Selected quad for the lemma: book_n

Word A Word B Word C Word D Occurrence Frequency Band MI MI Band Prominent
book_n time_n write_v year_n 7,404 5 4.7660 4 true
View all documents for the selected quad

Text snippets containing the quad

ID Title Author Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) STC Words Pages
A51514 An admonition to the reader of Sir Peter Leicester's books. Written by Sir T. M. Mainwaring, Thomas, Sir, 1623-1689. 1676 (1676) Wing M297; ESTC R218644 8,189 26

There are 2 snippets containing the selected quad. | View lemmatised text

also says in that same page that Sir Randle Mainwaring the elder built the Hall of Over-Peover a new 1586. the Fabrick being now of Brick but one part of the said House was built 1585. and another part was built 1586. 25. He says page 336. that Sir Philip Mainwaring youngest Son of Sir Randle Mainwaring the elder of Peover Knight was Secretary of Ireland to the Earl of Strafford 1638. Whereas the said Sir Philip was his Majesty's Secretary of State there 26. He says page 336. that Sir Philip Mainwaring died 2 0 die Augusti 1661. at London But he died at Westminster at Sir Philip Warwick's House which is in or near to St. James's Park 27. He also says in the same page that Anne third Daughter of Sir Randle Mainwairing of Peover the younger which Anne was Cousin-Germain to the said Sir Peter married Robert Brierwood of Chester Counsellor at Law after Sir Robert Brierwood Knighted 1643. and Judge of three Shires in Wales But he takes no notice that he was made Sergeant at Law 1640. nor that he was made one of the Judges of the Kings Bench 1643. Indeed amongst the Recorders of Chester page 187. he tells us that the said Sir Robert was made Judge of the Common-Pleas and Knighted at Oxford 1643. But the said Sir Robert was never any Judge of the Court of Common-Pleas but the King did constitute him unum Justiciariorum ad placita coram Rege in the year 1643. that is he then made him one of the Judges of the King's Bench or Vpper Bench But it seems Sir Peter did not know the meaning of the aforesaid words He also in the 334 page says That Sir John Nedham who married Margaret the Daughter of Randle Mainwaring was Justiciarius de Banco and Judge of Chester 1 Edw. 4. that is he was then one of the Judges of the Court of Common-Pleas and Judge of Chester for he was Justiciarius de Banco in the year 1457. 35 Hen. 6. and he was Judge of Chester 1 Edw. 4. But as Sir Peter did mistake Justiciarius ad placita coram Rege to be a Judge of the Common-Pleas so I suppose he did there erroneously take Justiciarius de Banco to be a Judge of the King's Bench or else I believe he would have told us that the said John Needham was afterwards made a Judge of the King's Bench for he had a Patent to be one of the Judges of that Court 1472. 11 Edw. 4. as you may see in the Chronica Series at the end of Mr. Dugdale's Origines Juridiciales printed in the year 1666. 28. He says page 336. That Philip Mainwaring Esq Son and Heir of Sir Randle the younger married Ellen Daughter of Edward Mynshul of Stoke Esq 20 Jac. 1622. But the said Philip and Ellen were married 1617. and their eldest Son Randle was born the 25 of July 1619. and their second Son Philip was born the 25 of May 1621. 29. He says page 337. that Mrs. Ellen Mainwaring built a stately Stable and Dove-house at Peover in the year 1654. But the said Stable was built in the year 1653. and finished within 1654. and the said Dove-house was not built till the year 1656. 29. He says page 336. That Margaret Daughter of Sir Randle Mainwairing the younger and Wife of Henry Birkenhead died at Chester 25 July 1661. but she died on Saturday the 20 of July 1661. and was buried at Backford on Tuesday the 23 day of the said moneth I also think good having this opportunity to remind the Reader how in the 63 page of my Answer to Sir Peter's two Books I did declare That since it did appear that he was resolved to have the last word although he had nothing new to say that if what he did after that time write did prove no more to the purpose than what he had said in his said two Books that I would not appear in Print against him any more but would chuse to vindicate my Grandmother and my self by word of mouth whensoever I should have an opportunity so to do And for this reason when Sir Peter did within a few days after print his Advertisement to the Reader because it did contain little but a mistake of his of a Record concerning Lhewellin Prince of North-Wales I did thereupon forbear to publish that Answer which I did write to the same Since that time Sir Peter hath put out at once no less than three Books concerning the same Subject viz. His Second Reply his Peroratio ad Lectorem and a Third which he calls The Case of Amicia truly stated which certainly was a great deal of lost labour if his former Books had made the Case so clear as he all along hath pretended they did In all those Books which Sir Peter hath written upon this occasion the same things are said over and over again so very often as I believe the like will not be found elsewhere so that it would be pleasant if some person who hath little else to do would take an account how many times he hath repeated the same things Since he did declare in his first Reply that he had taken his leave for ever of this Controversie he hath printed no less than seven several things and four of