Linguistic DNA - Concept Modelling Demonstrator

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
england_n	baron_n	earl_n	viscount_n	2,923	5	11.7819	5	false

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A33630	The compleate copy-holder wherein is contained a learned discourse of the antiquity and nature of manors and copy-holds, vvith all things thereto incident, as surrenders, presentments, admittances, forfeitures, customes, &c. necessary both for the lord and tenant : together, with the forme of keeping a copy-hold court, and court baron / by Sir Edward Coke, Knight.; Complete copy-holder	Coke, Edward, Sir, 1552-1634.	1641 (1641)	Wing C4912; ESTC R1843	72,284	184

consonant to reason For my owne part I thinke that in the ancient time a Knights Fee was measured according to the number of the acres but in those dayes according to the value of the land the reason of this alteration is that though in ancient time as well as in these dayes some lands were farre more fruitfull than others yet the value of every quantity of land was certainely rated according to the Custome of the places and never upon any occasion was the land increased or decreased and therefore were they to examine whether any man had a sufficient living for a Knight they would looke no further than to the quantitie of his land for by the quantitie they could presently judge the value but now the value is not certainely rated in any place but increaseth and decreaseth upon every occasion and therefore reason requireth that in these dayes a Knights Fee should be measured according to the value not according to the quantity of the Land for by reason of the different value of the land one man may be better able to maintaine the dignity of a Knight with two hundred acres in some place and of some land than another with foure hundred acres of other land But howsoever it is whether a Knights Fee be rated according to the value or according to the quantity let it here rest Now give mee leave to examine at what time and by what Law it was first provided that for every Knights Fee the fourth part of a Knights Revenue should be payd in the name of a Reliefe viz. 5. li. for every Barons Fee the fourth part of a Barons Revenue viz. one hundred markes for every Earles Fee the fourth part of an Earles Revenue viz. one hundred pound surely Reliefes were paid in this manner before the Statute of Magna Charta Glan vil lib 9. cap 9. and that is somewhat pregnant by this that by the very words of that Statute This Reliefe is termed Antiquum Relevium and by Glanvil who writ before the making of this Statute this is some what manifest for he speaketh to this effect Dicitur rationabile relevium alicujus juxta consuetudinem regni de feodo unius militis centum solidos de Soccagio vero quantum valet census illius Soccagii per annum de Boronia vero nihil certum statutum est quia juxta voluntatem misricordiam Domini Regis solent Baroniae capital de relevis suis Domino Regi satisfacere from whence I gather that Statute of Magna Charta was in part an affirmance of the Common Law in part an institution of a new Law Touching Reliefe paid by Knights it was but an affirmance of the Common Law because they were certaine before the Statute Touching Reliefes paid by Barons it was an institution of a new Law because they were before uncertaine and the reasons why Dukes and Vicounts are not mentioned in this Statute as well as Earles Barons and Knights is this because when that Statute was made there was neither Duke Marquesse or Vicount in England The first Duke that ever was in England sithence the Conquest was the Blacke Prince eldest sonne to Ed. the 