A conference about the next succession to the crown of England divided into two parts : the first containeth the discourse of a civil lawyer, how and in what manner propinquity of bloud is to be preferred : the second containeth the speech of a temporal lawyer about the particular titles of all such as do, or may, pretend (within England or without) to the next succession : whereunto is also added a new and perfect arbor and genealogy of the descents of all the kings and princes of England, from the Conquest to the present day, whereby each mans pretence is made more plain ... / published by R. Doleman.

THE PREFACE OF THE Second Part.

THe Civilian had no sooner ended his Discourse, but all the Company being most desirous to hear what the Temporal Lawyer had prepared to say, about the several Titles of the present Pre∣tenders to the Crown of England, began with one accord to request him earnestly for the per∣formance of his promised Speech in that be∣half, who shewing himself neither unwilling nor unready for the same, told them, that he was content to yield to their desires, but yet with one condition, which was, that he would take in hand this matter with the same assevera∣tion and protestation, with the Civilian in some occasions had used before him,* 1.1 and it liked him well, to wit, that having to speak in this Discourse of many Princes, Peers and Nobles of the Royal Blood of England (to all which by Law of Nature, Equity and Reason he said that he bare reverent honour and re∣spect) and to discuss their several Pretentions, Rights, Interests and Titles to the Crown, he said, that his meaning was, not to offend, hurt, or prejudicate none: nor to determin any thing

resolutly in favour or hinderance of any of their Pretences or Claims, of what Side, Family, Faction, Religion, or other Party soever he or she were, but rather plainly and indifferently without hatred or partial affection to or against any, to lay down sincerely what he had heard or read, or of himself conceived, that might justly be alledged in favour or disfavour of eve∣ry Titler.

And so much the rather he said that he would do this, for that in very truth the Civi∣lians speech had put him in a great indifferen∣cy concerning matter of Succession,* 1.2 and had taken out of his Head many scrupulosities about nice Points of Nearness in Blood, by the ma∣ny Examples and Reasons that he had al∣ledged of the Proceeding of Christian Com∣monwealths in this Affair, preferring often∣times him that was further off in Blood, upon other Considerations of more weight and im∣portance, which Point seemed to him to have been so evidently proved, as no man can deny it, and much less condemn the same, without the Inconveniences before alledged and mentioned, of calling all in doubt that now is established in the World, considering that not only foreign Countries, but England also it self so often hath used the same putting back the next in Blood.

Wherefore he said, that for as much as Com∣monwealths, and the consent, will and desire of each Realm was proved to have High and

Soveraign Authority in this Affair, and that as on the one side Nearness of Blood was to be re∣spected, so on the other there wanted not sun∣dry considerations and circumstances of as great moment as this, or rather greater, for that oftentimes these considerations had been preferred before Nearness of Blood, as hath been declared. I do not know (quoth he) who of the Pretenders may next obtain the Garland, whatsoever his Right by Propinquity be, so he have someright (as I think all have that do pre∣tend) and therefore I mean not to stand upon the justification or impugning of any one Title, but rather to leave all to God and to them, that must one day try and judge the same in Eng∣land, to whom I suppose this Speech of mine cannot be but grateful and commodious, for the better understanding and discerning of those matters, whereof of necessity, ere it be long, they must be Judges and Ʋmpires, when God shall appoint, and consequently for them to be ignorant or unacquainted with the same, (as men say that commonly most in England at this day cannot be but very inconvenient and dangerous.

In this manner he spake, and after this he began his discourse, setting down first of all the sundry Books and Treatises, which he under∣stood had been made or written hitherto of this Affair.

CHAP. I. Of the divers Books and Treatises that have been written heretofore about the Titles of such as pretend to the Crown of England, aed what they do contain in favour or dis∣favour of sundry Pretenders.

ACcording to the Variety of mens Judg∣ments and Affections of man in this be∣half, so said the Lawyer, that divers had written diversly in sundry Books and Treatises that had come to light, and went among men from hand to hand, though all were not printed. And First of all he said, that not long after her Majesties coming to the Crown, there appeared a certain Book written in the favour of the house of Suffolk, and especially of the Children of the Earl of Hartford by the Lady Catharin Gray, which Book offended highly the Queen and Nobles of England, and was afterwards found to be written by one Hales sirnamed the Club foot,* 1.3 who was Clerk of the Hamper, and Sir Nicolas Bacon, then Lord Keeper, was presumed also to have had a principal part in the same, for which he was like to have lost his Office, if Sir Antony Brown, that had been Chief Judge of the Common Pleas in Queen Maries time would have accepted thereof, when her Majesty offered the same unto him, and my Lord of Leicester earnestly exhorted him to take it, but he refused it for that he was of a diffe∣rent Religion from the State, and so Sir Nicolas Bacon remained with the same at the great in∣stance

of Sir William Cecill now Lord Treasurer, who, though he were to be privy also to the said Book, yet was the matter so wisely laid upon Hales and Bacon, and Sir William was kept free, thereby to have the more Authority and Grace to procure the others pardon, as he did.

* 1.4The bent and butt of this Book, was, (as I have said) to prefer the Title of the Lady Catharine Gray Daughter of the Lady Frances Dutchess of Suffolk, which Frances was Daughter to Mary the younger Daughter to King Henry VII. before the Title of the Queen of Scots then living, and of her Son, which were descended of Lady Margaret eldest Daughter of the said King Henry, And the rea∣sons which this Book did alledge for the same were principally two:* 1.5 The First, that the Laws of England did not admit any stranger or alien to in∣herit in England, to wit, any such as were born out of the Allegiance of our Realm, (for so are the words of the Law,) and for that the Queen of Scots and her Son are known to be so born, there∣fore they could not succeed, and consequently that the house of Suffolk descended of the second Daughter, must enter in their place.

* 1.6The second Reason is, for that there is given Au∣thority to King Henry VIII. by two several Acts of Parliament in the 28. and 36. Year of his Reign to dispose of the Succession by his last Will and Te∣stament, as he should think best, among those of his Kindred that did pretend after his Children, a•••• that the said King according to his Commis∣sion did ordain, that, if his own Children did dye without issue, then the Off-spring of his younger Sister Mary, that were born in England, should be preferred before the Issue of the elder that was Margaret married into Scotland, and this was the effect of this first Book.

Against this Book were written two other soon

after, the First by one Morgan a Divine,* 1.7 (if I re∣member well,) sometimes Fellow of Oriel Col∣ledge in Oxford, a man of good account for Lear∣ning, among those that knew him, and he was thought to have written the said Book by the ad∣vice and assistance of the foresaid Judge Brown, which thing is made the more credible by the ma∣ny Authorities of our Common Law, which there∣in are alledged, and the parts of this Book, (if I forget not,) were three, or rather they were three Books of one Treatise, the first whereof did take upon it to clear the said Queen of Scots for the Murther of the Lord Darly her Husband, which by many was laid against her. And the second did handle her Title to the Crown of England: and the third did answer the Book of John Knox the Scot, entituled Against the Monstrous Government of Women. Of all which three Points, for that the second, that concerneth the Title, is that, which properly appertaineth to our purpose, and for that the same is handled again and more largely in the second Book set out not long after by John Lesley Lord Bishop of Ross in Scotland, who at that time was Embassadour for the said Queen of Scots in England, and handled the same matter more abun∣dantly which M. Morgan had done before him▪ I shall say no more of this Book of M. Morgan, but shall pass over to that of the Bishop, which in this Point of Succession containeth also whatsoever the other hath, so as by declaring the Contents of the one we shall come to see what is the other.

The Intent then of this Book of the Bishop of Ross, is, to refute the other book of Hales and Ba∣con, and that especially in the two Points before mentioned, which they alledged for their Prin∣ciples, to wit, about Foreign Birth, and King Hen∣ry's Testament:* 1.8 And against the first of these two Points the Bishop alledgeth many Proofs that there

is no such Maxim in the common Laws of England to disinherit a Prince, born out of the Land, from his or her Right of Succession, that they have by Blood. And this first, for that the Statute, made for barring of Aliens to inherit in England, (which was in the 25. Year of the Reign of King Edward III.) is only to be understood of particular mens inheritance, and no ways to be extended to the Succession of the Crown, as by comparison of many other like Cases is declared: And secondly, for that there is express exception in the same Statute of the Kings Children and Off-spring: And thirdly, for that the practice hath always been contrary both before and after the Conquest, to wit, that divers Princes born out of the Realm have succeeded.

* 1.9The other Principle also concerning King Hen∣ry's Testament, the Bishop impugneth first by di∣vers Reasons and Incongruities, whereby it may be presumed that King Henry never made any such Testament, and if he did, yet could it not hold in Law. And secondly also by Witness of the Lord Paget that was of the Privy Council in those days, and of Sir Edward Montague Lord Chief Justice, and of one William Clark that set the Kings Stamp to the Writing; all which avowed before the Council and Parliament in Queen Maries time, that the said Testament was signed after the King was past sense and memory.

And finally the said Bishop concludeth that the Line of Scotland is the next every way, both in respect of the House of Lancaster, and also of York, for that they are next Heirs to King Henry VIII. who by his Father was Heir to the House of York.

* 1.10But after these three Books, was written a fourth, by one Robert Highinton Secretary in time past to the Earl of Northumberland, a man well read in Stories, and especially of our Countrey, who is said to be dead some years past in Paris.

This man impugneth all the three former Books in divers principal Points, and draweth the Crown from both their Pretenders, I mean as well-from the House of Scotland, as from that of Suffolk, and first against the Book of Hales and Sir Nicholas Ba∣con, written (as hath been said) in favour of the House of Suffolk, Highington holdeth with the Bi∣shop and Morgan that these two Principles laid by the other, of Foreign Birth, and of King Henry's Testament against the Scotish Line, are of no Va∣lidity, as neither their reasons for legitimating of the Earl of Hartfords Children, which afterwards shall be handled.

And secondly, he is against both Morgan and the Bishop of Ross also in divers important Points, and in the very Principal of all, for that this man, (I mean Highinton,) maketh the King of Spain to be the next and most rightful Pretender by the House of Lancaster: for proof whereof he holdeth first that King Henry VII. had no Title indeed to the Crown by Lancaster, but only by the House of York, that is to say, by his Marriage of Queen Elizabeth elder Daughter to King Edward IV▪ For that al∣beit himself were descended by his Mother from John of Gaunt Duke of Lancaster, yet this was but by his Third Wife Catharin Swinford, and that the true Heirs of Blanch his first Wife Dutchess and Heir of Lancaster, (to whom, saith he, appertained only the Succession after the death of King Henry the VI. and his Son, with whom ended the Line Male of that House.) remained only in Portugal by the Marriage of Lady Philip, Daughter of the foresaid Blanch, to King John the I. of Portugal, and that for as much as King Philip of Spain, saith this man, hath now succeeded to all the Right of the Kings of Portugal, to him appertaineth also the onely Right of Succession of the House of Lan∣caster, and that all the other Descendents of King

Henry VII. are to pretend only by the Title of York, I mean as well the Line of Scotland as also of Suf∣folk and Huntington, for that in the House of Lan∣caster King Philip is evidently before them all.

Thus holdeth Highington, alledging divers Sto∣ries, Arguments and Probabilities for the same, and then adjoineth two other Propositions, which do import most of all, to wit, that the Title of the House of Lancaster was far better than that of York, not for that Edmond Crookback first Founder of the House of Lancaster, who was Son to King Henry the III. and Brother to King Edward the I. was eldest son to the said Edward & injuriously put back for his deformity in Body,* 1.11 as both the said Bishop of Ross and George Lylly do falsly hold, and this man refuteth by many good Arguments, but for that John of Gaunt Duke of Lancaster being the eldest Son that King Edward the III. had alive when he dyed, should in Right have succeeded in the Crown, as this man holdeth, and should have been preferred before Richard the II. that was the black Princes Son, who was a degree further off from King Edward the III. his Grandfather, than was John of Gaunt, to whom King Edward was Fa∣ther: and by this occasion this man cometh to discuss at large the opinions of the Lawyers, whe∣ther the Uncle or the Nephew should be preferred in the Succession of a Crown, to wit, whether the younger Brother or the elder Brothers son, if his Father be dead without being seased of the same, (which is a Point that in the Civil Law hath great Disputation and many great Authors on each side, as this man sheweth,) and the matter also wanteth not examples on both parts in the Succession of di∣vers English Kings, as our Friend the Civil Lawyer did signify also in his discourse, and we may chance to have occasion to handle the same again, and more largely hereafter.

These Points toucheth Highington, though divers other he leave untouched, which are of much im∣portance for the resolution, as whether after the Line extinguished of King Henry the IV. which was the eldest son of John of Gaunt, there should have entred the Line of Lady Philippa the eldest Daughter lawfully begotten of Blanch first Wife of John of Gaunt,* 1.12 or else the race of John Earl of Somerset younger son by his third Wife, which then was base-born, but legitimated by Parliament, for of Philip do come the Kings of Portugal, and of John came King Henry the VII. And again these Points had been to be disputed as well touching the Succession to the Dukedom of Lancaster alone, as also to the Crown jointly, all which Articles shall severally afterwards be handled in their pla∣ces. And thus much of this Book.

More than these four Books I have not seen written of this Affair,* 1.13 though I have heard of one made in Flanders in the behalf of the Duke of Par∣ma, that is now, who by his Mother descendeth of the same Line of Portugal, that the King of Spain doth, and as this Book pretendeth, (if we re∣spect the ordinary course of English Laws in par∣ticular mens Inheritances) he is to be preferred before the said King, or any other of the House of Portugal for that his Mother descended of the younger Son, and the King of the elder Daughter, of the King of Portugal: and albeit according to the Law of Portugal the King Was adjudged Next Heir to that Crown, yet say they, by our Laws of England he cannot be, which after must be exami∣ned.

Thus saith that Book, and he alledgeth many Reasons for the same, as it hath been told me, (for as I said, I never came to have a view of the whole Book,) but divers of his Arguments I have seen laid together, which I shall afterwards in place

convenient alledge unto you, with the Answers, Censures and Replies, that the contrary Parties do make thereunto.

Divers other Papers, Nots and Memories I have seen also, (said he, as well touching the Succession of those whom I have named, as of others, for that Sir Richard Shelly,* 1.14 who dyed some years ago in Venice, by the name of Lord Prior of S. Johns of England, had gathered divers Points touching these Affairs: and many more than he had Mr. Francis Peto that dyed in Millain,* 1.15 and was a very curious and well read man in Genealogies, as may appear by sundry Papers that I have seen of his. There want not also divers in England who have traveled much in this business, and I have had the the perusing of some of their Labours, though I dare not discover their names, lest thereby I should hurt them, which were not convenient. But one great Trouble find I in them all, that every man seeketh to draw▪ the whole Water unto his own Mill▪ and to make that Title always most clear, whom he most favoureth, and this with so great probability of Reason and Authority many times, as it is hard to retain a mans consent from that which is said, until he have read the Reasons of the other Party, and this also is a great Proof of the wonderful ambiguity and doubtfulness which in this most important Affair is to be found.

* 1.16And by the way also I had almost forgotten to tell you, how that of late I have lighted upon a cer∣tain new Discourse and Treatise, made in the be∣half of the King of Spain's eldest Daughter, whom he had by his Wife Isabel the eldest Sister of the last King of France, which Isabel and her Daughter the Infanta of Spain, called also Isabel, are presumed to be the Lawful Heirs to the State of Britany, and to all other States that by that means of Britany or otherwise by Women have come to France, or

have or may fall upon a Woman of the House of France, as the States of England and other States thereunto annexed may, for that they follow not the Law Salique of France. And so this Treatise proveth that by divers ways and for sundry con∣siderations, this Princess of Spain is also of the Blood Royal of England, and may among others be enti∣tuled to that Crown, by a particular Title of her own, besides the pretence which her Father the King or her Brother the Prince of Spain have for themselves, by the House of Portugal: all which Reasons and Considerations I shall alledge after∣wards in their place and time, or at least wise the chief and principal of them.

And to the end they may be understood the bet∣ter, as also the clearness and pretentions of all the rest that have interest in this Affair, I shall first of all, for a beginning and foundation to all the rest, that shall or may be spoken hereafter, set down by way of historical narration, all the descents of our English Kings and Pretenders that be important to this our Purpose, from the Conquest unto our time, which being compared with the Tree it self of Ge∣nealogies that shall be added in the end of this Con∣ference, will make the matter more plain and plea∣sant to the Reader.

CHAP. II. Of the Succession of the Crown of England, from the Conquest, unto the time of King Edward the III. with the beginning of three principal Lineages of the English Bloud-Royal, dispersed into the Houses of Britain, Lancaster, and York.

* 1.17NO man is ignorant said the Lawyer, how Wil∣liam the Conqueror came to the Crown of England, which was indeed by dint of Sword, though he pretended that he was chosen by the will and testament of King Edward the Confessor. But howsoever this were, his posterity hath endu∣red untill this day, and two and twenty Princes of his race have worn the English Crown after him, for the space of more then five hundred years; and how many more may yet do the same, God only knoweth: but if we follow probabillity, we can∣not want of them, seeing his bloud is so dispersed over the World at this day, as by this Declaration ensueing will appear.

This King William according to Polidor and other Chronicles of England,* 1.18 had by his Wife Mathilda, Daughter of Baldwin, Earl of Flanders, four Sons, and five Daughters;* 1.19 his eldest Son was Robert, whom he left Duke of Normandy, who was after∣wards deprived of that Dukedom, by his younger and fourth Brother Henry, when he came to be King of England. His second Son was Richard that dyed in his youth; his third Son was William, sur∣named Rufus, for that he was of red Hair; and the fourth Son was Henry, which two last Sons, were

both Kings of England one after the other, as the World knoweth, by the names of William the se∣cond, and Henry the first.

The Conquerours Daughters were first Cecilie that was a Nun, and the second Constantia that was Married to Alayn, surnamed Fergant Duke of Brita∣nie, and the third was Adela or Alis, Married to Stephen, County Palatine of Bloys, Champagne, and Chartres in France, and the other two Polidor said, dyed before they were Married, and so their names were not Recorded.

These are the Children of King William the Con∣queror,* 1.20 among whom after his death there was much strife about the Succession. For first his eldest Son Duke Robert, who by order of Ancestrie by birth should have succeeded him in all his Estates, was put back, first from the Kingdom of England, by his third Brother William Rufus, upon a pretence of the Conquerors Will and Testament, for particular affection that he had to this his said third Son Wil∣liam, though as Stow Writeth,* 1.21 almost all the No∣bility of England were against William's entrance. But in the end, agreement was made between the two Brothers, with the condition, that if William should dye without Issue, then that Robert should succeed him; and to this accord, both the Princes themselves, and twelve principal Peers of each side were Sworn; but yet after when William dyed without Issue, this was not observed, but Henry the fourth Son entred, and deprived Robert, not only of this his Succession to England, but also of his Dukedom of Normandy, that he had enjoyed peaceably before, all the time of his Brother Rufus; and moreover he took him Prisoner, and so carried him into England, and there kept him till his death, which happened in the Castle of Cardif in the year 1134.

* 1.22And whereas this Duke Robert had a goodly Prince to this Son named William, who was Duke of Normandy by his Father, and Earl of Flanders in the right of his grand Mother, that was the Con∣querors Wife, and Daughter of Baldwin Earl of Flan∣ders as hath been said, and was established in both these States, by the help of Lewis the VI. surnamed Le Gros King of France, and admitted to do hom∣age to him for the said States; his Uncle King Henry of England was so violent against him, as first he drove him out of the state of Normandy, and se∣condly he set up and maintained a Competitor or two against him in Flanders, by whom finally he was slaine in the year of Christ 1128. before the Town of Alost,* 1.23 by an Arrow, after he had gotten the upper hand in the Field; and so ended the race of the first Son of King William the Conquerour, to wit, o•• Duke Robert, which Robert lived after the Death of his said Son and Heir Duke William; Six years in Prison in the Castle of Cardiff, and pined away with sorrow and misery, as both the French and English Histories do agree.

The second Son of the Conqueror named Richard, dyed as before hath been said, in his Fathers time, and left no Issue at all, as did neither the third Son William Rufus,* 1.24 though he Reigned 13. years after his Father the Conqueror; in which time he esta∣blished the Succession of the Crown by consent of the States of England, to his elder Brother Duke Roberts issue, as hath been said, though afterwards it was not observed.

This King Rufus came to the Crown principally by the help and favour of Lanfrancus Archbishop of Canterbury, who greatly repented himself after∣ward of the error which in that point he had com∣mitted, upon hopes of his good Government which proved extream evil.

But this King William Rufus, being slayn after∣ward by the Arrow of a Cross-bow, in Newforrest as is well known, and this at such time; as the fore∣said Duke Robert his elder Brother, (to whom the Crown by Succession apperteined) was absent in the War of the Holy Land, where (according as most Authors do Write) he was chosen King of Hierusa∣lem,* 1.25 but refused it upon hope of the Kingdom of England. But he returning home, found that his fourth Brother Henry, partly by fair promises, and partly by force, had invaded the Crown, in the year 1110. and so he Reigned 35. years, and had Issue divers Sons and Daughters, but all were either drounded in the Seas coming out of Normandy,* 1.26 or else dyed otherwise before their Father, except only Mathildis who was first Married to Henry the Em∣perour, fifth of that name; and after his death without Issue, to Geffrey Plantagenet Duke of Anjow, Touraine, and Maine in France, by whom she had Henry which Reigned after King Stephen, by the name of Henry the II. And thus much of the Sons of William the Conqueror.* 1.27

Of his two Daughters that lived to be Married and had Issue, the elder named Constance, was Mar∣ried to Alayn Fergant Duke of Britain, who was Son to Hoel Earl of Nants, and was made Duke of Britain by William the Conquerors means▪ in man∣ner Following.

Duke Robert of Normanyd,* 1.28 Father to the Conque∣ror, when he went on Pilgrimage unto the Holy Land, (in which Voyage he dyed,) left for Gover∣nour of Normandy, under the protection of King Henry the first of France, Duke Alayne the first of Britain, which Allayn had Issue Conan the first▪ who being a stirring Prince of about 24. years old when Duke William began to treat of passing over into England; he shewed himself not to favour much that enterprise, which Duke William fearing, caused

him to be Poysoned with a pair of perfumed Gloves, as the French stories do report;* 1.29 and caused to be set up in his place and made Duke, one Hoel Earl of Nantes, who to gratifie William sent his Son Alaine surnamed Ferga••t with 5000. Souldiers to pass over into England with him; and so he did, and Wil∣liam afterward in recompence thereof, gave him his eldest Daughter Constantia in Marriage; with the Earldom o•• Richmond▪ by whom he had Issue Conan, the second, surnamed le Gross, who had Issue a Son and a Daughter.

The Son was called Hoel, as his Grand-Father was, and the Daughters name was Bertha, Married to Eudo Earl of Porhet in Normandy; and for that this Duke Conan, liked better his Daughter and his Son in-law, her Husband, then he did Hoel his own Son;* 1.30 he disavowed him on his Death Bead, and made his said Daughter his Heir: who had by the said Eudo, a Son named Conan surnamed the younger, which was the third Duke of that name; and this man had one only Daughter and Heir named Lady Constance, who was Married to the third Son of King Henry the second named Geffrey, and elder Brother to King John, that after came to Reign, and by this Lord Geffrey she had Issue Arthur the second Duke of Britain, whom King John his Uncle put back from the Crown of England, and caused to be put to death, as after shall be shewed; and he dying without Issue, his Mother Constance, Dutchess and Heir of Britain, Married again with a Prince of her own House, whom after we shall name in the pro∣secution of this Line, and by him she had Issue that hath endured until this day; the last whereof hither∣to is the Lady Isabella infant of Spain, and that other of Savoy her Sister,* 1.31 whom by this means we see to have descended from King William the Conqueror, by his eldest Daughter Lady Con∣stance; as also by divers other participations of

the Bloud-Royal of England, as afterwards will appear.* 1.32

Now then to come to the second Daughter of King William the Conquerour, or rather the third (for that the first of all was a Nun as before hath been noted,) her name was Adela or Alice as hath been said, and she was Married in France to Stephen Count Palatine of Champagne, Charters and Bloys, by whom she had a Son called also Stephen, who by his Grand Mother was Earl also of Bullaine in Picardy, and after the death of his Uncle King Henry of Eng∣land, was by the favour of the English Nobility, and especially by the help of his own Brother the Lord Henry of Bl••is, that was Bishop of Winchester, and Jointly Abbot of Glastenbury, made King of England, and this both in respect that Mathilda Daughter of King Henry the first was a Woman, and her Son Henry Duke of Anjou, a very child,* 1.33 and one degree farther off from the Conqueror and from King Rufus then Stephen was; as also for that this King Henry the first (as hath been signified before,) was judged by many to have entred wrongfully unto the Crown, and thereby to have made both himself and his po∣sterity, incapable of Succession, by the violence which he used against both his elder Brother Robert, and his Nephew Duke William, that was Son and Heir to Robert, who by nature and Law were both of them hold for Soverains to John, by those that favoured them and their pretentions.

But yet howsoever this were,* 1.34 we see that the Duke of Britainy, that lived at that day, should evidently have succeeded before Stephen, for that he was descended of the elder Daughter, of the Con∣queror, and Stephen of the younger, though Stephen by the commodity he had of the nearness of his Port and Haven of Bullain into England, as the French stories do say, (for Calis was of no importance at that time,) and by the friendship and familiarity he

had goten in England, during the Reign of his two Uncles King Rufus and King Herny; and especially by the he••p of his Brother the Bishop and Abbot, as hath been said, he got the start of all the rest, and the states of England admitted him.

This man although he had two Sons, namely E••stachius Duke of Normandy,* 1.35 and William Earl of Norfolk, yet left they no Issue: And his Daughter Mary was Married to Matthew of Flanders, of whom if any Issue remains, it fell afterwards upon the House of Austria, that succeeded in those States.

* 1.36To King Stephen who left no Issue, succeeded by composition after much War, Henry Duke of An∣jou, Son and Heir to Mathilda before named, Daugh∣ter of Henry the first, which Henry named afterward the second, took to his Wife Eleanor Daughter and Heir of William Duke of Aquitain, and Earl of Poy∣tiers,* 1.37 which Eleanor had been Married before to the King of France Lewis the VII. and bare him two Daughters; but upon dislike conceaved by the one against the other; they were Divorced, under pre∣tence of being within the fourth degree of Consan∣guinity; and so by second Marriage, Eleanor was Wife to this said Henry, who afterwards was King of England by name of King Henry the II. that pro∣cured the death of Thomas Backet, Archbishop of Can∣terbury, and both before and after the greatest Ene∣my, that ever Lewis the King of France had in the World, and much the greater for his Marriage, by which Henry was made far stronger; for by this Woman he came to be Duke of all Aquitain, that is of Gascony and Guiene, and Earl of all the Coun∣try of Poytiers; whereas before also by his Fathers inheritance, he was Duke both of Anjou, Touraine, and Maine, and his Mother Mathilda King Henries Daughter of England, he came to be King of En∣land, and Duke of Normandy, and his own industry,

he got also to be Lord of Ireland, as also to bring Scotland under his homage, so as he enlarged the Kingdom of England most of any other King be∣fore or after him.

This King Henry the II. as Stow recounteth, had by Lady Eleanor five Sons and three Daughters.* 1.38 His eldest Son was named William that dyed young, his second was Henry whom he caused to be crow∣ned in his own Life time,* 1.39 whereby he received much trouble, but in the end this Son dyed before his Father, without issue. His third Son was Ri∣chard, sirnamed for his valour Cor de Leon,* 1.40 who reigned after his Father, by the name of Richard the I. and dyed without issue, in the Year of Christ 1199.

His fourth Son, named Geffrey,* 1.41 married Lady Constance Daughter and Heir of Britany as before hath been said, and dying left a son by her, named Arthur, which was Duke of Britany after him, and pretended also to be King of England, but was put by it by his Uncle John, that took him also Priso∣ner, and kept him also in the Castle first of Fal∣laise in Normandy, and then in Rouan, until he cau∣sed him to be put to death, or slew him with his own hands, as French Stories write, in the Year 1204

This Duke Arthur left behind him two Sisters,* 1.42 as Stow writeth in his Chronicles, but others write that it was but one, and at least wise I find but one named by the French Stories, which was Eleanor,* 1.43 whom they say King John also caused to be mur∣thered in England a little before her Brother the Duke was put to death in Normandy, and this was the end of the Issue of Geffrey, whose Wife Con∣stance Dutchess of of Britany married again after this Murther of her Children, unto one Guy Vicount of Touars, and had by him two daughters, where∣of the eldest named Alice was Dutchess of Britany,* 1.44

by whom the Race hath been continued unto our time▪

* 1.45The Fifth Son of King Henry the II. was named John, who after the death of his Brother Richard by help of his Mother Eleanor, and of Hubert Arch∣bishop of Canterbury, drawn thereunto by his said Mother, got to be King, and put back his Ne∣phew Arthur, whom King Richard before his de∣parture to the War of the Holy Land, had caused to be declared Heir apparent, but John prevailed, and made away both Nephew and Neece, as be∣fore hath been said, for which Fact he was dete∣sted of many in the World abroad, and in France by Act of Parliament deprived of all the States he had in those parts. Soon after also the Pope gave sentence of Deprivation against him,* 1.46 and his own Barons took Arms to execute the sentence; and fi∣nally they deposed both him and his young Son Henry being then but a Child of eight years old, and this in the eighteenth year of his Reign, and in the Year of Christ 1215. and Lewis the VIII. of that name Prince at that time,* 1.47 but afterwards King of France, was chosen King of England, and sworn in London and placed in the Tower, though soon af∣ter by the sudden death of King John, that course was altered again, and Henry his Son admitted for King.

* 1.48And thus much of the Sons of King Henry II. But of his Daughters by the same Lady Eleanor Heir of Gascony, Belforest in his Story of France hath these words following: King Henry had four Daughters by Eleanor of Aquitain the eldest where∣of was married to Alonso the IX. of that name, King of Castile, of which Marriage issued Queen Blanch Mother to S. Lewis King of France The second of these two Daughters was espoused to Alexis Emperour of Constantinople. The third was married to the Duke of Saxony, and the fourth was given to the Earl

of Tholosa. Thus being the French Stories of these Daughters.

Of the marriage of the eldest Daughter of these four, (whose name was Eleanor also,* 1.49 as her Mo∣thers was) with King Alonso the IX. of Castile, there succeeded many Children, but only one son that lived, whose name was Henry, who was King of Castile after his Father, by the name of Henry the I▪ and ••ied quickly without Issue: and besides this Henry two Daughters also were born of the same marriage, of which the eldest and Heir (na∣med Blanch was married by intercession of her Uncle King John of England, with the foresaid Prince Lewis of France; with this express con∣dition, as both Polydor in his English Story,* 1.50 and Garibay the Chronicler of Spain do affirm, that she should have for her Dowry all the States that King John had lost in France, which were almost all that he had there: and this to the end, he might not seem to have lost them by force, but to have given them with the marriage of his Neece: and so this marriage was made, and her Husband Lewis was afterward chosen also King of England by the Barons, and sworn in London, as before hath been said. And hereby also the Infanta of Spain before mentioned, that is descended lineally from both these Princes, (I mean as well from Queen Blanch, as from Lewis) is proved to have her pre∣tence fortified to the Interest of England, as after∣wards shall be declared more at large in due place.

The second Daughter of King Alonso the IX. by Queen Eleanor, was named Berenguela,* 1.51 and was married to the Prince of Leon in Spain, and had by him a Son named Fernando, who afterwards when King Henry her Brother was dead, was admitted by the Castilians for their King, by the name of Fernando the IV. as before the Civilian hath no∣ted;

and Blanch with her Son S. Lewis, though she were the elder was put by the Crown, against all right of Succession,* 1.52 as Garibay the Spanish Chronicler noteth and confesseth.

* 1.53Hereby then some do gather, that as the first In∣terest which the Crown of England had to the States of Gascony, Guyenne and Poyters came by a woman: so also did it come to France by the right of this foresaid Blanch, whereof the favourers of the Infanta of Spain do say, that she being now first and next in bloud of that House, ought to in∣herit all these and such like States, as are inherita∣ble by women, or came by women, as the former States of Gascony and Guyenne did to King Henry the II by Queen Eleanor his wife, and Normandy by Mathilda his mother, and both of them to France by this former interest of Blanch. And more they say, that this Lady Blanch, mother to King S. Lewis, whose Heir at this day the Infanta of Spain is, should by right have inherited the Kingdom of England also, after the murther of Duke Arthur and his Sister Eleanor, for that she was the next of ••in unto them, at that time, which could be capable to succeed them; for that King John himself was uncapable of their successi∣on whom he had murthered, and his Son Henry was not then born, nor in divers years after; and if he had been, yet could he receive no Interest thereunto by his Father who had none himself: of all which points there will be more particular occasion to speak hereafter.

* 1.54Now then I come to speak of King Henry the third, who was Son to this King John, and from whom all the three Houses before mentioned of Britany, Lancaster and York, do seem to issue, as a triple branch out of one Tree; albeit the Royal Line of Britany is more ancient, and was divided before even from William the Conquerors time, as

hath been shewed,* 1.55 yet do they knit again in this King Henry, for that of King Henry the third his eldest Son, named Prince Edward the first,* 1.56 descen∣ded Edward the second, and of him Edward the third, from whom properly riseth the House of York. And of his second Son Edmond,* 1.57 surnamed Crookback, County Palatine of Lancaster, issued the Dukes of Lancaster, until in the third descent, when the Lady Blanch Heir of that House, match∣ed with John of Gaunt, third Son of King Edward the third, from which marriage rose afterward the formal division of these two Houses of Lan∣caster and York, and also two distinct branches of Lancaster.

Besides these two Sons,* 1.58 King Henry the third had a Daughter named Lady Beatrix, whom he married to John the second of that name, Duke of Britany, who after was slain at Lions in France, by the fall of an old Wall, at the Coronation of Pope Clement the 5th. of that name, in the year of Christ 1298. and for that the Friends of the In∣fanta of Spain, do seek to strengthen her Title by this her descent also of the Royal bloud of Eng∣land, from Henry the third, as afterward shall be declared. I will briefly in this place continue the Pedegree of the House of Britany from that I left before▪ even to our days.

I shewed before in this Chapter,* 1.59 that Geoffry the third Son to King Henry the second, and Duke of Britany by his wife, being dead, and his two Chil∣dren Arthur and Eleanor put to death by their Uncle King John in England, as before hath been said, it fell out that Constance Dutchess and Heir of Britany, married again to Guy Viscount of Tours, and had by him two Daughters, whereof the eldest named Alice was Dutchess of Britany, and married to Peter Brien Earl of Drusse, and by him had John the first of that name, Duke of Bri∣tany,

which John the first had issue John the second, who married Lady Beatrix before-mentioned, Daughter to King Henry the third, and by her had the second Arthur Duke of Britany, to whom suc∣ceeded his eldest Son by his first Wife, named John the third, who dying without Issue, left the very same trouble and garboil in Britany about the succession between the two noble Houses of Blois and Monford,* 1.60 the one maintained by France, and the other by England; as soon after upon the very like occasion happen'd in England, between the Houses of Lancaster and York, as after shall be shewed. And not long after that again, the like affliction also ensued in France, (though not for succession,* 1.61 but upon other occasions) between the great and Royal Houses of Burgundy and Orleans, whereby all three Commonwealths (I mean Eng∣land, Britany and France) were like to have come to destruction and utter desolation.

* 1.62And for that it may serve much to our purpose hereafter, to understand well this controversie of Britany, I think it not amiss in few words to declare the same in this place: Thus then it happened.

The foresaid Arthur the second of that name, Duke of Britanie, and Son of Lady Beatrix, that was Daughter (as hath been said) to King Henry the III. of England, had two Wives, the first na∣med Beatrix as his Mother was, and by this he had two Sons, John that succeeded him in the State, by the name of Duke John the III. and Guye that dying before his elder Brother left a Daughter and Heir, named Joan, and surnamed the lame, for that she halted, who was married to the Earl of Bloys, that was Nephew to Phil∣lip of Valois King of France, for that he was born of his Sister.

But besides the two Children, the said Duke

Arthur had by his second Wife, named Joland Countess and Heir of the Earldom of Monford, another Son called John Breno, who in the right of his Mother was Earl of Monford. And afterward when Duke John the III. came to die without Issue, the question was, who should succeed him in his Dukedom, the Uncle or the Neece, that is to say, his third Brother John Breno by half bloud, or else his Neece Joan the lame, that was Daughter and Heir to his second Brother Guye of whole bloud, that is, by Father and Mother,* 1.63 which La∣dy Joan was married to the Earl of Bloys as hath been said. And first, this matter was handled in the Parliament of Paris, the King himself sitting in Judgment with all his Peers, the 30 day of Sep∣tember 1341 and adjudged it to the Earl of Bloys, both for that his Wife was Heir to the elder Bro∣ther, as also for that Duke John by his Testiment and consent of the States, had appointed her to be his Heir, but yet King Edward the III. and States of England did Judge it otherwise, and pre∣ferred John Monford, not knowing that the very case was to fall out very soon after in England, I mean, they Judged the State to John Breno Earl of Monford, younger Brother to Guy, and they assisted him▪ and his Son after him, with all their Forces for the gaining and holding of that State.

And albeit at the beginning, it seemed that mat∣ters went against Monford, for that himself was taken prisoner in Nantes, and carried captive to Paris where he died in prison,* 1.64 yet his Son John by the assistance of the English Armies got the Duke∣dome afterward, and slew the Earl of Bloys, and was peaceably Duke of Britanie by the name of John the IV. and his posterity hath endured until this day, as briefly here I will declare.* 1.65

This Duke John the IV. of the House of Mon∣ford had Issue John the V. and he, Francis the first,

who dying without Issue, left the Dukedom to Peter his Brother, and Peter having no Children neither, he left it to his Uncle Arthur the III Bro∣ther to his Father John the V. and this Arthur was Earl of Richmond in England, as some of his an∣cestors had been before him, by gifts of the Kings of England.

* 1.66This Arthur dying without Issue, left the Duke∣dom unto his Nephew, to wit, his Brothers Son Francis the II. who was the last male Child of that race, and was he that had once determined, to have delivered Henry Earl of Richmond, unto his enemy King Edward the IV. and after him to King Richard the III. but that Henry's good fortune re∣served him to come to be King of England.

* 1.67This Duke Francis had a Daughter and Heir named Anna, married first to Charles the VIII King of France, and after his death without Issue, to his Successor Lewis the XII. by whom she had a Daughter named Claudia, that was Heir to Bri∣tanie, though not to the Crown of France, by rea∣son of the Law Salique, that holdeth against wo∣men in the Kingdom of France, but not in Britany; and to the end this Dukdome should not be disu∣nited again from the said Crown of France, this Daughter Claudia was married to Francis Duke of Angolome, Heir apparent to the Crown of France, by whom she had Issue Henry, that was after∣ward King of France, and was Father to the last King of that Country, and to Isabel Mother of the Infanta of Spain, and of her Sister the Dutchess of Savoy that now is, by which also some do affirm that the said Princess or Infanta of Spain, albeit she be barred from the Succession of France, by their pretended Law Salique: yet is her title manifest to the Dukdome of Britanie, that came by a wo∣man as we have shewed; and thus much of the House of Britany, and of the Princess of Spain,

how she is of the Bloud Royal of England, from the time of William the Conqueror himself, by his eldest Daughter, as also by other Kings after him: and now we shall return to prosecute the Issue of these two Sons of King Henry the III. to wit, of Edward and Edmond, which before we left

I shewed you before how King Henry the III. had two Sons, Edward the Prince,* 1.68 that was King after his Father, by the name of Edward the first, and Edmond surnamed Crouchback by some Wri∣ters, who was the first Earl and County Palatine of Lancaster, and beginner of that House.

And albeit some Writers of our time have af∣firmed, or at least wise much inclined to favour a certain old report,* 1.69 that Edmond should be the El∣der Brother to Edward, and put back only for his deformity of his body, (whereof Polidor doth speak in the beginning of the Reign of King Henry the IV. and as well the Bishop of Ross as also George Lilly do seem to believe it) yet evident it seemeth that it was but a fable, as before I have noted, and now again shall briefly prove it by these reasons following, for that it importeth very much for deciding the controversie between the Houses of Lancaster and York.

The first reason then is,* 1.70 for that all Ancient Hi∣storiographers of England, and among them Mat∣theus Westmonasteriensis that lived at the same time, do affirm the contrary, and do make Edward to be elder then Edmond by six years and two days, for that they appoint the Birth of Prince Edward to have been upon the 16. day of June in the year of Christ 1239, and the 24. of the Reign of his Father King Henry, and the Birth of Lord Ed∣mond to have followed upon the 18. day of the same month 6 years after, to wit, in the year of our Lord 1245 and they do name the Godfathers and Godmothers of them both together, with the pe∣culiar

solemnities and feasts, that were celebrated at their several Nativities, so as it seemeth there can be no error in this matter.

[ 2] The 2d. reason is, for that we read that this Lord Edmond was a goodly, wise, discreet Prince, not∣withstanding that some Authors call him Crouch∣back, and that he was highly in the favour both of his Father King Henry, as also of his Brother King Edward, and imployed by them in many great Wars, and other affairs of State, both in France and other where, which argueth that there was no such great defect in him as should move his Father and the Realm to deprive him of his Succession.

[ 3] Thirdly we read that King Henry procured by divers ways and means the advancement of this Lord Edmond, as giving him the Earldoms of Lei∣cester and Darby,* 1.71 besides that of Lancaster, as also procuring by all means possible and with exceeding great charges to have made him King of Naples and Sicilie by Pope Innocentius, which had been no policy to have done, if he had been put back from his Inheritance in England, for that it had been to have Armed him against his Brother the King

[ 4] Fourthly, we see that at the death of his Father King Henry the III. this Lord Edmond was princi∣pally left in charge with the Realm, his elder Bro∣ther Prince Edward being scarsly returned from the War of Asia, at what time, he had good oc∣casion to challenge his own right to the Crown, if he had had any, seeing he wanted no power there∣unto, having three goodly Sons at that time alive, born of his Wife Queen Blanch Daugher of Na∣varre and County of Champain, to whom she had born only one Daughter, that was married to Phi∣lip le Bel King of France.

But we shall never read that either he, or any of

his Children, made any such claim,* 1.72 but that they lived in very good agreement and high grace with King Edward the first, as his Children did also with King Edward the II. until he began to be mis-led in Government, and then the two Sons of this Lord Edmond (I mean both Thomas and Henry, that Successively were Earls of Lancaster) made War upon the said Edward the II. and were the principal Actors in his deposition, and in setting up of his Son Edward the III. in his place, a•• what time it is evident that they might have put in also for themselves, if their title had been such as this report maketh it.

A fifth reason is▪ for that if this had been so,* 1.73 that [ 5] Edmond Earl of Lancaster, had been the elder Bro∣ther, then had the controversie between the two Houses of York and Lancaster, been most clear and without all doubt at all, for then had the House of York had no pretence of right in the World; and then were it evident, that the Heirs general of Blanch Dutchess of Lancaster, Wife of John of Gaunt, to wit, the descendents of Lady Philip her Daughter, that was married into Portugal; these I say, and none other, were apparent and true Heirs to the Crown of England at this day, and all the other of the House of York usurpers, as well King Henry the VII. as all his posterity and off-spring, for that none of them have descended of the said Blanch, as is manifest.

And therefore lastly,* 1.74 the matter standeth (no [ 6] doubt) as Polidor holding in the latter end of the life of King Henry the III. where having mentio∣ned these two Sons Edward and Edmond, he ad∣deth these words. There wanted not certain men long time after this,* 1.75 that affirmed this Edmond to be the elder Son to King Henry the III. and to have been deprived of his Inheritance, for that he was deformed in body; but these things were feigned, to the end that

King Henry the IV. that came by his Mothers side of this Edmond, might seem to have come to the King∣dom by right, whereas indeed he got it by force.