them since I did appear publickly against him and in the end of his Peroratio ad Lectorem he says he hath done if I have done which is as much as to say That so long as I print any thing concerning Amicia he will never have done For this cause though I intend speedily to write an Answer to that part of the Record which is mentioned in the 76 page and the first part of the 77 page in his said Peroratio yet I do not design it at present for the publick Press however I shall willingly shew both it and my Answer to his Advertisement to the Reader to all knowing persons who shall come to me and desire to see the same and I do not doubt but to give them full satisfaction of Sir Peter's mistakes concerning both those Records and that they do not prove those things which he doth conceit they do As for that Letter of mine which Sir Peter doth speak of in the 63 80 82 and 84 pages in his Peroratio ad Lectorem it is possible I might write to a Kinsman of his and mine to acquaint him how Mr. Dugdale had delivered his Opinion in Print on my side as also what I had received from a very good hand concerning several of our Judges but I know nothing at all of my Letter being left with Mr. Throp the Stationer in Chester to be divulged and made known to every man in Town And I am sure I did not write that Mr. Dugdale had moved the Judges in the case for Mr. Dugdale was not in London when that Meeting was neither did he or I know of it till that Meeting was past and it was occasion'd by Sir Peter's Appeal to them But though he once thought the Judges of this Land fit persons to determine this Controversie yet he now says in the 81 page in his Peroratio ad Lectorem That this Question hath nothing of any Law in the case and therefore unfit to be put to our Reverend Judges for their Opinions unless all the Records and Histories touching the same together with the Reasons alledged on both sides were produced before them It is more proper for them to judge onely upon the point of Law Now how they can judge upon the point of Law if there be nothing of any Law in the case may be perhaps very difficult for any but Sir Peter to tell He also in the 66 and 67 pages of his said Book says That Mr. Dugdale some years ago did draw up my Pedigree wherein he put Amicia without the distinction of a Bastard and is therefore the more concern'd to stickle for me in this contest But though he deal not well with me in charging me unjustly with many things in his former and also in these his last Books which those that are Learned will easily discover yet Mr. Dugdale is a person of that knowledge and integrity that I believe he cannot perswade any one man that Mr. Dugdale doth stickle for me herein upon that account And Sir Peter himself very well knows that long before that Pedigree of mine was drawn Mr. Dugdale was of the same judgment concerning Amicia of which he is now I do also expect that Sir Peter will write several Books against what I have here published about his Mistakes concerning my Family which if he do I shall not go about publickly to answer any of them because I know I should then undertake a work which would never have an end But if any one will come to me I will shew proof of all the Uncertainties Omissions and Mistakes which I have charged Sir Peter withall and they are not any of them to be imputed to the Printers negligence for Sir Peter rectifies some Omissions and Errors in his Historical Antiquities at the end of his Answer to my Defence of Amicia and tells the Reader That those Amendments will set him streight together with the Correction of the Errata's of Printing committed by the great negligence of the Printer which are now mentioned and rectified by a distinct page at the end of the said Book And there are none of those which I charge him with mentioned in either of the said places except that about the Chappel at Peover which he said Margery the Wife of Randle Mainwaring did erect and that about Agnes Mainwaring Wife of Sir Robert Nedham both which he did not rectifie until I told him of those Errors in the latter end of the first Book which I did write Baddeley August 4. 1676. T. M. FINIS
AN ADMONITION To the Reader of Sir Peter Leicester's Books Written by Sir T. M. Printed in the Year 1676. An Admonition to the Reader of Sir Peter Leicester's Books Courteous Reader THat you may know Hercules by his Foot and not with some few persons confidently believe every thing which Sir Peter Leicester doth write I here give you an account of the Partiality Omissions Uncertainties and Mistakes of the said Sir Peter in those two Sheets of his Historical Antiquities in which he writes of the Township of Over Peover And I cannot but wonder that they are so numerous considering he always had liberty to peruse any Deeds or Copies of Records which I had in my custody and that I also was ever willing to give him any other assistance concerning my Family which did lie in my power First in his 330 page he calls Ranulphus who as he confesseth in the Conqueror's time held this Township of Peover or the greatest part thereof the supposed Ancestor of the Mainwarings as he also usually doth in other Townships where he hath occasion to name the said Randle and yet as you may see page 208. he calls Odard the undoubted Ancestor of the Duttons Now what reason he can have to call Odard the undoubted Ancestor of the Duttons and Ranulphus but the