3. The first Marquesse that ever was in England was Robert Earle of Oxford created by R. 2. and the first Vicount that ever was in England Dominus de Bello monte created by H. 6. But though at the making of this Statute these dignities were unknowne yet they are comprehended under the equitie of the Statute and according to their severall dignities shall pay Reliefe unto the King a Duke two hundred li. a Marquesse two hundred markes and so ratably and proportionably But to conclude let us compare Herriots and Reliefes together and observe in what they differ 1. They differ in this that a Herriot lieth in Prender and a Reliefe in Render 2. In this that a Herriot is paid in the name of a Tenant deceased but a Reliefe in the name of an heire who is become Tenant 3. In this that Heriots are paid by Copyholders as well as Freeholders but Reliefe by Freeholders only 4. In this that Herriots are ever due upon a speciall reservation or upon some particular Custome but Reliefes are incident to the Fee and are due without reservation or Custome contrary to the opinion of Vincentinus who holdeth a Reliefe extrinsecam fore praestationem non in esse feodo Thus much touching Reliefes a word touching Amerciaments SEC XXVI AMerciament is a Pecuniarie punishment for any offence committed against the Lord of any Manor or as some more at large define it it is a certaine summe of money imposed upon the Tenant by the Steward by oath and presentment of the homage for the breach of any by Law made either for the profit of the whole Kingdome or for the benefit of the little Common-wealth among themselves or for default of doing sute or for other misdemeanors punishable by the same Court infinite in number and quality and this word Amerciament taketh his name froÌ„ being in the Lords mercy to be punished more or lesse at his will and pleasure and it differeth from a Fine in divers respects In that whosoever is fined may lawfully be imprisoned but whosoever is a mercied cannot 2. In this that Amerciaments are incident unto Court Barons as well as unto Court Leets and Fines are never incident to any Court Barons but to Court Leets onely or other Cou t s of Record 3. That Amerciaments are incident unto every Manor whatsoever but Fynes are incident unto some few Manors onely the reason of this difference is partly grounded upon the former difference for sithence Amerciaments are incident unto every Court Baron and Court Barons are incident unto every Manor Sequitur ex consequente that unto every Manor amerciaments are incident but ex adverso Fines being incident unto Court Leets onely and those Court Leets being in some few Manors onely not in every Manor expresly sequitur that Fines are not incident unto every Manor but unto some few Manors onely 4. In this that Amerciaments are afferable Per pares per sacramentum probâ—rum legalium hominuÌ„ de viceneto qui secunduÌ„ moduÌ„ delicti majori vel minori amerciameÌ„to delinquent mulctare possunt but Fines are never afferable in this kinde for looke what Fine soever the Court imposeth upon the delinquent that bindeth sufficiently without further afferance Give me but leave to aske two questions when had this afferance his first conception or creation 2. How may Amerciaments in Court Leets be discerned and distinguished from Fines imposed in the same Court since they are both pecuniary punishments for offences committed Touching the first question I thinke this Law of afferance was before the Statute of Magna Charta Glanv lib. 1. cap. 11. for Glanvile thus speaketh of it Est autem misericordia Domini Regis quo quis per juramentum legalium hominum de viceneto eatenus amerciandus est ne

