Selected quad for the lemma: book_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A70632
|
An answer to Sir Peter Leicester's Addenda, or, Some things to be added in his Answer to Sir Thomas Mainwarings book written by the said Sir Thomas Mainwaring.
|
Mainwaring, Thomas, Sir, 1623-1689.
|
1674
(1674)
|
Wing M298; ESTC R18031
|
20,134
|
55
|
write no more touching Amicia I will assure you I received no encouragement thereby for I do not take you to be so great a Bug-bear as you suppose your self to be And if I had relyed upon your promise I had been much mistaken but I did very well know what you meant to do for besides what I heard from others the same day my Reply was finished you did write a Letter to me wherein was your pretended new precedent of Budeford and Suttehal and before any part of my last Book was printed I received notice from your servant by your command that you would print some precedents as Addenda to your former Book but it seems that resolution as also another as I was informed of writing an Answer in a third persons name were both laid aside and what you did came out as Addenda to your later Book But how in so doing you were just to your word I cannot imagine for what you did write till the end of the 7. Page did all concern Amicia and by the same reason you did write now you may write alwayes and say you do so as Addenda only to your said second Book In your 9 Page you again tell me That I begin my Reply with an untruth because I say that those of our County who are understanding persons will easily discerne from some of your Omissions that it was something else besides your great love to truth which occasioned you to Asperse your deceased Grandmother and you tell me I might have done well to have shewed To which I answer that I will not reflect upon persons in print but if any one desire privately to know what those Omissions were if I cannot give full satisfaction of your gross partiality let me bear the blame And I know no reason since you pretended it was your great love to truth which did occasion you to Write against Amicia but that I might in general termes let the World know it was something else which moved you so to do and I will appeale to the Reader whether I did not avoid all offensive expressions in what I said In your 10. Page you are also over-captious For I having found in your Historical Antiquities two Deeds made by Randle de Gernoniis father to Hugh Cyveliok in the time of which Hugh Raph Mainwaring was Justice of Chester and those two Deeds being directed Justiciariis although I know of none who can tell the name of any more then one of them I did therefore lest there should be two Justices in the time of the said Raph in my first Book call him Chiefe Justice because he acted alone but did withal in my second Book acknowledge that I had not found that there was then any other Justice in the time of the said Raph and for this you tell me I should have been more ingenious and do say I do very well know that there was no other Judge of Chester at that time which being a Negative it is impossible for me to know Also as you may see in Monasticon Anglicanum Part 3. p. 97 226. and in your Hist Ant. p. 130. 131. there was in the time of the said Earl Hugh sometimes two Justices of Chester and sometimes but one So that there possibly might be another Justice of Chester when the said Raph was Judge there And whereas you give a glance at my vain-glory by pretending you are loath to say it was so I desire to know how I could possibly be vain-glorious therein since it was full as honourable for the said Raph to be sole Justice of Chester as to be Chiefe Justice in case there were two In your 11 and 12 Pages you deny that you said that Geffrey Dutton was witness to his own Deed or Deeds but to the Deeds of others and say it was my gross mistake in saying so But if any persons read the 4 and 5 Pages of your Answer to my first Book they may easily see that you apply the words Domino Galfrido de Dutton in that Deed of Tabley to that Jeffrey de Dutton who made the said Deed and they will also find you saying That in several other Deeds of the same person meaning still the same Geffrey you dare affirm among the witnesses subscribed he hath five times and more the word Dominus omitted for once that we find it prefixed to his name Let the Readers therefore if they can find out how you could imagine his name to be at any time amongst his own Witnesses if you did not take him to be a Witness to his own Deeds You also in the same Pages of your Addenda say That if he had been a Knight he would have called himself by his Title Ego Galfridus de Dutton Miles or Ego Dominus Galfridus de Dutton dedi c. But this is directly contrary to what you did write at the bottom of the 5. Page of your second Book and it is well known that in very antient times every one who was a Knight did not alwayes give himself the Title of Miles or Dominus in his own Deeds neither had he alwayes the same Title given to him by others which if occasion required I could make to appear You also tell me that when I say That Dominus Galfridus de Dutton witness to the other Geffrey Duttons Deed of Nether-Tabley was his Father it was my gross mistake For it was Geffrey Dutton of Chedle And you also say that there were four Geffrey Duttons two of Budworth Father and Son and two of Chedle Father and Son much contemporary and for the proving of those two of Budworth those of Chedle being not there named you send me to your Book of Antiquities Page 226. there to be informed of what you say you see I do not know But if I did not know of those two Geffrey Duttons how could I tell you in the 10. Page of my Reply that Adam de Dutton had issue Sir Jeffrey who had issue Geffrey who made the said Deed of Tabley or How could I say that Geffrey the Father was a Witness to that Deed and How doth it yet appear that the Dominus Galfridus de Dutton who was Witness to the said Deed of Tabley was Geffrey Dutton of Chedle and not the other Sir Geffrey Dutton of Budworth For though the year 1238 be the last time you say you met with him yet as appears in your Hist Antiq. p. 216. you have not seen the Deeds of Sir George Warburton who is his heir-male therefore the said Geffrey might very well live on to be a Witness to that Deed. But whether the said Sir Geffrey of Budworth the Father was then living or not one of the Geffrey Duttons of Chedle was also a Knight as appears in your Hist Ant. p. 206. though you conceal it in your Addenda because you would have the Reader to believe there was no Sir Geffrey Dutton living when that Deed of Tabley was made which will as
