Selected quad for the lemma: land_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
land_n	die_v	life_n	tenant_n	4,628	5	10.2669	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A56468	A conference about the next succession to the crown of England divided into two parts : the first containeth the discourse of a civil lawyer, how and in what manner propinquity of bloud is to be preferred : the second containeth the speech of a temporal lawyer about the particular titles of all such as do, or may, pretend (within England or without) to the next succession : whereunto is also added a new and perfect arbor and genealogy of the descents of all the kings and princes of England, from the Conquest to the present day, whereby each mans pretence is made more plain ... / published by R. Doleman.	Parsons, Robert, 1546-1610.; Allen, William, 1532-1594.; Englefield, Francis, Sir, d. 1596?	1681 (1681)	Wing P568; ESTC R36629	283,893	409

that seeing rigour of Law runneth only with the Uncle for that indeed he is properly nearest in bloud by one degree and that only indulgence and custom serveth for the Nephew permitting him to represent the place of his Father who is dead they resolve I say that whensoever the Uncle is born before the Nephew and the said Uncle's elder Brother died before his Father as it happened in the case of John of Gaunt and of King Richard there the Uncle by right may be preferred for that the said elder Brother could not give or transmit that thing to his Son which was not in himself before his Father died and consequently his Son could not represent that which his Father never had and this for the Civil Law Touching our Common Laws the favourers of Lancaster do say two or three things first that the right of the Crown and interest thereunto is not decided expresly in our law nor is it a plea subject to the common rules thereof but is superiour and more eminent and therefore that men may not judge of this as of other pleas of particular persons nor is the Tryal alike nor the common maxims or rules always of force in this thing as in others which they prove by divers particular cases as for example the Widow of a private man shall have her thirds of all his Lands for her Dowry but not the Queen of the Crown Again if a private man have many daughters and die seized of Lands in Fee-simple without Heir Male his said daughters by law shall have the said Lands as co-partners equally divided between them but not the daughters of a King for that the eldest must carry away all as though she were Heir male The like also is seen if a Baron match with a Feme that is an Inheritrix and have Issue by her though she die yet shall he enjoy her Lands during his life as Tenant by courtesie but it is not so in the Crown if a man marry with a Queen as King Philip did with Queen Mary and so finally they say also that albeit in private mens possessions the common course of our law is that if the Father die seized of Land in Fee-simple leaving a younger Son and a Nephew that is to say a Child of his Elder Son the Nephew shall succeed his Grandfather as also he shall do his Uncle if of three Brethren the elder die without Issue and the second leave a Son yet in the inheritance and succession of the Crown it goeth otherwise as by all the fotmer eight examples have been shewed and this is the first they say about the common law The second point which they affirm is that the ground of our Common Laws consisteth principally and almost only about this point of the Crown in custom for so say they we see by experience that nothing in effect is written thereof in the common law and all old Lawyers do affirm this point as were Ranulfus de Granvilla in his books of the laws and customs of England which he wrote in the time of King Henry the second and Judge Fortescue in his book of the praise of English laws which he compiled in the time of King Henry the sixth and others Whereof these men do infer that seeing there are so many presidents and examples alledged before of the Uncles case preferred before the Nephew not only in foreign Countries but also in England for this cause I say they do affirm that our common laws cannot but favour also this title and consequently must needs like well of the interest of Lancaster as they avouch that all the best old Lawyers did in those times and for example they do Record two by name of the most famous learned men which those ages had who not only defended the said title of Lancaster in those days but also suffered much for the same The one was the forenamed Judge Fortescue Chancellor of England and named Father of the common laws in that age who fled out of England with the Queen Wife of King Henry the sixth and with the Prince her Son and lived in banishment in France where it seemeth also that he wrote his learned book intituled de laudibus legum Angliae And the other was Sir Thomas Thorpe chief Baron of the Exchequer in the same Reign of the same King Henry the sixth who being afterward put into the Tower by the Princes of the House of York for his eager defence of the title of Lancaster remained there a long time and after being delivered was beheaded at High-gate in a tumult in the days of King Edward the fourth These then are the allegations which the favourers of the House of Lancaster do lay down for the justifying of the title affirming first that John of Gaunt Duke of Lancaster ought to have succeeded his Father King Edward the third immediately before King Richard and that injury was done unto him in that King Richard was preferred And secondly that King Richard were his right never so good was justly and orderly deposed for his evil Government by lawful authority of the Commonwealth And thirdly that after his deposition Henry Duke of Lancaster Son and Heir of John of Gaunt was next in succession every way both in respect of the right of his Father as also for that he was two degrees nearer to the King deposed then was Edmond Mortimer descended of Leonel Duke of Clarence and these are the principal and substantial proofs of their right and title But yet besides these they do add all these other arguments and considerations following first that whatsoever right or pretence the House of York had the Princes thereof did forfeit and lose the same many times by their conspiracies rebellions and attainders as namely Richard Earl of Cambridge that married the Lady Anne Mortimer and by her took his pretence to the Crown was convicted of a conspiracy against King Henry the fifth in Southampton as before I have said and there was put to death for the same by Judgment of the King and of all his Peers in the year 1415. the Duke of York his elder Brother being one of the Jury that condemned him This Earl Richards Son also named Richard coming afterward by the death of his Uncle to be Duke of York first of all made open claim to the Crown by the title of York But yet after many oaths sworn and broken to King Henry the sixth he was attainted of Treason I mean both he and Edward his Son then Earl of March which afterward was King with the rest of his off-spring even to the ninth degree as Stow affirmeth in a Parliament holden at Coventry in the year 1459. and in the 38. year of the Reign of the said King Henry and the very next year after the said Richard was slain in the same quarrel but the House of Lancaster say these men was never attainted of any such