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	time_n	year_n	9,015	5	4.8371	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A48363	An ansvver to Sir Thomas Manwaring's book, intituled, - An admonition to the reader of Sir Peter Leicester's books. Written by the same Sir Peter Leicester	Leycester, Peter, Sir, 1614-1678.	1677 (1677)	Wing L1941A; ESTC R217658	12,105	49

at Over-Peever till William Manwaring had Over-Peever given him by Roger Manwaring of Warmincham his Father in the raign of Henry the third and so seated himself here in Bucklow-Hundred where his Heirs have ever since continued to this day However my design was only to show who held every paritcular Town in Bucklow-Hundred from the time of William the Conqueror to this day or so far forth as I could discover together with the Pedegrees of the better sort of Families seated within that Hundred or so many of them as my leasure would permit me to go through the other Hundreds being out of my intended task and this he takes notice of himself Pag. 8. so that having shewed how the Manwarings of Peever first branched out from the Manwarings of Warmincham it was only suitable to my design to bring down that descent to this day The like I have done of the Savages of Clifton and of the Brookes of Norton Yet I cannot but take notice how he calls the first William Manwaring of Over-Peever and the first of the Manwarings who seated himself there by the title of Sir William Manwaring whereas it is most certain that he was no Knight nor can any Deed be produced wherein he was ever subscribed as a Witness with the word Domino prefixed as Domino Guillielmo Manwaring de Peever if Sir Thomas would but survey his own Deeds with an impartial eye For if he finds any William subscribed Domino Guillielmo Manwaring in that Age it is to be understood of Sir William Manwaring Parson of Wernith who was contemporary with the other William Manwaring of Peever and such Deed or Deeds I my self have seen See Pag. 330. of my Book and my Answer to the defence of Amicia Pag. 7 8. also my first Reply Pag. 73. and my Addenda Pag. 16 17. But the first Knight of the Family of the Manwarings of Over-Peever was Sir John Manwaring of Peever living in the time of King Henry the sixth and died about 20. Edw. 4. So that hitherto I have committed no errour at all in these things he chargeth upon me To the 4. Pag. 8. In this I confess I may be mistaken in saying that Holt was the second Husband of Margery Praers since he finds John Honford was her Husband 46 47. and 50. Edw. 3. for then Honford must needs be her second Husband and Holt the first which by long pawsing on his own Deeds he might the better discover To the 5. Pag. 8 9. William Leigh of Baggiley was no Knight 33. Edw. 3. when he married Joan Manwaring for he was then very young and under age and therefore no errour in what I there have said Howbeit he was afterwards a Knight which I did take notice of in his due place To the 6. Pag. 9. He that tricked out the Seal for me saw as well as my self that the Seal was three Bars and not two Bars to the best of our Judgments but William Manwaring the younger did in his Seal use only two Bars 17. Richard 2. when the Heirs Males of the Manwarings of of Warmincham failed and also left out the Lyon in chief as I have there truly observed To the 7. Pag. 9. I must needs omit John and Margery Brother and Sister to the said Helen which I then knew nothing of and possibly other things may be hereafter discovered which ought not to be imputed as an errour to me when I writ my Book but so far as I writ was true Besides It was not my design to collect all the Children of the younger Sons Now these were the Children of a younger Son It was only my task to collect the Wives and Children of the right Heirs of each Family in Bucklow-Hundred To the 8. Pag. 9. He saith here that he finds William Son of Roger Manwaring living 14. of Edw. 3. and how long after he believes no Man can certainly tell Now I said he died about 12 or 13. of Edw. 3. which expression of mine shews only a guess without an exact certainty a very poor exception to be put in Print To the 9. Pag. 9 10. Here he saith that I said William Manwaring the younger divided the Lands of Baddiley between John Manwaring his Half-Brother and John de Honford but saith he William gave the Demain of Baddiley