AN ANSWER TO Sir PETER LEICESTER'S Addenda OR Some things to be Added in his ANSWER to S ir THOMAS MAINWARINGS BOOK WRITTEN By the said Sir Thomas Mainwarings LONDON Printed for Samuel Lowndes over against Exeter-House in the Strand 1673 4. TO Sir Peter Leicester Baronet SIR I Received your Addenda to the Answer to my former Book on Monday the 12th of January last in writing of which whether you are just to your word or not let the whole World Judge As for that which you say in the first Page thereof I think it was not worth your adding to what you had formerly written unless you could make it to appear that those persons whom you call judicious men be such whose opinions are like to be of equal weight with those Judges and Heralds who are against you which I believe will be very hard for you to do And if you could we should therein be but upon equal termes When you tell me in your 2 Page that you do give me two or three precedents more besides that of Geva to prove that Lands in those elder ages did pass in libero maritagio I cannot but smile to see that you still say that the gift to Geva was such a Precedent considering how in my Defence of Amicia Page 43 44. and so on to the middle of the 50 Page as also in my Reply to your Answer p. 23. and p. 45 46. and so on to the 60. Page I have made it to appear that it is very uncertain that the said Geva was a Bastard but most certain that the Gift to Geva was not a Gift in Frank-marriage And now I shall come to your pretended new precedents which you mention Page 2. and so on to the end of the 6 Page of your Addenda and in my Answer thereto I shall make it very clear that they are not such precedents as you take them to be but are gross mistakes of yours you erring in no less then these five particulars following First in conceiving that Joane wife of the said Lhewellin and daughter to King John was that base daughter named Joane which King John had by Agatha daughter to the second William de Ferrars Earl of Derby Secondly in saying that the said Lhewellin did marry Joane daughter of King John in the year 1206. Thirdly in alledging that King John gave Ellesmere in libero maritagio with his said daughter Joane Fourthly in pretending that the Mannor of Budeford in Warwickshire and the Mannor of Suttehall in Worcestershire were given by King John to the said Lhewellin with any daughter of the said King John And lastly in saying that that Joane who was wife to Robert de Andeley was the same Joane who was wife to the said Lhewellin And first you erre in saying that Joane who was the wife of the said Lhewellin was the same Joane which King John had by the said Agatha For as you may see in your Historical Antiquities p. 132. compared with Vincent p. 204. which is the place you bring for proof of what you say the said Agatha was daughter to William Ferrars Earl of Derby by his wife Agnes the third sister and coheir of Randle Blundevil Earl of Chester and Lincolne which Agnes was daughter of Hugh Cyveliok Earl of Chester by his wife Bertred Now the said Hugh Cyveliok dying as appears in your Hist Ant. p. 134. in the year 1181. and the said Bertred his wife as is proved Rot. de Dominabus pueris c. in Scacc. penes Remem R. sub Tit. Linc. Rot. 1. being but Twenty four years of age when her said husband dyed it will from thence appear that Joane daughter of the said Agatha could not possibly be the wife of the said Lhewellin For if we suppose that Randle Blundevil was younger then his third sister Agnes which I am confident you do not believe and that the said Bertred was begotten with Child at thirteen yeares of age and came so nimbly with her children as to have her first daughter when she was fourteen years old her second daughter when she was fifteen years old and her third daughter Agnes when she the said Bertred was sixteen years old then the said Agnes would be eight years of age in the said year 1181. If we also suppose the said Agatha to be the eldest of the six children of the said William Ferrars and Agnes though she might be the youngest and that she the said Agnes had the said Agatha when she the said Agnes was but fourteen years old then she the said Agatha would be born in the year 1187. If we also suppose that the said Agatha had her daughter Joane when she the said Agatha was but fourteen years old then the said Joane would be born in the year 1021. and yet by all this strange way of reckoning Joane the daughter of Agatha would have been but about three years of age when the said Lhewellin was married which as anon will appear was in the year 1204. So that this Joane daughter of Agatha was so far from being wife to the said Lhewellin that there is no likelihood that she was born at the time of the said Lhewellins marriage But the said Lhewellin was 28 years of age in the year 1204 For Sylvester Giraldus Cambrensis in his Itiner Cambr. printed at London 1585. p. 64. and 203. tells us that in the year 1188 at which time the said Silvester was living the said Lhewellin was 12 years old Secondly you run in to another erro in alledging that the said Lhewellin did marry his wife Joan in the year 1206. whereas he was her Husband in the year 1204. in the 6 year of King John as will appear by your own Authors Stow and Speed and by several others as also by this Copy of King John's Precept to the Sheriff of Shropshire to make Livery of the said Lordship of Ellesmere Ex Rot. Clauso de anno Sexto Regis Johannis in arce Lond. membrana 7. Rex Vicecom Salop. Salutem Scias quod dedimus dilecto filio nostro Lewellino manerium de Ellesmere cum omnibus pertinentiis suis in maritagio filiae nostrae Et ideo c. Teste c apud Wigorn. 23. Martii Thirdly You are guilty of a third error in pretending that King John did give the Lordship of Ellesmere in libero maritagio with his Daughter Joan for your own Authors as well as the aforesaid Record do only say that it was given in Maritagio so that your arguing that Ellesmere was given in maritagio and therefore was given in libero maritagio is very irrational For I have shewed in the 39 and 40 pages of my Reply to your Answer that maritagium is twofold and that Lands may be given in maritagio to one that is not of the Blood but as I have often proved Lands cannot be given in free-marriage but with one that is of the whole Blood neither can they be so given unless the word liberum