Selected quad for the lemma: justice_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
justice_n	chief_a	king_n	sir_n	11,063	5	6.3376	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A48364	An ansvver to the book of Sir Thomas Manwaringe of Pever in Cheshire baronet, entituled A defence of Amicia, daughter of Hvgh Cyveliok, Earl of Chester wherein is vindicated and proved that the grounds declard in my former book, concerning the illegitimacy of Amicia, are not envinced by any solid answer or reason to the contrary / by Sir Peter Leycester ...	Leycester, Peter, Sir, 1614-1678.	1673 (1673)	Wing L1942; ESTC R10789	28,611	95

You conceive there is no weight at all in it whereof I am so sensible that I conceive it not evincing nor do those Antient Historians take upon them to give an account of all the Children of Earl Hugh but onely of the Heirs of Randle Blundevill and yet you say this Reason is as strong as my first Reason My Reply I do confess I urged it but for a probable Reason and yet you say it is as strong as the first Reason Then you might have done well to have answered the first better whereunto I am sure you have made no substantial Answer as yet wherein I appeal to all indifferent and judicious Readers who shall read this Book And for the probability of this you say That the Historians take not upon them to give an Account of all the Earls Children but the Heirs of Randle but do you find that they have left out any of his legitimate Children except this whom you suppose legitimate And then you tell me Mr. Cambden hath mentioned Amicia though not among the Co-heirs yet without the brand of a Bastard you know well he is but of very late standing and not an Historian Contemporary with Amicia and so you and I do now mention her And then you tell me over again which I have before Answered that those Judges and Heralds that have seen your Deeds of which I have heard but I am sure I yet know not who they be nor ever saw any thing attested under any of their hands nor their Reasons nor grounds for their Opinion and you mention Mr. Dugdale in particular for whom I have ever had a great esteem as a diligent searcher of Antiquities all which you again and again affirm to be of your Opinion that Amicia was legitimate but because I have before spoken of this Supra pag. 10 11. I shall onely ask here what weight can be drawn from this some Persons are of that Opinion Ergo it is so whole Councels have erred unless like the Romanists you will say The Pope cannot err And perhaps those Persons you mention never heard what is to be said against that Opinion whereas it were but equal that in consultation of Opinions both sides should show what could be said Pro and Con both together which hitherto for ought I know onely one Party hath privately put the Case as he pleaseth I have often told you I would have you confute me with Reason not Opinions for one man may be of one Opinion and another man of another Opinion but it is firm Reason which must sway every mans Judgment Page 69.70 71 c. And lastly you put down two Deeds wherein Sir Raufe Manwaringe Justice of Chester is subscribed Witness before the Barons of Cheshire for which you think it will be difficult to give a Reason if Amice were a Bastard To this I say it will not be difficult at all to give a Reason and much more easie then to give a Reason why Amice should be no Bastard because Sir Raufe Manwaringe is sometime Subscribed before the Barons of Cheshire The Reason I give is this that antiently in those Ages the Justice was put sometimes before the Barons and sometimes after and sometimes after the Constable and Dapifer and before the rest of the Barons as it happened for proof see the Deed in my-Book making the Baron of Halton the prime Baron pag. 160. where the Justice comes after all the Barons also in the Deed of Earl Randle to his Barons pag. 162. where the Justice comes next after the Constable and Dapifer and before the other Barons see also in my Book pag. 130 131. two Deeds made by Hugh Cyveliok In the one the Justice is put after the Constable and Dapifer In the other the Justice is put before them many other like examples may be produced else where I will appeal herein to Mr. Dugdale or to any Antiquary in England and considering the great uncertainty of Subscription of Witnesses in old Deeds sometimes putting one before another in one Deed and again putting the same Person after the other in another Deed sometimes putting Domino prefixed before the names of some Persons in one Deed and omitting the word Domino before the names of the same Persons in another Deed whereof I have spoken pag. 5 6. in the beginning of this Book I say had you well considered or observed these things it was not worth your labour to have added those three or four leafs in the close of your Book And now I appeal to all Readers whether those Grounds and Reasons alledged in my former Book against the legitimacy of Amicia as also to prove the Bastardy of those two other Ladies as you call them Geva and the Mother of Richard Bacun be evinced by any solid Answer or Reason given yet to the contrary And so I take my leave for ever of this Trivial Controversie but shall ever remain Mobberley May 15. 