solely to his Half-Brother and divided the remainder of the Lands of Baddiley Why then he divided the Lands of Baddiley To the 10. Pag. 10. Here he saith that all the Manwarings that he can find have either given for their Crest an Ass-Head on a Torce and haltered or else an Ass-Head erased or else an Ass-Head unhaltered and within a Coronet Answer So that he makes here no certain Crest at all to his Family A very worthy exception But they have given the Ass-Head someway and it is certain that William Manwaring the younger in his Seal 17. of Rich. 2. did then give the Ass-Head couped which his Heirs have or should have continued To the 11. Pag. 11. Here he saith that the said William Manwaring did not by any Will dispose but of a part of his Estate namely of the Lands which came by his Mother nor did he by any Will settle the Lands which he had as Heir to his Father Answer Indeed I neither said he setled the Lands of the one nor the other but only that he setled his Estate which if it were either of his Mothers Lands or Fathers Lands I have said truth nor is it any matter whether of the one or of the other to my purpose To the 12. Pag. 11. Here he saith that he cannot understand how the dying of Sir John Warren 10. of Rich. 2. doth prove that John Manwaring married his Widow about 13. of Richard the second Answer But it is probable to be abou● that time for it may well be imagined that it must be some competent time after Sir John Warren's death nor can any Man expect punctual proof of every thing in the●● cases and if Sir Thomas cannot mend it it may stand till bette● proof appear To the 13. Pag. 11. Here he saith that I have observed that the said John Manwaring wa● Sheriff of Chess-shire 4 5 and 6 o● Henry 4. but have omitted 7 o● Henry 4. Answer Certainly this is a childish exception as most of the other be 〈◊〉 Is it possible that any Man that ever did write or shall write hereafter of matters of this kind should comprehend every particular and this is not worthy the labour of mending and is well enough without it To the 14. Pag. 12. Here he saith that Pag. 333. I say John Manwaring died 11. of Henry 4.1410 whereas he was certainly dead in the Year 1409. This is also a pitiful exception why doth he not now produce authority for the exact time of his death To the 15. Pag. 12. Here he saith that Pag. 334. I said Margery survived her Husband Randle Manwaring whereas she was certainly dead in the

Year 1449 and died several Years before her Husband Answer But this mistake I rectified in Print long since at the end of my said Book among the Errata and also at the end of my Answer to the defence of Amicia so soon as I knew the certainty of it and therefore ought not to be charged upon me To the 16. Pag. 12. Here he saith that I said Sir John Manwaring died about the very end of Edw. 4. his Raign but he was dead for certain the 14. of April 20. of Edw. 4. Answer Had I but said towards the latter end of Edw. 4. I had not much erred and I could not put down the exact time till I knew it Now Edw. 4. raigned but 22 Years in all To the 17. Pag. 12 13. Here he saith that I omitted Agnes Daughter of John Manwaring of Peever Esquire and Wife of Sir Robert Nedham Answer Indeed at first I made some doubt of the truth hereof because I found in my Lord Kilmorey's Pedegree under the Herald's Seal that the said Sir Robert Nedham married Maud Daughter of Sir John Savage But as soon as I found out the truth I rectified that omission in Print at the end of my Answer to the defence of Amicia Pag. 87 as will appear by the said Book Printed 1673 and did also blot out that Match with Savage in my own Book in the Pedegree of that Family pag. 233. and yet he imputes it now again as if I had not mended the same which is unjustly charged here To the 18. Pag. 13. Here he saith that Katharine Manwaring married William Newton probably 1522 and I had said it was 1521 so that there was no certainty of what I there said Answer I say it is as probable they were married 1521 as 1522 and can absolute certainties be always found out in matters of this nature in every particular therefore let it stand till he proves it to be an errour To the 19. Pag. 14. Here he saith that Pag. 335 I say Sir John Manwaring was Sheriff of Flint-shire 6. of Henry 8. but I take no notice that he was Sheriff there 23 and 24 of Henry 7 and also 1 and 2 of Henry 8. Answer What if I did not It is true what I have said and well enough without it for as I said before it is not possible that I should comprehend every particular nor any Man else and shall my Credit of writing Truth be impeached by him for this because I cannot know every thing therefore I have committed no errour herein To the 20. Pag. 14. In the same Pag. 335 I say Sir John Manwaring died 8. of Henry 8. 