Selected quad for the lemma: death_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
death_n	woman_n	word_n	worthy_a	39	3	5.7297	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A87232	Alimony arraign'd, or The remonstrance and humble appeal of Thomas Ivie Esq; from the high court of chancery, to His Highnes the Lord Protector of the Commonwealth of England, Scotland, and Ireland, &c. VVherein are set forth the unheard-of practices and villanies of lewd and defamed vvomen, in order to separate man and wife.; Humble appeal and remonstrance of Thomas Ivie, Esq.	Ivie, Thomas.	1654 (1654)	Wing I1108; Thomason E231_3; ESTC R8770	44,790	55

Mistress calling her Queane for acquainting me with it and threatning to strike her for it denyed her the Trunks and caused her forthwith to be sent away And the very next Day Mrs. Williamson and my Wife gave out in Speeches amongst my Family and Neighbours that they had broke open the Trunks and had found that she had been a Baggage and a notorious Thief and stollen her Goods And thereupon the better to secure the Wench either for complaining of these Abuses or telling me the Truth of her Usage they procured a Warrant from my Lord Chief Justice Roles to apprehend the Maid for her Life having charged her with Fellony But finding that the Maid kept in and that by vertue of the said Warrant they could not enter any house to take her forth they entered into a new Project how the Wench might be secured both Tongue and Person and also that they might seize on her wheresoever she was To this end Mr. Pauncesoot was look'd on as a fit Instrument having Relation to the Lord President Bradshaw and was desired to procure them a Warrant from the Council of State upon Pretence that this poor VVench held Correspondency with the Enemies of the Commonwealth beyond Seas and so apprehend her By vertue of which VVarrant she was seized on accordingly and kept Close Prisoner 18 days together with great hardships During this Imprisonment a Gentleman came to this VVench from my VVife advising her to humble her self to her Mistress and to confess her self Guilty and much to that purpose but she being innocent utterly refused any such Acknowledgement During this Imprisonment many Petitions for to be heard at the Council did she attempt to present but were still kept off by the means of the said Pauncesoot neither could she ever be heard At length my Wife and Mrs. Williamson finding nothing could prevail after sorrow and grief in this lamentable condition had almost killed her they had contrived a meeting for the Wench by the permission of her Keeper in Moor-fields where as soon as my Wife saw her she fell into a deep fit of weeping to the Wench and told her how dearly she loved her and that she was in perfect friendship with her and earnestly desired that all things which had passed might be forgotten promising withall that in a very short time she would abundantly expresse how sensible she had been of her late Sufferings Hereupon my Wife without ever acquainting or procuring their Order for her freedom only giving the Messenger of the Council of State 20 l. caused the Maid by her own Power by which it seems she stood commited to be set at liberty But very suddenly after enlargement her body being quite spent and her mind almost distracted with grief and melancholy She died and in her Death bed professed solemnly that by reason of those Cruelties which had been practised upon her by Mrs. Williamson and Mrs. Ivie and especially by the operation of a Potion given her by them which upon the words of a dying woman she believed to be poyson That they had been the cause of her death and that she doubted not but that the Almighty God would require her Blood at their hands After these things were laid open to the Lords Commissioners for the great Seal I little expected that Vices should be received for Reasons that such abominations should have been thought worthy the protection not to say the encouragement of such eminent Judges but with grief of heart and empty Purse may I say that I found experimentally there Chancery rather a Court of oppression than good Conscience nay I have this peculiar in my Case that after all VVitnesses on both sides were examined they never afforded me that favour which they omitted to none as to command me and my VVife in Person to attend them and to endeavour a Reconciliation between us This I thought hard measure because I was informed all others had participated of that Civility from them and the more hard in regard my VVife had frequent and private addresses unto them and I was never admitted any The consideration of this not only astonished me but gave me a strong Alarm also to be very Circumspect lest I might have as little Justice in their Sentence as I had favour in their proceedings And that on the other side when I remembred they openly declared before my Council that nothing should be concluded without sending for both parties and also their parties and also their Order of the 27 of October 1651. that they had denied her any expences of the Sute in regard the merits of the Cause should be speedily heard I could not