02403nam 2200385Ia 450 99639126490331620221108010900.0(CKB)1000000000666663(EEBO)2240953644(OCoLC)12129437(EXLCZ)99100000000066666319850607d1682 uy |engurbn||||a|bb|Argumentum anti-normannicum, or, An argument proving, from ancient histories and records, that William, Duke of Normandy, made no absolute conquest of England by the Sword, in the sense of our modern writers[electronic resource] being an answer to these four questions, viz. I. Whether William the First made an absolute conquest of this nation at his first entrance?, II. Whether he cancelled and abolished all the confessor's laws?, III. Whether he divided all our estates and fortunes between himself and his nobles?, IV. Whether it be not a grand error to affirm, that there were no English-men in the Common Council of the whole Kingdom?London Printed by J.D. for Mat. Keinton, Jonath. Robinson, Sam. Sprint1682[10], clxiv p. coat of arms"This publication, occasioned by a work of William Pettyt's, entitled Antient rights of the commons of England, 1680, was answered by Brady in his Introduction to old English history. It is by some attributed to Atwood, and by others to Cooke or Johnson." cf. Lowndes. Has also been attributed to Petyt and to Sir Edward Coke.Identified on UMI microfilm and reel guide as C4907 (entry cancelled in Wing 2nd ed.).Reproduction of original in Cambridge University Library.eebo-0021Great BritainHistoryWilliam I, 1066-1087Atwood Williamd. 1705?793136Johnson Samuel1649-1703.1001074Coke EdwardSir,1552-1634.626804Petyt William1636-1707.1004013Cooke Edwardof the Middle Temple.793688EAAEAAm/cWaOLNBOOK996391264903316Argumentum anti-normannicum, or, An argument proving, from ancient histories and records, that William, Duke of Normandy, made no absolute conquest of England by the Sword, in the sense of our modern writers2358580UNISA