Selected quad for the lemma: land_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
land_n	husband_n	wife_n	writ_n	1,307	5	9.8893	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

I guilty of the like offence as he saith I am Shew me if he can where I go about any such a distinction as he here mentioneth or say marriage is two-fold and then give the members of my distinction so absurdly as he there hath done I wonder he is so disingenious either to deny the one or affirm the other See his Answer to my Addenda pag. 7. and my former Reply thereunto pag. 20 21. I appeal to all Readers and yet in the 19th pag. of this Answer to my two books he tells us it is the want of my understanding which causeth me to blame him for what he there so saith and then runs on in a long harangue to no purpose telling us that maritagium Servitio obnoxium is the Elder Brother c. Pag. 24. Of his Answer to my two Books Here he saith that I indeed do tell him that those Mannors Budiford Suttehele were given to the said Lewellyn in libero maritagio But the Deed lately belonging to Somerford Oldfield Esquire doth prove no such thing but doth only prove that the said Lewellyn did mistake himself and did think that they were given him in free-marriage when they were not so given My Reply Oh fine a pretty Answer indeed for though in the Deed it be said Sicut Dominus Johannes Rex ea illi dedit in libero maritagio yet here saith Sir Thomas Lewellyn mistakes himself and thought it was so given when it was not it is not in the Deed mihi dedit but illi dedit and by consequence could not be mistaken by Lewellyn only if it were mistaken but by all others also then present and especially by the Writer of the said Deed But whether was Lewellyn and the Clerk that made the Deed and all others then present more like to know the truth hereof then Sir Thomas now living 450. years after that Deed made Every man may see the weakness of this Answer Sure this may stand for a Trip with a derry-down but he hath so many of them that I shall forget to count them all Ere while pag. 3. when I am put hard to it saith he then I say the Roll is mis-writ Very well but here he denys the very words of the Deed and avers against a Record and yet gives no reason for it neither What follows pag. 26 27 28 29. are all tedious things according to his custom and little or nothing to the point But pag. 26. and in other places else-where when any thing is said by him either not true or not to the point then it is my ignorance that runs me upon mistakes that I cannot fathom what he or the Lawyers do say 1. He saith pag. 26. that if a man have Land given in free marriage with a Wife he hath only Custodiam terrae cum uxore and therefore cannot dispose of those Lands to any Person from the right Heir 2. So pag. 28 29. he tell us that the Writ for the Livery of Budiford to Lewellyn runs in these words quod Johannes Rex ei dedit in maritagium cum Johanna c. and saith he Livery would be needless in a gift of free-marriage and therefore concludes it must be only in maritagio given not in libero maritagio and so Lewellyn's Deed to John Scot is mistaken and be it what it will it will work nothing in this case My Reply 1. To the first For what he saith that according to the ancient Lawyers in those elder Ages that Lands given with a Wife in free-marriage to a man the Husband hath only the custody of such Lands with his Wife and therefore cannot dispose of any of those Lands to any person from the right Heir by such a Wife Yet we see here that Lewellyn did grant away de facto to John the Scot Budiford in free-marriage with Helen his Daughter about 1222. which Lands King John gave unto him in free-marriage with Joan his Daughter Mother of the said Helen by what right we cannot now tell whether by the consent of the right Heir by Joan or other compensation else-where given but certainly it was so given and Helen was right Heir to her Mother Joan after the death of David her Brother without Issue 2. To the second As to the Writ of Livery concerning Budiford running only in maritagium it hinders nothing but that the grant to Lewellyn of Budiford might be in libero maritagio as we see that of the Castle of Ellesmere granted also to Lewellyn by King John with his said Daughter Joan in libero maritagio by express words See the Deed at large in my Advertisement to the Reader at