reponere. Et quamvis videri possimus parum considerate facere, qui in maximis occupationibus, et quibus paene conficeris, reip. negotiis, tibi per literas obstrepere non vereamur; putamus tamen non convenire, ut cum alii ad accusandum fuerint tam celeres, nos ad defendendum non simus tardiores: beneque speramus, quod istam defensionem, quam falsam accusationem, multo libentius auditurus sis.
Primum itaque de Cartwrighti nostri moribus non erit necesse nobis multa dicere. Putamus neminem esse, qui eum alicujus criminis, aut in tota vita macule faedioris cri-minetur aut accuset, sed tamen, ut Honori tuo constet, qua-lem illis hominem vocant in invidiam, hoc de eo vere affir-mamus, quod exemplar sit pietatis et integritatis, et quod quo propius ad illius vitae consuetudinem et instituta acce-dimus, eo nos ipsos plura faciamus et amemus. Religionem scimus sinceram esse, et ab omni labe puram. Non enim emersit solum ex vasto et infinito papisticarum haeresium pelago, dulcissimaque Christianae religionis aqua se proluit, sed etiam ad nullam earum opinionum futilium et levium, quae quotidie disseminantur et disperguntur, tanquam ad scopulum impegit. Ad sacram scripturam, regulam morum et doctrinse certissimam se astrinxit; neque unquam ant errore lapsus, aut novitate seductus, illius li-mites, quod scimus, transilivit.
Itaque magnum in eo non solum adversus senescentes Romanensium fabulas, a quibus magnopere non metuimus, sed etiam peregrinas vafrorum hominum opiniones, quae graviorem plagam minantur, prae-sidium ponimus. Atque idem de eo tu tibi certo potes pro-mittere. Doctrinam suspicimus et veneramur. Vere n. de eo dici potest quod est alicubi apud poetam, Quae liberum hominem aequum est scire, solertem dabo. Junxit, quod ille in magna laude posuit, Graeca cum Latinis. Addidit etiam ultra, quod erat non exigui laboris, Hebraica. Atque ita quidem, ut etiamsi in singulis pares aliquos, in universis certe supe-riorem invenimus neminem. In ea vero quam profitetur theologia quantum valeat, ex eo potest intelligi, quod tanta omnium ordinum multitudo atque frequentia ad eum audi-endum quotidie confluat, tam diligenter attendat, in ejus-que sententia libenter conquiescat. Neque vero hoc fit propterea, sicuti fortasse quidam tibi in aures insusurrave-runt, quod semper veniat novus, et peregrinis sententiis au-ditorum aures titillet; sed quod acutus sit in interpre-tando, felix in docendo, denique quod rerum gravitatem atque pondus sententiarum verborumque copiam superare videatur.
Itaque haec nostra de eo sententia est, quam neque preci-bus ullis, neque privata amicitia persuasi ad te scripsimus, sed quia virtuti hominis et pietati favemus. Nunc humil-lime rogamus Honorem tuum, ut siquam de eo pravam opi-nionem concepisti, deponas, atque nobis potius, qui vitae ejus et religionis et doctrinae conscii sumus, fidem habeas, quam rumoris, qui auctorem non habet, aut certe multa non saris candide interpretantem.
Conservato, Cancellarie dig-nissime, academiae tuae virum eum, cujus semper cupientis-sima fuit, cujusque postquam nacta est, voce fruitur avidis-sime. Dignissimus est tam celebri academia alumnus, dig-nissimus tanto patrono cliens. Fuit in omni vita magno or-namento et splendori academiae tuae: sed nunc demum multo quam antehac unquam majori.
Non enim solum co-litur a nobis domesticis et familiaribus, sed a peregrinis multo magis; quorum exilium lenitur suavitate ingenii ejus, et doctrinae.
Quique non dubitant eum cum iis conferre, quorum tam illustris est apud exteras nationes, et pervagata fama.
Pauci sumus qui hoc ate rogamus; rogamus tamen voce multorum. Nemo enim fere omnium est, qui eum non ad-miretur, non diligat, non omni ratione defendendum putet. Si igitur academiae tuae prodesse vis, nihil utilius, si gratifi-cari, nihil acceptius potes facere, quam si Cartwrightum ei conserves et quovis in ea honore dignum censueris. Deus O. M. te reip. et nobis quam diutissime servet incolumen. Vale. Cantabrigiae, quinto nonas Julii Honori tuo devinctissimi, Gulielm. Pachet — Richardus Grenham. — Edmundus Rockrey. — Richardus Howland. — Robertus Tower. — Simon Buck. — Robertus Lynford. — Edmundus Sherbroke. — Robertus Soome. — Georgius Joy. — Bartholomeus Dodington. — Alan Par. — Osmundus David. — Thomas Aldrich. — Joannes Swone. — Gualter. Alen. — Robertus Holland. — Joannes Still.
Honoratissimo viro D. Gulielmo Cecilio regiae majestati a secretis, et academiae Catabrigi ensis cancellario dignissimo.
NUMBER 3.
Epistola alia, D. Cancellario data; ut restituatur Cartwrightus ad legendum. VIX credas, ac ne putes quidem (honoratissime vir) quantum nobis Cantabrigiensibus alumnis tuis nuper grati-ficatus sis, quantumque abs te beneficium accepisse arbitra-mur. Num cum avide jam diu expectaremus quid de Cart-wrighto nostro futurum esset, multaque pericula animo volveremus, lama non dubia ad nos pervenit, omnia illi apud te feliciter et ex votis nostris contigisse. Criminationibus enim illis, quibus injuste vexabatur, te eum perhumaniter liberasse: literasque ad praesides nostros, ad eorum animos leniendos, qui te contra eum exacuerant, misisse. Et quod unum laetemur maxime, ad ecclesiam poliendam, et nitori suo restituendam, operam promisisse. Quare non tu solum fecisti, idque merito, Cartwrightum, virtutis pietatisque tuae testem et praeconem, sed nos etiam, quotquot sumus, mul-toque plures, qui illius studio et doctrina ad religionem in-stituti, in Christiana rep. majore cum fructu deinceps versabimur.
Sed vide quam nihil sit omni ex parte beatum. Intervenit huic voluptati nostrae, quam ex tua in Cart-wrightum facilitate percepimus, dolor non mediocris, quod etiamsi nobis per te restitutus sit, vivat tamen in silentio, neque ad solitum docendi munus admittatur.
Hic igitur ad te, Cancellarium nostrum dignissimum, et patronum singularem, iterum confugimus, supplicesque ro-gamus, ut schola illi pateat, et ne ab eo cursu prohibeatur, in quem ingressus est cum magna laude sua, et utilitate nostra non minore. Est quidem nobis valde jucundum, quod bene tibi de eo persuaderi passus es: cui si hoc etiam addideris, ut illius doctrinam regustemus, qua jamdiu magno cum dolore caruimus, ultra tibi in hoc negotio, nisi quod urgeat vehementius, molesti non erimus.