Thus saith Polidor in this place, but afterward in the beginning of the life of the said King Henry the IV. he saith, that some would have had King Henry to have pretended this Title among other reasons, but that the most part accounting it but a meer fable, it was omitted.

Now then it being clear, that of these two Sons of King Henry the III. Prince Edward was the El∣der and Lawful Heir, it remaineth only that we set down their several descents unto the times of King Edward the III. and his Children, in whose days the dissention and controversie between these Royal Houses of York and Lancaster, began to break forth▪

* 1.76And for the Issue of Edward that was King after his Father, by the name of King Edward the first, it is evident, that albeit by two several Wives he had a dozen Children, male and female, yet only his fourth Son by his first Wife, called also Edward, (who was King after him by the name of King Edward the II▪) left Issue that remained, which Edward the II being afterward for his evil Govern∣ment deposed, left Issue Edward the III. who was made King by election of the people in his place; and after a long and prosperous Reign, left divers Sons, whereof after we shall speak, and among them his III. Son named John of Gaunt, married Lady Blanch Daughter and Heir of the House of Lancaster, and of the forenamed Lord Edmond Crouchback, by which Blanch, John of Gaunt be∣came Duke of Lancaster: so as the lines of these two Brethren Edward and Edmond did meet and joyn again in the fourth descent, as now shall ap∣pear by declaration of the Issue of the foresaid Lord Edmond.

Edmond then the second Son of King Henry the third, being made County Palatine of Lancaster,* 1.77 as also Earl of Leicester and of Darby, by his Fa∣ther King Henry, as hath been said, had issue three Sons, to wit, Thomas, Henry, and John, among whom he divided his three States, making Thomas his eldest Son, County Palatine of ••ancaster, Henry Earl of Leicester, and John Earl of Darby. But Tho∣mas the eldest, and John the youngest, dying with∣out Issue, all three States fell again upon Henry the second Son; which Henry had Issue one Son and three Daughters: his Son was named Henry the second of that name, Earl of Lancaster, and made Duke of Lancaster by King Edward the third, and he had one only Daughter and Heir named Blanch, who was married unto John of Gaunt, as before hath been said. But Duke Henry's three Sisters, named Joan, Mary and Eleanor, were all married to divers principal men of the Realm,* 1.78 for that Joan was married to John Lord Maubery, of whom are descended the Howards of the House of Nor∣folk at this day; and Mary was married to Henry Lord Percy, from whom cometh the House of the Earls of Northumberland; and Eleanor was mar∣ried to Richard Earl of Arundel, thence is issued also by his Mothers side the Earl of Arundel ••hat now is: so as of this ancient Line of Lancaster there want not noble Houses within the Realm at this day, issued thence before the controversie fell out between York and this Family, of which con∣troversie how it rose, and how it was continued, I shall now begin to make more particular decla∣ration, taking my beginning from the Children of King Edward the third, who were the causers of this fatal dissention.

CHAP. III. Of the succession of English Kings from King Edward the third, unto our days, with the particular causes of dissention between the Families of York and Lancaster, more largely declared.

* 1.79KIng Edward the third, surnamed by the Eng∣lish the Victorious, though he had many Children, whereof some died without Issue, which appertain not to us to treat of, yet had he five Sons that left Issue behind them; to wit, Edward the eldest, that was Prince of Wales, surnamed the Black Prince; Leonel Duke of Clarence, which was the second Son; John of Gaunt, so called for that he was born in that City, that was the third Son, and by his Wife was Duke of Lancaster; and fourthly, Edmond surnamed of Langley, for that he was also born there, and was Duke of York; and last of all, Thomas the fifth Son, surnamed of Wood∣stock, for the same reason of his birth, and was Duke of Gloucester.

All these five Dukes being great Princes, and Sons of one King, left Issue behind them as shall be declared; and for that the descendents of the third and fourth of these Sons, to wit▪, of the Dukes of Lancaster and York, came afterward to strive who had best Title to Reign, thereof it came that the controversie had his name of these two Families, which for more distinction sake, and the better to be known,* 1.80 took upon them for their Ensigns a Rose of two different colours, to wit, the White Rose, and the Red, as all the World know∣eth,

whereof the White served for York, and the Red for Lancaster.

To begin then to shew the Issue of all these five Princes, it is to be noted,* 1.81 that the two elder of them, to wit, Prince Edward, and his second Brother Leonel Duke of Clarence, dyed both of them before King Edward their Father, and left each of them an Heir, for that Prince Edward left a Son named Richard, who Succeeded in the Crown immediately after his Grand-father, by the name of King Richard the second, but after∣ward for his evil Government was deposed, and dyed in prison without Issue, and so was ended in him the Succession of the first Son of King Ed∣ward.

The second Son Leonel,* 1.82 dying also before his Father, left behind him one only Daughter and Heir, named Philippa, who was married to one Edmond Mortimer ••arl of March, and he had by her a Son and Heir named Roger Mortimer, which Roger had Issue two Sons named Edmond and Ro∣ger, which dyed both without Children, and one daughter named Anne Mortimer, who was married unto Richard Plantagenet Earl of Cambridge, se∣cond Son unto Edmond Langly Duke of York which Duke Edmond was fourth Son, as hath been said,* 1.83 unto King Edward the third; and for that this Richard Plantagenet married the said Anne, as hath been said, hereby it came to pass, that the House of York joyned two titles in one, to wit, that of Leonel Duke of Clarence, which was the second Son of King Edward the third, and that of Edmond Langly Duke of York which was the fourth Son: and albeit this Richard Plantagenet himself never came to be Duke of York▪ for that he was put to death, while his elder Brother lived, by King Henry the fifth, for a conspiracy discovered in Sou∣thampton against the said King, when he was go∣ing

over into France with his Army: yet he left a Son behind him named also Richard, who after∣ward came to be Duke of York, by the death of his Uncle▪ which Uncle was slain soon after in the Batte•• of Age••cou••t in France: and this Richard began first of all to prosecute openly his quarrel for the Title of the Crown, against the House of Lan∣caster, as a little afterward more in particuler shall be declared, as also shall be shewed how that this 2 Richard Duke of York being slain also in the same quarrel, left a Son named Edward, Earl of March, who after much trouble got to be King, by the name of King Edward the 4 by the oppression and putting down of King Henry the 6 of the House of Lancaster, and was the first King of the House of York, whose Genealogy we shall lay down more largely afterwards in place convenient.

And now it followeth in order that we should speak of John of Gaunt the third Son; but for that his descent is great,* 1.84 I shall first shew the descent of the fifth and last Son of King Edward, who was Thomas of Woodstock Duke of Glocester and Earl of Buckingham, that was put to death afterward or rather murthered wrongfully, by order of his Nephew King Richard the second, and he left on∣ly one daughter and Heir named Anne, who was married to the Lord Stafford whose Family after∣ward in regard of this marriage came to be Dukes of Buckingham, and were put down by King Richard the third, and King Henry the eighth, al∣beit some of the bloud and name do remain yet still in England.

And thus having brought to an end the Issue of three Sons of King Edward, to wit, of the first, second, and fifth, and touched also somewhat of the fourth, there resteth to prosecute more fully the Issues and descents of the third and fourth Sons, to wit, of John of Gaunt Duke of Lancaster,

and of Edmond Langly Duke of York, which are the Heads of these two Noble Families; which thing I shall do in this place with all brevity and perspicuity possible, beginning first with the House of Lancaster.

John of Gaunt third Son of King Edward being Duke of Lancaster by his Wife, as hath been said,* 1.85 had three Wives in all, and by every one of them had issue; though the Bishop of Ross in his great Latine Arbour of the Genealogies of the Kings of England, Printed in Paris in the year 1580. assign∣eth but one Wife only to this John of Gaunt, and consequently that all his Children were born of her; which is a great and manifest errour, and causeth great confusion in all the rest which in his Book of the Queen of Scots Title he buildeth hereon; for that it being evident, that only the first Wife was Daughter and Heir of the House of Lancaster, and John of Gaunt Duke thereof by her, it followeth that the Children only that were born of her, can pretend properly to the in∣heritance of that house, and not others born of John of Gaunt by other wives, as all the World will confess.

First then (as I have said) this John of Gaunt married Blanch Daughter and Heir of Henry Duke of Lancaster,* 1.86 and had by her one Son only and two Daughters The Son was called Henry Earl first of Darby, and after made Duke of Hereford by King Richard the second, and after that came to be Duke also of Lancaster by the death of his Father, and lastly was made King by the deposition of his Cousen German the said King Richard, and Reig∣ned 13. years by the name of King Henry the fourth, and was the first King of the House of Lancaster, of the right of whose title examination shall be made afterwards.

* 1.87The first of the two daughters which John of Gaunt had by Blanch, was named Philippa, who was married to John the first of ••hat name King of Portugal, by whom she had Issue Edward King of Portugal, and he Alfonsus the fifth, and he John the second, and so one after another, even unto our days

* 1.88The second daughter of John of Gaunt by Lady Blanch was named Elizabeth, who was married to John Holland Duke of Exeter and she had Issue by him another John Duke of Exeter, and he had Issue Henry Duke of Exeter, that died without Issue Male, leaving only one Daugh∣ter named Anne, who was married to Sir Thomas Nevil Knight, and by him had Issue Ralph Nevil third Earl of Westmerland, whose Lineal Heir is at this day Lord Charles Nevil Earl of Westmerland, that liveth banished in Flanders.

And this is all the Issue that John of Gaunt had by Lady Blanch his first Wife,* 1.89 saving only that I had forgotten to prosecute the Issue of Henry his first Son, surnamed of Bullenbroke, that was after∣ward called K. Henry the fourth, which King had four Sons and two daughters; his daughters were Blanch and Philippa, the first married to William Duke of Bavaria, and the second to Erick King of Denmark, and both of them died without Chil∣dren▪

The four Sons were first Henry, that Reigned af∣ter him by the name of Henry the fifth, and the second was Thomas Duke of Clarence, the third was John Duke of Bedford, and the fourth was Humphry Duke of Glocester, all which three Dukes died without Issue, or were slain in Wars of the Realm, so as only King Henry the fifth their elder Brother had Issue one Son named Henry also, that was King, and Reigned 40 years by the name of Henry the sixth, who had Issue Prince Edward, and

both of them (I mean both Father and Son) were murthered by order or permission of Edward Duke of York who afterward took the Crown upon him, by the name of King Edward the fourth, as before hath been said: so as in this King Henry the sixth, and his Son Prince Edward, ended all the bloud-Royal male of the House of Lancaster, by Blanch the first Wife of John of Gaunt, and the In∣heritance of the said Lady Blanch returned by right of succession (as the favourers of the House of Portugal affirm, though others deny it) unto the Heirs of Lady Philip her eldest daughter, mar∣ried into Portugal, whose Nephew named Alfonsus the fifth King of Portugal, lived at that day when King Henry the sixth and his Heir were made away: and thus much of John of Gaunt's first marriage.

But after the death of the Lady Blanch,* 1.90 John of Gaunt married the Lady Constance, daughter and H••ir of Peter the first (surnamed the Cruel) King of Castile; who being driven out of his Kingdom by Henry his Bastard-brother, assisted thereunto by the French, he fled to Bourdeaux with his Wife and two daughters, where he found Prince Ed∣ward, eldest Son to King Edward the third, by whom he was restored; and for pledge of his fi∣delity, and performance of other conditions that the said King Peter had promised to the Prince,* 1.91 he left his two daughters with him: which daugh∣ters being sent afterwards into England, the eldest of them, named Constance, was married to John of Gaunt, and by her Title he named himself for di∣vers years afterwards King of Castile, and went to gain the same by Arms when Peter her Father was slain by his foresaid Bastard-brother. But yet some years after that again, there was an agree∣ment made between the said John of Gaunt, and John the first of that name King of Castile, Son and

Heir of the foresaid Henry the Bastard, with con∣dition,* 1.92 that Catharine the only daughter of John of Ga••nt by Lady Constance, should marry with Henry the third Prince of Castile Son and Heir of the said King John, and Nephew to the Bastard Henry the second, and by this means was ended that controversie between England and Castile. And the said Lady Catharine had Issue by King Henry, John the second King of Cas••••••e, and he Isa∣bel that married with Ferdinando the Catholick King of Aragon, and joyned by that marriage both those Kingdoms together; and by him she had a daughter named Joan, that married Philip Duke of Austria and Burgundy, and by him had Charles the such that was Emperor, and Father to King Philip that now reigneth ••n Spain; who (as we see) is descided two ways from John of Gaunt Duke of Lancaster, to wit, by two daughters begotten of two Wives, Blanch and Constance; neither had John of Gaunt any more Children by Constance, but only this daughter Catharine, of whom we have spoken: wherefore now we shall speak of his third Wife, that was Lady Catharine Swinford

* 1.93This Lady Catharine, as English Histories do note, was born in Heinalt in Flanders, and was daughter to a Knight of that Country called Sir Payne de Ruet, and she was brought up in her youth in the Duke of Lancasters house, and atten∣ded upon his first Wife Lady Blanch; and being fair of personage, grew in such favour with the Duke, as in the time of his second Wife Constance, he kept this Catharine for his Concubine, and be∣gat upon her four Children, to wit, three Sons and •• daughter, which daughter (whose name was Jane) was married to Ralph Earl of Westmorland, called commonly in those days Daw Raby, of whom descended the Earls of Westmorland that

ensued. His three Sons were John, Thomas and Henry, and John was first Earl▪ and then Duke of Summerset: Thomas was first Marques of Dorset, and then Duke of Excester: Henry was Bishop of Win∣chester, and after Cardinal.

And after John of Gaunt had begotten all these four Children upon Catharine, he married her to a Knight in England named Swinford, which Knight lived not many years after, and John of Gaunt co∣ming home to England, from Aquitaine, where he had been for divers years, and seeing this old Con∣••••••••ne of his Catharine, to be now a Widow, and him∣self also without a Wife, (for that the Lady Constance was dead a little before▪) for the love that he bore to the Children that he had begotten of her, he de∣termined to marry her, and thereby the rather to legitimate her Children,* 1.94 though himself were old now, and all his Kindred utterly against the Marriage, and so not full two years before his death, to wit in the Year of Christ 1396. he married her, and the next Year after in a Parliament begun at Westminster, the 22 of January, Anno Domini 1397. he caused all his said Children to be legitimated, which he had begotten upon this Lady Swinford before she was his Wife.

But now to go forward to declare the Issue of these three Sons of John of Gaunt by Catharine Swinford, two of them, that is,* 1.95 Thomas Duke of Exeter, and Henry Cardinal and Bishop of Winche∣ster, dyed without Issue, John the eldest Son that was Earl of Somerset had Issue two Sons, John and Edmond, John that was Duke of Somerset had Issue one onely Daughter, named Margaret, who was mar∣ried to Edmond Tidder Earl of Richmond,* 1.96 by whom he had a Son named Henry, Earl also of Richmond, who after was afterwards made King, by the name of Henry the VII. and was Father to King Henry the VIII. and Grandfather to the Queens Majesty

that now is. And this is the issue of John the first Son to the Duke of Somerset.* 1.97.

Edmond, the second Son to John Earl of Somerset, was first Earl of Mortaine, and then after the death of his Brother John, (who dyed without Issue make, as hath been said,) was created by King Henry the VI. Duke of Somerset, and both he and almost all his Kin were slain in the quarrel of the said King Henry the VI. and for defence of the House of Lancaster,* 1.98 against York. For First this Edmond him∣self was slain in the battel of S. Albans, against Richard Duke and first Pretender of York, in the Year 1456. leaving behind him three goodly Sons, to wit,* 1.99 Henry, Edmond and John, whereof Henry succeeded his Father in the Dutchy of Somerset, and was taken and beheaded in the same quarrel at Ex∣ham, in the Year 1463. dying without Issue. Ed∣mond likewise succeeded his Brother Henry in the Dutchy of Somerset, and was taken in the battel of Tewkesbury in the same quarrel, and there be∣headed the 7th. of May 1471. leaving no Issue. John also the third Brother, Marquess of Dorset, was slain in the same battel of Tewkesbury, and left no Issue▪ and so in these two Noblemen ceased utterly all the Issue Male of the Line of Lancaster, by the Children of John of Gaunt, begotten upon Lady Swinford his third Wife: So that all which remained of this Woman, was only Margaret Countess of Richmond, Mother to King Henry the VII. which King Henry the VII. and all that do descend from him in Eng∣land,* 1.100 do hold the Right of Lancaster only by this third Marriage of Catharine Swinford, as hath been shewed, and no ways of Blanch the first Wife, or of Constance the second; and this is enough in this place of the Descents of John of Gaunt, and of the House of Lancaster, and therefore I shall now pass over to shew the Issue of the House of York▪

I touched briefly before, how Edmond Langley

Duke of York,* 1.101 fourth Son of King Edward the III. had two Sons, Edward Earl of Rutland, and Duke of Aumarle, that succeeded his Father afterwards in the Dutchy of York, and was slain without chil∣dren under King Henry the V. in the battel of Agen∣c••urt in France▪ and Richard Earl of Cambridge which married Lady Anna Mortimer, as before hath been said, that was Heir of the House of Clarence,* 1.102 to w••t, of Leonel Duke of Clarence, second son to King Edward the III. by which marriage he joyned together the two Titles of the Second and Fourth S•••••• of King Edward, and being himself convinced of a Conspiracy against King Henry the V. was put to death in Southampton in the Year of Christ 1415. and 3d. of the Reign of King Henry the V. and 5th. day of August.

This Richard had Issue by Lady Anna Mortimer a Son named Richard, who succeeded his Uncle Ed∣ward Duke of York in the same Dutchy, and after∣wards finding himself strong, made claime to the Crown in the behalf of his Mother, and declaring himself Chief of the Faction of the White Rose, gave occasion of many cruel battels against them of the Red Rose and House of Lancaster, and in one of the battels which was given in the Year 1460. at Wake∣field, himself was slain,* 1.103 leaving behind him three Sons, Edward, George and Richard, whereof Edward was afterwards King of England by the name of Edward the IV. George was Duke of Clarence, and put to death in Calis in a butt of Sack or Malmesy, by the Commandment of the King his Brother; and Richard was Duke of Glocester, and afterwards King by murthering his own two Nephews, and was called King Richard the III.

Edward the Eldest of these three Brothers,* 1.104 which afterwards was King, had Issue two Sons, Edward and Richard, both put to death in the Tower of Lon∣don by their Cruel Uncle Richard: he had also five

Daughters, the last four whereof I do purposely omit, for that of none of them there remaineth any Issue, but the eldest of all▪ named Elizabeth, was mar∣ried to King Henry the VI. of the House of Lancaster, and had by him Issue, King Henry the VIII. and two Daughters, the one married unto Scotland, where∣of are descended the King of Scots; and Arabella, and the other married to Charles Brandon Duke of Suf∣folk, whereof are issued the Children of the Earls of Hartford and Darby, as after more at large shall be handled, and this is the Issue of the first Brother of the House of York.

The Second Brother George Duke of Clarence had Issue by his Wife Lady Isabel Heir to the Earldoms of Warwick and Salisbury, one Son, named Edward Earl of Warwick, who was put to death afterwards in his Youth, by King Henry the VII. and left no Issue: this Duke George had also one Daughter na∣med Margaret, admitted by King Henry the VIII. (at what time he sent her into Wales with Princess Mary,) to be Countess of Salisbury, but yet married very meanly to a Knight of Wales,* 1.105 named Sir Ri∣chard Poole, by whom she had four Sons, Henry, Ar∣thur, Geffrey and Reginald, the last whereof was Car∣dinal, and the other two Arthur and Geffrey had Issue, for Arthur had two Daughters Mary and Margarit, Mary was married to Sir John Stanny, and Margaret to Sir Thomas Fitzherbert: Sir Geffrey Poole had also Issue another Geffrey Poole, and he had Is∣sue Arthur and Geffrey which yet live.

Now then to return to the first Son of the Coun∣tess of Salisbury, named Henry, that was Lord Mon∣tague, and put to death both he and his mother, by King Henry the VIII. This man, I say, left two daughters Catharine and Winefred: Catharine was married to Sir Francis Hastings Earl of Huntington,* 1.106 by which Marriage issued Sir Henry Hastings now Earl of Huntington, and Sir George Hastings his bro∣ther,

who hath divers Children. And Winefred the younger daughter was married to Sir Thomas Bar∣rington Knight, who also wanteth not Issue:* 1.107 and this is of the second Brother of the House of York, to wit, of the Duke of Clarence.

The third Brother Richard Duke of Gloucester,* 1.108 and afterward King, left no Issue, so as this is all that is needful to be spoken of the House of York, in which we see that the first and principal Com∣petitor, is the King of Scots, and after him Ara∣bella,; and the Children of the Earls of Hertford and Derby are also Competitors of the same House, as descended by the daughter of the first Brother, Edward Duke of York, and King of England; and then the Earl of Huntington and his generation, as also the Pools, Barringtons, and others before na∣med, are or may be Titlers of York▪ as descended of George Duke of Clarence, second Son of Richard Duke of York; all which Issue yet seem to remain only within the compass of the House of York, for that by the former Pedegree of the House of Lan∣caster, it seemeth to the favourers of this House, that none of these other Competitors are proper∣ly of the Line of Lancaster, for that King Henry the 7th. coming only of John of Gaunt by Catha∣rine Swinford his third Wife, could have no part in Lady Blanch that was only Inheritor of that House, as to these men seemeth evident.

Only then it remaineth for the ending of this Chapter, to explain somewhat more clearly the descent of King Henry the 7th: and of his Issue. For better understanding whereof, you must consider, that King Henry the 7th. being of the House of Lancaster, in the manner that you have heard, and marrying Elizabeth the eldest daughter of the con∣trary House of York, did seem to joyn both Houses together, and make an end of that bloudy con∣troversie, though others now will say no: But

howsoever that was, (which after shall be exami∣ned) clear it is,* 1.109 that he had by that marriage one only Son, that left Issue, and two daughters; his Son was King Henry the 8th. who by three several Wives, had three Children that have reigned after him, to wit, King Edward the 6th. by Queen Jane Seymer, Queen Mary by Queen Catharine of Spain, and Queen Elizabeth by Queen Anne Bullen, of all which three Children no Issue hath remained, so as now we must return to consider the Issue of his daughters.

* 1.110The eldest daughter of King Henoy the seventh, named Margaret, was married by her first mariage to James the fourth King of Scots, who had Issue James the fifth, and he again Lady Mary, late Queen of Scots, and Dowager of France, put to death not long ago in England, who left Issue James the sixth, now King of Scots. And by her se∣cond marriage the said Lady Margaret, after the death of King James the fourth, took for husband Archibald Douglas, Earl of Angus in Scotland, by whom she had one only daughter named Margaret, which was married to Matthew Steward Earl of Lenox, and by him she had two Sons, to wit, Hen∣ry Lord Darly, and Charles Steward; Henry mar∣ried the foresaid Lady Mary Queen of Scotland, and was murthered in Edenbrough in the year 1566. as the World knoweth; and Charles his Brother mar∣ried Elizabeth the daughter of Sir William Candish in England, by whom he had one only daughter yet living, named Arabella, another competitor of the Crown of England, by the House of York: and thus much of the first daughter of King Henry the seventh.* 1.111 Mary the second daughter of King Henry the seventh, and younger Sister to King Henry the eighth, was married first to Lewis the XII. King of France, by whom she had no Issue, and afterward to Charles Brandon Duke of Suffolk, by whom she

had two daughters, to wit, Frances and Eleanor;* 1.112 the Lady Frances was married first to Henry Gray Marquess of Dorset, and after Duke of Suffolk, be∣headed by Queen Mary, and by him she had three daughters, to wit, Jane, Catharine, and Mary: the Lady Jane, eldest of the three, was married to Lord Guilford Dudly, Son to John Dudly late Duke of Northumberland, with whom (I mean with her Husband and Father in Law) she was beheaded soon after for being proclaimes Queen, upon the death of King Edward the sixth:* 1.113 the Lady Catha∣rine second daughter, married first the Lord Henry Herbert Earl of Pembroke, and left by him again, she dyed afterward in the Tower, where she was pri∣soner for having had two Children by Edward Sey∣mer Earl of Hertford, without sufficient proof that she was married unto him, and the two Children are yet living, to wit, Henry Seymer, commonly called Lord Beacham, and Edward Seymer his Bro∣ther. The Lady Mary the third Sister, though she was betrothed to Arthur Lord Gray of Wilton, and married after to Martin Keyes Gentleman-Porter, yet hath she left no Issue, as far as I understand.

This then is the end of the Issue of Lady Fran∣ces, first of the two daughters of Queen Mary of France, by Charles Brandon Duke of Suffolk; for albeit the said Lady Frances, after the beheading of the said Henry Lord Gray Duke of Suffolk, her first Husband, married again one Adrian Stokes her Servant, and had a Son by him; yet it lived not, but dyed very soon after.

Now then to speak of the younger daughter of the said French Queen and Duke, named Eleanor,* 1.114 she was married to Henry Clifford Earl of Cumber∣land, who had by her a daughter named Margaret, that was married to Lord Henry Stanley Earl of Darby, by whom she hath a plentiful Issue, as Fer∣dinand now Earl of Darby William, Stanley, Francis

Stanley, and others, and this is all that needeth to be spoken of these descents of our English Kings, Princes, Peers or Competitors to the Crown for this place; and therefore now it resteth only that we begin to examine what different pretentions are fram'd by divers Parties, upon these descents and Genealogies, which is the principal point of this our discourse.

CHAP. IV. Of the great and general controversie and con∣tention between the two Houses Royal of Lan∣caster and York, and which of them may seem to have had the better Right to the Crown, by way of Succession.

ANd first of all, before I do descend to treat in particular of the different pretences of seve∣ral persons and families, that have issued out of these two Royal lineages of Lancaster and York, it shall perhaps not be amiss, to discuss with some attention, what is, or hath, or may be said, on both sides for the general controversie that lyeth between them, yet undecided in many mens opi∣nions, notwithstanding there hath been so much stir about the same, and not only writing and di∣sputing, but also fighting and murthering for ma∣ny years.* 1.115 And truly if we look into divers Histo∣ries, Records and Authors which have written of this matter, we shall find that every one of them speaking commonly according to the time wherein they lived, for that all such as wrote in the time of the three Henries fourth, fifth, and sixth, Kings of the House of Lancaster, they make the title of

Lancaster very clear, and undoubted; but such others as wrote since that time (while the House of York hath held the Scepter) they have spoken in a far different manner,* 1.116 as namely Polydor that wrote in King Henry the VIII▪ his time, and others that have followed him since, to take all right from the House of Lancaster, and give the same to the House of York; wherefore the best way I suppose will be, not so much to consider what Hi∣storiographers do say according to their affections, or Interests, as what reasons and proofs be al∣ledged of every side; for that by this, we shall more easily come to judge where the right or wrong doth lie.

First therefore,* 1.117 the defenders of the House of York do alledge, that their title is plain and evi∣dent, for that as in the former chapter hath been declared, Richard Duke of York first pretender of this House, whose Father was Son to Edmond Langley Duke of York, fourth Son of King Ed∣ward the third, and his Mother Anne Mortimer that was Neece once removed, and sole Heir to Leo∣nel Duke of Clarence, second Son of the said King Edward; this Richard (I say) Duke of York pre∣tended, that for so much as he had two titles joyn∣ed together in himself, and was lawful Heir as well to Duke Leonel the second Brother, as to Duke Edmond the fourth, that he was to be preferred in Succession of the Crown after the death of King Richard the second, Heir of the first Son of King Edward, before the Issue of John of Gaunt, that was but third Son to the said King Edward; and con∣sequently that Henry Bolenbrok, John of Gaunts Son Duke of Lancaster, called afterwards King Henry the fourth, entred the Crown by tyranny and vio∣lonce, first for deposing, the true and Lawful King Richard, and secondly for taking the Kingdom up∣on himself, which Kingdom after the death of

the foresaid King Richard (which happened in the year 1399.) belonging to Edmond Mortimer Earl of March, then living, and after his death to Anne Mortimer his Sister, married to Richard Earl of Cambridge Father to this Richard pretendent Duke of York, as hath been said, for that this Edmond and Anne Mortimer were Children to Roger Morti∣mer Son of Philip that was daughter to Duke Leo∣nel, which Leonel was elder Uncle to King Richard, and before John of Gaunt the younger Brother, whose Son took the Crown upon him.

* 1.118For the better understanding of which pretence and allegation of the House of York against Lan∣caster, we must note the story following, to wit, That King Edward the III. seeing in his old age that Prince Edward his eldest Son (whom of all his Children he loved most dearly) was dead, (though there wanted not much doubt in some mens heads, as after shall be shewed, who ought to succeed) yet the old man, for the exceeding great affection he bare to the dead Prince, would hear nothing in that behalf, but appointed Richard, the said Prince Edwards only Son and Heir, to succeed him in the Kingdom, and made the same to be confirmed by Act of Parliament, and inforced all his Children then alive, to swear to the same; which were John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster, his third and eldest Son that then lived, (for Leonel his second Son, Duke of Clarence, was dead before) and Edmond Langley and Thomas Woodstock Earls at that time, but after Dukes of York and Glocester; and so King Richard Reigned with good obedience of his Un∣cles and their Children for 20 years together, but in the end when he grew insolent and had put to death his Uncle the Duke of Glocester, together with the Earl of Arundel, and banished many others of the Nobility, and among them the Arch∣bishop of Canterbury, as also his own Cousin-Ger∣man

Henry Duke of Hertford, and after of Lanca∣ster, Son and Heir of John of Gaunt,* 1.119 and had made many wickedd Statutes as well against the Church and State Ecclesiastical, as also to intangle the Realm and Nobility with fained crimes of Treason against his Regality, as then he termed them, the principal men of the Realm, seeing a sit occasion offered by the Kings absence in Ireland, called home out of France the foresaid Henry Duke of Lancaster, with the Archbishop of Canterbury, Earls of Arundel and Warwick, and others which were in banishment, and by common consent ga∣thered upon the suddain such an Army to assist them in England, as they took the King, brought him to London, and there in a Parliament laying together the intolerable faults of his Government,* 1.120 they deprived him of all Regal Dignity, as before they had done to his great Grandfather K. Edward the second, and then by universal consent of the Parliament and people there present▪ they chose and admitted the said Henry Duke of Lancaster to be their King, who continued so all the days of his life, and left the Crown unto his Son, and Sons Son, after him, by the space of threescore years, until this Richard before named Duke of York, made challenge of the same in manner and form as before hath been shewed.

Now then the story being thus,* 1.121 the question is first, whether Richard the second were justly de∣posed or no; and secondly, whether after his depo∣sition the House of York or House of Lancaster should have entred; and thirdly, if the House of Lancaster did commit any wrong or injustice at their first entrance to the Crown, yet whether the continuance of so many years in possession, with so many approbations and confirmations thereof by the Commonwealth, were not sufficient to legiti∣mate their right.

* 1.122Concerning which points many things are al∣ledged by the favourers of both Families, and in the first point touching the lawfulness or unlaw∣fulness of King Richards deposition, three Articles especially do seem most considerable, to wit, about the thing in it self, whether a lawful King may be deposed upon just causes; and secondly, about these causes in King Richards deposition, to wit, whe∣ther they were just or sufficient for deposition of the said King; and lastly, about the manner of do∣ing i••, whether the same were good and orderly, or not.

* 1.123And touching the first of these three points, which is, that a King upon just causes may be de∣posed, I think both parties, though never so contra∣ry between themselves, will easily agree, and the Civil Lawyer seems to me to have proved it so evi∣dently before throughout his whole dicourse, as I think very little may be said against the same. For he hath declared (if you remember) both by rea∣son, authority, and examples of all Nations Chri∣stian, that this may, and hath and ought to be done, when urgent occasions are offered.* 1.124 And first by reason he sheweth it, for that all Kingly authority is given them only by the Commonwealth, and that with this express condition, that they shall Go∣vern according to Law and equity, that this is the cause of their exaltation above other men, that this is the end of their Government, the butt of their authority, the star and pole by which they ought to direct their stern, to wit, the good of the people; by the weal of their Subjects, by the bene∣fit of the Realm, which end being taken away or perverted, the King becometh a Tyrant, a Tyger, a fierce Lion, a ravening Wolf, a publick enemy, and a bloudy murtherer, which were against all reason both natural and moral, that a Common∣wealth could not deliver it self from so eminent a destruction.

By authority also you have heard it proved,* 1.125 of all Law-makers, Philosophers, Lawyers, Divines, and Governours of Commonwealhs, who have set down in their Statutes and Ordinances, that Kings shall swear and protest at their entrance to Go∣vernment, that they will observe and perform the conditions there promised, and otherwise to have no Interest in that Dignity, and Sove∣raignty.

By examples in like manner of all Realms Chri∣stian he declared,* 1.126 how that often-times they have deposed their Princes for just causes, and that God hath concurred and assisted wonderfully the same, sending them commonly very good Kings after those that were deprived, and in no Country more then in England it self, yea in the very Line and Family of this King Richard, whose Noble Grand∣father King Edward the third, was exalted to the Crown by a most solemn deposition of his prede∣cessor King Edward the second, wherefore in this point there can be little controversie, and there∣fore we shall pass unto the second, which is, whe∣ther the causes were good and just for which this King Richard was esteemed worthy to be de∣posed.

And in this second point much more difference there is betwixt York and Lancaster,* 1.127 and between the white Rose and the Red, for that the House of York seeking to make the other odious, as though they had entred by tyranny and cruelty, doth not stick to avouch, that King Richard was unjustly deposed; but against this the House of Lancaster alledgeth, first, that the House of York cannot just∣ly say this, for that the chief Prince assistant to the deposing of King Richard, was Lord Edmond himself Duke of York, and head of that family, together with Edward Earl of Rutland and Duke of Aumarl, his eldest Son and Heir, yea and his

younger Son also Richard Earl of Cambridge, Fa∣ther to this Richard that now pretendeth, for so do write both Stow, Hollingshead and other Chroniclers of England, that those Princes of the H••••••e of York▪* 1.128 did principally assist Henry Duke of Lancaster in getting the Crown, and deposing King Richard, and Polid••r speaking of the wicked Government of King Richard, and of the first Cogitation about deposing him when King Henry of Lancaster was yet in France, banished, and seemed not to think of any such matter,* 1.129 he hath these words. Sed Edmundo Ebo••acensium duci, ea res cum primis bi∣lem commovit, quod Rex omnia jam jura perverteret, quod antea parricidio, & postea r••pints se obstrinx∣••sset, &c. That is,

this matter of the wicked Go∣vernment of King Richard, did principally offend his Uncle Edmond Duke of York, for that he saw the King now to pe••srvert all Law and Equity, and that as before he had defiled himself with Parri∣cide, that is, with the murther of his own Uncle the Duke of Glocester, Brother to this Edmond, so now he intangled himself also with Rapine, in that he took by violence the Goods and Inheri∣tance of John of Gaunt, late deceased, which did belong to Henry Duke of Lancaster, his Cousin-German:

By which words of Polidor, as also for that the Duke of Lancaster coming out of Britany accompaned only with threescore persons,* 1.130 (as some stories say) chose first to go into York shire and to enter at Ravenspur at the mouth of Humber, as all the World knoweth (which he would never have done if the Princes of York had not princi∣pally favoured him in that action) all this, I say, is an evident argument that these Princes of the House of York were then the chief doers in this de∣position, and consequently cannot alledge now with reason that the said Richard was deposed un∣iustly.

Secondly, the House of Lancaster alledgeth for the justifying of this deposition,* 1.131 the opinions of all Historiographers, that ever have written of this matter, whether they be English, French, Dutch, Latine, or of any other Nation or Language, who all with one accord do affirm, that King Richards Government was intolerable, and he worthy of deposition, whereof he that will see more let him read Thomas of Walsingham, and John Frosard in the life of King Richard.

Thirdly, they of Lancaster do alledge,* 1.132 the par∣ticular outrages and insolencies of King Richards Government; and first, the suffering himself to be carried away with evil counsel of his favorites, and then the perverting of all Laws generally under his Government, as before you have heard out of Po∣lidor; the joyning with his Minions for oppressing the Nobility, of which Stow hath these words.* 1.133 The King being at Bristow with Robert de Vere Duke of Ireland, and Michael de la Pole Earl of Suffolk, devised how to take away the Duke of Glocester, the Earls of Arundel, Warwick, Darby and Notting∣ham, and others whose deaths they conspired: Thus saith Stow. And after they executed the most part of their devices, for that Thomas of Woodstock Duke of Glocester, was made away without Law or Process, the Earl of Arundel also was put to death, and Warwick was banished, and so was al∣so Thomas Arundel Archbishop of Canterbury, by like Injustice, and the like was done to Henry Duke of Hertford, and after of Lancaster, and among other insolencies he suffered Robert Vere to disho∣nour and put from him his Wife, a Noble and good∣ly young Lady (as Stow saith) and born of Lady Isabella King Richards Aunt, that was daughter to King Edward the third,* 1.134 and suffered Vere to marry another openly to her disgrace, and dishonour of her Kindred. And finally, in the last Parliament

that ever he held, which was in the 21. year of his Reign, commonly called the Evil Parliament, he would needs have all authority absolute granted to certain favourites of his, which Thomas Walsing∣ham saith were not above 6 or 7. to determine of all matters with all full authority, as if they on∣ly had been the whole Realm, which was nothing indeed but to take all authority to himself only; and Stow in his Chronicle hath these words follow∣ing.* 1.135 This Parliament began about the 15. of Sept. in the year 1397. at the beginning whereof, Edward Stafford Bishop of Exeter Lord Chancellor of Eng∣land made a proposition or Sermon▪ in which he affir∣med that the power of the King, was alone, and per∣fect of it self, and those that do impeach it were wor∣thy to suffer pain of the Law, &c. thus saith Stow, by all which is evident, how exorbitant and con∣trary to all Law and Equity this Kings Govern∣ment was.

* 1.136Fourthly and lastly, those of Lancaster do alledge for justifying of this deprivation, that Duke Henry was called home by express Letters of the more and better part of all the Realm, and that he came wholly (in a manner) u••••rmed considering his person,* 1.137 for that Frosard saith he had but three Ships only out of Britany, and Walsingham saith he had but 15. Lances and 4••0▪ foot-men, and the additions to Pol••••hronicon, as before I noted, do avouch, that when he landed at Ravenspur in the County of York, he had but threescore men in all to begin the Reformation of his Realm against so potent a Tyrant, as King Richard was then accoun∣ted, and yet was the concourse of all people so great and general unto him, that within few days he atchieved the matter, and that without any bat∣tel or bloud-shed at all: and thus much for the justness of the cause.

But now if we will consider the manner and

form of this act, they of Lancaster do affirm also,* 1.138 that it could not be executed in better nor more convenient order. First, for that it was done by the choice and invitation of all the Realm, or greater and better part thereof, as hath been said. Second∣ly, for that it was done without slaughter; and thirdly, for that the King was deposed by Act of Parliament, and himself convinced of his unwor∣thy Government, and brought to confess that he was worthily deprived, and that he willingly and freely resigned the same: neither can there be any more circumstances required (say these men) for any lawful deposition of a Prince.

And if any man will yet object and say, that not∣withstanding all this there was violence, for that Duke Henry was Armed, and by force of Arms brought this to pass; they of Lancaster do an∣swer, that this is true, that he brought the mat∣ter to an end by Forces,* 1.139 for that an evil King can∣not be removed but by force of Arms, if we ex∣pect the ordinary way of remedy left by God unto the Commonwealth; for seeing that a Tyrannical or obstinate evil Prince, is an Armed enemy with his feet set on the Realms head, certain it is, that he cannot be driven nor plucked from thence, nor brought in order, but by force of Arms. And if you say that God may remedy the matter otherwise, and take him away by sickness, and other such means, it is answered, that God will not always bind himself to work Miracles, or to use extraor∣dinary means in bringing those things to pass, which he hath left in the hands of men, and of Commonwealths to effectuate, by ordinary way of Wisdom and Justice. As for example, it were an easie thing (say these men) for God Almighty also when any wicked man breaketh his Law, by theft, murther, or the like, to punish him immediately by death, or otherwise himself, and yet he will not

so do, but will have the Realm to punish him, and that by force of Arms also, it otherwise it cannot be done, and this as well for example, and terror of 〈…〉〈…〉 that God hath 〈…〉〈…〉 in his name, 〈…〉〈…〉

* 1.140〈…〉〈…〉 particular president of punishing of evil 〈◊〉〈◊〉 in like manner by force and violence, when other means will not serve, these men say, that besides all the great multitude of examples alledged before by the Lawyer, in his fourth Chapter, about evil Kings deposed, there is great variety of several manners how the same hath been done, by God's own Ordinance, recounted in Ho∣ly Writ; as first, when the Scripture saith in the Books of Judges, that Aod was stirred up by God to kill Eglon King of the Moabites,* 1.141 that prosecuted the people of Israel, and the manner was to feign a secret Embassage, or message unto him, and so to slay him in his Chamber, as he did, and God de∣livered his people by that means, and chose this particular way, whereas none will deny but that he might have done it by many other means less odious to the World then this was, that seemed so cruel and full of Treason.

Again they shew,* 1.142 that when God had rejected King Saul for his wickedness, and determined to depose him, he chose to do it by raising of David against him, and by defending and assisting David both in Arms and otherwise divers years against Saul, and in the end raised the Philistians also a∣gainst him, who after divers battels cut off his head, and carried it up and down the Country upon a pole,* 1.143 and presented it in all the Temples of their Idols, and in the end left it pitched up in the Tem∣ple of Dagon; all which God might have spared, and have taken him away quietly without bloud∣shed, if he would, but he chose this second way.

In like manner when he would punish King Re∣hoboam for the sins of Solomon his Father,* 1.144 and yet spare him also in part for the sake of his Grand∣father David, he caused a Rebellion to be raised against him by Jeroboam his Servant, and more then three parts of four of his people, to rebel against him, and this by God's own instinct and motion, and by his express allowance thereof after it was done, as the Scripture avoucheth, and if Re∣hoboam had fought against them, for this fault, (as once he had thought to do, and was prepared with a main Army) no doubt but they might have law∣fully slain him,* 1.145 for that now these ten Tribes that forsook him, had just authority to depose him for his evil Government, and for not yielding to their just request made unto him, for easing them of those grievous Tributes laid upon them,* 1.146 as the Scripture reporteth. For albeit God had a meaning to punish him, for the sins of his Father Solomon, yet suffered he that Rehoboam also should give just occasion him∣self for the people to leave him, as appeareth by the story; and this is God's high Wisdom, Ju∣stice, Providence, and sweet disposition in humane affairs.

Another example of punishing and deposing evil Princes by force,* 1.147 they do alledge out of the first Book of Kings, where God appointed Elizeus the Prophet, to send the Son of another Prophet to anoint Jehu, Captain of Joram, King of Israel, which Joram was Son to the Queen Jezabel, and to perswade Jehu to take Arms against his said King, and against his mother the Queen, and to deprive them both, not only of their Kingdoms,* 1.148 but also of their lives; and so he did, for the Scrip∣ture saith, Conjuravit ergo Jehu contra Joram, Jehu did conjure and conspire at the perswasion of this Prophet, with the rest of his fellow Captains, a∣gainst his King Joram, and Queen Jezabel the Kings

Mother, to put them down, and to put them to death with all the ignominy he could devise, and God allowed thereof▪ and perswaded the same by so holy a Prophet as Elizeus was, whereby we may assure our selves that the fact was not only law∣ful, but also most Godly, albeit in it self it might seem abominable.

