Selected quad for the lemma: death_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
death_n	die_v	live_v	year_n	8,514	5	5.2901	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A51562	A reply to an answer to the Defence of Amicia, daughter of Hugh Cyveliok, Earl of Chester wherein it is proved, that the reasons alleadged by Sir Peter Leicester, in his former book, and also in his said answer, concerning the illegitimacy of the said Amicia, are invalid, and of no weight at all / by Sir Thomas Mainwaring ...	Mainwaring, Thomas, Sir, 1623-1689.	1673 (1673)	Wing M303; ESTC R10002	39,045	108

the words liberum conjugium to create an Estate of Inheritance as well as the words liberum maritagium which no man before you ever said Whereas no words that are equipollent or amounting to as much can do it it being impossible to make an Estate in Free-marriage if there be wanting either the word liberum or the word Maritagium Also as the words in libero conjugio can make but an Estate for life so it is also clear that in your Deed of Earl Randle to Ceva there was no more intended than an Estate for life it running all along in the singular number Et teneat bene in pace c. ut melius liberius tenuit And it is likely the Deed of Earl Hugh did run after the same manner by that expression sicuti Comes Hughes ei in libero conjugio dedit But I believe the Bassets did afterwards enjoy the said lands though how or by vertue of what Deed I am not able to declare For in Monasticon Anglicanum Part 1. p. 439 and in your Historical Antiquities p. 113. but misprinted 121. I find Geffrey Ridell and Ralph Basset called the heires of the said Geva Now if those persons were the heires of her body and the aforesaid Deed a Gift in Frank-marriage Why did not Earl Randle confirm or grant those lands to her heires as well as to her And if they were not the heirs of her body she could not be a bastard For as my Lord Coke on Littleton fol. 3. b. tells you A Bastard can have no heir but of his own body And whereas I brought another Argument to prove that this Gift of Geva could not be a Gift in Frank-marriage Because my Lord Coke says that one of the things incident to a Frank-marriage is that the Donees shall hold freely of the Donour till the fourth degree be past which cannot be in Geva's case Because there was no Donees but one Donee only and the Estate could not continue until the Fourth degree was past because it was onely for Geva's life You tell me that my Lord Coke upon Littleton fol. 21. b. citeth Peter Saltmarch's Case and Fitz-Herbert de natura brevium fol. 172. that lands may be given by a Man to his Son in Free-marriage and why not to his Daughter alone in Free-marriage But I pray you How can there be a Gift in Free-marriage if there be no Marriage at all and How can there be a Marriage if the Man or Woman be alone But you misunderstand this place as you do many others For my Lord Coke if you observe him well doth not there say that such a Gift can be made with a Man alone or with a Woman alone But there tells you that a gift in free-marriage may be either to a Man with a woman or as some have held to a Woman with a Man and for proof thereof cites Peter Saltmarsh his case and Fitz-Herbert And this is no more than what I said in the 49 Page of my former Book where I also shewed you how Bracton did therewith accord But there is none of them that saith as you do That land may be given in Frank-marriage to a Man without a Woman or to a VVoman without a Man In your 48 49 Pages you would willingly perswade the Reader that Earl Randle de Gernoniis Father to Earl Hugh Cyveliok was Marryed by Robert Earl of Gloucester unto Maude his Daughter thereby to draw him to the part of Queen Maude his Sister about the very year 1139. before which time we find no mention in our antient Historians of Randle's acting against King Stephen but in that very year we do and then by some of them stiled Son-in-law to the Earl of Gloucester But I pray you VVhy is it not full as likely that before that time Randle de Gernoniis was Marryed to the Daughter of the said Earl of Gloucester and thereby was the more easily drawn to that party to which he stood so near related as that that match should be made purposely to draw him to that party And how could you hear much of that Earl Randle's actings against King Stephen before the year 1139 seeing Gervasius a Benedictine Monke of Canterbury who lived in the Reign of King John tells us in his Chronicles or Annalls col 1345. l. 60. that it was in the year 1138 when Robert Earl of Gloucester did begin to quarrel with the said King Stephen And whereas you yet seem unsatisfied that Earl Hugh was of such an age as probably to have had