Selected quad for the lemma: land_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
land_n	grant_v	heir_n	tenement_n	1,541	5	10.3837	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A26173	Jus Anglorum ab antiquo, or, A confutation of an impotent libel against the government by king, lords, and commons under pretence of answering Mr. Petyt, and the author of Jani Anglorum facies nova : with a speech, according to the answerer's principles, made for the Parliament at Oxford.	Atwood, William, d. 1705?; Brady, Robert, 1627?-1700. Full and clear answer to a book.; Petyt, William, 1636-1707. Antient right of the Commons of England asserted.; Atwood, William, d. 1705? Jani Anglorum facies nova.	1681 (1681)	Wing A4175; ESTC R9859	138,988	352

Term. Pasc. 7. 8. J●hannis 9. dorso claims against William Scoteny the Capital Messuage which he ought to have in Steinton with the Appurtenances as that which belongs to his elder share of the Barony which was Lambert Scoteny's These surely were Brothers not Sisters Sons being of the same Name and the Claim being immediately from the seizin of Scoteny and this Claim was allowed as the Record shews Besides tho 't is generally believed that Wardship was in use before the Reign of H. 3. And Mr. Sylas Taylor in his History of Gavelkind Hist. of Gavelkind p. 104. thinks he proves it to have been before the supposed Conquest Yet we have good Authority that there was no express Law for this before 4. H. 3. K●ighton fo 2430. A● 1219. 4 H. 3. Magnates Angliae concesserunt Regi Henrico Wardas hoeredum terrarum suarum quod fuit initium multorum malorum in Angliâ The great men of England granted King Henry the Wardships of their Heirs and Lands which was the beginning of many Evils in England 2. We find Custom prevailing beyond what was the foreign Feudal Law at least of some places for which I may instance in Relief paid by the Heir male after the Death of his Ancestors Whereas I find it in Cujacius payable only by the Heir female Cuja●i●s fo 498. Siquis sine filio Masculo mortuus fuerit reliquerit filiam filia non habeat beneficium patris nisi à domino redimerit If any one dye without Heir male and leaves a Daughter let her not have her Fathers Benefice unless she redeem it of the Lord. That Relief was called Redemption appears by the Law of H. 1. Leges fo 1. cap. 1. Haeres non redimet terram suam sicut faciebat tempore fratris mei sed legitimâ justâ relevatione relevabit eam It seems in King Rufus his time this payment was so unreasonable that 't was a Redemption in a strict sense and a kind of Purchase of the Land but now 't was to be a lawful and just Relief 2. The jus feodale mentioned in the Glossary if it be not the Law generally received where Feuds were must be the Law of England in particular But 't is to be observed that Choppinus knocks this down who tells us that amongst the French Juridica potestas was not imply'd by a Feud Against Petyt p. 31. in margin But our Apollo teacheth us that our ancient Tenures were from Normandy and that was govern'd by the French Feudal Law being of the French King's Feud Wherefore the Juridica Potestas or jus dicere was not here Ex ipso jure feodali nay in the same place the French Feudist tells us Choppinus de Jurisdict Andeg fo 455. Interdum certè Baro Castellanum observat superiorem 'T is certain sometimes a Baron is under a Castellan's Feud And he gives the Reason why it may be so which is that a Feud carries not with it ib. so 450. the Potestas juridica which reason is very apparent in that a Castellan is of a degree lower than a Baron Take Juridica potestas in the same Sense with jus dicere in the Glossary a Baron was to take Laws from his Inferiour Leges H. 1. cap. and to have his Lands taken from him without Forfeiture as it appears by the Law of Hen. 1. that being one of the Judges in the County Court was not upon the Account of Resiance but the having Free land there so it must have been in the great County Court of Cheshire though they had an extraordinary Power there Admit therefore that a Lord of another County were Feudal Tenant to a Commoner there as 't is not to be doubted but he might have been should this Lord have been represented by his Capital Lord there Glos. 2 part Consentire quisque vid. Or admit a Lord there had no Land but what he held of a Commoner as of such an one as Thomas de Furnival Jani Angl. facies nova p. Sed vide the Record more at large who had several very considerable Mannors might Thomas de Furnival represent the Lord in the Lord's House But farther taking the Jus Feodale to be as in force with us unless the positive Law giving so large a Power be shewn 't is a begging the Question for 't is to prove the Right which our wise Antagonist would exclude from the Question as being indisputable I suppose by the Fact whereas the fancied Right is used in his Hotch-potch Glossary to induce us to the belief of the Fact But from what Sourse is this Right deriv'd SECT 5. An Improvement of the Notion of Jus Feodale THat I may make our mighty man of Letters out of Love with his darling Glossaries 2 Part of the Glos. and his own I shall observe to him That according to that for the Credit of which he pawns his own Truth or his Friends All the Lord 's Right of Representing their Tenants in the Great Councils Against Mr. Petyt p. 31. is meerly Feudal ex ipso jure feodali But all Feuds were enjoy'd under several Military Conditions or Services Being then these were the onely Feudal Tenures and yet as appears by Domesday-Book and all manner of Authority there were Freemen who held in free or else in common Socage though the Dr. sayes all the Freemen of the Kingdom were Tenants by Military Service These Socagers were not chargeable by any without their own consent But like men