Selected quad for the lemma: father_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A70632
|
An answer to Sir Peter Leicester's Addenda, or, Some things to be added in his Answer to Sir Thomas Mainwarings book written by the said Sir Thomas Mainwaring.
|
Mainwaring, Thomas, Sir, 1623-1689.
|
1674
(1674)
|
Wing M298; ESTC R18031
|
20,134
|
55
|
write no more touching Amicia I will assure you I received no encouragement thereby for I do not take you to be so great a Bug-bear as you suppose your self to be And if I had relyed upon your promise I had been much mistaken but I did very well know what you meant to do for besides what I heard from others the same day my Reply was finished you did write a Letter to me wherein was your pretended new precedent of Budeford and Suttehal and before any part of my last Book was printed I received notice from your servant by your command that you would print some precedents as Addenda to your former Book but it seems that resolution as also another as I was informed of writing an Answer in a third persons name were both laid aside and what you did came out as Addenda to your later Book But how in so doing you were just to your word I cannot imagine for what you did write till the end of the 7. Page did all concern Amicia and by the same reason you did write now you may write alwayes and say you do so as Addenda only to your said second Book In your 9 Page you again tell me That I begin my Reply with an untruth because I say that those of our County who are understanding persons will easily discerne from some of your Omissions that it was something else besides your great love to truth which occasioned you to Asperse your deceased Grandmother and you tell me I might have done well to have shewed To which I answer that I will not reflect upon persons in print but if any one desire privately to know what those Omissions were if I cannot give full satisfaction of your gross partiality let me bear the blame And I know no reason since you pretended it was your great love to truth which did occasion you to Write against Amicia but that I might in general termes let the World know it was something else which moved you so to do and I will appeale to the Reader whether I did not avoid all offensive expressions in what I said In your 10. Page you are also over-captious For I having found in your Historical Antiquities two Deeds made by Randle de Gernoniis father to Hugh Cyveliok in the time of which Hugh Raph Mainwaring was Justice of Chester and those two Deeds being directed Justiciariis although I know of none who can tell the name of any more then one of them I did therefore lest there should be two Justices in the time of the said Raph in my first Book call him Chiefe Justice because he acted alone but did withal in my second Book acknowledge that I had not found that there was then any other Justice in the time of the said Raph and for this you tell me I should have been more ingenious and do say I do very well know that there was no other Judge of Chester at that time which being a Negative it is impossible for me to know Also as you may see in Monasticon Anglicanum Part 3. p. 97 226. and in your Hist Ant. p. 130. 131. there was in the time of the said Earl Hugh sometimes two Justices of Chester and sometimes but one So that there possibly might be another Justice of Chester when the said Raph was Judge there And whereas you give a glance at my vain-glory by pretending you are loath to say it was so I desire to know how I could possibly be vain-glorious therein since it was full as honourable for the said Raph to be sole Justice of Chester as to be Chiefe Justice in case there were two In your 11 and 12 Pages you deny that you said that Geffrey Dutton was witness to his own Deed or Deeds but to the Deeds of others and say it was my gross mistake in saying so But if any persons read the 4 and 5 Pages of your Answer to my first Book they may easily see that you apply the words Domino Galfrido de Dutton in that Deed of Tabley to that Jeffrey de Dutton who made the said Deed and they will also find you saying That in several other Deeds of the same person meaning still the same Geffrey you dare affirm among the witnesses subscribed he hath five times and more the word Dominus omitted for once that we find it prefixed to his name Let the Readers therefore if they can find out how you could imagine his name to be at any time amongst his own Witnesses if you did not take him to be a Witness to his own Deeds You also in the same Pages of your Addenda say That if he had been a Knight he would have called himself by his Title Ego Galfridus de Dutton Miles or Ego Dominus Galfridus de Dutton dedi c. But this is directly contrary to what you did write at the bottom of the 5. Page of your second Book and it is well known that in very antient times every one who was a Knight did not alwayes give himself the Title of Miles or Dominus in his own Deeds neither had he alwayes the same Title given to him by others which if occasion required I could make to appear You also tell me that when I say That Dominus Galfridus de Dutton witness to the other Geffrey Duttons Deed of Nether-Tabley was his Father it was my gross mistake For it was Geffrey Dutton of Chedle And you also say that there were four Geffrey Duttons two of Budworth Father and Son and two of Chedle Father and Son much contemporary and for the proving of those two of Budworth those of Chedle being not there named you send me to your Book of Antiquities Page 226. there to be informed of what you say you see I do not know But if I did not know of those two Geffrey Duttons how could I tell you in the 10. Page of my Reply that Adam de Dutton had issue Sir Jeffrey who had issue Geffrey who made the said Deed of Tabley or How could I say that Geffrey the Father was a Witness to that Deed and How doth it yet appear that the Dominus Galfridus de Dutton who was Witness to the said Deed of Tabley was Geffrey Dutton of Chedle and not the other Sir Geffrey Dutton of Budworth For though the year 1238 be the last time you say you met with him yet as appears in your Hist Antiq. p. 216. you have not seen the Deeds of Sir George Warburton who is his heir-male therefore the said Geffrey might very well live on to be a Witness to that Deed. But whether the said Sir Geffrey of Budworth the Father was then living or not one of the Geffrey Duttons of Chedle was also a Knight as appears in your Hist Ant. p. 206. though you conceal it in your Addenda because you would have the Reader to believe there was no Sir Geffrey Dutton living when that Deed of Tabley was made which will as