1673. SIR Your affectionate Cosin and very humble Servant PETER LEYCESTER Courteous Reader I Have here in the end of this Book an opportunity to Rectifie some Omissions and Errours in my former Book which escaped me through misinformation of others and desire thee to pardon and amend them as followeth Page 206. after the last line but two should have followed this Also another John Brereton son of George Brereton of Ashley Esq was Baptised at Bowdon the 20th day of June 1576. he was afterwards Sir John Brereton Knight the King's Serjeant at Law in Ireland he died without Issue whose-Widow Married the Lord Chief Justice Bramston Sir John left all his Personal Estate which was great to his Widow and Caius-Colledge in Cambridge where he was educated and to Randle brereton his youngest Brother which Randle lived in London and Married and had Issue by his Wife a Daughter Married to Mr. Bourcher of Glocestershire and a Son called also Randle Brereton who hath an Estate in Lincolnshire and is the onely Issue Male or Heir-male of all the Family of the Breretons of Ashley now surviving 1672. Page 210. line 27. Where these words With the little Fields above lying up to Aston Town-field are totally to be expunged Page 214. line 18 19. Where it is said Daughter and sole Heir of Sir Henry Willoughby Read Daughter and sole Heir to her Mother and Daughter and Co-heir to her Father Sir Henry Willoughby for Sir Henry had three Daughters and Co-heirs Anne after the death of Sir Thomas Aston Married Mr. Gray younger Son of the Earl of Stamford she was by the first Wife of Sir Henry he had also two Daughters by his second Wife Ibidem page 214. line 25. Read He was Loyal to his Prince and raised a Regiment of Dragooners for the King at his own cost and charge and was a Gentleman of good Parts but was unfortunately c. Page 223. The 6 7 8. lines are to be expunged totally Page 233. line 4. There it is said Maud Married Sir

AN ANSWER To the BOOK of Sir THOMAS MANWARINGE Of Pever in Cheshire Baronet ENTITULED A Defence of AMICIA Daughter of HVGH CYVELIOK Earl of Chester Wherein is Vindicated and Proved that the Grounds declared in my former BOOK Concerning the Illegitimacy of AMICIA are not Evinced by any solid Answer or Reason to the contrary By Sir PETER LEYCESTER Baronet Anno Dom. 1673. TO Sir Thomas Manwaringe Baronet SIR YOU are pleased to tell me in the Front of the Epistle before your Book That it will appear strange to those that know the nearness of Blood betwixt us that you should appear in Print against me Truly I believe it is only the Zeal of your Opinion touching the Legitimacy of Amicia which perhaps hath taken but too deep a root within you that makes you now endeavour to incline the World to be of your Opinion and that the grounds alleadged in my Book swaying my Reason to the Contrary Opinion are no just grounds to support it But though we differ in Opinion yet we may be loving Friends for I hope we are Pii Adversarii both Contending for the Truth rather then Victory And therefore wish that we may be firmly united as well in the bond of Friendship as Nature and that as much as ever without any Animosity at all And you tell me further That if I would have been contented to have delivered what I did conceive concerning Amicia as an uncertainty only as I have done that of Roger Son of the said Earl Hugh I know you would have rested satisfied without giving me or the Reader the trouble of any one of your Lines To this I say I remember well you moved me to have put Amicia under the head or notion of the doubtfull Issue of Earl Hugh at which time I told you I must either put her under the Title of Lawful Issue or Unlawful Issue for there was no Medium She must certainly be either Lawful or Unlawful if any Daughter at all And I thought it not fit to put down in my Book any third Title of Doubtful Issue But till now I never understood you would be content with the words which I put down concerning Roger Son of the said Earl for else if I know my own mind I should certainly have gratified your desire therein For in the next Page of my Book I say I shall then add the Reasons why I conceive her to be a Bastard which is the very Expression that I used to the rest There are yet two or three things in your Epistle which in the first place I desire to observe unto you The first is That you say you very much wonder when I mention Raufe Manwaringe Chief (a) I apprehend not why you call him chief Justice of Chester when in those Ages there was onely one Judge of Chester at a time Justice of Chester and his Son Roger and William Manwaringe younger Son of the said Roger that I take not notice that they were all three Knights because I had seen Proofs thereof by many Deeds where the word Dominus is prefixed to each of their Names which was not that you