Selected quad for the lemma: england_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
england_n	earl_n	king_n	scotland_n	10,066	5	8.6485	4	true

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

Law aforesaid and so do also other Eminent and Learned Lawyer here below that in those elder Ages a gift in Free-Marriage with a Bastard was good although at this day our Law is otherwayes taken So that now there is not so much as one seeming Argument of Reason left to uphold the Legitimacy of Amicia Besides one of our most eminent Heralds of our Nation and King at Armes is of Opinion with me also that Earl Hugh never had any other Wife but Bertrey as I have it from a sure hand who was then present when he publickly spoke it whose judgment I may well bottom on for I am sure there is no History or Record to prove any other Wife at all and very many other judicious and knowing men do concur in opinion that Amicia was a Bastard and so I leave it to the judgment of all men who are vers'd in Antiquities Records and Histories And so I have done if Sir Thomas hath doee and now I think it will be time for both to have done Mobberley December the 17th 1675. FINIS THE CASE OF AMICIA Truly Stated By Sir Peter Leycester Baronet August the 5th MDCLXXV Qui vult decipi decipiatur Printed in the Year 1676. THE CASE OF AMICIA Truly Stated THe Question concerning Amicia Wife of Rafe Manwaring and Daughter of Hugh Sir-named Cyvelioc Earl of Chester is briefly this Whether the said Amicia was a Bastard or no This is altogether a question of History and nothing of Law at all in the Case The Reasons Collected out of History Records and Evidences shewing her to be a Bastard are these 1. It is confessed on all hands that Amicia was no Daughter by Bertrey the Wife of Earl Hugh for then she would have shared the Lands of the Earldom with the other Daughters by Bertrey which for certain she did not nor ever claimed any part of the same as is most manifest by the Record of 18. Hen. 3. when all the Co-heirs did implead John the Scot then Earl of Chester upon a Writ de rationabili parte See my book of Historical Antiquities pag. 151. as also by the testimonies of many of our ancient Historians who have Recorded all those Daughters in their books And she could be no Daughter by any latter Wife because Bertrey survived Earl Hugh her Husband See my said book of Antiquities pag. 132 139 143 148. And she could be no Daughter by any former Wife because Earl Hugh never had any other Wife but Bertrey And the Sticklers for the Legitimacy of Amicia do confess that they cannot prove any other VVife at all much less can they prove Amicia to be the Daughter of any such Wife Therefore the Earl having no other Wife but Bertrey and Amicia being no Daughter by Bertrey Amicia Daughter of Earl Hugh must certainly be a Bastard 2. Earl Hugh had several other Bastards as is evident by ancient Deeds and if the bare alledging that he had another Wife be sufficient without due proof then all his other Bastards may be made Legitimate by saying that they were by another Wife And our ancient Historians as Matthew Paris Poly-Chronicon Knighton Stow and others have Recorded the Lawful Children of Earl Hugh but not one of them mentioning Amicia in the least nor any former Wife at all which some one or other of them without doubt would have taken notice of had Amicia been a Legitimate Daughter 3. Rafe Manwaring the Husband of Amicia was not an equal Competitor at that time to have Married a Lawful Daughter of the Earl of Chester for we find the Lawful Daughters of this Earl Hugh were Married to the greatest Earls then in England The Earl of Huntington who was Brother to the King of Scotland the Earl of Arundel the Earl of Darby and the Earl of Winchester's Son and Heir and therefore it is more than probable that Amicia was not a Lawful Daughter especially since no provision considerable was made for her who must have been the only Daughter Heir of Earl Hugh by a first Wife as those of the contrary opinion would make her and if so she ought in all Reason to have had fully as great an Estate provided for her as any of his Children by a latter Wife which certainly she never had Wherefore res ipsa loquitur for nothing appears to be given unto her save only the release of the Service of one Knights Fee given with her in Frank-Marriage which sure was too small a