Antea pro Cartwrighto tantum apud te intercessimus; nunc agimus communem causam. Non enim illius tantum, sed nostra etiam interest, ut illi haec facultas permittatur. Atque te quidem ad id scimus saris facilem et propensum esse: quia tamen ii, qui sub Honore tuo gubernacula reip. nostrae commissa sunt, hoc recusant facere: concede nobis et Cartwrighto rogantibus, ut majore abs te aucthoritate ad id confirmentur. Ita fiat, ut studiis nostris quam optime consuluisse videaris, et integerrimi hominis existimationi. Quam eousque necesse est, tanquam ad metas, haerere, quoad interpretandi munus illi restitutum fuerit. Lites ullas aut controversias non est cur verearis, habes sanctissimi viri fidem, scil. ne ullius quidem vulneris cicatricem refri-caturum. Perge itaque ut coepisti de eo bene sentire, et ab injustis malevolorum calumniis vindicare. Atque sic ha-beto neminem esse, vel propter religionem et doctrinam, tanti viri patrocinio et tutela digniorem. Deus Opt. Max. Honorem tuum quam diutissime incolumem conservet et in-stituta fortunet. Vale. Cantabrigiae, tertio idus Augusti.
Dignitatis tuae studiosissimi, Thomas Aldrich, — Simon Bucke, — Ruben Sherwood, procurat. Acad — Robertus Tower, — Edmund Rookrey, — Alanus Par, — Robertus Soome, — Rogerus Brown, — Robertus Rhodes, — Edmundus Chapman, — Joannes Moore, — Hugo Boothe, — Thomas Barbar, — Will. Tabor, — Hen. Knewstub, — Gualterus Alen, — Thomas Leache. — Robertus Holland, — Edmundus Sherbroke, — Robertus Willan, — Richardus Grenham, — Georgius Slater.
NUMBER 4.
An astrological calculation concerning the queen’s marriage.
Written by secretary Cecil, propria manu.
De significationibus 7mae domus, et de conjugio. SIGNIFICATORES conjugii sunt quinque; Sol et Mars, Cancer signum, Luna et Saturnus.
Sol et Mars reperiuntur in signis negantibus conjugium. Igitur negant affectionem moventem ad conjugium.
Sed domus septimae Cancer, et ejus domina Luna conju-gium promittunt optimum.
Saturnus vero loci sui ratione, conjugium promittit aetate consistente: et ex dispositione significatorum, principaliter ex Saturno in angulo occidentali, expectatur tarditas con-iugii; et quod post maturam aetatem habebit juvenem vi-rum, qui antea non duxit uxorem, circa annum suae aetatis labentem.
Uni tantum viro socia dabitur. Colligitur ab eo, quod uni tantum planetae matutinati, videlicet Saturno, applicata. Idem etiam testatur constitutio solius Mercurii inter medium coeli et Venerem. De qualitate viri sui.
Cum extraneo contracturam matrimonium indicat pars conjugii in nona domo. Similiter peregrinatio Saturni prin-cipalis significatoris conjugii, virum extraneum promittit.
Abhorrere et non multum delectare videtur in conjugio, praecipue in medietate vitae, indicant Mars et Venus in sig-his masculinis, et Saturnus in septima. Viro obediet, reveretur, et in magna aestimatione habebit eum, indicat utrumque luminare in signo foemineo.
Perveniet ad matrimonium prosperum, sed tarde et post multa consilia, et vulgarem ubique gentium rumorem. Et de ejus matrimonio erit ubique locorum maxima disputatio et altercatio per multos annos, universis personis, priusquam ad matrimonium perveniet. Et tamen sponsa fiet sine ullo impedimento. Haec colliguntur ex trino aspectu Martis, Veneris et Mercurii, et ex sextili aspectu Saturni et Solis.
Vir praemorietur, et tamen diu vivet cum marito; et pos-sidebit muta [multa] bona viri. Id Saturnus in septima af-firmat. De liberis.
Nullus planetarum reperitur in locis prolium, excepto Marte, qui parcos liberos promittit; nisi trinus Veneris as-pectus ad cuspidem domus filiorum ipsius Martis judicium annullaverit.
Verum Venus est in domo propria, conjuneta Mereurio, domino filiorum.
Et idcirco spes maxima datur de filio uno robusto, claro et felici in aetate sua matura. Luna in Tauro unam filiam designat.
NUMBER 5.
The charter for wrecks on the coasts of Sussex; granted by king Henry VI. to Adam, bishop of Chichester. HENRICUS Dei gra. rex Anglie et Francie, et dom. Hib. Omnibus ad quos presentes literae pervenerint, Sal. Monstravit nobis venerabilis pater Adam epus. Cicestren. et custos privati sigilli nri’, qualiter quamplurima dominica et collata prope costeras maris in comit. Sussexie situata exist-unt, homines et tenentes; non solum ipsius epi’, verum etiam homines tenentes canonicorum, et aliorum ministrorum ejus-dem ecclesie, necnon residentes super eadem dominica, ma-neria, terras, ten’ et feod’ per admirallium nostrum Angl’ et ejusdem locum tenentem, ac eorum deputatos, officiarios et ministros multipliciter, &c. Clam’ etiam per cartam et diploma manerii de Ripla cum hundred’ et ecclesia et pertinentiis suis, tempore conquestus Angl. et a tempore quo non existat memoria.
Item, Clam’ wrakea maris per omnes terras et feod’ sua ja-cent, juxta mare de tempore ante conquest. Angl. et a tem-pore quo non exstat memoria: et quod ipse et predecesso-rum suorum plene usi sunt libertate predict. &c.
NUMBER 6.
Cautions given by Mr. Fox to the reader of his Acts and Monuments; concerning, some things mentioned in the first edition thereof. MR.GEORGE BLAG is named one of the privy chamber. Nota bene, That tho’ he were not admitted as one of the privy chamber, yet his ordinary resort thither, and to the king’s presence there, was such as tho’ he were one of them; and so commonly taken.
In the story of the duke of Somerset, where it is said, that at the return of the earl of Warwic out of Norfolk, there was a consultation among the lords, assembling themselves together at the house of Mr. York, &c. against the duke of Somerset: here is to be noted, that that coming of the lords to the said house of Mr. York, was not immediately upon the duke of Northumberland’s return, but first he went to Warwic, and from thence, after a space, came to that house aforesaid.
Item, Here is also to be noted touching the said duke of Somerset, that albeit at his death relation is made of a sudden falling of the people, as was at the taking of Christ; this is not to be expounded as that I compared in any part the duke of Somerset with Christ. And tho’ I do something more attribute to the commendation of the said duke of Somerset, which dyed so constantly in his religion; yet I desire the gentle reader so to take it not, that I did ever mean to derogate or impair the martial praise or facts of other men; which also are to be commended in such things where they wel deserved.
Item, Touching the duke of Somerset, where the story is, that he was attainted, read indicted.
Item, Where mention is made of one Nicholas Under-wode to be the betrayer of the duke of Suffolk, joyn with the said Underwode also Nicolas Laurence, alias Nicolas Ethel, keeper of Astely-park. Who taking upon him and promising to keep the duke for two or three days, until he might find some means to escape, conveyed him into a hollow tree, and after most traiterously bewrayed him. Both these live, one at Coton by Nun Eaton, and the other at Nun Eaton.
Item, In the story of sir Tho. Wyat, there is also to be corrected, that where the story saith, that he was taken by sir Clement Parson, which was not so, nor he no knight, amend it thus: that he came first to Clarentius, being sent unto him, and after yielded himself to sir Morice Barckey.
The martyrdome of one Snel, about Richmond, [in Yorkshire,] in Q.
Maries time, omit in the history. There were two of the Snells taken up for their religion. One, after his toes were rotted off by lying in prison, by order of Dakins, the bishop of Chester’s commissary, and so went upon crutches, at last went to mass, having a certain sum of mony given him by the people. But in three or four days after, drowned himself in a river called Swail, by Richmond. The other [Snel] was burned.
