Selected quad for the lemma: land_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
land_n	honour_n	king_n	lord_n	2,198	5	3.4827	3	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A51562	A reply to an answer to the Defence of Amicia, daughter of Hugh Cyveliok, Earl of Chester wherein it is proved, that the reasons alleadged by Sir Peter Leicester, in his former book, and also in his said answer, concerning the illegitimacy of the said Amicia, are invalid, and of no weight at all / by Sir Thomas Mainwaring ...	Mainwaring, Thomas, Sir, 1623-1689.	1673 (1673)	Wing M303; ESTC R10002	39,045	108

Lands in Free-marriage with his Bastard Daughter yet there are other wayes whereby any Man that pleases and hath a disposing power may settle Lands on a Bastard Daughter and her heires Also if Glanvills words did prove as you would pretend they do To what purpose should men in those ages leave the word Bastard out of their Deeds of Free-marriage to their bastard Daughters with design thereby to cause such lands to continue to them and their heirs if such gifts might be made with any woman whatsoever so that you never observe how finely you have argued here against your self VVhere you say in the 34 35 36 and 37 Pages of your Book that though you do not find Geva called a Bastard in express terms yet you find it implyed in an Author contemporary meaning Ordericus by certain and sure consequence which you believe can never be fully answered and for the fortifying of which you pretend to give some reasons Give me leave since you give the occasion again to say what I have formerly said viz. that though Ordericus speaking of Hugh Lupus his death doth add these words Richardus autem pulcherrimus puer quem solum ex Ermentrude filia Hugonis de Claramonte genuit I am not yet satisfied but that he might as well mean that he was the only Son which Earl Hugh had by Ermentrude as that he was the only child that he had by her For there is no necessity to take the word solum adverbially neither is it marked as an Adverb in Ordericus his Book though it be so in yours and yet in his Book Adverbs are usually marked And though you alleadg that Ordericus doth not say quem solum filium as I interpret him but indefinitly quent solum ex Ermentrude genuit and so whether solum be understood adverbially or whether it be taken for a Noun no more can be made of it in English than thus Richard a beautiful youth whom only Earl Hugh begot on Ermentrude c. and so whether we English it whom only he begot or whom he only begot it retains the same sense and shews that no other person either Son or Daughter was begotten on Ermentrude by Earl Hugh You must give me leave to dissent from you herein For I conceive this expression of quem solum genuit doth amount to as much as if he had said quem solum filium genuit which if it do then notwithstanding the said expression Earl Hugh might possibly have a Daughter or Daughters by the said Ermentrude For to what Antecedent can the word quem so properly relate as to the word puer and if so then quem solum puerum is as much as quem solum filium and so doth not exclude him from having a Daughter or Daughters by the said Ermentrude For though the word puer be by some understood to signifie a Child of either Sex as you also seem to take it in your Historical Antiquities p. 113 114. But misprinted 121 122. Yet Mr. Gouldman in his Dictionary will tell you that it is a mistake where on the word puer he thus writes Nonnullis habetur communis generis sed male ex Ovidiano illo Carmine de Iphide puella in puerum mutata Dona puer solvit quae faeminavoverat Iphis. And though you say that Geva could not be by any former Wife because Earl Hugh had never any other Wife Yet that is more than either you or I know for there were many things done in those Ages which never came to our knowledges And therefore I do not take upon me to tell whether Geva was by a former Wife than Ermentrude or whether she was by Ermentrude or whether she was a Bastard But I say she might be any of the three for any thing that you have yet proved and so long as it is uncertain what she was you can bring no considerable Argument from her against Amicia And if you could prove her a Bastard it would signifie nothing because the Deed made to her is not a gift in Frank-marriage as hath formerly and will hereafter appear And whereas you ask p. 36. Being I expound the words of Ordericus to be that Earl Hugh had no other Son What advantage it is to my purpose unless Geva was that Daughter and was legitimate I answer That possibly Geva might be that Daughter or possibly Geva might be by a former Wife and that Daughter which Earl Hugh had by Ermentrude might die before Earl Richard so that nothing of certainty can be gathered from such Arguments as these As to what you say p. 38 39 40 41. that I am not to argue upon possibilities and because it might possibly be so to say that