Selected quad for the lemma: england_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
england_n	duke_n	earl_n	son_n	8,862	5	5.4006	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

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 frō 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 prob●rum legalium hominū de viceneto qui secundū modū delicti majori vel minori amerciamēto 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