Selected quad for the lemma: land_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
land_n	knight_n	service_n	tenant_n	1,891	5	9.6943	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A48364	An ansvver to the book of Sir Thomas Manwaringe of Pever in Cheshire baronet, entituled A defence of Amicia, daughter of Hvgh Cyveliok, Earl of Chester wherein is vindicated and proved that the grounds declard in my former book, concerning the illegitimacy of Amicia, are not envinced by any solid answer or reason to the contrary / by Sir Peter Leycester ...	Leycester, Peter, Sir, 1614-1678.	1673 (1673)	Wing L1942; ESTC R10789	28,611	95

be of their Kindred and Bloud are all Reasons against the Deed that it doth not prove her legitimate Neither is the Case of Amice and the three Sons of Roger alike for there is nothing that appears against them either to prove or suspect them for Bastards as there is in the case of Amice for here is a wife of Hugh Cyveliok certainly recorded a Son and four Daughters carrying away all Earl Hugh's Lands also Earl Hugh certainly known to have sundry Bastards and Amice having no share of any of the Lands whatsoever though the Eldest Daughter of Earl Hugh legitimate by a former wife as you suppose all which carries more than a bare probability that Amice was a Bastard And therefore here is a necessity of proving a former wife which I firmly believe Earl Hugh never had And to this you say the falling of the great Estate to the Coheirs was the cause of their being taken notice of by the Historians of that Age which Inheritance say you came to them as Sisters to Randle of the whole bloud although you prove not that Earl Hugh ever had any other wife and Amice you say was of the half bloud but you prove it not And you say further that Ric. Bacun's mother was not any Child of Earl Hugh But that she was Earl Hugh's Daughter I have clearly proved before pag. 23. So that all these strong Presumptions of the Bastardy of Amicia I leave to the Reader to judge whether any thing hath been substantially said by you to evince any mans impartial judgment to the contrary or that hath at all answered my first Argument And now you come to answer my second Reason or Argument against Amicia which I framed thus Whatsoever is given in frank-marriage is given as a Portion now the release of the Service of one Knights Fee in Frank-marriage according to your Deed seems not a competent portion for a legitimate Daughter of the Earl of Chester especially for the eldest Daughter for so she must be being of the first venter which is always more worthy then the second and we find the other Daughters Married to four of the greatest Persons in England which is a strong Presumption that Amice was a Bastard methinks res ipsa loquitur Your Answer to my second Argument Pag. 64 65. To which you Answer That it will not hold for though what is given in Frank-marriage be given in consideration of a Marriage yet it cannot properly be called a Portion c. and further you say that if she had been but a Bastard yet being a Bastard of so great a Person she would have had a great deal more given her then these services But you perceive if this Deed of Earl Hughe's had been lost I would not have believed that Sir Raufe Manwaringe had had any thing with Amicia because then it would not have appeared which is a strange way of arguing about things that were done so long since And if this be a good Reason you wonder I do believe that Earl Hugh had any Portion with his Countess Bertred because for ought you yet know it doth not appear that he had Again you say to my alledging how the other four Sisters were Married that you have answered that before And though I say that if Amice had been legitimate she being of the first venter would have been more worthy then those of the second yet in this Case when there be Sisters of two Venters and the Brother be of the second Venter and the Sisters claim as Heir to their Brother then the Sisters of the Second Venter shall be preferred before those of the first Venter and then you close your Answer in telling me that you do not understand why I call this gift of Earl Hugh's as I do in two several places a Release of the service of one Knights-Fee My Reply to your Answer to my second Argument Whereunto I Reply to what is necessary to be replied unto herein first whereas you say That if she had been a Bastard yet being the Bastard of so great a Person she would have had a great deal more then those services given her it may be so what then here is no reason that we can suppose she had any more Lands neither any Money answerable to the eldest Daughter of the Earl legitimate for the other Sisters had all the Lands of Earl Hugh and we find not any more Lands bought by Earl Hugh for Amicia but you perceive that if this Deed had been lost I would not have believed that Sir Raufe Manwaringe had had any thing with Amicia which say you is a strange way of arguing about things done long since and how do you know that I should have believed that he had had nothing at all but you would have me suppose that Amicia had as much Money as any of the Co-heirs I am sure she ought to have had so had she been legitimate but I believe neither you nor I nor any other Person can imagine so And if the Deed mentioned had been utterly lost I should not then have believed that there was such a Deed for how can any man believe that which he never knew nor heard of de non Apparentibus non Existentibus eadem est ratio and though I may well suppose that Earl Hugh had a good Portion with his Wife because he was so great a Person yet neither I nor any person that knows it not can well ghess what it was And had it only appear'd by Record That Sir Raufe Manwaringe had Married the Earl of Chester's Daughter and nothing appeared what was given I should then have believed she had had a greater Portion given her then what