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	lord_n	plea_n	5,523	5	9.8646	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A51562	A reply to an answer to the Defence of Amicia, daughter of Hugh Cyveliok, Earl of Chester wherein it is proved, that the reasons alleadged by Sir Peter Leicester, in his former book, and also in his said answer, concerning the illegitimacy of the said Amicia, are invalid, and of no weight at all / by Sir Thomas Mainwaring ...	Mainwaring, Thomas, Sir, 1623-1689.	1673 (1673)	Wing M303; ESTC R10002	39,045	108

Judges there because there were no such persons belonging to the then Earls except John Lacy Constable of Chester who was not made Earl of Lincoln as appears in your Historical Antiquities page 270. till the 23 of November 1232. which was but four years and upwards before the death of John Scot the last of the said Earls yet there were ever antiently persons of good quality that were Judges of Chester and if it had not been always a place of great repute the Kings of England would never have made such very great persons to have succeeded them therein As to what you alledge in the 18 19 20 and 21 pages of your Answer I do not doubt though you affirm it can never be proved but that I have already in my former Book given most persons satisfaction that Amicia was of the Half-Blood to Earl Randle by a former wife of Earl Hugh And whereas you object that it is more rational to imagine that Earl Hugh matching his only Daughter which he had by a former Wife 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 I do answer and say That I am not certain whether Amicia was the only Daughter that Earl Hugh had by his former Wife because I know some that pretend they can tell of some other Daughter or Daughters which the said Earl Hugh had by his said Wife but I do confess I have never seen just proof of any but her but supposing her to be the only Child by his first Wife I have in my former Book pa. 23 24 and 25. shewed that there is no strength in this Argument of yours And I may here further add that if you will search for examples you may find very many where the elder Sisters sometimes because swayed by their affections and sometimes for other reasons have not been married to so great persons as the younger Sisters have been neither can you tell what portions Earl Hugh gave to Amicia or to any of his other Daughters neither is there any necessity that the elder Sister because by a former wife must have as great a portion as a younger Sister by a latter Wife because many times persons are not able to give so great portions in their younger days as afterwards and because the Children of the living Wife are oftentimes better provided for than those of the dead Wife and of this I could if I pleased instance in some that I know and in case the Father dye and leave onely issue Female by a first and a Son and issue Female by a latter wife as in this case there is great likelihood besides the advantage that the Sisters by the latter wife would have by being Heirs at Law to their Brother he dying without issue that the Brother will naturally be more kind to those Sisters that are of the Whole-Blood and about the same age and bred up with him than he will be to her that is but his Half-Sister and much older then himself And whereas you say pa. 18 and 19. that the expectation of Earl Randle Blundevile's Sisters of the Whole Blood which I 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 I do think if you consider it you cannot in good earnest believe that the said Earl Randle Blundevil's four Sisters were married before the said Earl married his first wife whatever they were when he married his second wife For Bertred the Mother of Randle Blundevil being aged but twenty four years when her Husband Earl Hugh died as appears Rot. de Dominabus pueris c. in Scacc. penes remem R. sub Tit. Linc. Rot. 1. and the said Randle as appears in your Historical Antiquities page 146. being married to Constance the Widow of Geffrey fourth Son of King Henry the II. and Daughter and Heir of Conan Duke of little Brittain and Earl of Richmond in the year 1187. at which time the said Bertred was but about Thirty years old Can any one think that all the five Children of the said Bertred were then married And whereas you say that it was I who informed you of the three eminent Judges and four Heralds that were of opinion that Amicia was Legitimate If your meaning be that I was the only person who informed you thereof I must impute it to the weakness of your memory which fails you in this particular For you had many times seen our Pedigree attested by Mr. Cambden and Mr. Sampson Erdeswick who did allow her to be a Legitimate Daughter and several years since two other Heralds who are yet living at Chester did declare to you in my hearing that she could not be a Bastard and the one of them then named to you a Chief Justice of the Common Pleas and a Lord Keeper of the Great Seal of England both now deceased who did concur with them therein and you have also seen an opinion of a Third Judge under his Hand together with Reasons for the same and though you speak so slightly of the opinions of Judges and Heralds in comparing them to Hands got to a Petition or Certificate and pretend it was without hearing the Reasons on the other side I very well know though it seems you have forgotten it that that hand which was obtained was procured because you seemed to desire to know his opinion in the case And I also know that those two Heralds who at Chester did declare their judgements against you did then hear all the reasons that you could then alledge As to what you say pa. 22 23 24 25 26 and part of the 27 in all which you would willingly prove that the Common-Law is now altered some other way than by Statute you do but lose your labor and can never prove the same For in that Maxime of the Law where it is said That whatsoever was at the Common-Law and is not ousted or taken away by any Statute remaineth still the words ousted or taken away must needs be taken conjunctively and must necessarily bear this sence that the Common-Law still is the same in all points as it was before except where taken away by Statute and if those words should be taken otherwise then the meaning would be this that that part of the Common-Law which doth remain doth remain which would be a very strange Maxime And whereas you heretofore urged some places to prove that the Common-Law is alter'd at this day from what it was in former ages long after the time of King Henry the II. which you now also urge again in the 24 page of your latter Book I must give you the same answer which I formerly did viz. That