Manor decayeth and dyeth for t is not the two materiall causes of a Manor but the efficient cause knitting and uniting together those two materialll causes that maketh a Manor Hence it is that the King himselfe cannot create a perfect Manor at this day for such things as receive their perfection by the continuance of time come not within the compasse of a Kings Prerogative and therefore the King cannot grant Freehold to hold by Copie neither can the King create any new custome nor doe any thing that amounteth to the creation of a new custome and therefore a composition made betweene the King and his Tenant where he hath Herriot custome to pay 10. li. in Levie thereof every time it falleth is no binding composition for this amounteth to the creation of a new custome Et haec omnia similia sunt temporum non regum seu principum opera which fully verifieth the old saying Plus valet vulgaris consuetudo quam regalis concessio this is the sole cause why the King cannot create a perfect Manor at this day and this is the chiefe cause why a common person cannot create a perfect Manor but not the sole cause for there is this cause farther a perfect Manor cannot subsist without a perfect tenure betweene very Lord and very Tenant but a Common person cannot create a perfect tenure and consequently cannot create a perfect Manor before the Stat. of Quia emptores terrarum if any Tenant seized of Land in Fee simple had infeoffed a stranger he might have reserved what services hee thought fit or had he reserved no services yet the Law would have imployed a perfect tenure betweene the Feoffor and the Feoffee for the Feoffee was to hold off the Feoffor by the same services that the Feoffor held over on his Lord Paramount but since this Statute If a Tenant seised of Land in Fee infeoffeth a stranger neither by the expresse reservation of the Feoffor nor by the implyed reservation of the Law can there bee a perfect tenure created at this day betweene the Feoffor and the Feoffee for the Feoffee shall hold immediately of the Lord Paramount not of the Feoffor and further as the King can doe nothing which amounteth to the creation of a new custome so a common person can doe nothing which amounteth to the creation of a new tenure and therefore if there be Lord and Tenant by 10. s. rent and the Lord will confirme the estate of a Tenant Tenend by a Hawke a paire of gilt spurres a Rose or similia this is a voyd confirmation otherwise had it beene if the Lord had confirmed the estate of the Tenant Tenendum per 5. s. that had beene a good confirmation because it tendeth onely to the abridgement of an old tenure and not to the creation of a new and as it is with a confirmation so it is with a composition upon the reason of this ground it is that if the Lord of a Manor purchase forraine land lying without the Precincts and bounds of the Manor he cannot annex this unto the Manor though the Tenants be willing to doe their Services for this amounteth to the creation of a new tenure which cannot be effected at this day And therefore if a man having two Manors and the Lord would willingly have the Tenants of both these Manors to doe their sute and service to one Court this is but lost labour in the Lord to practise any such union for notwithstanding this union they will be still two in Nature howsoever the Lord covet to make them one in Name and the one Manor hath no warrant to call the Tenants to the other Manor but every act done in the one to punish the offenders in the other is traversable yet if the Tenants will voluntary submit themselves to such an innovation and the same bee continued without contradiction time may make this union perfect and of two distinct Manors in nature make one in name and use and such Manors peradventure there are thus united by the consent of the Tenants and continuance of time but the Lords power of it selfe is not sufficient to make any such union causa qua supra But if one Manor holdeth of another by way of Escheate these two Manors may be united together fortior enim est disposâ—tio legis quam hominis But in this that I exclude common persons from being able to create a tenure I may seeme to impugne many authorities which hold at this day that a tenure may bee created by a common person for to cleare this colour of contradiction know that tenures are two fold First imperfect as where a man maketh a Lease for yeares or for life or a gift in tayle here is an imperfect tenure betweene the Lessoâ— and the Lessee the Donor and the Donee and this imperfect tenure I confesse may be created by a common person at this day Secondly perfect betweene very Lord and very tenant in Fee and such a tenure a common person could never create since the Stat. of Quia Emptores terrarum and consequently a common person cannot create a perfect Manor sithence for without a perfect tenure a perfect Manor cannot subsist Thus much touching the definition of a Manor thus much I say touching the two materiall causes together with the efficient cause A word of another cause of a Manor which appeareth not in the definiâ—ion so manifestly as the other causes doe this is a cause which among the Logicians is termed Causa sine qua non and that is a Court Baron for indeede that is the chiefe prop and Pillar of a Manor which no sooner faileth but the Manor falleth to ground if wee labour to search out the antiquity of these Court Barons we shall finde them as ancient as Manors themselves For when the ancient Kings of this Realme who had all the lands of England in Demesne did conferre great quantities of land upon some great personages Vide Lamb in his explication of Saxon words verbo Thanus Bacon in his elements of the Law fol. 41. 42. 43. with liberty to parcell the land out to other inferiour Tenants reserving such duties and Services as they thought convenient and to keepe Courts where they might redresse misdemeanors within their Precincts punish offences committed by their Tenants and deside and debate controversies arising within their jurisdiction and their Courts were termed Court Barons because in ancient time such personages were called Barons and came to the Parliament and sate in the upper house but when time had wrought such an alteration that Manors fell into the hands of meane men and such as were farre unworthy of so high a calling then it grew to a custome that none but such as the King would should come to the Parliament such as the King for their extraordinary wisedome or qualitie thought good to call by writ which writ ran hac vice tanâ—um yet though Lords of Manors lost their names of Barons and

Selected quad for the lemma: england_n

Text snippets containing the quad