conclude within my self but that I should be dealt withal according to their own Rules and practice of all the of England and that a Summons upon a day of hearing should be first sent ere any Sentence pronounced or Decree made in the Cause But what I often suspected and was intimated unto me by others I had now too much reason to believe For after eight moneths having all that while never received any command to wait upon their Lordships when all my Counsel was out of Town Iuly 24 1652 Her Counsel Mr. Vincent and Lieut. Col. Zanchey her Sollicitor with a Sword by his side presented unto the Lords Commissioners a final Decree ready drawn it not being first perused by Counsel of my side as by the Rules of the Court it ought to have been for no less than 300l per annum a fair sum and enough to tempt a good Woman to be bad The Draught of the Order is thus Lords Commissioners Saturday 24 of July 1652. Between Theodosia Ivie Plaintiff and Thomas Ivie her Husband Defendant WHereas the Plaintiff having exhibited her Petition against the Defendant her Husband to be relieved for Alimony unto which the Defendant having put in his Answer divers Witnesses were examined by Commission and other were by their Lordships directions also examined by the Register in the presence of Counsel on both sides And for the better cleering of the Matters and Satisfaction of their Lordships therein their Lordships were also pleased themselves to examine several Witnesses viva voce And the Cause having taken up many dayes in hearing after much Debate and Pains spent herein And upon full and deliberate hearing of what could be offered on both sides And upon reading of the said Depositions and of the Indenture made upon the Marriage whereby the Estate of the Plaintiffs Father is setled upon Sir John Brampston Knight and William Booth Esquire to the uses in the said Indenture declared Their Lordships were fully satisfied that there is good cause to give allowance for Alimony to the Plaintiff And do Order and Decree that the Plaintiff have paid unto her the summe of 300 l. by the year which their Lordships intend to be had and raised out of the Plaintiffs Fathers Estate so setled in the said Trustees as aforesaid until farther order And do

and prayes Relief The Question is Whether in this Case she ought to have Alimony In which it will be pertinent to consider the near conjunction that is between Man and Wife and whether they be of equal Authority or there be a Superior and in whom that Superiority resteth 1. The Original female Ancestor was taken out of Man and by the Marriage-bond were made one flesh though several Individuals like the Celestial Gemini that makes but one Constellation but the Government was placed upon the Man by God himself who gave the Law in Paradise saying Thy desire shall be to thy Husband and he shall rule over thee Gen. 3. v. 16. 1 Cor. 14. 5 34. and by the Apostle remembred That Women are commanded to be under obedience so saith the Law and that they submit themselves unto their Husbands as to the Lord that is supreme 5 Eph. v. 22. Thus far for the Divine Law 2. The common Law says that a Woman that is married is not sui Juris but sub potestate Viri hath no Will but her Husbands though she may have a Stomach therefore the Civil Acts she does are void in common Law she can neither take nor give any thing without her Husbands consent She can have no reparation for any wrong done unto her Person by her self without her Husband and the damages that shall be recovered shall goe to the Husband and not to the Wife And it is further to be considered the extension of that word Potestas It is of a great latitude for Soveraign Princes and Governours though they have rule and power of the People Yet they cannot beat wound or kill the People under them nor doe any thing to their Persons corporally but according to their Laws by Sentence or Judgement But the Husband hath power of Correction upon the body of his Wife and Servant according to his own Judgement so as he doth not wound nor kill and is not prohibited by any Law 3. The Civill Law as I take it agrees with the Common Law then it must follow by necessary consequence that a married Woman without leave cannot depart from her Husband which she must evidence by proof no more than a Servant from his Master a Subject from his Soveraign into forreign parts who by his Missives is to return upon forfeit of his Estate which makes good what was said before that she is not sui Juris and in some sort expounds and explicates the potestatem Viri in Vxorem for the master may seize and carry away his Servant if he find him or implead him that shall keep him and recover damages for the time he keeps him so may the Husband by his Wife which shews the propriety and interest which the Husbaud hath in his Wife and for losse of her society and company though no other harm be done he shall recover damages against the detainer Nay the Husband could not repudiate his Wife but in case of Adultery for that the Bill of divorce spoken of in the old Law was not given by God but permitted by Moses to prevent a greater mischief for the Jews are cruel men to