another Wife before Bertred and do now say p. 49. if we reckon by utmost possibilities that Earl Hugh could not possibly be above sixteen or seventeen years older than Bertred I do very much wonder thereat seeing I have formerly from the Argument which you used to prove it to be otherwayes made it manifest that he might possibly be several years above double her age and that so clearly that I am confident no man besides your self will offer to deny the same For I then told you that whether the Marriage of Robert Earl of Gloucester with Mabill Daughter and heir of Robert Fitz-Hamon was according to Selden in the year 1109. or according to Stow in the year 1110. the said Mabill might have Maude her second Daughter in the year 1112 which Maude if she was Marryed to Earl Randle de Gernoniis in the year 1128 when she was sixteen years of age might have her Son Hugh Cyvelick in the year 1129. which if true the said Earl Hugh was fifty two years old at his death For he died in the year 1181 and if so then he was four years above twice the age of Bertred For she was but Twenty four years old when the said Earl Hugh died as appears Rot. de Dominabus pueris c. in Scacc. penes Remem R. sub Tit. Linc. Rot. 1. And it is certain that the said Earl Hugh was Earl of Chester about four years before his VVife Bertred was born besides what age he was of when his Father died and his Daughter Amicia was Married in his life time and none knows how many years before his death And if the Marriage of the said Robert Earl of Gloucester with the said Mabill was in the year 1109. then he might possibly be Five years above double the age of his VVife Bertred And this is the more likely to be true Because though Mr. Selden be a later VVriter than Mr. Stow is yet Mr. Selden cites one that lived long before Mr. Stow as will appear by the old English Rithmical Story attributed to one Robert of Glocester and recited in the 647. Page of Mr. Seldens Titles of Honour In your Answer pag. 50 51 52 53. you endeavor to weaken the Third and Fourth reasons which were brought as concurrent proof on the behalf of Amicia by saying that Hugh Cyveliok 's Wife was a witness to her Husbands Deed which a Wife cannot now be she being not

capable to be a Witness either for or against her Husband whereby you would insinuate a change of the Law in that particular from what it was formerly and you also say that if Hugh Cyveliok had had a former Wife sure Raph Mainwaring would have called his Daughter after her and not after the then Countess And you there make nothing of Roger Mainwaring's calling Randle Earl of Chester and Lincoln his Uncle in a Deed nor of Henry de Audley's being a Witness to the Deeds of Randle Earl of Chester and Lincoln and of Robert de Ferrars which later you say is far fetcht nor of Raph Mainwarings and Roger Mainwarings being Witnesses to so many Deeds of those that were Earles of Chester in their times But to these things I say that the Law is still the same as it was formerly in the particular by you here mentioned For both antiently and at this day also I know nothing that hinders but that the Wife may subscribe as a Witness to a Deed which her Husband doth make and though she neither antiently could nor yet can be a witness for or against her Husband yet there is this use of it that if the Wife survive her Husband and it come to be controverted amongst other parties whether such a Deed was Sealed by him or not she in the time of her VVidowhood may be a good VVitness for the proving of the same And as to the calling of Sir Raph Mainwarings Daughter by the name of Bertred after the present Countess and not after the name of Hugh Cyvelioks first VVife That is no wonder at all it being more ordinary to call Daughters after their Godmothers Names than after the names of their own Grandmothers and especially when the Godmothers are of great quality Now the said Amicia's Daughter being called Bertred which is a very unusual name it is more than probable according to what you expressed to me under your hand in April 1664. that Bertred the Countess was Godmother to the said Bertred Mainwaring And if so it is very unlikely that Amicia was illegitimate For VVives are seldome Godmothers to their Husbands Bastards or to the Children of such Bastards Also Sir Raph Mainwaring and Sir Roger Mainwaring and Henry de Audley the Sou-in-law of the said Sir Raph Mainwaring being so often VVitnesses to the Deeds of the Earls of Chester and to the Deeds of their very near Relations doth certainly shew there was then a very great and constant intimacy betwixt the said Families And though you pretend that Sir Raph Mainwaring was very conversant with the Earle because he was Judge