of another Government and it seems he will afford them nothing here they though called were not obliged to come to the Great Council which was the Curia of the King 's Feudal Tenants onely Nay they were never at it And therefore no wonder if the Laws were obs●rved by and exacted upon Against Mr. Petyt p. 43. onely the Normans themselves For the others could not be bound and if they consented to any Charge for Defence of the Government it could be onely in what way they pleased to consent either in a Body by themselves or united with the Vassals or else severally at home as a meer Benevolence And there being free and common Socage Tenants before the Norman's Entrance and since continually thus it must alwayes have been CHAP. III. That Domesday-Book to which he appeals manifestly destroyes the Foundation of his Pernicious Principles SECT 1. SInce our Tenures and the manner of holding our Estates Against Mr. Petyt p. 31. in every respect with the Customes incident to those Estates are said to be brought in by the Conquest and not onely most but all free Estates must have been feudal as Knights Service which is made the onely feudal was in the time of William the First the onely free Service ib. p. 39. What I have said of Feuds in the last Chapter doth directly reach the Controversie between us though our Author who has an excellent faculty of overthrowing his own Arguments

〈◊〉 la Benche Hugo D'aule junior 〈◊〉 centur tum vocentur audiantur ibiden● But to Partiality Against Mr. Petyt p. 79. hence 't is clear 〈◊〉 King and his Council were equally Judge● when it was necessary to call them and 〈◊〉 them to come as they were of their Right and Pretences to come The King being sole and absolute ●udge of the Necessity of calling Parliaments he makes the Calling such as ●ould prove their Right according to ●aw to come as often as his Majesty ●all please to call a Parliament to be ●s much at the Disposal of the King as what is his undoubted Prerogative or ●lse he denies the King's Prerogative ●o call Parliaments at his Pleasure if he ●o not contend that he may leave out ●●ose who had with him the greatest ●ight Tenants in Capite from the Parl●amentary Summons And this being ●rescribed to from before the 49. of ●en 3. between which time and the 6. of King John there was no Altera●on in the Way or Right of coming to ●arliament How can he free himself ●●om contradicting that Way and Man●er which he says was setled then If to evade it he say Though 't is a ●ight according to the common Rules 〈◊〉 Law yet 't is supersedable by Prero●tive I suppose my Superiours will give 〈◊〉 an Answer if upon this Account it ●ill be no Contradiction however ●e have enough to make us laugh while at other Particulars And thus has our Author like another Don Quixot encountring the Windmils been miserably mawld with hi● own Whymsies returning too quick upon him nor can Sancho Pancho hi● Squire afford him any great Assistance● by curing some literal Mistakes The Bookseller to the Reader which are but outward Scratches while the inward Bruises remain CHAP. II. Of the Reputed Conquest SECT 1. HIS Notions of the Conquest whether more absurd or false I cannot say fall now under Consideration bu● good man Against Mr. Petyt p. 43. fearing least that might 〈◊〉 too far improved he says this doth no● directly reach the Controversie between us Indeed if it were only about th● Members of the great Council before th● time for he takes in all the time before as far back as Mr. Petyt whom 〈◊〉 laughs at for it I will grant that th● were not to the purpose But what account can be given why the Folck-mote ●held at one certain time in the year when all the Bishops in the Kingdom were to meet together about the great Affairs of the Kingdom with all that ●ad any Property such as were to find Arms according to their real or personal Estate should of a sudden without a Conquest be turn'd into an Assembly of ●he King's Tenants upon the old legal Title I cannot comprehend If William the First divided all the ●ands of the whole Kingdom then 't is ●ot probable that others than they who derived from under him should have had any share in the Government But if he did not thus act like a Con●erour how is it to be imagined that 〈◊〉 old Socagers had nothing to do in ●he Great Councils Nay upon another account this is ●eedful to be considered for as a Con●uerour p. 39. we are told he made all the ●ree-men of his Kingdom Tenants in Military Service But if he was no Con●uerour in this Sense insisted on then ●ere must be a vast number of Proprie●●rs that could not be any way bound but by their own free Act or Consent express or naturally implyed in yielding to be represented SECT 2. That he is so far proving the Title of William the first by Conquest that he makes him an Usurper all along proved by the History of the Conquest compared with what he says about the Titles of William 2. and Hen. 1. I would fain ask a serious Question or two about this same Conquest Had not William many Sharers in his Victories And can Mr. Dr. with all his Art and the Help of the Tutelary of a certain Profession Madam Cellier discover at the Birth which came from Conquering which from Vanquish'd Ancestors I 'll take it for granted King William conquer'd not all alone Sampson himsel● could not have done it even with his wonder-working Jaw-bone But pray Mr. Dr. spare me another civil Question Do not you your sel● make an Vsurper of your mighty Conquerour who swallowed all the Land of the Nation or devoured it between him and his Myrmidons You p. 35. in effect yield that his Title was by Election by reason of the Factions amongst the Saxon and Danish Nobility and People the Pope's Encouragement and siding with William and the Inclinableness of the Clergy to his Cause