know of used to be done to any in those elder Ages but those that were Knights Clergy men only excepted But I am very confident that it was applied also to the better sort of Gentlemen in those Ages who were no Knights nor is it a sure Rule to be always understood of a Knight unless the word Miles do follow and in those elder Ages it was sometimes prefixed and oftener omitted even to the same men as Domino Galfrido de Dutton who in the Original Chart of Nether-Tabley writes himself onely Ego Galfridus de Dutton dedi c. and several other Deeds I have seen of the same Person who was lineal Ancestor to Warburton of Arley wherein I dare affirm among the Witnesses subscribed he hath five times and more the word Dominus omitted for once that we find it prefixed to his Name and am very confident was not in him as many others also to be construed any more then Master Geffrey Dutton and that he was no Knight for when the Party makes a Deed he will usually use what Title he hath especially if he be a Knight for Esquires in those Ages were none which came not to be added in old Deeds till after the Statute of Additions under Henry the fifth although it was first made a distinct Title under Richard the second he will be loath to loose that Title whereas Subscription of Witnesses which are put by the Writer of the Deed many times have some distinction of the better sort of Gentlemen from the rest by the word Domino which word is never used in old Deeds by the Party himself but where it is joyned with another word as Ego Willielmus Manwaringe Dominus de Peever so also in your Book p. 70. where it is so used Ego Robertus Dominus Moaldiae for ipsa vox Dominus primo de Imperatore postea de Rege demum de quovis Territorii Domino enunciata fuit Spelmanni Glossarum p. 182. b. And in Subscriptions it is very uncertain sometimes added and sometimes not added And so are the placing of the Witnesses in those Subscriptions of elder Ages very uncertain also for we may observe that the same men being Witnesses to several Deeds are many times one put before the other in one Deed and the same put after the other in another Deed As to the word Dominus if you please to look back on those your Ancestors mentioned in those Deeds put down in your Book as p. 27. Radulfus de Meidnilwaringe Omnibus c. you have here no Title used and yet this was after Bertrey his Daughter was marriageable but you will say possibly that was before he was Justice of Chester see then p. 70. Testibus Radulfo de Menilwarin tunc Justiciario Cestriae c. without any Domino prefixed and very many others I have seen also where he is so Subscribed look but into your own Deeds diligently and tell me if you find not many more Subscriptions mentioning Roger Manwaringe and William Manwaringe without the word Domino then with it and not any Writing thus either Ego Rogerus or Ego Willielmus Manwaringe Miles see also p. 69. where most of the Witnesses are put with Domino prefixed and p. 70. the next Deed following Raufe Manwaringe then Justice Hamon Mascy Guarin Vernon and William Venables who are all Witnesses to the other Deed are in this put down without Domino prefixed nor is there any one in this Deed which hath Domino prefixed So that it is plain it was sometimes added by the Clearks and sometimes not added at pleasure and also used to the better sort of Gentlemen who were no Knights as well as to Knights and Clergymen And at this day as the word Sir is in common Discourse applicable to Persons of Quality from the highest to the lowest in it's larger

accounted a crime in your Family more then in others in the like Case True it is as lawful in your Case as any other if your Case be the same with others I say the Quartering of the Coat of a Coheir ought not to be given by any Herald to any but the Coheir of the Whole-blood which in strictness you do confess Is not that Herald then to be misliked both for his boldness and errour who shall at any time give it to the Half-blood but in this Case I believe it will not appear to be given to the Half-blood as you call it unless it be meant of a Half-blood illegitimate Page 23. You say Because Manwaringe was not an equal Competitor to the Coheir of the Earl of Chester could be no substantial Argument to prove Amicia Illegitimate and so you pass to illustrate your Ancestour to have been seized of a good Estate of Lands Whereunto I say I do not urge that for an Argument of her Illegitimacy we shall come to that anon I only there observed chiefly that she was no Coheir which you grant and therefore the Herald ought not to have given to Manwaringe the Quartering of the Earl of Chester's Coat at all which you do grant to be in strictness true and which I have touched immediately before and I shall likewise grant your Family to be a Family of good Quality both at that time and at this present also I should be loth to say to the contrary but as to your note of Dukes and Earls to have been anciently Judges of Chester you should have distinguished of the times