* 1.149And in the same book of Kings, within two chap∣ters after, there is another example how God mo∣ved Jehoiadah High-priest of Jerusalem to perswade the Captains and Colonels of that City to conspire against Athalia the Queen,* 1.150 that had Reigned 6. years, and to Arm themselves with the Armor of the Temple, for that purpose, and to besiege the Palace where she lay, and to kill all them that should offer or go about to defend her; and so they did, and having taken her alive, she was put to death also by sentence of the said High-priest, and the fact was allowed by God, and highly com∣mended in the Scripture, and Joas young King of the bloud Royal was Crowned in her place; and all this might have been done as you see without such trouble of Arms, and bloud-shed, if God would, but he appointed these several means for working of his will, and for relieving of Common∣wealths oppressed by evil Princes. And this seemeth sufficient proof to these men, that King Richard of England might be removed by force of Arms, his life and Government being so evil and pernicious, as before hath been shewed.

* 1.151It remaineth then that we pass to the second principal point proposed in the beginning, which was, that supposing this deprivation of King Ri∣chard was just and lawful, what House by right should have succeeded him, either that of Lanca∣ster as it did, or the other of York.

And first of all it is to be understood, that at that very time when King Richard was deposed, the

house of York had no pretence, or little at all to the Crown, for that Edmond Mortimer Earl of March, Nephew to the Lady Philippa, was then alive, with his Sister Anne Mortimer married to Richard Earl of Cambridge, by which Anne the House of York did after make their claim, but could not do so yet, for that the said Edmond her Brother was living, and so continued many years after, as appeareth, for that we read that he was alive 16. years after this, to wit, in the third year of the Reign of K. Henry the 5th. when his said Brother in Law Richard Earl of Cambridge was put to death in Southampton, whom this Edmond appeached, as after shall be shewed; and that this Edmond was now Earl of March when K. Richard was deposed,* 1.152 and not his Father Roger (as Polidor mistaketh) is evident, by that that the said Roger was slain in Ireland, a little before the deposition of King Ri∣chard, to wit, in the year 1398. and not many months after he had been declared Heir apparent by King Richard, and Rogers Father named Ed∣mond also, Husband of the Lady Philippa, dyed some three years before him, that is, before Ro∣ger, as after will be seen; so as seeing that at the deposition of King Richard, this Edmond Morti∣mer elder Brother to Anne was yet living, the que∣stion cannot be whether the House of York should have entred to the Crown presently after the de∣privation of King Richard, for they had yet no pretence, as hath been shewed, but whether this Edmond Mortimer, as Heir of Leonel Duke of Cla∣rence, or else Henry Duke of Lancaster, Heir of John of Gaunt should have entred: For as for the House of York there was yet no question, as ap∣peareth also by Stow in his Chronicle, who seteth down how that after the said deposition of Richard,* 1.153 the Archbishop of Canterbury asked the people three times, whom they would have to be their

King, whether the Duke of York there standing present, or not, and they answered no: and then he asked the second time, if they would have his eldest Son, the Duke of Aumarl, and they said no: he asked the third time, if they would have his youngest Son, Richard Earl of Cambridge, and they said no: Thus writeth Stow. Whereby it is evi∣dent, that albeit this Earl of Cambridge had mar∣ried now the Sister of Edmond Mortimer, by whom his posterity claimed afterward, yet could he not pretend at this time, her Brother being yet alive, who after dying without Issue, left all his right to her, and by her to the House of York: for albeit this Earl Richard never came to be Duke of York, for that he was beheaded by King Henry the fifth at Southampton as before hath been said, while his elder Brother was a live, yet left he a Son named Richard, that after him came to be Duke of York, by the death of his Uncle Edmond Duke of York that dyed without Issue, as on the other side also by his Mother Ann Mortimer, he was Earl of March, and was the first of the House of York that made title to the Crown.

So that the question now is, whether after the deposition of King Richard,* 1.154 Edmond Mortimer, Nephew removed of Leonel (which Leonel was the second Son to King Edward) or else Henry Duke of Lancaster, Son to John of Gaunt (which John was third Son to King Edward) should by right have succeeded to King Richard; and for Edmond is alledged, that he was Heir of the elder Brother; and of Henry is said, that he was nearer by two degrees to the Stem or last King, that is to say, to King Richard deposed, then Edmond was, for that Henry was Son to King Richards Uncle of Lan∣caster, and Edmond was but Nephew removed, that is to say, Daughters Sons Son, to the said King Richards other Uncle of York. And that in

such a case, the next in degree of consanguinity, to the last King, is to be preferred (though he be not of the elder Line) the favourers of Lancaster alledge many proofs, whereof some shall be touched a little after: and we have seen the same practised in our days in France, where the Cardinal of Bourbon by the Judgment of the most part of that Realm, was preferred to the Crown for his propinquity in bloud to the dead King, before the King of Navarre, though he were of the elder Line.

Moreover it is alledged for Henry,* 1.155 that his title came by a man, and the others by a woman, which is not so much favoured either by Nature, Law or Reason, and so they say that the pretenders of this title of Lady Philippa that was daughter of Duke Leonel, never opened their mouths in those days to claim, until some 50. years after the deposition and death of King Richard.* 1.156 Nay moreover they of Lancaster say, that sixteen years after the depo∣sition of King Richard, when King Henry the fifth was now in possession of the Crown, certain No∣blemen, and especially Richard Larl of Cambridge, that had married this Edmond Mortimers Sister, offered to have slain King Henry and to have made the said Edmond Mortimer King, for that he was descended of Duke Leonel, but he refused the mat∣ter, thinking it not to be according to equity, and so went and discovered the whole Treason to the King; whereupon they were all put to death in Southampton, within four or five days after,* 1.157 as before hath been noted, and this happened in the year 1415. and from henceforward until the year 1451. and thirtieth of the Reign of King Henry the sixth, which was 36. years after the Execution done upon these Conspirators, no more mention or pretence was made of this matter, at what time Richard Duke of York began to move troubles about it again:

* 1.158Thus say those of the House of Lancaster: but now these of York have a great argument for themselves, as to them it seemeth, which is, that in the year of Christ 1385. and 9th. year of the reign of King Richard the second, it was declared by Act of Parliament, (as Polydor writeth) that Edmond Mortimer,* 1.159 who had married Philippa daughter and Heir of Leonel Duke of Clarence, and was Grandfather to the last Edmond by me named, should be Heir apparent to the Crown, if the King should chance to die without Issue.

To which objection those of Lancaster do an∣swer, first, that Polydor doth erre in the person, when he saith that Edmond Husband of Lady Phi∣lippa, was declared for Heir apparent; for that this Edmond Mortimer that married Lady Philip∣pa, died peaceably in Ireland three years before this Parliament was holden, to wit, in the year of Christ 1382. as both Hollingshed,* 1.160 Stow, and other Chroniclers do testifie; and therefore Polydor doth erre not only in this place about this man, but also in that in another place he saith, that this Edmond so declared Heir apparent by King Richard, was slain by the Irish in Ireland 12 years after this declaration made of the succession, to wit, in the year 1394. which was indeed not this man,* 1.161 but his Son Roger Mortimer, Heir to him, and to the Lady Philippa his Wife, who was declared Heir apparent in the Parliament aforesaid, at the in∣stance of King Richard, and that for especial ha∣tred and malice (as these men say) which he did bear against his said Uncle the Duke of Lancaster, and his Son Henry,* 1.162 whom he desired to exclude from the succession.

The cause of this hatred, is said to be, for that presently upon the death of Prince Edward, Fa∣ther to this Richard, (which Prince died in the year of Christ 1376. and but 10. months before

his Father King Edward the third) there wanted not divers learned and wise men in England, that were of opinion that John of Gaunt Duke of Lan∣caster, eldest Son then living of the said King Ed∣ward, should have succeeded his Father, jure pro∣pinquitatis, before Richard that was but Nephew, and one degree further off then he: but the old King was so extremely affectionate unto his eldest Son, the black Prince Edward, newly dead, that he would not hear of any to succeed him (as Fro∣sard saith) but only Richard the said Prince's Son.* 1.163 Wherefore he called presently a Parliament, which was the last that ever he held, and therein caused his said Nephew Richard to be declared Heir ap∣parent, and made his three Sons then living, that were Uncles to the Youth, (to wit, John of Gaunt Duke of Lancaster, Edmond Langley Duke after∣wards of York, and Thomas Woodstock Duke of Gloucester) to swear Fealty unto Richard, as they did. And albeit John of Gaunt all his life after, for keeping of his Oath that he had made unto his Father, never pretended any Right to the Crown, yet King Richard knowing well the pretence that he and his might have, was still afraid of him, and sought infinite means to be rid of him, first by perswading him to go and make War in Spain,* 1.164 where he thought he might miscarry in so dange∣rous an attempt▪ and then offering to give him all Aquitain, if he would leave England to go and live there, as he did for three years, with extreme peril, for that the people of Aquitain would not receive him, but rose against him, and refused his Government, and would not admit him for their Lord, but appealed to the King, who also allowed thereof; and so when John of Gaunt came home into England again, King Richard thought no bet∣ter way to weaken him, then to banish his Son Henry Duke of Hertford, and so he did. And be∣sides

this, the said King Richard practised also by divers secret drifts, the death of his said Uncle the Duke of Lancaster,* 1.165 as Walsingham witnesseth; and when the said Duke came at length to die, which was in the 22. year of King Richard's reign, he wrote such joyous Letters thereof (as Frosard saith) to his Father-in-law Charles the sixth King of France,* 1.166 as though he had been delivered of his chiefest Enemy, not imagining that his own de∣struction was so near at hand, and much accelera∣ted by the death of the said Duke, as it was.

* 1.167And these were the causes, say the favourers of the House of Lancaster, why King Richard caused this Act of Parliament to pass in favour of Roger Mortimer, and in prejudice of the House of Lan∣caster, and not for that the right of Earl Mortimer, was better then that of the Duke of Lancaster. And this they say is no new thing, for Princes oftentimes to procure partial Laws to pass in Par∣liament, for matter of Succession, according to their own affections; for the like (say they) did Edward the third procure in the favour of this Richard, as before I have shewed, in the last Par∣liament before his death; and afterward again King Richard the third, with much more open In∣justice,* 1.168 caused an Act of Parliament to pass in his days, whereby his Nephew John de la Pole Earl of Lincoln, Son to his Sister Elizabeth Dutchess of Suffolk, was declared Heir apparent to the Crown, excluding thereby the Children of his two elder Brothers, to wit, the daughters of King Edward the fourth, and the Son and daughter of George Duke of Clarenoe, which yet by all order should have gone before their Sisters Children.

And like facility found King Henry the 8th. to get the consent of two Parliaments, to give him Authority to appoint what Successor he would, of his own Kindred; by which Authority afterward

he appointed by his Testament (as in another place shall be shewed) that the Issue of his youn∣ger Sister Mary, should be preferred before the Issue of his eldest Sister Margaret of Scotland.

A like declaration was that also,* 1.169 of King Ed∣ward the sixth, of late memory, who appointed, the Lady Jane Gray his Cousen-german removed, to be his Heir and Successor in the Crown of Eng∣land, and excluded his own two Sisters, the Lady Mary and the Lady Elizabeth from the same: but these declarations make little to the purpose, when right and equity do repugn, as these men say that it did, in the foresaid declaration of Roger Mortimer, to be Heir apparent; for that they hold and avouch the House of Lancaster, to have had the true right to enter, not only after the death of King Richard the second (as it did) but also before him, that is to say, immediately upon the death of King Edward the third, for that John of Gaunt was then the eldest Son, which King Edward had living, and nearer to his Father by a degree, then was Richard the Nephew. About which point, to wit, whether the Uncle or Nephew should be preferred in Succession of Kingdoms, it seemeth that in this age of King Edward the third there was great trou∣ble, and controversie in the World abroad,* 1.170 for so testifieth Girard du Haillan Councellor and Secre∣tary of France, in his History of the year of Christ 1346. which was about the midst of King Edwards Reign, and therefore no marvel though King Ed∣ward took such care of the sure establishing of his Nephew Richard in Succession, as is before rela∣ted. And much less marvel is it if K. Richard had still great jealousie of his Uncle the Duke of Lanca∣ster, and of his off-spring, considering how doubtful the question was among the Wise and Learned of those days. For more declaration whereof I think it not amiss to alledge the very words of the fore∣said

Chronicler, with the examples by him recited: thus then he writeth.

* 1.171

About this time (saith he) there did arise a great and doubtful question in the World, whether Un∣cles or Nephews, that is to say, the younger Bro∣ther, or else the Children of the elder, should Succeed unto Realms and Kingdoms, which con∣troversie put all Christianity into great broils and troubles; for first, Charles the second King of Na∣plis begat of Mary his Wife, Queen and Heir of Hungary, divers Children, but namely three Sons, Mar••el, Robert, and Philip; Martel dying before his Father, left a Son named Charles, which in his Grand-mothers right was King also of Hunga∣ry; but about the Kingdom of Naples the que∣stion was, when King Charles was dead, who should Succeed him, either Charles his Nephew King of Hungary, or Robert his second Son; but Robert was preferred, and Reigned in Naples, and enjoyed the Earldom of Provence in France also, for the space of 33. years, with great renown of Valor and Wisdom. And this is own example that Girard recounteth,* 1.172 which example is reported by the famous Lawyer Bartholus in his Commen∣taries▪ touching the Succession of the Kingdom of Cicilia, and he saith, that this Succession of the Uncle before the Nephew, was averred also for rightful by the Learned of that time, and con∣firmed for just by the judicial sentence of Pope Boniface, and that for the reasons which afterward shall be shewed, when we shall treat of this que∣stion more in particular.

* 1.173Another example also reporteth Girard, which ensued immediately after, in the same place, for that the foresaid King Robert, having a Son named Charles, which died before him, he left a daugh∣ter and Heir named Joan, Neece unto King Ro∣bert, which Joan was married to Andrew the

younger Son of the foresaid Charles King of Hun∣gary; but King Robert being dead, there stept up one Lewis Prince of Tarranto, a place of the same Kingdom of Naples, who was Son to Philip before mentioned, younger Brother to King Robert, which Lewis pretending his right to be better then that of Joan, for that he was a man, and one degree nearer to King Charles his Grand-father then Joan was, (for that he was Nephew, and she Neece once removed) he prevailed in like manner; and thus far Girard Historiographer of France.

And no doubt but if we consider examples,* 1.174 that fell out even in this very age only, concerning this controversie between the Uncle and Nephew, we shall find store of them: for in Spain not long before this time, to wit, in the year of Christ 1276. was that great and famous determination made by Don Alonso the wise, eleventh King of that name, and of all his Realm and Nobility in their Courts or Parliament of Segovia, mentioned before by the Civilian, wherein they dis••inherited the Children of the Prince Don Alonso de la Cerda that died (as our Prince Edward did) before his Father, and made Heir apparent Don Sancho Bravo younger Brother to the said Don Alonso, and Un∣cle to his Children, the two young Cerda's. Which sentence standeth even unto this day, and King Philip enjoyed the Crown of Spain thereby, and the Dukes of Medina Celi, and their race that are de∣scendents of the said two Cerda's, which were put back, are Subjects by that sentence, and not Sove∣raigns, as all the World knoweth.

The like controversie fell out but very little af∣ter, to wit,* 1.175 in the time of King Edward the third in France, though not about the Kingdom, but about the Earldom of Artoys, but yet it was de∣cided by a solemn sentence of two Kings of France, and of the whole Parliament of Paris, in favour

of the Aunt against her Nephew, which albeit it cost great troubles: yet was it defended, and King Philip of Spain holdeth the County of Artoys by it at this day. Polydor reporteth the story in this manner.

Robert Earl of Artoys, a man famous for his Chivalry,* 1.176 had two Children, Philip a Son, and Maude a daughter, this Maude was married to Otho Earl of Burgundy; and Philip dying before his Father, left a Son named Robert the second, whose Father Robert the first being dead, the que∣stion was who should Su••••eed, either Maude the daughter, or Robert the Nephew, and the mat∣ter being remitted unto Philip le Bel King of France, as chief Lord at that time of that State, he adjudged it to Maude, as to the next in bloud; but when Robert repined at this sentence, the mat∣ter was referred to the Parliament of Paris, which confirmed the sentence of King Philip; whereup∣on Robert making his way with Philip de Valoys, that soon after came to be King of France, he assisted the said Philip earnestly to bring him to the Crown, against King Edward of England that opposed himself thereunto, and by this hoped that King Philip would have revoked the same sen∣tence; but he being once established in the Crown, answered, that a sentence of such importance, and so maturely given, could not be revoked. Whereupon the said Robert fled to the King of Eng∣lands part against France. Thus far Polydor.

* 1.177The very like sentence recounteth the same Au∣thor to have been given in England at the same time, and in the same controversie, of the Uncle against the Nephew, for the Succession to the Dukedom of Britany, as before I have related, wherein John Breno Earl of Monford, was preferred before the daughter and Heir of his elder Brother Guy, though he were but of the half bloud to the

last Duke, and she of the whole. For that John the third Duke of Britany, had two Brothers, first Guy of the whole bloud, by Father and Mother, and then John Breno his younger Brother by the Fa∣thers side only. Guy dying, left a daughter and Heir named Jane, married to the Earl of Bloys, Ne∣phew to the King of France, who after the death of Duke John pretended in the right of his Wife, as daughter and Heir to Guy the elder Brother: but King Edward the third with the State of England, gave sentence for John Breno, Earl of Monford her Uncle, as for him that was next in consanguinity to the dead Duke, and with their Arms the State of England did put him in possession, who slew the Earl of Bloys as before hath been declared,* 1.178 and thereby got possession of that Realm, and held it ever after, and so do his Heirs at this day.

And not long before this again,* 1.179 the like resolu∣tion prevailed in Scotland, between the House of Balliol and Bruse, who were competitors to that Crown, by this occasion that now I will declare.* 1.180 William King of Scots had Issue two Sons, Alexan∣der that Succeeded in the Crown, and David Earl of Huntington: Alexander had Issue another Ale∣xander, and a daughter married to the King of Norway, all which Issue and Line ended about the year 1290. David younger Brother to King Wil∣liam, had Issue two daughters, Margaret and Isabel, Margaret was married to Alain Earl of Galloway, and had Issue by him a daughter that married John Balliol Lord of Harcourt in Normandy, who had Issue by her this John Balliol Founder of Balliol Colledge in Oxford, that now pretended to the Crown, as descended from the eldest daughter of David in the third descent.

Isabel the second daughter of David, was mar∣ried to Robert Bruse, Earl of Cleveland in England, who had Issue by her this Robert Bruse, Earl of Ca∣rick,

the other competitor. Now then the question between these two competitors was, which of them should Succeed, either John Balliol that was Nephew to the elder daughter, or Robert Bruse that was Son to the younger daughter, and so one de∣gree more near to the Stock or Stem then the other. And albeit King Edward the first of England, whose power was dreadful at that day in Scotland, having the matter referred to his arbitrement, gave sen∣tence for John Balliol, and Robert Bruse obeyed for the time, in respect partly of fear, and partly of his Oath that he had made to stand to that Judg∣ment: yet was that sentence held to be unjust in Scotland, and so was the Crown restor'd afterward to Robert Bruse his Son, and his posterity doth hold it unto this day.

* 1.181In England also it self, they alledge the exam∣ples of K. Henry the first, preferred before his Ne∣phew William, Son and Heir to his elder Brother Robert; as also the example of K. John, preferred before his Nephew Arthur, Duke of Britany, for that King Henry the second had four Sons, Henry, Richard, Geffery, and John; Henry died before his Father without Issue, Richard Reigned after him, and died also without Issue: Geffery also died be∣fore his Father, but left a Son named Arthur Duke of Britany, by right of his Mother. But after the death of King Richard, the question was who should Succeed, to wit, either Arthur the Ne∣phew, or John the Uncle, but the matter in Eng∣land was soon desided: for that John the Uncle was preferred before the Nephew Arthur, by rea∣son he was more near to his Brother dead, by a de∣gree then was Arthur: And albeit the King of France and some other Princes abroad opposed themselves for stomack against this Succession of King John, yet say these favourers of the House of Lancaster, that the English inclined still to acknow∣ledge

and admit his right, before his Nephew,* 1.182 and so they proclaimed this King John for King of England, while he was yet in Normandy, I mean Hubert Archbishop of Canterbury, Eleanor the Queen this Mother, Geffery Fitz-peter chief Judge of England (who knew also what law meant there∣in) and others the Nobles and Barons of the Realm, without making any doubt or scruple of his title to the Succession.

And whereas those of the House of York do al∣ledge, that King Richard in his life time,* 1.183 when he was to go to the holy Land, caused his Ne∣phew Arthur to be declared Heir apparent to the Crown, and thereby did shew that his title was the better; they of Lancaster do answer, first, that this declaration of King Richard, was not made by act of Parliament of England, for that King Ri∣chard was in Normandy when he made this decla∣ration, as plainly appeareth both by Polidor and Hollingshed. Secondly,* 1.184 that this declaration was made the sooner by King Richard at that time, thereby to repress and keep down the ambitious humor of his Brother John, whom he feared least in his absence, if he had been declared for Heir ap∣parent, might invade the Crown, as indeed with∣out that, he was like to have done, as may ap∣pear by that which happened in his said Brothers absence,

Thirdly they shew, that this declaration of King Richard was never admitted in England, neither would Duke John suffer it to be admitted, but ra∣ther caused the Bishop of Ely that was left Go∣vernour by King Richard, with consent of the No∣bility, to renounce the said declaration of King Richard in favour of Arthur, and to take a con∣trary Oath to admit the said John, if King Richard his Brother should die without Issue; and the like Oath did the said Bishop of Ely, together with the

Archbishop of Roan, that was left in equal Autho∣rity with him,* 1.185 exact and take of the Citizens of London, when they gave them their Priviledges and Liberties of Commonalty, as Hollingshed recordeth.

And lastly, the said Hollinshed writeth, how that King Richard being now come home again from the War of Jerusalem, and void of that jealousie of his Brother, which before I have mentioned; he made his last Will and Testament, and ordained in the same,* 1.186 that his Brother John should be his suc∣cessor, and caused all the Nobles there present to swear Fealty unto him, as to his next in bloud: for which cause Thomas Walsingham in his story writeth these words;* 1.187 Johannis filius junior Hen∣rici 2. Anglorum regis, & Alienorae Ducissae Aqui∣taniae, non modo jure propinquitatis, sed etiam testa∣mento fratris sui Richardi, designatus est successo post mortem ipsius: which is, John younger Son of Henry the second King of England, and of Eleanor Dutchess of Aquitain, was declared successor of the Crown not only by Law and right of near∣ness of bloud, but also by the Will and Testament of Richard his Brother. Thus much this ancient Chronicler speaketh in the testifying of King John's Title.

By all which examples, that fell out almost within one age in divers Nations over the World, (letting pass many others which the Civilian touch∣ed in his discourse before, for that they are of more ancient times) these favourers of the House of Lan∣caster do infer, that the right of the Uncle before the Nephew, was no new or strange matter in those days of King Edward the third, and that if we will deny the same now, we must call in que∣stion the succession and right of all the Kingdoms and States before-mentioned, of Naples, Sicily, Spain, Britany, Flanders, Scotland, and England,

whose Kings and Princes do evidently hold their Crowns at this day by that very Title, as hath been shewed.

Moreover they say,* 1.188 that touching Law in this point, albeit the most famous Civil Lawyers of the World, be somewhat divided in the same mat∣ter, some of them favouring the Uncle, and some other the Nephew, and that for different reasons: as Baldus Oldratus, Panormitanus, and divers others alledged by Gulielm•••• Benedictus,* 1.189 in his Re∣petitions in favour of the Nephew against the Uncle. And on the other side, for the Uncle before the Nephew, Bartolus, Alexander, Decius, Altia∣tus, Cujatius, and many other their followers, are recounted in the same place by the same man; yet in the end, Baldus that is held for head of the contrary side, for the Nephew,* 1.190 after all reasons weighed to and fro, he cometh to conclude, that seeing rigour of Law runneth only with the Uncle, for that indeed he is properly nearest in bloud by one degree, and that only indulgence and custom serveth for the Nephew, permitting him to repre∣sent the place of his Father, who is dead; they re∣solve (I say) that whensoever the Uncle is born before the Nephew, and the said Uncle's elder Bro∣ther died before his Father, (as it happened in the case of John of Gaunt, and of King Richard) there the Uncle by right may be preferred, for that the said elder Brother could not give or transmit that thing to his Son, which was not in himself before his Father died, and consequently his Son could not represent that which his Father never had: and this for the Civil Law.

Touching our Common Laws,* 1.191 the favourers of Lancaster do say two or three things; first, that the right of the Crown, and interest thereunto, is not decided expresly in our law, nor is it a plea subject to the common rules thereof, but is supe∣riour

and more eminent; and therefore that men may not judge of this as of other pleas of particu∣lar persons, nor is the Tryal alike, nor the com∣mon maxims or rules always of force in this thing, as in others, which they prove by divers particu∣lar cases; as for example, the Widow of a private man shall have her thirds of all his Lands for her Dowry,* 1.192 but not the Queen of the Crown. Again, if a private man have many daughters, and die seized of Lands in Fee-simple, without Heir Male, his said daughters by law shall have the said Lands as co-partners equally divided between them, but not the daughters of a King, for that the eldest must carry away all, as though she were Heir male. The like also is seen, if a Baron match with a Feme that is an Inheritrix, and have Issue by her, though she die, yet shall he enjoy her Lands during his life, as Tenant by courtesie; but it is not so in the Crown, if a man marry with a Queen, as King Philip did with Queen Mary: and so finally they say also, that albeit in private mens possessions, the common course of our law is, that if the Father die seized of Land in Fee-simple, leaving a younger Son and a Nephew, that is to say a Child of his Elder Son, the Nephew shall succeed his Grandfather, as also he shall do his Un∣cle, if of three Brethren the elder die without Issue, and the second leave a Son: yet in the inheritance and succession of the Crown it goeth otherwise, as by all the fotmer eight examples have been shew∣ed, and this is the first they say about the com∣mon law.

The second point which they affirm is, that the ground of our Common Laws,* 1.193 consisteth principal∣ly and almost only, about this point of the Crown, in custom, for so say they we see by experience, that nothing in effect, is written thereof in the common law, and all old Lawyers do affirm this

point, as were Ranulfus de Granvilla in his books of the laws and customs of England, which he wrote in the time of King Henry the second, and Judge Fortescue in his book of the praise of English laws, which he compiled in the time of King Henry the sixth, and others. Whereof these men do infer, that seeing there are so many presidents and exam∣ples alledged before, of the Uncles case preferred before the Nephew, not only in foreign Countries, but also in England, for this cause (I say) they do affirm, that our common laws, cannot but favour also this title, and consequently must needs like well of the interest of Lancaster, as they avouch that all the best old Lawyers did in those times: and for example they do Record two by name, of the most famous learned men which those ages had,* 1.194 who not only defended the said title of Lan∣caster in those days, but also suffered much for the same. The one was the forenamed Judge Fortes∣cue, Chancellor of England, and named Father of the common laws in that age, who fled out of England with the Queen, Wife of King Henry the sixth, and with the Prince her Son, and lived in banishment in France, where it seemeth also that he wrote his learned book intituled, de laudibus le∣gum Angliae. And the other was, Sir Thomas Thorpe, chief Baron of the Exchequer,* 1.195 in the same Reign of the same King Henry the sixth, who be∣ing afterward put into the Tower by the Princes of the House of York, for his eager defence of the ti∣tle of Lancaster, remained there a long time, and after being delivered, was beheaded at High-gate in a tumult, in the days of King Edward the fourth.* 1.196

These then are the allegations which the favou∣rers of the House of Lancaster do lay down for the justifying of the title, affirming first, that John of Gaunt Duke of Lancaster ought to have succeeded [ 1]

his Father King Edward the third, immediately be∣fore King Richard; and that injury was done un∣to him, in that King Richard was preferred. And [ 2] secondly, that King Richard (were his right never so good) was justly and orderly deposed, for his evil Government, by lawful authority of the Com∣monwealth. [ 3] And thirdly, that after his deposition, Henry Duke of Lancaster, Son and Heir of John of Gaunt, was next in succession every way, both in respect of the right of his Father, as also for that he was two degrees nearer to the King deposed, then was Edmond Mortimer descended of Leonel Duke of Clarence; and these are the principal and substantial proofs of their right and title.

* 1.197But yet besides these, they do add all these o∣ther arguments and considerations following: first, that whatsoever right or pretence the House of York had,* 1.198 the Princes thereof did forfeit and lose the same many times, by their conspiracies, rebellions and attainders; as namely Richard Earl of Cambridge, that married the Lady Anne Morti∣mer,* 1.199 and by her took his pretence to the Crown, was convicted of a conspiracy against King Henry the fifth in Southampton, as before I have said, and there was put to death for the same, by Judgment of the King, and of all his Peers, in the year 1415. the Duke of York his elder Brother, being one of the Jury that condemned him▪ This Earl Richards Son, also named Richard, coming afterward by the death of his Uncle, to be Duke of York, first of all made open claim to the Crown, by the ti∣tle of York. But yet after many oaths sworn and broken to King Henry the sixth, he was attainted of Treason: I mean both he and Edward his Son, then Earl of March,* 1.200 which afterward was King, with the rest of his off-spring even to the ninth de∣gree (as Stow affirmeth) in a Parliament holden at Coventry in the year 1459. and in the 38. year of

the Reign of the said King Henry, and the very next year after the said Richard was slain in the same quarrel: but the House of Lancaster (say these men) was never attainted of any such crime.

Secondly they say,that the House of York did [ 2] enter only by violence, and by infinite bloudshed,* 1.201 and by wilful murthering not only of divers of the Nobility both Spiritual and Temporal, but also of both King Henry the sixth himself,* 1.202 and of Prince Edward his Son, and by a certain popular and mutinous election of a certain few Souldiers in Smithfield at London; and this was the entrance of the House of York to the Crown: whereas King Henry the fourth, first King of the House of Lan∣caster, entred without bloudshed, as hath been shewed, being called home by the requests and letters of the people and Noblity, and his election and admission to the Crown, was orderly, and authorized by general consent of Parliament, in the doing thereof.

Thirdly they alledge, that King Henry the sixth [ 3] put down by the House of York,* 1.203 was a good and holy King, and had Reigned peaceably 40. years, and never committed any act, worthy deposition; whereas King Richard the second had many ways deserved the same, as himself came to acknow∣ledge, and thereupon made a personal solemn and publick resignation of the said Crown unto his Cousen Henry of Lancaster, the which justified much the said Henry's entrance.

Fourthly they alledge,* 1.204 that the House of Lancaster [ 4] had been in possession of the Crown upon the point of 60•• years, before the House of York did raise trouble unto them for the same, in which time their Title was confirmed by many Parliaments, Oaths, approbations, and publick Acts of the Commonwealth, and by the Nobles, Peers and peo∣ple

thereof, and by the States both Spiritual and Temporal, and with the consent of all foreign Na∣tions; so that if there had been any fault in their first entrance, yet was this sufficient to authorize the same, as we see it was in the title of King Wil∣liam the Conqueror, and of his two Sons King William Rufus, and King Henry the first, that en∣tred before their elder Brether, and of King John, that entred before his Nephew, and of his Son King Henry the third that entred after his Fathers deprivation, and after the election of Prince Lewis of France, as also of Edward the third that entred by deposition of his own Father: of all which Titles, yet might there have been doubt made at the beginning, but by time and durance of possession, and by confirmation of the Com∣monwealth, they were made lawful, and without controversie.

* 1.205Fifthly they say, that if we consider the four King Henrys that have been of the House of Lan∣caster, to wit, the 4, 5, 6, and 7, and do compare them with the other four that have been of the House of York, to wit, Edward the fourth, Richard the third, Henry the eighth, and Edward the sixth, and all their acts both at home and abroad, what quietness or troubles have passed, and what the Commonwealth of England hath gotten or lost under each of them, we shall find, that God hath seemed to prosper and allow much more of those of Lan∣caster, then of those of York, for that under those of Lancaster the Realm hath enjoyed much more peace, and gaining far greater honour, and en∣larged more the dominions of the Crown then un∣der those of York, and that it had done also much more if the seditions, rebellions, and troubles rai∣sed and brought in by the Princes of the House of York, had not hindered the same, as say these men, it was evidently seen in the time of King

Henry the sixth, when their contention against the Princes of the House of Lancaster, was the principal cause why all the English States in France were lost, and what garboils and troubles at home have ensued afterwards, and how infinite mur∣thers and men slaughters with change of Nobility have been caused hereby, and increased after∣ward under the Government and rule of the Prin∣ces of York, needeth not (say these men) to be declared.

One thing only they note in particular, which [ 6] I will not omit (and let it be the sixth note) and that is,* 1.206 that the Princes of York have not only been rigorous and very bloudy unto their adver∣saires, but also among themselves, and to their kindred, which these men take to be a just punish∣ment of God upon them: And for proof hereof, they alledge, first, the Testimony of Polydor, who albeit he were a great advocate of the House of York, as before hath been noted, for that he lived and wrote his story under King Henry the eighth, yet in one place he breaketh forth into these words, of the Princes of this House. Cum non haberent jam inimicos in quos saevitiam explerent,* 1.207 & saturarent, in semetipsos crudelitatem exercue∣runt, proprioque sanguine s••as pollure manus.

When these Princes now had brought to destruction all those of the House of Lancaster, so as they had no more enemies upon whom to fill and satiate their cruelty, then began they to exercise their fierceness upon themselves, and to imbrew their hands with their own bloud.

Thus far Polydor.

Secondly they do shew the same by the deeds of both sides, for that the love, union, trust,* 1.208 con∣fidence, faithfulness, kindness, and Loyalty of the Princes of Lancaster, the one towards the other, is singular and notorious, as may appear by the acts and studious endeavours of the Lord Henry Bi∣shop

of Winchester, and Cardinal, and of the Lord Thomas Duke of Exceter and Marquis of Dorset, Brothers of King Henry the fourth, to whom and to his Children, they were most faithful, friendly and loyal, as also by the noble proceedings of the Lords Thomas Duke of Clarence, John Duke of Bedford, and Humphry Duke of Glocester, Sons of the for••said Henry the fourth, and brothers of King Henry the fifth, (the first of which three gave his bloud in his service, and the other two spent their whole lives in defence, of the dignity of the English Crown, the one as Regent of France, the other as Protector of England: by the wor∣thy acts also and renowned faithfulness of the Dukes of Somerset, Cousen-je••••ans to the said King Henry the fourth, and to his Children, and the proper Ancestors of King Henry the VII▪ all which Dukes of Somerset, of the House of Lanca∣ster, (being five or six in number) did not only as Polydor saith,* 1.209 assist and help their Soveraign, and the whole Realm, Vigiliis curis & periculis, that is to say, with watchfulness, car••s, and offering themselves to dangers, but also four of them one after another, to wit, Edmond with his three Sons, Henry, Edmond, and John, (whereof two suc∣cessively after him were Dukes of Somerset, and the Marquess of Dorset) were all four (I say) as so many Maccabees, slain in the defence of their Country and Family, by the other faction of the House of York, which thing say these men, shew∣ed evidently both a marvelous confidence that these men had in their quarrel, as also a great bles∣sing of God towards that Family, that they had such love and union among themselves.

* 1.210But now in the House of York these men en∣deavour to shew all the contrary, to wit, that there was nothing else but suspition, hatred, and emulations among themselves, and extreme cruel∣ty

of one against the other;* 1.211 and so we see that as soon almost as Edward Duke of York came to be King, George Duke of Clarence his younger Bro∣ther conspired against him, and did help to drive him out again, both from the Realm and Crown. In recompence whereof his said elder Brother after∣ward, notwithstanding all the reconciliation, and many others that passed between them, of new love and union, caused him upon new grudges to be taken and murthered privily at Calis, as all the World knoweth. And after both their deaths, Richard their third Brother,* 1.212 murthered the two Sons of his said elder Brother, and kept in prison whiles he lived, the Son and H••ir of his second Brother; I mean the young Earl of Warwick, though he were but a very Child, whom King Henry the seventh afterward put to death.

But King Henry the eighth that succeeded them,* 1.213 passed all the rest in cruelty, toward his own kin¦dred, for he weeded out almost all that ever he could find of the Bloud Royal of York, and this either for emulation, or causes of meer suspicion only. For first of all he beheaded Edmond de la Pole Duke of Suffolk, Son of his own Aunt Lady Eli∣zabeth, that was Sister to King Edward the fourth, which Edward was Grandfather to King Henry, as is evident.* 1.214 The like destruction King Henry went about to bring to Richard de la Pole Brother to the said Edmond, if he had not escaped his hands by flying the Realm, whom yet he never ceased to pursue, until he was slain in the battel of Pavia in service of the King of France, by whose death was extinguished the noble house of the de la Poles.

Again the said King Henry put to death Edward Duke of Buckingham, high Constable of England,* 1.215 the Son of his great Aunt, Sister to the Queen Elizabeth his Grandmother, and thereby over∣threw also that worthy House of Buckingham, and

after again he put to death his Cousen-jerman Henry C••urt••••y Marquess of Excester, Son of the Lady Ca∣therine his Aunt,* 1.216 that was Daughter of King Ed∣ward the fourth, and attained joyntly with him, his Wife the Lady Gertrude, taking from her all her goods lands and inheritance, and committed to per∣petual prison their only Son and Heir Lord Edward Courtney, being then but a Child of seven years old, which remained so there▪ until many years after he was set at liberty, and restored to his living by Queen Mary.

Moreover he put to death the Lady Margaret Plantagenet,* 1.217 Countess of Salisbury, Daughter of George Duke of Clarence, that was Brother of his Grandfather King Edward the fourth, and with her he put to death also her eldest Son and Heir Thomas Poole, Lord Montague, and committed to perpetual prison (where soon after also he ended his life) a little Infant named Henry Poole his Son and Heir, and condemned to death by act of Parliament (al∣though absent) Renald Poole Brother to the said Lord Montague Cardinal in Rome, whereby he over∣threw also the Noble House of Salisbury and War∣wick: neither need I to go further in this relation, though these men do note also,* 1.218 how Edward the sixth put to death two of his own Uncles, the Sey∣mers (or at least it was done by his authority) and how that under her Majesty that now is, the Queen of Scotland,* 1.219 that was next in kin of any other living and the chief titler of the House of York, hath been put to death.

* 1.220Lastly they do note, (and I may not omit it) that there is no noble house standing at this day in England in the antient state of calling that it had, and in that dignity and degree that it was in when the House of York entered to the Crown (if it be above the State of a Barony) but only such as defen∣ded the right and interest of the Houses of Lancaster,

and that all other great Houses that took part with the House of York, and did help to ruine the House of Lancaster, are either ceased since, or exti••pated and overthrown by the same House of York it self which they assisted to get the Crown, and so at this present they are either united to the Crown by con∣fiscation, or transferred to other lineages that are strangers to them who possessed them before. As for example, the ancient Houses of England, that re∣main at this day and were standing when the House of York began their title, are the House of Arundel,* 1.221 Oxford, Northumberland, Westmerland, and Shrews∣bury (for all others that are in England at this day, above the dignity of Barons, have been advanced since that time) and all these five houses were these that principally did stick unto the House of Lancaster, as is evident by all English Chronicles. For that the Earl of Arundel brought in King Henry the fourth,* 1.222 first King of the House of Lancaster, and did help to place him in the Dignity-Royal, coming out of France with him. The Earl of Oxford,* 1.223 and his Son the Lord Vere, were so earnest in the defence of King Henry the sixth, as they were both slain by King Edward the fourth, and John Earl of Oxford was one of the principal assistants of Henry the seventh, to take the Crown from Richard the third.* 1.224 The House of Northumberland also was a principal aider to Henry the fourth in getting the Crown, and two Earls of that name, to wit, Henry the second, and third, were slain in the quarrel of King Henry the sixth; one in the battel of St. Albans, and the other of Saxton, and a third Earl named Henry the fourth fled into Scotland with the said King Henry the sixth.* 1.225 The House of Westmerland also was chief advancer of Henry the fourth to the Crown, and the second Earl of that House, was slain in the party of Henry the sixth in the said battel of Saxton,* 1.226 and John Earl of Shrewsbury was likewise slain in defence of the

title of Lancaster in the battel of N••rthampton; And I omit many other great services and faithful en∣deavoure which many Princes of these five noble an∣cient houses, did in the defence of the Lancastrian Kings, which these men say, that God hath rewar∣ded wi•••• continuance of their houses unto this day.

* 1.227But on the contrary side, these men do note, that all the old houses that principally assisted. The title of York, are now extinguished, and that chiefly by the Kings themselves of that house, as for example, the principal Peers that assisted the family of York, were M••••••ray Duke of Norfolk, de la Poole Duke of Suffolk▪ the Earl of Sa••is••u••y and the Earl of Warwi••k, of all which the event was this.

* 1.228John Moubray Duke of N••rfolk the first conside∣rate of the House of York, died soon after the exal∣tation of Edward the fourth, without Issue, and so that name of M••ubray ceased, and the title of the D••ked••m of Norfolk was transferred afterward by King Richard the third, unto the House of the Ho∣ward••.

* 1.229Joh•• de l•• Poole Duke of Suffolk, that married the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of King Edward the fourth, and was his great asisstant, though he left three Sons, yet all were extinguished without Issue, by help of the House of York, for that Edmond the eldest Son Duke of Suff••••k was beheaded by King Henry the eighth, and his Brother Richard driven out of the Realm to his destruction, as before hath been shewed, and John their Brother Earl of Lincolne, was slain at Stock-field in service of King Richard the third, and so ended the Line of de la Pooles.

Richard ••ovel Earl of Salisbury,* 1.230 a chief enemy to the House of Lancaster, and exalter of York, was taken at the battel of Wakefield, and there beheaded, leaving three Sons, Richard, John and George: Ri∣chard was Earl both of Salisbury and Warwick, sur∣named the great Earl of Warwick, and was he that

placed King Edward the fourth in the Royal Seat, by whom yet he was slain afterward at Barnet, and the Lands of these two great Earldoms of Salisbury and Warwick, were united to the Crown by his at∣t••••inder. John his younger Brother was Marquess of Montague, and after all assistance given to the said King Edward the fourth of the House of York, was slain also by him at Barnet, and his Lands in like manner confiscated to the Crown, which yet were never restored again: George Nevel their younger Brother was Archbishop of York, and was taken and sent prisoner by the said King Edward unto Guyens, who shortly pined away and died; and this was the end of all the principal friends, helpers and advancers of the House of York, as these men do alledge.

Wherefore they do conclude, that for all these reasons, and many more that might be alledged, the title of Lancaster must needs seem the beter title, which they do confirm by the general consent of all the Realm, at King Henry the seventh his coming in to recover the Crown from the House of York,* 1.231 as from usurpers•• for having had the victory against King Richard, they Crowned him presently in the Field in the right of Lancaster, before he married with the House of York, which is a token that they esteemed his title of Lancaster sufficient of it self, to bear away the Crown, albeit for better ending of strife he took to Wife also the Lady Elizabeth Heir of the House of York, as hath been said, and this may be sufficient for the present, in this controversy.

CHAP. V. Of five Principal Houses or Lineages that do or may pretend to the Crown of England, which are the Houses of Scotland, Suffolk, Clarence, Britany, and Portugal, and first of all, of the House of Scotland, which containeth the pretentions of the King of Scots and the Lady Arabella.

HAving declared in the former Chapter, so much as appartaineth unto the general controversie between the two principal H••••ses and Royal fami∣lies of Lancaster and York, it remaineth now that I lay before you the particular challenges, claims and pretentions, which divers houses and families de∣scended (for the most part) of these two, have a∣mong themselves, for their titles to the same.