You might have added that before his Entrance many Normans were setled here in Power and Property It being thus William the Second who you say p. 51. had a Title by his own Sword and was chiefly assisted by the English p. 54. and Henry the First who cajold the great men and the Army had the same kind of Title with your mighty one Nor is there weight in the Objection that there was so small time between the Death of one and crowning another King p. 60. that it was not possible for the Clergy or all the People of England or any that represented the People of England to be at the Consecrations and Coronations Because whoever has had the Crown set on his Head by them that could meet upon the Occasion unless there had been a very powerful Interest or Faction against him has generally been owned for King and had a tacit universal Consent Besides all the Nation was not present when William the first was crowned any more than they were when he gain'd the Victory over Harold and therefore if these two Coronations are set aside as factious so many the other and so it must be For An Election is or ought to be Against Mr. Petyt p. 51. a free solemn deliberate sober sedate and the Lord knows what Act of the whole People where they have a Right whereby the major part of them do choose this or that Person or Thing for such or such Ends and Purposes and not an undermining crafty cheating and forcible Act of a Party or Faction for the setting up this or that Person or using this or that means for the obtaining their own Designs and Purposes Let him I say consider and make a difference between these two Acts of the whole People and a Faction and he may easily make a true Judgment of all the pretended Elections of our English Usurpers and all other Traitors whatever How easily may this Rule be applyed to the first William Against Mr. Petyt p. 35. whose Success was facilitated by the Factions among the Saxon and Danish Nobility and People as our Opponent confesses besides the Faction raised by the Pope for him and by his own Country-men who were here before and could not but be very busie for him if he

acquir'd the Crown by Election these things shew it to have been as factious as those which are condemned But we must have Recourse to the History to know how he became King here England since it had been reduced to a Monarchy by the Conduct and Magnanimity of the great King Alfred found that benefit of being under One Head that before Succession was setled when a King dyed the People voluntarily pitch'd upon some One to whom they might pay their Allegiance and from whom they might expect Protection when a King quitted his mortal Dominion to be Assessor with the Principa●ities and Powers in the highest Orb. The Question was not whether they should have a King or no but who should be the man The Confessor through some foolish Vow which was void in it's self having denyed Marriage-rights to his Queen they had none of his Issue to set their Hopes upon and perhaps they were loth to fall again before a Family which they had formerly disobliged and therefore would not think upon Edgar Etheling who was Heir to him that wore the Crown next before the Confessor But that Monarch of their Choice and as 't was believ'd the Elect of Heaven was in such esteem with them that the greatest Worth and the clearest Stream of Royal Blood would have signified little in respect of the Deference they paid to his sanctified Judgment and therefore his Recommendation in such a superstitious Age was to them a kind of Divine Revelation The Norman Prince Abrev. Chron. Rad. de diceto fo 479. Subregulus Haroldus Godwini filius quem Rex ante suum decessum elegerat à t tius Angliae Primatibus ad regale culmen electus William pretended a direct Gift of the Crown from him but there is Authority which tells us That upon his Nomination the chief● men of all England chose Harold Whether this illustrious Son of the great Earl Godwin was design'd by the Confessor or no is left in Dispute but that he arriv'd to his high Trust by a general Election of those who were able to keep under M. S. ex bib Domini Wild defuncti or satisfie the rest is certain and yet an ancient Author calls him Conqueror Heraldus Strenius Dux Conquestor Angliae If Harold has made an absolute Conquest which no man pretends that I find and William had conquer'd him perhaps there would have been a Devolution of a Conquerours Right upon him who subdued Harold but there was only a Competition between these two Princes for that Dignity and Authority which Election had vested in Harold 'T was this that William fought for not for the Lives Liberties and Fortunes of the People And William himself upon his Death-bed being ask'd to whom he would devise his Kingdom makes Answer that he would not pretend to dispose of it and gives this Reason which argues that he thought he had no Right so to do Non enim tantum decus haereditario jure possedi For Comb. Brit. f. 104. I possess'd not this Honour as a Right of Inheritance which here must be meant as what I had an absolute Property in and Disposal of Sed diro inflictu multâ effusione sanguinis humani perjuro Regi Haroldo abstuli interfectis vel fugatis fautoribus ejus dominatui meo subegi But by a direful Conflict and much effusion of humane Blood I took it from perjur'd King Harold and brought it under my Dominion through the Deaths or Flight of his Abettors With this agrees Lex Noricorum in the Confirmation of St. Edwards Laws William the Bastard through God's Permission subduing Harold Regnum Anglorum victoriosè adeptus est Got the Kingdom of England by his Victory but the Victory was over Harold not the whole Kingdom I wonder our Antagonist brought not this to prove that William the Bastard got all the Lands of the Kingdom