and therefore came so often to be a VVitness and say that we may find the like number of Charters or more to which Philip Orreby Judge of Chester was witness in like nature I conceive that you are deceived therein although Philip Orreby was Judge of Chester perhaps longer than Sir Raph Mainwaring was For I do believe that I can make it to appear by what Deeds I have and what Deeds I have seen of others that Sir Raph Maeinwaring and his Son Sir Roger Mainwaring were witnesses to more Deeds of Hugh Cyvelioks and Randle Blundevil than any other persons of any one Family were Add hereunto which I have in my former Book mentioned that Sir Roger Mainwaring in a Deed of his own calls Randle Earl of Chester and Lincoln his Vncle and how I did there observe that though the VVriters of Histories did sometimes give to Bastards the name of Cosen Brother Uncle Son and Daughter I did believe you could hardly find any one that you could certainly prove to be a Bastard or the Son of a Bastard that did presume in a Deed to call so great a person as the Earl of Chester was his Brother or Uncle unless he came to be a very great Person himself And this is so true that in the 53 Page you are forced to confess that such Precedents are scant but yet you think you have found one viz. Randle de Estbury or Astbury who in a Deed mentioned in the Addenda of your Historical Antiquities is called the Earl of Chester 's Nephew and is put the last of all the witnesses and was certainly but an ordinary Gentleman nor Knight nor Lord. But this Precedent will fail you for two Reasons First Because you do as good as confess that you cannot prove him to be a Bastard and he might perhaps be a younger Brother or Son of a younger Brother and so not necessarily a Knight or a Lord And Secondly Because he doth not call himself the Earles Nephew but is called so by others and that is so far from contradicting that it doth confirm what I said in my former Book Also if you observe it there were no VVitnesses to the said Deed besides the said Randle de Astbury except David de Malpas whom I conceive was Baron of Malpas and William his Son And whereas you say you should be glad to find out the Extraction of the said Randle de Astbury if he were not a Bastard Though it be perhaps impossible now to tell you his Extraction certainly because he lived so long since and we only find him mentioned as a witness in one Ded Yet I doubt not but to satisfie the Reader that he and his Father and Mother might all be Legitimate For not to say that he might be a Son of some other Daughter of the said Hugh Cyveliok by his former VVife he might possibly be the Son of Roger Son of Hugh Cyveliok And I know no great reason why the said Roger should by you be suspected to be a bastard For you only find him as appears by your Historical Antiquities p. 134. and in my First Book p. 1. mentioned as a Witness to a Deed of his Brother Randle 's to the Abbey of Saint VVerburge So that you conceive him to be a bastard Because neither he nor any issue-Male of his succeeded in the Earldome of Chester after the death of Randle Blundevil VVhereas the said Roger might be lawful and be Father to this Randle de Astbury and yet both he and the said Randle de Astbury might dye before the said Randle de Blundevil For he lived very long and was Earl of Chester above Fifty years Also it is very strange if Amicia was a Bastard and the Father or Mother of the said Randle de Astbury was also a Bastard that those Bastards could find none to call their Children after but the then Countess and the then Earl For the Daughter of Amicia was called Bertred after Randle Blundevill's Mother and Randle de Astbury was of the same Name with the said Earl But admitting that the said Roger was a Bastard Why might not Randle de Astbury however be his Son and then What necessity of what you say in your Addenda of either finding out another Base Son or another Base Daughter of the said Hugh Cyveliok But you have been very willing to charge

curia Romana sub Papa Innocentio secundo Celestino secundo Lucio secundo per annos quinque amplius del ito processu currente nichil inventum est quod ejus consecrationem deberet elongare Verum summus Pastor Eugenius Cisterciensis ordinis Monachus anno Dominicae incarnationis M. C. xlvi in Papam consecratus electionem dicti Willielmi non ratione personalis inhahabilitatis mmo pro libito suaevoluntatis cassavit c. And there he also after speaks of the Restauration of the said William to the said Archbishoprick so that it seems by this Author that the said William held the said Archbishoprick upon his first election till after the deaths of Pope Innocent the Second Pope Celestine the Second and Pope Lucius