Selected quad for the lemma: land_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
land_n	brother_n	die_v	elder_a	1,509	5	9.7904	5	false

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

of the Sons of any of the Sisters of the said John Scot though he had before permitted it to come to the Son of the eldest Sister of the said Randle Blundevile And whereas you say that if Geva had been but of the half-blood she woul'd by all probability have busled hard for so great an Estate in those Ages before she had lost it I do wonder very much at what you say Because any Cosen that is of the whole blood how many degrees soever the distance is will inherit at Law before a Brother or Sister that is but of the half-blood And whereas you say I am come to an excellent way of arguing by ifs and ands and possibilities by which means Answers may be made to any thing even to eternity I do not offer from those kinds of Arguments or Answers to determine any thing certainly but only make use of them to shew the uncertainty of several things which you urge But you pretend certainties from such kind of Arguments and particularly in this case of Amicia For all the reasons which you alleadg against her would not prove her to be a Bastard if those Arguments that are brought on her behalf were all laid aside In your Answer to my Defence of Amicia p. 42 43. you again cavil with me without any just cause and say that the case that I did there put comes as near to the case of Geva as an Apple to an Oyster But whether it be so as you say let the Reader judge In your Historical Antiquities p. 136. which words of yours are also in the 10 11 pages of my Defence of Amicia you have these words viz. And howbeit many Earldomes have descended to the heires Males and not to the heires general yet in this case were no heires Male but two Females an Aunt legitimate who had it and a Sister not legitimate and shew me a precedent whereever the heires of an Aunt inherited before the heires of a Sister both legally born and no heires-male left unless in case of forfeiture by Treason or some other great cause to hinder the same From these words of yours I did not offer to raise any cavil by telling you that though honours or lands may be given to any persons whatsoever by those who have power to dispose of the same that yet they cannot properly be said to descend to any but to the next heires and therefore in point of descent it is impossible that any one that is further off should be preferred before another that is nearer Neither did I tell you how you did name an Aunt legitimate in stead of the Son of an Aunt legitimate that had it But I supposing as I think any other would have done from these words of yours that your meaning was that Randle de Meschines must needs have more right to succeed in that Earldom of Chester than Geva had because the said Randle did enjoy the same and that you thought it to be very clear that whensoever there were no heirs-Male left if the honour went to any of the Kindred the King did alwayes prefer that person who was next of blood to it except in case of Treason or the like and did thereupon desire me to shew you a precedent to the contrary if I so could and you instancing in the Earldome and not in the Lands I did thereupon shew you where one that was a Baron by Writ dyed without heir Male leaving two Sisters only and the Baronry came to the Husband of the younger Sister and not to the Husband of the elder Sister it being the pleasure of the King to call Sir Hunt Bourcher who had Marryed the younger Sister to the Parliament and not to call Sir Thomas Nevil who had Marryed the elder Sister And if this be not a like case to that of Geva and Earl Randle if Geva was legitimate I am still very much mistaken And whereas you now demand of me If Geva was legitimate Why the Lands of Richard Earl of Chester did not come to her whatever the Earldom did Though I cannot give you the certain reason because the thing was done so long since yet I can shew you several possibilities why they might not For either it might be the will and pleasure of the then King that Randle de Meschines should have the Estate as well as Earldome and that Geva should have recompence made her some other way as the Sisters of John Scot Earl of Chester in the like case afterwards had or perhaps she might be of the half-blood to Earl Richard and Randle de Meschines be heir at Law before her or perhaps the said Ear I Richard having a greater kindness for the said Earl Randle than he had for Geva there being sometimes great unkindnesses betwixt Brothers and Sisters might give his Estate to the said Randle de Meschines Those Arguments of mine which you mention p. 44. and are pretended to be Answered by you pag. 45 46 47. remain yet in their greatest strength and are not at all answered by you nay the one of them is so farr from being answered that it is not understood by you unless you only pretend not to understand it because you perceive you cannot give an answer to it and I rather think that to be the truth of the case Because you have not recited my Argument as I did express it For you recite it thus Because Coke upon Littleton fo 21. b. tells us that these words in liberum Maritaginm are words of Art and so are necessarily required and there you break off abruptly Whereas I told you that the Deed which you alleadged to be made to Geva would not at all concern Amicia if Geva was a bastard because it was no gift in Frank-marriage as that gift to Amicia was And for a proof thereof I told you that my Lord Coke upon Littleton in the place abovesaid did tell you that these words in liberum maritagium are such words of Art and so necessarily required in these kind of gifts as they cannot be expressed by words equipollent or amounting to as much And he also there gave you the reason which was that these words in liberum Maritagium did create an Estate of Inheritance against the general Rule of the Law and therefore the Law required that it should be legally pursued And to explain this he also said that if a man give Lands to another with his Daughter in connubio soluto ab omni servitio c. yet there passeth in this case but an Estate for life For although those words be the same in sense as the words in libero maritagio be yet being not the very same words they do not create an Estate of Inheritance But you contrary to all this would not believe my Lord Coke if he should have said that the words in libero conjugio did make but an Estate for life which he hath indeed by consequence said But you will have