the end of my Book stiled Sir Thomas Manwarings Law-Cases Mistaken and yet the Livery of Ellesmere saith only quod dedimus dilecto filio nostro Lewelino in maritagio filiae nostrae See Sir Thomas Manwarings Answer to my Addenda pag. 6. Now maritagio doth as well include free marriage as not free-marriage according as the Deed runneth Pag. 30. Of his Answer to my two Books Here he saith he thinks he can make good what he said of my Partiality which yet he will not speak publickly and that I will not be excused by that contradiction of mine to wit That admit I were never so much partial in what he chargeth me with yet I hope what I have written he finds it impartial to all so far as I go or know would this cure his uncivil expressions towards me in another thing but he leaves out these last words of mine My Reply Let him find out a contradiction here if he can but all his shifts and cavils cannot prevail to cover the truth concerning Amicia and which with all his art he cannot solidly refute So having done with this Trip I proceed to the rest Pag. 32 33. Of his Answer to my two Books Now he would fain justifie a former error of his and shews me a Deed out of my own Book pag. 143. from which Book he fetcheth many things but nothing will help his cause In which Deed Randal Duke of Brittain Earl of Chester granted to Andrew Son of Mabil to his Heirs sundry liberties c. among which it is there said nec de querelâ aliquiâ in civitate Cestriae vel extrâ respondeant in praesentiâ meâ vel summi Justitiae mei * upon which he puts in the Margent a special mark thus * Note and after he saith Now let any Person judge whether there was not a chief Justice of Chester in those Elder Ages But before pag. 32. he tells us most learnedly that the word Justitia here is of the Masculine Gender and gives us a rule out of the Grammer for it Mascula nomina in a dicuntur multa Virorum and was sometimes in those Elder Ages used for the Judge or Justice of Chester which he believes I cannot deny My Reply No indeed I cannot deny it but why used for the Judge or Justice of Chester more than

dat cum aliquâ muliere alicui in maritagium ità quod ab omni Servitio terra illa sit quieta à se haeredibus suis versus capitalem Dominum acquietanda And Bracton expresly lib. 2. cap. 7. Quoniam terra data Bastado in maritagium sicut aliis vel Bastardo per se in se tacitam habet Conditionem vel expressam de reversione c. See also Sir Thomas Manwaring's Law-Cases mistaken pag. 10 11. So that Lands might be given in Free-Marriage to any man with any woman whomsoever without any exception and if with any woman whomsoever then certainly with a Bastard and Bracton more expresly that Lands might then be given to a Bastard in Marriage neither are Bastards any where disallowed by the Law either in Glanvil or Bracton for having Lands given in Free-marriage 2. That the Law was so taken in the time of King John and upwards appeareth by sundry Precedents of those elder Ages whereby Lands were given in Free-marriage with Bastards See one in my Book of Antiquities pag. 112. wherein Randle Earl of Chester Sir-named de Gernouns gave unto Geva Ridel Daughter of Earl Hugh that was Hugh Lupus Drayton in Free-marriage with the Appurtenances even as Earl Hugh gave the same unto her in Free-marrige This Deed was made about the end of Hen. I. or King Stephen And that Geva was a Bastard Ordericus an Historian of good Credit and Contemporary with Geva plainly shews for lib. 4. Ecclesiasticae Historia pag. 522. He tells us that Hugh Lupus had many Bastard-Sons Bastard-Daughters yet nameth none of them in particular è Pellicibus plurimam Sobolem utriusque sexûs genuit quae diversis infortunijs absorpta penè tota periit Exmentrudem filiam Hugonis de Claromonte Beluacensi uxorem duxit ex quâ Ricardum Cestrensis comitatûs haeredem genuit qui jnvenis liberisque Carens naufragio periit So that having given an account of his Wife and his Son by her who dyed young and without Children he would certainly have given an Account of his other Children by his Wife if he had had any other by her but ●o put it out of all doubt he tells us afterwards lib. 10. Eccles Hist pag. 787. Ricardus Pulcherrimus puer quem solum ex Ermentrude filiâ Hugonis de Claromonte genuit Consulatum Cestriae Scilicet tenuit so that Earl Hugh only begot Richard on Ermentrude his Wife then by sure consequence