1515. and no part of 8. Henry 8. falls in Anno 1515. Answer What of all this It perhaps were better placed to be Anno 1516 or 1517. let him find out the absolute time and I will mend it To the 21. Pag. 14. Here he saith that Pag. 335. I say Sir Randle Manwaring after the death of his first Wife married Elizabeth Daughter of Sir Ralph Leicester of Toft 6. of Edw. 6. 1551 but saith he I cannot prove they were married till the Year 1552. Answer Therefore let it stand donec probetur in contrarium it may yet be so for ought I know To the 22. Pag. 14. Here he saith that Pag. 336. I say Philip Manwaring Esquire was the fifth Son of Sir John Manwaring but he was the seventh Son born and not the fifth as appears by the Monument of the said Sir John in Over-Peever Church wherein the Monument of the said Philip is also Answer It may be so but they all died young and Philip became Heir If it be an errour it is but a small one and not material To the 23. Pag. 15. Here he confesseth what I say to be truth that the Herald in the raign of Queen Elizabeth made for Sir Randle Manwaring's Coat Barry of twelve pieces Argent and Gules See Guillims Heraldry Pag. 373. but saith he the Manwarings since then have again given two Bars only and the Coat which the said Sir Randle did then usually bear was six Barrulets and that I knew the ancient Coat to be six Barrulets Pag. 330. and not Barry of twelve pieces Answer It is true that I said the ancient Deed of Roger Manwaring made in the raign of King Henry the third was sealed with an Escocheon of six Barrulets Pag. 330. but that Coat devised for the said Sir Randle Guillim the Herald calls it Barry of twelve pieces I know not the criticism in these terms of Heraldry the Heralds themselves are the best Judges herein and whether we call it the one or the other it is not a Pin matter nor have I committed any errour at all for I there vouched Guillim for it To the 24. Pag. 15. Here he saith that I say the said Sir Randle Manwaring the elder built the Hall of Over-Peever anew 1586. but saith he part of the said House was built 1585 and another part was built 1586. Answer Is not here a worshipful exception It is more proper to ascribe the time when it was built to the finishing of it than when it was begun for it was not all built till it was finished To the 25. Pag. 16. Here he saith that Pag. 336. I call Sir Philip Manwaring Secretary of Ireland to the Earl of Stafford 1638. whereas the said Sir Philip was his Majesties Secretary of State there Answer Here I confess my words were not well ordered for I intended no more there than that he was Secretary of Ireland in the time of the Earl of Stafford then Lord Lieutenant there 1638. But I have corrected this in my Notes at the side of my own Book long before without any admonition from Sir Thomas To the 26. Pag. 16. Here he saith that I say the said Sir Philip Manwaring died the second of August 1661 at London but saith he he died at Westminster in Sir Philip Warwick's House which is in or near to St. James's Park Answer Is not here a ridiculous exception for a wise Man to make Do not we always say in the Country such a Man died at London whether he died at Westminster or in any of the Suburbs according to our common use of speaking it is no matter for taking notice at whose House To the 27. Pag. 16 17. Here he saith that I take no notice that Sir Robert Brierwood was made Serjeant at Law 1640 nor that he was made one of the Judges of the Kings-Bench 1643. and further saith that Pag. 187 I say the said Sir Robert was made Judg of the Common-Pleas 1643. whereas he was never made Judg of the Court of the Common-Pleas but of the Kings-Bench And also that Pag. 334. I say Sir John Nedham was Justitiarius de Banco whereby he supposeth I did there erroneously take Justitiarius de Banco to be a Judg of the Kings-Bench Answer For the first It was not necessary nor material to take notice in that