A story of one Laremouth omit in the body of the history. He was a Scotchman, and chaplain to the lady Anne of Cleves. The story, for the strangeness and incredibility thereof, he would not insert in his history of the Acts and Monuments. But being testified by one Thorn, a godly minister, yet alive, which heard it of the mouth of the party himself, he added it here. He heard a voice sounding in his ears, being in prison in Q.
Maries days, Arise, go thy ways. Which he giving no credit to at first, the same words were spoken the second time; which was about half an hour after.
So he arising upon the same, immediately a piece of the prison fell down: and as the officers came at the outward gate of the castle or prison, he leaping over the ditch escaped. And in the way, meeting a certain beggar changed his coat with him; and coming to the sea shore found a vessel ready to go over, was taken in, and escaped the search. [NUMBER 6] Dr. Thomas Wylson to sir William Cecill, kt. when he sent him the copy of his translation of certain orations of Demosthenes for his patronage thereof.
ET jam quidem Demosthenis tres Olynthiacas orationes, cum quatuor Philippicis, tandem aliquando indigenas feci, et nostrates, ut potui: sed ita tamen ut advenas, ut ex ser-mone cognoscas. Tam enim concisus orator iste est, tam astrictus, et acumine sic ubique excellens, ut illud in eo to< deino Mr. Walsingham, the queen’s ambassador, his letter from Paris to the lord Burleigh. His discourse with the queen mother, concerning her majesty’s matching, with the duke of Anjou.
IT may please your lordship to advertise her majesty, that Mr. Cavalcant arrived here the 24th of this month: by whom I received her majesties letters. The contents whereof after I had perused, and conferred with him touching his proceeding, for that both the king and queen mother were departed out of this town, the one to S. Leggiers, the other to Monceons, to bring the duke and dutchess of Lorain onward on their way; it was agreed between us, that he should repair the next day to Monceons to the queen mother there, to deliver her majesties letters; as also her answer to the articles propounded by the king. Touching his proceedings with her, I refer your lordship to his own letters. By him I understood at the return, that Q. mother would speak with me at her return to the town, if I had any thing to say unto her. So the 26 of this month [April] she repaired hither.
And for that during the time of her abode here, she could have no leisure; she sent me word, that the next day, in the morning, I should repair unto her to S. Clou, four English miles from Paris; and that there I should have audience. So according to her appointment, I repaired thither the next morning, and at the time of my access unto her presence, I shewed her, that I was come thither to know how she rested satisfied with the answers she received from her majesty, sent by Mr. Cavalcant, to those articles as were propounded by the king and her, to the end I might advertise her majesty.
She shewed me, that the answers made unto the articles seemed to her not to be direct; saving that which was made unto the second article concerning religion. Which, saith she, is very hard, and neerly toucheth the honour of my son; so far forth, as if he should yield thereto, the queen, your mistress, should receive also some part of the blemish, by accepting for an husband such an one, as by sudden change of religion might be thought drawn through worldly respects, void of all conscience and religion. I replyed, that I was willed to say unto her from her majesty, that she doubted not but that monsieur, her son, by her good persuasions, would accept in good part the said answer. Who meant not such sudden change of religion, as that he or his houshold should be compelled to use the rites of the English church, contrary to his or their consciences. But forasmuch as the granting unto him of the exercise of his religion, being contrary to her laws, might, by example, breed such an offence as was like to kindle such troubles as lately reigned in France; whereof both her self and her said son had too good experience; she therefore hoped that he, who, if the match proceeded, was to sayle with her in one ship, and to run one fortune, would not require a thing which she by no means could yield to: who tendred nothing more than the quiet and repose of her subjects.
And therefore, in respect thereof, could by no means consent to any such permission, as by any likelyhood might disturb the same.
To which she replied, that the not having the exercise was as much as to change his religion: which thing he could not do upon a sudden, without the note to be of no religion. Which dishonour I am sure (added she) no respect can draw him to endanger himself to. And as he in respect of the said ignominy is resolved fully not to yield; so can I with no reason persuade him thereto. And as for any peril that may happen by the same, I think rather it shal be the best way of safety for your mistress: who always, by the way of his brother’s sword, should be the better able to correct any such evil subjects, as should go about to disturb the repose and quiet of her estate: which she may assure herself he wil do, without having respect to any religion: whereof lately some trial hath been made, by his consenting with the king, to have some good justice and example of punishment don at Roan.
In answer whereof, I then besought her to consider as wel the queen’s danger, as her son’s honour. I shewed her that of this permission three great mischiefs would ensue. First, the violating of her laws. Secondarily, the offence of her good and faithful subjects. And lastly, the encouragement of the evil affected. Which three mischiefs if you wil weigh, said I, together with your son’s honour, you shall find them of great moment and that the queen’s majesty, my mistress, hath great cause to stand to the denyal of any such permission, whereof is like to ensue so manifest peril. And as for the aid of the king’s sword, I shewed her, that I thought, that the example by permission would do much more harm, than either his own or his brother’s sword could do good. For that the issue of our mischiefs by civil dissensions fell out commonly to be sudden and short, but very sharp; and were not drawn in length, as those that happen in other countries: we having neither walled towns nor forts to retyre to, thereby to protract our warrs.
To this she answered, that she feared that her son would too soon be overcome with the queen’s persuasions in that behalf; who was more zealous than able by reason to defend his religion. Whereby the same inconvenience of example wil not long last. For, saith she, it is generally feared by the catholics, that this match wil breed a change of religion throughout al Europe. In the end, she concluded, that neither monsieur, her son, nor the king, nor her self, could ever yield to any such sudden change for any respect: neither could her majesty wel desire it, considering how much it would touch his reputation, whom she is to match withal, if it procede.
I asked then of her, whether she would have me so to ad- vertise her majesty. She desired me in any case so to do; and to know directly, whether by yielding or not yielding to the said second article, with al reasonable caution, she meant to procede or forbear. Whereof she desired her majesty, at the furthest, to have answer within ten days; for that the king stayeth his progress onely upon that. And if so be she meant to procede, then to send the articles that are to be propounded by her majesty.
Monsieur de la Mot, as I learn by monsieur de Foix, hath given very honorable report of the queen’s procedings, assuring them, that there is nothing but sincerity meant. If her majesty resolve to procede, I learn that monsieur de Foix shal come over with the king’s answer to such articles as shal be propounded by her majesty; and so to grow to some true conclusion. And so having nothing else to advertise her majesty at this present, I most humbly take my leave of your honour. At Pads, the 28th of April, 1571.
Your honours to command, Fra. Walsingham.
NUMBER 8.
A motion in parliament, 13 Elizab. about the succession to the crown; according to K. Henry VIII. his will.
SO great a matter as we have in hand, which concerneth the whole realm universally, and every one of us particularly, I think I should not need any long proheme to purchase your favours, to be content to hear, or to move you to be attentive to mark, what shal be said. For as we, a few, be chosen of an infinite multitude, to treat and do those things that shal be for the benefit of the commonwealth, and be put in trust for all the body of the realm, so I trust hath nature grafted in us a desire to seek those things that may do us good, and avoid that may do us hurt.
