THE JURISDICTION OF THE MARCHES. 303 



respected not only Wales, but the commixed government, 

 and therefore the word marches was put in. They might have 

 remembered that we built an argument upon the difference 

 of penning of that statute of 34 itself in the several clauses of 

 the same ; for that in all other clauses, which concern only 

 Wales, the word marches is ever omitted ; and in that clause 

 alone that concerneth the jurisdiction of the president and 

 council, it is inserted. And this our argument is notably 

 fortified by that they now show of the ordinances, wherein 

 the very selfsame clause touching the president and coun 

 cil, because the king had no authority to meddle but with 

 Wales, the word marches is omitted. So that it is most 

 plain that this word comes not in by chance or slip, but 

 with judgment and purpose, as an effectual word ; for, as 

 it was formerly said, opposita juxta se posita magis eluces- 

 cunt ; and therefore I may likewise urge another place in 

 the statute which is left out in the ordinance; for I find 

 there is a clause that the town of Bewdley, which is con 

 fessed to be no lordships marcher, but to lie within the 

 county of Worcester ; yet because it was an exempted juris 

 diction, is by the statute annexed unto the body of the said 

 county. First, this shows that the statute of 34 is not con 

 fined to Wales, and the lordships marchers, but that it in 

 termeddles with Worcestershire. Next, do you find any 

 such clause in the ordinance of 32? No. Why? Because 

 they were appropriated to Wales. So that in my opinion 

 nothing could inforce our exposition better than the collat 

 ing of the ordinance of 32 with the statute of 34. 



In answer to the second reason, the course that I see 

 often taken in this cause makes me think of the phrase of 

 the psalm, &quot; starting aside like a broken bow :&quot; so when 

 they find their reasons broken, they start aside to things 

 not in question. For now they speak, as if he went about 

 to make the four shires Wales, or to take from them the 

 benefit of the laws of England, or their being accounted 

 amongst the ancient counties of England : doth any man say 

 that those shires are not within the circuits of England, but 

 subject to the justices of Wales ? or that they should send 

 but one knight to the parliament, as the shires of Wales 

 do ? or that they may not sue at Westminster, in chancery, 

 or at common law, or the like ? No man affirms any such 

 things ; we take nothing from them, only we give them a 

 court of summary justice in certain causes at their own 

 doors. 



And this is nova doctrina to make such an opposition 