the Second viz. till about the year 1146. but was then ousted by Pope Eugenius and restored again by Pope Anastasius after the death of Henry Murdac about the year 1153. Also Gulielmus Neubricensis who lived in the Raignes of King Richard the First and King John page 368. l. 10. thus writes Venerabili Trustino defuncto Eboracensis Ecclesiae Pontificatum suscepit Gulielmus ejusdem Ecclesiae Thesaurarius vir plane secundum carnem nobilis morum ingenua lenitate amabilis Qui cum ad sedem Apostolicam respensales idoneos propetendo solemniter pallio direxisset emergentibus adversariis multa contra eum proponentibus negatum est Jussusque ad eandem sedem in propria persona accedere pro semetipso tanquam aetatem habens allegare causis tamen ingravescentibus atque invalescentibus adversariis piae quoque memoriae Papa Eugenio contra eum sive per veritatem sive per surreptionem implacabiliter irritato depositus est c. So also Gervasius a Benedictine Monk of Canterbury who lived in the time of King John Col. 1357. l. 52. in the year 1142. thus sayes Rex autem Stephanus dedit Archiepiscopatum Eboracensis ecclesiae cuidem clerico nomine VVillielmo quibusdam clericis ejusdem Ecclesiae consentientibus aliis vero ut audebant reclamantibus unde factum est ut cum Theodbaldus Cantuariensis archiepiscopus sie factae non consentiret electioni Henricus frater Regis VVintoniensis episcopus apostolicae sedis legatus praesumptuosa semper magnanimitate famam colligens praedictum electum apud VVintoniam consecraret Abiit itaque novus sacratus Eboracum vix duobus annis sedit in pace Also Radulsus de Diceto who was Dean of Pauls and lived in the time of King John Col. 508. l. 11. thus writes Thurstino Eboracensi archiepiscopo suc cessit Willielmus Also Matt. Paris who lived in the time of King Henry the Third in his Greater History put out by Doctor Watts Page 78. sayes thus in the year 1139. Tune defuncto Turstano Eboracensi Archiepiscopo Willielmus ejusdem Ecclesiae Thesaurarius successit Also Simeon Dunelmensis a Benedictine Monk who lived in the Raign of King Stephen and in the time of the said William Col. 79. l. 39. speaking of the Archbishops of York thus sayes Post Oswaldum isti sibi ordine successerunt Aldulfus Vulstanus Eelfricus Kinsius Aldredus Thomas Girardus Thomas Turstinus Willielmus Henricus Rogerus There placing the aforesaid William before Henry Murdac And John Prior of Hagulstald in his Continuation of the History of the said Simeon Col. 268. l. 41. thus writes Anno M.C. xlii Post mortem Turstini archiepiscopi clerici Eboracenses secundum desideria cordis sui varia vaga sententia circumacti fuerant toto anno super electione facienda Elegerant autem persuadente legato Henrico Wintoniae nepotem Regis Stephani Henricum de Coilli Qui quia praefuit abbatiae Kadomensi noluit dominus apostolicus eum praefici archiepiscopatui nisi renunciaret priori honori Mense Januario iterum de electione tractantes in personam Willielmi Thesaurarii plurimi consenserunt And presently after l. 60. further sayes Perductum itaque electum ad Lincolniam rex libenter suscepit in terris possessionibus Eboracensibus confirmavit Now though a lesser number of Authors might have served to prove that there was a William Archbishop of York living in the time both of Randle de Gernoniis and Roger Clinton yet I thought fit to cite all these to let the world see that it was nothing else which made you that you could not find it to be so but because you would not find it to be so For I know you have most if not all of the said Authors and if you would have made search you might easily have found what is here said But besides what is here alleadged if you had but observed those Deeds of Richard Bacun and Randle Blundevil which are mentioned Monasticon Anglicanum Part 2. Page 267 268. and the Deeds of Randle de Gernoniis that are in your own Historical Antiquities you would easily have known that the said Richard Bacun did live in the time of the said Randle de Gernoniis For to the said Deed of Richard Bacun Hugo Wac Willielmus Constabularius de Donington Thurstanus Banastre Willielmus Bacoun Robertus Bacoun Willielmus de Colevile Richardus Pincerna Willielmus de Binulle Galfridus Dispensarius Willielmus Capellanus and Johannes Capellanus are Witnesses and to the said Deed of Randle Blundevil Rogerus Constabularius Cestriae Rogerus de Montealto Seneschallus Cestriae Simon de Kyma Thomas Dispensarius Simon de Thochet Willielmus de Hardreshulle Hugo de Nevilla Henricus de Longo Campo Philippus de Horreby Sampson Prior de Trentham and Thomas Clericus are witnesses Now as it would appear probable if there were nothing else in the case that this Deed of Richard Bacun was not made in