* 1.232All which families, may be reduced to three or four general heads. For that some do pretend by the House of Lancaster alone, as those families prin∣cipally that do descend of the Line Royal of Portu∣gal: some other do pretend by the House of York only, as those that are descended, of George Duke of Clarence, second Brother to King Edward the fourth. Some again will seem to pretend from both Houses joyned together, as all those that descend from King Henry the seventh, which are the Houses of Scotland and Suffolk; albeit (as before hath ap∣peared) others do deny that these families have any true part in the House of Lancaster, which point shall afterward be discussed more at large. And fourthly, others do pretend, before the two Houses of York and Lancaster were divided, as the Infanta

of Spain, Dutchess of Savoy, the Prince of Loraign and such others, as have descended of the House of Britany and France, of all which pretences and pre∣tenders, we shall speak in order, and consider with indifferency what is said or alledged of every side, to and fro, beginning first with the House of Scot∣land, as with that which in common opinion of vul∣gar men, is taken to be first and nearest (though others deny it) for that they are descended of the first and eldest daughter of King Henry the seventh, as before in the third chapter hath been declared.

First,* 1.233 then two persons are known to be of this house at this day that may have action and claim to the Crown of England; The first is▪ Lord James the sixth of that name presently King of Scotland, who descended of Margaret eldest daughter of King Hen∣ry the seventh, that was married by her first marriage to James the fourth King of Scots, and by him had Issue James the fifth, and he again the Lady Mary Mother to this King now pretendant.

The second person that may pretend in this house, is the Lady Arabella,* 1.234 descended of the self same Queen Margaret by her second marriage, unto Archibald Douglas Earl of Anguis, by whom she had Marga∣ret that was married to Matthew Steward Earl of Lenox, and by him had Charles her second Son Earl of Lenox, who by Elizabeth daughter of Sir Wil∣liam Candish Knight in England, had Issue this Ara∣bella now alive.

First then, for the King of Scots,* 1.235 those that do favour his cause, (whereof I confess that I have not found very many in England) do alledge, that he is the first and chiefest pretender of all others, and next in succession, for that he is the first person that is descended (as you see) of the eldest daughter of [ 1] King Henry the seventh, and that in this descent there cannot bastardy or other lawful impediment be avowed, why he should not succeed according to

the priority of his pretention and birth: And more∣over, [ 2] secondly, they do alledge that it would be great∣ly for the honour and profit of England, for that hereby the two Realms of England and Scotland, should come to be joyned, a point long sought for, [ 3] and much to be wished; and finally such as are affec∣ted to his Religion do add, that hereby true religion will come to be more settled also and establishes in England, which they take to be a matter of no small consequence, and consideration, and this in effect is that which the favours of this Prince do alledge in his behalf.

* 1.236But on the other side, there want not many that do accompt this pretence of the King of Scots nei∣ther good nor just, nor any way expedient for the State of England; and they do answer largely to all the allegations before mentioned in his behalf.

And first of all, as concerning his title, by near∣ness of succession, they make little accompt thereof, both for that in it self (they say) it may easily be overthrown, and proved to be of no validity; as al∣so for that if it were never so good, yet might it for other considerations be rejected, and made frustrate, as our friend the Civil Lawyer, hath largely and learnedly proved these days; in our hearing.

To begin then to speak first of the King of Scots title by nearness of bloud, these men do affirm, that albeit there be not alledged any bastardy in his des∣cent, from King Henry the seventh his daughter, as there is in her second marriage against the Lady Ara∣bella: yet are there other reasons enough to frustrate and overthrow this claim and pretention, and first [ 1] of all, for that he is not (say these men) of the house of Lancaster by Lady Blanch the only true Heir there∣of,* 1.237 as before hath in part been shewed, and shall be afterward more largely, but only by Catharine Swin∣ford, whose Children being unlawfully begotten, and but of the false bloud, whether they may by that le∣gitimation

of Parliament, that was given them, be made inheritable unto the Crown before the lawful daughter of the whole bloud, shall be discussed af∣terward in place convenient, when we shall talk of the House of Portugal: but in the mean space, these men do presume, that the King of Scots is but only of the House of York, and then affirming farther that the ti••le of the House of Lancaster, is better then that of York, as by many arguments the favours of Lancaster have endeavoured to shew in the former Chapter, they do infer that this is sufficient, to make void all claim of the King of Scots, that he may pre∣tend by nearness of bloud, especially seeing there want not at this day pretenders enough of the other House of Lancaster to claim their right, so as the House of York shall not need to enter, for fault of true H••irs, and this is the first argument which is made against the Scottish King and all the rest of his lineage, by the favourers and followers of the said House of Lancaster. [ 2]

A second argument is made against the said Kings succession not by them of Lancaster,* 1.238 but rather by those of his own House of York, which is founded upon his foreign birth, by which they hold that he is excluded, by the common laws of England from succession to the Crown, for that the said laws do bar all strangers born out of the Realm, to inherit within the Land; and this is an argument handled very largely between the foresaid books of Mr: Hales, Mr. Morgan and my Lord of Ross; and for that the same doth concern much the pretentions and claims of divers others, that be strangers also by birth, and yet do pretend to this succession, as before hath been declared: I shall repeat briefly in this place, the sum of that which is alledged of both parties in this behalf.

First then, to the general assertion,* 1.239 that no stran∣ger at all may inherit any thing, by any means in

England, the said books of Mr. Morgan and my Lord Ross do answer, that in that universal sense, it is false, for that it appeareth plainly by that which is set down by law in the seventh and ninth years of King Edward the fourth, and in the eleventh, and fourteenth of King Henry the fourth, that a stran∣ger may purchase Land in England; as also that he may inherit by his Wife if he should marry an In∣heritrix.

* 1.240Secondly, they say, that the true maxim of rule against the Inheritance of strangers, is grounded on∣ly upon a Statute made in the 25th. year of King Ed∣ward the third, and is to be restrained unto proper inheritances only, to wit, that no person born out of all the allegiance of the King of England, whose Father and Mother were not of the same allegiance at the time of his birth (for so are the words of the Statute) shall be able to have or demand any heri∣tage within the same allegiance, as Heir to any person.

* 1.241Thirdly they say, that this axiom or general Rule cannot any way touch or be applied to the suc∣cession of the Crown, first, for that as hath been de∣clared before, no Axiom or Maxim of our Law can touch or be understood of matters concerning the Crown, except express mention be made thereof, and that the Crown is priviledged in many points that other private heritages be not.

And secondly, for that the Crown cannot proper∣ly be called an Inheritance of Allegiance or within Allegiance, as the words of the said Statute do stand, for that it is not holden of any superior,* 1.242 nor with allegiance, but immediately from God. And third∣ly, for that the Statute meaneth plainly of Inheri∣tances by descent (for otherwise as is said an Alien may hold Lands by purchase) but the Crown is a thing incorporate, and descendeth not according to the common course of other private inheritances,

but rather goeth by Succession as other Incorpora∣tions do, in sign whereof, no King can by Law a∣void his Letters Patents by reason of his noneage, as other common Heirs under age do, but he is ever presumed to be of full age, in respect of his Crown, even as a Prior, Parson, Dean, or other Head In∣corporate, is, which can never be presumed to be within age; and so, as any such Head Incorporate though he be an Alien, might inherit or demand lands in England for his Incorporation, notwithstanding the former Statute, so much more the Inheritor to the Crown.

Fourthly, they say, that in the very Statute it self there is express exception of Infantes du Roy, by which words, these men do hold to be understood all the Kings Off-spring or Blood Royal, and they do fortifie their proof, for that otherwise King Edward the third being then alive when this Statute against strangers was made, and his Children also, who had dispersed their bloud by marriages over all Christen∣dom, they would never have suffered such a Statute to pass to their own prejudice, if the heritage of the Crown should fall unto them, or any of theirs, that should be born abroad.

And finally,* 1.243 these men do shew how that King Ste∣phen and King Henry the second, born out of the Realm, and of Parents that were not of the allegiance of England when they were born, were yet admitted to the Crown without contradiction, in respect of their forraign birth, which argueth that by the com∣mon course of our old common Laws, there was no such stop against Aliens; and that if the Statute made in King Edward the third his days would have dero∣gated or abridged this ancient liberty, it would have made scpecial mention thereof, which it doth not, as hath been shewed, and by reasons it seemeth, that they have answered sufficienly to this objection of forraign birth, both for the King of Scotland and all

other pretenders that are foreign born, so as by this impediment they may not in right be excluded from their succession.

* 1.244So as now I will return to shew the other reasons of exclusion which men do lay against the House of Scotland, whereof one is urged much by the House of Suffolk, and grounded upon a certain Te∣stament of King Henry the eighth as before hath been touched, by which Testament the said House of Suffolk, that is to say: the Heirs of the Lady Frances, and of the Lady Eleanor, Neeces to King Henry the eighth, by his second Sister Mary, are appointed to succeed in the Crown of England, be∣fore the Heirs of Margaret the first Sister, married in Scotland, if King Henry's own Children should come to die without Issue, as now they are all like to do, and this Testament had both the Kings hand or stamp unto it, and divers Witnesses names be∣sides, and was enrolled in the Chancery, and was authorized by two Acts of Parliament, two wit, in the 28. and 35. years of King Henry, in which Par∣liaments, authority was given to the said King, to dispose and ordain of this point of succession, as he and his learned Councel should think best for the weal publick.

* 1.245This is the effect of this Argument, which albeit the former Books of Mr. Morgan and the Bishop of Ross, and some other of the Scottish favourers, do seek to refut by divers means and ways, as before in the first chapter of this discourse is set down, and especially by the Testimony of the Lord Paget, and Sir Edward Montague, that said the stamp was put unto it after the King was past sense, yet they of of the House of Suffolk are not satisfied without that answer; for that they say that at least, howsoever that matter of the late sealing be, yet seeing the King willed it to be done, drawn out and sealed, it appeareth hereby that this was the last Will and

judgment of King Henry, and not revoaked by him: which is sufficient (say these men) to an∣swer the intent and meaning of the Realm, and the authority committed to him, by the foresaid two Acts of Parliament, for the disposing of the suc∣cession, which two Acts (say these men) contai∣ning the whole authority of the Commonwealth, so seriously and diliberately given, in so weighty an affair, may not in reason be deluded or overthrown now by the saying of one or two men, who for plea∣sing or contenting of the time wherein they speak, might say or guess that the Kings memory was past, when the stamp was put unto his Testament, which if it were so; yet if he commanded (as hath been said) the thing to be done, while he had memory (as it may appear he did; both by the Witnesses that subscribed, and by the enrollment thereof in the Chancery) no man can deny, but that this was the King's last Will, which is enough for satisfying the Parliaments intention, as these men do affirm.

A fourth argument is made against the King of Scots Succession,* 1.246 by all the other competitors joint∣ly, and it seemeth to them, to be an argument that hath no solution or reply, for that it is grounded upon a plain fresh Statute, made in the Parliament holden in the 27 year (if I erre not) of her Ma∣jesty that now is; wherein it is enacted and decreed, that whosoever shall be convinced to conspire, at∣tempt, or procure the death of the Queen, or to be privy or accessary to the same, shall lose all right, title, pretence, claim or action, that the same par∣ties or their Heirs have or may have, to the Crown of England. Upon which Statute, seeing that after∣ward the Lady Mary late Queen of Scotland, Mo∣ther of this King, was condemned and executed by the authority of the said Parliament, it seeemeth evident, unto these men, that this King who pre∣tendeth all his right to the Crown of England by his said Mother, can have none at all.

And these are the reasons, proofs and arguments, which divers men do alledge against the right of succession, pretended by the King of Scots. But now if we leave this point which concerneth the very right it self of his succession by bloud, and will come to examine other reasons and considerations of State, and those in particular which before I have mentioned that his favourers do alledge, utility and common good that may be presumed will rise to the Realm of England by his admission to our Crown, as also the other point also of establish∣ment of Religion by them mentioned, then I say, these other men that are against his entrance, do produce many other reasons and considerations al∣so, of great conveniencies (as to them they seem) against this point of admission and their reasons are these that follow.

* 1.247First touching the publick good of the English Commonwealth, by the uniting of both Realms of England and Scotland together, these men do say, that it is very doubtful and disputable whether the state of England shall receive good or harm there∣by, [ I] if the said union could be brought to pass. First, for that the state and condition of Scotland well con∣sidered, it seemeth, that it can bring no other commodity to England, then increase of Subjects, and those rather to participate the commodities and riches of England, then to import any from Scotland. And then secondly, the aversion and na∣tural alienation of that people, from the English, and their ancient inclination to joyn with the French and Irish against us, maketh it very proba∣ble, that, that subjection of theirs to the Crown of England would not long endure, as by experience we have seen, since the time of King Edward the first, when after the death of their King Alexan∣der the third, without Issue, they chose King Ed∣ward to be their King, delivered their Towns and

Fortresses into his hands, did swear him Fealty, received his Deputy or Vice-Roy,* 1.248 as Polydor at large declareth; And yet all this served afterward to no other effect but only Slaughter, Bloud-shed, and infinite Losses and Charges of England.

Thirdly, they say, That if the King of Scots [ 3] should come to possess the Crown of England,* 1.249 he cannot chuse (at least for many years) but to stand in great jealousie of so many other Competitors of the English Bloud-Royal as he shall find in England, against whom he must needs fortifie himself by those other Foreign Nations that may be presumed to be most sure unto him, though most contrary by natural inclination, and least tollerable in Govern∣ment to English-men, as are the Scots of whom he is born, and Danes wi••h whom he is allied, and French of whom he is descended, and of the unci∣vil Part of Ireland, with whom one great part of his Realm hath most Conjunction; the Authority and sway of which four Nations in England, and over English-men, what trouble it may work, every wise man may easily conjecture. Besides that, the Scotch-men themselves (especially those of the Nobility) do openly profess, That they desire not this Con∣junction and Subordination unto England, which in no wise they can bear, both for the aversion they have to all English Government over them, as also for that their Liberties are far greater (as now they live) than in that case it would be suffered, their King coming hereby to be of greater Power to force them to the form of English Subjection, as no doubt but in time he would.

And seeing the greatest utility that in this Case by reason and probability can be hoped for by this Union, is, That the Scotish Nation should come to be advanced in England, and to be made of the Nobility both Temporal and Spiritual, and of the Privy-Council, and other like Dignities of Credit

and Confidence, (for otherwise no union or amity can be hoped for;)* 1.250 and considering, That the King, both for his own safety, (as hath been said) as al∣so for gratitude and love to his allied Friends, must needs plant them about him in chief places of Cre∣dit, which are most opposite to English Natures; and by little and little (through occasion of Emu∣lations and of Controversies that will fall out daily betwixt such diversity of Nations) he must needs secretly begin to favour and fortifie his own,* 1.251 as we read that William the Conquerour did his Normands, and Canutus before him his Danes, to the incredi∣ble Calamity of the English Nation, (though other∣wise neither of them was of themselves either an evil King, or an Enemy to the English-Bloud, but driven hereunto for their own safety, and for that it was impossible to stand Newter in such national Contentions.) If all this (I say) fell out so then, as we know it did, and our Ancestors felt it to their extreme Ruine, what other effect can be hop'd for now, by this violent union of Nations that are by nature so dis-united and opposite, as are the English, Scotch, Irish, Danish, French, and other on them depending, which by this means must needs be planted together in England.

* 1.252And if we read that the whole Realm of Spain did refuse to admit St. Lewis King of France to be their King in Spain, (to whom yet by Law of Suc∣cession it was evident, and confessed by the Spani∣ards themselves (as their Chronicler Garibay wri∣teth) that the Right most clearly did appertain,* 1.253 by his Mother Lady Blanch, eldest Daughter and Heir of King Alonso IX.) and that they did this on∣ly for that he was a French-man, and might there∣by bring the French to have chief Authority in Spain. And if for this Cause they did agree together to give the Kingdom rather to Ferdinando III. that was Son of Lady Berenguela, younger Sister to the

said Lady Blanch; and if this determination at that time was thought to be wise and provident, (tho' against all right of Lineal Succession;) and if we see that it had good success, for that it endureth unto this day) what shall we say in this case, (say these men) where the King in question is not yet a St. Lewis, nor his Title to England so clear as that other was to Spain, and the aversion ••etwixt his Nation and ours much greater than was that be∣twixt the French and Spanish? Thus they do rea∣son.

Again,* 1.254 we heard out of the discourse made by the Civilian before, how the States of Portugal, after the death of their King Don Ferdinando, the se∣cond of that Name, (who left one only Daughter and Heir named Lady Beatrix, married unto John I. King of Castile, to whom the Succession without all Controversie did appertain) they rather deter∣mined to chuse for their King a Bastard-brother of the said Don Ferdinando, named John, than to ad∣mit the true Inheritrix Beatrix with the Govern∣ment of the Castilians, by whom yet (they being much the richer People) the Portugals might hope to reap far greater utility than English-men can do by Scotland, considering it is the poorer Countrey and Nation. And this is that in effect which these men do answer in this behalf; noting also by the way, that the Romans themselves, with all their Power, could never bring Union or Peace between these two Nations of England and Scotland, nor hold the Scots and North-Irish in Obedience of any Authority in England, and so in the end they were enforced to cut them off,* 1.255 and to make that famous Wall begun by Adrian, and pursued by other Em∣perours, to divide them from England, and bar them from joyning as all the World knoweth; and much less shall any one King in England now, hold them all in Obedience, let him be of what Nation he

will. And this for the utility that may be hoped for by this Union.

* 1.256 But now for the point alledged by the favourers of Scotland about establishment of true Religion in England by the entrance of this King of Scots; these other men do hold that this is the worst and most dangerous point of all other, considering what the state of Religion is in Scotland at this day, and how different, or rather opposite to that form which in England is maintained▪ and when the Archbi∣shops, Bishops, Deans, Archdeacons, and other such of Ecclesiastical and Honourable Dignities of Eng∣land shall consider that no such Dignity or Promo∣tion is left now standing in Scotland, no nor any Cathedral or Collegiate Church is remained on foot, with the Ren••s and Dignities thereunto appertai∣ning; and when our Nobility shall remember how the Nobility of Scotland is subject at this day to a few ordinary and common Ministers, without any Head, who in their Synods and Assemblies have Authority to put to the Horn, and drive out of the Realm any Noble-man whatsoever, without reme∣dy or redress, except he will yield and humble him∣self to them; and that the King himself standeth in aw of this exorbitant and popular power of his Mi∣nisters, and is content to yield thereunto. It is to be thought (say these men) that few English, be they of what Religion or Opinion soever, will shew themselves forward to receive such a King, in re∣spect of his Religion, that hath no better Order in his own at home. And thus much concerning the King of Scotland.

* 1.257Now then it remaineth that we come to treat of the Lady Arabella, second Branch of the House of Scotland, touching whose Title (though much of that which hath been said before, for or against the King of Scotland, may also be understood to apper∣tain unto her, for that she is of the same House,

yet) I shall in this place repeat in few words the principal points that are alledged in her behalf or prejudice.

First of all then is alledged for her, and by her ••a∣vourers, [ 1] that she is descended of the foresaid La∣dy Margaret, eldest Daughter of King Henry VII. by her second Marriage with Archibald Douglas Earl of Anguis, and that she is in the third degree only from her; for that she is the Daughter of Charles Stuart, who was Son of Margaret Countess of Lenox, Daughter to the said Lady Margaret Queen of Scots; so as this Lady Arabella is but Neece once removed unto the said Queen Margaret, to wit, in equal degree of descent with the King of Scots; which King being excluded (as the favou∣rers of this Woman do affirm) by the Causes and Arguments before-alledged against him, no reason (say they) but that this Lady should enter into his place, as next in Bloud unto him.

Secondly, it is alledged in her behalf,* 1.258 That she is [ 2] an English woman, born in England, and of Parents who at the time of her Birth were of English Allegi∣ance, wherein she goeth before the King of Scots, as hath been seen; as also in this other principal point, that by her admission no such inconve∣nience can be feared of bringing in strangers, or causing Troubles or Sedition within the Realm, as in the pretence of the Scottish King hath been considered: And this in effect is all that I have heard alledged for her.

But against her,* 1.259 by other Competitors and their Friends, I have heard divers Arguments of no small Importance and Consideration produced; where∣of the first is, that which before hath been alledged against the King of Scotland, to wit, that neither [ 1] of them is properly of the House of Lancaster,* 1.260 as in the Genealogy set down in the third Chapter hath appeared. And secondly, That the title of Lanca∣ster

is before the pretence of York, as hath been proved in the fourth Chapter; whereof is inferred, that neither the King of Scots nor Arabella is next in Succession; And for that of these two propositi∣ons there hath been much treated before, I remit me thereunto; only promising, That of the first of the two (which is how King Henry VII. was of the House of Lancaster, touching Right of Succession) I shall handle more particularly afterward, when I come to speak of the House of Portugal; whereby also shall appear plainly what pretence of Successi∣on to the Crown, or ••utchy of Lancaster the Descendents of the said King Henry can justly make.

[ 2] * 1.261The second Impediment against the Lady Ara∣bella is the aforesaid Testament of King Henry VIII. and the two Acts of Parliament for authorising of the same; by all which is pretended that the House of Suffolk is preferred before this other of Scot∣land.

[ 3] * 1.262A third Argument is, For that there is yet living one of the House of Suffolk that is nearer by a de∣gree to the Stem to wit, Henry VII. (to whom after the decease of Her Majesty that now is we must re∣turn than is the Lady Arabella, or the King of Scots, and that is the Lady Margaret Countess of Darby, Mother to the present Earl of Darby, who was Daughter to Lady Eleanor, Daughter of Queen Mary of France, that was second Daughter of King Henry VII. so as this Lady Margaret, Coun∣tess of Darby, is but in the third degree from the said Henry, whereas both the King of Scotland and Arabella in the fourth; and consequently she is next in propinquity of Bloud, and how greatly this pro∣pinqui••y hath been favoured in such cases, though they were of the younger Line, the Examples before-alledged in the fourth Chapter do make ma∣nifest.

Fourthly and lastly, and most strongly of all,* 1.263 they do argue against the title of this Lady Arabel∣la, affirming that the descent is not free from ba∣stardy, which they prove first, for that Queen Margaret, soon after the death of her first Husband and King James the IV. married secretly one Stuart Lord of Annerdale; which Stuart was alive long after her marriage with Douglas: and consequent∣ly this second marriage with Douglas (Stuart being alive) could not be lawful, which they do prove also by another name; for that they say it is most certain, and to be made evident, that the said Ar∣chibald Douglas Earl of Anguis had another Wife also alive, when he married the said Queen: which points they say were so publick as they came to King Henry's ears; whereupon he sent into Scot∣land the Lord William Howard, Brother to the old Duke of Norfolk, and Father to the present Lord Admiral of England; to enquire of these points, and the said Lord Howard found them to be true, and so he reported not only to the King,* 1.264 but also after∣wards many times to others; and namely to Queen Mary to whom he was Lord Chamberlain, and to divers others, of whom many be yet living, which can and will testifie the same, upon the relation they heard from the said Lord William's own mouth; whereupon King Henry was greatly offended, and would have hindred the Marriage between his said Sister and Douglas, but that they were married in secrret, and had consumated their Marriage before this was known, or that the thing could be preven∣ted, which is thought, was one especial cause and motive also to the King afterward, to put back the Issue of his said Sister of Scotland, as by his fore∣named Testament is pretended; and this touching Arabella's title by propinquity of Birth.* 1.265

But besides this, the same men do alledge divers reasons also of inconvenience in respect of the Com∣monwealth,

for which in their opinions it should be hurtful to the Realm to admit this Lady Arabella for Queen; As first of all, for that she is a Woman, who ought not to be preferred, before so many men as at this time stand for the Crown: And that it were much to have three Women to Reign in Eng∣land one after the other; whereas in the space of above a thousand years before them, there hath not reigned so many of that Sex, neither together nor asunder;* 1.266 for that from Cordick, first King of the West Saxons, unto Egbert the first Monarch of the English Name and Nation, containing the space of more then 300 years, no one Woman at all is found to have Reigned; and from Egbert to the Conquest, which is almost other 300 years, the like is to be observed; and from the Conquest downwards, which is above 500 years, one only Woman was admitted for Inheritrix, which was Maud the Em∣press, Daughter of King Henry I. who yet after her ••athers death was put back, and King Stephen was admitted in her place, and she never received by the Realm, until her Son Henry II. was of age to govern himself; and then he was received with express condition,* 1.267 That he should be Crowned, and govern by himself, and not his Mother; which very condition was put also by the Spaniards not long after, at their admitting of the Lady Beren∣guela younger Sister of Lady Blanch, Neece to King Henry II. whereof before often mention hath been made, to wit, the Condition was, That her Son Ferdinando should govern, and not she, though his title came by her, so as this Circumstance of be∣ing a Woman hath ever been of much considerati∣on, especially where men do pretend also, as in our Case they do.

* 1.268Another Consideration of these men is, that if this Lady should be advanced unto the Crown, though she be of Noble Bloud by her Fathers side,

yet in respect of Alliance with the Nobility of Eng∣land, she is a meer stranger; for that her Kindred is only in Scotland, and in England she hath only the Candishes by her Mothers side; who being but a mean Family, might cause much grudging among the English Nobility, to see them so greatly advan∣ced above the rest, as necessarily they must be, if this Woman of their Lineage should come to be Queen; which how the Nobility of England would b••ar, is hard to say. And this is as much as I have heard others say of this matter, and of all the House of Scotland: wherefore, with this I shall end, and pass over to treat also of the other Houses that do remain of such as before I named.

CHAP. VI. Of the House of Suffolk, containing the Claims of the Countess of Darby and her Children, as also of the Children of the Earl of Hart∣ford.

IT hath appeared by the Genealogy set down be∣fore in the third Chapter, and often-times men∣tioned since, how that the House of Suffolk is so called, for that the Lady Mary, second Daughter of King Henry VII. being first married to Lewis XII. King of France was afterwards married to Charles Brandon Duke of Suffolk, who being sent over to condole the death of the said King, got the good will of the Widow-Queen, though the common Fame of all men was, That the said Charles had a Wife living at that day, and divers years after, as in this Chapter we shall examine more in parti∣cular.

* 1.269By this Charles Brandon then Duke of Suffolk, this Queen Mary of France had two Daughters; first, the Lady Frances, married to Sir Henry Gray Marquess of Dorset, and afterwards (in the right of his Wife) Duke also of Suffolk, who was after∣wards beheaded by Queen Mary; And secondly, Lady Eleanor, married to Sir Henry Clifford Earl of Cumberland.

* 1.270The Lady Frances (elder Daughter of the Queen and of Charles Brandon) had Issue by her Husband the said last Duke of Suffolk three Daughters, to wit, Jane, Katharine and Mary; which Mary the youngest was betrothed first to Arthur Lord Gray of Wilton; and after left by him, she was married to one M. Martin Keyes of Kent,* 1.271 Gentleman-Porter of the Queens Houshold, and after she died with∣out Issue.

And the Lady Jane, the eldest of the three Sisters, was married at the same time to the Lord Guilford Dudley, fourth Son to Sir John Dudley Duke of Northumberland, and was proclaimed Queen, af∣ter the death of King Edward; for which act all three of them, to wit, both the Father, Son, and Daughter-in-law, were put to death soon after.

* 1.272But the Lady Katharine the second Daughter was married first upon the same day that the other two her Sisters were, unto Lord Henry Herbert now Earl of Pembroke; and upon the fall and misery of her House she was left by him; and so she lived a sole Woman for divers years, until in the begin∣ning of this Queens days she was found to be with∣child, which she affirmed was by the Lord Edward Seymor Earl of Hartford, who at that time was in France with Sir Nicholas Throgmorton the Embas∣sador, and had purpose and license to have travel∣led into Italy; but being called home in hast upon this new accident, he confessed that the Child was

his, and both he and the Lady affirmed that they were man and wife; but for that they could not prove it by Witnesses, and for attempting such a Match with one of the Blood Royal, without Pri∣vity and License of the Prince, they were Com∣mitted to the Tower, where they procured Means to meet again afterward, and had an other Child; which both Children do yet live, and the Elder of them is called Lord Henry Beacham, and the other Edward Seymor; the Mother of whom lived not long after, neither married the Earl again, until of late that he married the Lady Frances Howard, Sister to the Lady Sheffield; And this is all the Issue of the elder Daughter of Charles Brandon, by Lady Mary Queen of France:

The second Daughter of Duke Charles and the Queen, named Lady Eleanor,* 1.273 was married to Henry Lord Clifford Earl of Cumberland, and had by him a Daughter named Margaret, that married Sir Hen∣ry Stanely Lord Strange, and after Earl of Darby, by whom the said Lady (who yet liveth) hath had Issue Ferdinando Stanley, now Earl of Darby, William and Francis Stanley; And this is the Issue of the House of Suffolk, to wit, this Countess of Darby, with her Children, and these other of the Earl of Hartford; of all whose Titles, with their Impe∣diments, I shall here briefly give an account and reason.

First of all, both of these Families do joyn toge∣ther in this one point, to exclude the House of Scot∣land both by foreign Birth, anh by the aforesaid Testament of King Henry, authorized by two Par∣liaments, and by the other Exclusions which in each of the titles of the King of cots and of Lady Arabella hath been before-alledged. But then se∣condly, they come to vary between themselves about the Priority or Propinquity of their own Suc∣cession; for the Children of the Earl of Hartford

and their Friends do alledge,* 1.274 That they do descend of Lady Frances, the elder Sister of Lady Eleanor, and so by Law and Reason ought to be preferred; But the other House alledgeth against this two Im∣pediments; the one, That the Lady Margaret Countess of Darby now living, is nearer by one de∣gree to the Stem, that is, to King Henry VII. then are the Children of the Earl of Hartford;* 1.275 and con∣sequently (according to that which in the former fourth Chapter hath been declared) she is to be preferred, albeit the Children of the said Earl were legitimate.* 1.276

Secondly they do affirm, That the said Children of the Earl of Hartford by the Lady Katharine Gray are many ways illegitimate. First, for that the said Lady Katharine Gray their Mother was lawfully married before to the Earl of Pembroke now living, as hath been touched,* 1.277 and publick Records do te∣stifie,* 1.278 and not lawfully separated, nor by lawful au∣thority, nor for just Causes, but only for temporal and worldly respects; for that the House of Suffolk was come into misery and disgrace, whereby she remained still his true Wife, and before God, and so could have no lawful Children by any other whiles he yet lived, as yet he doth.

* 1.279Again, they prove the illegitimation of these Children of the Earl of Hartford; for that it could never be lawfully proved that the said Earl and the Lady Katharine were married, but only by their own assertions, which in Law is not holden suffici∣ent; for which occasion the said pretended Marri∣age was disannulled in the Court of Arches, by publick and definitive Sentence of Doctor Parker Archbishop of Canterbury, and Primate of Eng∣land, not long after the Birth of the said Children.

* 1.280Furthermore, they do add yet another Bastardy also in the Birth of Lady Katharine her self; for that her Father Lord Henry Gray Marquess of Dor∣set

was known to have a lawful Wife alive when he married the Lady Frances, Daughter and Heir of the Queen of France, and of Charles Brandon Duke of Suffolk, and Mother of this Lady Katharine, for ob••aining of which said Marriage, the said Mar∣quess put away his foresaid lawful Wi••e, which was Sister to the Lord Henry Fitz Allen Earl of Arundel; which disorder was occasion of much unkindness and hatred between the said Marquess and Earl ever after. But the power of the Marquess and favour with King Henry in Womens matters was so great at that time, as the Earl could have no remedy, but only that his said Sister (who li∣ved many years after) had an Annuity out of the said Marquesses Lands during her life, and lived some years after the said Marquess (afterwards made Duke) was put to death in Queen Maries time.

These then are three ways by which the Family of Darby to argue the Issue of Hartford to be Illegi∣timate;* 1.281 but the other two Houses of Scotland and Clarence do urge a former Bastardy also that is com∣mon to them both, to wit, both against the Lady Frances and the Lady Eleanor; for that the Lord Charles Brandon also Duke of Suffolk had a Wife alive (as before hath been signified) when he married the Lady Mary Queen of France; by which former Wife he had Issue the Lady Powis, (I mean the Wife of my Lord Powis of Poistlands in Wales,) and how long after the new Marriage of her Husband Charles Brandon this former Wife did live, I cannot set down distinctly; though I think it were not hard to take particular information there∣of in England by the Register of the Church where∣in she was buried; But the Friends of the Countess of Darby do affirm that she died before the Birth of the Lady Eleanor the second Daughter, though af∣ter the Birth of the Lady Frances, and thereby

they do seek to clear the Family of Darby of this Bastardy, and to lay all four upon the Children of Hartford before-mentioned; But this is easie to be known and verified by the means before-signified.

* 1.282But now the Friends of Hartford do answer to all these Bastardies, That for the first two pretended by the marriages of the two Dukes of Suffolk, that either the Causes might be such, as their Divorces with their Wives might be lawful, and prove them no Marriages, and so give them place to marry again, or else that the said former Wives did die before these Dukes that had been their Husbands; so as by a ••o••t-contract and second new Consent given between the Parties when they were now free, the said latter Marriages which were not good at the beginning, might come to be lawful after∣wards, according as the Law permitteth, notwith∣standing that Children begotten in such pretended Marriages, where one party is already bound, are not made legitimate by subsequent true Marriage of their Parents. And this for the first two Bastar∣dies.

But as for the third Illegitimation of the Contract between the Lady Katharine and the Earl of Hart∣ford, by a Prae-contract made between the said Lady Katharine and the Earl of Pembroke that now liveth, they say and affirm that Prae-contract to have been dissolved afterwards lawfully and judicially in the time of Queen Mary.

* 1.283There remaineth then only the fourth Objection, about the secret Marriage made between the said Lady Katharine and the Earl of Hartford, before the Birth of their eldest Son now called Lord Bea∣cham, which, to say the truth, seemeth the hardest point to be answered; For albeit in the sight of God that Marriage might be good and lawful, if before their carnal knowledge they gave mutual consent the one to the other to be man and Wife,

and with that mind and intention had carnal Copu∣lation, which thing is also allowed by the late Council of Trent it self, which disannulleth other∣wise all clandestine and secret Contracts in such States and Countries where the authority of the said Council is received and admitted; yet to justi∣fie these kind of Marriages in the face of the Church, and to make the Issue thereof legitimate and inhe∣ritable to Estates and Possessions: it is necessary by all Law, and in all Nations, that there should be some witness to testifie this Consent and Contract of the parties before their carnal knowledge; for that otherwise it should lie in every particular mans hand to legitimate any Bastard of his, by his only word, to the prejudice of others that might in equity of Succession pretend to be his Heirs; and therefore (no doubt) but that the Archbishop of Canterbury had great reason to pronounce this Con∣tract of the Lady Katharine and the Earl of Hart∣ford to be insufficient and unlawful, though them∣selves did affirm that they had given mutual Con∣sent before of being Man and Wife, and that they came together, animo maritali, as the Law of Wed∣lock requireth; but yet (for that they were not able to prove their said former consent by lawful Witnesses,) their said Conjunction was rightly pro∣nounced unlawful; and so I conclude that the first Son of these two Parties might be legitimate be∣fore God, and yet illegitimate before men, and consequently incapable of all such Succession as o∣therwise he might pretend by his said Mother.

And this now is for the first begotten of these two persons; for as touching the second Child,* 1.284 be∣gotten in the Tower of London, divers men of opi∣nion that he may be freed of this Bastardy; for that both the Earl and the Lady being examined upon their first Child, did confess and affirm that they were Man and Wife, and that they had mea∣ning

so to be and continue; which Confession is thought to be sufficient, both for ratifying of their old Contract, and also for making of a new, if the other had not been made before. And seeing that in the former pretended Contract and Marriage there wanted nothing for justifying the same before men, and for making it good in Law, but only ex∣ternal Testimony of Witnesses, for proving that they gave such mutual Consent of minds before their Carnal knowledge, (for the presence of Priest or Minister is not absolutely necessary,) no man can say that there wanted Witnesses for testifying of this Consent before second Copulation, by which was begotten the second Son; for that both the Queen her self, and her Council, and as many be∣sides as examined these Parties upon their first Act and Child-birth, are Witnesses unto them, that their full Consents and Approbations to be Man and Wife; which they ratified afterward in the Tower, by the begetting of their second Child, and so for the reasons aforesaid, he must needs seem to be legitimate, whatsoever my Lord of Canterbury for that time, or in respect of the great Offence taken by the Estate against that Act, did or might determine to the contrary.

* 1.285And this is the sum of that which commonly is treated about these two Families of the House of Suffolk, to wit, of Hartford and Darby; both which Families of Suffolk the other two opposite Houses of Scotland and Clarence do seek to exclude by the first Bastardy, or unlawful Contract between the Queen of France and Duke Charles Brandon, as hath been seen: Of which Bastardy the House of Darby doth endeavour to avoid it self, in manner (as before hath been declared) and preferreth it self in degree of Propinquity, not only before the aforesaid two Houses of Scotland and Clarence; but also before this other part of the House of Suf∣folk,

I mean the Family of Hartford, though descen∣ded of the elder Daughter; for that the Countess of Darby doth hold her self one degree nearer in descent than are the other Pretenders of Hartford, as hath been shewed▪ And albeit there want not many Objections and Reasons of some against this pretence of the House of Darby, besides that which I have touched before, yet for that they are for the most part personal Impediments, and do not touch the right or substance of the title, or any other im∣portant reason of State concerning the Common∣wealth, but only the mislike of the persons that pretend, and of their Life and Government, I shall omit them in this place, for that, as in the begin∣ning I promised, so I shall observe (as much as in me lies) to utter nothing in this Conference of ours that may justly offend, and much less touch the Honour and Reputation of any one Person of the Bloud-Royal of our Realm; when the time of admitting or excluding cometh, then will the Realm consider as well of their Persons as of their Rights, and will see what account and satisfaction each person hath given of his former life and doings, and according to that will proceed, as is to be supposed: But to me in this place it shall be enough to treat of the first point, which is of the Right and Interest preten∣ded by way of Succession; And so with this I shall make an end of these Families, and pass over to others that do yet remain.

CHAP. VII. Of the Houses of Clarence and Britany; which contain the ••laims of the Earl of Hunting∣ton, with the Pooles, as also of the Lady Infanta of Spain, and others of those Fa∣milies.

HAving declared the Claims, Rights and Pre∣tences which the two Noble Houses of Scot∣land and Suffolk▪ descended of the two Daughters of King Henry VII have, or may have to the Suc∣cession of England, with intention afterward to handle the House of Portugal apart, which preten∣deth to comprehend in it self the whole Body, or at l••ast the first and principal Branch of the anci∣ent House of Lancaster, it shall not be amiss, per∣haps by the way, to treat in this one Chapter so much as appertaineth to the two several Houses of Clarence and Britany, for that there is less to be said about them then of the other.

And first of all, I am of opinion, that the Earl of Huntington,* 1.286 and such other pretenders as are of the House of York alone, before the Conjunction of both Houses by King Henry VII. may be named to be of the House of Clarence, and so for distinction sake I do name them, not to confound them with the Houses of Scotland and Suffolk, which are ter∣m••d also by the Lancastrians to be of the House of York alone, for that they deny them to be of the true House of Lancaster; but principally I do name them to be of the House of Clarence, for that in∣deed all their Claim and Title to the Crown doth des••end from George Duke of Clarence, as before in

the third Chapter, and elsewhere hath been decla∣red; which Duke George being Brother to King Edward IV. and put to death by his order, left Is∣sue Edward Earl of Warwick and of Salisbury,* 1.287 who was put to death by King Henry VII. in his youth; and Margaret Countess of Salisbury, which Mar∣garet had Issue by Sir Richard Poole, Henry Poole Lord Montague, afterwards beheaded; and he again Katharine, married to Sir Francis Hastings Earl of Huntington, by whom she had Sir Henry Hastings now Earl of Huntington, Sir George Hastings his Brother yet living, and others; So as the Earl of Huntington, with his said Brethren, are in the fourth degree from the said George Duke of Clarence, to wit, his Nephews twice removed.

The said Margaret Countess of Salisbury had a younger Son also, named Sir Geffrey Poole,* 1.288 who had Issue another Geffrey, and this Geffrey hath two Sons alive at this day in Italy, named Arthur and Gef∣frey, who are in the same degree of distance with the said Earl of Huntington, saving that some al∣ledge for them, that they do descend all by male∣kind from Margaret, and the Earl pretendeth by a Woman; whereof we shall speak afterwards.

Hereby then it is made manifest how the Earl of Huntington cometh to pretend to the Crown of England by the House of York only;* 1.289 which is no other indeed, but by the debarring and disabling of all other former Pretenders, not only of Portugal, and of Britany, as strangers, but also of the Houses of Scotland and Suffolk, that hold likewise of the House of York; and for the Reasons and Arguments which in the former two Chapters I have set down in particular against every one of them, and shall hereafter also again those that remain; which Ar∣guments and Objections, or any of them, if they should not be found sufficient to exclude the said other Houses, then is the Claim of this House of

Huntington thereby made void; for that it is (as we see by the younger Child of the House of York, that is to say by the second Brother; So as if ei∣ther the pretence of Lancaster in general be better than that of Yo••k, or if in the House of York it self any of the forenamed Pretenders descended from King Edward IV. as of the elder Brother, may hold or take place, then holdeth not this title of Cla∣rence; for that (as I have said) it coming from the younger Brother, must needs be grounded only or principally upon the barring and excluding of the rest that joyntly do pretend. Of which Bars and Exclusions laid by this House of Clarence against the rest (for that I have spoken sufficiently in the last two Chapters going before, for so much as toucheth the two Houses of Scotland and Suffolk, and shall do afterwards about the other two of Bri∣tany and Portugal) I mean in this place to omit to say any more therein, and only to consider what the other Competitors do alledge against this House of Clarence, and especially against the pretence of the Earl of Huntington, as chief Titler thereof; for to the excluding of him do concur not only those other of opposite Houses, but also the Pooles of his own House, as now we shall see.

[ 1] * 1.290First th••n, the contrary Houses do alledge gene∣rally against all this House of Clarence, that seeing their Claim is founded only upon the Right of the Daughter of George Duke of Clarence, second Bro∣ther to King Edward IV. evident it is, that so long as any lawful Issue remaineth of any elder Daugh∣ter of the said King Edward the elder Brother, (as they say much doth, and cannot be denied) no Claim or Pretence of the younger Brothers Daugh∣ter can be admitted; And so by standing upon this, and answering to the Objections alledged before against the elder Houses, they hold this matter for very clear, and all pretence of this House of Cla∣rence utterly excluded.

Secondly, the same opposite Houses do alledge divers Attainders against the principal Heads of the House of Clarence, whereby their whole Interests were cut off; as namely, it is to be shewed in three descents one after another, to wit, in Duke George himself, the first Head and Beginner of this House, who was Attainted and Executed; and then in the Lady Margaret Countess of Salisbury, his Daugh∣ter and Heir, who was likewise Attainted and Exe∣cuted; And thirdly, in her Son and Heir Henry Poole Lord Montague put also to death; from whose Daughters both the Earl of Huntington and his Brethren, together with the Children of Sir Thomas Barrington, do descend; And albeit some may say that the said House of Clarence hath been restored in Bloud since those Attainders, yet reply these men,* 1.291 That except it can be shewed that particular mention was made of reabilitating the same to this pretence of Succession to the Crown, it will not be sufficient; as in like manner they affirm, That the same restoring in Bloud (if any such were) hath not been sufficient to recover the ancient Lands and Titles of Honour which this House of Clarence had before these Attainders, for that they were forfeited thereby to the Crown; And so (say these men) was there forfeited thereby in like manner (unto the next in Bloud not Attainted) this Prerogative of succeeding to the Crown, and cannot be restored again by any general Restaura∣tion in Bloud, except special mention be made thereof, even as we see that many Houses Attain∣ted are restored daily in Bloud, without restorement of their Titles and Dignities; and a present Exam∣ple we have in the Earl of Arundel, restored in Bloud, but not to the Title of Duke of Norfolk: And this say the opposite Houses against this House of Clarence.