Wherefore not minding to use mo words than needs, nor fewer than methinketh the greatnes of the cause re-quireth, I wil directly procede unto the matter. The horrible murthers and bloody battels, that were of long time between the factions of the red rose and the white, the houses of York and Lancaster, for the crown of this realm, by the happy marriage of king Henry VII. and Q. Eliza. beth, were ended. Whereby great quietnes and peace (thanks be unto God) hath followed in this realm. God grant it may so continue. This K. Henry VII. and Q. Elizabeth have issue K. Henry VIII. the lady Margaret and the lady Mary. K. Henry VIII. had issue king Edward, Q. Mary, and Q. Elizabeth, the queen’s majesty that now is. The lady Margaret was first maried to James, the king of Scots; who had issue James, king of Scots, father unto Mary, now queen of Scots. After his decease she maried the earl of Angus; and had issue by him, the lady Margaret, now countess of Lenox. The lady Mary, the other daughter of K. Henry VII. was first marled to Lewis the French king, and had no issue by him. After that she was maried to Charles duke of Suffolk, first secretly in France, and after openly in England. The duke and shee had issue the lady Frances and the lady Eleoner. The lady Frances being eldest was maried to the marques of Dorset. By whom she had issue the lady Katharine and the lady Mary. The lady Eleanor was maried to the earl of Cumberland, and had issue the lady Margaret, now wife to the lord Strange.
By the statutes of the 28th and 35th of K. Henry VIII. the crown was entayled, as yee know, for lack of issue of K. Edward, to Q. Mary, and after to the queen’s majesty that now is. And for lack of heirs of their bodies, to such person or persons, in remainder or reversion, as should please K. Henry VIII. and according to such estate, and after to such maner, form, and fashion, order or condition, as should be expressed and limited in his letters patents, or by his last will in writing, signed with his most gracious hand. For the more sure establishing of which succession, we the subjects of this realm (besides our promises by that act declared) were al sworn by oath, that we should be obedient to such as K. Henry, according to his said statute, should appoint to succede to the crown, and not to any other within this realm; nor to any foreign authority, power, or potentate. Which words I beseech you to imprint wel in your minds.
Whereupon some say, K. Henry made his will accordingly, and put the heirs of the lady Frances first; and next of the lady Eleanor, in the remainder. Others say, that he made a will, but not to the statute; for it was not signed with his hand; and some say, that he made no will at all.
The question groweth, whether the heirs of the Scottish queen, or the heirs of the lady Frances and the lady Eleanor be next inheritors to the crown; if it should please God to take from us the queen’s majesty, without heirs of her body. Or whether none of them is inheritable; whereunto I wil declare my mind and judgment. For the legacies and bequests that Henry the king made to divers, both of lands and mony, declare manifestly that he made a will: for al were performed and satisfyed. As I am informed also, after his decease divers indentures tripartite were made between K. Edward, the executors of K. Henries will, and others. And divers letters patents passed under the great seal of England, in consideration of the accomplishment and performance of K, Henries will. Thirdly, There was a will in name of K. Henry enrolled in the chancery, and divers con-stats thereof made under the great seal.
In the which will the reversion of the crown was in the heirs of the lady Frances first; and after of the lady Eleanor. Finally, in the same will there was a clause, that al other wills made at any other time, should be void, and of none effect. Which needed not, if there had not been other wills made at any other time; and those signed with his hand. Al which be evident arguments, that K. Henry dyed not intestate; but that he made a will: and that it was the same will that was enrolled in the chancery. For it is not to be thought that such enrollment was in vain. If this will was made according to the statute, then it is without al doubt, that as we be bound, and have taken them for kings and queens that be expressed in the statute by name, so we be bound to accept them that be declared by the will in remainder or reversion; that is, the heirs of the lady Frances and the lady Eleanor. For they be expressed in the will, and ought to have it by like authority and title, as others expreased in the same statute. Because it was in like manner don with the consent of the whole realm, and confirmed with our oaths: which not being contrary to God’s law and the law of nature, and being in our power to observe and keep, we ought not in any wise to alter or break. For you know the judgments of the Lord are certain, that he wil not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain. And so the act and wil is a bar and conclusion [exclusion] to al others, be they neerer of bloud, if any be.
But some say, it is no will made according to the statute. Why so? Because it is not signed with the king’s hand, say they. I pray you consider wel the matter. If it should now be doubted, whether it was his hand; and that none should be interpreted his hand, but that was written with his own fingers, yee should adnull some of his parlaments, made by king Henry VIII. For the statute made in the 33d of K. Henry VIII. cap. 21. saith, that the king’s royal assent by his letters patent under the great seal, and signed with his hand, and declared in the higher house to the lords and commons, is of such force as if he were present. According to which act, divers assents of parlament were made; and in some of them [some] were attainted of treason, and suffered. Now if we should doubt whether it were his hand or not, we might perchance bring such things in doubt as we would not gladly should come in doubt. For we should put whole parlaments in doubt.
But it may be, sith by these statutes that power was given to K. Henry, that he might make his will of the crown, (which otherwise by law he could not do,) reason it is that he followed the form that the law prescribeth. If he have not done it, then it is void in law: for because forma dat esse fei. To this I answer: that albeit it were not signed by his hand, yet it is not a sufficient cause that we should reject it. For if the form be so necessary to be observed, why, I beseech you, do you allow Q. Maries parlaments, that were called by writs without the addition of the title and style of supreme head in earth of the church of England, &c. when there was a special statute, and of the greatest importance therefore before made, of purpose to declare, that the bishop of Rome had none authority in this realm; and chiefly upon this case: for that K. Henry, seeing his daughter Maries stubbornness and malice to his doings, and her fond devotion to the pope, meant, that if she should at any time come to that place, she should not, if she would, undoe that he had done. If yee wil say, that these words of supremacy mean [need] not, albeit there were such a statute, much less say I these words, with his hand, need in this case. For if yee mark wel the consideration, why this authority was given to K. Henry VIII. for the establishing of his succession, yee shal find, that it was to none other end than the statute of the 28th of Henry VIII. declareth: that is, because after his life, this realm should not bd destitute of a lawful governour; which yee see in this part by this will is fully performed.
For by this will he hath put no remainder out. First, The heirs of the lady Frances, and then of the lady Eleonor: who being next of the bloud and kin, and such as he loved, and had no cause to hate, nature did move, and reason did teach him to prefer above all others. The heirs of the Scotch queen, you know, he did cease to love. For king James, when he had promised to meet him at York, mocked him; and after made war against him. And when the lords of Scotland, after king James’s death, had promised him the marriage of this queen, they deceived him. And her marying with the earl of Angus was not only without his consent, but also unorderly and unlawfully don, as it is said.
And for these words in the statute, The wil to bee signed with his hand, they are not of necessity, to the end that it was meant for the succession.
For he might have appointed a successor certain, without his hand-writing.
But for a more surety, that there might not be any counterfeited will in his name; which cannot be presumed of this will, when those be named in remainder, that of nature and right ought to be preferred thereunto. Shal we then with cavilling of words go about to subvert the statute, when by true meaning of the statute, without injury to any, we may maintain and preserve our country in quietness and safety? Surely, in my judgment, there is no reason, equity, nor conscience, that can lead us so to do.
But say they, it is not his wil, signed with his hand, as his statute requireth.
