Selected quad for the lemma: death_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
death_n	daughter_n	earl_n	marry_v	4,628	5	9.3121	5	false

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

accounted a crime in your Family more then in others in the like Case True it is as lawful in your Case as any other if your Case be the same with others I say the Quartering of the Coat of a Coheir ought not to be given by any Herald to any but the Coheir of the Whole-blood which in strictness you do confess Is not that Herald then to be misliked both for his boldness and errour who shall at any time give it to the Half-blood but in this Case I believe it will not appear to be given to the Half-blood as you call it unless it be meant of a Half-blood illegitimate Page 23. You say Because Manwaringe was not an equal Competitor to the Coheir of the Earl of Chester could be no substantial Argument to prove Amicia Illegitimate and so you pass to illustrate your Ancestour to have been seized of a good Estate of Lands Whereunto I say I do not urge that for an Argument of her Illegitimacy we shall come to that anon I only there observed chiefly that she was no Coheir which you grant and therefore the Herald ought not to have given to Manwaringe the Quartering of the Earl of Chester's Coat at all which you do grant to be in strictness true and which I have touched immediately before and I shall likewise grant your Family to be a Family of good Quality both at that time and at this present also I should be loth to say to the contrary but as to your note of Dukes and Earls to have been anciently Judges of Chester you should have distinguished of the times for that was not till the Reign of Richard the Second who made Deputies to act in their stead before which time you find no such great Persons Judges there nor from Henry the Seaventh's time downwards Thirdly Page 24. You say The case was not the same with the other Daughters of the Earl of Chester when Rafe Manwaringe married Amicia as it was afterward for Amicia was married in the life time of her Father Earl Hugh whereas those four came to be such great fortunes upon the death of their Brother Randle Earl of Chester and Lincolne without Issue to whom they then became Heirs they being his Sisters of the Whole-blood and though all or most of them were married before they became to be his Heirs yet the said Earl Randle having never had Issue the expectation of that Estate added to their other Fortunes must needs make them very considerable Fortunes whereas Amicia was but of the Half-blood being a Daughter of Earl Hugh by a former Wife My Answer Herein first you beg the Question which was never granted nor can ever be proved That Amicia was of the Half-legitimate Blood to Earl Randle by a former Wife of Earl Hugh but dato hoc sed non concesso It is more rational to imagine that Earl Hugh matching his only Daughter by a former Wife as you suppose in his life-time would have married her to as considerable a Person as was either provided by himself or his Son for his younger Children by a second venter whose expectation which you conceive added to their Fortunes whereby they matched to so great Persons could not be much being grounded upon great uncertainties since it could not be foreseen when they married that their Brother should dye without Issue who afterwards married two Wives successively purposely to have Issue of his own Body to inherit his own Lands Page 25. You say That I acknowledge I have been informed that three eminent Judges and four Heralds are of Opinion that Amice was Legitimate and was also told lately by one whom you hope I have no reason to discredit that since then several other Judges and Heralds have been consulted all which did concur in the same Opinion that Amicia was no Bastard My Answer Whereunto I answer and confess I was so informed but it was you your self who informed me nor did I ever yet see any Opinion under their hands nor their grounds and reasons for such their Opinions attested what can be made of this Let the ingenious Reader judge of the Argument some Judges and Heralds are of that Opinion Ergo she was Legitimate In these Cases all that can be said Pro and Con should have been put indifferently on both sides when any grave Person is to be consulted which hitherto hath been done privately on the one side onely without hearing the Reasons on the other side and you know how Opinions are not rarely given according to the putting of the Case but very frequent and usual when many times even the Lawyers themselves differ in their Opinions But I can compare this to be like nothing more then going about to get hands to a Petition or Certificate It is not Opinions that ought to sway the Judgment of all indifferent Readers but solid Reason And I shall desire to be Confuted with substantial Arguments not Opinions of this or that man And now I come to your Reply against