A REPLY TO AN ANSWER To the DEFENCE of AMICIA Daughter of HVGH CYVELIOK EARL of Chester Wherein it is Proved That the REASONS Alleadged by Sir Peter Leicester In his former Book and also in his said Answer concerning the Illegitimacy of the said Amicia are invalid and of no weight at all By Sir Thomas Mainwating of Peover in CHESHIRE Baronet London Printed for S. Lowndes over against Exeter-House in the Strand 1673. TO S r PETER LEICESTER BARONET THe Reasons which you and I have alledged for and against Amicia being now made publick all Persons may easily judge whether as you believe it was onely the zeal of my opinion touching her Legitimacy which caused me to endeavor to incline the world to concur with me therein or that what I said was supported with just Grounds and Reasons and I doubt not but those of our County that are understanding Persons will as easily discern from some of your omissions although I forbear publickly to take notice of them that it was something else besides your great love to Truth pretended by your alledging the old Rule of Aristotle which occasioned you thus to asperse your deceased Grandmother But however things are you have no reason to suspect any animosities betwixt us I having in my first Book as I hope I shall also do in this endeavoured to avoid all expressions which I did conceive might be offensive and I am confident you have no just cause to be angry with me for endeavoring to defend a deceased Grandmother whom I suppose to be very much injur'd by you I know not how far your memory may fail you therein but I am sure I have several times moved you and particularly came once purposely to you to Tabley to desire that you would be contented to deliver what you did conceit concerning Amicia as an uncertainty onely as you had done that of Roger Son of Hugh Cyveliok and did at all those times assure you that if you would so do and withal express that some Judges and Heralds were of a different judgement from you that I would never trouble you or the Reader with any Lines of mine And the reason why I desired you thus to do was because the Reader would certainly conclude Amicia to be a Bastard though no reasons were alledged if he saw one who was descended of her to declare her illegitimate in Print and did not know that some Learned Men were of a different opinion but I could not possibly prevail with you herein And although what you alledge be true that there is no medium betwixt being a Bastard and Legitimate but that a Man must absolutely be the one or the other yet as to the Writer of an History the case may be different for he may be certain that some concerning whom he writes may be Legitimate and others may be Bastards and accordingly he ought so to place them but it is possible there may be some which he is uncertain whether they be Bastards or not and in that case the Historian ought to express it doubtfully and not to take upon him absolutely to determine the point upon uncertain grounds As to your saying in the fourth page of your Answer in the Margent that you apprehend not why I call Sir Ralph Mainwaring Chief Justice of Chester when in those Ages there was only one Judge at a time there My reason wherefore I so did was because I found that Reginald Gray who was Judge of Chester had taken unto him as an Associate Ralph Hegham in the thirteenth year of King Edward the I as appears page 172. of your Historical Antiquities as also because I found in your said Book before the time of Sir Ralph Mainwaring two Deeds of Randle de Gernoniis which seemed to imply that there had been sometimes more Justices of Chester than one at a time the one of which as appears page 128. was directed Constabulario Dapifero Baronibus JVSTICIARIIS c. and the other as you may see page 160. was directed Episcopo Cestriae Dapifero Baronibus JVSTICIARIIS c. so that I hope I am justifiable herein And though it was not usual till after ages to have two Justices of Chester at one time and that I have not yet found that in the time of Ralph Mainwaring there was any Justice of Chester but the said Ralph yet it being possible for the reasons aforesaid that there might be more than one at a time I did therefore call the said Ralph Chief Justice to shew if there were then two that he was the chief of them because he acted as Justice of Chester alone as will thus appear from a Roll of antient Charts called Doomesday remaining in the Castle of Chester amongst the Records there Leuca quae fuit uxor Ranulphi de Kingesleigh veniens in pleno Com. Cestriae coram Radulpho de Mainwaring tunc Justiciario Cestriae Baronibus c. quiet clam Richardo de Kingesleigh totam villant de Bertherton unde dotata fuit And whereas you pretend page 4 and 5. of your Answer which is the onely example which you bring to prove what you there alledge that Geffrey de Dutton who made the Original Deed of Nether-Tabley had this word Domino sometimes prefixed to his Name when he was a Witness and yet was no Knight and thence would inferre that the word Dominus is no sure rule to be always understood of a Knight I shall before I give an answer unto what you say transcribe the said Deed out of your Historical Antiquities as I find it in the 355 page of your said Book Sciant praesentes futuri quod ego Galfridus de Dutton dedi concessi hac praesenti Charta mea confirmavi Margaretae siliae meae pro homagio servitio suo totam villam meam quae vocatur Parva-Tabley sine ullo retenemento cum Homagiis Servitiis cum Villenagiis cum Boscis cum Planis cum Pratis Pascuis cum Moris Mariscis cum Aquis Molendinis cum Viis Semitis cum omnibus locis praedictae Villae pertinentibus Tenendam habendam sibi Margaretae Haeredibus suis de me Galfrido Haeredibus meis liberè quiete pacisicè cum omnibus libertatibus Aysiamentis praedictae villae pertinentibus Faciendo inde mihiforinsecum servitium quantum pertinet ad duas Bovatas terrae unde trigint a Bovatae Terrae faciunt Feodum unius Militis faciendo servitium de Hauthoner quantum pertinet ad praedictam villam pro omni seculari servitio consuetudine demanda mihi Haeredibus meis pertinente Et ego Galfridus Haeredes mei praedictam villam ut praedictum est praedictae Margaretae haered suis contra omnes homines faeminas in perpetuum warrantizabimus Et ad majorem hujus rei securitatem huic praesenti scripto Sigillum apposui meum Hiis Testibus Domino Thoma de Dutton Domino Galfrido de Dutton Hugone