well serve my turn for if Sir Geffrey of Budworth was then dead then the Domino Galfrido de Dutton is in that Deed to be applied to Sir Geffrey Dutton of Chedle And whilst they were both living whensoever you sind Domino Galfrido de Dutton among the witnesses it is certainly to be applied to one of the Knights and when you find Galfrido without Domino it is as certainly meant of some Geffry Dutton that was no Knight And whereas you object p. 13. That Sir Geffrey Dutton of Budworth must needs be dead or else Geffrey the Son could not have passed away those Lands That doth not follow for I have known more then once not only Sons in the life-times of their Fathers but also Grandchildren who have been possessed of Lands in their grandfathers time And whereas you say that Margaret was daughter but not Daughter and heir of Geffrey Dutton I cannot tell how that will appear without the sight of Sir George Warburtons Deeds Because Sir Peter Dutton might be son to a Geffrey Dutton and yet be Brother and heir-mal to Geffrey the Father of Margaret But be it how it will she having the Mannors of Nether-Tabley Wethale and Hield it can be no gross one if it be any mistake at all In your 14 Page you would willingly heal an expression in your former Book by confessing it was too short but to make amends for this you now overdoe it and because you would make us believe that you formely meant as you now pretend you say that a little after you did speak of Knights who usually stiled themselves thus Ego Dominus A. B. dedi c. or Ego Dominus A. B. Miles dedi c. But whoever can find those words in your Answer can find out that which I am not able to do In your 16 17 and 18 Pages you keep a great stir about the word domino when it is prefixed to any names in subscriptions and though you were willing in your last Book to call Sir Raph Mainwaring Sir Roger Mainwaring Sir Thomas Mainwaring and Sir William Mainwaring all of them Knights yet now you are dissatisfied concerning all but Sir Thomas Mainwaring to whose name in a Fine you find the word Milite added and you would willingly insinuate that the Dominus Willielmus Mainwaring was he who was Parson of Wernith though without any cause as appears by the Deed wherein he is named And you ask me whether I have any Deed of Raph Mainwaring Judge of Chester with the word Milite added which you well know that I have not it being much that I have those Deeds of his which I have being he was Judge of Chester so long since viz. in the time of Richard the First But I pray you Why is not the word Domino when prefixed to the name of a Witness who was not a Clergy-man good proof that he was a Knight especially since some who are likely to be the most skilful in those matters are of opinion that it is And why if it be not good proof were you lately more complemental then you are now and did break your old Rule of Amicus Socrates Amicus Plato c. in calling Raph Roger and William Mainwaring Knights Or Why do not you prove the word domino prefixed to some persons name before he was made a Knight Or to one who was no Clergy-man and but an Esquire at the time of his death Or Why doth not the word domino prefixed to each of the names of the aforesaid Raph Roger and William Mainwaring prove them to be Knights as well as it doth prove one of the Geffrey Duttons of Budworth and one of the Geffrey Duttons of Chedle to be Knights For you confess Page 13. of your Addenda that you do not remember any of them writing Ego Dominus Galfridus Dutton dedi c. And Why did not you answer the Question which I asked of you in the 16. Page of my Reply viz. If the word Dominus do only signifie Master as you would have it What is the reason that in some Deeds it is only put before the names of some of the witnesses and not before the names of others although those other persons to whose names it is not put many times are Lords of several Mannors and persons of very great Estate And What is the reason that you do not call all the four Geffrey Duttons Knights as well as two of them seeing in the 13 p. you say You have if you mistake not seen them all sometimes subscribed with Domino prefixed but not any of them writing himself Ego Dominus c. Or How comes it to pass that neither of the two Knights did ever write so if what you say in your 11th Page be true Sure the Reader will easily perceive what strange work you yet make with these Geffreys and their Deeds In your 18th Page you also say That I fasten upon you another untruth where I tell you that you have seen the opinion of a Judge under his hand with Reasons for the same touching Amicia But whether this be an untruth or not let what you formerly sent me under your own hand determine where you name the Judge and also take notice that his reasons were given under his hand Let me therefore advise you for the future to be more cautious what you write And whereas you also say That your memory is not so bad but you could remember something of it or his name Let the Reader look in your Hist Ant. p. 135. l. 3. and p. 136. l. 43. or see your words in the 5 p. l. 15. and 12. p. l. 5. printed with my Defence of Amicia and he will there find that you did know the Reasons of the said Judge And whereas you pretend It was impossible for you to have alleadged to the two Heralds the tenth part of what you could have done in so short a space I shall leave that to them they being both yet living as also whether they have found any thing in your former Books concerning Amicia which they have not heard from you before And as for your Lawyer of very good note and good Antiquary you do well in concealing his Name But certainly he was very unkind that would not furnish you with some Precedents to make good what he said What you say in the 20th Page and so on to the middle of the 23 Page shews clearly that you are resolved not to be convinced For when at the first I proved out of Monast Angl. Part 2. p. 267. that Richard Bacuns Mother could not be Hugh Cyveliok's daughter because it was Randle de Gernoniis not Randle Blundevil whom the said Richard called Unckle in regard there was a William Archbishop of York and one whose Name began with an R. which was then Bishop of Chester both living in the time of the said Randle de Gernoniis but that there was no William Archbishop of York during all the