the time of Randle Blundevil because there is not any one person a witness to the said Deed of Richard Bacun who was a witness to the said Deed of Randle Blundevil or to any other Deed of his that I can find So it certainly appears from your Historical Antiquities that those who were witnesses to Richard Bacuns said Deed did live in the time of Earl Randle de Gernoniis and not in the time of Randle Blundevil For as you may there see Page 126 127. in the Deed made by Henry Duke of Normandy to the said Randle de Gernoniis the aforesaid Hugh Wac and Richard Pincerna were then witnesses on the behalf of the said Randle also Page 128. to one Deed of the said Randle the said William Colevile was a witness and to another of the said Randle's Deeds the said Willielmus Capellanus and Richardus Pincerna were witnesses and Page 160 161. to another Deed of the said Randle de Gernoniis the said Thurstan Banaster Richard Pincerna and William the Chaplain were witnesses and so also the said Richard Pincerna Thurstanus Banaster and Willielmus Capellanus were witnesses to another Deed of the said Randle de Gernoniis concerning Neither-Whitley mentioned by you Page 387. Though you there run upon a mistake

Bishop of Chester as appears by the Third Part of the Monasticon page 218. as also by Bishop Godwin Jsaackson Doctor Heylin Simeon Dunelmensis Matt. Paris and many other antient Authors from about 1128. until about the year 1148. or 1149. which fell out to be in the time of Randle de Gernoniis for he was Earl as appears in your Book from about the year 1128 till about the year 1153. And I doubt not but to make it as clear that a William was Archbishop of York in the time of the said Randle de Gernoniis and Roger Clinton and though the said William was afterwards ousted yet whilst he enjoyed that Archbishoprick he was and would in Deeds and otherways be owned as Archbishop of York Now that a William was Archbishop of York in the time of the said Earl and the said Bishop I have already shewed you in my former Book out of Isaackson's Chronology and shall thus make it further to appear If you look into Bishop Godwin's Catalogue of the Bishops of England printed at London 1615 page 581. in the life of Heny Murdack Archbishop of York you may find him saying thus King Stephen had a kinsman named William 1142. Stephen 8. that was Son unto Emma his Sister by Earl Herbert a Man no less noble in Mind and Vertue then Stock and Lineage He being Treasurer of York was now elected unto the Archbishoprick and having obtained Consecration also sent to Rome for his Pall. His speed there was not so good as he looked for by some Adversaries many exceptions were taken against him whereby it came to pass not only his Suit was put off and stayed for that time but also Process awarded to admonish him to come thither in Person to answer the accusations laid against him At his coming to Rome he found his Adversaries many and Mighty And among the rest it is remembred that St. Bernard then living was very earnest against him Eugenius the Pope had been brought up in the Abbey of Clareual under St. Bernard together with Henry Murdac whom Williams adversaries had set up to be a Suiter for his Archbishoprick The Pope being thus carried away with the perswasion of his old Acquaintance and some shew of matter was content to deprive William and to place Henry Murdac in his room whom he caused to be Consecrated presently and sent him home into England with his Pall. King Stephen hearing this Newes was much grieved with the disgrace of his Nephew which all Men judged undeserved Therefore He stood upon Termes with the new Arch-bishop and required him to Swear unto Him fealty in some extraordinary manner and when he denyed easily took occasion of displeasure against him The Townsmen of York that loved William exceedingly for his Gentleness and Vertuous behaviour amongst them hearing how the King was affected refused to receive Murdac into their City For this resistance he suspended them which notwithstanding Eustach the King's Son commanded Service to be said as at all other times was accustomed By means hereof as also by reason that the King's Officers were very terrible and heavy enemies unto all that had laboured for the Deprivation of William Seditions and Tumults were daily raised in the City amongst which a certain Archdeacon a Friend of the Archbishop was slain Two or three years these stirs continued till at last the Kings wrath by means being appeased York-men were content to receive their Archbishop peaceably He governed very austerely the space of ten years dyed Octob. 14. 