supposed Ancestor of the Mainwarings except his partiality I cannot imagine For first the Sirname of Mainwaring was a fixed name whereas the Sirname of Dutton was taken from that place and if another Family had bought it of the Posterity of Odard within few Generations after the Conquest they possibly might have stiled themselves after that place that being the manner of those Ages as Sir Peter tells us in his 250 page and accordingly he not onely gives us examples there of three Branches of the Duttons viz. Warburton Chedill and Ashley who did all call themselves after the Places where they lived but he gives us many other like instances in many other places of his said Book Secondly Sir Peter doth not add the Sirname of de Dutton in his said 250 page to the said Odard or Hugh Son of the said Odard but onely to Hugh de Dutton Son of Hugh who was the Third of that Family Whereas the Sirname of Mesnilwaren or Mainwaring was used as you may see in the 111 page of the said Book in King William Rufus his days by Richard Mesnilwaren which except the said Ranulphus is the first Mainwaring that we do find Thirdly the principal reason as I conceive why Sir Peter says Odard was the undoubted Ancestor of the Duttons is because the Duttons enjoyed those Lands which the said Odard held in the Conqueror's time which were if I mistake not part of Dutton which the said Odard held of the Earl of Chester and Aston and part of Weston and part of Halton which the said Odard held under William Fitz-Nigel Baron of Halton But as the aforesaid Lands of the aforesaid Odard were enjoyed by the Duttons so the Lands of the said Ranulphus in Blaken Wenitone Tatton Pever Warford Little-Pever Cepmundewiche Ollerton Senelestune Cocheshalle Hoiloch Tadetune which is the same with Warmincham Norwardine Sundreland and Bageley in Cheshire and the Lordship of Waburne in Norfolk being all the Lands which the said Ranulphus held in the Conqueror's time were certainly enjoyed by the Mainwarings But this I say not to take off any thing from the Family of Duttons for I am fully satisfied that Odard was their Ancestor but to shew the Partiality of Sir Peter in doubting of Ranulphus more than of the said Odard 2. He tells us in his said 330 page That by antient Deeds there were antiently two Places or Hamlets in Over-Peover one called Cepmundewich the other Fodon whereas there were Seven such Places there viz. Cepmundewich Fodon Hongrill Hethalis Brydenbrugge Twyford and Radbroc And it is very strange how Sir Peter could omit the last of these seeing in the very same page he speaks of Radbrook-house in Over-Peover and mentions a Deed by which William Mainwaring then Lord of Over-Peover gave illam terram quae vocatur Radbroc integram unto Thomas Mainwaring his younger Son 3. In the Pedigree of the Mainwarings page 331 he leaves out Ranulphus who is nominated in Doomsday-Book Richard de Mesnilwarin mentioned in his Hist Antiq. page 111. Roger de Mesnilgarin or Mainwaring and William and Randal his Sons spoken of by him page 341. Roger de Menilgarin or Mainwaring named by him page 362. Sir Ralph Mainwaring and Sir Roger Mainwaring his Son both taken notice of by him page 330. and this upon a pretence that they were Lords of Warmincham Whereas I am confident he will not deny but that the Mainwarings of Warmincham were also Owners of Over-Peover or the most part thereof until Sir Roger Mainwaring gave Peover to his younger Son Sir William Mainwaring presently after which time the Line of the Mainwarings of Warmincham failing the Mainwarings of Peover became Heirs male to those Mainwarings of Warmincham Sir Warine Mainwaring Son of Sir Thomas Mainwaring Son of the said Sir Roger dying without Issue Male. And though he may pretend that he did not mention those Mainwarings of Warmincham who also were Owners of Peover because they as he supposeth then lived at Warmincham in another Hundred yet in his said Book he gives an account of the Descents of some who had Estates in Bucklow Hundred though he then looks upon them as living in other Hundreds 4. He tells us page 332 that Margery Praers one of the Coheirs of William Praers of Baddeley and Sister to Joan the other Coheir who was Wife to William Mainwaring married John Honford of Honford and afterwards that she married Hugh Holt 33 Edw. 3. but had no Issue by Holt and that she had Issue by John Honford a Son named John Honford who was a Bastard But he is mistaken in saying that Holt was her second Husband for Margery had her Bastard John Honford before she had any Husband and she was Wife to Hugh Holt 33 Edw. 3. and she was Wife to John Honford 46 47 and 50 of Edw. 3. 5. In the 332 page he takes no notice that William Leigh of Baggeleigh who married Joan the Daughter of William Mainwaring of Peover in the 33 of Edw. 3. was a Knight and yet as you may see in his 217 page he knew the said William to be a Knight 6. He says in his said 332 page That William Mainwaring the Elder who lived 33 Edw. 3. sealed with three Bars with a Lion passant in Chief whereas the Coat of Arms was Argent two Bars Gules on a Chief of the Second a Lion passant gardant Or and so it is cut in his own Book page 331. 7. He takes notice page 332. that William younger Son of William Son of William Mainwaring had a Daughter named Ellen who was married to Adam Glasebroke But he omits John and Margery Brother and Sister to the said Ellen.