How prove they that, sith it must be disproved by a sufficient number of witnesses? such as I take the law civil and common doth allow. For by what law it was made, by that law it must be disproved; or by comparing of the hand and sign wherewith the prothocal is signed with other writings that were signed with his hand. But such conferring cannot be, because the original cannot be found. And to say the very truth, after the will was once proved and allowed, (which I take to be sufficiently don, where it is enrolled in the chancery, and published under the great seal of England by king Edward VI. being supreme head in earth of the church of England, and so sufficient,) ordinary [original] and prothocal needed not, for the record was of more strength. But say they, there can be no such record found in the chancery. Whether there be a record remaining thereof, or not, I know not, but sure I am there was a record thereof, and divers constats made of it under the great seal of England; for every of the executors, and also for some others. But I pray you tel me, is it reason, because the original, nor any record thereof appeareth, the right of those that bee in the remainder should be lost? Do men loose their inheritance, if their inheritance be by force, or otherwise destroyed? Did sir Richard Sackvile, sir John Mason, sir Henry Nevyl, the heirs of sir Philip Hoby, loose their right to the bishop of Winchester’s lands, because the record was destroyed? I trow, you wil deny it: because the last parliament yee did orderly restore them. And albeit there be some of the constats do remain; and also copies thereof, and the memory thereof is yet so fresh, that albeit al the constats and copies were destroyed, yet there be men living that do remember there was such a wil; and that the remainder was declared to be in the heirs of the lady Frances, and after of the lady Eleanor.
But let us consider, I beseech you, at what time, and to what purpose and end, the record and the wil was defaced and destroyed. It was don in queen Mary’s time, as the common report goeth. And it must be presumed, so wise and circumspect men as then bare the sway of the realm, would not do it for nought. Was it because Q. Mary would not satisfy the bequests and legacies therein declared? That cannot be; for al were largely performed and payd, before her time, to the uttermost. Was it because they would not have the obits and masses therein expressed, continued? That cannot be thought, when she, and those that did it, put their chiefest trust of salvation in masses and obits. Was it because they tendred so much king Henry’s honour, that they would not have it appear, that his wil after his death, and his doings in his life were contrary? How could that be, when by al means they could, they laboured to undoe al that he had don, to dishonour and debase him in every thing; and, as some think, burnt also his bones. Was it because there was any thing in his wil that might authorize the executors to withstand queen Mary’s affection? None were so pliable to her devotions, as the executors and those that were named in the wil.
Was it because they would defeat the queen’s majesty that now is of her right of the crown? That could not be; for she claimed not by the wil, but by the statute.
Sith then none of these causes that I have told you served to maintain their doings for the destruction of this will; and that both the original, and also the record of the wil be destroyed; it must needs of necessity be concluded, it was only don, for that they knew the wil to be lawful, and saw none other way to deprive the heirs of the lady Frances of their right to the crown; or else that they had no cause to concele it. Which to imagine of them (esteeming themselves so wise and so learned) would be deadly sin; considering that William Sommer used not his madness to do any thing, but he would render some reason or colour for it. And I pray you, is it like, when lust was law, will reason, wrong right; and some so earnestly laboured, contrary to the law and their oaths, to dissolve the acts of succession, if they had known that any man could justly have preferred their purpose, and said it was a counterfeit wil, would they not have made him to have don it by hook or by crook, for hope of reward, or for fear of torture? Would they not have don it by some colour of law, by examining of witnesses? Should it not have been published in the star-chamber? preach’d at Paul’s Cross? declared by act of parliament? proclaimed in every quarter of the realm? Yes, doubtless, nothing should have been omitted that had been possible to have been devised, whereby so manifest an untruth, so much to their commodity, might have appeared. But because they saw they could not do it justly, nor yet handle the matter so craftily, but every man would perceive their doings, and in time disclose their jugglings; therefore belike, like politic men, they took an unorderly means, and destroyed the whole record.
If then no witness could be found, and now some wil appear, methinks it were a very strange thing. For if it should be said, either it must needs be his will signed with his hand, or els it is no wil at al, it wil be as easy to prove the one, as to deny the other. But say they, it cannot be but a will.
For there be eleven witnesses, men very honest and substantial, that with the subscription of their names to testify the same. And upon that foundation the executors proved the will, took upon them the administration; and have in every point fulfilled it. Surely it cannot be denyed but the witnesses were very honest men, substantial and worthy to be credited. But the self same witnesses that say it was a will, affirm in like manner, that it was signed with the king’s own hand. For the words of the will be thus: “In witness whereof we signed it with our own hand in our palace at Westminster, the 3d day of December,” &c. being present, and called to be witnesses, these persons that have written their names under, John Gates, &c.
So that I can see no remedy, but either both must be granted, or both denyed. That is, that either it is no will, or els it is signed with his own hand. Against their own testimonies can none of the witnesses come. If they do, they discredit themselves. If any of the executors wil go about to impugn this foundation and testimony of the witnesses, then shal he not only destroy his chief building, but also now say against that that he hath manifestly before confessed; when he allowed it, and procured it to be enrolled and put forth under the great seal. And so with his doubleness shal make himself no meet witness. Besides these two kinds of witnesses, I cannot imagine [others.] For some of the executors, and these eleven witnesses, were such as were continually waiting upon the king’s person. If any other will come forth, and say it is not his hand, then it is to be considered, how many, and what they be. Not one or two will serve the purpose. They must be many, and those omni exceptione majores. If they were privy or consenting to the embroiling of the prothocal, or destruction of the record, then the law will not admit them for witnesses. For it accounteth them falsarios, and so infamous. But sith in this will, which is called king Henry’s will, there is this clause, that all other wills made at any other time should be void, it appeareth then, that [he] had other wills.
If any man will deny it, not only the words of the will (which otherwise should be in vain) will plainly reprove him, but also there be yet living that have seen the same: and how some of them were interlined by king Henry; and some of them, in all or the most part, written with his own hand.
But perhaps it will be doubted, whether there were any successor limited and forth set in the said wills; which me-thinketh ought not. For it will appear by manifest presumption. First, It is not to be doubted, sith king Henry, so long before, like a prudent prince, foresaw the dangers the realm mought have fallen into for the uncertainty of succession; and that he had procured authority and power by his parliament to establish it; and that minding in his old days personally to invade France; but that like a good father of his country, with good avisement and deliberation, he made his will, and established the succession. Now, secondly, it must needs be, that in that will so made before his going over, the limitation of succession was in such manner and form as is declared in his last will. For, as I said before, there was no cause why he should bear any affection to the Scottish queen, nor yet to the lady Lenox: and having no cause to be offended with his other sisters (the French queen’s) children, it is to be judged, that he would not leave it to any other before them; especially, when he had none other kinsfolks of his whole bloud to leave it unto. Thirdly, This last will can be no new will devised and made in his sickness; but the copy of his former will, and fair written; if it were not the very old will. For if it had been a new will they devised, who could think, that either himself would have declared manifestly himself contrary to himself, or that any man durst have moved him to put so many things therein, contrary to his honour. And sith it seemed to be so before wrkten of his own advice, and no man durst move him to alter it in those points that were against his honour; much less durst they themselves advise any new succession, or move him to alter it, otherwise than they found it: when they saw it otherwise could not naturally be disposed.
And therefore if it could be justly proved, that this will that you call king Henry’s will, were not signed with his own hand, as it will be a very hard matter to prove negati-vum factum; yet cannot it be denyed, but some of the other wills (out of which this will was copied) was written and signed with his own hand; or at the least enterlined. Which may be said a sufficient signing with his own hand; albeit perhaps at this present the very originalls cannot be brought forth.