as he granted all the Lands of whole Counties under the word Comitatus but as 't will appear that the Proceedings of this Prince to his being crowned prove his Election so his Transactions with Harold shew that he laboured only to have that Power which he said Harold maintain'd by Perjury Suppose therefore Harold had not oppos'd and without more Turmoils William had been crown'd had he in this Case been a Conquerour in the Sense contended for And what makes the Difference between his having it of Harold freely or by Force in relation to the whole Kingdom Surely he would never have endeavoured to come in by Treaty to a limited Dominion when with those Advantages that were on his side he might expect by turning ●ut Harold to jump into the absolute Disposal of the whole Land But immediately after St. Edward's Death he sent an Ambassador to demand a Resignation from Harold to which he urged his Obligation by Oath the Gift of his Kinsman the Confessor was likewise pretended But Harold argued for the Invalidity both of his own Oath and the others Bequest because they were Selden's Review of the History of Tithes p. 439. absque generali Sena●s populi conventu edicto That ●s no Act of the Common-Council of the Kingdom which Council is represented by this Author under the Form of the Roman Councils at those times when besides the Senator's Votes there was the Jussus populi And this is in other words of the same Import exprest by Matthew Paris Sine Baronagii sui Communi assensu Upon Harold's denying the Norman● demand Appeal is made to the Pope● and there was one then in the Papal Se●● whose Ambition made him court all occasions of becoming the Vmpire of th● Affairs of Christendom Vid. Dr. Stillingfleet's Answer to Cressy's Apol. p. 347. ad 353. and this was tha● great Asserter of Clerical Exemption● from the Civil Power Gregory the Seventh The Pope like God himself who by his Prophets often anointed and designed Kings sends one of his Ministring Spirits a Nuncio I take it with a consecrated Banner as an Evidence o● Right and an Earnest of Victory and encouraged him to fight the Lord's Battels not expecting that commendable Ingratitude in the religious maintaining those ancient Rights of the Crown o● England for which he afterwards upbraided his Royal Son Whether Superstition or the hopes o● engaging the Pope's secular Influence and Interest to his side occasion'd William to refer his Pretence of Right to the Pope's Decision I shall not judge but with these Colours of a Title he lands ●n England and some say committed no Acts of Hostility till his Claim was again deny'd by the daring but unhappy Harold who was a man of Spirit fit for Empire and was likely to have kept ●t much longer had not Fortune raised up against him three great Enemies at once his Brother Tosto Norwegian Harold and the aspiring William against whom possibly his arm was weakened with the Reflection upon his own Vow to William to assist him in his ambitious Design and what he

and gives a Cell Lands and Tenements for a Prior and five Monks in Spalding Wulketul Abbot of Croyland Indulphi Hist. fo 902. commences his Suit for this in Curia Regis all the Normans being confederate together justifie and approve of the Depredations Oppressions Slaughters and all other Injuries committed by Yvo Talbois against the Croylanders and as in the body of Behemoth one Feen is joyned to another they refute the Truth And that which added to the Heap of the Calamity of Croyland was the cruel beheading of Erle Walden of Croyland who was very kind to all the Religions and was chiefly the best and most worthy Friend to the Monastery of Croyland and although Arch-bishop Lanfranc his Confessor asserted that he was free from all Faction and Conspiracy and if he died in the Cause that he would be a Martyr yet his most impious Wife thirsting after another Marriage and therefore most wickedly hastening the Death of her Husband Also some Normans gaping after his Counties of Northampton and Huntington According to our Author he had all the Lands of these Counties whereas the King had some especially the Anjovin Erl Yvo Talbois thirsting for his Blood being most greedy for his Lands and Tenements which were very many in all the Counties of England the innocent and harmless man is martyr'd at Winchester the day before the Kalend● Here we see they were forc'd to accuse him of Faction and Conspiracy or Rebellion that the Lands might be forfeited to the Crown and they might get them for their good Service Our man of mighty Vndertakings thinks to set aside Edwin of Sharburn's Evidences and exposes the Credulity of his Friend Sir William Dugdale whose Obligation for leading him the way in his Origines Juridiciales he has returned to the purpose because he tells us Sharnburn's name is not to be found in Domesday book or the Conquerour's Survey and the Owners of Sharburn which are there only to be found are William de Warennâ Odo Bishop of Bajeux Bernerius Arbalistarius and William de Pertenac 'T is not material that they are reputed Owners since Sharborn had the King's Mandat p. 25. and possibly might not have the Possession restored till after this Survey 2. Often only the chief Lords of the Fee are named though not all the Proprietors under them 3. Though we find not Edwin of Sharburn we find in the same County Edwin a Proprietor and Lord of a Mannor with a mesne Lord under his Bailiwick and Care though not holding of him Sislanda tenuit Ketel liber homo Edvini commendatus tantum pro Manerio duo Car. Ketel Edwins Free-man held Sisland within his Bailiwick only for a Mannor and two Carvs of Land Now 't is very obvious that there were great Proprietors whose Christian Names only were mentioned in Domesday book They are frequently named without