for that was not till the Reign of Richard the Second who made Deputies to act in their stead before which time you find no such great Persons Judges there nor from Henry the Seaventh's time downwards Thirdly Page 24. You say The case was not the same with the other Daughters of the Earl of Chester when Rafe Manwaringe married Amicia as it was afterward for Amicia was married in the life time of her Father Earl Hugh whereas those four came to be such great fortunes upon the death of their Brother Randle Earl of Chester and Lincolne without Issue to whom they then became Heirs they being his Sisters of the Whole-blood and though all or most of them were married before they became to be his Heirs yet the said Earl Randle having never had Issue the expectation of that Estate added to their other Fortunes must needs make them very considerable Fortunes whereas Amicia was but of the Half-blood being a Daughter of Earl Hugh by a former Wife My Answer Herein first you beg the Question which was never granted nor can ever be proved That Amicia was of the Half-legitimate Blood to Earl Randle by a former Wife of Earl Hugh but dato hoc sed non concesso It is more rational to imagine that Earl Hugh matching his only Daughter by a former Wife as you suppose in his life-time would have married her to as considerable a Person as was either provided by himself or his Son for his younger Children by a second venter whose expectation which you conceive added to their Fortunes whereby they matched to so great Persons could not be much being grounded upon great uncertainties since it could not be foreseen when they married that their Brother should dye without Issue who afterwards married two Wives successively purposely to have Issue of his own Body to inherit his own Lands Page 25. You say That I acknowledge I have been informed that three eminent Judges and four Heralds are of Opinion that Amice was Legitimate and was also told lately by one whom you hope I have no reason to discredit that since then several other Judges and Heralds have been consulted all which did concur in the same Opinion that Amicia was no Bastard My Answer Whereunto I answer and confess I was so informed but it was you your self who informed me nor did I ever yet see any Opinion under their hands nor their grounds and reasons for such their Opinions attested what can be made of this Let the ingenious Reader judge of the Argument some Judges and Heralds are of that Opinion Ergo she was Legitimate In these Cases all that can be said Pro and Con should have been put indifferently on both sides when any grave Person is to be consulted which hitherto hath been done privately on the one side onely without hearing the Reasons on the other side and you know how Opinions are not rarely given according to the putting of the Case but very frequent and usual when many times even the Lawyers themselves differ in their Opinions But I can compare this to be like nothing more then going about to get hands to a Petition or Certificate It is not Opinions that ought to sway the Judgment of all indifferent Readers but solid Reason And I shall desire to be Confuted with substantial Arguments not Opinions of this or that man And now I come to your Reply against my Answers given to the Arguments for Amicia which I shall fully comprehend in short that the Reader may with less trouble better apprehend the Point Page 30 31. Where you say That my Answer is that it is true the Law is so taken at this day i. e. that Lands cannot pass in libero maritagio with a Bastard but I doubt whether it was so taken in the elder Ages of Henry the Second and upwards and also that I cite Glanvil Chief Justice of England who lived in the time when Amicia lived and that I do also shew you a Precedent where Lands were given by the Father in free Marriage with his base Daughter and I say further that the Common Law in sundry other things is at this day altered from what it was in former Ages long after the time of Henry the Second for which I cite Cooke upon Littleton in several places These are my words Your Reply Pag. 30 31. Hereunto you reply to what I urge out of the Lord Cooke That you conceive the Common Law where not altered by Parliament is the same at this day that it was formerly and you cite Cooke upon Littleton p. 115. b. which should have been fol. 115. b. who saith It is a Maxime of the Law That whatsoever was at the Common Law and is not ousted or taken away by any Statute remaineth still and so consequently you argue that if it ever were the Common Law that Lands or Services might pass in libero maritagio with a Bastard or one that is not of the Bloud it would be lawful to do so still because that part of the Law is not ousted or taken away by any Statute So that the places which I have cited do not prove That the Common Law at this day doth vary from what it was in former Ages in any particular but only that it was taken to be otherwise in those dayes just like some Cases in our Reports which at several