and say that Randle Blundevil made that Deed which cannot be Because those witnesses as appears before did live in the time of Randle de Gernoniis and not in the time of the said Randle Blundevil they being no witnesses at any time to any Deed of Randle Blundevils that I can find although he was Earl of Chester above fifty years so that nothing can possibly be more clear than this is As to the word aspersed which you fault me for using I do not apprehend that it signifies a malicious seeking to throw dirt in anothers face unjustly For to asperse properly signifies but to besprinkle with which malice will seldom rest satisfied and I will do you this right to declare that I believe it is not malice but a desire to divulge your supposed new Discovery which occasioned you thus to do That way of Arguing which you use in the 57 Page is very odd For Because you suppose the Respondent will deny your Minor you would have him give over answering and turn Opponent and so endeavour to disprove what you ought to prove But what you say Page 58. that you have proved Amicia to be a Bastard unless Hugh Cyveliok had a former Wife and also Page 59. that if he had no other Wife but Bertred and she no Daughter to Bertred then certainly if she be a Daughter and so called she must needs be a Bastard is undoubtedly true For Amicia must needs be a bastard unless she was legitimate You grant in your 59 Page That my proving Amicia to be called a daughter so long since she ought to be presumed legitimate till the contrary appear But why therefore do not you presume her so to be And though you pretend there are many strong reasons to the contrary yet I have shewed the invalidity of them all and therefore what I have formerly said stands good and is to the point viz. That the proving that she was not by Bertred does not prove that she was a bastard but onely proves that she was either a bastard or by a former wife And as to what you alleadg Page 60. that though the Law allowes not this in pleadings what hinders but Bastardy may be proved by History or Argumentation after the parties death As supppose in a Register-Book you find such a Bastard Christened one hundred yeares ago may not you justly call that person a bastard whom you find so Registred I do answer and say That even in that case though it be good proof that there was then a Bastard of that name yet if in any Deed or otherwayes in the same Age you find one of that name you are not to be too positive that that Man was that Bastard because there might be more persons than one of the same Name whose Fathers might also be of the same Name each with other and though these mistakes might easily be cleared by the party concerned whilst he was alive yet it may be difficult sometimes to do it after he is dead And that is as I suppose one reason why the Law gives no liberty to prove Bastardy against any Man after his death But the cases of the children of John of Gaunt by Katherine Swynford are not like to this case For you certainly know that they were born Bastards but afterwards legitimated and I think after their legitimation they might have had the same remedies against any that did call them Bastards that persons lawfully born might have Whereas I tell you out of Sir Henry Spelman that in cases of honor and profit by the customes of Normandy appellatione filiorum non comprehenduntur bastardi You answer and say that in other cases and formerly by the appellation of sons bastards were comprehended and that this makes directly against me But how this makes against me in what cases soever bastards were formerly comprehended by the appellation of Sons and Daughters if they were not comprehended in cases of honour and profit I cannot tell feeing that Amicia is called a Daughter and that in a case of so great profit that you will needs have it to be her whole Portion And whereas you mention the next words of Spelman viz. that the ancient Northern people admitted bastards to succeed in their inheritance and that William the Conquerour was not ashamed of that title who began his Letter to Alan Earl of Little-Britaine as he did many others Ego Willielmus cognomento Bastardus I do not know how you can apply those expressions to the case in hand and if you could they would make against you For when Bastard children were so much esteemed as to be admitted to succeed in the inheritance then certainly illegitimate Daughters would have great Portions as well as those that were legitimate And why should not Amicia if she was a Bastard be so called as well as Paganus was who as you say was the Son of Hugh Cyveliok Or why should Hugh Cyveliok himself be more ashamed to call her so than William the Conqueror was to stile himself a Bastard What else you have said Page 61 62 63. hath been said over and over again by you and hath formerly received a full Answer In the 64 65 Pages you recite and endeavour to fortifie an Argument of mine which I brought not as a good Argument but compared it to one of yours to shew the invalidity thereof neither did I at all doubt but that William Randle and Wydo Sons of the aforesaid Roger Mainwaring were all legitimate it being good proof thereof that in so antient a Record they are all three called Sons of the said Roger But I shewed you by the Rule by which you went viz. that none should be believed lawfull unless we could directly and in terminis prove their Fathers to be married that the said William Randle and Wido and most persons that lived in the First and Second Centuries might be concluded to be Bastards And though you tell me that I here argue well which must needs be because this Argument of mine is so like to yours and that you would say to my Minor that Roger had a Wife though we yet know not who she was and that this appears certainly because the Lands descended from heir to heir and that you tell me how you would frame your affirmative part more formally Yet in stead of trying whether you could in terminis prove which by this your Rule you ought to do whether William who was the eldest of the three Sons of the said Roger was his lawful Son or but a bastard you beg what you should prove and take it for granted that he was the Son and Heir and say that if the Son and Heir of Roger succeeded by descent in his Fathers Inheritance then Roger had a Wise whereas if William was the Son and Heir of Roger the said Roger his Father must needs have a Wife whethersoever William succeeded in the Inheritance by descent or was disinherited For none but a