their Additions to be sure not all the Addition by which they were known to instance in Edric cognomento Sylvaticus this Sirname of his is not to be found there as I take it and yet he kept great Possessions which he had of a Title prior to William's Eo tempore Florentius wigorniensis extitit quidam praepotens Minister Edricus cognomento Sylvaticus cujus terram quia se dedere regi dedignabatur Herefordenses Castellani Ricardus Scrob frequenter vastaverunt sed quotiescumque super eum irruerant multos è suis militibus Scutariis perdiderunt At that time there was a certain powerful Officer Edric whose 〈◊〉 was Silvaticus whose Land because he scorn'd to yield to the Conquerour the Castellans of Hereford and Richard Scrob often wasted but as often as they f●ll upon him they lost many of their Souldiers and Tenants by Knights Service Hitherto he had kept his Lands and a little after we find the King and him reconciled 〈…〉 Vir strenuissimus Edricus cognomento Silvaticus cujus supra meminimus cum Rege Gulielmo pacificatur And soon after this he accompanies the King to Scotland but if the Dr. finds him by this Addition in Domesday book I will allow him to be a man of a very sagacious Invention p. 26. 4. We find whole Counties left out of Domesday book and therefore admit Edwin were not there 't is not strange that he though a Proprietor should be omitted if it were only through the Influence of Erl Warenn Notwithstanding the Exceptions taken to what he calls the famous Legend and trite Fable of Edwin of Sharnborn he himself confesses that he had the King's Mandat and so this Plea was allowed in the very Instance which he thinks to be on his Side How idle is his note on the Margin of p. 24. against Mr. Petyt Against Mr. Petyt c. p. 19. Can any man forfeit his Lands to a Stranger a Conquerour that could not pretend Title but by Violence and Conquest As if a Conquerour could not make what he pleas'd a Forfeiture and were not the more likely to use Rigor for being a Stranger having no Tyes of Familiarity or Blood besides will not a Conquerour pretending an Hereditary Right make them who oppos'd it forfeit And it shall be taken for just too by them who acknowledge his Title No● is there more to favour his Fancy that King William by giving away the Lands of Great men nay whole Counties or the Government of them thereby defeated the Inheritance or lesser Rights of those who held under them As if for the purpose the King should grant away the Estate of the Lord Stafford which if any were left in him after any Settlement was really forfeited thereby all that had Leases under him or any other Interest were wholly divested which were to make the Attaindure to reach farther than the Blood SECT 6. BUT because our Author is a very sagacious Person for Informations sake I am bold to ask him some Questions occasioned by Domesday-book In Andover Hundred Sorry Rex tenet in dominico Cladford de feudo Rogeri Comitis If this had been the King 's own Feud 't would have been Rex habet de feudo ●uo as we find Robert de Statford had thirteen houses De honore Comitum de feudo suo Wherefore Quere whether all the Lands of the Kingdom were held mediately or immediately of the Crown What thinks he of Est de regno Angliae ●on subjacet alicui Hundredo neque est in consuetudine ullâ So in Surrey Non ad●acet alicui Manerio or as elsewhere Fuit posita extra Manerium or such an one is commendatus homo to another Glos. tit commendare who if we believe Sir Henry Spelman ●wore no Fealty and held not by any kind of Tenure What of Nunquam geldavit or geldum dedit nec hidata fuit or distributa per Hidas What of potuit ire cum terrâ quo voluit ●otuit se vertere ad alium Dominum Which I should think argued Freedom from the Feudal Law

of the Rent of Serjanties assest by Robert Passelewe you do not distrain Jacob de Archaungere for two Marks and an half for the Tenement which he holds of us by Serjanty in Archamgere in the County of Southampton by the Charter of the Blessed King Edward to the Ancestors of this Jacob but for ever free the said Jacob from the foresaid two Marks and an half because we have confirmed the Charter of the forenamed St. Edward and will have it inviolably observed Here is an inspeximus in effect of the Confessor's Charter and the Confirmation lies in the Judgment that this was that King's Charter Whether the Serjanty here mention'd were the greater In Kenulph the Mercian King's Charter a discharge of all Services but the Expedition of 12 men with Shields Burg●ote c. White 's Sacred Law p. 149. which was Military Tenure for such there was before William's Entrance Mr. Selden indeed opposes this and contends that what lay upon Lands then was no Tenure from any Reservation but onely what the Law of the Kingdom had made incident to all Lands Yet I see not how that will solve a special Reservation of a certain number of men Or whether the Serjanty were the Little or Petit Serjanty is not within our Dispute because either way here is sufficient Evidence that there was a Property left in the English notwithstanding the Clamour of a Conquest And that we did not receive our Tenures Against Petit. p. 31. and the manner of holding our Estates in every respect from Normandy brought in by the Conquerour For this man held in the same manner as his Ancestors did in the time of St. Edward And with this agree good Authors Gulielm Pictaviensis p. 208. Nulli Gallo datum quod Anglo cuiquam injuste fuerit ablatum There was not given to any French-man what was unjustly taken from any English-man Now this was a Poictovin Against Petyt p. 35. many of which came in with Duke William and is more to be credited in this matter than the English Monks who since he reduc'd the Bishopricks and great Abbies to Baronies thought this