Portion for a Lawful Daughter of the Earl of Chester And thus much for the Question of History whether Bastard or no Bastard Which I submit wholly to the Judgement of all Wife and knowing men who are versed in Histories Records and Antiquities And many very wise and knowing men some Divines some Lawyers and other grave and understanding Persons have herein declared that they concurre in Opinion that Amicia was a Bastard But now ariseth another Question for those who would have Amicia to be a Lawful Daughter and no Bastard which cannot be supported either by History Records or Reason they would ground their Opinion from a point of Law to wit that Lands cannot pass in Free-Marriage with a Bastard and because Amicia had a grant of some Services in Free-Marriage from the Earl her Father therefore they conclude she was no Bastard For all other Arguments for her Legitimacy are so void of Reason and Authority that all bottoms on this one Argument and the Question now is this Whether the Deed of Hugh Earl of Chester wherein he granted unto Rafe Manwaring in Free-Marriage with Amicia his Daughter the Service of Gilbert Son of Roger to wit the Service of three Knights-Fees by doing to the said Earl his Heirs the Service of two Knights-Fees be a sure Argument to prove Amicia a Legitimate Daughter But for the better stating of the question it is granted on both sides that Lands cannot now pass in Free-Marriage with a Bastard as the Law is taken at this day The proper question of Law therefore in the present Case is this Whether by the Law in Glanvil's time who was chief Justice of England under King Henry the Second and lived in the very Age with Amicia when the said Deed was made Lands might and did usually pass in those Elder Ages in Free-marriage as well with Bastards as no Bastards The Arguments for the Affirmative part are these 1. From the very words of Glanvil himself who was the first after the Norman-Conquest who reduced the Model of our Common-Law into writing in his Treatise de Legibus Angliae lib. 7. cap. 1. Quilibet liber homo quandam partem terrae suae cùm filiâ suâ vel cum aliquâ aliâ quâlibet muliere dare potest in maritagium sive habuerit haeredem sive non velit haeres vel non imo eo contradicente Also lib. 7. cap. 18. Liberum dicitur maritagium quando aliquis liber homo aliquam partem terrae suae

book of the Baronage he now speaks out a little more 5. But yet in the same page he calls Geva Daughter of Hugh Lupus and Wife of Geffry Ridel a Legitimate Daughter not to be doubted of because she had Drayton-Basset given her in Free-Marriage by her Father which could not have been so bestowed on a Bastard as our Learned Lawyers do clearly affirm thus Mr. Dugdale Which very Deed of Drayton-Basset to Geva I have produced in my Historical Antiquities pag. 112. 113. as a sure Precedent that Lands did pass with Bastards in Free-marriage in those more ancient Ages as well as with lawful Daughters and have fully proved Geva to be a Bastard out of an Historian of good Credit and Contemporary with Geva by sure Consequence out of his words See my Answer to the Defence of Amicia pag. 33. to pag. 47. which Reasons and Authorities are not yet solidly or rationally Answered by any and which I shall have occasion further to mention when I come to the Case of Amicia truly stated And here by the way we may take notice that these two Sticklers for Geva Sir Thomas Manwaring and Mr. Dugdale agree not in their points of Law for Sir Thomas will not have these words in libero Conjugio used in the Deed of Drayton to be good in Law to make it a gift in Free-marriage and only to convey but an Estate for life unto Geva because the Lord Cook affirms that a gift in Free-marriage must be strictly tyed up to the words in libero maritagio and no other See more of this in my first Reply to Sir Thomas pag. 4. to pag. 15. But Mr. Dugdale and his Lawyers take the words in libero Conjugio in the Deed of Drayton to be a good gift in Free-marriage and so without doubt it was and in those Ages as good as in libero maritagio and did convey an Estate of Inheritance to the Heirs of Geva who enjoyed Drayton accordingly So we see Sir Thomas and the Lord Cook are of one Opinion and Mr. Dugdale and his Lawyers are of another opinion both of them against the Bastardy of Geva which yet is clearly collected by sure consequence out of Ordericus an