the Earldome of Chester was antiently entayled on the heires Males I Answer That I do not positively aver any such thing But let the case be how it will and whethersoever Geva or Randle de Meschines was the heir general to Richard Earl of Chester it seems to me that the said Earldome did not come by descent to the heir general whoever that was For it clearly appears that Geva had it not and Randle de Meschines had it not by descent For if what James York in his Vnion of Honour p. 105. sayes be true Randle de Meschines was made Earl by Grant of King Henry the First and Ordericus p. 876. tells us that he restored to the said King Henry all the Land which he had by his Wife the Widow of Roger de Romara for the Earldom of Chester which was more than was needful for him to do if he had a good title thereto by descent And whereas you ask me Why may I think that the King though he gave it to Randle did not give the honour and lands unto him as in whom was the greatest right to have it and do say that to this I give no answer at all I may well tell you that I could not give an Answer until you did ask the Question and you never asked the Question in your former Book But the Answer which I shall now give to this Question is That I suppose Kings in such cases do that which to them seems most just but yet Kings in these cases as well as in others are of different Judgments from one another very many times and indeed the very same Princes will be sometimes of one mind and sometimes of another mind concerning the same thing And thus we see when Randle Blundevile Earl of Chester dyed which was in the year 1232. King Henry the Third did suffer the four Sisters of the said Earl Randle who were of the whole blood to inherit that estate and the said Earldome went to John Scot son of David Earl of Huntingdon in right of Maud his Mother the eldest of the said four Sisters But when the said John Scot dyed which was in the year 1237 the said King Henry the Third would not suffer the said Earldome of Chester to come to any

of the Sons of any of the Sisters of the said John Scot though he had before permitted it to come to the Son of the eldest Sister of the said Randle Blundevile And whereas you say that if Geva had been but of the half-blood she woul'd by all probability have busled hard for so great an Estate in those Ages before she had lost it I do wonder very much at what you say Because any Cosen that is of the whole blood how many degrees soever the distance is will inherit at Law before a Brother or Sister that is but of the half-blood And whereas you say I am come to an excellent way of arguing by ifs and ands and possibilities by which means Answers may be made to any thing even to eternity I do not offer from those kinds of Arguments or Answers to determine any thing certainly but only make use of them to shew the uncertainty of several things which you urge But you pretend certainties from such kind of Arguments and particularly in this case of Amicia For all the reasons which you alleadg against her would not prove her to be a Bastard if those Arguments that are brought on her behalf were all laid aside In your Answer to my Defence of Amicia p. 42 43. you again cavil with me without any just cause and say that the case that I did there put comes as near to the case of Geva as an Apple to an Oyster But whether it be so as you say let the Reader judge In your Historical Antiquities p. 136. which words of yours are also in the 10 11 pages of my Defence of Amicia you have these words viz. And howbeit many Earldomes have descended to the heires Males and not to the heires general yet in this case were no heires Male but two Females an Aunt legitimate who had it and a Sister not legitimate and shew me a precedent whereever the heires of an Aunt inherited before the heires of a Sister both legally born and no heires-male left unless in case of forfeiture by Treason or some other great cause to hinder the same From these words of yours I did not offer to raise any cavil by telling you that though honours or lands may be given to any persons whatsoever by those who have power to dispose of the same that yet they cannot properly be said to descend to any but to the next heires and therefore in point of descent it is impossible that any one that is further off should be preferred before another that is nearer Neither did I tell you how you did name an Aunt legitimate in stead of the Son of an Aunt legitimate that had it But I supposing as I think any other would have done from these words of yours that your meaning was that Randle de Meschines must needs have more right to succeed in that Earldom of Chester than Geva had because the said Randle did enjoy the same and that you thought it to be very clear that whensoever there were no heirs-Male left if the honour went to any of the Kindred the King did alwayes prefer that person who was next of