* 1.292But now thirdly entreth in also against the Earl of Huntington the opposition of some of his own House, which is of the Issue of Sir Geffrey Poole, Brother to his Grand-father, who say, That when the Lord Henry Montague was put to death, with his Mother the Countess of Salisbury, and thereby both their Pretences and Titles cut off in them, then fell such right as they had, or might have, upon the said Sir Geffrey Poole, and not upon his Neece the Lady Katharaine, Daughter of the Lord Henry his elder Brother, and Mother of the Earl of Hunting∣ton; and this for three Causes: First, for that he was not Attainted; and so whether we respect his Grand-father George Duke of Clarence, or his Great-grand-father Richard Duke of York, the said Right in this respect is descended to him: And secondly, for that he was a degree nearer to the said Duke's Ancestors than was at that time his Neece Katharine; which right of nearest Propin∣quity (say these men) is made good and lawful by all the Reasons, Examples, Presidents and Au∣thorities alledged before in the fourth Chapter of this Conference, in favour of Uncles before their Nephews; And it shall not need that we speak any thing more of that matter in this place, but only to remit your remembrance to that which herein hath been said before.

Fourthly, they prove the same in favour of Sir Geffrey, for that the Lady Katharine was a Wo∣man, and Sir Geffrey a man, whose priviledge is so great in a matter of Succession, (as also hath been touched before) that albeit they had been in equal degree, and that Sir Geffrey were not a degree be∣fore her, as he was; yet seeing neither of them, nor their Fathers, were ever in possession of the thing pretended, Sir Geffrey should be preferred, as hath been shewed before by some Presidents, and shall be seen afterwards in the Case of Portugal;

wherein the King of Spain that now is was prefer∣red to the Crown for that only respect, that his Competitors were Women, and in equal degree of descent with him, and he a Man. And the very like Allegations of Propinquity I heard produced for the Lady Winifred, Wife of Sir Thomas Barrington (if she be yet alive) to wit, that she is before the Earl of Huntington and his Brethren, by this reason of Propinquity in Bloud, for that she is one degree nearer to the stock than they.

Fifthly and lastly, both these and other Compe∣titors do alledge against the Earl of Huntington,* 1.293 as an important and sufficient bar against his pre∣tence, the quality of his Religion; which is, (as they say) that he hath been ever known to favour▪ those who commonly in England are called Puritans, and not favoured by the State; but yet this stop is alledged diversly by Competitors of divers Religi∣ons: For that such as are followers and favourers of the form of Religion received and defended by publick Authority of England at this day, whom, for distinction-sake, men are wont to call by the name of moderate Protestants; these (I say) do urge this Exclusion against the Earl of Huntington, not upon any certain Law or Statute extant against the same, but ab equo & bono, as men are wont to say, and by reason of State, shewing infinite in∣conveniencies, hurts, damages and dangers that must needs ensue, not only to the present State of Religion in England, but also to the whole Realm and Body-politick, if such a man shall be admit∣ted to govern. And this Consideration of State in their opinion is a more forceable Argument for Excluding such a man, then any Statute or parti∣cular Law against him could be; for that this com∣prehendeth the very intention, meaning and drift of all Laws and Law-makers of our Realm, whose intentions must needs be presumed to have been at

all times to have Excluded so great and manifest in∣conveniencies: And thus they say.

But now those that are of the Roman Religion, and contrary both to Puritan and Protestant, do urge a great deal further this Argument against the Earl, and do alledge many Laws, Ordinances, De∣crees and Statutes both of the Canon and Imperial Laws, as also out of the old Laws of England, which (in their opinion) do debar all that are not of their Religion, and consequently they would hereby Exclude both the one and the other Preten∣ders. And in fine, they do conclude, that seeing there wanteth not also some of their own Religion (called by them the Catholick) in the House of Clarence, they have so much the less difficulty to exclude the Earl of Huntington's person for his Re∣ligion, if one of that House were to be admitted of necessity.

And this is so much as seemeth needful to be spo∣ken at this time, and in this place, of this House of Clarence, and of the Pretenders thereof. It resteth then that I treat something also of the House of Bri∣tany and France,* 1.294 which two Houses are joyned all in one, for so much as may appertain to any Inheri∣tance or Pretence to England, or to any parcel or particular state thereof, at home or abroad, that may follow the Succession or Right of Women, which the Kingdom of France in it self doth not, as is known; and consequently a Woman may be Heir to the one, without the other; that is to say, she may be Heir to some particular states of France in∣heritable by Women, though not to the Crown it self, and so do pretend to be the two Daughters of France that were Sisters to the late King Henry III. which Daughters were married, the one to the King of Spain that now is, who had Issue by her the Infanta of Spain, yet unmarried, and her youn∣ger Sister married to the Duke of Savoy; and the

other, to wit; the younger Daughter of the King of France was married to the Duke of Lorrain, yet living, by whom she had the Prince of Lorrain and other Children that live at this day.

This then being so clear as it is, first,* 1.295 that accor∣ding to the common course of Succession in Eng∣land▪ and other Countries, and according to the course of all Common Law, the Infan••a of Spain should inherit the whole Kingdom of France, and all other States thereunto belonging, she being the Daughter and Heir of King Henry II. of France, whose Issue-male of the direct line is wholly extinct; but yet for that the French do pretend their Law Salique to exclude Women, (which we English have ever denied to be good until now) hereby cometh it to pass that the King of Navarr pretendeth to en∣ter, and to be preferred before the said Infanta, or her Sisters Children, though Male, by a Collateral Line. But yet her favourers say, (I mean those of the Infanta) that from the Dukedoms of Bri∣tany, Aquitain, and the like, that came to the Crown of France by Women, and are Inheritable by Wo∣men, she cannot be in right debarred; as neither from any Succession or Pretence to England, if (either by the Bloud-Royal of France, Britany, Aquitain; or of England it self) it may be proved that she hath any Interest thereunto, as her favou∣rers do affirm that she hath, by these reasons fol∣lowing:

First,* 1.296 for that she is of the ancient Bloud-Royal of England, even from the Conquest, by the elder Daughter of William the Conquerour, married to Al∣lain Fergant Duke of Britany, as hath been shewed before in the second Chapter, and other places of this Conference; And of this they infer three Con∣sequences: First, when the Sons of the Conquerour [ 1] died without Issue, or were made uncapable of the Crown, (as it was presumed at least-wise of King

Henry I. last Son of the Conquerour, that he lost his Right for the violence used to his elder Brother Robert, and unto William the said Robert's Son and [ 2] Heir) they (say these men) ought the said Dutchess of Britany to have entred as eldest Sister. Secondly, they say,* 1.297 That when Duke Robert, that both by right of Birth, and by express Agreement with William Rufus, and with the Realm of England▪) should have succeeded next after the said Rufus came to die in Prison, the said Lady Constance should have suc∣ceeded him; for that his Brother Henry being cul∣pable of his Death, could not in right be his Heir. [ 3] And thirdly, they say, That, at least wise, after the death of the said King Henry I. she and her Son (I mean Lady Constance, and Conan Duke of Brita∣ny) should have entred before King Stephen, who was born of Adela the younger Daughter of Willi∣am the Conquerour.

* 1.298Secondly, they do alledge. That the Infanta of Spain descendeth also lineally from Lady Eleanor, eldest Daughter of King Henry II. married to King Alonso the ninth of that name King of Castile, whose eldest Daughter and Heir, named Blanch, (for that their only Son Henry died without Issue) married with the Prince Lewis VIII▪ of France, who was Father by her to King St. Lewis of France, and so hath continued the Line of France unto this day, and joyned the same afterwards to the House of Britany▪ as hath been declared: So as the Infanta cometh to be Heir general of both those Houses, that is, as well of Britany as France, as hath been shewed.* 1.299 And now by this her descent from Queen Eleanor Daughter of King Henry II. her favourers do found divers Pretences and Titles, not only to the States of Aquitain, that came to her Father by a Woman, but also to England, in manner following: First, for Aquitain, they say it came to King Hen∣ry II. by his Wife Eleanor, Daughter of William

Duke of Aquitain, as before in the second Chapter at large hath been declared; and for that the most part thereof was lost afterwards to the French in King John's time, that was fourth Son to the afore∣said King Henry, it was agreed between the said King John and the French-King Philip, that all the States of Aquitain already lost to the French,* 1.300 should be given in Dowry with the said Blanch to be mar∣ried to Lewis VIII. then Prince of France, and so they were; And moreover, they do alledge, That not long after this, the same States with the resi∣due that remained in King John's hands, were all adjudged to be forfeited by the Parliament of Pa∣ris for the Death of Duke Arthur, and consequent∣ly did fall also upon this Lady Blanch, as next Heir capable of such Succession unto King John, for that yet the said King John had no Son at all; and for this cause and for that the said States are Inherita∣ble by Women, and came by Women, as hath been often said, these men affirm, That at this day they do by Succession appertain unto the said Lady Infanta of Spain, and not unto the Crown of France.

To the Succession of England also they make pre∣tence,* 1.301 by way of the said Lady Blanch married into France, and that in divers manners: First, for that King John of England, by the Murther of Duke Arthur of Britany his Nephew, (which divers Au∣thors do affirm, as Stow also witnesseth,* 1.302 was done by King John's own hands, he forfeited all his States, though his right to them had been never so good; and for that this Murther happened in the fifth year of his Reign, and four years before his Son Henry was born, none was so near to succeed at that time as was this Lady Blanch married into France, for that she was Daughter and Heir unto King John's elder Sister Eleanor, or the said Lady Eleanor her self Queen of Spain, should have succeeded; for

that she yet lived, and died not (as appeareth by Stephen Garribay Chronicler of Spain) until the year of Christ 1214. which was not until the fifteenth year of the Reign of King John,* 1.303 and one year only before he died, so as he having yet no Issue when this Murther was committed, and losing by this forfeit all the right he had in the Kingdom of Eng∣land, it followeth that the same should have gone then to his said Sister, and by her to this Lady Blanch, her Heir and eldest Daughter, mar∣ried into France, as hath been said; which forfeit also of King John these men do confirm, by his De∣privation by the Pope that soon after ensued, as also by another Deprivation made by the Barons of his Realm, as after shall be touched.

[ 3] * 1.304Furthermore, they say, That when Arthur Duke of Britain (whom to this effect they do hold to have been the only true Heir at that time to the Kingdom of England) was in Prison in the Castle of Roan, suspecting that he should be murthered by his said Unkle King John, he nominated this Lady Blanch, his Cousin-jerman to be his Heir, perswa∣ding himself that he (by the help of her Husband Prince Lewis of France, and her Father the King of Spain) should be better able to defend and recover his or her right, to the Crown of England, than Ele∣anor his own Sister should be, who was also in the hands of his said Unkle; for that he supposed that she should be made away by himself shortly after, as indeed the French Chronicler affirmeth that she was.* 1.305 And howsoever this matter of Duke Arthur's Testament was, yet certain it is, that when he and his Sister were put to death, the next in Kin that could succeed them in their right to England was this Lady Blanch, and her Mother Queen Eleanor, that was Sister to Arthur's Father Geffrey Duke of Britany; for that King John their Unkle was presu∣med by all men to be uncapable of their Inheri∣tance,

by his putting of them to death, and Child he had yet none; And this is the second point that these men do deduce for the Lady Infanta of Spain, by the title of Queen Eleanor and her Daughter Blanch, to whom the Infanta is next Heir.

A third Interest also the same men do derive to the Infanta,* 1.306 by the actual Deposition of King John by the Barons and States of this Realm in the 16th. year of his Reign, and by the Election and actual Admission of Lewis Prince of France, Husband of Lady Blanch, whom they chose with one consent, and admitted, and swore him Fealty and Obedi∣ence in London, for him, and for his Heirs and Po∣sterity, in the year 1217. and gave him Possession of the said City and Tower of London,* 1.307 and of many other chief places of the Realm; and albeit after∣wards the most part of the Realm changed their minds, upon the sudden death of the said King John, and chose and admitted his young Son Henry III. a Child of 9 years old, yet do the favourers of the Infanta say,* 1.308 That there remaineth to her as Heir unto the said Lewis, until this day, that Interest which by this Election, Oath and Admission of the Realm remained unto this Prince Lewis, which these men affirm to be the very like case as was that of Hugo Capetus in France, who came to be King especially upon a certain Title that one of his An∣cestors named Odo Earl of Paris had, by being once elected King of France, and admitted and sworn, though afterwards he was deposed again, and young Charles, surnamed the Simple was admitted in his place, as Henry III. was in England, after the Election of Lewis: But yet as the other ever conti∣nued his Right and Claim till it was restored to Hugo Capetus one of his Race, so (say these men) may this Infanta continue and renew now the Demand of King Lewis her Ancestor; for that Ti∣tles

and Interests to Kingdoms, once rightly gotten, do never die, but remain ever for the Posterity to effectuate when they can. And thus much of this matter.

* 1.309But after this again, these men do shew, how that the said Infanta of Spain doth descend also from Henry III. son of King John, by the Dukes of Brita∣ny, as before in the second Chapter hath been de∣clared, and in the Arbor and Genealogy follow∣ing in the end of this Conference shall be seen; for that King Henry, besides his two Sons Edward and Edmond, which were the beginners of the two Houses of York and Lancaster, had also a Daughter named Beatrix, married to John the second of that Name, Duke of Britany, and by him she had Ar∣thur II. and so lineally from him have descended the Princes of that House, until their Union with the Crown of France, and from thence unto this Lady Infanta of Spain that now is, who taketh her self for proper Heir of the said House of Britany, and Heir general of France, as hath been said.

By this Conjunction then of the House of Britany with the Bloud-Royal of England, the Friends of the Infanta do argue in this manner, That seeing she descendeth of the Sister of these two Brothers which were the Heads of the two opposite Houses of Lancaster and York; and considering that each of these Houses hath often-times been Attainted, and Excluded from the Succession by sundry Acts of Par∣liament, and at this present are opposite, and at contention among themselves, why may not this right of both Houses (say these men) by way of Composition,* 1.310 Peace and Comprize at least be pas∣sed over to the Issue of their Sister, which resteth in the Infanta?

Again, they say, That all these three Branches of the Lines, to wit, by the Lady Constance Daughter of King William the Conquerour by the Lady Eleanor

Daughter of King Henry II. and by the Lady Bea∣trix Daughter of King Henry III. it is evident, that this Lady the Infanta of Spain is of the true anci∣ent Bloud-Royal of England, and that divers ways she may have Claim to the same; which being granted, they infer▪ That seeing matters are so doubtful at this day, about the next lawful Succes∣sion, and that divers of the Pretenders are exclu∣ded, some for Bastardy, some other for Religion, some for unaptness to Govern, and some for other Causes; and seeing the Commonwealth hath such Authority to dispose in this Affair, as before the Civil-Lawyer hath declared, why may there not Consideration be had among other Pretenders, of this noble Princess also (say these men) especially, seeing she is unmarried, and may thereby commo∣date many matters, and salve many breaches, and satisfie many hopes, and give contentment to many desires, as the world knoweth.

And this is in effect as much as I have heard al∣ledged hitherto in favour of the Infanta of Spain;* 1.311 but against this Pretence others do produce divers Arguments and Objections; As first of all, That these her Claims be very old, and worn out, and are but Collateral by Sisters. Secondly, That she is a Stranger and Alien born Thirdly, That her Reli∣gion is contrary to the State. Unto all which Ob∣jections, the favourers aforesaid do make their Answers, And to the first, they say, That Antiqui∣ty hurteth not the goodness of a Title, when occa∣sion is offered to advance the same; especially ••n Titles belonging to Kingdoms, which commonly are never presumed to die, as hath been said, and nullum tempus occurrit Regi saith our Law. And as for Collateral Lines, they say, That they may lawfully be admitted to enter when the direct Lines do either fail, or are excluded, for other just respects, as in our Case they hold that it happeneth.

And as for the second point of Foreign Birth, they say there hath been sufficient answer before, in treating of the House of Scotland, that in rigour it is no bar, by intention of any English Law; yet whe∣ther in reason of State and politick Government, it may be a just impediment or no, it shall after be handled more at large, when we come to treat of the House of Portugal. To the last point of Religion they answer, that this impediment is not universal, nor admitted in the Judgment of all men, but only of those English that be of different Religion from her. But to some others (and those many, as these men do ween) her Religion will rather be a motive to favour her Title, then to hinder the same: so that on this ground no certainty can be builded, and this is as much as I have to say at this time, of these two Families of Clarence and Britany.

CHAP. VIII. Of the House of Portugal, which containeth the Claims as well of the King and Prince of Spain to the succession of England, as also of the Dukes of Parma and Bragansa by the House of Lancaster.

IT hath been oftentimes spoken before upon oc∣casions offered,* 1.312 that the Princes of the House of Portugal at this day, do perswade themselves that the only remainder of the House of Lancaster rest∣eth among them, as the only true Heirs of the Lady Blanch Dutchess and Heir of Lancaster, and first Wife of John of Gaunt; which point of these Princes descents from the said Dutchess of Lanca∣ster, though it be declared sufficiently before in the

third and fourth Chapters, yet will I briefly here also set down and repeat again the reasons thereof, which are these that follow.

John of Gaunt was Duke of Lancaster by the right of his first Wife Lady Blanch, and had by her only one Son, as also one Daughter, of whom we need here to speak, for that the other hath left no Issue now living. The Son was King Henry the 4th. who had Issue King Henry the 5th and he again Henry the 6th. in whom was extinguished all the succession of this Son Henry▪

The daughter of John of Gaunt by Lady Blanch was called Philippa,* 1.313 who was married to John the first King of that name of Portugal, who had Issue by him King Edward, and he again had Issue King Alfonsus▪ the fifth King of Portugal, and he and his off-spring had Issue again the one after the other until our times; and so by this marriage of Lady Philippa, to their first King John, these Princes of the House of Portugal that live at this day, do pre∣tend that the Inheritance of Lancaster is only in them, by this Lady Philippa, for that the succession of her elder Brother King Henry the fourth, is expi∣red long ago. This in effect is their pretence, but now we will pass on to see what others say, that do pretend also to be of the House of Lancaster by a latter marriage.

John of Gaunt after the death of his first Wife Lady Blanch,* 1.314 did marry again the Lady Constance daughter of King Peter (surnamed the Cruel) of Castile, and had by her one daughter only named Catharine, whom he married afterward back to Castile again, giving her to Wife to King Henry the third of that name, by whom the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Issue King John, and he others; so as lineally King Phi∣lip of Spain is descended from her,* 1.315 which King Phi∣lip being at this day King also of Portugal, and chief Titler of that House unto England, he joy 〈◊〉〈◊〉

the Inheritance of both the two daughters of John of Gaunt, in one, and so we shall not need to talk of these two daughters hereafter distinctly, but on∣ly as of one, seeing that both their descents do end in this one man.

* 1.316The only difficulty and dissention is then, about the Issue of the third marriage, which was of John of Gaunt wi••h Lady Catharine Swinford, whom he first kept as a Concubine, in the time of his second Wife Lady Constance, as before hath been shewed in the third Chapter, and begat of her four Chil∣dren; and after that his Wife Lady Constance was dead, he took her to Wife, for the love he bare to his Children, a little before his death, and caused the said Children to be legitimated by Authority of Parliament: and for that none of these four Chil∣dren of his, have left Issue, but only one, that was John Earl of Somerset, we shall speak only of him, omitting all the rest.

* 1.317This John then Earl of Somerset, had Issue ano∣ther John, which was made Duke of Somerset by King Henry the sixth, who with his three Sons were slain by the Princes of the House of York, in the quarrel of Lancaster, and so left only one daughter named Margaret, who by her Husband Edmond Tudor Earl of Richmond, was Count••ss of Richmond, and had by him a Son named Henry Earl of Richmond, that was after King, by the name of King Henry the seventh, and from him all his descendents both of the House of Scotland and Suffolk, do pretend also to be of the House of Lan∣caster, which yet can be no otherwise then now hath been declared, to wit, not from Blanch first Wife and Heir of the Dutchy of Lancaster, but from Catharine Swinford his third Wife: wherein riseth the question,* 1.318 whether those men (I mean King Henry the seventh, and his descendents) may p••••perly be said to be of the true House of Lanca∣ster,

or no?* 1.319 Whereunto some do answer with a di∣stinction, to wit, that to the Dutchy of Lancaster, whereof the first Wife Lady Blanch was Heir, these of the third marriage cannot be Heirs, but only the remainder of the Issue of the said Lady Blanch, that resteth in the Princes of the House of Portugal.* 1.320 But yet to the Title of the Crown of England, which came by John of Gaunt himself, in that he was third Son of King Edward the third, and eldest of all his Children that lived when the said King Ed∣ward died; (by which is pretended also, that he should have succeeded immediately after him, be∣fore King Richard the second, as before in the fourth Chapter hath been declared) to this Right (I say) and to this Interest of the Crown,* 1.321 which came by John of Gaunt himself, and not by Lady Blanch, or by any other of his Wives the descen∣dents of King Henry the seventh do say, that they may and ought to succeed; for that John Earl of Somerset, eldest Son of John of Gaunt by Lady Ca∣tharine Swinford, though he were begotten out of matrimony, yet being afterward made legitimate, he was to inherit this right of John of Gaunt his Father, before the Lady Philippa his Sister;* 1.322 for that so we see that King Edward the sixth, though younger, and but half-brother unto the Lady Mary and Elizabeth his Sisters, yet he inherited the Crown before them: and in like manner is Lord Philip Prince of Spain at this day to inherit all the States of that Crown, before his two Sisters, that be elder then he: and so likewise say these men, ought John of Somerset to have done before Phi∣lippa his eldest Sister, if he had been alive at that time, when King Henry the sixth was put down and died; and consequently his posterity, which are the descendents of King Henry the seventh, ought to enjoy the same before the Princes of Portugal, that are the descendents of Lady Phi∣lippa

his Sister. Thus say the issue of King Henry the seventh.

But to this the Princes of the House of Portugal do reply, and say, first, That by this it is evident at least,* 1.323 that the Dukedom of Lancaster, whereof the Lady Blanch was the only Heir, must needs ap∣pertain to them alone, and this without all doubt or controversie, for that they only remain of her Issue, after extinguishing of the posterity of her el∣der Brother King Henry the fourth, which was ex∣tinguished by the death of King Henry the sixth, and of his only son Prince Edward;* 1.324 and for this they make no question or controversie, assuring themselves that all Law, right and equity, is on their side

Secondly, Touching the Succession and right to the Kingdom, they say, that John Earl of Somer∣set being born out of Wedlock,* 1.325 and in Adultery, for that his Father had an other Wife alive, when he begot him, and he continuing a Bastard so many years, could not be made Legitimate afterward by Parliament to that effect of Succession to the Crown, and to deprive Queen Philippa of Portu∣gal, and her Children born before the other Legi∣timation, from their right and Succession, with∣out their consents, for that John King of Portugal, did Marry the said Lady Philippa, with condition to enjoy all Prerogatives, that at that day were due unto her; and that at the time when John of Gaunt did Marry the said Lady Catherine Swinford, and made her Children Legitimate by Act of Par∣liament (which was in the year of Christ 1396. and 1397.) the said Lady Philippa Queen of Por∣tugal,* 1.326 had now two Sons living, named Don A∣lonso,* 1.327 and Don Edwardo, which were born in the years 1390. and 1391 that is six years before the Legitimation of John Earl of Somerset, and his Brethren; and thereby had jus acquisitum, as the

Law saith, which right once acquired and gotten, could not be taken away by any Posterior Act of Parliament afterward, without consent of the parties Interessed, for which they do alledge di∣vers places of the Canon Law, which for that they hold not in England, I do not cite,* 1.328 but one example they put to shew the inconvenience of the thing (if it should be otherwise determined then they affirm) which is, that if King Henry the eighth that had a Bastard Son, by the Lady Eliza∣beth Blunt, whom he named Henry Fitz-roy, and made him both Earl of Nottingham, and Duke of Richmond and Somerset, in the 18th. year of his Reign, at what time the said King had a law∣ful Daughter alive, named the Princess Mary, by Queen Catherine of Spain; if (I say) the King should have offered to make this Son Legitimate by Parliament, with intent to have him succeeded af∣ter him, in the Crown, to the prejudice and open injury of the said lawful Daughter, these Men do say that he could not have done it, and if he should have done it by violence, it would not have held, and much less could John of Gaunt do the like, being no King Nor was the Act of Parliament sufficient for this point, it being a matter that de∣pended especially (say these men) of the Spiri∣tual Court, and of the Canon Law, which Law alloweth this Legitimation no further, but only as a Dispensation; and this so far forth, only as it doth not prejudice the right of any other.

Neither helpeth it any thing in this matter,* 1.329 the Marriage of John of Gaunt with Lady Catherine, for to make better this Legitimation; for that as hath been said, their Children were not only naturales but Spurij, that is to say, begotten in plain Adultry, and not in simple Fornication only; for that the one party had a Wife alive, and consequently the pri∣veledge that the Law giveth to the Subsequent

Marriage of the Parties for legitimating such Chil∣dren as are born in simple Fornication; that is to say, between parties that were single, and none of them married, cannot take place here; So as these men conclude, that albeit this Legitimation of Parliament might serve them to other purposes, yet not to deprive the Princes of Portugal of their Pre∣rogative to succeed in their Mothers Right, which she had when she was married to their Father.

And this they affirm to have been Law and Right at that time, if the said Queen Philippa, and Earl John had been alive together, when Henry the sixth and his Son were put to death; and that this Question had been then moved at the death of King Henry the sixth,* 1.330 Whether of the two, (to wit, ei∣ther the said Queen Philippa, or her younger Bro∣ther John Earl of Somerset, by the Fathers side only) should have succeeded in the Inheritance of King Henry the sixth? In which case, these men presume for certain, that the said Queen Philippa, legiti∣mately born, and not John, made legitimate by Parliament, should have succeeded; for that (by common course of ••aw) the Children legitimated by favour, albeit their legitimation were good and lawful, (as this of these Children is denied to be) yet can they never be made equal, and much less be preferred before the lawful, and legitimate by Birth.

But now (say these men) the case standeth at this present somewhat otherwise, and more for the advantage of Queen Philippa, and her Off-spring; For, when King Henry the sixth and his Son were extinguished, and Edward Duke of York thrust himself in to the Crown, (which was about the year of Christ 1471.) the foresaid Princess and Prince, Lady Philippa and Earl John were both dead, as also, their Children, and only their Ne∣phews were alive, that is to say, there lived in

Portugal King Alfonsus, the fifth of that name, Son to King Edward; which King Edward was Child to Queen Philippa; and the death of King Henry the sixth of England happened in the 38^th. year of the Reign of the said Alfonsus: And in England lived at the same time Lady Margaret, Countess of Rich∣mond, Mother of King Henry the seventh, and Neece of the foresaid John Earl of Somerset, to wit, the Daughter of his Son John Duke of Somer∣set; So as these two Competitors of the House of Lancaster, that is to say, King Alfonsus and Lady Margaret were in equal degree from John of Gaunt, as also, from King Henry the sixth, saving that King Alfonsus was of the whole Bloud, (as hath been said) and by Queen Philippa, that was legitimate; and the Countess of Richmond was but of the half bloud, as by John Earl of Somerset, that was a Ba∣stard legitimated

The Question then is,* 1.331 Which of these two should have succeeded, by Right of the House of Lancaster, immediately after King Henry the sixth? And the Lady Margaret alledgeth, That she was descended from John Earl of Somerset, that was a man, and therefore ••o be preferred; And King Alfonsus al∣ledged, That he being in equal degree of nearness of Bloud, with the same Countess, (for that both were Nephews) was to be preferred before her, for that he was a man, and of the whole Bloud to the last Kings of the House of Lancaster, and that she was a woman, and but of the half Bloud; so that three Prerogatives he pretended before her: First, That he was a man, and she a woman: Secondly, That he descended of the lawful and elder Daugh∣ter, and she of the younger Brother legitimated: And thirdly, That he was of whole Bloud, and she but of half. And, for better fortifying of this proof of his Title, these men do alledge a certain Case, determined by the Learned of our days, as they

say; wherein (for the first of these three Causes only) the Succession to a Crown was adjudged unto King Philip of Spain, to wit, the Succession to the Kingdom of Portugal; which Case was in all respects correspondent to this of ours; For that Emmanuel King of Portugal had three Children, for s•• much as appertaineth to this Affair, (for after∣ward I shall treat more particularly of his Issue) that is to say, two Sons and one Daughter, in this order, John, Elizabeth, and Edward; even as John of Gaunt had Henry, Lady Philippa, and John.

* 1.332Prince John of Portugal, first Child of King Em∣manuel, had Issue another John, and he had Seba∣stine, in whom ••he Line ••f John the first Child was extinguished: But Jo••n's Sister Elizabeth, was mar∣ried to Char••••s the Emperour, and had Issue King Philip of Spain that now liveth. Edward also, youn∣ger Brother to Elizabeth or Isabel had Issue two Daughters, the one married to the Duke of Par∣ma, and the other to the Duke of Bargansa; so as King Philip was in equal degree with these Ladies, in respect of King Emmanuel; for that he was Son to his eldest Daughter, and the two Dutchesses were Daughters to his younger Son; And upon this rested the Question, Which of these should succeed? and •••• was decided, That it appertaineth unto King Philip, for that he was a man, and his Mother was the elder Sister, though if King Philip's Mother, and the two Dutchesses Father (I mean Lord Ed∣ward of Portugal) had been alive together, no doubt but that he (being a man) should have born it away; which (these men say) holdeth not in our Case; but it is much more to our advantage; for that it hath been shewed before, that if Queen Philippa had been alive with John Earl of Somerset, at the death of King Henry the sixth, she should have been preferred, as legitimate by Birth, and

therefore much more ought her Nephew King Al∣fonsus to have been preferred afterward, in that he was a man, before the Neece of the said John Earl of Somerset, that was but a Woman. Thus far they.

And besides all this, they do add,* 1.333 (as often be∣fore I have mentioned) that King Alfonsus was of the whole Bloud unto all the three King Henries of the House of Lancaster, and the Countess of Rich∣mond was but of the half bloud: And for more strengthening of this Argument, they do say fur∣ther, that besides that Interest or Right to the Crown which King Henry the fourth (who was the first King of the House of Lancaster) had by his Father John of Gaunt, in that the said John was third Son of King Edward the third, the said King Henry had divers other interests also which came of himself only, and not from his said Father; as were (for example) his being called into the Realm by general voice of all the people; his right gotten by Arms, upon the evil Government of the former King; the personal resignation and delivery of the Kingdom by solemn instrument made unto him by King Richard; his Election also by Parliament, and Coronation by the Realm; and finally, the quiet Possession of him and his Posterity for almost sixty years, with many Confirmations of the whole Realm, by divers Acts of Parliament, Oaths, and and other Assurances, as the World knoweth; So many (I mean) and so authentical, as could pos∣sibly be devised or given; And besides all this, that when King Richard was dead, he was next in de∣gree of Propinquity unto him, of any man living; for that the Sons of Roger Mortimer were two de∣grees further off than he, as hath been shewed be∣fore. All which particular Rights and Interests were peculiar to Henry the fourth's person, and were not in his Father John of Gaunt, and there∣fore

cannot possibly descend from him to the Issue of John Earl of Somerset, but must pass rather to the Issue of King Henry▪s true Sister the Queen Philippa of Portugal; And this though it be supposed that otherwise it might be granted (as they say it may not) that John Earl of Somorset and his Successors might succeed to John of Gaunt before Lady Philip∣pa; which thing, (say these men) if it should be granted, yet cannot he succeed to King Henries the fourth, fifth and sixth, that descended of Blanch. And this is in effect all that I have heard disputed about this point, what Line is true Heir to the House of Lancaster, to wit, whether that of John Earl of Somerset, born of Katharine Swinford (from whom descendeth King Henry the seventh and his Posterity) or else that of Queen Philippa of Portu∣gal, born of Lady Blanch, from whom are come the foresaid Princes of Portugal.

* 1.334But now it remaineth to examine somewhat in this place also, what and who are these Princes of the House of Portugal, so often named before, and what pretence of Succession they and every of them have or may have unto the Crown of England? For better understanding whereof, it shall be need∣ful to explain somewhat more at large the foresaid Pedigree of King Emmanuel of Portugal; who albe∣it by divers Wives he had many Children, yet six only that he had by one Wife, of whom there re∣maineth hitherto Issue) are those which may ap∣pertain unto our purpose to speak of, in respect of any pretence that may be made by them towards England; supposing always (which is most true) that the said King Emmanuel was descended line∣ally as true and direct Heir from the foresaid Lady Philippa Queen of Portugal that was Daughter of John of Gaunt by his first Wife Lady Blanch, Dut∣chess and Heir of the Dukedom of Lancaster, and Sister to King Henry the fourth, first King of the

House of Lancaster; so as, by her, doth, or may pretend the whole Posterity of the said King Em∣manuel, unto whatsoever the said Phillippa might Inherit from her Father or Mother, or from her said Brother King of England or his Posterity.

The six Children then of King Emmanuel were these following,* 1.335 and each of them born as here they are set down; first Prince John that was King after his Father, by the Name of John the third. Secondly, the Lady Isabel, Married to the Em∣peror Charles the fifth, and Mother to King Phi∣lip of Spain that now liveth. Thirdly Lady Bea∣trix, Married to Charles Duke of Savoy, and Mo∣ther to Duke Philibert, the last Duke that Died, and Grand-mother to this that now Liveth. Fourthly Lord Lewis, Father to Don Antonio that now is in England. Fifthly Lord Henry, that was Cardinal and Archbishop of Ebora, and in the end King of Portugal. And sixthly Lord Edward, that was Father of the two Dutchesses of Parma and Bragansa, to wit▪ of the Lady Mary, and Lady Catharine, both which left goodly Issue; for that Lady Mary hath left by the last Duke of Parma, Lord Ranutius that is now Duke of Parma, and Lord Edward that is Cardinal: And the Lady Ca∣tharine Dutchess of Bragansa that yet liveth, hath Issue divers goodly Princes, as the Lord Theodo∣sius, that is now Duke of Bragansa, and three younger Brothers, to wit, Edward, Alexander and Philip, young Princes of great expectation; and these are the Children of King Emmanuel, whose particular Successions and Issues I shall de∣clare somewhat more in particular.

Prince John of Portugal afterward King,* 1.336 by name of King John the Third, had Issue another John that was Prince of Portugal; but died before his Father, and left a Son Named Sebastian, who was King, and slain afterward by the Moors in Barbary, and so ended this first Line.

* 1.337The second Son, and fourth Child of King Em∣manuel, was Named Lord Lewis, and died also without Issue Legitimate, as is supposed; for that Don Antonio his Son that afterward was proclaim∣ed King by the People of Lisbone, and now liveth in England, was taken by all men to be unlawful, as presently more at large shall be shewed; so as after the Death of King Sebastian, there entred the Car∣dinal Lord Henry,* 1.338 which was third Son of King Emmanuel, and Great-Uncle to Sabastian lately Desceased, for that he was Brother to King John the third, that was Grand Father to King Seba∣stian: And albeit there wanted not some (according as the Authors Write, which afterward I shall Name) who affirmed and held, that King Philip of Spain should have succeeded King Sebastian be∣fore the Cardinal, for that he was nearer in Con∣sanguinity to him than was the Cardinal; for that, besides that King Philip was Son of King Emma∣nu••ls Eldest Daughter, he was Brother also to King Sebastians Mother; yet the said Cardinal entred peaceably, and by consent of all parties; but for that he was Old▪ and Unmarried, and not like to leave any Child of his own; there began pre∣sently the Contention in his days, who should be his Successor.

To which Succession did pretend five Princes of the Blood-Royal of Portugal,* 1.339 besides the Lady Catharine Queen-Mothers of France, who pretend∣ed by her Mothers side to be Descended of one Lord Ralph Earl of Bullain in Piccardy, which Ralph was Eldest Son of Alfonsus the third King of Portugal; which Alfonsus before he was King, to wit, in the time of his Eldest Brother King Sanches of Portugal, was Married to the Countess and Heir of Bullain Named Mathildis, and had by her this Ralph: But afterwards this Alfonsus coming to be King of Portugal, he Married again with the

King of Castile's Daughter, and had by her a Son called Denyse, who reigned after him, and his Suc∣cessors unto this day; all which Succession of King Denyse and his Posterity, the said Queen Mother would have improved, and shewed that it apper∣tained unto her by the said Raphe, and for this cause sent she to Portugal one Lord Ʋrban Bishop of Co∣mince in Gascony, to plead her Cause; which Cause of hers was quickly rejected, and only the afore∣said five Princes Descended of King Emmanuel's Children, were admitted to the Tryal for the same;* 1.340 which were Don Antonio, Son of Lord Lewis the King Cardinals Elder Brother; and King Philip of Spain, Son of Lady Elizabeth the Eldest Sister of the said Cardinal; and Philibert Duke of Savoy, Son of the Lady Beatrix the same Cardinals Younger Sister; and the two Dutchesses of Parma and Bragansa, named Mary and Catharine, Daugh∣ters of Lord Edward, Younger Brother of the said Cardinal, and Youngest Child of the said King Emmanuel. And for that the Lady Mary Dutchess of Parma, which was the Elder of the two Daugh∣ters, was Dead before this Controversy fell out; her Eldest Son Lord Ranutio now Duke of Parma, pretended by her Right to the said Crown.

And for that this matter was of so great Im∣portance,* 1.341 every party procured to lay down their Reasons, and declared their Rights in the best manner they could; and such as could not be pre∣sent themselves in Portugal▪ sent thither their Agents, Embassadors and Attorneys, to plead their Cause for them. Don Antonio and the Dutchess of Bragansa, as Inhabitants of that Kingdom were present, and declared their pretences, Namely Don Antonio by himself, and for himself; and the Lady Mary of Bragansa by her Husband the Duke and his Learned Councel.

* 1.342The Prince of Parma sent thither for his part, one Ferdinando Farneso Bishop of Parma. The Duke of ••avoy se••t Charles of Rovere, afterward made Cardinal. The King of Spain, as the greatest pre∣tender, sent the Lord Peter Gyron Duke of Osuna, afterward Viceroy of Naples, and Sir Christopher de Mora Knight of his Chamber at that time, but since of his Privy-Council, and lately made Earl of Castil Rodrigo in Portugal, of which Country he is a Native; and besides these two, a great Lawyer Named Roderigo Vasques, made since (as I hear say) Lord President of Castil, which is as much almost as Lord Chancellor with us.

All these did lay forth before the King Cardinal their several Reasons and Pretensions to the Suc∣cession of the Crown of Portugal; for the five per∣sons before-mentioned, whereof two were quick∣ly excluded, to wit, the Duke of Savoy, for that his Mother was Younger Sister to King Philip's Mother, and himself also of less Age then the said King. And secondly Don Antonio was also exclu∣ded by publick and Judicial Sentence of the King Cardinal his Uncle as Illegitimate, and Born out of lawful Wedlock: And Albeit Don Antonio denyed the same, and went about to prove himself Legi∣timate; affirming that his Father the Lord Lewis, before his Death had Married with his Mother in secret, and for this brought forth some Witnesses, as Namely his Mothers Sister with her Husband, and two others: Yet the King Cardinal affirmed, that upon Examination he had found them Subor∣ned, which he said was evident to him; partly for that they agreed not in their Speeches, and partly for that some of them had Confessed the same, to wit,* 1.343 that they were Suborned; whom he cast into Prison, and caused them to be punished: And so sitting in Judgment, accompanied with four Bishops and four Lawyers, whom he had called to

assist him in this Cause, he pronounced the same Don Antonio to be a Bastard; for which the Au∣thors that I have read about this matter, which are principally two, the first Named Hierom Frank, a Gentleman of Geno••a who Wrote ten Books in Italian of the Union of the Crown of Portugal to Castilia; and the second is Named Joannes Antonius Viperanus a Sicilian, as I take him,* 1.344 who Wrote one Book only in Latine; De obtenta Portugallia à Rege Catholico Phillippo, of Portugal got by King Philip the Catholick; both these Books (I say) out of whom principally I have taken the Points which here I will touch, do severally set down the causes following; why the King Cardinal did reject the pretence of Don Antonio before all other preten∣ders, and pronounced him a Bastard. [ 1] * 1.345

First, For that he had been ever so taken all the time of his Fathers Life, and no man ever doubted thereof, or called the matter in question, until now that himself denyed the same.

Secondly, for that in the time of Julius Tertius [ 2] the Pope, when certain Decrees came out from Rome, against the promotion of Bastards; the same Don Antonio Sued to the said Pope, to be Dispensed withal in that Case; which argueth that then he knew himself not Legitimate.

Thirdly, that his Father the Lord Lewis had [ 3] often times both by Word and Writing testified the same, that this Antonio was his Bastard, and had signified also so much in his last Will and Testa∣ment.

Fourthly, The said Cardinal as of himself, also [ 4] affirmed, that if his Brother the Lord Lewis, had ever done any such thing, as to Marry this Wo∣man, who was but Base in Birth, and of Jewish Race, as these Stories do affirm: That it is like, that he would have made some of his own Friends acquainted therewith, as a matter so much Im∣portant

Important for them to know; but he never did, though the said Cardinal avowed that himself was present with him at his death.

[ 5] Fifthly, he said, that if Don Antonio had been Legitimate, how happened that he did not pre∣tend the Succession before the Cardinal himself, next after the death of Sabastin, seeing that he was to have gone before the said Cardinal by as good Right, as his other Nephew Sabastian did, if he had been Legitimate; for that he was Son also to the Cardinals Elder Brother, as hath been said.

[ 6] Sixthly and lastly, the said King Cardinal avow∣ched against Don Antonio, partly the disagreeing, and partly the open confessing of the Witnesses, that they were to be Suborned by him; upon all which Causes and Considerations, he proceeded to the Judicial Sentence before alledged.

Thus passed the matter in the Case of Don Anto∣nio, who if he had been Legitimate, no doubt, but by all Right he should have been preferred before all the other pretenders to the Crown of Portugal, and must be at this day, towards the Crown of England,* 1.346 before all those that pretend of the house of Portugal, if we grant him to be Legitimate, and much more clearly may he pretend to the Duke∣dom of Lancaster, as before hath been declared, for that it must descend to the lawful Heir of Lady Phillipa Queen of Portugal; whereof ensueth also, one consideration not impertinent to us of England, that seeing we hold him there for true King of Portugal, I see not how we can deny him his Right to the said Dukedom, at least of Lanca∣ster; whereof if we would give him but the posses∣sion with all the Appurtenances, as they lye, it were no evil entertainment for him in our Coun∣try, until he could get the possession of the Crown in his own.

After the exclusions of these two pretenders,* 1.347 to wit, of the Duke of Savoy, and of Don Antonio, the whole controversy for Portugal, remained, between the other three, which were the King of Spain Son of Lady Isabel eldest Daughter of King Emmanuel, and the two Dutchesses of Parma and Bragansa, Daughters of the younger Son of the said King Em∣manuel, to wit, of the Lord Edward Infant of Por∣tugal.