my Answers given to the Arguments for Amicia which I shall fully comprehend in short that the Reader may with less trouble better apprehend the Point Page 30 31. Where you say That my Answer is that it is true the Law is so taken at this day i. e. that Lands cannot pass in libero maritagio with a Bastard but I doubt whether it was so taken in the elder Ages of Henry the Second and upwards and also that I cite Glanvil Chief Justice of England who lived in the time when Amicia lived and that I do also shew you a Precedent where Lands were given by the Father in free Marriage with his base Daughter and I say further that the Common Law in sundry other things is at this day altered from what it was in former Ages long after the time of Henry the Second for which I cite Cooke upon Littleton in several places These are my words Your Reply Pag. 30 31. Hereunto you reply to what I urge out of the Lord Cooke That you conceive the Common Law where not altered by Parliament is the same at this day that it was formerly and you cite Cooke upon Littleton p. 115. b. which should have been fol. 115. b. who saith It is a Maxime of the Law That whatsoever was at the Common Law and is not ousted or taken away by any Statute remaineth still and so consequently you argue that if it ever were the Common Law that Lands or Services might pass in libero maritagio with a Bastard or one that is not of the Bloud it would be lawful to do so still because that part of the Law is not ousted or taken away by any Statute So that the places which I have cited do not prove That the Common Law at this day doth vary from what it was in former Ages in any particular but only that it was taken to be otherwise in those dayes just like some Cases in our Reports which at several

death of the Donour what is this to the point why a man cannot give his Lands to any in libero maritagio or that it was not usual in those dayes to pass Lands in free marriage with a Bastard calling her only his Daughter without the addition of Bastard and thereby owning her to be of his bloud and kindred The sum is this The Lawyers of latter ages do expound the Law That Lands cannot pass in free marriage with Bastards ergo it was so taken in Glanvil's time and his words must be so understood though he say no such thing This is a great Non sequitur And yet our Lawyers say now Bastards are capable of receiving Lands after they have gained a Name by reputation which Amicia had gained as we see in the Deed where she is called and owned by the Earl for his Daughter But you tell me in the Close pag. 41. That the Common Law hath alwaies been the same because Cooke on Littleton saith That the Comon Law hath no Controller but an Act of Parliament which I have told you must be understood whilst it remains the Common Law which yet may alter and hath altered in sundry Particulars without any Act of Parliament as I have before proved But here I must turn you back to p. 12 13. where this hath been sufficiently answered before Pag. 42. Your Fourth Reply You say There is not any weight in what I say viz. That it seems to me in those elder ages Bastards were reputed of the Bloud by the frequent Appellation of them by the names of Unkle Brother Daughter Cosin c. for by the same reason I should repute them of the bloud now this Age being as Civil to them in their expressions as any Age could possibly be My Answer But where do you find almost in any Deeds of these last Ages where such are not now called Bastard-sons Bastard-daughters Bastard-brothers c. in all Settlements and Conveyances of Annuities or Portions which in the very ancient Ages was never used Nay what say you if I affirm they be of the Bloud both now and in former Ages though the Law will not allow them so because they now are esteemed in the eye of the Law quasi nullius filius for if A. have a Bastard son or daughter which is really his they must needs be of his bloud For no Law can extinguish Nature though by the Common Law they are not now esteemed so And what if I say that the reason why in the Deeds of those elder Ages they were called Daughters without any addition of Bastard whereby the Party owned them to be of their Kindred and Bloud was that the Inheritance of the Lands passed in libero Maritagio with such might descend to their heirs For our Lawyers now tell us that Bastards are capable of receiving Lands after they have gained a Name by Reputation why may not then Bastards having gained the Names of Daughters receive a Grant from their owned Fathers either in Frank-marriage or otherwise And now you come to Geva and my Precedent Pag. 43. For the Precedent I have given wherein I say Lands were given in libero maritagio you conceive it will not hold 1. Because it doth not certainly appear that Geva was a Bastard for in all the Records that I cite she is called Earl Hugh 's Daughter and in one of them she calls Randle Earl of Chester her Cosin