Injury done to the Church as they took it was no way to be accounted for unless he were represented as taking from the Laity their Property which they thought a much lower instance of his Power than giving this Law to the Clergy God's special Lot and Portion But on the other side this Poictovin was more likely for the Glory of William's and his Country-mens Arms to represent them as great as might be in the number of their Slaves and to have a whole Nation of them is doubtless a glorious thing in the Doctor 's eye And with this Poictovin may be joyned honest Knighton Knighton p. 2343. lib. 2. cap. 2. who sayes Quidam possessiones habentes de dicto Willielmo seu ab aliis Dominis quidam vero ex emptione habentes sive in Officiis sub spe habendi remanserunt There were some who had Possessions of the said William but some who had them by Purchase or else who remain'd in Offices under the hope of having some as their Offices might enable them to purchase Here some of the Normans were forc'd to purchase otherwise they had gone without Possessions And this must have been of the English otherwise they would have divided the Land amongst themselves with their Prince's consent and need not have made other payment than the Venture of their Lives CHAP. V. The Socmen enjoyed Estates of Titles prior to the suppos'd Conquest BUT besides the uncontroulable Authority of Domesday-book and the Testimony of Authors well back'd with a plain Record with the Doctor 's good leave I shall add another Argument to prove the continuance of the English Rights or that William govern'd not as a Conquerour He may know that there were such men as Sokemanni whose Lands were partible and who held not by Knights Service Whereas King William granted out the whole Kingdom as the Doctor fondly imagines by Knights Service and the Lands of such Tenants descended to the eldest Son wherefore the Sokemanni must needs enjoy their Estates upon Titles prior to King William's not deriving under his Grant since their Lands to obtain that Tenure must have been anciently divided before the time of H. 2. But Gla●vil lib. 7. cap. 2. infra if there were any Evidence to the contrary there could have been no Prescription to the Tenure And surely if it was no ancienter than King William's Title the Evidences of the contrary could not be lost Suppose Lands holden in Free-socage were forfeited to the King in which Case Lambert's Peramb of Kent Mr. Lambert yields that the Tenure may be alter'd and he granted it out to hold by Knights Service how could a Custom prevail to alter this Tenure contrary to the very Grant If they could produce their Deeds they shew'd themselves to be Tenants by Knights Service And there were so many Sockemanni even in one County that of Kent that though some Grantees might lose their Deeds yet not so many as there were distinct Estates in Socage For Proof of the Premisses to my Conclusion 1. That there were Sokemanni before William nay that for the most part at least Land-owners were such appears from St. Edward's Law This obliged all men to bear Arms Leges Sancti Edwardi de Heretochiis habeant Haeredes ejus pecuniam terram ejus sine aliquâ diminutione rectè divident inter se. proportionably to their real or personal Estate which last together with the Land of him that dyed in the Wars was to be divided among his Heirs And surely the Law does not suppose that they must always be female Heirs Such as dy'd in the Wars who were Tenants by Knights Service according to our Authors Sense of Qui militare servitium debebant were Sokemanni holding in free Socage Glanvil lib. 7. cap. 2. as Glanvil explains it Si fuerit liber Sokemannus tunc quidem dividetur haereditas inter omnes filios quotquot sunt per partes equales si fuerit Socagium id antiquitus divisum If a man be a free Sokeman then indeed his Inheritance shall be divided amongst all the Sons if it be Socage and that anciently divided It was not improper to say if it be Socage because a Sokeman in respect of some Lands might have others not held in free Socage This is sufficient Evidence that such there were after the Noise of Conquest and that the Lands were to be anciently divided 2. The Estates deriv'd from the Conquest Glos. Tit. Parl. Terram totam ita disposuit ut suum quisque patrimonium de Rege teneret in Capite were according to our bulky Author held by Knights Service Nay the second part of the Glossary which the Dr. invidiously imputes to Sir Henry Spelman tells us that though William was no Conquerour yet he divided out and disposed of all the Land to his great

Confessor whereas on the other side were Villeins vilis plebs and praepositi Bailiffs all which may be Normans if he please Farther when ten Tithings of Fre●pledges made an Hundred to suppose that these were not Hundredors legal men there Glos. p. 31. but the Knights who were not bound with Sureties to their good Behaviours is as silly as to say two times two do's not make four 2. His Notion is dangerous and that according to that Improvement of it for the sake of which 't was broach'd But of these Tenants in Capite Against Jani c. p. 13. ' t is highly probable if not without doubt that the two Knights were at first chosen by the other Tenants in Capite in every County to represent them And the Reason given for this is That the Elections were to be made in the County Court by the Suitors Against Mr. Petyt p. 42. and this he imagines to have continued in such Tenants till the 8th of H. 6. c. 7. by which any man that had 40 s. per annum 8 H. 6. c. 7. of any Tenure was permitted to be an Elector Whereas to any one but him 't will be obvious upon reading the Statute that it is restrictive of that Power which before was in men of lesser Estates but is very far from giving any new power