their VVives and to prevent Vxoricidium he gave way to it Sed non fuit sic ab initio The Case thus stated upon the impotencies and non-ability of the will of the Wife and the just Rule and Power of the Husband over her will and Person t is considerable whether by Law or Reason a Wife departing without leave shall have allowance to live separate which is called Alimony Alimony is a Thing not known at the Common or Civil Law but indulged and brought in by the Pope and his Canons and very much put in Use by the late High Commission and Prerogative Court of Canterbury wherein upon Sentence of Separation from Bed and Board given by that Court the Husband was enjoyned to make allowance to the VVife and the Husband enforcd to give security for the payment many times imprisoned upon failer of performance yet in those cases both of Bonds and Imprisonments the Husband upon Habeas Corpus returnable in the uper Bench where by Iudgment of that Court discharged of both if the Husband cohabit because the Law saies Quos Deus conjunxit nemo separet So as without the Husbands consent no separation could be made and if no separation no Alimony Nor were personall Infirmities or diseases contracted after Mariage sufficient cause of such separation because she may board though not bed with such a Husband but where the temper of the Husband was more severe and violent then discreet That Court by the wisdom of prevention which is better then the wisdom of remedies did use by way of caution to take bond for the Husbands orderly usage of his Wife to prevent the crueltie whereof they had no Iurisdiction but only in causes and salute Animae and not pro reformatione Morum which belongs to the Common Law and where upon complaint by the Wife in that kind the Common Law will enforce the Husband to give bond to secure both life and member of his VVife from maim and death And certainly Reason is against it 1 Reason commands obedience to Superiors generally the Apostle puts it further for conscience sake and disobedience is not cherished by any Reason 2 One end of Marriage is Mutual societie and comfort would be avoyded by the Act of the VVife which is not to be admitted upon the petulant Allegation of difference betwixt her and her Husband upon personall Infirmities 3 Mariage it self and all the Laws of the VVifes subjection and capacity by so long time pronounced and received by this meanes would be avoyded 4 If God himself was pleased to say it was not good for a Man to be alone then surely we may safely say it is not good for a VVoman to be alone for though they are the weaker Vessel and have the lesser Reason yet they have the stronger Passions and more violent Desires and so more subject to Temptation and Sin 5 Lastly for the inevitable Danger of illegitimate Bastards and Clandestine Issues where the VVife is separate who concealed til the Husbands death are yet inheritable to his Land though never begotten by him This Inconvenience sadly weighed and how Epidemically it may run to all Families of this Nation is of it self a sufficient convincing Reason to bridle the rash hot appetit of inconsiderable women and avoid all Alimony But on the other side If any Husband shall be so unjust to his VVife and unkind to his own flesh whom he is bound by Law to maintain as to separate from her and will not cohabite with her Nisi propter Adulterium or will consent to separate it is most reasonable he should allow her convenient maintenance else he should take advantage of his own wrong and humour and VVomen should be in worse case and condition than Servants who during their contract must have their wages which between Husband and

VVife ends not till death And it is conceived the Act of Parliament which impowreth the Lords Commissioners of the Great Seal to allow Alimony chiefly and naturally intends Relief where the Husband doth repudiate and not the VVife the words being upon consideration aswell of the Portion or Estate that hath been paid or come to the Husband by such VVife as shall pray Relief And therefore in this particular Case it may be very justly insisted even from the sence and letter of the Act as also that 't was Mrs. Ivie separated her self from her Husband 't was not her Husband left her Nay after she was gone he used all affectionated and prudential means to bring her home to Cohabit with him neither doth he desist in the prosecution of it but hath several wayes attempted it even untill this day and doth still declare and protest his willingness to receive her whensoever she will Return and give security for his well Usage of her That she wanted nothing before her departure but was indeed maintained far above her quality is most cleer from the Depositions and it is cleer also from the Depositions that there was no deserting of her by her Husband but that her departure was absolutely upon Advice and consideration designed by her self and her Abettots especially if your Lordships please to remember those unhandsome correspondencies held by her with Gentlemen under feigned names her frequenting and meeting them in scandalous houses in Long-Acre and other places at unseasonable times of the