Selected quad for the lemma: land_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
land_n	king_n	prince_n	wales_n	1,928	5	10.3133	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A51526	An answer to two books the first being stiled a reply to Sir Thomas Mainwaring's book, entituled, An answer to Sir Peter Leicester's Addenda, the other stiled Sir Thomas Mainwaring's law-cases mistaken / written ... Sir T.M.	Mainwaring, Thomas, Sir, 1623-1689.	1675 (1675)	Wing M299; ESTC R21694	25,559	69

AN ANSWER TO Two Books The first being stiled A REPLY TO Sir Thomas Mainwaring's Book ENTITULED AN ANSWER TO Sir Peter Leicester's Addenda The other stiled Sir Thomas Mainwaring's LAW-CASES MISTAKEN Written by the said Sir T. M. LONDON Printed for Sam Lowndes over against Exeter House in the Strand M. DC.I.XXV TO THE READER Courteous Reader VPon Saturday the 12th of December last I received from Sir Peter Leycester a Book or Books thus called viz. Two Books The first being stiled A Reply to Sir Thomas Mainwaring's Book Entituled An Answer to Sir Peter Leycester's Addenda The other stiled Sir Thomas Mainwaring's Law-cases Mistaken And although the one of these was dated the 14th day of April 1674. And the other the first day of May following yet they came not out in Print till Michaelmas Term in the same year When I had perused the said Books I found the latter to be the same in effect with the former and scarce met with any thing in either which he had not had in some of his Books before and had been formerly answered so that it was much more difficult to find out any new Matter than to give an Answer to the same I believe the Reader when he remembers how Sir Peter in his Answer to my Defence of Amicia did declare That he had taken leave for ever of this Trivial Controversie will very much wonder to find him in Print twice since then upon the same Subject But for that he supposeth he hath a good Excuse For he tells us in his Epistle to the Reader before the first of his two Books That although his resolution then was viz. when he writ his Answer to my Defence of Amicia 1673. to have writ no more about it especially if I had let him alone yet now contrary to his former intention he is necessitated thereunto in his own defence for the removal of those unjust obloquies which are since cast upon him Whereas his Servant Mr. Thomas Jackson in a Letter writen as he says by the Command of his Master did signifie to me that his Master would write again and this before I had printed one word of my Reply so that if we find him thus stumbling at the first it is well if we do not take him oft tripping before he comes to his journies end And for his writing again this second time he hath an excellent Reason For he says pag. 16. I have published another Book since and have therein taxed him already for not being just to his word so that he cannot now incur a greater Censure from me herein though he alter his former resolution and intention and write in his own defence so long as he shall henceforth judge it necessary so that he is resolved to give me just cause to censure him if he had not done so before He also endeavors to apply to me that saying of the angry Man in the Comedy which he mentions in his said Epistle but yet he is conscious I will say as much of him and his Reply and thereupon submits it to the Reader in which I shall willingly close with him and especially if it be a Reader who is well acquainted with his temper and mine But it is high time to leave the Epistle and to proceed to give an Answer to his said Books AN ANSWER TO Sir Peter Leycester's TWO BOOKS c. I Doubt not but the Judicious Reader hath long since observed what strange kind of Arguments Sir Peter Leycester doth insist upon both in these last and in all other his former Books For with all the confidence imaginable he several times affirms that Mr. Glanvil says That Lands might be given with any Woman in Liberum Maritagium whereas he only says That they may be given cum qualibet muliere in Maritagium as you may see in the 39 40 and 41 pages of my Reply where Mr. Glanvil's words are expresly set down He also says That he hath proved Geva to be a Bastard out of an Historian Contemporary by which Ordericus Vitalis is meant and yet the said Ordericus hath said no such thing He also affirms That the Common Law is now alter'd other ways than by Act of Parliament without quoting any Author for what he says although the Common Law hath always been the same and as my Lord Coke upon Littleton fol. 115. b. says Hath no Controuler in any part of it but the High Court of Parliament and if it be not abrogated or alter'd by Parliament it remains still And whereas my Lord Coke doth also in the same Book fol 21. b. tell us That these words in liberum maritagium are such words of Art and so necessarily required as they cannot be expressed by words equipollent or amounting to as much He for all this brags of several Precedents where Lands were given in free Marriage with Bastards and yet proves not that those necessary words in Liberum Maritagium were used in the granting of any of those Lands or that any of those persons with whom the said Lands were given were Bastards To conclude he tells you That Lhewellin Prince of north-North-Wales was divorced from his Wife Joane the Daughter of King John and for this he can neither shew any Author or Record but only doth dream of such a thing himself and yet you must believe him in all these particulars or else as you may see in the first page of his Reply to my Answer to his Addenda he will tell you you do withstand the plainest truth of History and Reason produced He also hath a fine way of answering For if he be pressed overmuch with any point of Law he will tell you of his own authority that the Law in such particulars hath been clearly alter'd though he cannot tell how or at what time it was so changed If it be a Record that puts him too hard to it then he conceives the Roll from whence the Deed is written is mistaken in such and such words and miswrit therein from the Original Chart it self And if out of any History you tell him of any thing which he cannot answer then he will not suffer the words to be read as they ought to be printed but he will fancy such expressions as will best suit with his turn and will also disparage the said History although in those matters he had formerly said he did chiefly follow the same He doth also to amuse those Readers that are of weak understanding tell them of Circumquaques of bits of Law pieces of Law brought in by the head and shoulders fragments of Law parcels of Law and in his two last Books tells me of my impertinencies of my being impertinent and of my speaking impertinently if one who sayes he hath counted do not mistake himself no less than Thirty times with several other expressions too ridiculous to repeat here He also to keep up his credit with the more simple sort of People doth offer to join issue with me upon