And First of all,* 1.348 for that the eldest of these two Ladies, to wit, Mary, Dutchess of Parma, was now dead, her Eldest Son, Lord Ranutio now Duke of Parma, entred in her place, and alledged that he re∣presented his Mother, and she her Father Lord Ed∣ward, which Lord, if he had been alive, he should (no doubt) have been preferred before his Elder Si∣ster, Lady Elizabeth Mother of King Philip, and consequently that the said Lord Edward's Issue ought to be preferred before her Issue, and this he alledged against King Philip.

And against the Dutchess of Bragansa he alledged, that his said Mother was the Elder Sister, and for that cause he which now possessed her Right, and re∣presented her Person, was to be preferred before the said Lady Katharine Dutchess of Bragansa, so that the Foundation of this pretence, of the Duke of Par∣ma was, that he was Nephew to the Lord Edward, by his eldest Daughter, and that to King Emmanuel he was Nephew, once removed, by his Son, whereas King Philip was Nephew but by his Daughter only, and that the Lady Katharine of Bragansa was only second Daughter to the said Lord Edward.* 1.349

But to this was answered for the same Lady Ka∣tharine, First, that she was born and bred in Portugal, and therefore more to be favoured in this Action, than either King Philip or the Duke of Parma, which were foreign born. And secondly, against King Philip In particular, she used the same argu∣ment,

that before the Duke of Parma had done, which is, that she was Daughter of Lord Edward, son of King Emmanuel, whose Right was better than his Sisters, and consequently that his Children were to be preferred before the Child of his Sister, in this pretence, to wit, before King Philip. And thirdly, against the Duke of Parma, she alledged, that she was one degree nearer in propinquity o•• Blood unto King Emmanuel and unto King Henry the Cardinal, than the Duke of Parma was, which was but Nephew▪ and she Daughter to the said Lord Edward, that was Brother to the said Lord Cardinal, and Son of King Emmanuel.* 1.350 And when for the Duke of Parma it was affirmed, that he represented his Mothers place, that was the elder Sister; answer was made, that no Representation was admitted in this case of the Succession to the Crown of Portugal, but that eve∣ry pretender was to be considered, and taken in his own person only, and to be preferred according to degree in propinquity of Blood to the former Prin∣ces; and if it happened that they should be in equal degree, then each party to be preferred according to the Prerogatives only of his person, to wit, the Man before the Woman, and the Elder before the Youn∣ger.

And for that the Lady Catharine of Bragansa was nearer by one degree 〈◊〉〈◊〉 her Father Lord Edward than was the Duke of Parma, who was but Nephew, therefore she was to be preferred, and many great Books were written by Lawyers in this Ladies be∣half, and her Right was generally held in Portugal, to be preferred before the other of Pa••ma, which was not a little for the advancement of King Philip's Title before them both, as presently shall be shew••d.

It was replied against this answer in the behalf of the Duke of Parma,* 1.351 that the last King Sebastian en∣tred the Crown by way of Representation, and not by propinquity of Blood, for that he was a degree

further off in propinquity of Blood from King John the III. whom he succeeded, than was the Cardinal, for that he was but his Nephew, to wit, his Sons Son, and the Cardinal was his Brother, and yet was the said Sebastian admitted before the Cardinal, for that he represented the Place and Right of his Father Prince John, that dyed before he inherited; and so we see that in this case, Representation was admitted, (said they) and in like manner ought it to be now.

To this it was said, that Sebastian was not so much preferred before his great Uncle the Cardinal, by vertue of Representation, as for that he was of the right Descendant line of King John, and the Cardi∣nal was but of the collateral or transversal Line, and that all Law alloweth that the right Line shall first be served, and preferred before the Collateral shall be admitted; so that hereby Representation is nothing furthered.

This exclusion of Representation did greatly fur∣ther and advance the pretence of King Philip,* 1.352 for the excluding of both these Ladies and their Issues; for that supposing (as this answer avoucheth) that there is no Representation of Father or Mother or Predecessors to be admitted, but that every preten∣der is to be considered only in his own person; then it followeth, (said these men which plead for the King) that King Philip being in equal degree of propinqui∣ty of Blood, with the two Ladies, in respect as well of King Henry yet living, (for that they were all three children of Brother and Sister,) it followeth that he was to be preferred before them both, as well in respect that he was Man, and they both Women▪ as also, for that he was elder in age, and born before them both. And albeit the Duke of Parma alledged that he was one degree further off from the foresaid Kings, than was King Philip, so as not respecting Representation of their Parents▪ that is to say, not considering at all, that King Philip descended of a

Woman, and the two Dutchesses, of a man, but on∣ly especting their own persons, as hath been decla∣red, these m••n avouched, that King Philip's person was evidently to be preferred, for that he was a de∣gree nearer in Blood than the Duke of Parma, and superior in s••x and age, to the Lady Catharine of Bragansa.

Moreover, the Lawyers of King Philip's side affir∣med, that he was nearer also in propinq••ity of blood to King Sebastian, the last King, than was the very King Cardinal himself, and much more than any of the other two pretenders,* 1.353 for that he was Brother to the said King Sebastian's Mother, and the Cardi∣nal was but Brother to his Grandfather. And besides this, they alledged, that Portugal did belong to the Crown of Castil by divers other means of old, as for that it could not be given away by Kings of Castil in Marriage of their Daughters, as the principal parts thereof had been, as also for that when King John the I▪ that was a Bastard, was made King of Portu∣gal, by Election of the People, the Inheritance there∣of did evidently appertain to King John of Castile, that had to Wife the Lady Beatrix Daughter and Heir of Ferdinand King of Portugal, from which In∣heritance of that Crown, by open injury, both she and her Posterity, (whose Right is in King Philip at this day,) were debarred by the intrusion of the said John, Master of Avis, bastard brother of the foresaid King Ferdinand.* 1.354

Thes•• Reasons alledged divers Lawyers in the be∣half of King Philip, and those not only Spaniards, but also of divers other Countries and Nations, as my authors before-named do avow, and many books w•••••• written of this matter, and when the conten∣tion was at the hotest, then died the King Cardinal, before he could decide the same controversy, upon which occasion the King of Spain, being perswaded that his Right was best, and that he being a Mo∣narch,

and under no temporal Judge, was not bound to expect any other judgment in this Affair, nor to subject himself to any other Tribunal, but that he might by Force put himself in possession of that which he took to be his own; if otherwise, he could not have it delivered unto him (for so write these Authors by me named,) seeing also Don Antonio to pretend the said Kingdom by only Favour of some popular party that he had in Lisbon; the said King Philip entred upon Portugal by Force of Arms▪ as all the World knoweth, and holdeth the same peaceably, unto the day.

And I have been the longer in setting down this contention about the Succession to the Crown of Portugal,* 1.355 for that it includeth also the very same pre¦tence and contention for the Crown of England. For that all these Princes before-named, may in like manner pretend the Succession of that Interest to the House of Lancaster, and by that to the Crown of England, which doth descend from Queen Philippa eldest Daughter of John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster, and Sister of King Henry the IV. as hath largely been declared.

And albeit that some men will s••y, that this mat∣ter is now decided, which of these Princes of the House of Portugal, entreth also thereby to the other Right of Succession of England, yet others will say no, for that the Laws of Succession in Portugal and England be different.* 1.356 For that in England Represen∣tation taketh places so as the children of the Son, ••hough they be Women, shall never be preferred be∣fore the Children of the Daughter, though they be Men, whereof these men do infer, that seeing the La∣dy Philips Right before-mentioned to the Dukedom of Lancaster, and thereby also to the Crown of Eng∣land, is to be preferred according to the Laws of England, and not by the Laws of other Foreign Countries; it followeth, that the self same Right

of Succession that is pretended at this day by the Princes of Portugal for succeeding the said Lady Phi∣lippa, should be determined only by the Laws of England, where Representation taketh place, and not by the Laws of any other Nation: Thus say they.

But against this, others do alledge, that the que∣stion is not here, by what Law this pretence of the Blood Royal of Portugal to the Crown of England, is to be tried, but rather who is the true and next Heir and Successor unto King John the I. and to his Wife Queen Lady Philippa, Heir of the House of Lancaster, which two Princes were King and Queen of Portugal, and their true Heir at this day hath the forenamed pretence, to the Crown of England, true and next H••••r being once known, it little im∣porteth by what L••w he pretendeth his said Right to England, whether by that of England, or by this of Portugal, or by both, though to determine this first and chief point, who is the next and true Heir unto these foresaid King and Queen of Portugal, the Laws of Portugal must needs be Judge and not those of England, and so, seeing that by these Law•• of Por∣tugal, the King of Spain is now adjudged for next Heir to the said Prince, and is in possession of their Inheritance at this day, I mean of the Crown of Portugal; these men say, that he must consequently Inherit also all other Rights, Dignities and Prero∣gatives belonging to the foresaid Princes, or to their Posterity.

And thus you see now how great diversity of Ar∣guments and Objections is and may be alledged, on different sides, about this Affair, whereby also is made manifest, how doubtful and ambiguous a mat∣ter this point of English Succession is, seeing that in one onely branch of the Pretenders, which is in the House of Portugal alone, there are so many diffi∣culties, as here hath been touched.

But now the common Objection against all these

Titles and Titlers, is,* 1.357 that they are old and out of use, and not to be brought in question again now, especially seeing that both King Henry the VII. and his Issue have enjoyed so long the Title of the House of Lancaster, as it hath, and secondly that these Titles do appertain unto Strangers, whose Government may be dangerous many ways unto England, and especially in that which toucheth the King of Spain, who being so Great and Mighty a Monarch as he is, may prejudice greatly the English Liberty, and easily bring them into servitude, if his pretence should be Favoured, as by some it seemeth to be.

This is the Speech of many men in England,* 1.358 and abroad at this day, whereunto yet some others do answer, that as concerning the first Objection of the oldness of the Pretence and Title, it hath shewed before, that by Law no Title to a Kingdom dyeth ever, but may take place whensoever the Party to whom it belongeth, is able to avouch it and get pos∣session, and as for this pretence of the Line of Portu∣gal, they say, that it hath not such great age, but that very well it may shew it self, and be had in consideration, especially at this Time, w••••n now the Issue Male of King Henry the VII. is ended, and that of Necessity we must return to have consideration of the Issue of his Daughters, before which Daugh∣ters, good Reason, (say these men,) is it, that the Issue of Lady Philippa Queen of Portugal should be admit∣ted, for that albeit we would have that respect to the Issues Male of John Earl of Somerset, as to prefer it, or suffer it to enjoy the Crown, before the Issue of Queen Philippa,* 1.359 (and so they say it seemeth that it was, for that King Henry the VII. was Crowned King, his Mother being alive, which yet by ordina∣ry course of Succession should have gone before him;) yet say they, it is no reason that the Issue-Fe∣male of John of Somerset, or of King Henry the VII. should be preferred before the Issue-Male of the said Queen Philippa.

Moreover they say, that the House of Clarence and Hutnington do pretend a Title more old and stale at this day, than this of Portugal; for that they pre∣tend from George Duke of Clarence, that never had the Crown, and these of Portugal pretend to be next Heir to King Henry the VI. that did wear the Crown of England for 40. Years together, after whose death, if King Alfonsus of Portugal (who was then old and wearied with evil success of Wars) had been so able to prefer and follow his Title, as some of that House be at this day, he would never have suffered the House of York to have entred, nor King Henry the VII. to have enjoyed it after them, by the Title of Lancaster, which Title yet of Lanca∣ster (say these men) King Henry the VII. could not have in himself any way,* 1.360 whether we respect Queen Philippa, or John of Somerset, for by Queen Philippa they of Portugal were evidently before him, and by way of John of Somerset the Countess his Mother was as clearly before him, neither could he have any Title, as yet, by the House of Y••rk, for that he was not yet married to the Daughter of King Edward; so as his Crowning in the Field, and whole entrance to the Kingdom, was without any actual Title at all, but only the good will of the People, as these men do hold.

* 1.361To the other Objection of 14. Princes and strange Government, that may come to England by these pretences of the Princes of Portugal: divers men do answer diversly, for some do grant that it may be so, that by this means England may come to be un∣der Foreign Kings, and that no hurt, or inconveni∣ence at all would ensue thereof to England, but ra∣ther much Good and Commodity: but other that like not well of this assertion, do say further, that if these Foreign pretences should take place, yet that all matters might be so compounded, that al∣beit the Prince himself which is to Rule, should be

Foreign born (which they take to be no Inconveni∣ence) yet that his Forces and Dependance, should be only of the English, for that he should not bring in any strange Powers into the Land, no more than did King Stephen or King Henry the II. that were born in France, or than did King Philip of Spain in Queen Marys days, or as it is thought Monsi••ur of France should have done, if he had married her Majesty that now is, as once it was supposed he should.

To this said one of the Company,* 1.362 and is it pos∣sible, that any man should be of opinion that Fo∣reign Government in what manner or kind soever it be, should not be inconvenient and hurtfull to Eng∣land, where the People are wholly bent against it: you remember (quoth he) as concerning the last two Examples, that you have alledged, what Tumult and stir there was raised by some kind of Men, about the coming in of King Philip, and what there was like to have been about the entrance of Mon∣sieur, if that purpose had gone forward.

I remember well said the Lawyer, and these men that are of this opinion, will say to this, that it was but a Popular Mutiny without Reason or any good Ground at all, and only raised by some crafty Heads, that misliked the Religion of the Princes that were to enter, and for some other drifts of their own, but not of any sound Reason or Argument of State, which these men think rather to be of their side, and in good sooth they alledge so many Arguments for their Opinion, that if you should hear them, you would say it were hard to judge which Opinion had most Truth, but they are too long for this place and so (said he I shall make an end of the matter that I have in hand,* 1.363 and leave this point for others to dis∣cuss.

With this the whole Company shewed marvellous great desire to know the Reasons, that were on both Parties, for this matter, and so much the more, for

that it seemed to Fall very fit to the purpose of these pretences of Foreign Princes, for which cause they entreated him very instantly that before he passed any further, or ended his whole discourse of the Titles, (which hitherto they said had greatly con∣tented them) he would stay himself a little upon this matter, which though for a time he made great diffi∣culty to do, yet in the end being so importuned by them, he promised that at their Meeting the next day, he would satisfie their desire, and so for that time they departed very well contented▪ but yet as they said, with their Heads full of Titles and Titlers, to the Crown.

CHAP. IX. Whether it be better to be under a Foreign or Home born Prince, and whether under a great and mighty Monarch, or under a little Prince or King.

THe Company being gathered together the next day, and shewing much desire to hear the point discussed about Foreign Government, whereof men∣tion had been made the day before, the Lawyer be∣gan to say, That for so much, as they would needs have him to enter into that matter, which of it self was full of prejudice in most mens ears and minds, for that no Nation commonly could abide to hear of being under strange Governours and Governments he meant to acquit himself in this their Request, as he had done in other matters before, which was to lay down only the Opinions and Reasons of other men, that had disputed this Affair on both sides be∣fore him, and of his own to affirm or deny nothing.

And first of all against the Dominions of Strangers

and Foreigners, he said,* 1.364 that he might discourse with∣out end, and fill up whole Books and Volumes with the Reasons and Arguments, or at least wise with the dislikes and aversions, that all men commonly had to be under strangers, or to have any Aliens to bear Rule or Charge over them, be they of what Condition, State or Degree soever, and in this he said, that as well Philosophers, Lawmakers wise and good men, as others do agree commonly, for that we see both by their Words, Writings and Facts, that they abhorr to subject themselves to strange Govern∣ments,* 1.365 so as in all the eight Books of Aristotles's Po∣liticks you shall still see that in all the different Forms of Commonwealths, that he setteth down, he pre∣supposeth ever that the Government shall be by People of the self same Nation, and the same thing do presume in like manner, all those Law-makers that he there mentioneth, to wit, Minois, Solon, Lycurgus, Numa Pompilius, and the rest▪* 1.366 and he that shall read the Famous Invectives of Demosthenes against the pretentions of King Philip of Macedonia, that desired to incroach upon the Athenians and other States of Greece, as also his Orations against Aeschinos, his Ad∣versary, that was thought secretly to Favour the said Foreign Prince, shall see what Hatred that noble Ora∣tor had against Foreign Government; and he that shall read the Books of our time either of the Italians when they spake of their Subjection in times past to the Lombardes, German or French Nations, or to the Spaniards at this day; or shall consider what the French do presently write and inveigh against the Power of the House of Guyse and Lorayne in France, for that they take them to be Strangers, shall easily see how deeply this aversion▪ against Strangers is rooted in their Hearts,* 1.367 and this for Testimony of words.

But now if we will consider the Facts that have ensued about this matter, and how much Blood hath

been ••hed, and what desperate Attempts have been taken in hand by divers Nations for avoiding their subjection to strangers, or for delivering themselves from the same again, if once they have faln into it, you shall behold more plainly the very Impression of Nature her self in this Affair, for of divers barba∣rous Nations, Realms and Cities we read in Histo∣ries,* 1.368 we read that they rather chose to slay and mur∣der themselves, than to be under the Dominion of Stranger;, others have adventured strange Attempts, and Bloody Stratagems, as the Sicilians, who in one day and at the self same hour, at the time of Evening S••ng slew all the French-men that were within the Island,* 1.369 whom yet themselves had called and invited thither not long before; And the like is recorded in our English Histories of killing the Danes by English men, at one time, in most ruful manner; And the like was oftentimes thought on also by the English against the Normans,* 1.370 when they Oppressed us, and by the French against the English, whiles we had Dominion in Fran••e, though neither the one nor the other of these latter designments could be effectuated, for want of Forces and Commodity, by reason of the watchfulness of the contrary part. But yet to speak only of France, the Rage and Fury of the French was generally so great and implacable against the English that Governed there, in the Reign of King Henry the VI. as both Polydor and other Histories do note, (••t what time, partly by the dissensions of the Houses of York and Lancaster in England, and partly by the valour of their own new King Charles the VII. they had hope to be rid of the English Dominion) as no Perswasion or Reason,* 1.371 no Fear of Punishment, no Force of Arms, no Promise or Threat, no Danger, no Pity, no Religion, no Respect of God nor Man, could repress or stay them from rising and revolting every where against the English Government and Governours, murthering those of the English Na∣tion

in all parts and corners, wheresoever they found them, without remorse or compassion, until they were utterly delivered, of their Dominion.

So as this matter is taught us (say these men) even by Nature her self,* 1.372 that Strangers Govern∣ment is not to be admitted, and moreover the rea∣sons before alledged against the King of Scotlands pretence, together with the example and judgments of the Realms of Spain and Portugal, who resolved ra∣ther to alter the true Order and Course of their Suc∣cession, than to admit Strangers over them, do plain∣ly Confirm the same.

And last of all, (say these men;* 1.373) the Authority of Holy Scripture is evident, in this behalf, for that when•• God in Deuteronomy did fortel by Moses, that the Jews in time would come to change their Go∣vernment, and to desire a King as other Nations round about them had; he added yet this express Condition, that he should be only of their own Na∣tion, for he saith,* 1.374 Constitues eum quem Deus tuus el••ge∣rit de numero fratrum tuorum, non poteris altertus gen∣tis hominem Regem facere, qui non sit frater tuus: that is, Thou shalt make a King at that time, such a one as thy Lord God shall chuse for that dignity, out of the number of thy Brethren, but thou mayst not make a King of any other Nation, but of thy own Brethren. Thus say these men, against admitting of Strangers; and it seemeth, that their opinion and affection hath many follow∣ers, for that generally we see most men affected and inclined this way.

But yet on the other side,* 1.375 there want not other men, who appear both wise, dis-passionate and grave, that will seem to consider this matter far otherwise, and do say, that all this is but a common vulgar prejudice of passionate men against strangers, rising partly by corruption of Nature, whereby men are inclined to think evil of others, and to bear them little affection, especially, such as Govern and bear

rule over them, and so much the less by how much farther off they are from us in Kindred and Ac∣quaintance, and partly also they say that the same riseth of lack of due consideration in the most part of men; for that they weigh not the true Reasons, Causes or Effects of things, but only the outward shew, and so do run away with the Opinion and Apprehension of the Popular, which for the most part hath no other ground or foundation in it, but only Fancy and Imagination, or Incitation of others that endeavour to procure Tumults; and so they say it falleth out in this point, as upon exami∣nation it shall appear.

And for Proof and Declaration of this their Asser∣tion, they do require first of all, that this ordinary and common prejudice against Strangers or strange Governments, be laid aside, so long at least, as the matter is in Disputation, and that only the true effects of good and profitable Government may be considered,* 1.376 without that other circumstance, whe∣ther these fruits do come from Stranger or Home∣born Prince, which effects are Peace, Rest, Justice, Defence of the Innocent, Punishment of the wicked, Wealth Security, and other such benefits, that good Government is wont to bring with it to the Sub∣jects. These things (say these men) are to be weigh∣ed indifferently, and without passion, by Wise men, and wheresoever these effects are more abundantly to be found, there the Government is best, and there the subjects are in best Case, whatsoever the Go∣vernours be, or of what Nation or Country soever they be. And this they shew by this example fol∣lowing.* 1.377

If in two Countries or Commonwealths, lying nigh together, the subjects of the one, should live in all Ease, Wealth and Prosperity, under a stranger, as divers states did under the Romans, and in the o∣ther they should be Beaten, Whipped and Afflicted

under a home-born Prince, as we read the Sicilians were under Phalaris and Dionisius their Country∣men, Tyrants; clear it is, (say these men) that the stripes and Afflictions would not seem the easier, for that they come from a Natural Prince, but ra∣ther the heavier, and the others happy case under the Stranger, must needs seem to be the better, and consequently his Government rather to be wished: For that in very Truth the goodness and defect of every Government, is to be measured by the effects thereof, that redound unto the Subjects, for whose good it was first ordained, as oftentimes our Friend the Civil Lawyer hath touched and proved before. And when the Subjects do live well and prosperously, are defended and maintained in Peace, Safety and Wealth, when Justice is done equally to all men, the wicked punished, and the good advanced and rewarded, when God is honoured, and true Reli∣gion maintained, and vertue promoted; this is that which importeth the Realm and Subjects; and not where, or in what Country the Prince and his Officers were Born, or of what Nation, Language or Kindred they be. For that,* 1.378 be the Prince of what Lineage or Kindred soever, yet after he is once established in this Dignity, the Common subject can have no more conversation with him, nor re∣ceiv any more personal benefit of him, then if he were a meer stranger; except only by those common and publick effects of his Government before-mentioned; for that so soon as he is placed in his Dignity, he be∣cometh a Stranger unto me, little availeth it to me, whether he be of my Blood and Country or no; and I may say as the people of Israel in the like Case to Rehoboam, for that he was King Davids Nephew, and of the House of Jesse, thought his State assured, for that he was their Lord and Natural Prince, and so might press and afflict them at his pleasure: But they answered him plainly;* 1.379 Quae nobis pars in Da∣vid,

vel quae haereditas in filio Jesse, what part have we in David, or what Inheritance have we in the Son of Jesse, and so they left him, and rather chose to be under Jeroboam a Stranger, and his Servant under him.

This then is the first point which these men do demand, to wit, that we consider equally and ac∣cording to Reason, Wisdom and Truth, and with∣out all Partial Affect on, where and by whom, and by what Government we are likest to receive and enjoy the good and happy effects above-mentioned of Prosperity to the Subject: For that without all doubt (say they) that Government is to be deemed best, and that Subjection Happiest, where those Be∣nefits are most enjoyed, let the Prince or Gover∣nour be of what Nation Lineage soever. And on the other side,* 1.380 that must needs be the worst Government unto me, where I shall reap fewest, and participate least of those effects, be the Prince never so much much my Countryman or Kinsman; and though he were Born in the same City, Town or House, yea in the same Belly with me: As for Example, those men that lived (say they) in Spain under King P••∣ter the Cruel, or in England under King Richard the third, commonly called the Tyrant; what did it avail them that those Princes were of their own Country or Blood,* 1.381 seeing they did that unto them, which a Stranger though never so Barbarous, would scarce have done? As in like manner, all those Noble Houses before-mentioned in our Country, of the Dela Pools, Staffords, Plantagenets, and others, de∣stroyed by King Henry the Eight; what availed it them, that the said King was not only their Country∣man, but also their near Kinsman: What profit or Commodity was it unto Thomas of Woodsto••k Duke of Glocester, that he lived under a King that was his Nephew, to wit▪ King Richard the second, or to George Duke of Clarence in King Edward the fourths

time, that the said King was his own Brother, when both of them were Pursued, Disgraced, and put to Death by them, and lost their Lives, Lands, Dig∣nities, Goodly Possessions▪ Stately Mannors, and Gorgeous Houses, with their Wives, Children, and all other Felicities of this World; which perhaps under a Strange Prince, they might have enjoyed many a fair day and year.

This is that then which these men do first require,* 1.382 to wit, that all Fancy and Fond Opinion of the Vulgar people be aparted in this matter, from Truth and Substance; as also say they, we ought to desire and determine who are properly Strangers, or Foreigners, seeing some do take for Strangers and Foreigners, all those that are not of the same Dominion and Government, though otherwise they be of the same Nation and Language, according as those other men that are Enemies to Strangers, said a little before (if you remember) that the Princes of the House of Guise, and their Kindred are taken for Strangers in France, by them that by that means would make them odious to the people, for that their Ancestors in times past came out of Lorain, which is a Province joyning hard upon France, of the same Nation, Language and Manners, but only under another Prince. And so I my self noted in my Traveling through Italy, that the Florentines are hated and called Strangers in Siena, where they govern, albeit the one state be not 30 Miles from the other, and both of one Nation, Language, Manners and Education. And on the contrary side, we shall see, that some of different Language and Nation do hold themselves for Country-men; as for Example, the Biscayns in Spain, do not hold the Castilians for Strangers, but are contended to be ruled by them, as by their own Country-men, albeit they be a diffe∣rent Nation, and have different Language and Man∣ners, and the same I do note in the Brittains and

Normans towards the French, in the Welsh also to∣wards the English, who are a different People and of different language, and yet are they Governed peaceably by the English, and the English again do account them for their Countreymen, as may appear by that, when King Henry the VII. came to be King of England, I do not find any resistance made against him by the English, for that respect that he was of that N••tion, as evidently he was by his Fathers side, that was of the Tidders of Wales, so as this point also who be strangers and who be not seemeth to be a thing that dependeth much of the opinion and affe∣ction of each People and Nation, the one towards the other.

* 1.383 And this being so, these men come to treat more particularly of the Purpose in hand, and do say that in two or three manners a Nation may come to be under the Government of Strangers or Foreigners, first as a Province, that is to say, as a piece or mem∣ber of another Dominion, as England was in times past under the Romans, and as Ireland is under Eng∣land at this day & as the Brittons are under France, & as many States of Italy be under the Crowns of Ara∣gon and Castile. And this may come to pass either by Conquest and Force of Arms, as the Welsh came to be under the English, and the English to be under the Normans and Danes, and as Sicilia and Naples came to be under the Spaniards, and as Normandy and Aquitain came to be under the French, and as almost all the World in old time was brought to be under the Romans: or otherwise the same may come to pass by Inheritance, as Aquitaine and Normandy in times past came to England, and as Flanders with the States thereof came to the House of Austria, and as Britany to the Crown of France, or else thirdly, it may happen by mixt means, that is to say, partly by Force and partly by other means of Compo∣sition, as Millain came to Spain, and Ireland to

England, according as the Irish do hold, and so Portugal hath inour dayes come to the King of Spain, for that besides his Hre••ence and Right of Inheritance, he used also Force of Arms for getting the same.

Of all these three ways then evinent it is,* 1.384 that Conquest is the hardest and most prejudicial to the Subjects, for that there all standeth at the will and clemency of the Conquerour, whom either Anger or Fear, or Jealousy of his assurance may often drive to hold an hard hand over the Conquered, at least wise for a time, until his Estate be beetter settled, so that I marvel not though no People or Countrey commonly would willingly be Conquered, but yet Policy also teacheth such a Conquerour, whatsoever he be, that as on the one side it behoveth him to be watchful and so to fortifie himself, as the unquiet can do him no hure, so on the other side it is neces∣sary by the same Rule of Policy to use all Favour and sweet means to content and gain those that be or may be made quiet, for better establishing of his State, even as a Physician after a vehement pur∣gation, doth minister lenitives and soft Medi∣cines, to calm and appease the good humours left, and to strengthen the whole body, that it may hold out.

This we see to be true,* 1.385 not only by reason of State and Policy, as hath been said, but also by experience of all Countries, that have been conquered in Europe or other where, if the continual resisting and revol∣ting of those that are conquered, do not cause a con∣trary course in the Conqueror, as it did in the Con∣quest of the Danes and Normands upon the English, and in the Conquest of the English upon the British or Welsh, where the often rifing of them that were overcome, enforced the Nanquishers to be much more cruel and rigorous than otherwise they would have been, for all our Histories do testifie, that King

Sweno the Dane,* 1.386 and much more his Son, King Canu∣tus, as also William the Conquerour, had a great desire after their victories, to have appeased, and made much of the English Nation, but that they were ne∣ver quiet under them, and so in like manner the En∣glish Kings oftentimes gave their Daughters in mar∣riage to the Princes of Wales, and many priviledges to that People, thereby to gain them, but that their continual Revolting, caused much severity and blood-shed to be used and the like severity did they use always most favours, and gave them most cause oftentimes in the very Romans towards the said Britains conquered.* 1.387

But where the People vanquished were content to be quiet; and submit themselves, there the said Ro∣mans used all Favour and Moderation so as it is writ∣ten of them in the first book of Macchabees.* 1.388 Et au∣divit Judas nomen Romanorum, quia sunt potentes viribus, & acquiescunt ad omnia quae postulantur ab eis: That is, And Judas Macchabeus heard the name and fame of the Romans, how they were potent in strength, and yet so gentle, as they yielded to all that was deman∣ded at their hands.

And finally their Government was so just, consi∣derate, sweet and modest, upon all Foreign Nations, which they had conquered, as it allured divers Na∣tions to desire to be under them, and to be rid of their own natural Kings, as of the Subjects of An∣tiochus and Methridates Kings of Asia and Pontus, we do read of, & some other•• Princes also thereby to gra∣tifie their Subjects, did nominate the Roman Empire, for their Successor, as did King Attalus King of Per∣gamus, and Ptolomy of Egypt, and others, and it is the common opinion of Learned men that the World was never more happily governed, than un∣der the Romans, and yet were they Strangers to most of their Subjects, over which they Governed, and unto whom they were most strangers, that is to say,

unto such as were furthest off from them, to those did they use always most favours, and gave them most priviledges, as both Wisdom and Reason of State did require, for that those people had most ability to rise against them, and to rebell, so as this circum∣stance of being Strangers hurted them nothing, but rather profited them much.* 1.389

The like Rule of Policy and of State have all great Monarchies used ever since, that is to say, to shew most Favour to such Subjects as be most strangers and farthest from them; and on the contrary side, if any be to be pressed more than others, to press and burthen them most, that be most natural and nea∣rest home, and most under, and in subjection, and surest to obey, and this is evidently seen, felt and practised by all the great States this day of the World, so as it cannot be denied. For if we look but into France, we shall find that the States of Ga∣scony and Guyene,* 1.390 which are farthest off from the Court, and were once strangers and gotten by force, from the English, do pay far less Tributes at this day to the French King than those that be of the Isle of France it self, and are properly French,* 1.391 and in like manner the Britons, which came to that Crown by Marriage, and were old enemies, do pay much less yet than the Gascoyns, and in a manner do pay nothing at all, and the Normans do pay somewhat more than any of the two, for that they do lie somewhat nearer to Paris, and thereby are more in subjection to the Prince, though yet they pay less than the natural French-men.* 1.392 The Candians also which is an Island apart, and standeth under the Venetians, do not pay the third part of the Impositions (as by my own in∣formation I learned, when I travelled Italy) that do the natural subjects of the Venetian state in Italy.

What shall I say of the Kingdoms and States of Naples, Sicily and Millain,* 1.393 subject to the King of Spain, called the Alcavall•• which is the tenth penny

of all that is bought and sold, nor are they subiect to the Inquisition of Spain, (at l••est Naples and Millain) nor to many other Duties, Tributes and Impositions which the natural Spaniard is subject unto; nor is there any Law or Edict made in Spain that holdeth in those Countries, except it be allowed, ratified and confirmed by those States themselves, nor may any of their old Priviledges be infringed, but by their own consents, and when the King requireth any ex∣traordinary Subsidies in Spain, they bear no part thereof. Whereupon these men do ask, what it hur∣teth these States, that they are strangers, or under Strangers, or what priviledge is it to the Spaniard at home, that he is only under his home-born King, if if he he receive less benefits by that than doth the Stranger.

* 1.394And is not the like also used by the State of Eng∣land towards Ireland, are not the Favours and In∣dulgences used towards the Civil Irish that live in peace much more than to the English themselves in England? For first, their Taxes and Payments be much less, the Laws of England bind them not, ex∣cept they be allowed and received by their own Par∣liament in Ireland. For matters of Religion they are pressed much less than home-born Subjects, al∣beit their Affections to the Roman Religion be known to be much more universal, than it is in Eng∣land. In all Criminal Affairs and punishing of De∣licts, the manner of proceeding against the Irish is much more remiss, mild and gentle, than with the Subjects of England, so as their being strangers seems rather a Priviledg, than an hindranc eunto them.

But in no other Countrey is this thing more evi∣dently to be considered,* 1.395 than in the States of Flan∣ders and low Countries, which by Inheritance (as hath been said) came to be under foreign Govern∣ment but so much to their good and advancement (and that in a very few years) as scarce is credible,

except to him that understandeth their former state, when they were under their home-born Princes, and do compare it with that which after they came un∣to, under the house of Austria, united unto the Crown of Spain.

For before, for many hundred years, a man shall read nothing almost, in their Histories, but War, Se∣dition and Blood-shed among themselves; and this either, one state with another before they were uni∣ted together all under one Prince, or else with the Kingdom of France, of whom in those days they de∣pended, or else (and this most of all) against their own Princes, of whom some have been so fierce and cruel unto them, as they have shed infinit quantity of their Blood, and among others,* 1.396 I read of their Count de Luys, that in one day he put to death five hun∣dred of them by sentence of Justice in Bruxel••es, and another day within the same year he caused about a thousand to be burned to death in a Church of the Town of Nevel, besides his infinite others whom in divers Battels and Skirmishes he slew, so as often∣times the Countrey lay almost desolate, through their domestical afflictions.

But now since the time that the States came to be under Philip the first Archduke of Austria,* 1.397 and after King of Spain, and so remained under his Son Charles the Emperour, and his Nephew Philip the II. that now liveth, until the late Troubles and Rebellions, (which was about the space of fifty years that they so continued in Peace before their Rebellion) it is al∣most incredible how those States increased in wealth,* 1.398 peace and dignity; so that as Guyc••••rdine the Italian Historiographer noteth in his description of those Countries, the whole Wealth and Riches of the World seemed to flow thither, and I my self can re∣member to have seen such exceeding abundance in very ordinary men of this Countrey, both for their Diet, Apparel, Furniture of House, and the like, as

was wonderful, besides that for their Nobility they were all great Princes, for that every one had his Province or great Town in Government, which they ruled with that Pomp and Honour, as if they had been Absolute Lords themselves, by reason of the far distance of their Supream Prince, and so they were received with publick Honour of all Cities and Towns, and their Charges Born where∣soever they passed, as such High Estates wont to be.

* 1.399And albeit they had ever commonly a Stranger for Supream Governour among them under their King, which bare the name to be above them, yet did he indeed nothing but as they would have him; and this partly for that his time of Goverment be∣ing but short, he always attended principally to get the good wills of the people, and to hold them conten••ed, and thereby to be grateful to his King at his return home; and partly also, for that if he should attempt to do any thing against their Minds and liking, they made reply by their President and Chancellor, and other of their own Councellors, residing for the Flemish Nation in the Court of Spain (for this Nation hath always a particular Councel there about the King, as all other Foreign Nations also have, that are under him) and by this means they obtained lightly what they would, and brought the Governour to what they pleased; so as in effect they were absolute Kings in them∣selves, and wrought their Wills in every thing, and this is in that time while the Country was quiet.

* 1.400But now since this Revolt, which hath indured almost these four or five and twenty years, what hath succeeded; surely there hath not a quarter so many been punished, or put to Death in all these years by order of Justice of their King absent, as before I have shewed that there were in one day, by ther own Earls and Dukes, when they were

present, and that upon far less occasion and cause given, then are these; for if we take away the two Noblemen, Egmond and Horne, put to Death at the beginning of these Flem••sh Troubles by the Duke of Alva (for which some men say also that he had no thanks afterward by the King) no man of importance hath been since Executed; and the chiefest Towns that have been and are against the King in Holland and Zeeland, are suffered until this day, to Traffique freely into Spain it self, to wit, in the Kingdom of Aragon many Heads have been strucken off, and much injustice done; whereof then riseth this difference, no doubt for that the Flem∣mings are Strangers and far off, and the other near at Home and Natural-Born, so as this circumstance of being a Stranger, and dwelling far off doth them great pleasure, and giveth them priviledge above the Home-born Subjects.

The like I might shew for this matter of punish∣ment in the foresaid States of Italy;* 1.401 where if a man do compare the number of them that were put to Death, pulled Down, or Afflicted by order of Justice, or otherwise at the the commandment of the Prince, in time of their own Home-born Kings, with that which hath been since, especially of the Nobility, you shall find one for twenty; and the reason of this is, for that their own Kings were Absolute, and had to give an account to no man of their doings, and for that they were men, and had their Passions and Emulations with the Nobi∣lity, and might put the same in Execution with∣out Account or Controlment, they pulled down and set up at their pleasure, and made oftentimes but a Jest of Noblemens Lives and Deaths: but now these that are Governours and Vice-roys for a Foreign Prince; first they have not so great Au∣thority or Commission, as to touch any such Prin∣cipal persons Lives, without giving Relation there∣of,

of,* 1.402 first unto their King and Councel, and receive again particular order for the same; and then they knowing that after their three years Govern∣ment is ended, they must be private men again, and stay their fourty days as Subjects under the next new Governour, to give Reckoning of their doings against all that shall Accuse them (which in these Countries they call to make their resi∣dence,) they take heed what they do, and whom they offend, so as the condition of Nobility, is far different under such a strange Government, as this is termed, then under a Natural Prince of their own Country which oppresseth them at his plea∣sure.

* 1.403But now to draw near homeward, if we will examine and consider what hath passed in England in this point of Massacring our Nobility, by our Domestical Princes, it is a matter lamentable▪ for it may seem that they have served oftentimes for our Princes to make disport and play with their Heads. And to let pass all those, which in time of Wars, Rebellions and Commotions, have been cut off, which occasions may seem more justifyable: I do read also in our Chronicles, that a Sangue freddo, as the Italian saith, that is to say, in time of Peace, and by Execution of Justice, at the Princes appointment, these Noblemen following, and Knights by Name, were put to Death, with∣in the space of one five years, in King Henry the fourth his days. The Duke of Exeter, the Duke of Surry, the Archbishop of York, the Earls Salisbury, of Glocester, of Worcester and of Hun∣tington; the Earl Mowbray, Earl Marshal; the Barron of Kinderton, Sir Roger Clarington Bastard Son of Edward the Black Prince, Sir Thomas Blunt, Sir Bernard Rocas, Sir Richard Vernon. And again soon after under King Edward the fourth, in almost within as little space, the Dukes of Somorset and

of Exeter, the Earls of Devonshire, of Oxford, and of Keyns, the Lord Ross, the Lord Molyns, Sir Tho∣mas Tudingham, Sir Philip Wentworth, Sir Thomas Fyndam, and many others afterwards, (for this was but at the beginning of his Reign) which num∣ber of Nobility, if a man should have seen them alive together with their Trains, before they had been put down, he would have said they had been a very goodly company, and pityful that so many of our own Nobility should be brought by our own Princes to such Confusion.

But yet this matter may seem perhaps the less marvellous, and more excusable,* 1.404 under those two Kings, for that Troubles and Contentions had passed a little before in the Realm about the Succession, and herupon so many of the Nobility might be cut off: But let us see then what ensued afterwards, when things were established, and all doubt of contention about the Succession taken away, as in King Henry VIII▪ the his days it was; and yet do I find Registred in our Chronicles these persons following, either made away, cut off, or put down, by the said King, to wit, two Queens, Ann and Catharine, three Cardinals put down and disgraced, Woolsey, Pool, and Fisher, whereof the last was Beheaded; soon after his Dignity given him in Rome, and the first was Arrested, the second Attainted of imagined Treasons: three Dukes put down, to wit, the Noble Dukes of Buckingham, Suffolk, and Norfolk; whereof the last lost his Lands, Dignities and Liberty only, the former two both Lands and Lives. A Marquess with two Earls Beheaded, Devonshire, Kyldare and Surrey; two Countesses Condemned to die, Devonshire and Salisbury, and the latter Executed: Lords many, as the Lord Darcy, the Lord Hussey, the Lord Mon∣tague, the Lord Leonard Gray, the Lord Dacers of the South, the Lord Cromwel, and six or seven

Abbots, Knights also in great number, as five in one day, with the Lords Hussey and Darcy, and five in another day, with the Earl of Kildare, whose Uncles they were; and besides them, Sir Thomas Moor, Sir Rice Griffith, Sir Edward Nevel, Sir John Nevel, Sir Nicholas Carew, Sir Adrian Fortescue, and divers other Knights of great Account; and then Gentlemen almost without end.

And all these within the space of 20 years of his Reign,* 1.405 and in the time of peace; and if we look upon but four or five years together of the Reign of this mans Children, we shall see the like course continued, for we shall see put to death within the space of four years, all these following by Name, the Duke of Somerset, the Duke of Suffolk, the Duke of Northumberland, and the Lord Ad∣miral of England, Sir Miles Partridge, Sir Ralph Vane, Sir Michael Stanhope, Sir Thomas Arundel, Sir John Gates, Sir Thomas Palmer Knights, with divers other Gentlemen of their Retinue, and all these by Natural, Domestical and Home-born Princes; whereas I dare adventure the greatest Wager that I can make, that you shall not find so many put to death of the Nobility by any strange Prince, State, or Commonwealth Christian, in any Foreign Do∣minion that they possess, in many Ages together; and the reason thereof is evident, by that I said be∣fore, neither were it policy or wisdom, nor could the causes be so often, nor ordinarily given by the Nobility to a Prince that were absent from them to use such Severity; so as by this it may also ap∣pear, that to be under a Foreign Government, even in the worst kind thereof, that can be devised, which is to be as a Province or piece of another Kingdom, and to come under it by very Conquest it self, is not so dangerous a matter, as at the first shew it may seem, and much less to be under Foreign Government, by other sweeter means of

Succession, or Composition, as the present case of England seemeth to import, in respect of those fo∣reign Princes which do pretend to the Succession thereof.

And this is not only shewed and declared by the state and condition of Flanders,* 1.406 before their tu∣mults; but in like manner it is seen by the present state of Britanny, Normandy, Aquitaine, Provence, and other Dukedoms and Countries in France, that were wont to have their own particular Princes, and now are much more commodiously under the Crown of France. The like is seen by the States of Naples, Millain, Sicily, Sardinia, and other parts and Countries of Italy, which were wont to be un∣der Kings and Princes of their own, and now are under the Crowns of Aragon and Castile, with infi∣nite odds of peace, rest, security and wealth, then they were before when they had domestical Prin∣ces, and so themselves do confess, I mean the wise and dispassionate among them; (for of the Vulgar in this case no account is to be made,) and if they should deny it, yet the thing speaketh it self, and the publick Histories of their Countries would con∣vince them, wherein it is to be read, what Phala∣ris, what Dionysius and other home••born Tyrants Sicily, (for example,) hath had and suffered, and with what infinite cruelty they and divers others of their own Governours have exercised upon them, as also what continual turmoils there were in the City of Naples and in all that Kingdom for many years together, after it self fell from the Go∣vernment, first of the Roman Empire, and then of the Grecian, until it came to the Crown of Aragon, I mean between their own domestical Kings, now of the Blood of Italians, now of the Normans,* 1.407 now of the Hungarians, and now of the French, (for of all these Lines there have reigned among them) and the Realm was a perpetual prey to Souldiers,

and the very like may be said of Millain, after their fall from the Roman Empire, (under which they lived quiet and prosperously,) until they came again to be under the Crown of Spain, they passed infinite Tribulations first by the contention of their common People against their Nobility, and then by the Bloody falling out of their chief Families, the one against the other, to wit, the Furiani, Vis∣conti, Marcelli, Castilioni and Ssorzi, (which Family last of all prevailed,) he, I say, that shall remember this; and then behold the present state with the quiet peace, safety and riches wherein they now live, will now live, wi••l easily confess that they have changed for the better, though they be under Foreign Government: and thus much of this point.