Sith then it appeareth that king Henry made a will: sith it appeareth by the testimony and subscription of eleven witnesses, that it was signed with his own hand: sith it was so proved by the executors: sith it was, as his will, enrolled in the chancery, and published under the great seal of England: wherein it was written, that it was signed with his own hand: sith the prothocal and the record be without order destroyed: and sith there can come forth no such witnesses to disprove it, as the law admitteth for sufficient, and as we ought to credit: sith he had other wills written with his own hand to the same effect that this will is; methinketh, that there is no reason nor colour to men, as to think that this was not king Henry’s will, made according to the statute; and that that we call king Henry’s will is the very true, right will, and that by the statute and by our oaths we be bound to receive them for kings and queens, that be in remainder by the will, if it shall please God to take the queen from us without issue.
But let us admit an untruth, that there was no will, to the end there may nothing be imagined, that cannot justly be answered. And that the truth may be known, (which for my part I only desire may appear to all men,) who is the right and lawful heir in reversion to the crown; it will be said, the Scottish queen; because she cometh of the eldest sister, and is next of bloud to king Henry VIII. according to the maxim in the law. Truth it is, there is such a maxim: but it may not be so largely taken, but it must be restrained to such as be inheritable by the laws of the realm. Which be such as be born in the king’s allegiance, of father and mother English; or out of the king’s legiance, of parents English, and in the king’s legiance. For if yee will put strangers and right English in one case, what availeth the liberty of England, or what profiteth it to be an Englishman born? Yea, it were a great deal better to be born a stranger, than an Englishman: for strangers, albeit they have not so great commodity in England in all things as Englishmen have, yet in some things they have more: neither be they bound to serve the realm with their witts, to maintain it with their goods, serve it with their bodies, defend it with their bloud, as we be: but may come when they will, tarry as long as them listeth, and depart when it pleaseth them.
Wherefore by nature there ought to be great difference between strangers and Englishmen: and those should enjoy the sweet, that be bound to tast of the sowre. And so our laws have provided, if ye will suffer them to stand in force. For the statute of the 23 Edward III. (which expoundeth the law in this case) saith, that the king’s children, wheresoever they be born in the realm, or without, be inheritable to their auncesters: and that others which from time to time shall be born out of the legiance of the king, whose fathers and mothers at the time of their birth, be at the faith and legiance of the king of England, should be in like manet inheritors to their auncestors.
Whereby it is a consequent, a contrario, that these that be born out of the legiance of the king of England, be not inheritable to this realm. And so it appeareth by Bracton, that the old law before was, For he saith in one of his exceptions thus; Sicut Anglious non auditur in placitando aliquem de terris et tenementis in Francia; ita non debet Alienigena et Francigena, qui sunt ad fidem regis Francisae, audiri placitando in Anglia. In another place, Libro 4to de exception. dilatoria, Bracton saith thus: Ita respondere poterit, quod particeps, de quo di-citur, nil capere potest, antequam fiat fides regi Angliae. And Lit. saith, as yee know, “That in an action real or personal, brought by one born out of the king’s legiance, it is a good plea for the defendant to say, that the plaintiff was born out of the king’s legiance.”
But some say, that Scotland is a member of the crown of England. and therefore the people therein born be in the legiance of the king of England.
Although Scotland by right belong to the crown of England; yet it is not a sufficient cause to prove, that the people born in Scotland be in the king of England’s legiance. It cannot be denyed, but that Normandy belongeth of right to the crown of England; yet it followeth not, that the Normans therefore be in the le-giance of the king of England. Now, albeit Normandy be-longeth to the crown of England; yet because the people thereof declined from their faith and allegiance that they ought to the king of England, and became subjects, and gave their faith and legiance to the French king, their lands were eschiated; as appeareth by the statute, De Prerog. Regis, cap. 12. Callis was a member of England. The people therein born, when it was under the government of England, as free of England as those that be born in England. But yet now being in the French king’s hands, those that be born there, be no more free in England than those that be born at Paris. So in like manner, albeit Scotland belong of right to the crown of England, and the king of Scots have sometimes done their homage therefore to the kings of England: yet we see they have of long time forsaken their faith and legiance to England, and have not only become rebels, but rather have been taken for enemies to England. For they have been [not] unusually ransomed upon their taking, like enemies, and not executed with death like tray-tors. And by that means king James, their now queen’s father, was at the time of his birth, and at his death, out of the legiance of England. Wherefore to say, that she was born in the king’s legiance, because she was born in Scotland, is a mere cavillation, secundum non causam, ut causam; more worthy to be laughed at, than requiring any answer at all.
Now let us compare these things together. You know, that the Scottish queen is not the king of England’s child, nor is a free-woman of England.
Wherefore by the laws of England she cannot inherit in this realm. And if yee desire a precedent and an example for the very self same cause that we now treat of, ye may find it in the chronicles, how Margaret, daughter and heir unto Edward, the outlaw, son and heir to Edmond Ironside, king of England, being maried to Malcolme, king ofScots, never claimed the crown of England, nor any of her children after her. But both her husband, and her three children after her, and their issue, kings of Scotland, did homage to the kings of England.
But it will be objected, that K. Henry II. was born out of the king’s legiance. His father was no denizen; and yet he inherited the crown. True it is, that he was born out of the king’s legiance: but whether he was free or no, that is uncertain. Albeit it is to be supposed, that his grandfather minding that he should succede, omitted nothing that might serve for that purpose. But this ye may know by our chronicles, that he came in rather by election and consent of the realm, than by inheritance. For Henry I. procured, that the clergy and nobility should be twice Sworn to the succession of Maud the empress his daughter, and her heirs. And for breaking that oath, and receiving Stephen, the history sheweth, how the realm was marveillously plagued, and especially the clergy and nobility; and that by Stephen himself. And besides, if we will weigh the matter indifferently, we may truly say, that Henry II. enjoyed the crown lawfully by inheritance. For albeit Maud were not queen of England de facto, yet was she dejure: for Stephen was but an usurper. And so king Henry was the queen’s child. Which yee se, by the statute of Edward III. is free, wheresoever he be born.
Another objection there is in Richard II. how he was born at Bourdeaux, out of the realm, and yet was king. To this I answer, he had it justly; for he was born of father and mother English. Thus I take it to be very plain, that the Scottish queen can make justly, by the law of England, no claim to the crown thereof; because she hath no right in law nor reason.
And therefore will procede to the examination of the title of the lady Lineux [Lenox.] Whom perchance some will think to have the next right, because she was daughter to the lady Margaret, the eldest sister of K.
Henry VIII. Truth it is, she was her daughter: but her father, the earl of Angus, was a Scot, an alien, and no denizen. But it will he said, it maketh no matter what her father was; for she was born in England, as it cannot be denyed she was. For, as some say, the law of England alloweth every person to be English, that is born in England, of whatsoever nation that his parents be; if his parents, or father only be ad fidem regis Angliae, that is, sworn to be true to the king of England, and his subject; as the earl of Angus, at the birth of the lady Lineux his daughter, was not.
Perchance it might somewhat make for that purpose in the opinion of the common people: albeit in very deed, and by the laws of the realm, it seemeth nothing at all. For it appeareth [by] 14 Edward III, and 14 Henry VI. that albeit an alien be sworn to be true to the king and the realm in any leer or session; yet he is [not] abled thereby to purchase lands, but he must be enabled thereto expressly by the king’s letters patents. But that the child should inherit, and the father not free in England, it cannot but seem very strange, how any such opinion should be conceived by any man learned.