which makes it probable that she was legitimate especially since you do not find by any Deed Record or Author whatsoever that she is at any time called a Bastard My Answer to the first Reason Though we find her not called Bastard in express terms yet we find it implied in an Author contemporary by certain and sure consequence which I believe can never be fully answered Secondly These words of Ordericus p. 787. Richardus pulcherrimus puer quem solum ex Ermentrude filia Hugonis de Claro monte genuit consulatum tenuit c. by which words you are not satisfied but he might as well mean that Richard was the only Son as well as the only Child begot on Ermentrude for there is no necessity to take the word solum adverbially neither is it marked as an Adverb in Ordericus his Book though it be so in mine And though he tells us p. 522. that E pellicibus plurimam sobolem utriusque sexus genuit yet be saith not that Geva was one of them My Answer to the Second Reason But you will not perhaps be satisfied of his meaning for he saith not Quem solum filium as you interpret him but indefinitely Quem solum ex Ermentrude genuit So that whether solum be understood adverbially which certainly to most men will here seem more proper or whether you take it for a Noun you can make no more of it in English than thus Richard a beautiful youth whom only Earl Hugh begot on Exmentrude c. For whether we English it whom only he begot or whom he only begot it retains the same sense for if any other person either Son or Daughter were begotten on Ermentrude by Earl Hugh then could it not be said that Richard was only begot on Ermentrude and can any man now imagine from this testimony of Ordericus that Earl Hugh had any other Issue by Ermentrude but only Richard So that if we believe Ordericus who living in that Age knew the truth better than we can now Geva was no Daughter by Ermentrude and by certain consequence must be one of the base Issue mentioned by Ordericus though he names none in particular and she cannot be by any former Wife your old Subterfuge because Earl Hugh had never any other Wife which ought either to be proved by you or else no good reason appears to the contrary and then sure the Deed proving Geva had Lands given in free Marriage the precedent holds and proves that Lands in those elder Ages passed with Bastards in free Marriage whom they owned for their own Children 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quod erat demonstrandum I add further that if Hugh Lupus had a Daughter by Ermentrude for you your self confess and expound the words of Ordericus to be that Earl Hugh had no other Son what advantage is it for your purpose unless Geva was that Daughter and so she be legitimate See now then Geva must needs be Sister of the Whole-blood to Earl Richard and by consequence sole Heir to her Brother of all the Earldom as you interpret Ordericus and so I leave it to every Readers Judgement and then by your own Argument she should have had the Earldom Thirdly Page 45. Then you proceed to my Objection That if Geva had been Legitimate her Issue ought rather to have succeeded into the Earldom of Chester then Randle de Meschines after the death of Richard Earl of Chester That doth not at all follow say you because it is possible the Earldom of Chester at that time as most times

You conceive there is no weight at all in it whereof I am so sensible that I conceive it not evincing nor do those Antient Historians take upon them to give an account of all the Children of Earl Hugh but onely of the Heirs of Randle Blundevill and yet you say this Reason is as strong as my first Reason My Reply I do confess I urged it but for a probable Reason and yet you say it is as strong as the first Reason Then you might have done well to have answered the first better whereunto I am sure you have made no substantial Answer as yet wherein I appeal to all indifferent and judicious Readers who shall read this Book And for the probability of this you say That the Historians take not upon them to give an Account of all the Earls Children but the Heirs of Randle but do you find that they have left out any of his legitimate Children except this whom you suppose legitimate And then you tell me Mr. Cambden hath mentioned Amicia though not among the Co-heirs yet without the brand of a Bastard you know well he is but of very late standing and not an Historian Contemporary with Amicia and so you and I do now mention her And then you tell me over again which I have before Answered that those Judges and Heralds that have seen your Deeds of which I have heard but I am sure I yet know not who they be nor ever saw any thing attested under any of their hands nor their Reasons nor grounds for their Opinion and you mention Mr. Dugdale in particular for whom I have ever had a great esteem as a diligent searcher of Antiquities all which you again and again affirm to be of your Opinion that