1153. at Sherborne and was buryed in his Cathedral Church And when Bishop Godwin hath thus said he presently after tells you how the said William there called Saint William after the death of Henry Murdac was again restored to the said Archbishoprick Also if you look in John Brompton's Chronicon col 1028. l. 63. in the life of King Stephen you may find him thus saying Dicto autem Thurstino Eboracensi Archiepiscopo Monasterii Fontanensis aliorumque octo fundatore ut dictum est decedente and he dyed sayes the said Brompton col 1028 l. 25. in the year 1140. with which Bishop Godwin doth accord Singuli Ecclesiae Eboracensis Canonici beatum Willielmum ejusdem Ecclesiae Thesaurarium praeferunt tam pro honestate morum quam excellentia meritorum Iste namque Willielmus ex spectabili prosapia Regis Stephani ortus praeclaris natalium titulis fuerat insignitus erat enim silius potentissimi viri Comitis Herberti Qui quamvis post decessum dicti Archiepiscopi Thurstani ad sedem Eboracensem electus fuerat invidia tamen impetuosus amor dominandi quemdam ejusdem Ecclesiae Archilevitam adeo in regionem dissimilitudinis traxerant ut inter eligentes discidium excitavit ipsum Willielmum a saniori parte eïectum impediens licet de ejus electione clerus populus acclamassent laudum praeconia suspenditur igitur causa ad Apostolicae sedis examen provocata See also the said Brompton to the same purpose Col. 1041. l. 10. Also Roger Hoveden who lived in the time of King Henry the Second King Richard the First and King John in the First Part of his Annalls Printed at Frankfort 1601. Page 490. l. 51. writes thus of the Restitution of the said William eodem anno obiit Henricus Eboracensis Archiepiscopus quo defuncto Willielmus Archiepiscopus quem Papa Eugenius suspenderat Romam profectus est invenit gratiam apud Anastasium Papam redditus est ei Archiepiscopatus Eboracensis And I think it is not to be doubted though I have not yet found the place but that the said Hoveden doth speak of his being chosen after the death of Thurstan because Isaakson in his Chronology cites Hoveden for what he there sayes but he names not the Pages Also Thomas Stubbs a Dominican writing of the Archbishops of York col 1721. l. 15. thus sayes Vicessimus nonus successit in Archiepiscopatum Eboracensis ecclesiae Henricus Murdak ●isterciensis ordinis Monachus ae professor probatissimus vir magnae sanctitatis abstinentiae laudabilis Defuncto namque ut praemittitur Thurstino Eboracensi Archiepiscopo convocatisque ad electionem pontificis Canonicis ecclesiae Eboracensis Willielmus ejusdem Ecelesiae Thesaurarius Canonicus exigentibus suis meritis a Majori saniore parte in Archiepiscopum est electus Erat enim strenuissimi Comitis Herberti filius ex Emma sorore Regis Anglorum Stephani progenitus Vir quidem genere nobilis sed morum excellentia vita mundissima incomparabiliter insignis Interea vero Osbertus archidiaconus Eboracensis invidiae stimulo agitatus facta inter eligentes dissentione confirmationem ipsius electi licet ab omnibus dignus haberetur pertinaciter impedivit suspenso igitur negotio partibusque coram Romano pontifice super hujus electionis discussione personditer vocatis idem Willielmus persequentibus illum adversariis suis injuste accusantibus conseerationis gratiam minime potuit optimere Lite ergo in

and say that Randle Blundevil made that Deed which cannot be Because those witnesses as appears before did live in the time of Randle de Gernoniis and not in the time of the said Randle Blundevil they being no witnesses at any time to any Deed of Randle Blundevils that I can find although he was Earl of Chester above fifty years so that nothing can possibly be more clear than this is As to the word aspersed which you fault me for using I do not apprehend that it signifies a malicious seeking to throw dirt in anothers face unjustly For to asperse properly signifies but to besprinkle with which malice will seldom rest satisfied and I will do you this right to declare that I believe it is not malice but a desire to divulge your supposed new Discovery which occasioned you thus to do That way of Arguing which you use in the 57 Page is very odd For Because you suppose the Respondent will deny your Minor you would have him give over answering and turn Opponent and so endeavour to disprove what you ought to prove But what you say Page 58. that you have proved Amicia to be a Bastard unless Hugh Cyveliok had a former Wife and also Page 59. that 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 is undoubtedly true For Amicia must needs be a bastard unless she was legitimate You grant in your 59 Page That my proving Amicia to be called a daughter so long since she ought to be presumed legitimate till the contrary appear But why therefore do not you presume her so to be And though you pretend