Selected quad for the lemma: land_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
land_n	aforesaid_a	heir_n	manor_n	1,654	5	9.8403	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A48365	A reply to Sr. Thomas Manwaring's answer to my two books. Written by Sr. Peter Leycester, Baronet, anno Domini, 1675. The second reply. Together with the case of Amicia truly stated	Leycester, Peter, Sir, 1614-1678.	1676 (1676)	Wing L1944; ESTC R213614	31,564	110

versus Capitalem Dominum de me haeredibus meis c. was a good grant in free Marriage by the words of Glanvil in those Ages and as good as in liberum maritagium Why so because Glanvil doth not there or any where else say that Lands may be given in free Marriage by those or any other equipollent words without using the words in liberum maritagium and unless he saith this he saith nothing for Sir Peter's purpose My Reply For this see pag. 54. of my former Reply where I have proved it out of Glanvils words by sure consequence which Sir Thomas hath not yet answered Sit Liber Index Glanvil lib. 7. cap. 18. 'T is true those very words here mentioned by Sir Thomas are not in Glanvil but Lands granted in maritagium free from all Service c. saith Glanvil was a grant in free Marriage and by sure consequence implyed there out of Glanvil to be the words answerable to the words in liberum maritagium which makes clearly for Sir Peter's purpose against Sir Thomas for such a grant saith Glanvil was a grant in free Marriage without telling us that the words in liberum maritagium must be necessarily used at all So that Sir Thomas mistakes himself here very much and not I. Pag. 12 13. Of his Answer to my two Books Here he writeth down Saher de Quencyes Deed out of my Historical Antiquities In which Deed saith he pag. 13. if Donarium were there mis-written for Doterium it would not here signifie Marriage but Dower and he thinks also that the Transcriber probably did mistake Donarium for Dovarium the n and u being anciently written alike but he saith also he got a friend carefully to examine the same in one of the Couchir-books in the Dutchy Office in Grays-Inn and the word is there Donarium without any mistake at all My Reply It is true I did intrepret in liberum Donarium in that Deed as meant of a Jointure in my Historical Antiquities pag. 132. but upon better consideration I conceived it might be more properly interpreted here and understood for free-marriage in my former Reply pag. 7 8. and in my Book stiled Sir Thomas Manwarings Law-Cases Mistaken pag. 29. for finding Dos sometimes anciently taken for Marriage and finding the word liberum added here unto it I did conjecture it might have been miswritten in my Copy in liberum Donarium for in liberum Dotarium and so all one as to have said in liberum maritagium and the rather for that we find very rarely the word in liberum donarium so applyed nor do we usually say Lands are given in free Joynture but in free Marriage But now it being in the Couchir-book in liberum Donarium without mistake as Sir Thomas tells us he got a Friend to examine it it must needs be here interpreted for a free gift for Saher de Quency Earl of Winchester grants to Robert de Quency his Son and Heir four Mannours ad dandum in liberum Donarium Hawisiae Sorori Comitis Cestriae uxori ejusdem Roberti This was soon after the Marriage for she was now the Wife of Robert and these Lands were given for a free gift to Hawise his Wife which is all one as to have said for a free gift in Marriage to Hawise and a free gift in Marriage is all one as a gift in Free-marriage add hereunto that those four Mannors given in liberum donarium as aforesaid accrewed to the Heires of Hawise to wit to John Lacy Earl of Lincoln in right of Margaret his Wife Daughter and Heir of the said Robert Quency Hawise which by Law ought to descend upon the Heirs of Hawise being given in free marriage Whereunto also Roger de Quency who succeeded Earl of Winchester upon the death of the aforesaid Robert de Quency his Elder Brother without Issue Male released all his Right unto the Heirs of the said Margaret See my Historical Antiquities pag. 271. whereas had those Lands been given to Hawise in Dower or Joynture only she could but have enjoyed them for her self and not to her Heirs But whether is the more proper interpretation thereof in this place let Learned men judge I will not contend about it Yet whereas pag. 15. Sir Thomas would have the Reader to judge of my Integrity because I did formerly interpret the words aforesaid to be understood of a Joynture and now upon more serious deliberation conceive the same to be meant for a gift in free-marriage or a free gift in marriage having the word liberum joyned with it I say it is hard to censure my integrity for it for that is well known to all the County where we both do live I shall make no comparisons for those are odious and savor of arrogancy Again Sir Thomas hath committed another Trip pag. 10. where he expoundeth Mr. Glanvils words when he speaketh of gifts in frank-marriage cum aliquâ muliere to be meant with some woman which words he misinterpreteth altogether for it is there meant with any Woman not with some Woman He hath the same errour in his Reply to my Answer pag. 40 Pag. 16 17. Of his Answer to my two Books Here he saith I tell him how he proves by comparing the Age of Bertred that Agatha could not be the Daughter of the Second William de Ferrare wherein saith he I am pittifully mistaken for he did goe about no such thing but he did shew pag. 3 4 5. that Joane Wife of Lewellyn could not be the same Joan which King John had by Agatha My Reply O pretty Subterfuge hath he any proof at all here that Joan Wife of Lewellyn was not the same Joan which King John had by Agatha but all his proof there bottomed on the Age of Bertred which could not allow Agatha to be the Daughter of the Second William de Ferrars by Bertred's Daughter so as to suppose Agatha to be old enough to have Issue that Joan by King John and that Joan to be old enough to be Wife of Lewellyn Anno. 1204. which is a false ground taken from Vincent but Speed saith Agatha was Daughter of Robert de Ferrars and I agree Vincent to be mistaken therein Let me see him prove the Princess of Wales to be no Daughter of Agatha by King John what he saith here is nothing to the purpose See my former Reply p. 18. Pag. 22. Of his Answer to my two Books Here after a long Oration nothing at all material he tells us would any man think Sir Peter himself within a very few lines would be guilty of the like offence which I unjustly charged him withal and a little after Sir Peter would distinguish between maritagium and maritagium Servitio obnoxium and say maritagium is two-fold but doth not give the members of his distinction aright My Reply Here are two great Trips more of Sir Thomas for I did neither charge him unjustly with that distinction which any man may read in his book nor am