For it differeth from the laws and policy of all other places of the world, [and] written taw of this realm. Nane is to maintain it; and reason, whereon such custom should be grounded, hard I think it should be to find. In all other places the law is, Partus sequitur patrem. That is, the child shall be counted of that nation where his father was born. If the father be French, whensoever the child be born it shall be counted French. Or if he be Italian, the child shall be Italian: if he be Dutch, the child shall be Dutch; except the father hath forsaken his own native country, and hath not only given faith to another prince or state, but also is admitted to be a citizen or freeman there.
And the reason seems to be this, that sith a man is naturally disposed to live in some society, and must needs so live, if he will indeed live well and safely like a man, and not wander abroad like an unreasonable beast, he must joyn himself to some one society or congregation: wherein as he desireth to enjoy the benefits that grow of such civil society, so it is meet and reasonable that he should be partaker of the burthens, and faithfully to maintain and defend it, by which he himself is preserved and maintained.
And because God first made man, and of man woman, and hath made him a more apt instrument to serve in the commonweal, in the functions both of the mind and of the body; therefore is man preferred to woman, and thought the more worthy person; not only by the laws of nature, but also by all other laws, and by the laws of this realm; as appeareth 47 Edward III. And so the children in all other places follow the condition and state of their father, as the most worthy person; which others do also here in England. For the law in like maner saith, Partus sequitur patrem. Which, if it should be examined only in the cases of the bondman and his wife, and that the child should be bond or free, according to the condition of the father, then it is no maxim, as the law termeth it. For a maxim is a rule that serves to rule and discuss more eases than one.
But let us seek if we can find out a reason to maintain this opinion, that every person born in England, of what nation soever the parents be, shall be free. For positive law written, that is contained in the book of the Exposition of the terms of the laws of England: (which of what authority it is, I know not.) But what saith that book? verily thus: “If an alien come and dwell in England, which is not of the king’s enemies, and there hath issue, this issue is not alien, but English.” But now such alien was the earl of Angus: for as the chronicle witnesseth, he came not into England with mind to tary and inhabit there. But after he had maried the Scottish queen, both without K. Henry his brother’s consent, and also of the councils of Scotland, there fel such variance between her and him, and the lords of Scotland, that she and her husband (like banished persons) fled and came into England, and wrote to the king for mercy and comfort. The king enclined to mercy, sent them apparel, vessels, and all things; willing them to live still in Northumberland, till they knew further of his pleasure.
Whereupon they lay still at Harboute, where she was delivered of the said lady Lyneoux. And after, when the king sent for her and her husband, the earl, to come to the court, and the earl promised so to do, and she was coming and asked for him, he was returned to Scotland, (belike to his own wife, as ye shall hear hereafter,) or mistrusting that the king had understanding, how he had distained and abused his sister: and so she came without the earl to the court. When the king heard that the earl of Angus was so departed, he said, it was done like a Scot. And so after this queen had taried a year in England, she returned to Scotland. Whereby it may appear, that the said earl of Angus is not of that sort of aliens of whom this book of the Exposition of the termes of the laws of England speaketh. For he came not into England to dwel, nor had any dwelling place there: but rather was to be judged as a guest; or as a bird, that for a time leaveth his native country while the foul weather lasteth: or as a wild beast chased with hounds out of his haunt, flyeth, till he perceive they persecute him no longer. And so the lady Lineoux can claim no benefit by this law, if it be taken for law: but rather it maketh altogether against her.
Moreover, statute there is none to maintain this opinion, that saith, every person is English that is born in England, of whatsoever nation his parents be. Then of necessity it must be by custom, if it be law: which having no reason to maintain it, or if it be contrary to reason is no law, have it never so long continuance; but is, as evil, to be abolished, as the laws of the realm do plainly teach us. For they say, customs not grounded on reason, or contrary to reason, cannot prescribe.
But yee will say, the reason is to entice strangers the rather to come into this realm. What enticement can it be, where they themselves shall not, by their coming, be free, nor may purchase any land to leave to their posterity?
And albeit that reason maintained this custom, yet can it not serve the lady Lenoux. For her father, the earl of Angus, came not into this realm to inhabit and dwel in the same, as before is sufficiently declared. Perchance it will be said, that it is the nature of the soil to make all such bee born in England, free of England. But how happeneth it, that this property is private to England, and not common to all other countreys? Truly, this is not allowed in any other country: and not without good reason. For the constitution of kingdoms and states, ordinances of cities and commonweals, and the liberties and freedoms thereof, are not by nature, but come by the consent of men and mens laws. And they receive none to be free, and they allow none to be free in their commonweals, but such as either for the faith and truth their parents, being citizens, bare thereunto, they do not suspect but that they will walk in the steps of their parents fidelity; or else are such as upon great consideration and promise of their faith and allegiance, they do newly admit citizens. Of which number young babes cannot be for simplicity. The magistrate can have no respect of them: nor they be not able to make any promise, or bond of fidelity to the commonwealth. For as the commonwealth is bound to preserve them that be free thereof from injury and injustice; so it doth require of them promise to be true thereunto, to serve and defend it to their uttermost power.
And mark, I pray you, now into what absurdities ye shall fall, if this should be admitted for law, that every one born in England should be free in England, of whatsoever nation his parents were. I ask this question, If the child of an alien born in England should be free in England; and by reason his father is a Scot before also in Scotland, (as doubtless by the law he is, wheresoever he be born,) if wars should happen, (as it hath done many times between these two realms,) whose part shall he take? No man can serve two masters at one time, saith the right Lawmaker, and also common reason. If he follow the Scotch part, then he is a traitor to England. If he should with England, then he is a traitor to Scotland. If he will take part with neither, then is he a traitor to both. For every man by the laws of nature, (which is God’s law,) and by the law of every realm, is bound to declare himself a member of one commonwealth: that is, to bestow his life and goods in the defence thereof, when need requires. Therefore I ask, which part it is like that he will take, that is a mongrel of both nations?
Truly in my judgment, there is no reason to move either England or Scotland to think such a person can be true to either of them both. For it hath been a principle received of all men, even as long as division of states and commonweals have been, that no man can be a citizen of two cities or commonweals; because he cannot serve them both at once. Wherefore I cannot see how this proposition, that every person born in England (of what nation or parents soever he be) should be free in England, should be justified by law or reason. And therefore the lady Leoneux can take no benefit thereby.
But admit the law of the realm were certain, that all children born in the realm should be free, of whatsoever nation the parents were: if it be true that is reported, the lady Leoneux is clearly excluded by the laws of the realm to be heir of any person, of any possessions within this realm. For as it is said, when her father, the earl of Angus, was maried to the Scottish queen her mother, he had another wife living. Wherefore a divorse was sued between him and the Scottish queen. And after the same divorse, the Scottish queen, in the life of the earl of Angus, the lady of Lineux father, maried the lord Muffyn. With whom she continued all her life, as man and wife, without any trouble or appele to revoke the divorse. But it may be said, that divorse cannot disable the lady Lineux to be inheritor to the crown of England. For albeit he had another wife living at that time he maried the Scottish queen; yet forasmuch as she was ignorant thereof, and maried him bona fide, the child born of them is by the common laws lawful. True it is, that by the common laws she is legitimate: but the laws under which we be born, whereunto by God’s law, and the law of nature we be bound; and whereby in cases of inheritance we be, and must be ruled, do not allow her for legitimate: that is to say, inheritable; as it doth not likewise others in other cases.
