THE JURISDICTION OF THE MARCHES. 295 



For the third head, they did insist upon the statute of 

 34, and upon the preamble of the same statute. 



The title being an act for certain ordinances in the king s 

 majesty s dominion and principality of Wales; and the 

 preamble being for the tender zeal and affection that the 

 king bears to his subjects of Wales ; and again, at the 

 humble suit and petition of his subjects of Wales : whereby 

 they infer that the statute had no purpose to extend or 

 intermeddle with any part of the king s dominions or sub 

 jects, but only within Wales. 



And for usage and practice, they said, it was nothing 

 against an act of parliament. 



And for the instructions, they pressed to see the instruc 

 tions immediately after the statute made. 



And for the certificate and opinions of Gerrard and 

 Bromley, they said they doubted not, but that if it were 

 now referred to the attorney and solicitor, they would cer 

 tify as they did. 



And, lastly, they relied, as upon their principal strength, 

 upon the precedent of that, which was done of the ex 

 empting of Cheshire from the late jurisdiction of the said 

 council ; for they said, that from 34 of H. VIII. until 11 of 

 Queen Eliz. the court of the marches did usurp jurisdic 

 tion upon that county, being likewise adjacent to Wales, 

 as the other four are ; but that in the eleventh year of 

 Queen Elizabeth aforesaid, the same, being questioned at 

 the suit of one Radforde, was referred to the Lord Dyer, 

 and three other judges, who, by their certificate at large 

 remaining of record in the chancery, did pronounce the 

 said shire to be exempted, and that in the conclusion of 

 their certificate they gave this reason, because it was no 

 part of the principality or marches of Wales. By which 

 reason, they say, it should appear their opinion was, that 

 the word marches could not extend to counties adjacent. 

 This was the substance of their defence. 



The reply of the king s solicitor to the arguments of the two 

 Serjeants. 



Having divided the substance of their arguments, ut 

 supra, he did pursue the same division in his reply, observ 

 ing nevertheless both a great redundancy and a great defect 

 in that which was spoken. For, touching the use of the 

 word marches, great labour had been taken, which was 

 not denied : but touching the intent of the parliament, and 

 the reasons to demonstrate the same, which were the life of 

 the question, little or nothing had been spoken, 