* 1.408There remaineth to speak a word or two about the second part of the Question before proposed and included partly in this which already hath been treated, to wit, whether it be better to be un∣der a little or great King, which question though it may be decided in part by that which before hath been alledged, about being under a foreign Prince, yet more particularly to make the same plain, these men do say that the reasons be many and evident to prove that the subjection to a great and mighty Monarch is far better: First for that he is best able to defend and protect his Subjects: And secondly, for that he hath least need ordinarily to pill and pole them; for that a little King, be he never so mean, yet must he keep the State of a King, and his subjects must maintain the same; and if they be but few, the greater will the burthen be of every one in particular: And thirdly, for that a great and potent Prince hath more to bestow upon his Sub∣jects for reward of Vertue and Valour; than hath a poor; and seeing that every particular subject, born within his Princes Dominions, is capable of all the Prefermenes which Princes, State or King∣dom

do yield, if he be worthy of the same, it is a great Prerogative, (say these men,) to be born un∣der a potent Prince, that hath much to give, which they declare by this example following.

A man that is born in the City of Genoua or Ge∣neva (for both are Cities and States within them∣selves, (let him be of what ability or worthiness soever, yet can he hope for no more preferment, than that Commonwealth and State can give; and if there should be many worthy men born there at one time, then were this his condition worse, for then must he part also with other men, though there were not sufficient for himself, and the most he could aspire unto, if he were an Ecclesiastical man, were the greatest Benefice within that State; and on the other side, if he were a Temporal man, he could not hope for much, for that the State hath it not to bestow; but another that is born under a great Monarch, as is the King of France or Spain, in these our dayes, that hath so many great Bishop∣ricks; (for Examples sake,) and other Spiritual Li∣vings to bestow upon the Clergy, and so many high Governments and Employments both of War and Peace, to give unto Temporal men that can deserve the same; This man, (I say) hath a great Advan∣tage of the other, in respect of preferment at this day, but much more was it in old time, to be born under the Roman Empire, when it had the pre∣ferments of all the World to bestow; for that eve∣ry subject thereof was capable of all the said pre∣ferments, so far forth as he could make himself worthy, and deserve the same. For better expli∣cation of which point yet, I have thought good to cite in this place the words of a certain Learned Knight,* 1.409 that in our dayes hath written the Lives of all the Roman Emperours, and in the Life of one of them, that was an excellent Governour, named Antonius Pius the said Knight hath this discourse ensuing.

* 1.410There was in this mans Governments (said he) great Contentment and Joy on all hands, great Peace and Quietness, and very great Justice, and truely it is a thing worthy in this place to be considered, what was the humane Power, and how infinite the Forces of the Roman Empire at this day, and how great was the Liberty, Quietness, Security, Wealth and Contentment of the Subjects that lived under that Government, when good Princes had the managing thereof; as was this Antoninus and his Son Aurelius, that followed him, and as were Adrian, Trajan and divers others. What a thing was it to see their Courts frequented free∣ly by all the Noble, Valiant and Learned men of the World, to see the union and friendly dealing of diffierent Nations together, when all served one Prince, so as a man might have gone over the whole World, or most and best parts thereof, with all security, and without all fear, all Nations and Countries being their Friends, Neighbours or Subjects; neither was there need at that time of any Pasports or safe Conducts: nor of so often change of Coyn, to travel, as now there is, neither yet were there new Laws every foot as now be found in different Countries, neither was there danger of Ene∣mies, or to be taken prisoners and captives, nor could any malefactor do a mischief in one Countrey and flee into another, thereby to be free from punishment, and he that was born in the very Orcades, or furthest part of Europe, was at home, though he were in Africa or Asia, and as free a Denizen as if he had been born there, Merchants also might pass at that day from Countrey to Countrey with their Merchandise, without particu∣lar Licences or fear of Forfeits; and finally the tem∣poral state of a Subject was wonderful happy at that time.

Thus far discourseth that learned Knight, and no doubt but that his discourse and consideration is founded on great Reason, and he that will leave at this day the many commodities of being under a

Great and Potent Prince, (if it lie in his own hands to chuse) for this only circumstance that he is not born in the same Countrey with him, is a man of small judgment and capacity in these mens opinion, and measureth matters of publick utility, with a false weight of fond affection.

And thus much may be said of the first way of being under Strangers and Foreign Government, which is that which vulgar men do most abhor and inveigh against, to wit, to be under a foreign Prince, that liveth absent and ruleth by his Go∣vernours.

But besides this,* 1.411 there is another manner of be∣ing under a Foreign Prince, as when an Alien Prince cometh to dwell among us, and this by either of two ways, to wit, that either this Prince cometh without Forces, as did King Stephen and King Hen∣ry the II. that were French-men, as hath been said, and came to live and govern in England, but with∣out external Forces: and as King Philip of Spain came afterwards, when by Marriage of Queen Mary he became King of England: and as the last King Henry the III of France went into Polonia by the free Election and Invitation of that Nation, and as his Brother Monsieur Francis Duke of Alenson should have entred afterward to have been King of England, if the Marriage pretended between her Majesty and him had gone forward and taken ef∣fect, as many thought once that it should. This I say is one way, and another is, that this Prince do bring Forces with him, for his own assurance, and these either present, as the Danish Kings, Sweno, Canutus, Haraldus and Hardicanutus did, and as after them the Norman Princes also used, I mean not only William the Conquerour himself, but also his two Sons William Rufus and Henry the I who either by help of the Normans, already in England, or by others brought in by them afterwards, wrought

their will▪ or else that this Prince so entring have Foreign Forces, so at hand, as he may call and use them when he will, for that they have no Sea to pass, which is the case of the King of Scots, and of both these wayes these men do give their sen∣tence distinctly.

* 1.412For as concerning the former way, when a Fo∣reign Prince entreth without any Forces at all, and with intention to live among us, they hold, that there is no danger, nor yet any inconvenience can justly be feared: for that in this case he subjecteth himself rather to the Realm and Nation, than they to him, and if he live and marry in England, both himself and his Children will become English in a little space. And for his own assurance he must be inforced to favour and cherish and make much of the English Nation, and be liberal, gentle and friendly to all, for gaining their good wills and friendship. And in one very great and important point his condition is different,* 1.413 and better for the English than any English Kings can be, which is, that he entreth with indifferent mind towards all men, hath no kindred or alliance within the Land, to whom he is bound, nor enemy against whom he may be inticed to use cruelty, so as only merit or demerit of each man, must move him to favour or disfavour, which is a great Foundation (say these men) of good and equal Government.

* 1.414Again they say, that in respect of the State pre∣sent of England, and as now it standeth, and for the publick good not only of the common Subjects, but also of the Nobility, and especially and above others, of the English Competitors and Pretenders that cannot all speed, no way were so commodi∣ous, as this to avoid bloodshed, to wit, that some external Prince of this time should be admitted up∣on such Compositions and Agreements, as both the Realm should remain with her ancient Liberties,

and perhaps much more than now it enjoyeth, (for such Princes commonly and upon such occasions of Preferment would yield to much more in those Cases than a home-born Prince would,) and the other Pretenders at home also, should remain with more security than they can well hope to do under any English Competitor, if he come to the Crown, who shall be continually egged on by his own kin∣dred, and by the aversion, emulation and hatred, that he has taken already by contention against the other opposite Houses, to pull them down, and to make them away, and so we have seen it by con∣tinual Examples, for many years, though no occa∣sion, (say these men,) hath ever been offered to su∣spect the same so much as now, if any one of the home English Bloud be preferred before the rest, and this is so much as they say to this second kind of being under Foreign Princes. To the third,* 1.415 they confess, that it standeth subject to much danger and inconvenience, to admit a foreign Prince, to live among us with Forces, either present or so near, as that without resistance he may call them when he listeth, and of this he needeth no more proof, (say these men,) than the Examples before alledged of the Danes and Normans, and the Mi∣sery and Calamity which for many years the Eng∣lish passed under them, and furthermore the reason hereof is evident, say these men; for first in this third kind of admitting a stranger King we are de∣prived by his dwelling amongst us▪ of those Utilities before mentioned, which Ireland, Flanders, Britany, Naples, and other States enjoy by living far off from their Princes, which Commodities are, much more Liberty and Freedom, less Payments, less Punishments, more Employments of the Nobility and others in Government, and the like. And se∣condly, by his coming Armed unto us, we cannot expect those Commodities which before I touched

in the second kind of Foreign Government, but ra∣ther all the Incommodities and Inconveniences that are to be found either in domestical or foreign Governments, (all I say) do fall upon this third manner of admitting a Stranger, as easily shall be seen.

For first of all, the greatest Incommodities that can be feared of a domestical Prince, are pride, cruelty, partiality, pursuing of Factions, and par∣ticular hatred,* 1.416 extraordinary advancing of his own kindred, pressing, pinching, and over-rigorous pu∣nishing of his People without fear, for that he is ever sure of his party to stand with him within the Realm, and so hath the less respect to others, and for that all these inconveniences and other such like, do grow for the most part by the Princes con∣tinual presence among his Subjects, they are inci∣dent also to this other, though he be a stranger, for that he is also to be present, and to live among us, and so much the more easily he may fall into them than a domestick Prince, for that he shall have both external counsil of a People that hateth us, to prick him forward in the same, which two motives every domestical Prince hath not.

* 1.417Again they say, that the worst and greatest In∣commodities of a foreign Government, that may be feared, are tyranny and bringing into servitude the People over whom they govern, and filling of the Realm with Strangers, and dividing to them the Dignities, Riches and Preferments of the same, all which they say are incident also by all probabi∣lity to this third-kind of foreign Government, where the Prince Stranger liveth present and hath Forces at hand to work his will, and this is the case say they, of the King of Scots, who only of any foreign Pretender seemeth may justly be feared, for these and other reasons alledged before, when we talked of his pretence to the Crown.

To conclude then, these men are of opinion, that of all these three manners of being under Strangers▪ or admitting foreign Government, this third kind peculiar as it were to the King of Scots Case, is to be only feared, and none else, for as for the second they say that it is not only not to be feared, or ab∣horred, but rather much to be desired, for that of all other sorts it hath the least inconveniences,* 1.418 and most Commoditi••s; for which causes we read and see, that where Kings go by Election, commonly they take Strangers, as the Romans and Lacedomo∣nians did often at the beginning, and after the be∣ginning of the Roman Monarchy their foreign born Emperours, were the best and most famous of all the rest, as Trajan and Adrian that were Spaniards, Septimius, Severus▪ born in Africa, ••onstantine the Great Natural of England, and the like, and the very worst that ever they had, as Caligula, Nero▪ Heliogabolus, Commodus and such other like Plagues of the Weal publick, were Romans, and in our days and within a few years we have seen that the Po∣lonians have chosen three Kings Strangers, one af∣ter another, the First Stephen Battorius Prince of Transilvania, the Second Henry of France, and last of all the Prince of Swecia that yet liveth, and the State of Venetians by way of good Policy have made it for a perpetual Law, that when they have War to make, and must needs chuse a General Captain, and commit their Forces into his Hands, he must be a stranger, to wit, some Prince of Italy, that is out of their own States, hereby to avoid partiality, and to have him the more indifferent, and equal to them all, which yet so many prudent men would never agree upon, if there were not great reason of Commodities therein, so as this point is concluded, that such as speak against this second kind of having a foreign Prince, speak of passion, or inconsideration, or lack of experience in matters of State and Commonwealths.

As for the first manner of being under foreign Government, as a Member or Province of another bigger Kingdom, and to be governed by a Depu∣ty, Viceroy or strange Governour, as Ireland, Flan∣d••rs, Naples, and other States before-mentioned be, with certain and stable Conditions of Liberties and Immunities, and by a form of Government agreed upon on both sides, these men do most con∣fess also that there may be Arguments, Reasons, and Probabilities alledged on both sides, and for both parties; but yet that all things considered and the inconveniences, hurts and dangers before rehear∣sed, that Subjects do suffer also oftentimes at the hands of their own natural Prince, these men are of opinion, for the causes already declared, that the Profits are more and far greater than the da∣mages or dangers of this kind of foreign Govern∣ment are, and so they do answer to all the Reasons and Arguments alledged in the beginning of this Chapter, against foreign Government,* 1.419 that either they are to be understood and verified only of the third kind of foreign Government before-decla∣red, (which these men do confess to be dangerous) or else they are founded for the most part in the er∣rour and prejudice only of the vulgar sort of men, who being once stirred up by the name of Stranger, do consider no further what reason or not reason there is in the matter, and this say these men, ought to move these men little, for as the common people did rise in tumult against the French, (for example,) in Sicilia, and against the Danes in England, so upon other occasions would they do also against their own Countreymen, and oftentimes have so done, both in England and other where, when they have been offended, or when seditious Heads have offe∣red themselves to lead them to like Tumults, so that of this they say little argument can be made.

The like in effect they do answer to the Ex∣amples before alledged of the Grecian Philosophers and Orators,* 1.420 that were so earnest against Strangers. And First to Aristotle they say, that in his Politicks he never handled expressly this our Question, and consequently weighed not the Rea∣sons on both sides, and so left it neither decided, nor impugned, and he that was Master to Alexander, that had so many foreign Countries under him, could not well condemn the same:* 1.421 and as for De∣mosthenes no marvel though he were so earnest against King Philip of Macedonia his entry upon the Cities of Greece, both for that he was well fed on the one side, by the King of Asia, (as all Authors do affirm,) to the end he should set Athens and other Grecian Cities against King Philip, as also for that his own Commonwealth of Athens was go∣verned by popular Government, wherein himself held still the greatest sway by force of his Tongue with the People, and if any King or Monarch of what Nation soever should have come to command over them, (as Philip's Son, King Alexander the Great, did soon after,) Demosthenes should have had less authority, than he had, for that presently he was banished, and so continued all the time that Alexander lived. But if we do consider how this State of the Athenians passed afterward under the great Monarchy of Alexander and other his fol∣lowers, in respect that it did before, when it lived in liberty, and under their own Government only, he shall find their State much more quiet, prosperous and happy under the Commandment of a Stran∣gers, than under their own, by whom they were continually tossed & turmoiled with battels, emula∣tions and seditions,* 1.422 and oftentimes tyrannized by their own People as the Bloody Contentions of their Captains Aristides, Themistocles, Alcibiades, Pericles, Nicias and others do declare, and as it is

evident among other things by their wicked Law of Ostracismus,* 1.423 which was to banish for ten years whosoever were eminent, or of more wisdom, wealth, valo••r, learning or authority among than the rest, albeit he had committed no crime or fault at all. And finally their having of thirty most horrible and bloudy Tyrants at one time in their City of Athens, instead of one Governour, doth evidently declare the same, (say these men,) and do make manifest how vain and foolish an imagina∣tion it was, that vexed them how to avoid the Go∣vernment of Strangers, seeing that no Strange Go∣vernour in the World would ever have used them as they used themselves, or so afflict them, as they afflicted themselves.

* 1.424To the Objection out of Deuteronomy, where God appointeth the Jews to chuse a King only of their own Nation, these men do answer, that this was at that time, when no Nation besides the Jews had true Religion among them, which point of Reli∣gion the Civilian hath well declared before, in his last discourse, to be the chiefest and highest thing that is to be respected, in the admission of any Ma∣gistrate, for that it concerneth the true and highest End of a Commonwealth and of all humane So∣ciety, and for that the Gentiles had not this Orna∣ment of true Religion, but were all destitute gene∣rally thereof, the Jews were forbidden not only to chuse a King of the Gentiles, which might pervert and corrupt them, but also to company, converse, or eat and drink with them, and this was then: but yet afterward when Christ himself came into the World, and opened his Church both to Jew and Gentile, he took away this restraint, so as now all Christian Nations are alike, for so much as apper∣taineth unto Government. And consequently to a good and wise Christian man, void of passion and fond affection, it little importeth, (as often before

hath been said,) of what Countrey, Nation or Li∣neage his Governour be, so he Govern well, and have the parts before required of Piety, Religion, Justice, Manhood and other the like, requisite to his Dignity, Degree and Charge, by which parts and vertues only his subjects are to receive benefits, and not by his Countrey, Generation, Lineage or Kind∣red; and this is so much as I have to say at this time about this Affair.

CHAP. X. Other Secondary and Collateral Lines, and how extream doubtful all these Pretences be, and which of all these Pretenders are most like to prevail in the end, and to get the Crown of England.

AFter the Lawyer had ended his Discourse, about Foreign Government, he seemed to be somewhat wearied, and said he would pass no fur∣ther in this Affair, for that he had nothing else to say but only to note unto them, that besides these principal Titlers of the five Houses mentioned, of Scotland, Suffolk, Clarence, Britanny and Portugal, there were other Secondary Houses and Lines also issued out of the Houses of Lancaster and York,* 1.425 as also of Glocester, Buckingham, and some other, as may appear by the Genealogies set down before in the II. and III. Chapters, of which Lines, (said he,) there may be perhaps oonsideration, and also by Commonwealth, when time shall come of choice or admission, the matter standing so as the Civilian hath largely declared and shewed before, which is, that upon such just occasions, as these are, the Com∣monwealth may consult what is best to be done, for her good and preservation, in admitting this or

that Pretender, seeing that this is the end why all Government was ordained, to benefit the Publick.

And for so much as there is such variety of Per∣sons Pretendents, or that may pretend, in the five Houses already named, as before hath been de∣clared, (which Persons at least do make some dozen more or less,) and that besides these, there want not others also of Secondary Houses, as is evident as well by the former Discourse, as also by the Arbor that of these matters is to be seen, the Law∣yer turned to affirm that the doubtful, who shall in the end pre∣vail, for that besides the Multitude before-named of Pretenders, he avouched very seriously, that af∣ter all this his Speech,* 1.426 he could not well resolve with himself, which of all these Titles in true Right of Succession was the best, and much less which of the Titlers was likest to prevail, and this I presume the Lawyer told them of himself, for that he did easily foresee and imagine, that after all these Ar∣guments, on every side alledged, he should be re∣quested by the Company, (as vehemently he was) to put down his opinion what he thought and judg∣ed of all the whole matter hitherto discussed, and of every mans pretence in particular.

Which in no case he could be brought to do for a long time, but refused the same utterly and cra∣ved pardon▪ and yielded many Reasons why it was not convenient, and might be odious. But all would not serve to acquiet the Company, which with all earnest importunity urged him to satisfie their Request, and so upon large and earnest En∣treaty, he was content in the end to yield to this only, that he would lay together by way of dis∣course the probabilities of every side, and lastly set down in two or three Propositions, or rather Con∣jecturs, his private guess which of them in his judg∣ment was likest to prevail

First then he began to say,* 1.427 that the probabilities of prevailing or not prevailing of every one of these Pretenders in the next Succession of the Crown of England these Pretenders may be consi∣dered and measured either in respect of the party of Religion, that was like in England to favour him, and his pretence, or else in respect of his own particular Family, Friends and Allies, both at home and abroad. And for that the Party of Religion is like to weigh most, and to bear the greatest sway, and most potent suffrage and voice, in this action, and that with reason, according to that the Civi∣lian hath proved at large in the last of his Discour∣ses: therefore shall I also, (quoth the Lawyer,) first of all then treat of this point of Religion in this my last Speech.

It is well known, (said he,) that in the Realm of England at this day there are three different and opposite Bodies of Religion, that are of most bulk,* 1.428 and that do carry most sway and power, which three Bodies are known commonly in England by the names of Protestants, Puritans and Papists, though the latter two do not acknowledge these Names, and for the same cause would not I use them neither, if it were not only for clearness and brevities sake, for that, as often I have protested, my meaning is not to give offence to any Side or Party.

These three Bodies then, (quoth he,) do com∣prehend in effect all the Force of England, and do make so general a division and separation through∣out the whole Land in the hearts and minds of their Friends, Favourers and followers, as if I be not deceived, no one thing is like so much to be re∣spected in each Pretender, for his advancement or depression, as his Religion or inclination therein, by them that must assist him at that day, and are of different Religions themselves. And more I am of

opinion, (said he,) that albeit in other changes here∣tofore in England,* 1.429 as in the entrance of King Ed∣ward and Queen Mary, and of this Queens Majesty that now is, divers men of different Religions did for other respects concurr and joyn together for these Princes advancement, (notwithstanding that afterwards many of them repented the same) which is to be seen, in that for King Edward all the Realm without exception did concurr, and for Queen Mary, it is known, that divers Protestants did by name, and among other points it is also known that Sir Nicholas Throgmorton a fervent Protestant in those days, being of King Edward's Privy Chamber, did not only advise her of the sick∣ness and decay of King Edward from day to day, but also was the first that sent an express Messen∣ger to advise her of her Brother's death, and what the two Dukes of Northumberland and Suffolk did contrive against her, and that with such celerity, that King Edward dying but on Thursday night, the 10th. of July, the Lady Mary was most certainly advised thereof by Saturday morning next, and that very early, in Kenning-hall-Castle of Norfolk, 80. Miles off, and divers other Protestants did as∣sist her also, in that her Entry, as in like manner all those of the Roman Religion, without ex∣ception, did assist her Majesty that now reigneth, after the decease of the said Queen Mary, and this was then.

But I am of opinion, that matters will fall out far otherwise at the next Change, and this partly peradventure,* 1.430 for that the titles of Succession in the Pretenders are not so clear, but rather much more doubtful now than they were then, and partly, (or rather principally,) for that men in time are come to be of more resolution and determination in matters of Religion, and by contention and pur∣suing one the other, are become more opposite and

enemies, and more desirous of revenge, and fur∣ther also than this, those that be of milder and bet∣ter condition, and have not these passions in them, yet by Reason and Experience they do see the great absurdity and inconvenience that ensueth, by that a man of one Religion should give aid to the ad∣vancement of a Prince, of a contrary Religion, to that which himself doth esteem and hold for only truth, which, in him that so doth, cannot be deni∣ed, but that it is a point of little zeal at the least, if not contempt of God and of Religion, or of plain atheism, as others will call it. And moreover, I re∣member that the Civilian before in the end of his Speech, inveighed also much against this point, and shewed that besides lack of Conscience and Reli∣gion, it was in like manner against all humane wis∣dom and policy, to favour a pretender of a diffe∣rent Religion from himself, and this for divers reasons, that he laid down, which reasons I confess prevailed much with me, and I do allow greatly of that his opinion and assertion, which averred that the first respect of all others ought to be GOD and Religion in this great Affair of making a King or Queen, and that without this no Title whatsoe∣ver ought to prevail or be admitted by Christian men, and that the Cities of France at this day do not amiss but justly and religiously (so long as they are of that Religion that they are) to stand against the King of Navarr, (though otherwise by descent they do confess his Title to be clear and evident,) for that he is of contrary Religion to them.

Wherefore seeing that the very same Case is like or rather certain to ensue one day in England, and that it is most probable that each Party of the Realm will stand most upon this Point, that is to say, upon the defence and advancement of their Religion, and of such a King as shall be known to favour the same that themselves be of; let us exa∣min

a little, if you please, quoth he, what force & abi∣lity each of these three Bodies of Religion now men∣tioned, is like to be of at that day in England, for ef∣fectuating or promoting this purpose of a new King.

* 1.431And first to begin with the Protestant, as with him that hath the sway of Authority and present Power of the State in his favour, no doubt but that his force will be also great, at that day, (said he,) and especial∣ly if he can conceal for a time the decease of her Ma∣jesty, untill he may be able to put his Affairs in order, but this is holden to be either impossible or very hard, for the different judgments and affections which are not thought to be wanting in the Court Council and Princes Chamber it self, whereof we saw the effect, (as before I told you,) at the death of King Edward, which was as much endeavoured to be kept, as ever any was, and as much it imported the Concealers, and yet within not many hours after, had the Lady Mary most certain notice thereof ••y those that were opposite to her in Religion, as I have shewed before, so ardent are mens minds in such oc∣casions, and so capable of new impressions, design∣ments and desires, are all kind of subjects upon such great changes.

A chief Member of the Protestant Body, (as you know,* 1.432) for Wealth and Force, is the Clergy of Eng∣land, especially the Bishops and other men in Eccle∣siastical Dignity, which are like to be a great Back to this Party, at that day, though some men think that it cannot be very certain, which part of the Nobility and Council will stick unto them,* 1.433 for that many in heart are presupposed to favour the Puritan. And for the Privy Council in particular, though dur∣ing the Princes Life their Authority be Supream, yet is it not so afterward, nor have they any publick Au∣thority at all, the Prince having once expired, but only as Noblemen or Gentlemen according to each mans

State and Calling in several, and for the next Suc∣cessor, seeing none is known nor sworn in the Life of this Prince, (nor were it her safety that any should be.) clear it is, that after Her Majesties decease every man is free untill a one wne be established by the Com∣monwealth, which establishment doth not depend upon the appointment or will of any few, or upon any mans proclaiming of himself, (for divers are like to proclaim themselves,) but upon a general consent of the whole Body of the Realm, which how it will be brought to pass, God only knoweth, and to him we must commend it.

I do not know, quoth he,* 1.434 of any certain person pretendent, to whom this Protestant Party is parti∣cularly devouted at this day, more than to the rest, though the House of Hartford was wont to be much favoured by them, but of latter years little speech hath been thereof, but rather of Ara••••lla, whom the Lord Treasurer is said especially to be at this present, though for himself it be held somewhat doubtful whether he be more fast to the Protestant, or to the Puritan, but if the Protestant Party should be divided, then their Forces will be the less. The Authority of Her Majesty is that which at this present overbeareth all, when that shall fail, no man knoweth what the event will be, for that now mens hearts are hardly discerned.

Their Foreign Friends and Allies are of good number,* 1.435 especially if the King of France proceed well in his Affairs, and do not indeed change his Religion as he pretendeth that he will, but yet if the Puritan do stand against them, he is like to pull much from them, both in France and Holland, and as for Scot∣land, it must needs be against them both, and this in respect of his own pretence, except the same be fa∣voured by them, I mean by these two Factions in England which is hardly thought that any of them both will do, for the reasons before alledged, though

some more hope may be that way, of the Puritan, than of the Protestant, by reason of the said Kings nearness to them in Religion.

* 1.436The Puritan is more generally favoured through∣out the Realm with all those which are not of the Roman Religion, than is the Protestant, upon a certain general perswasion, that his Profession is the more perfect, especially in great Towns where Preachers have made more impression in the Artificers and Burgesses, than in the Countrey People. And among the Protestants themselves, all those that are less in∣teressed in Ecclesiastical Livings, or other Prefer∣ments depending of the State, are more affected commonly to the Puritans, or easily are to be indu∣ced to pass that way for the same reason. The Person most favoured by the Puritans hitherto in common voice and opinion of men, hath been the Earl of Hun∣tington,* 1.437 some speech of late of some diminution there∣in, and that the Lord Beacham, since his Marriage, hath ent••ed more in affection with them. The King of Scots, (no doubt,) if he were not a stranger, and had not the difficulties before mentioned, were for his Religion also very plausible. I do not hear that the Earl of Darby or his Mother is much forward with these or with the Protestant, though of the lat∣ter sort some are supposed to wish them well.

* 1.438The Friends and Allies of the Puritans abroad are the same, that are of the Protestant, to wit, those of Holland and Zeeland▪ and such Towns of France as follow the new King, and jointly have changed their Religion, which are not many, for that his greatest Forces are yet those of the Roman Religion, but yet if the said King prevail and persevere in his Reli∣gion, (which of late, as I have said, is called in doubt by his often Protestations to the contrary and open going to Mass,) then will he be able to give good as∣sistance, though both these Countries, (I mean both Holland and France,) are likes in some mens opinions

to assist the Puritan than the Papist, if the matter come in difference between them, for that in truth they are more conform to the Puritan Religion. And as for the German Cities, that keep y••t and follow the particular form of Luther in Religion,* 1.439 they are like to do little for either Party, both for their diffe∣rence from both Parties in Religion, and for that they are poor, for the most part, and not active nor provided to give succour abroad, except they be drawn thereunto by force of Money.

The Puritan Part at home in England is thought to be most vigorous of any other, that is to say,* 1.440 most ardent, quick, bold, resolute, and to have a great part of the best Captains and Souldiers on their side, which is a point of no small moment. Greatly will import among other points, which way inclineth the City of London, with the Tower, whereof the Puritan, (as is said,) wanteth not his probability, as neither doth he of some good part, (if not more) of the Navy, to be at his devotion, which point perhaps at that day will be of as great consequence as any thing else. And so much of him.

The third Body of Religion, which are those of the Roman, who call themselves Catholicks,* 1.441 is the least in shew, at this present, by reason of the Laws and Tides of the time, that run against them, but yet are they of no small consideration in this Affair, to him that weigheth things indifferently; and this in respect as well of their Party at home, as of their Friends abroad; for at home they being of two sorts, as the World knoweth, the one more open that discovers which are the Recusants, and the other more close and privy, that accommodate themselves to all external proceedings of the Time and State, so as they cannot be known, or at least wise not much touched: We may imagine that their number is not small, throughout the Realm, and this party for the reason I mentioned before, in that the most part of

the Countr••y-People, that live out of Cities and great Towns, (in which the greatest part of English Forces are want to consist,) are much affected ordi∣narily to their Religion, by reason that Preachers of the contrary Religion are not so frequent with them as in Towns,* 1.442 and partly also for that with these kind of men, as with them that are most afflicted and held down, at this time, by the present State, many others do joyn,* 1.443 (a•• the manner i••,) & omnes qui amaro ani∣m•• s••nt▪ cum il••s se conjungunt, as the Scripture said of these that followed David's Retinue pursued by S••ul and his Forces, which is to ••ay, that all that be ••ffended, grieved, or any way discontented with the present time, be they of what Religion soever, do easily joyn with these men, according to the old say∣ing S••latium est miseris socios habere miseriae, besides that there is ever lightly a certain natural compas∣si••n▪ that followeth in men, towards those that are thought to suffer, or be pursued, and this oftentimes in the very enemy himself, and then of compassion springeth, as you know, affection, and of affection desire to help, as contrariwise do rise commonly the contrary effects, to wit, emulation, envy, and indig∣nation against the prosperity of him that pursueth, and is in prosperity.

And for that in so great and populous a Realm and large a Government, as this of Her Majesty hath been, there cannot want to be many of these kind of discontented men, as also for that naturally many are desirous of Changes, it cannot be supposed but that the number of this sort is great, which ma∣keth this Party far the bigger.

Moreover,* 1.444 it is Noted, that the much dealing with these men, or rather against them, and this especially in matters of their Religion, for these lat∣ter Years pa••••, hath much starred them up, (as also the like is to be noted in the Puritan,) and made them ••ar more ••••ger in defence of their Cause, accor∣ding

to to the saying, Nitimur in vetitum semper— and as a little brook or river, though it be but shal∣low, and run never so quiet of it self, yet if many barres and stops be made therein, it swelleth and riseth to a greater force, even so it seemeth that it hath happened here, where also the sight and remem∣brance of so many of their Seminary Priests, put to death for their Religion, (as they account it,) hath wrought great impression in their hearts, as also the notice they have received of so many Colledges and English Seminaries remaining yet, and set up of new, both in Flanders, France, Italy and Spain, for making of other Priests in place of the Executed, doth great∣ly animate them, and holdeth them in hope of con∣tinuing still their Cause, and this at home.

As for abroad,* 1.445 it is easie to consider what their Party and Confidence is, or may be, not only by the English that live in exile, and have their Friends and Kindred at home, but also principally by the affe∣ction of foreign Princes and States, to favour their Religion, whose Ports, Towns and Provinces lie near upon England round about, and for such a time and purpose, could not want commodity to give succour, which being weighed together, with the known inclination, that way, of Ireland, and the late Declaration made by so many of the Scotish No∣bility and Gentlemen also, to favour that Cause, all these Points, I say, put together, must needs per∣swade us, that this Body is also great and strong, and like to bear no small sway in the deciding of this con∣troversie for the Crown, when the time shall offer it self for the same. And so much the more, for that it is not yet known, that these are determined upon any Person whom they will follow, in that action, nor as it seemeth are they much inclined to any one of the Pretenders in particular, (wherein it is thought that the other two Parties either are or may be divided among themselves, and each part al∣so

within it self, for that so different persons of those Religions do stand for it,) but rather it is thought that these other of the Roman Religion do remain very indifferent to follow any one that shall be set up for their Religion, and is likest to restore and main∣tain the same, be he Stranger or Domestical, which determination and union in general among, if they hold it still and persevere therein, must needs be a great strength unto their Cause, and give them great sway wheresoever they shall bend at that day, as by reason is evident. And so much of this matter.

* 1.446It remaineth then that after these Considerations of the three Bodies in general, we pass to view of each Family, House and Person pretendent in parti∣cular, and therein to contemplate what may be for him, and what against him, in this pretence and pur∣suit of the Crown.

* 1.447And to begin first of all with the King of Scotland, as with him, who in vulgar opinion of many men is thought to be first and foremost in this action by way of Succession, (albeit others do deny the same, and do make it very doubtful, as before hath been decla∣red,) yet if we do consider not his Title, (for of that we have spoken sufficiently before in the 5th. Chap∣ter,) but other circumstances only of his Person, State, Condition, and the like, (of which points on∣ly we are to treat in this place,) then must we con∣fess that as on the one side there are divers points that may further him and invite men to favour his cause, so wants there not other to hinder the same. The points, that may invite, are his Youth, his being a King, his moderate nature in that he hath shed little blood hitherto, his affection in Religion to such as like thereof, and the like; but, on the other side, the reasons of State before laid against him, do seem to be of very great force, and to weigh much with En∣glish-men, especially those of his Alliance with the Danes, and dependance of the Scotish Nation. And

as for his Religion, it must needs displease two Par∣ties of three before mentioned, and his manner of Government therein perhaps all three.

As for Arabella, in that she is a young Lady,* 1.448 she is thereby fit, (as you know,) to procure good wills and affections, and in that she is unmarried, she may perhaps by her Marriage join some other Title with her own, and thereby also Friends. But of her self she is nothing at all allied with the Nobility of Eng∣land, and except it be the Earl of Shrewsbury, in re∣spect of Friendship to his old Mother in Law, that is Grand Mother to the Lady, I see not what Noble man in England hath any band of Kindred or Al∣liance to follow her. And as for her Title, it seem∣eth as doubtful as the rest, if not more, as by that which hath been said before, hath appeared. And for her Religion, I know it not, but probably it can be no great Motive, either against her or for her, for that by all likelyhood it may be supposed to be as tender, green and flexible yet, as is her age and sex, and to be wrought hereafter, and settled according to future events and times.

In the House of Suffolk, the Lord Beacham and the Earl of Darby have the difference of Titles that before hath been seen,* 1.449 and each one his particular reasons why he ought to be preferred before the other, and for their other Abilities and Possibilities they are also different, but yet in one thing both Lords seem to be like, that being both of the Blood Royal, they are thought to have ab••sed themselves much by their Marriages with the two Knights Daughters Sir Richard Rogers, and Sir John Spenser, though otherwise both of them very worshipful, but not their Matches in respect of their Kindred with the Crown, yet doth the Alliance of S. John Spenser seem to bring many more Friends with it, than that of Sir Richard Rogers, by reason of the other Daugh∣ters of Sir John, well married also, to Persons of im∣portance,

as namely the one to Sir George Carey Go∣vernour of the Isle of Wight, who bringeth in also the Lord Hunsdon his Father Captain of Barwick, two of the most important pieces that England hath.

* 1.450And for that the said Lord Hunsdon and the Lady Knowles deceased were Brother and Sister, and both of them Children to the Lady Mary Bullen, Elder Sister to Queen Anne, hereof it cometh that this Alliance with Sir George Carey may draw after it al∣so the said House of Knowles, who are many and of much importance, as also it may do the Husbands of the other Daughters of Sir John Spencer, with their adherents and followers, which are neither few nor feeble, all which wanteth in the Marriage of the Lord Beacham.

* 1.451Another difference also in the ability of these two Lords, is, that the House of Seymers in State and Title of Nobility, is much younger than the House of Stanleys, for that Edward Seymer late Earl of Hartford, and after Duke of Somerset, was the first beginner thereof, who being cut off together with his Brother the Admiral, so soon as they were, could not so settle the said House, especially in the Alliance with the residue of the Nobility, as otherwise they would and might have done. But now as it re∣maineth, I do not remember any Alliance of that House, of any great moment, except it be the Chil∣dren of Sir Henry Seymer of Hampshire, and of Sir Ed∣ward S••ym••r of Bery Pomery in Devonshire, if he have any, and of Sir John Smith of Essex, whose Mother was Sister to the late Duke of Somerset, or finally the Alliance that the late Marriage of the Earl of Hartford, with the Lady Frances Howard, may bring with it, which cannot be much, for so great a purpose as we talk of.

But the Earl of Darby, on the other side, is very strongly and honourably allied both by Father and

Mother, for by his Father,* 1.452 not to speak of the Stan∣leys, which are many, and of good Power, and one of them matched in the House of Northumberland,) his said Father, the old Earl had three Sisters, all well married, and all have left Children, and Heirs of the Houses wherein they were married, for the elder was married first to the Lord Sturton, and after to Sir John Arundel, and of both Houses hath l••s•• H••irs-male. The second Sister was married to the Lord Mosley, by whom she hath left the Lord that now is, who in like manner hath matched with the Heir of the Lord Montegle who is likewise a Stanley. And finally the third Sister was married to Sir Ni∣cholas Poynes of Gloc••stershire, and by him had a Son and Heir that yet liveth. And this, by his Fathers side,* 1.453 but no less alliance hath this Earl also by the side of his Mother, who being Daughter of George Clifford Earl of Cumberland, by Lady Elea∣nor Niece of King Henry the VII. the said Lord George had afterward by a second Wife▪ that was Daughter of the Lord Dacres of the North, both the Earl of Cumberland that now is, and the Lady Whar∣ton, who hereby are Brother and Sister of the half Blood to the said Countess of Darby, and the Dacr••s are their Uncles.

Besides all this,* 1.454 the States and Possessions of the two foresaid Lords, are far different, for the purpose pretended, for that the State of the Earl of Hartford is far inferior, both for greatness, situation, wealth, multitude of Subjects, and the like: for of that of the Stanleys doth depend the most part of the Shires of Lancaster and Chester, and a good part of the North of Wales, at least wise by way of observance and affection,) as also the Isle of M••n, is their own, and Ireland and Scotland is not far off, where friend∣ship perhaps in such a case might be offered, and final∣ly in this point of ability great oddes is there seen between the Lords.

* 1.455As for their Religion, I cannot determine what difference there is or may be between them. The Lord Beacham by education is presumed to be a Pro∣testant, albeit some hold that his Father and Father in Law be more inclined towards the Puritans. The Earl of Darby's Religion is held to be more doubtful, so as some do think him to be of all three Religions, and others of none, and these again are divided in judgments, about the event hereof, for that some do imagine that this opinion of him may do him good, for that all sides hereby may, (perhaps,) con∣ceive hope of him, but others do perswade them∣selves that it will do him hurt, for that no side in∣deed will esteem or trust him, so as all these matters with their events and consequences do remain un∣certain.

* 1.456But now will I pass to speak of the House of Cla∣rence, the chief Persons whereof and most eminent at this day are the Earl of Huntington, and his Bre∣thren the Hastings, for that the Pooles and Barring∣tons are of far meaner condition and authority, al∣beit the other also, I mean the House of Hastings, doth not seem to be of any great alliance, for that albeit the old Earl of Huntington, this Earl's Father, had two Brethren, the one Sir Thomas Hastings, that married one of the Lord Henry Pooles Daughters na∣med Montagne, that was put to death, which Daugh∣ter was Sister to this Earl's Mother, and the other named Sir Edward Hastings was made Lord of Lowghborow, by Queen Mary, to whom he was first Master of the Horse, and afterwards Lord Chamber∣lain, neither of them having left issue: and this is all I remember by his Fathers side, except it be his own Brethren, as hath been said, of which Sir George Hastings is the chiefest.* 1.457

By his Mothers side he hath only the Pooles, whose Power as it is not great, so what it is, is rather like to be against him than with him, partly for their dif∣ference

from him in Religion, and partly for prefer∣ment of their own Title, upon the reasons before alledged.

By his own Marriage with the Daughter of the late Duke of Northumberland, and Sister to the late Earls of Leicester and Warwick, he was like to have drawn a very great and strong alliance, if the said two Earls had lived, and especially Sir Philip Sidney, who was born of the other Sister of the present Countess of Huntington, and his own Sister was married to the Earl of Pembroke that now is, and himself to the Daughter of Sir Francis Walsingham Chief Secretary of the State, by all which means and by all the affe∣ction and power of the Party Puritan, and much of the Protestant, this Earl was thought to be in very great forwardness. But now these great Pillers be∣ing failed, and no Issue yet remaining by the said Countess, his Wife, no man can assure himself what the success will be, especially seeing that of the three Bodies of different Religions, before described, it is thought that this Earl hath incurred deeply the ha∣tred of the one, and perhaps some jealousy and suspi∣cion of the other, but yet others do say, (and no doubt but that it is a matter of singular impor∣tance, if it be so,)* 1.458 that he is like to have the whole Power of London for him, which City did prevail so much in advancing the Title of York, in King Ed∣ward the IV. his time, as it made him King twice, to wit, once at the beginning, when he first apprehended and put down King Henry the VI. and the second time, when he being driven out of the Kingdom by his Brother the Duke of Clarence,* 1.459 and Richard Earl of Warwick, he returned from Flanders upon hope of the favour of the Londoners, and was in deed received favoured and set up again by them especially, and by the helps of Kent and other places adjoining and de∣pending of London, and so it may be that the Favou∣rers of this Earl do hope the like success to him in time by this potent City.

* 1.460For the Houses of Britanny and Portugal, I shall joyn them both together, for that they are strangers, and the Persons thereof so nigh linked in kindred, affinity and friendship, as both their Titles, Forces and Favours may easily be joyned together, and im∣parted the one with the other, as to themselves shall best appear convenient.

* 1.461The Lady Infanta of Spain pretendent of the House of Britanny is eldest Daughter of King Philip, as all the World knoweth, and dearly beloved of him, and that worthily, as all men report, that come from thence,* 1.462 for that she is a Princess of rare parts both for Beauty, Wisdom and Piety. The two young Princes of Parma, I mean both the Duke and his Brother the Cardinal are Imps in like manner of great expecta∣tion, and divers ways near of kin to the said King, for that by their Fathers side they are his Nephews, that is, the Children of his Sister, and by their Mo∣thers side almost as near, for that they are Nephews of his Uncle Prince Edward Infant of Portugal.

* 1.463In like nearness of Blood are the Dutchess of Bra∣gansa and her Children, unto the said King, which Children are many, as hath been shewed, and all of that rare vertue and valour, and of that singular af∣fection unto the English Nation, as it is wonderfull to hear what men write from those Parts, and what others do report, that have travelled Portugal, and seen those Princes, and tasted of their magnificent liberality, so as I have heard divers rejoyce that are affected that way, to understand that there do re∣main such Noble Off-spring yet in Foreign Coun∣tries of the true and ancient Blood Royal of England.