Historian of very good Credit and contemporary with Geva who knew the truth better than any man now living can possibly know and needeth no point of Law to prove the same and cannot be disproved by any point of Law whatsoever 6. As to Amicia he hath these words in his said Book of the Baronage pag. 41. That she was Daughter of Earl Hugh 1. It sufficiently appears not only from the grant of two Knights Fees with her in Frank-marriage to Rafe de Mesnilwarin where he so termeth her but by another Deed of Roger de Mesnilwarin her Son wherein he calls Randle Earl of Chester his Uncle who was Son of the said Earl Hugh 2. As to her Legitimacy I do not well understand how there can be any question it being a known Maxime in Law that nothing can be given in Frank-marriage to a Bastard 3. The point being then thus briefly cleared I shall not need to raise further Arguments from Probabilities to back it then to desire it may be observed that Bertra whom I conclude to be a second Wife was Married unto him when he was in years and she her self very young So that he having been Earl no less than 28. years it must necessarily follow that this Bertra was not born till four years after he came to the Earldome nor is it any marvel he should then take such a young Wife having at that time no Issue-male to succeed him in this his great Inheritance thus Mr. Dugdale 1. To all which I say first That it plainly appears she was Daughter of Earl Hugh but that she was a Lawful Daughter that no where appears nor did the Earl in the Deed mentioned grant her two Knights-Fees in Frank-marriage as is here alledged but he granted with her in Frank-marriage the Service of Gilbert Son of Roger to wit the Service of three Knights-Fees by doing to the Earl and his Heirs the Service of two Knights-Fees so that the Earl released only the Service of one Knights-Fee by this Deed too mean a Portion for a Lawful Daughter of the Earl of Chester especially for the sole Daughter and Heir by a former Wife as Mr. Dugdale supposeth her to be so that res ipsa loquitur whereas the four lawful Daughters of Earl Hugh by his Wife Bertred Married four of the greatest Earls then in England and shared all the Lands of the Earldome of Chester and sure the Eldest Daughter by a first Wife if the Earl had a former Wife ought to have had as good a Portion of Lands or Money as any of his Younger Daughters by a latter Wife which for certain Amicia never had nor claimed 2. To the second the Maxime of Law that nothing can be given in Frank-marriage to a Bastard is to be understood of the Law as it is now taken in these latter Ages but that the Law was otherwise taken in the time of Amicia and those more ancient Ages I have proved in my former books both from the words of Glanvil who was Chief Justice of England and lived in the very Age with Amicia as also by three clear Presidents of those former Ages and shall have further occasion to mention the same in the Case of Amicia hereafter following which I have briefly and truly stated by it self for the better apprehension of all men 3. To the third Here Mr. Dugdale concludeth Bertra to be a second Wife but doth not nor cannot in the least prove a former Wife much less Amicia to be the Daughter of a former Wife And as to his Argument of Probability I deny absolutely that Earl Hugh Married Bertra when he was in years for though he were Earl three or four years before she was born yet it follows not that he did Marry her when he was in years for he came to be Earl in his Infancy But that I may lay this Argument of P●obability as he calls it asleep for ever take this Record here following out of the Roll de Dominabus Pueris Puellis remaining in the Exchequer at Westminster Which Roll Mr. Dugdale hath there also cited in the Margent to prove the Age of Bertrey though not in the Words which I have here more at large expressed I say take here the true Coppy of the Rcord Verbatim which my Friend hath twice examined for me to prevent Mistakes viz. Scaccarium apud Westminster In Rotulo de Dominabus Pueris Puellis de anno 31. Hen. 2. in Custodia Rememoratoris Regis Existente continetur inter alia ut Sequitur c. Cow Lincoln Balteslaw-Wapentak Matilda Comitissa Cestriae est de donatione Domini Regis et fuit fillia Roberti Comitis Glocestriae filij Regis Henrici Primi et est L annorum amplius Hujus villae Recepit Comitissa his