is mentioned in your Deed but the Deed appearing and so small a Portion mentioned therein makes it more strong that Amicia was a Bastard And lastly that you may understand what I mean by calling Earl Hugh's grant a Release of the service of one Knight's Fee because the grant to Raufe Manwaringe with Amicia in Free Marriage is only the service of Gilbert Son of Roger to wit the service of three Knights Fees he and his Heirs doing to Earl Hugh and his Heirs the service of two Knights Fees so as the Earl hereby reserves to himself the other two Knights Fees as formerly but now remits the service of the third Knights Fee nor is it the grant of any Land but of services incident to Land but what all this is to the taking of the Argument proposed I leave to the Reader to Judge Thirdly And now you come to my third and last Reason which I did put as a probable concurring Reason That all the Ancient Historians of our Nation who lived in that Age and have Recorded the other Daughters and Co-heirs yet not one of them mentioning Amicia which probably one or other would have done had she been a legitimate Daughter Your Answer to the third Reason Page 67. Whereunto you say

Robert Nedham of Shenton in Shropshire which words are to be expunged there Page 315. line 5. Where it is said George Venables of Agden Esq one small Tenement Read George Venables of Agden Esq three small Tenements in Mere in possession of William Occleston Michaiah Bower and Peter Chorton Page 315. line 13. It is there said Edward Allen of Rosthorne one small Tenement in Mere Read thus Edward Allen of Rosthorne one small Tenement in Mere in possession of Henry Hunt and two parts of John Occleston's Tenement Pag. 316. line 18 19. Where it is said Geffrey Cartwright Gentleman hath lately bought the Shaw-house in Millington from Millington of Millington Read thus Geffrey Cartwright Gentleman hath the Shaw-house in Millington which Richard Cartwright his Father bought of Thomas Shaw 1646. which Land was formerly John Wilkinson's and Shaw came to it by Marriage Pag. 326. lin 16. Where it is said Came to Francis Cholmondeley Read thus Came to Francis Cholmondeley for his life Pag. 327. line 10 11. It is said Thomas Brooke Second Son married Jane Daughter of one Weston of Sutton nigh Frodsham Tenant to Warburton of Arley instead whereof read Thomas Brooke second Son married Jane Woodfen Daughter of Richard Woodfen of Sutton near Frodsham-Bridge Her Mother afterwards married William Weston of Astmore in Halton so that Weston was but her Stepfather Pag. 327. line 13. Where it is said Richard Brooke third Son of Sir Richard Professor of Physick died at Boughton nigh Chester without Issue anno Dom. 1667. put out the words without Issue for he had Issue by Sarah his former wife daughter of Judge Warburton of Hifferton-Grange in Weverham Lordship although he had no Issue by Anne his latter wife the Widow of Edward Holland of Denton in Lancashire Esq and Daughter of Edward Warren of Pointon in Cheshire Esq Pag. 334. line 33 34. Where it is said Which Chappel Margery his Wife surviving erected with the two Monuments therein for her self and Husband anno Dom. 1456. instead whereof read thus Which Chappel this Randle caused to be erected with the two Monuments therein for himself and wife an Dom. 1456. for Margery died before him to wit 27. Hen. 6. and he died 35. Hen. 6. Page 280. line 44. Where in the Margin it is said Corrupte pro saltuariis id est Forrestars Read Corrupte pro saltationibus aut saltatoriis id est Deer-leaps Pag. 335 line 12. Where is omitted as followeth Agnes another Daughter of John Manwaringe Esquire married Sir Robert Nedham of Crannach in Cheshire Knight and afterwards of Shenton in Shropshire which Shavington vulgo Shenton was estated on him by Judge Nedham who purchased the same And this Match appeareth by a blewish Marble-stone or Monument in the Chancel of Adderley Church in Shropshire whereon are the Pictures of the said Sir Robert Nedham and Dame Agnes and seven Sons and two Daughters as also an Inscription all of them in Brass as followeth Here lieth buried under this Stone the Bodies of Sir Robert Nedeham Knight and Dame Agnes his Wife Daughter of John Manwaringe of Pever Esq which said Robert deceased the iiij day of June Anno Dom. 1556. And the said Agnes deceased the 11. Day of May Anno Dom. 1560. Pag. 345. line 36. The word where is to be expunged for the Lady Mary Cholmondeley died at Vale-royal which she purchased and gave it to Thomas Cholmondeley her fourth Son and his Heirs Page 361 line 19. Where it is said Died unmarried 1653. Read Was never married he drowned himself the sixth day of July 1653. Page 374. line 4. Read Sir Amos Meredeth Baronet a. Page 376. line 26. Where is omitted Hugh Toft another Son Parson of Alderley and after of Stopport 8. Hen. 4. lib. C. fol. 229. T. num 40 42. Anno 1402. 3. Hen. 4.29 Novem. Nobilis Vir Johannes le Manwaringe Dominus de Stockport praesentat ad Ecclesiam de Stockport Hugonem de Toft Capellanum post mortem Jacobi de Bagiley ultimi Rectoris lib. B. p. 12. d. Pag. 381. line 28. Where is omitted also another Son called William Leycester who died without Issue Pag. 392. line 22. Where should follow thus The said Robert Venables bought all the demain-Demain-Land and also Wood 's Farm with the Mills called Cranage Mills But the Tenements were some of them bought by the Tenants themselves and some of them by others Page 437. line ult Add there thus Only Dodleston remains yet to Cheshire and Marleston nigh Eccleston and Claverton and Lache nigh Chester which were all part of Atiscros-Hundred These Amendments Reader will set thee straight in the Perusal of my former Book together with the correction of the Errata 's of Printing committed by the great negligence of the Printer which are now mentioned and rectified by a distinct Page at the end of the said Book Farewel FINIS