Whereas the Elections of Knights of Shires to come to the Parliaments of our Lord the King in many Counties of th● Realm of England have now of late been made by very great and outragious and excessive number of People dwelling within the same Counties of the Realm of England of the which most part was of People of small Substance and of no value whereof every of them pretended a Voice equivalent as to such Elections to be made with the most worthy Knights and Esquires within the same Counties whereby Manslaughter Riots Batteries and Divisions among the Gentlemen and other people of the same Counties shall very likely rise and be therefore 't is provided that the Choice shall be in every County by People dwelling and resident in the same Counties whereof every one of them shall have Land or Tenement to the value of 40 s. by Year above all Charges c. Here is manifestly an Exclusion of some former Electors but no new ones created wherefore the unforc'd Consequence is that all Lands being now held in Free or common Socage and there being no time for Prescription or any new Law impowring such to chuse their Representatives this great Preservative of the Rights and Liberties of the Subject is defunct and I dare say 't is neither within his Art or his Will to recover it Yet though he would smother it I doubt not to find it alive amongst his Nobles for whatsoever made a man Noble Against Jan. c. p. 91. secured this Priviledge to him But Ingenuity made a man noble therefore every Ingenuus was always of Right an Elector for the Great Councils or present at them That Ingenuus and liber homo were the same I take it is evident from Bracton Bracton lib. 1. c. 10. who makes the 〈◊〉 Division of persons to be into the Liberi Freemen or else Servants of such as are sui juris who have that Liberty ib. cap. 5. p. 4. which he says is of the Law of Nature or such as are under others whose Liberty is obfuscata darkened or beclouded by the Law of Nations These are but different Expressions of the same thing ib. under the first are the Nobles in a strict sense as of an higher Order such were the Majores Barones and the Ingenui sive Liberi nay the Libertini too Bracton such as were manumitted and restored to their natural Liberty under the other were Servants Villains or others The learned Cluverius in his Description of Germany Cluver Germ. Antiq f. 121. cap. 15. Nobilium Ingenuorum Libertorum cui admixtus Libertin●rum from whence we derived our Distinctions makes three Orders under the first Division But all Free-men of either Order were Ingenui with Bracton who takes no difference here And if we believe our Author 's ipse dixit all ingenui were Nobles Quod erat demonstrandum 'T will be hard if amongst these Ingenui Against Jani c. p. 42. we do find prodes homes too but our Author has seen it written prudes homes though he cannot call to mind the Record And truly we have no great Reason to trust his Memory since 't is so treacherous to expose him by frequent and palpable Contradictions Well Prudes homes they were Ay that they were that came to the Great Councils such as were the Wits in the Saxon Gemotes but if to the Folkmote there came to be sure all the Frank-pledges then they were Noble Wits and so vous avez Against Petyt p. 21. the liberi homines prodes homes prudes homes and Wites or Sapientes But upon second Thoughts the Communitas populi were the Community of the Barons only Against Petyt p. 129. together with the Alios the Milites who held by Military Service of the great Barons and the lesser Tenants in Capite And for this there is Demonstration Ib. p. 56. in that the Meaning of Populus i● to be taken as contradistinct from Clarus and then it signifies no more tha● Laity it doth not denote a distinct State or Order amongst secular men or Laies but an Order and State of men Ib. p. 57. distinct from the Ecclesiasticks or the Clergy This by no means is meant of the inferiour sort of People But good Mr. Interpreter if Clerus signifies inferiour Clergy as well as the Superiour nay is most commonly appropriated to the inferiour what becomes of your profound Observation and of all your Presidents And how comes it to pass that even the poor Mass Priests were anciently called Mass Thegnes Possibly no man has a better Faculty than this Gentleman of facing out clear Proof which he often brings against himself An. 1244. 28 H. 3. Against Mr. Petyt p. 162. Thus he tells us The great men of the whole Kingdom the Arch-bishops Abbots Priors Earls and Barons were called together in which Council the King by his own Mouth in the Presence of the great men in the Refectory at Westminster desired a pecuniary Aid to whom it was answered that they would treat about that matter And the great men retiring out of the Refectory the Arch-bishops Bishops Abbots and Priors met and treated by themselves At length the Earls and Barons were asked The Dr. omits engli●●●ng ex parte eorum either not understanding it or because it manifestly destroys his Whimsey p. 17. if they would unanimously consent to the Resolutions they had taken in answering and making provision for what had been demanded of them Who answered that without the Common Vniversity Commun● universitate rather the University of the Commons they would do nothing