blood to it except in case of Treason or the like and did thereupon desire me to shew you a precedent to the contrary if I so could and you instancing in the Earldome and not in the Lands I did thereupon shew you where one that was a Baron by Writ dyed without heir Male leaving two Sisters only and the Baronry came to the Husband of the younger Sister and not to the Husband of the elder Sister it being the pleasure of the King to call Sir Hunt Bourcher who had Marryed the younger Sister to the Parliament and not to call Sir Thomas Nevil who had Marryed the elder Sister And if this be not a like case to that of Geva and Earl Randle if Geva was legitimate I am still very much mistaken And whereas you now demand of me If Geva was legitimate Why the Lands of Richard Earl of Chester did not come to her whatever the Earldom did Though I cannot give you the certain reason because the thing was done so long since yet I can shew you several possibilities why they might not For either it might be the will and pleasure of the then King that Randle de Meschines should have the Estate as well as Earldome and that Geva should have recompence made her some other way as the Sisters of John Scot Earl of Chester in the like case afterwards had or perhaps she might be of the half-blood to Earl Richard and Randle de Meschines be heir at Law before her or perhaps the said Ear I Richard having a greater kindness for the said Earl Randle than he had for Geva there being sometimes great unkindnesses betwixt Brothers and Sisters might give his Estate to the said Randle de Meschines Those Arguments of mine which you mention p. 44. and are pretended to be Answered by you pag. 45 46 47. remain yet in their greatest strength and are not at all answered by you nay the one of them is so farr from being answered that it is not understood by you unless you only pretend not to understand it because you perceive you cannot give an answer to it and I rather think that to be the truth of the case Because you have not recited my Argument as I did express it For you recite it thus Because Coke upon Littleton fo 21. b. tells us that these words in liberum Maritaginm are words of Art and so are necessarily required and there you break off abruptly Whereas I told you that the Deed which you alleadged to be made to Geva would not at all concern Amicia if Geva was a bastard because it was no gift in Frank-marriage as that gift to Amicia was And for a proof thereof I told you that my Lord Coke upon Littleton in the place abovesaid did tell you that these words in liberum maritagium are such words of Art and so necessarily required in these kind of gifts as they cannot be expressed by words equipollent or amounting to as much And he also there gave you the reason which was that these words in liberum Maritagium did create an Estate of Inheritance against the general Rule of the Law and therefore the Law required that it should be legally pursued And to explain this he also said that if a man give Lands to another with his Daughter in connubio soluto ab omni servitio c. yet there passeth in this case but an Estate for life For although those words be the same in sense as the words in libero maritagio be yet being not the very same words they do not create an Estate of Inheritance But you contrary to all this would not believe my Lord Coke if he should have said that the words in libero conjugio did make but an Estate for life which he hath indeed by consequence said But you will have

the words liberum conjugium to create an Estate of Inheritance as well as the words liberum maritagium which no man before you ever said Whereas no words that are equipollent or amounting to as much can do it it being impossible to make an Estate in Free-marriage if there be wanting either the word liberum or the word Maritagium Also as the words in libero conjugio can make but an Estate for life so it is also clear that in your Deed of Earl Randle to Ceva there was no more intended than an Estate for life it running all along in the singular number Et teneat bene in pace c. ut melius liberius tenuit And it is likely the Deed of Earl Hugh did run after the same manner by that expression sicuti Comes Hughes ei in libero conjugio dedit But I believe the Bassets did afterwards enjoy the said lands though how or by vertue of what Deed I am not able to declare For in Monasticon Anglicanum Part 1. p. 439 and in your Historical Antiquities p. 113. but misprinted 121. I find Geffrey Ridell and Ralph Basset called the heires of the said Geva Now if those persons were the heires of her body and the aforesaid Deed a Gift in Frank-marriage Why did not Earl Randle confirm or grant those lands to her heires as well as to her And if they were not the heirs of her body she could not be a bastard For as my Lord Coke on Littleton fol. 3. b. tells you A Bastard can have no heir but of his own body And whereas I