* 1.464What the Powers and Possibilities of all these Princes of the House of Portugal be, or may be here∣after for pursuing their Right, shall not need to be de∣clared in this place, for that all the World doth know and see the same, yet all seemeth to depend of the Head and Root which is the King of Spain himself,

and the young Prince his Son, whose States and For∣ces how and where they lie, what alliance, friends, subjects or followers they have or may have, it is easy to consider, but what part or affection of men they have or may have hereafter in England it self, when time shall come, for the determining of this matter, no man can tell at this present, and what Plots, agree∣ments, compartitions, or other conclusions may be made at that day, time only must teach us, so as now I know not well what to say further in this Affair, but only commend it to God's High Providence, and therefore I pray you, (quoth the Lawyer,) let me end with this only that already I have said, and par∣don me of my former promise to put my opinion or guess, about future matters, and what may be the suc∣cess of these Affairs; for besides that I am no Prophet or son of Prophet, to know things to come, I do see that the very circumstances of Conjecture, (which are the only Foundation of all Prophecy, which in this case can be made,) are so many and variable; as it is hard to take hold of any of them.

Thus he said, and fain would have left off here, but that the whole Company opposed themselves with great vehemency against it, and said, that he must needs perform his promise, made at the beginning of this Speech, to give his censure and verdict in the end, what he thought would be the Success of all these Matters, whereunto he answered, that seeing no nay would serve, he briefly quit himself by these few words following.

First of all, (said he,) my opinion is,* 1.465 that this Affair cannot possibly be ended by any possibility moral, without some War, at least wise, for some time at the beginning, whereof my Reasons be these that do ensue.

This matter cannot be disputed and determined during the life of the Queen, that now is, without evident danger of her Person, for the reasons that all men do know importing such perils as are wont to

follow like cases, of declaring Heirs apparent, espe∣cially her Majesty the present possessor growing now to be old, and without hope of Issue.

[ 2] This declaration and determination of the Heir apparent to the Crown, if it should be made now, would move infinite humours and affections within the Realm, and it were to stirr coals and to cast fire∣brands over all the Kingdom, and further perhaps al∣so, which now lie raked up and hidden in the Em∣bers.

[ 3] This d••••••rmination, though it should be made now by Parliament, or Authority of the present Prince, would not end or take away the root of the contro∣versy; for albeit some that should be passed over or put back in their pretences, would hold their peace perhaps for the time present, yet afterward would they both speak and spurn when occasion is offered.

[ 4] This declaration now if it were made, would be hurtful and dangerous for him that should be decla∣red; for on the one side it would put the Prince reg∣nant in great jealousy and suspicion of him; and on the other side would joyn and arm all the other pre∣tenders and their favourers against him: and so we read that of two or three only, that in all our Histo∣ries are recounted to have been declared Heirs ap∣parent to the Crown (they being no Kings Children) none of them ever came to reign: as namely Duke Arthur of Britanny, Roger Mortimer Earl of March, and John de la Poole Earl of Lincoln, and Henry Mar∣quess of Exeter,* 1.466 as before hath been declared.

[ 5] Again the multitude of Pretenders being such as it is, and their pretentions so ambiguous, as hath been declared, it is to be presupposed, that none or few of them will presently at the beginning cast away their hope and forego their Titles, but will prove at least wise what friends shall stand unto them, and how matters are like to go for or against them, especial∣ly seeing they may do it without danger, no Law be∣ing

against them, and their Rights and Pretences so manifest, that no man can say they do it of ambition only, or malice, trea∣son, or conspiration against others, and for this essay or first at∣tempt, Arms are necessary.

Moreover if any man in process of time would forego or give [ 6] over his Title, (as it is to be imagined that divers will at length,* 1.467 and many must, for that one only can speed,) yet to the end he be not suddenly oppressed, or laid hands on, at the beginning by his adversary party, or made away, as in such cases is wont to succeed it is very likely that each Pretender for his own safety and de∣fence will arm himself and his Friends at the beginning, for that better conditions will be made with armour in hands, than when a man is naked or in the power of his adversary, and no doubt but the more Pretenders shall stand together armed, at the beginning the easier and the surer peace will be made with him that shall prevail, for that they being many with whom he hath to com∣pound, he will respect them the more, and yield to more reaso∣nable and honourable conditions, than if there were but one, and he weak that should resist, for that a fault or displeasure is more easily pardoned to a multitude, and to a potent adversary, then to one or two alone that are of less account And on the other side, the peril of these other pretenders, that should not prevail, being common to them all, would knit them better together for their own defence, in living under the person that should prevail and reign, and he would bear more regard unto them, as hath been said: and this both for that they should be stronger by this union to defend themselves, and he that reigneth should have less cause to suspect and fear them, to work treason against him, for that they are many, and consequently not so easy to agree between them∣selves, who should be preferred, if the other were pulled down, which to the person regnant would be also a ground of much secu∣rity.

These are my Reasons and Conjecturs why it is like that Arms will be taken at the beginning in England, before this controversy can be decided.

My second Position and Conjecture is,* 1.468 that this matter is not like to come easily to any great or main Battel, but rather to be ended at length, by some composition and general agreement, and my reasons for this be these.

First, for that the Pretenders be many, and their Powers and Friends lying in divers and different parts of the Realm, and if [ 1] there were but two, then were it more probable, that they would soon come to a Battel, but being many each one will fear the other, and seek to fortify himself where his own strength lieth, and especially towards the Ports and Sea-side, for receiving of Suc∣cours,

as easily may be done, by reason of the multitude of Com∣petitors, as hath been said, which will cause that at home the one will not much urge or press the other, at the beginning, but every part attend rather to strengthen than it self for the time.

[ 2] A second Reason of this is, for that the foreign Princes and States round about us are like to be much divided in this mat∣ter, some as Pretendents for Themselves or their Kindred and Friends, and others as favourers of this or that Party, for Reli∣gion, so as there will not want presently offers of Helps and Suc∣cours from abroad, which Succours albeit they should be but mean or small at the beginning, yet will they be of much impor∣tance, when the Forces at home be divided, and when there shall be different Ports▪ Harbours and Holds, ready within the Land, to receive and harbour them, so as I take it to be most likely, that this Affair will grow somewhat long, and so be ended at length by some composition only, and that either by Parliament and Ge∣neral Consent of all Parts pretendents, and of all three Bodies of Religion meeting together by their Deputies, and treat and con∣clude some form of agreement, as we see it practised now in France, or else by some other means of Commissaries, Commissio∣ners, Legatss Deputies, or the like, to make the conclusion with every Party asunder.

* 1.469My third and last conjecture, (and for a meer conjecture only, I would have you to hold it,) that seeing there be two sorts of pre∣tenders, whi••h stand for this Preferment, the one Strangers, the other English, my opinion is, that of any one Foreign Prince that pretendeth, the Infanta of Spain is likest to bear it away, or some other by her Title, laid upon him by her Father the Kings good will, and on the other side, of any domestical Competitors, the se∣cond Son of the Earl of Hartford, or of the Issue of Countess of Darby, carrieth much shew to be prefeted.

* 1.470My Reasons for the former part, about the Lady Infanta, are, that she is a Woman, and may easily join, (if her Father will,) the Titles of Britany and Portugal together, she is also unmarried, and by her Marriage may make some other composition, either at home or abroad, that may facilitate the matter, she is a great Princess and fit for some great State, and other Princes perhaps of Christendom would more willingly yield and concur to such a composition of Matters by this Lady, and by casting all Foreign Titles of Britanny and Portugal upon her, then that the King of Spain should pretend for himself, and thereby encrease his Mo∣narchy, which other Princes his Neighbours, in reason of State, would not so well allow or bear.

In England also it self if any Party or Person be affected that way, he would think hereby to have the more reason, and if any be

against Strangers, some such moderation as this would take away much of this aversion, as also of Arguments against it: for that hereby it seemeth that no subjection could be feared to any Fo∣reign Realm, but rather divers utilities to the Realm of England as these men pretend by the reasons before alledged in the prece∣dent Chapter.

I said also, that this Lady Infanta, or some other by her Title and her Fathers good will, was likest of all Strangers to bear it away, for that if she should either dye or be married in any other Countrey, or otherwise to be disposed of, as her pretence to Eng∣land should be disenabled before this Affair came to be tried, then may her said Father and she, if they list, cast their foresaid Inte∣rests and Titles, (as divers men think they would,) upon some other Prince of their own House and Blood, as for example, either upon some of the Families of Parma or Bragansa before men∣tioned, or of the House of Austria, seeing there wanteth not many able and worthy Princes of that House, for whom there would be the same reasons and considerations to perswade their admission by the English, that have been alledged before for the Infanta, and the same utilities to the Realm, and motives to English-men, if such a matter should come in consultation, and the same Friends and Forces would not want abroad to assist them.

For the second part of my Conjecture touching the Earl of Hart∣ford's second Son, or one of the Countess of Darbyes Children,* 1.471 my Reasons be, First, for that this second Son seemeth to be cleared in our former Discourse of that Bastardy that most importeth, and nearest of all other lieth upon those Children, which is for lack [ 1] of due proof of their Parents Marriage,* 1.472 for which defect they do stand declared for illegitimate by publick sentence of the Arch∣bishop of Canterbury, as before hath been declared, from which sentence this second Son is made free, by the arguments before alledged, and therein preferred before his elder Brother.

And secondly, for that this younger Son is unmarried, for any [ 2] thing that I do know to the contrary, which may be a point of no small moment in such an occasion, as hath been noted divers times before, for joining or fortifying of Titles by Marriage, and for making of compositions of Peace and Union with the opposite Parties. And finally, for that this second Son, being young, his Re∣ligion [ 3] is not much talked of, and consequently every Party may have hope to draw him to their side, especially he being also free, as I have said, to follow what he shall think best, or most expe∣dient for his own advancement, without knot or obligation to fol∣low other mens affections or judgments in that point, as he would be presumed to be, if he were married, or much obliged to any other Family.

* 1.473I do name also in this second Point, the Children of the Coun∣tess of Darby first, for that in truth the probabilities of this House be very Great, both in respect of their Descent, which in effect is holden as it were clear from Bastardy, as before hath been shew∣ed, and then again for their nearness in degree, which by the [ 1] Countess yet living is nearer to King Henry the VII. by one de∣gree [ 2] than any other Competitor whatsoever. Secondly, I do name this Countess Children, and not her self, for that I see most men that Favour this House, very willing and desirous that some of the said Countess Children should rather be preferred than she her self, and this for that she is a Woman, and it seemeth to them much to have three Women reign one after the other, as before hath been noted, so as they would have her Title to be cast rather upon one of her Children, even as upon like occasion it hath been shewed before,* 1.474 that the Spaniards caused the Lady Berenguela Niece to King Henry the II. to resign her Title to her Son, when she should have succeeded by nearness of Inheritance, and as a little before that,* 1.475 the State of England did after King Stephen unto King Henry the I. his Daughter Maude the Empress, whom they caused to pass over her Title to her Son Henry the II. though her own Right should have gone before him by nearness of Succession as also should have done by Orderly Course of Succession, the Right, of Margaret, Countess of Richmond, before her Son King Henry the VII. as before hath been proved, but yet we see that her Son▪: was preferred, and the like would these men have to be observed in the Countess of Darby.

[ 3] Lastly, I do name the Children of this Countess in general, and not the Earl of Darby particularly above the other, though he be the eldest, for two respects; First, for that his younger Brother is unmarried, which is a circumstance whereof divers times occasion hath been offered to speak before, and therefore I need to add no further therein. And secondly for that divers men remain not so fully satisfied and contented with the Course of that Lord hither∣to, and do think that they should do much better with his Brother, if so be he shall be thought more fit, yet are these things uncer∣tain, as we see, but notwithstanding such is the nature and fashion of man, to hope ever great matters of Youths, especially Princes. God send all just Desires to take place: and with this I will end, and pass no fupther, hoping that I have performed the effect of my Promise made unto You at the beginning.

FINIS.

Notes

• * 1.1

  A protesta∣tion of the Lawyer.
• * 1.2

  Why they will not de∣termin of any one Title.
• * 1.3

  The Book of Hales and Sir Nicholas Bacon.
• * 1.4

  The but of ••••l••s his ••••••k.
• * 1.5

  〈◊〉〈◊〉 R••••∣son.
• * 1.6

  〈…〉〈…〉
• * 1.7

  The Book of M. Morgan and Judge Brown.
• * 1.8

  Answer to the I. Rea∣son.
• * 1.9

  To the II. Reason.
• * 1.10

  Highin∣ton's book.
• * 1.11

  George Lilly in fine Epit. chro∣nic. An∣glic.
• * 1.12

  Sundry im∣portant Points.
• * 1.13

  Divers other Nots and Pam∣phlets.
• * 1.14

  Sir Ri∣chard Shelly.
• * 1.15

  Francis Peto.
• * 1.16

  A Treatise in the be∣half of 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Infanta of Spain.
• * 1.17

  Discent of William the Con∣queror.
• * 1.18

  The Chil∣dren of the Conqueror
• * 1.19

  Polid. l. 9. in fine Stow in vita Guliel
• * 1.20

  The mise∣ries of Duke Robert and his Son.
• * 1.21

  Stow in vit Gul. Conquest.
• * 1.22

  William Son of Duke Robert.
• * 1.23

  Belfor. l 3. cap. 42. An. 1128.
• * 1.24

  King Wil∣liam Rufus
• * 1.25

  Tarea∣gnotta l. 2. del. Hist. del mondo. K. Henry.
• * 1.26

  Polydor. in vita Henrici 1.
• * 1.27

  The House of Britain by the elder Daughter of the Con∣queror.
• * 1.28

  Belfor. l. 3. Pag. 423.
• * 1.29

  Conan Duke of Britain Poysoned by Willi∣am the Conqueror.
• * 1.30

  Bel••or. l. 3. Cap. 12. A••. 1095. ex chronic. dionis.
• * 1.31

  The Daugh▪ of Spain ••re of the ••loud Royal of England.
• * 1.32

  The Houses of Bloys.
• * 1.33

  Why Stephen was admit∣ted King of England.
• * 1.34

  Girard l. 6. Belfor. l. 3.
• * 1.35

  The Issue of K. Stephen.
• * 1.36

  K. Henry the II.
• * 1.37

  Belfor. l. 3. cap. 50. An. 1151. Gera••d. l. 8 pag 549
• * 1.38

  King Hen∣ry II. his Issue.
• * 1.39

  Stow in vita Hen.
• * 1.40

  King Richard.
• * 1.41

  Duke Geffrey.
• * 1.42

  Paradyn apud Bel∣forest.
• * 1.43

  Belfor. l. 3. cap. 71. An. 1203.
• * 1.44

  Belfor. l. 4. cap. 4.
• * 1.45

  King John and his Issue.
• * 1.46

  Miseries that fell upon King John.
• * 1.47

  Po••i l. Hol∣l••••g 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Stow ••n vita Jo∣hannis.
• * 1.48

  The issue of King Henry II his Da••••••ters 〈◊〉〈◊〉 l. 3. c. ••9. 〈◊〉〈◊〉▪ 115••.
• * 1.49

  The Issue of Lady Eleanor Queen of Spain.
• * 1.50

  Polyd. l. 15. in vit. Jo∣han. Steph. Garib▪ l. 12. cap. 31.
• * 1.51

  Queen Be∣renguela.
• * 1.52

  Garibay l. 12. c. 52.
• * 1.53

  Pretences of the In∣fanta of Spain, to English & French States.
• * 1.54

  K. Henry ••he 3. and his Issue.
• * 1.55

  The meet∣ing of three Houses.
• * 1.56

  Prince Ed∣ward.
• * 1.57

  Duke Ed∣mond.
• * 1.58

  Lady Bea∣trix, daughter of K. Hen∣ry 3.
• * 1.59

  The Pede∣gree of the Dukes of Britany.
• * 1.60

  The great Contention between the Houses of Monford and Blo••s in Britany.
• * 1.61

  Burgundy and Or∣leans.
• * 1.62

  The contro∣versie be∣tween the House of Monford and Blois.
• * 1.63

  A question about suc∣cession be∣tween the Uncle and the Niece.
• * 1.64

  The House of Blois overcome.
• * 1.65

  The succes∣sion of the Monfords in Britany.
• * 1.66

  Francis last Duke of Britany.
• * 1.67

  How the Dukedom of Britany was united to France.
• * 1.68

  The Issue Male of K. Henr. 3.
• * 1.69

  The Bishop of Ross in his Book of the Queen of Scots Title. George Lilly in fine Epi∣tomes Chron. Anglic.
• * 1.70

  That Ed∣ward was the elder. Mat. West. in vit. H. 3. & Holling∣shed ibid. p. 654.
• * 1.71

  Hollingsh. in vit. H. 3. p. 740. & 777.
• * 1.72

  Edmonds Line never pretended to the Crown.
• * 1.73

  Note this consequent.
• * 1.74

  The elder∣ship of Ed∣mond a fiction.
• * 1.75

  Polyd. in fine vit. Henr. 3.
• * 1.76

  The Issue of K. Ed∣ward the ••.
• * 1.77

  The Issue of Edmond Crouch-back.
• * 1.78

  Collateral Lines of Lancaster.
• * 1.79

  〈…〉〈…〉 of K▪ Ed∣ward 3.
• * 1.80

  The Red Rose and the White.
• * 1.81

  Issue of the Black Prince.
• * 1.82

  The Issue of Leonel the 2d. Son.
• * 1.83

  The Issue of Edmond the 4. Son.
• * 1.84

  The Issue of Thomas the 5. Son.
• * 1.85

  The Issue of of the 3d. ••n, Duke of Lancast.
• * 1.86

  The Issue of L. Blanch.
• * 1.87

  Lady Phi∣lippa mar∣ried into Portugal, and her Issue▪
• * 1.88

  Lady Eli∣zabeth se∣cond Daughter.
• * 1.89

  The Issue of K. Henr. 4.
• * 1.90

  The Issue of John of Gaunt by his second Wife.
• * 1.91

  The contro∣versie in Spain be∣tween King Peter the Cruel, and his Bastard brooh••r.
• * 1.92

  Garibay, l. 15. ••. 26.
• * 1.93

  Of Lady Catharine Swinford, Hollinshed in vita Rich. 2. p. 1088.
• * 1.94

  The Duke of Lanca∣ster's ba∣stards made le∣gitimate. Hollingh in vita Kich. 2.
• * 1.95

  pag. 1090. The issue of Katha∣rine Swin∣fords chil∣dren.
• * 1.96

  King Henry VII.
• * 1.97

  The Dukes of So∣merset.
• * 1.98

  Polidor hist. Ang. lib. 23.
• * 1.99

  Hollings. in vita Ed∣wardi IV. pa. 1314. & 1340.
• * 1.100

  What heirs of Lanca∣ster now remain in England.
• * 1.101

  The Issue of the House of York.
• * 1.102

  Richard Earl of Cam∣bridge ex∣ecuted.
• * 1.103

  Richard Duke of York slain.
• * 1.104

  Edward Duke of York and King, his Issue.
• * 1.105

  The Line of the Pooles.
• * 1.106

  The Line of the Ha∣stings.
• * 1.107

  The Bar∣ringtons.
• * 1.108

  King Ri∣chard 3.
• * 1.109

  Issue of K. Henry the 7.
• * 1.110

  Issue of the Lady Mary of Scotland
• * 1.111

  Issue of Mary, 2d. Sister to K. Henry.
• * 1.112

  Lady Frances.
• * 1.113

  Stow, An. 7 Edw. 6.
• * 1.114

  Of Lady Eleanor of Suffolk.
• * 1.115

  Variety of Authors opinions about this controver∣sie.
• * 1.116

  Polyd. in fine vit. Henr. 3. & initio vit. Henr. 4. & in vit. Ric. An. 1386.
• * 1.117

  The Allega∣tions of the House of York.
• * 1.118

  The story of the contro∣versie be∣tween Lan∣caster and York.
• * 1.119

  Polyd. in ••••a Ri••h. 2. l. b. 20.
• * 1.120

  King Ri∣chards de∣position.
• * 1.121

  Chief points of the contro∣versie be∣tween Lan∣caster and York.
• * 1.122

  Three p••••••t King Richards deposition
• * 1.123

  That a 〈…〉〈…〉
• * 1.124

  1. Reason.
• * 1.125

  2. Autho∣rity.
• * 1.126

  3. Exam∣ples.
• * 1.127

  Whether the causes were suffi∣cient of King Ri∣chards de∣position.
• * 1.128

  The H••••se of York chief 〈◊〉〈◊〉 in deposing K. Rich.
• * 1.129

  Polyd. Hist. Angl. l. 20.
• * 1.130

  Addit. ad Polycroni∣con.
• * 1.131

  Testimony of Stories.
• * 1.132

  The evil govern∣ment of K. Rich.
• * 1.133

  Stow in vit. Rich. 2. pag. 502. regni 11.
• * 1.134

  A great insolency.
• * 1.135

  The evil Parlia∣ment, Stow an. 21 reg∣ni Rich.
• * 1.136

  The Duke of Lanca∣ster called by common request.
• * 1.137

  Frosard. Walsing∣ham.
• * 1.138

  Whether the manner of deposing K. Richard were good.
• * 1.139

  Arms ne∣cessary for removing an evil Prince.
• * 1.140

  〈◊〉〈◊〉 of 〈…〉〈…〉 by 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Forces.
• * 1.141

  King Eglon slain in his Chamber. Judg. 3.
• * 1.142

  Saul put down by violence.
• * 1.143

  1 Chr. 10. vers. 9.
• * 1.144

  Rehoboam deposed by his Subjects of ten Tribes.
• * 1.145

  2 Reg. 11. & 12.
• * 1.146

  2 Paralip. cap. 10.
• * 1.147

  Joram and his Mother Jezabel de∣posed by force.
• * 1.148

  4 Reg. 9.
• * 1.149

  Athalia de∣prived by force.
• * 1.150

  4 Reg. 11.
• * 1.151

  Whether Lancaster or York should have en∣tred after K. Rich.
• * 1.152

  Polydor l. 20. in vit. Rich.
• * 1.153

  Stow in vita Ri∣chardi 2.
• * 1.154

  Whether 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Earl of 〈…〉〈…〉 or 〈…〉〈…〉 K. R••••h▪
• * 1.155

  The Title of York is by a Woman.
• * 1.156

  Stow in vit. Hen. 5. an. 3. regn.
• * 1.157

  The Earl of Cam∣bridge exe∣cuted for Conspiracy.
• * 1.158

  An objecti∣on for York that Ed∣mond Mor∣timer was declared Heir appa∣••••n.
• * 1.159

  Polyd. l. 20 & Stow in vit. Rich. 2. an. 1385.
• * 1.160

  Hollingsh. in vit. Rich 2. p. 1038. Stow an. 1382.
• * 1.161

  Polyd. l. 20 an. 1394.
• * 1.162

  The cause of hatred between K. Richard and the House of Lancaster.
• * 1.163

  John Fro∣sard in Histor.
• * 1.164

  Polydor. Hollingsh. Stow in vit. Rich. 2
• * 1.165

  W••l••••••gh. 〈…〉〈…〉, 2. p. 341. & 3••••.
• * 1.166

  John Fro∣sard in vit. Henriet.
• * 1.167

  〈◊〉〈◊〉 Roger Mo••ti•••••• was de••l••∣red H••••r 〈◊〉〈◊〉.
• * 1.168

  Hollingsh. in vit. Richar. 3. p. 1406. & in vit Edwar. 6. p. 1715.
• * 1.169

  The decla∣ration of K. Edw. 6. in favour of the Lady Jane Gray
• * 1.170

  Girard du Haillan l. 15. his Franc. ini∣tio.
• * 1.171

  〈…〉〈…〉.
• * 1.172

  〈◊〉〈◊〉. in ••••tent. Po••••••nem. C••••e suis, & leg. hae∣red.
• * 1.173

  The second ••••••m••le of the Uncle.
• * 1.174

  An exam••pl•• of the Uncle be∣fore 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Nephew in Spain. Gar••bay l. 13. c. 1••. an. 1276.
• * 1.175

  Another example in France and Flanders.
• * 1.176

  Polydor. l. 15. in vit. Edw. 3.
• * 1.177

  Ano••••e•• example of Britany.
• * 1.178

  Supra c. 2.
• * 1.179

  Another example ••n Scotland
• * 1.180

  The con∣tention of the Houses of ••alliol and Bruse in Scotl.
• * 1.181

  Examples in Eng∣land.
• * 1.182

  Hollingsh. in vit. Re∣gis Johan∣nis, p. 142.
• * 1.183

  How Ar∣thur Duke of Britany was decla∣red Heir apparent.
• * 1.184

  Polydor l. 14. Hol∣lingsh. in vit. Ric. 1. p. 480.
• * 1.185

  Hollingsh. in vit. Ri∣chardi Re∣gis, p. 496. & 499.
• * 1.186

  Hollingsh. p. 540.
• * 1.187

  Walsingh. in Ypodig. Neustriae.
• * 1.188

  Opinions of Lawyers for the Ne∣phew and Uncle.
• * 1.189

  Benedict. Cap. Ra∣nutius verb. in eodem testam.
• * 1.190

  Baldus in lib. ut in test. cap. de suis & leg▪ haered. & per. li. unicam pro 20. sui au∣tem & no∣vissimo.
• * 1.191

  Touching the Com∣mon Law of England
• * 1.192

  Different rules in succession of the Crown, & of other Inheri∣tances.
• * 1.193

  The Com∣mon Law grounded in Custom
• * 1.194

  Ancient Lawyers that defen∣ded the House of Lancaster.
• * 1.195

  Hollingsh. in vit. Henrici 6. p. 1300.
• * 1.196

  The sum of this con∣troversie repeated.
• * 1.197

  Other Ar∣guments of Lancaster.
• * 1.198

  Stow in vit. Hen. 5. p. 587.
• * 1.199

  The Princes of York often at∣tainted.
• * 1.200

  Stow in vit. Hen. 6.
• * 1.201

  York en∣tred by violence.
• * 1.202

  Stow in fine vit. Henrici 6.
• * 1.203

  The House of York put down a Holy King.
• * 1.204

  Long posses∣sions of the House of Lancaster.
• * 1.205

  5.The diffe∣rence of Kings of both Houses
• * 1.206

  The Princes of York cruel one to the other.
• * 1.207

  Polydor Virg Hist. Angl. l. 24.
• * 1.208

  Great uni∣on and faithful∣ness of the Princes of Lancaster.
• * 1.209

  Polydor lib. 23.
• * 1.210

  Dissentio••s in the House of York.
• * 1.211

  K. Edw. 4.
• * 1.212

  K. Ri••h. 3.
• * 1.213

  K. Henry 8. how many he put to death of his own Kindred.
• * 1.214

  The de la Pools.
• * 1.215

  The House of Buck∣ingham.
• * 1.216

  The House of C••urt∣••eys.
• * 1.217

  The House of Salisbu∣ry.
• * 1.218

  Seymers put to death.
• * 1.219

  Queen of Scots.
• * 1.220

  7. N•• old no∣ble House standing in England but such as took part with Lan∣caster.
• * 1.221

  Five an∣cient noble houses.
• * 1.222

  Arondel.
• * 1.223

  Oxford.
• * 1.224

  Northum∣berland.
• * 1.225

  Westmer∣land.
• * 1.226

  Shrewsbu∣ry.
• * 1.227

  Houses that favoured York de∣stroyed.
• * 1.228

  〈…〉〈…〉
• * 1.229

  〈…〉〈…〉 Poo••••••,
• * 1.230

  〈…〉〈…〉 of 〈◊〉〈◊〉 and Warwick.
• * 1.231

  King Hen∣ry the 7. Chowned in the field in respect of the house of Lancaster only though his title that way was not great.
• * 1.232

  A division of the fa∣milies that do pretend.
• * 1.233

  Of the house of Scotland.
• * 1.234

  Arabella.
• * 1.235

  In favour of the King of Scots.
• * 1.236

  Argument against the King of S••ots.
• * 1.237

  The King of Scots not of the House of Lanca∣ster.
• * 1.238

  The King of Scots forrain born.
• * 1.239

  The contro∣versie a∣bout for∣rain birth.
• * 1.240

  How stran∣gers may inherit.
• * 1.241

  Reasons why the statute toucheth not one case.
• * 1.242

  The Crown not holden by allegi∣ance.
• * 1.243

  5. Reason.
• * 1.244

  King Hen∣rys Testa∣ment a∣gainst the King of Scots.
• * 1.245

  Answers to the King's Testament.
• * 1.246

  The King of Scots ex∣cluded by the statute of associa∣tion.
• * 1.247

  Joyning of England and Scot∣land toge∣ther.
• * 1.248

  Polyd. lib▪ 17. in vit. Edw. l.
• * 1.249

  Inconveni∣ences of bringing Strangers into Eng∣land.
• * 1.250

  A Conside∣ration of Importance
• * 1.251

  Polyd. Hist Ang. l. 8. & 9.
• * 1.252

  Example of Spain.
• * 1.253

  Garibay l. 29. c. 42. An. Dom. 1207.
• * 1.254

  Example out of Por∣tugal. Garibay l. 34. c. 38. An. Dom. 1383.
• * 1.255

  S••ow pa. 4. 54, 59, 90▪ 76.
• * 1.256

  Of ••he 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of Scotland.
• * 1.257

  Of the title of Lady Arabella.
• * 1.258

  An English Woman.
• * 1.259

  Against Arabella.
• * 1.260

  Not of the House of Lancaster.
• * 1.261

  The Testa∣ment of King Hen∣ry.
• * 1.262

  The coun∣tess of Dar∣by nearer by a degree.
• * 1.263

  Illegitim••∣tion by ••••¦s••ardy.
• * 1.264

  The Testi∣mony of the L. William Howard.
• * 1.265

  Other rea∣sons of 〈◊〉〈◊〉 against Arab••l••.
• * 1.266

  〈…〉〈…〉
• * 1.267

  Polyd. l. 12.
• * 1.268

  Garibay l. 12. c. 42.••.
• * 1.269

  The Issue of Charles Brandon.
• * 1.270

  Issue of La∣dy Frances.
• * 1.271

  Stow an. 7. Edon 6.
• * 1.272

  The Issue of the Lady Katharine.
• * 1.273

  The Issue of Lady Elea∣nor.
• * 1.274

  Allegations of the Hou∣ses of Darby and Hart∣ford the one against the other.
• * 1.275

  Charles Brandon had a Wife alive.
• * 1.276

  First Ba∣stardy a∣gainst the Issue of Hartford.
• * 1.277

  Stow in vit. Edward
• * 1.278

  An. 1553.
• * 1.279

  2 Bastardy.
• * 1.280

  3 Bastardy.
• * 1.281

  The fourth Bastardy common to both Fami∣lies of Suf∣folk.
• * 1.282

  The Answer of t••ose of Hartford to the fore∣said Bastar∣dies.
• * 1.283

  Of the mar∣riage be∣tween the Earl of Hartford and the Lady Ka∣tharine Gray.
• * 1.284

  How the second Son of the Earl of Hartford may be legi∣timate.
• * 1.285

  Allegations of the House of Darby.
• * 1.286

  Why the Earl of Hunting∣ton••••▪ House is 〈◊〉〈◊〉 to be of the House of Claren••e
• * 1.287

  Issue of t•••• House of Cl••rence▪
• * 1.288

  Issue of ••i•• Geffrey Poole.
• * 1.289

  The interest and pre∣tence of the Earl of Hunting∣ton
• * 1.290

  Objections against the Earl ••f Hunting∣t••n.
• * 1.291

  Restitution may be in bl••••d with∣out restitu∣tion of dig∣nity.
• * 1.292

  The Pre∣tence of the Pooles against Hunting∣ton.
• * 1.293

  Objections of Religion▪
• * 1.294

  The House of Britany.
• * 1.295

  The course of Inheri∣tance in the Crown of France.
• * 1.296

  First pre∣tence of the Infanta to England.
• * 1.297

  Polyd. in vit. Guil. Ru••••
• * 1.298

  Second pre∣tence of the Infanta of Spain.
• * 1.299

  Pretence to Aquitain.
• * 1.300

  Polyd in vit. Johan. & Garib. in vit. Alfons.
• * 1.301

  Pretences to England by Lady Blanch.
• * 1.302

  Stow in vit. Johannis.
• * 1.303

  Garib. l. 12 c. 38.
• * 1.304

  Pretence by Arthur Duke of Britany.
• * 1.305

  Belfor. l 3. c. 71. Hist. Fran.
• * 1.306

  Election of Lewis VIII. to be King of England.
• * 1.307

  Po••yd l. 5. Hist. Angl. Hollings. & Stow in vit. Johannis.
• * 1.308

  Belfor. l. 2. c. 67. Girrard. l. 5. Histor. Baudin. an. 891. chron. France.
• * 1.309

  Pretence by Descent from Hen∣ry III.
• * 1.310

  Admission by Composi∣tion.
• * 1.311

  Objections against the Infanta's pretence.
• * 1.312

  The Princes of Portu∣gal are of the House of Lancaster.
• * 1.313

  The Issue of Lady Phi∣lippa Qu. of Portu∣gal.
• * 1.314

  Issue of ••••hn of Gaunt 〈…〉〈…〉
• * 1.315

  ••ee the Ar∣•••••• 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ••he 〈…〉〈…〉 Book
• * 1.316

  The point of diffi∣culty.
• * 1.317

  Issue of Catharine Swinford.
• * 1.318

  The princi∣pal que∣stion.
• * 1.319

  Answer.
• * 1.320

  Dutchy of Lancaster.
• * 1.321

  The Crown.
• * 1.322

  An exam∣ple of Ed∣ward the sixth, and of the Prince of Spain.
• * 1.323

  〈◊〉〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of Portugal..
• * 1.324

  The Duke∣dom of Lancaster.
• * 1.325

  The Legiti∣••••••ion ••f C••th••rin Swinf••rds Chil•••••••• no•• lawf••l.
• * 1.326

  Stow in vit. Ri••har. 2.
• * 1.327

  Garibay h••st. Portu∣gal. l. 35. cap. 4.
• * 1.328

  Note this example ••tow in vit. Henrici 2.
• * 1.329

  John of Gauntes Marriage with Ca∣therine Swinford helpeth not the L••giti∣ma••ion.
• * 1.330

  The Questi∣on between Lady Phi∣lippa and John of So∣merset.
• * 1.331

  The Questi∣on between the Ne∣phews.
• * 1.332

  〈…〉〈…〉 of 〈…〉〈…〉 Portugal
• * 1.333

  The proper Interest of King Henry the 4th. cannot des∣cend to King Henry the 7th.
• * 1.334

  Who are the Princes of Portugal, and how they pre∣tend ••o England.
• * 1.335

  The Issue of King Emmanuel of Portu∣gal.
• * 1.336

  Issue of K. John the 3. of Por∣tugal.
• * 1.337

  K. Lewis Father of Don Anto∣nio.
• * 1.338

  K. Henry Cardinal.
• * 1.339

  The pre∣tence of the Qunen Mo∣ther of France to Portugal.
• * 1.340

  Five Pre∣tenders of the Crown of Portu∣gal.
• * 1.341

  The con∣tention about the Succession of Portugal.
• * 1.342

  Attorneys sent to Por∣tugal.
• * 1.343

  A Sentence of Ill••••••i∣mation a∣gainst Don Antonio.
• * 1.344

  Writers of this Con∣troversy.
• * 1.345

  The Causes why Don Antonio was pro∣nounced Il∣legitimate.
• * 1.346

  Don An∣tonio his pretence to England.
• * 1.347

  Three principal pretenders of Portu∣gal.
• * 1.348

  Pretences of the Duke of Parma.
• * 1.349

  For the Dutchess of Bragan∣sa.
• * 1.350

  Represen∣tation ex∣cluded.
• * 1.351

  A Reply for ••he Du••e o•• Pa••ma.
• * 1.352

  King Philip's pretence to Portu∣gal.
• * 1.353

  Divers al∣legations for King Philip.
• * 1.354

  Hieron. Frak••, Jo. P••et. Vipe∣•• anus.
• * 1.355

  The case of pretence of the House of Portu∣gal to Eng∣land.
• * 1.356

  An obje∣ction with the answer
• * 1.357

  Objections against the Preten∣ders of Portugal.
• * 1.358

  Answers.
• * 1.359

  Note this.
• * 1.360

  By what Title King Henry VII. did enter.
• * 1.361

  About fo∣reign power in England.
• * 1.362

  About Fo∣reign Go∣vernment.
• * 1.363

  The occa∣sion of the next chap∣ter about Foreign Govern∣ment.
• * 1.364

  Reasons against fo∣reign Go∣vernment.
• * 1.365

  Polit. Arist.
• * 1.366

  Demosthe∣nis Philip∣picae, & in Aeschines.
• * 1.367

  Attempts to deliver Realms from stran∣gers.
• * 1.368

  Quint. Curt. l.5. & 6. de gest. Alex.
• * 1.369

  Vespere Sicilianae an. 1265. Leand. in descript. Siciliae.
• * 1.370

  Polyd. l. 8. Hol∣lings in vit. Ca∣miti.
• * 1.371

  The rage of the French against the Eng∣lish.
• * 1.372

  The conclu∣sion against Strangers.
• * 1.373

  Authority of Scrip∣ture against strangers.
• * 1.374

  Deut. 15.
• * 1.375

  The answer in defence of foreign Govern∣ment.
• * 1.376

  The effect of Govern∣ments to be considered, and not the Governours
• * 1.377

  An Ex∣ample.
• * 1.378

  Little im∣porteth the Subject of what Country his Governour is, so he is good.
• * 1.379

  1 Reg. 12.
• * 1.380

  Not the Country but the good Go∣vernment importeth.
• * 1.381

  Note these examples.
• * 1.382

  Who are properly Strangers.
• * 1.383

  Divers manners of being under Strangers.
• * 1.384

  To be und∣der stran∣gers by Conquest.
• * 1.385

  How Con∣querours do proceed towards ••he Con∣quered.
• * 1.386

  Polydor Virg. l. 8. Hist. An∣gliae.
• * 1.387

  Clemensy of the Ro∣mans.
• * 1.388

  Lib. 1. Macchab. ••ap. 8.
• * 1.389

  Strangers most fa∣voured in wise Go∣vernments
• * 1.390

  Gas∣coynes.
• * 1.391

  Britons.
• * 1.392

  Candians.
• * 1.393

  States o•• Italy.
• * 1.394

  The condi∣tion of the Irish under the English.
• * 1.395

  Of the States of Flanders.
• * 1.396

  Girard du Ha••lan l. 18. an. 1381.
• * 1.397

  Prosperity of Flan∣ders under the House of Austria.
• * 1.398

  In Gui••∣ciard. nel∣la descrit∣tione delli pasi bassi.
• * 1.399

  The Au∣thority of the Flom∣ings at home.
• * 1.400

  The Indul∣gence mi••d ••o offenders 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ••lan∣ders.
• * 1.401

  The Spa∣niard pu∣nisheth less in Italy than near∣er home.
• * 1.402

  V••ceroyes do give ac∣count of their Go∣vernment.
• * 1.403

  Much slaughter of Nobility in England
• * 1.404

  Execution of Nobility by Henry the eight.
• * 1.405

  Under King Ed∣ward and Queen Mary.
• * 1.406

  States go∣verned happily by foreign Princes.
• * 1.407

  Old affli∣ctions of Naples and Mil∣lain.
• * 1.408

  Whether a great or little Prince be better.
• * 1.409

  Pedro Me∣xio en vit. de Anto∣nio Pi••••
• * 1.410

  The felicity of the Ro∣man Go∣vernment
• * 1.411

  The second way of be∣ing under a foreign Prince.
• * 1.412

  A foreign Prince without Forces not prejudicial
• * 1.413

  Note this utility of a foreign King.
• * 1.414

  The man∣ner of fo∣reign Prince more com∣modious for the present.
• * 1.415

  A third way of be∣ing under foreign Govern∣ment.
• * 1.416

  〈◊〉〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉〈◊〉 G••∣ve••••ent.
• * 1.417

  Incon••••••∣ence•• of t••••s Go∣vernment.
• * 1.418

  Strange Gover∣no•••••• de∣sired in some Realm.
• * 1.419

  The An∣swer to ob∣jections against fo∣reign Go∣vernment.
• * 1.420

  Answer the Gre∣cian Phi∣losophers and Ora∣tors.
• * 1.421

  Demosthe∣nes.
• * 1.422

  The troubl∣some state of the Grecian Cities.
• * 1.423

  Arist. l. 2. ••olit. c. 1.2.
• * 1.424

  ••••••wer to 〈◊〉〈◊〉 obje∣ction out of Deutero∣nomy. Deut. 15.
• * 1.425

  Secondary Lines.
• * 1.426

  Ambiguity of Prevail∣ing.
• * 1.427

  Two Grounds of probability of speeding
• * 1.428

  Three Re∣ligions in England.
• * 1.429

  The great Importance of Religion in this Action.
• * 1.430

  The next Change like to be difficult, and why.
• * 1.431

  The consi∣deration of the Prote∣stant Par∣ty.
• * 1.432

  The Clergy
• * 1.433

  The Coun∣cil and Nobility.
• * 1.434

  Persons de∣signed or favoured by the Protestant Party.
• * 1.435

  Foreign Friends of the Pro∣testants.
• * 1.436

  Of the Party Pu∣ritan.
• * 1.437

  Persons affected by the Puritans.
• * 1.438

  External Friends.
• * 1.439

  Lutheran••
• * 1.440

  The Puri∣tan at home.
• * 1.441

  Those of the Roman Religion.
• * 1.442

  T••e R••∣man Par∣ty gr••at, and w••y.
• * 1.443

  1 Reg▪ ••2
• * 1.444

  〈…〉〈…〉
• * 1.445

  Friends and Allies abroad
• * 1.446

  Considera∣tions of 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Pre∣tender in particular.
• * 1.447

  The King of Scotland
• * 1.448

  Arabella.
• * 1.449

  The Lord Beacham and the Earl of Darby.
• * 1.450

  Alliance of the Earl of Darby.
• * 1.451

  A••••ance of the Sey∣mers.
• * 1.452

  Alliance •••• the Stan∣leys.
• * 1.453

  A••l••ance of the old Countess of Darby.
• * 1.454

  The States of the Lord Beacham and the Earl of Darby.
• * 1.455

  〈…〉〈…〉 Lords
• * 1.456

  The Earl of Hun∣tington.
• * 1.457

  〈◊〉〈◊〉 of the 〈…〉〈…〉 ••unting∣••••••
• * 1.458

  The Power of London.
• * 1.459

  Polydor. 24 Holing∣shed in vi∣ta Henrici VI.
• * 1.460

  The Houses of Britain and Portu∣gal.
• * 1.461

  Infanta of Spain.
• * 1.462

  Duke of Parma.
• * 1.463

  The Duke of Bragan∣sa.
• * 1.464

  Power of foreign Pretenders
• * 1.465

  The first Conjecture that there will be War, and why.
• * 1.466

  Sup. c. 4.
• * 1.467

  A conside∣ration to be marked.
• * 1.468

  The second conjecture no main Battel pro∣bable.
• * 1.469

  The third Conjecture who is likest to prevail.
• * 1.470

  For the In∣fanta of Spain.
• * 1.471

  For the Earl of Hartfod's second Son.
• * 1.472

  Sup. c. 6.
• * 1.473

  For the Children of the Countess of Darby
• * 1.474

  Garibay l. a 5. c. 36
• * 1.475

  Polydor in rit. Steph.