there are many strong reasons to the contrary yet I have shewed the invalidity of them all and therefore what I have formerly said stands good and is to the point viz. That the proving that she was not by Bertred does not prove that she was a bastard but onely proves that she was either a bastard or by a former wife And as to what you alleadg Page 60. that though the Law allowes not this in pleadings what hinders but Bastardy may be proved by History or Argumentation after the parties death As supppose in a Register-Book you find such a Bastard Christened one hundred yeares ago may not you justly call that person a bastard whom you find so Registred I do answer and say That even in that case though it be good proof that there was then a Bastard of that name yet if in any Deed or otherwayes in the same Age you find one of that name you are not to be too positive that that Man was that Bastard because there might be more persons than one of the same Name whose Fathers might also be of the same Name each with other and though these mistakes might easily be cleared by the party concerned whilst he was alive yet it may be difficult sometimes to do it after he is dead And that is as I suppose one reason why the Law gives no liberty to prove Bastardy against any Man after his death But the cases of the children of John of Gaunt by Katherine Swynford are not like to this case For you certainly know that they were born Bastards but afterwards legitimated and I think after their legitimation they might have had the same remedies against any that did call them Bastards that persons lawfully born might have Whereas I tell you out of Sir Henry Spelman that in cases of honor and profit by the customes of Normandy appellatione filiorum non comprehenduntur bastardi You answer and say that in other cases and formerly by the appellation of sons bastards were comprehended and that this makes directly against me But how this makes against me in what cases soever bastards were formerly comprehended by the appellation of Sons and Daughters if they were not comprehended in cases of honour and profit I cannot tell feeing that Amicia is called a Daughter and that in a case of so great profit that you will needs have it to be her whole Portion And whereas you mention the next words of Spelman viz. 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 I do not know how you can apply those expressions to the case in hand and if you could they would make against you For when Bastard children were so much esteemed as to be admitted to succeed in the inheritance then certainly illegitimate Daughters would have great Portions as well as those that were legitimate And why should not Amicia if she was a Bastard be so called as well as Paganus was who as you say was the Son of Hugh Cyveliok Or why should Hugh Cyveliok himself be more ashamed to call her so than William the Conqueror was to stile himself a Bastard What else you have said Page 61 62 63. hath been said over and over again by you and hath formerly received a full Answer In the 64 65 Pages you recite and endeavour to fortifie an Argument of mine which I brought not as a good Argument but compared it to one of yours to shew the invalidity thereof neither did I at all doubt but that William Randle and Wydo Sons of the aforesaid Roger Mainwaring were all legitimate it being good proof thereof that in so antient a Record they are all three called Sons of the said Roger But I shewed you by the Rule by which you went viz. that none should be believed lawfull unless we could directly and in terminis prove their Fathers to be married that the said William Randle and Wido and most persons that lived in the First and Second Centuries might be concluded to be Bastards And though you tell me that I here argue well which must needs be because this Argument of mine is so like to yours and that you would say to my Minor that Roger had a Wife though we yet know not who she was and that this appears certainly because the Lands descended from heir to heir and that you tell me how you would frame your affirmative part more formally Yet in stead of trying whether you could in terminis prove which by this your Rule you ought to do whether William who was the eldest of the three Sons of the said Roger was his lawful Son or but a bastard you beg what you should prove and take it for granted that he was the Son and Heir and say that if the Son and Heir of Roger succeeded by descent in his Fathers Inheritance then Roger had a Wise whereas if William was the Son and Heir of Roger the said Roger his Father must needs have a Wife whethersoever William succeeded in the Inheritance by descent or was disinherited For none but a