Amicia was legitimate but because I have before spoken of this Supra pag. 10 11. I shall onely ask here what weight can be drawn from this some Persons are of that Opinion Ergo it is so whole Councels have erred unless like the Romanists you will say The Pope cannot err And perhaps those Persons you mention never heard what is to be said against that Opinion whereas it were but equal that in consultation of Opinions both sides should show what could be said Pro and Con both together which hitherto for ought I know onely one Party hath privately put the Case as he pleaseth I have often told you I would have you confute me with Reason not Opinions for one man may be of one Opinion and another man of another Opinion but it is firm Reason which must sway every mans Judgment Page 69.70 71 c. And lastly you put down two Deeds wherein Sir Raufe Manwaringe Justice of Chester is subscribed Witness before the Barons of Cheshire for which you think it will be difficult to give a Reason if Amice were a Bastard To this I say it will not be difficult at all to give a Reason and much more easie then to give a Reason why Amice should be no Bastard because Sir Raufe Manwaringe is sometime Subscribed before the Barons of Cheshire The Reason I give is this that antiently in those Ages the Justice was put sometimes before the Barons and sometimes after and sometimes after the Constable and Dapifer and before the rest of the Barons as it happened for proof see the Deed in my-Book making the Baron of Halton the prime Baron pag. 160. where the Justice comes after all the Barons also in the Deed of Earl Randle to his Barons pag. 162. where the Justice comes next after the Constable and Dapifer and before the other Barons see also in my Book pag. 130 131. two Deeds made by Hugh Cyveliok In the one the Justice is put after the Constable and Dapifer In the other the Justice is put before them many other like examples may be produced else where I will appeal herein to Mr. Dugdale or to any Antiquary in England and considering the great uncertainty of Subscription of Witnesses in old Deeds sometimes putting one before another in one Deed and again putting the same Person after the other in another Deed sometimes putting Domino prefixed before the names of some Persons in one Deed and omitting the word Domino before the names of the same Persons in another Deed whereof I have spoken pag. 5 6. in the beginning of this Book I say had you well considered or observed these things it was not worth your labour to have added those three or four leafs in the close of your Book And now I appeal to all Readers whether those Grounds and Reasons alledged in my former Book against the legitimacy of Amicia as also to prove the Bastardy of those two other Ladies as you call them Geva and the Mother of Richard Bacun be evinced by any solid Answer or Reason given yet to the contrary And so I take my leave for ever of this Trivial Controversie but shall ever remain Mobberley May 15. 1673. SIR Your affectionate Cosin and very humble Servant PETER LEYCESTER Courteous Reader I Have here in the end of this Book an opportunity to Rectifie some Omissions and Errours in my former Book which escaped me through misinformation of others and desire thee to pardon and amend them as followeth Page 206. after the last line but two should have followed this Also another John Brereton son of George Brereton of Ashley Esq was Baptised at Bowdon the 20th day of June 1576. he was afterwards Sir John Brereton Knight the King's Serjeant at Law in Ireland he died without Issue whose-Widow Married the Lord Chief Justice Bramston Sir John left all his Personal Estate which was great to his Widow and Caius-Colledge in Cambridge where he was educated and to Randle brereton his youngest Brother which Randle lived in London and Married and had Issue by his Wife a Daughter Married to Mr. Bourcher of Glocestershire and a Son called also Randle Brereton who hath an Estate in Lincolnshire and is the onely Issue Male or Heir-male of all the Family of the Breretons of Ashley now surviving 1672. Page 210. line 27. Where these words With the little Fields above lying up to Aston Town-field are totally to be expunged Page 214. line 18 19. Where it is said Daughter and sole Heir of Sir Henry Willoughby Read Daughter and sole Heir to her Mother and Daughter and Co-heir to her Father Sir Henry Willoughby for Sir Henry had three Daughters and Co-heirs Anne after the death of Sir Thomas Aston Married Mr. Gray younger Son of the Earl of Stamford she was by the first Wife of Sir Henry he had also two Daughters by his second Wife Ibidem page 214. line 25. Read He was Loyal to his Prince and raised a Regiment of Dragooners for the King at his own cost and charge and was a Gentleman of good Parts but was unfortunately c. Page 223. The 6 7 8. lines are to be expunged totally Page 233. line 4. There it is said Maud Married Sir