servitio obnoxium so that Maritagium the Genus comprehends the Members and both opposite one to another as either free marriage or not free marriage let Sir Peter therefore answer this his own Argument as he thinks fit As to what he pretends in the 22 23 and 24 pages I did not say that the Gift of Ellesmere to Lhewellin was but an Estate for Life it being said in the Precept to make Livery to be an Estate in maritagio though not in libero maritagio and to make Livery thereof would have been needless if it had been a Gift in free marriage Neither is Joane his Wife proved to be a Bastard so that that Precedent is out of doors but I did give some Reasons why that Precedent would have stood him in no stead if she had been a Bastard and that a Gift in free marriage and could yet say more in that particular if occasion did require but that not being the Case I will forbear to say any more concerning the same In his 24 page and so on to the 42 besides some mistakes of his which because they are not material to the point I will not here take notice of he spends a great deal of time in proving that Hellen the Wife of John Scot was the Daughter of Lhewellin by his Wife Joane Daughter of King John whereas he did clearly prove the same in his 28 and 29 pages in very few words and the same doth also appear by a Record hereafter mentioned which very lately came to my knowledge but yet for all that this Precedent will do him no good as well because the said Joane is not proved to be a Bastard as also because Budeford and Suttehale were not given to the said Lhewellin in libero maritagio as will anon appear Sir Peter doth indeed tell us that those Mannon were given in libero maritagio to the said Lhewellin but the Deed lately belonging to Somerfield Oldfeld Esq doth prove no such thing but doth only prove that the said Lhewellin did mistake himself and think that they were given him in free marriage when they were not so given I therefore believing Sir Peter that those Mannors were given in free marriage to Lhewellin when they were not and perceiving Lhewellin to say that King John had given them to him but not telling with whom and knowing as appears in the 13 14 15 and 16 pages of my Answer to his Addenda if they were given to him in frank marriage with his Wife Joane the Daughter of the said King that the said Lhewellin had not power to dispose of them from his Son David who was his right Heir could not find out any other way to reconcile every thing in this particular but by supposing that Lhewellin had a former Wife who was a Kinswoman to King John with whom those Lands were given and by whom he had his Daughter Hellen And what I said was by way of consequence for I relied only upon my fourth Argument as appears in the said 13 page and brought the other three but as concurrent And what I there believed might very well have been true for Sir Peter proves that Lhewellin had a former Wife and if his words had been true in saying that those Mannors were given to the said Lhewellin with the said Joane in libero maritagio my words must necessarily have been true also for I was only mistaken in Hellens Mother by building upon that unsound foundation which Sir Peter did there lay But mark what work Sir Peter doth make of it now he hath proved Hellen to be Lhewellin's Daughter by his said Wife Joane for he in his 37 page grants all my Quotations I would I had cause to say the like by him and also grants what by those Lawyers is said in the 14 and 15 pages of my Answer to his Addenda which is a certain sign he doth not understand what they do say for by what is there said it appears that if a Man have Land given him in free marriage with a Wife he hath only custodiam cum uxore and hath not so much as an Estate for his own life until he be Tenant by the courtesie of England and by consequence he cannot dispose of those Lands to any person whatsoever from the next Heir And this ignorance of his runs him upon his mistake in the 36 and 37 pages of his latter Book wherein he says that a man would have but custodiam cum uxore although the Wife were not of the blood of the Donor whereas you may see in the 14 and 15 pages of my Answer to his Addenda that though when Lands be given with a Woman to a Man in frank marriage it is liberum tenementum uxoris non viri cum non habeat nisi custodiam cum uxore yet it is secus otherways when the Land is given in marriage pro homagio servitio viri and one reason of this difference betwixt Land given in marriage for which no service is to be done and Land given in marriage for which Homage is to be done is because in the one Case the Land may revert to the Donor but in the other Case the Land can never revert as you may find in Glanvil lib. 7. cap. 18. who after he hath told you what free marriage is hath these words Cum quis itaque terram aliquam cum uxore sua in maritagium ceperit si ex eadem uxore sua haeredem habuerit filium vel filiam clamantem auditum infra quatuor parietes si idem vir uxorem suam supervixerit sive vixerit haeres sive non illi in vita sua remanet maritagium illud post mortem vero ipsius ad donatorem vel ejus haeredes est reversurum Sin autem ex uxore sua nunquam habuerit haeredem tunc statim post mortem uxoris ad donatorem vel haeredes ejus revertetur maritagium Et haec est quaedam causa quare de maritagio tali non solet recipi homagium Si enim sic donata esset terra aliqua in maritagium vel alio modo quod inde reciperetur homagium tune nunquam de cetero ad donatorem vel ejus haeredes licite possit reverti ut supradictum est Sir Peter therefore must either confess that Lhewellin had no power to dispose of those Lands in such manner as he did and then that Precedent will be of no more force if the said Joane had been a Bastard than a Precedent would be of a Man who now should give Lands is libero maritagio to one who is not of the blood or else he must acknowledge that those Lands were given to Lhewellin but in maritagio and so he being liable to do homage for them might dispose of them as he did please And that they were given to him but in maritagio will appear as well by the making of Livery of them which is needless in a Gift in frank marriage as also