Selected quad for the lemma: book_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
book_n	history_n	time_n	year_n	3,198	5	4.9573	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A48364	An ansvver to the book of Sir Thomas Manwaringe of Pever in Cheshire baronet, entituled A defence of Amicia, daughter of Hvgh Cyveliok, Earl of Chester wherein is vindicated and proved that the grounds declard in my former book, concerning the illegitimacy of Amicia, are not envinced by any solid answer or reason to the contrary / by Sir Peter Leycester ...	Leycester, Peter, Sir, 1614-1678.	1673 (1673)	Wing L1942; ESTC R10789	28,611	95

here are many strong reasons to the contrary and you are now to answer the Argument in hand and for your asserting that my proving she was not by Bertred doth not prove her a Bastard but proves she was either a Bastard or else by a former wife this is not to the Point for the Argument runs If he had no other wife but Bertred and she no Daughter to Bertred then certainly if she be a Daughter and so called she must needs be a Bastard and as to the point of Law you urge that a man cannot be proved a Bastard but in his life-life-time to the prejudice of an Estate because the dead person cannot answer to the exception Yet though the Law allows not this in Pleadings what hinders but Bastardy may be proved by History or Argumentation after the Parties death Suppose in a register-Register-Book I sind such a Bastard Christened one hundred years ago may not I justly call that Person a Bastard whom I find so Registred The law may make a Bastard legitimate by Act of Parliament as we find in the case of John of Gaunt's Children by Katharine Swynford 20. Ric. 2.1397 according to all intents and purposes in the Law excepta dignitate Regali whereby they shall inherit as if they had been lawfully born but may not we therefore call them Bastards No Law can make a Bastard once born to be no Bastard in nature for quod factum est semel infectum reddi non patest And to this your second Answer I believe it is clearly evinced without further demonstration Your third Answer to my first Argument p. 59. You conceive that the passing of Services in libero maritagio with Amice doth absolutely prove that she was a lawful Child and by consequence must be by a former wife and that she would not have been stiled as she is in the Deed unless she had been a legitimate Daughter and you cite Spelman 's quoting Coustum du Normand Art 77. Quoties enim agitur de honore vel commodo filiorum appellatione filiorum non comprehenduntur Bastardi My Reply to your third Answer to my first Argument This is what before you have said over and over again and hath before been answered by me But I conceive that neither the naming of her Daughter in the Deed nor passing of Services with her in libero maritagio doth at all prove her legitimate for I have before told you and shall entreat the judicious Reader to look back where I have before spoken of it That in those ancient Ages the word daughter was frequently used without the addition of Bastard both in old Deeds and Histories nay rarely or never was it otherwise used even to Bastards as well as Lawful Issue whereof are sundry Examples as is well known to all such as are skilled in Antiquities and by your own Argument if she were not called his Daughter no estate of inheritance could have passed by the Deed though she were a Bastard because hereby she is owned to be of his Kindred and Bloud and that Lands have passed in libero maritagio to some such who are known to be Bastards though not so named whereof I have shewed a Precedent of those Ages in my Book which is not refelled yet by any solid Reason to the contrary as the ingenuous Reader may perceive supra pag. 18. of this Book deinceps And what you add out of Spelman is little to the purpose that in cases of honour and profit distinction was then made that by the appellation of Sons Bastards are not comprehended by the Customs of Normandy what then this supposeth that in other cases and formerly by the appellation of Sons Bastards were comprehended This makes directly against you and you know what Spelman saith in the very words next following That the ancient Northern People admitted Bastards to succeed in their Inheritance and that William the Conquerour was not ashamed of that Title who began his Letter to Alan Earl of Little Britaine as he did many others Ego Willielmus cognomento Bastardus But what is all this to the answering of the Argument or proving Hugh Cyveliok to have had a former Wife only you would have the words in libero maritagio to prove Amice absolutely legitimate this is all the Answer you give to the Point and this will not do it as is before proved whither I have referred the Ingenious Reader Your fourth Answer to my first Argument p. 60 61. And here you say that if all must be Bastards if we could not tell who were their Mothers nor directly prove their Fathers married we might then conclude most Persons Bastards and so you could frame my own Argument against me thus If Roger Manwaringe who lived about 1119. had no wife then William Randle and Wido Sons of the said Roger were certainly Bastards But Roger Manwaringe aforesaid had no wife ergo c. Now if this Argument against Amicia will hold it would also hold against these three Children of Roger and so against all others in like nature My Reply to your fourth Answer to my first Argument Here you argue well and I say to your Minor that Roger had a Wife though we yet know not who she was and this appears certainly because the Lands descended from heir to heir But I frame my affirmative part more formally thus If the Son and Heir of Roger succeeded by descent in his Inheritance then Roger had a wife But the Son and Heir of Roger succeeded by descent in his Inheritance this is apparent by the enjoyment thereof from heir to heir ergo Roger had a wife If you deny the Sequel of the Major I prove it thus No Bastard can succeed in the Inheritance without a special settlement ergo if the Son and Heir of Roger succeeded by descent in the Inheritance then Roger must needs have a Wife and nothing appears here of any special settlement And so you see the Argument retorted is answered Now if you could prove by like Reason that Hugh Cyveliok had a former wife before Bertred it would be some Answer but the passing of Lands in libero maritagio in that age is no certain Argument of Legitimacy for then I confess you would prove ex consequenti Hugh Cyveliok must needs have another wife which is the chief contest between us for all the rest of your Arguments for her Legitimacy are little material and not solid Now you repeat this often over and over again where you have as oft been told that Land in those former Ages did pass to Bastards in libero maritagio whereof I have given you one Precedent which neither yet hath been nor as I conceive can be rationally answered Besides the words of Glanvil implying the same and the Term of Bastard was for certain usually omitted in the Deeds and Histories of those times and the owning them for Daughters in their Deeds possibly that the Lands might pass to their Heirs as owning them to