out of his words it must needs follow that Geva was was one of the Earl's Bastards she being no Child by Ermentrude his Wife which is clearly proved without a point of Law and cannot by any point of Law be taken off Again if Geva had been a Lawful Daughter by Ermentrude then she would have been sole Heir to her Brother Richard and ought to have had the Earldom of Chester which she never had nor ever claimed See this more fully in my Answer to the Defence of Amicia pag. 35. to pag. 40. and if and shall run to the old Subtersuge and say she might be his Daughter by a former Wife let him prove it and take it and she could be no Daughter by a latter Wife because Ermentrudo survived Earl Hugh her Husband See my Historical Antiquities pag. 114. Other two Precedents we have of Lands granted in Free-marriage with Joan Bastard-Daughter of King John 1. One wherein King John granted to Lewellyn Prince of North-wales in Marriage with Joan his Daughter the Castel of Ellesmere in Shropshire Tenendum ei haeredibus suis qui de eo praedictâ filiâ nostrâ exierint de nobis haeredibus nostris in liberum maritagium Salvis conventionibus inter nos ipsum de terrâ eodem maritagio factis c. Dated Anno Sexto Johannis Regis 1204. See the Deed at large in the Advertisement to the Reader at the end of my book stiled Sir Thomas Manwaring's Law-Cases mistaken pag. 53. transcribed from the Record in the Tower of London 2. Another see in my book of Antiquities pag. 152. wherein it is Covenanted that John the Scot Nephew of Randle Earl of Chester and Lincoln by his eldest Sister shall Marry Helen Daughter of Lewellyn Prince of North-wales and that the said Lewellyn shall give to the said John in Free-Marriage all the Mannor of Budford in Warwick-shire and the Mannor of Suttehele in Worcester shire cum omnibus Pertinentiis sicut Dominus Johannes Rex ea illi dedit in libero maritagio c. This Deed was made about 6. Hen. 3. Anno Christi 1222. Now that the said Joan was a Bastard-Daughter of King John take these several Authorities Vincent upon Brook pag. 204. Speeds History p. 518. Stow's Annalls Augmented by Howes pag. 167 168. Polychronicon Translated into English by Trevisa lib. 7. cap. 33. Cambdens Brittannia in Shropshire pag. 453. also Daniel and Fabian and Milles Catalogue of Honour and Sir Richard Baker's History who do all call her base Daughter of King John and no Author at all calls her Lawful Daughter or reckoneth her among the Daughters by any of his Wives some of them say she was begot by King John on Agatha de Ferrars And therefore these Deeds and Charters which concerned so great Persons whom we cannot suppose to be without Learned Councel about them are clear Precedents showing how the Law was then taken and were good Deeds conveying the Lands with Bastards in Free-marriage in those Ages which Lands were quietly enjoyed accordingly and nothing can be said against them Many other Precedents of like nature in those ancient Ages might without doubt upon diligent search and enquiry be found out For as much then as it appears by the words of Glanvil that Lands might then be given with any Woman whomsoever in Free-marriage and no Bastards then excepted or disallowed by the Law either in Glanvil or Bracton and that clear Precedents of those elder Ages do prove and show that Lands did then usually pass in Free-marriage as well with Bastards as Lawful Daughters and that all Deeds by the rule of Law are to be construed and understood according to the time when they were made How can a Deed of Services given in libero maritagio in the Reign of Henry the Second with one justly suspected to be a Bastard be a sure Argument or any Argument at all to prove her Legitimate Wherefore it is very evident that in those elder Ages as the Law was then taken in the Reign of King John and upwards Lands lawfully might usually did pass in libero maritagio with Bastards as well as with no Bastards howbeit at this day our Law will not permit the same FINIS ERRATA PAge 7 line 16 〈◊〉 deseased for diseased p. 8 l. 12 you for he p 14 l. 10 Index for Judex p. 14 l. 19. The to be expunged p. 15 l. 9 Doterium for Dotarium p. 30 l. 1 Cupitalis for Capita●is p. 48. last line man for men p. 40 l. 22 23. this this expunge the one of them p. 58 l. 19 20. man man expunge the one of them p. 42 mispaged for 59 p. 76. in the margent Seaccarium for Seaccarium