night under the pretence of withdrawing from her Husbaud being a Bed to her Devotion Those horrrid and detestable plots upon Jane Gilbert even to the losing of her life Her charging her Husband with foul diseases of which he was cleared upon Oath by the President of the College and other learned Physicians And also her Contrivancies and Sollicitations to her Brother Iohn Stepkins to murder her Husband which appears by the Oath of the said Stepkins Moreover seeing that there is a Caution in the Act that the allowance to the repudiated Wife ought to be proportionable to the Fortune she brought her Husband May it therefore please your Honours to understand 1. That he never received any penny portion as yet and hath great reason to doubt whether ever he shall 2. Because the Estate of her Father is at present in the aforesaid Trustees and not in the Defendant nay it is so setled on them that unlesse I can raise and secure 4000 l. more besides 7000 l. already laid out they are not oblighed neither will they nor can they convay it to the Defendant as appears by the Indenture of settlement 3. In case they should convay and setle on the Defendant the said Estate 't is only for his life and no longer for which Estate being only 240 l. per annum He has disbursed and laid out far more money than it is worth this appears from the Indenture viz. a 1000 l. to Mr. Stepkins in ready money to free the Estate from incumbrances three years since The Interest whereof comes to 200 l. In Jewels Pearls Ambergreeze Bezoar c. to the value of 1200 l. There was also spent in Law to enforce the Trustees who were kept back and hindred by Mr. Stepkins her father to settle the Estate according to the Covenants and for the fine and recovery 200 l. more at least which makes 2600 l. That notwithstanding all the aforesaid sums of money have been laid out by the Defendant the Trustees do still refuse to convey the Estate to the Defendant and the Plaintiffs brother as Heir at Law hath since the death of his Father got the possession of the Estate and receives the Rents Issues and profits thereof Insomuch that the Defendant hath been necessitated to expend great sums of money to maintain several Sutes at Law both against the Trustees and Heir at Law in preservation of his Estate for life which he has so dearly bought as aforesaid That by the Plaintiffs means there has been consumed and wasted of his Estate 4000 l. viz 3000 l. since marriage spent on her 500 l. given in money 100 l. given to Gentlemen of her familiar acquaintance to perswade her to goe into the Country 300 l. taken in Silks and Plate from the Defendant whilst that he was at the Court of Aldermen He has also contracted several great debts to the value of 3000 l. besides 1000 l. spent in this unhappy Sute and must therefore necessarily in case 3000 l. per annum be taken from him be cast into prison the most part of his life he having but 632 l. per annum of his own Estate and that for his life only both to pay all his debts aforesaid and to live on beside Excepting the 240 l. per annum which if it be recovered from the Heir of Stepkins and recovered by the Trustees all which will yield but a scant and bare maintenance for himself Wife and Family to raise out of it 3000 l. for the Creditors and 4000 l. more according to the Indenture of settlement unlesse the Defendant be acquitted and discharged of the said 4000 l. by the last Will and Testament of the Plaintiffs Father in whom the remainder of the Estate was in case the Defendant should have no Issue or not perform the Covenants which he stands obliged to perform in the said Deed And though the Defendant is credibly informed that the said remainder is disposed of to the said Plaintiff and the Defendant is also acquitted from all performance of any Covenants expressed in the said Deed of Settlement Yet so it is that the Plaintiff having got possession of the said Will and by combination with Sir John Brampston Knight c. his Son the sole Executor of it still keeps and detaines the said VVill from being legally proved Insomuch that the Defendant cannot make any benefit of the said Estare nor by Law enforce the Plaintiff to produce the VVill she being his VVife That this is not a bare suggestion I doubt not but is very evident to your Lordships she and her Sollicitor Zanchey having often avouch'd in your Lordships presence that both there is such a Will and that your Lordships have seen it This is also very well known unto her Counsel Mr. Maynard who caused to be delivered unto Sir W. Row a true Copy of the said VVill taken from the Original which was long in his Custody But such is the Plaintiffs malice to the Defendants Person and Estate that she still suppresses and hinders the proving of it which is the sole cause of the continuance of many great Sutes and vast expences to the Defendant both with the Heirs at Law the Executors of the said Will and Trustees of the said Estate That both the Defendant and Plaintiff must necessarily be defeated of all hopes of ever enjoying the Fathers Estate for the future unlesse the 4000 l. aforesaid be raised and disposed of according as is limited and