notion so Dominus is applicable to any Knight or Gentleman as if I should say Domine quaeso num hoc verum est quod dico necne but in this thing here spoken of I remember you did mention it to me and I fully intended to have called them all Knights but I know not by what Fate it was forgotten whether by my intentness on more weighty things to amend them before my Book went to the Press or my Book having been now above a year and a half out of my hands since I sent it away from me it seems I lost the opportunity and forgot it and I had rather give to any especially to your family more then is due then less howbeit it is not possible for me to place my words so in every particular as can give all men content Again you tell me That you might take notice of my mistake in my Book p. 336. where I blame the Herald who in Queen Elizabeth's time made for the then Sir Randle Manwaring's Coat Barry of twelve Peeces Argent and Gules for which I cited Guillim's Heraldry but that was the mistake of Guillim not the Herald for that which the Herald did then allow which I Blazoned amiss was Argent six Barrulets Gules And the Manwarings of Pever now next heir Male to Manwaringe of Warmincham have a good right to the six Barrulets with which Sir Roger Manwaringe did Seal as well as they have to the two Barres which Sir Thomas Manwaringe of Warmincham did bear But here is the Herald's errour that it should be given by him to Manwaringe of Pever now in these late Ages as his most proper Coat whereas ever since the time of the said Sir Roger Manwaringe as well the Heirs of the right Line as also the Manwarings of Pever after they became next Heir-Male have constantly born the two Barres for some hundreds of years without alteration successively and not the six Barrulets at all till this Change of the Herald in Queen Elizabeth's time why now though the Posterity of Sir Roger might have continued the right of six Barrulets yet they changed the same to two Barres which after so many Ages hath now gained an Hereditary right for at first Coats were assumed at Pleasure but from Henry the Third's time downward Arms began to be made Hereditary and most Gentlemen from that time downwards did bear the Coat of their Ancestors as it were hereditarily and here is the Absurdity that the Herald alters the Coat again to six Barrulets after so many Ages past when the two Barres had been so long retained as an Hereditary right for let any man but imagine what confusion Changes would make in case every Son should vary from his Father by bearing a distinct Coat and stick to no certainty wherefore it seems absurd and I know not whether it may destroy a right already gained in this Case for it is usage onely that makes a right herein as you may see in the great Suit between Scroop and Grosvenour in the Marshall's Court under Richard the Second concerning the bearing of a Coat of Armes whereto both challenged a right and Property by Usage but no other way And thirdly you tell me That you suspect I have branded several Persons in my Book with Bastardy without direct Proof thereof and although you concern not your self for any but some of those by me mentioned when I write of the base Issue of Hugh Cyveliok yet if you make it appear that I have there without any certainty aspersed two other Ladies besides Amicia you hope I shall have no just Cause to blame you Truly I shall not For those you hint upon but name not I can make no answer to take off your suspicion till I know who they be but the other two Ladies besides Amicia I conceive you mean Geva Daughter of Hugh Lupus and the Wife of Bacun Daughter of Hugh Cyveliok which two you bring in upon the account of Amicia for those being proved Bastards will be a great blow to Amicia and had not the Case of Amicia been concerned I believe these two had never been spoken of by you nor suspected nor doubted of But if I do make good what I have Alledged I hope then you will recant for branding me with an Aspersion which I think I shall do with as much certainty as the nature of the thing and times will admit So much touching your Epistle and now I proceed to the rest of your Book Page 21 22. WHere in the first place you wonder That I should so peremptorily call Amice a base Daughter of Hugh Cyveliok unless I had more sure grounds to go upon and though it be your Taske onely to defend Amicia yet you suppose you shall make it appear before you have done that I go on no absolute certainty in calling Bacun's Wife Mother of Richard Bacun Founder of Roucester-Priory another base Daughter of Hugh Cyveliok or in calling Geva a base Daughter of Hugh Lupus and then you would remind me of what I have been formerly told that those Heralds that gave Manwaringe of Pever the Quartering of the Earl of Chester's Coat in Queen Elizabeth's time were Mr. Cambden and Mr Erdeswick Persons that you do not know why I should so much mislike their boldness and ignorance as I call it for their so doing Whereunto I say My grounds are certain enough to prove them all three Bastards and such as yet is not refelled by you by any substantial Answer to the contrary and I believe in the Loose it will so appear as to the Heralds you mention you say you would remind me that you had formerly told me of them but you never told me till long time after that part of my Book was written what then Mr. Cambden I hold a most Learned man and one of the best Antiquaries of our Nation in this last Age but yet for doing this thing whether Cambden himself or who ever else I say he was overbold in it and it is erroneous for though in the Age of Henry the Second Quartering of Coats was not in use yet about the Reign of Henry the Fourth every Gentleman began to Quarter the Coat of the chief Heir with whom his Progenitor had matched and after Edward the Fourth's time marshalling of many Coats together came into use and this was to shew their right so saith Cambden himself in his Remains p. 225. of the Edition thereof put out by Philpot. Now between the Age of Henry the Fourth and Queen Elizabeth had elapsed above 150. years time enough to have taken notice of such a Quartering if it had been right and due but you ingeniously confess in the place cited that perhaps in strictness it may be true that it doth only belong to those of the whole-blood to Quarter Coats and that to shew their rights yet it being now a common practice for those of the Half blood to do it you know not why it should be