The canon law saith, if a man beget a child of a woman, not maried, and after the birth of the child do mary her, the child shall be counted legitimate, and as if it had been born in lawful matrimony. But the laws of England be, and ever have been contrary; that it shah not be taken for legitimate, albeit that great suit hath been made to the contrary: and to bring the laws of the realm to agree with the common laws in this point, as appeareth in the statute of Marton, cap. 9. So in like maner albeit the common law alloweth the child born in second mariage, the first not being dissolved, to be lawful, if any of the parents think the mariage good; yet do not the laws of the realm allow the same. But because the first mariage was never lawfully disallowed, but that one man can have but one wife at once, it accounteth the second mariage void; and the child born therein it adjudgeth bastard, and not inheritable in this realm: as appeareth by Glanvile, Bracton, and Britton. And all the whole course of our laws received and used from the beginning to this present time.
Wherefore the lady Leoneux can pretend justly no title to the crown of England. So that it may appear by the laws of the realm, neither the Scottish queen, nor yet the lady Leoneux have any maner of title or claim to the crown of England, be they never so neet of bloud. The one because she is not the king’s child, nor free in England; the other, because if she were free, that yet the law cannot allow her for legitimate, as inheritable to this realm. And therefore as the next of bloud, and the true and just heirs of our laws, the crown ought to descend to the heirs of the French queen; which be the daughters of the lady Frances and the lady Eleanor. And presently to the lady Katharine, being the eldest daughter to the eldest sister, the lady Frances.
Against these heirs of the French queen is objected: say they, These cannot inherit. Why so? Because they were not lawfully born. For Charles, duke of Suffolk, had at that time, when he maried the French queen, another wife living; that is, the lady Mortymer. To this I answer, that altho: it were true, that the lady Frances and the lady Eleonor were not lawfully born, (as it is not true, as ye shall hear hereafter,) yet it hurteth not the title of the heirs given by king Henries will. For it is appointed to the heirs of them, not to themselves, as the will plainly de-clareth. But verily, this is a mere slander grown altogether on malice; and no accusation made upon any just presumption. For I beseech you tell me, is it like, or can any reasonable man think, if duke Charles had had another wife living, when he had maried the French queen, that king Henry would have consented, that his sister should have received so great an injury, that she should have been kept for a concubine? Would the council have suffered so great infamy to have come. to their master’s stock? Would the nobility of the realm with so great triumph have honoured so unlawful an act? Would the common people, who many times are ready to speak evil of weldoing, have holden their tongue in so manifest adultery? Is it like, that in so long time as the French queen and the duke lived together, as man and wife, (that is, all the days of the French queen,) that she should not have heard of it? Was it possible, that among so many women, that daily resorted unto her, (whose natures are to seek for all such things, be they never so secret, and to communicate them to others,) that none should have told her? Is it to be believed, that she, contrary to the nature of all women, would have content that another should be partaker of that flesh, that she, according to God’s word, took only to be her own? Or can any man think, that any woman can be content to live in mean degree, when she may be a dutchess; as the lady Mortymer should have been justly, if she had been the duke’s wife? Surely, methinks, there is no reason to make any man to think, how much less to report so.
But suppose that the duke had another wife living, at what time he maried the French queen; yet forasmuch as he and she were maried openly, continued together all their lives, as lawful man and wife; and nothing said against them; and every man took them for man and wife: and that the lady Frances and the lady Eleonor were not, during their lives, taken to be bastards; now, after their death, neither they, nor their children may by the laws of this realm, be convented therefore. For the laws of the realm say thus, Nec justum est aliquando mortuum facere bastardum, qui toro tempore suo tenebatur pro legitimo: as appeareth by judgment given at Westminster, 13 E. I.
But for the declaration of the truth of this matter, and to pluck out of the heads of the people their fond opinion and consideration; and maintained of such as pass not so much of the truth, as they desire to satisfy their fond affections; yee shall understand, that the duke being sir Charles Brandon, living in the court, being sole and unmaried, made a contract of mariage with a gentlewoman called Anne Brown; and before any solemnization of mariage, not only had a daughter by her, which afterwas maried to the lord Powis; but also brake promise with her, and openly and solemnely maried the lady Mortymer. Which mariage the said Mrs. Anne Browne judicially accused to be unlawful. For that the said sir Charles Brandon had made a precontract with her, and had carnally known her. Which being duely proved, sentence of divorse between the said sir Charles and the lady Mortymer was given. And he maried solemnely the said Mrs. Anne Browne. At which mariage all the nobility was present, and did honour it.
And after had by her another daughter: which was maried to the lord Mounteagle. After this the said Mrs. Anne Browne continued with him all her life as his wife, and dyed his wife, without any impeaching of that mariage. After whose death, king Henry, having the said Charles Brandon in great favour, meant he should, for his better preferment, have maried the lady Lisle, being a young madam, and an inheritrix. Whereupon the said Charles Brandon was created viscount Lisle: but that mariage, by reason of her youth, took no place. After this he was created duke of Suffolk. And Lewis the French king dyed; and leaving the said lady Mary, king Henry the Seventh’s daughter, a widow, the said duke Charles being sent into France for her, with consent of king Henry maried her twice: first, secretly in France; and after openly here in England, as before is de-dared. And then lived together quietly, as man and wife, all their lives. They were so accepted, and taken of all persons. No person impugned, or gainsayed the said ma-riage. For there was no cause. And had issue between them, the said lady Frances and lady Eleonor.
Against whom the said lady Powis, their base sister, in the time of king Edward VI. alledged bastardy: but they were, by the laws of the realm, and the canon laws, declared to be legitimate, and born in lawful matrimony.
So that no man that hath understanding, can say they be bastards: and if they could, yet at this present, (because it was once adjudged for them; and also that they both be dead; and dyed taken as legitimate,) he ought not to be heard by order of any law in the world, if he would object against them.
But having no true ground of occasion; but spewing out his malice, is rather as a slanderer to be reproved; going about to sow sedition in the common weal, as a seditious person to be punished; minding to sow civil warrs in the realm, and to bring it to destruction and dissolution, as a traytor to the realm, to be taken; persuading to subvert the providence of Almighty God, as God’s enemy to be adjudged and used.
Thus have I declared my judgment unto you, touching the right heirs of the crown in remainder and reversion: which is, as I take it presently, the lady Katharine, daughter to the lady Frances; both by the will of king Henry, and also by the common laws of the realm. And that we be bound both by our oaths, and also by the law, so to take her. If we shall for any affection take away the right from those that have the right, let us remember the saying of the Holy Ghost, Propter injustitias et injurias transfe-retur regnum a genre in gentem. This have I put in writing, that I may be the better and more perfectly answered. If any man will take the pains to do it, I require it may be don in writing: so it shall quickly come to an issue. If he can confound by just argument that I have said, he shall satisfy many; and find me ready to say as he saith. If he cannot, then do I desire him for God’s sake, and for the love of his country, to give place to truth: quickly.
NUMBER 9.
A letter of Mr. Randolph, the queen’s agent in Scotland, to the lords Graunge and Lyddington: exciting them to leave the Scottish queen’s party. WHERE we see how little our dealing with you by mouth can do, to bring you unto that which we know is best for your selves; having spent a great deal of time to little effect; wee thought good to try another way: which is, to prove by our advice in writing, if we can win that out of you, that by word we are not hable to do: because we will have nothing undon that we may do, or at the least minded to do. That we be not charged hereafter by you, not to have don as much as in friendship we might do.
We are commanded to deal with you in two principal points: the one for your obedience to the king. The oth |