is positive that Tenants in Military Service were the only Free-men and the only legal men Thus I have done right to his Omissions So Against Jani p. 36. passing by nothing which has not received justice before and shall add some confirmations of what I have taken leave to assert in other places I had affirmed for one reason why the Doctor could have small assistance from Domesday Book p. 78. that the Titles whereby men enjoy'd their Estates are seldom mentioned there And if I find by Record a whole County in the Doctors sense that is all the Lands of the County enjoy'd by descent from before the imaginary Conquest What will he say in justification of his whymsies upon the Conquest and the authority he would fetch for it from Domesday Book He may please to consider and give 〈◊〉 Categorical Answer to this memo●able Record IN placito inter Regem priorem Ecclesiae de Coventre de annua pensione 〈◊〉 Clericorum Regis Placita coram Rege● Hill Anno 14 R. 2. Rot. 50● warw ratione nove creationis ejusdem prioris quousque c. prior venit defendit vim injuriam quicquid est in contemptu domini Regis c. non cognovit Ecclesiam suam beatae Mariae de Coventre fore Ecclesiam Cathedralem nec ipsum priorem tenere aliquid de domino Rege per Baroniam prout ●ro domino Rege in narratione sua pro●onitur Et dicit quod tenet prioratum praedictum ex fundatione cujusdam Leo●●ici quondam Comitis Cestriae qui prio●atum praedictum fundavit tempore sancti Edwardi dudum Regis Angliae progenitoris domini Regis nunc per Cartam suam in haec verba Anno dominice incarnationis 1043. Ego Leofricus Comes Cestriae Consilio ●ssensu Regis qui literas suas infrascriptas sub sigillo misit testimonio aliorum religiosorum virorum tam laicorum quam Clericorum Ecclesiam Coventre dedicari ●eci in honore dei Ecclesiae sanctae Mariae genitricis ejus sancti Petri Apostoli sancte Osburge Virginis omnium sanctorum Has igitur viginti quatuor villas eidem Ecclesiae attribui ad servitium dei ad victum vestitum Abbatis Monachorum in eodem loco deo servientium videlicet Honiton Newenham Chaldeleshunt Iche●ton Vlston Soucham Grenesburgh Burthenburgh Mersten juxta Avonam Hardewick Wasperton Creastorton Sotham Rugton dimidium Sowe Merston in Gloucestriae provincia Salewarpe in Wigorniensi Eton juxta amnem qui dicitur dee in Cestriae provincia Keldesbye Windwyk in Hamptoniensi provincia Borbach Barewell Scrapstofte Pakinton Potteres Merston in Leycestrensi provincia H●s autem terras dedi huic Monasterio cum Soca Saca cum telonio theme cum libertatibus omnibus consuetudinibus vbique Sicut a Rege Edwardo melius unquam tenui Cum hiis omnibus Rex Edwardus ego libertates huic Monasterio dedimus ita ut Abbas ejusdem loci Soli Regi Angliae sit Subjectus Ibidem recitatur Charta ejusdem Regis Edwardi quas donationes concessiones diversi alii Reges confirmaverunt dicit quod postea per processum temporis ●●men Abbatiae praedictae divertebatur in nomen prioratus eo quod Leofwinus ad tunc ibidem creatus fuit in Episcopum Cestriae ordinavit per assensum Monachorum ibidem quod Abbatia praedicta ex tunc foret prioratus quod Superiores ejusdem Ecclesiae forent priores successive in perpetuum dicit quod de ipso Leofrico quia obiit sine herede de corpore suo descendente advocatio Ecclesie predicte tempore Willielm ' Conquest ' Angliae cuidam Hugoni Comiti Cestriae ut Consanguineo heredi ipsius Leofrici Na. this is the Hugh to whom he imagines that William gave all the Lands of the County of Chester viz. Filio Erminelde sororis ejusdem Leofrici de ipso Hugone cuidam Ricardo ut filio heredi de ipso Ricardo cuidam Ranulpho ut Consanguineo heredi viz. filio Matildis sororis praedicti Hugonis de ipso Ranulpho cuidam Ranulpho ut filio heredi de ipso Ranulpho filio Ranulphi quia obiit sine herede de corpore suo descendente advocatio praedicta simul cum Comitatu Cestre Huntingdon aliis diversis Castris Maneriis terris tenementis cum pertinentis in Anglia Wallia quibusdam Matildae Mabilliae Ceciliae Margeriae ut sororibus heredibus predicti Ranulphi inter quas propertia facta fuit de predictis Comitatibus advocationibus Castris Maneriis terris tenementis cum pertinentiis supradictis Et predicta advocatio Simul cum toto predicto Comitatu Cestriae cum pertinentiis allocata fuit predicte Matilde pro proparte sua in allocationem diversorum aliorum Castrorum Maneriorum terrarum tenementorum cum pertinentiis praedictis Mabilliae Ceciliae Margeriae seperatim allocatorum de ipsa Matilda descendebant predicta advocatio simul cum praedicto Comitatu Cestriae cum pertinentiis post propertiam predictam cuidam Johanni Scot ut filio heredi praedictae Matildae Qui quidem Johannes Scot advocationem praedictam simul cum praedicto Comitatu Cestriae cum pertinentiis dedit Henrico quondam Regi Angliae filio Regis Johannis heredibus suis in perpetuum c. praedictus prior sine die This was a Judgment upon solemn Debate and Tryal and it cannot be believed but the Judges and Kings Council so many hundred years ago knew as much of the right of the Conquest as our Doctor can discover 'T will be said notwithstanding this Record that Hugh had the Confirmation of his Kinsman the Conqueror Admit he had he being his Kinsman would either thereby wheedle others in to the like acknowledgment of Williams power Or else having the Government of the County would do this in complement to the supream Governour But that such Confirmation as to the Lands he had there and all appendants or appurtenances to them was wholly neeedless appears in that the Title is laid only in descent nor does it in the least appear that William either granted or confirm'd more than the Comitatus Government or Jurisdiction of it or that more than that was held by the Sword which the Doctor makes Tenure in Capite Let him shew how by what manner of tenure his Land was held Not being aware that so great an Author as the Doctor would have condemn'd for precarious Against Jani c. p. 89. all that I think I have prov'd from the Records and Histories which I cite for the foundation of my former Essay Jani c. p. 264. viz. that till the 48. and 49th H. 3. all Proprietors of Land came to the Great Council without exclusion ib. p. 264. I had asserted that the probi homines or bonae conversationis came to the Great Councils which in