brought another Argument to prove that this Gift of Geva could not be a Gift in Frank-marriage Because my Lord Coke says that one of the things incident to a Frank-marriage is that the Donees shall hold freely of the Donour till the fourth degree be past which cannot be in Geva's case Because there was no Donees but one Donee only and the Estate could not continue until the Fourth degree was past because it was onely for Geva's life You tell me that my Lord Coke upon Littleton fol. 21. b. citeth Peter Saltmarch's Case and Fitz-Herbert de natura brevium fol. 172. that lands may be given by a Man to his Son in Free-marriage and why not to his Daughter alone in Free-marriage But I pray you How can there be a Gift in Free-marriage if there be no Marriage at all and How can there be a Marriage if the Man or Woman be alone But you misunderstand this place as you do many others For my Lord Coke if you observe him well doth not there say that such a Gift can be made with a Man alone or with a Woman alone But there tells you that a gift in free-marriage may be either to a Man with a woman or as some have held to a Woman with a Man and for proof thereof cites Peter Saltmarsh his case and Fitz-Herbert And this is no more than what I said in the 49 Page of my former Book where I also shewed you how Bracton did therewith accord But there is none of them that saith as you do That land may be given in Frank-marriage to a Man without a Woman or to a VVoman without a Man In your 48 49 Pages you would willingly perswade the Reader that Earl Randle de Gernoniis Father to Earl Hugh Cyveliok was Marryed by Robert Earl of Gloucester unto Maude his Daughter thereby to draw him to the part of Queen Maude his Sister about the very year 1139. before which time we find no mention in our antient Historians of Randle's acting against King Stephen but in that very year we do and then by some of them stiled Son-in-law to the Earl of Gloucester But I pray you VVhy is it not full as likely that before that time Randle de Gernoniis was Marryed to the Daughter of the said Earl of Gloucester and thereby was the more easily drawn to that party to which he stood so near related as that that match should be made purposely to draw him to that party And how could you hear much of that Earl Randle's actings against King Stephen before the year 1139 seeing Gervasius a Benedictine Monke of Canterbury who lived in the Reign of King John tells us in his Chronicles or Annalls col 1345. l. 60. that it was in the year 1138 when Robert Earl of Gloucester did begin to quarrel with the said King Stephen And whereas you yet seem unsatisfied that Earl Hugh was of such an age as probably to have had another Wife before Bertred and do now say p. 49. if we reckon by utmost possibilities that Earl Hugh could not possibly be above sixteen or seventeen years older than Bertred I do very much wonder thereat seeing I have formerly from the Argument which you used to prove it to be otherwayes made it manifest that he might possibly be several years above double her age and that so clearly that I am confident no man besides your self will offer to deny the same For I then told you that whether the Marriage of Robert Earl of Gloucester with Mabill Daughter and heir of Robert Fitz-Hamon was according to Selden in the year 1109. or according to Stow in the year 1110. the said Mabill might have Maude her second Daughter in the year 1112 which Maude if she was Marryed to Earl Randle de Gernoniis in the year 1128 when she was sixteen years of age might have her Son Hugh Cyvelick in the year 1129. which if true the said Earl Hugh was fifty two years old at his death For he died in the year 1181 and if so then he was four years above twice the age of Bertred For she was but Twenty four years old when the said Earl Hugh died as appears Rot. de Dominabus pueris c. in Scacc. penes Remem R. sub Tit. Linc. Rot. 1. And it is certain that the said Earl Hugh was Earl of Chester about four years before his VVife Bertred was born besides what age he was of when his Father died and his Daughter Amicia was Married in his life time and none knows how many years before his death And if the Marriage of the said Robert Earl of Gloucester with the said Mabill was in the year 1109. then he might possibly be Five years above double the age of his VVife Bertred And this is the more likely to be true Because though Mr. Selden be a later VVriter than Mr. Stow is yet Mr. Selden cites one that lived long before Mr. Stow as will appear by the old English Rithmical Story attributed to one Robert of Glocester and recited in the 647. Page of Mr. Seldens Titles of Honour In your Answer pag. 50 51 52 53. you endeavor to weaken the Third and Fourth reasons which were brought as concurrent proof on the behalf of Amicia by saying that Hugh Cyveliok 's Wife was a witness to her Husbands Deed which a Wife cannot now be she being not