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.  
LONDON, Printed in the Year, 1676.   

THE PREFACE TO THE READER.  
I Received on the 13th. of April, 1675. a very strange kind of Book from Sir Thomas Manwaring, then delivered unto me by his Servant; wherein I expected a Book of Arguing to the point of the Controversy between us: But behold a book of Railing, catching (as his usual manner is) at every small impertinent thing.  
That I may the sooner come to the Book itself, I shall observe only out of his Epistle, this one thing, How he minceth the Truth, in telling the Reader— that my Servant did (by my Command) signify unto him in a Letter, that I would write again, and this before Sir Thomas had Printed one word of his Reply: So that if he find me thus Stumbling at the first, it is well if he do not take me oft Tripping before I come to my Journeys end.  
Whereunto I say that he deals not clearly in his words, and declareth not the whole Truth: For it is true, that I did command my Servant to write unto him; but what did I command him to write? Was it barely that I would then write again? No: but to let him know, that I had then found some new Precedents which (I conceived) would clear the point between us, and came to my knowledge since I had published my Answer; of which I thought good to give him timely notice, that I would add them to my Answer already Printed, which were omitted therein; and this before his Reply was Printed, as Sir Thomas here confesseth: This was rather an amendment of my former book, then writing again the novo; for as yet he had published no book against it, but this part of the Truth he conceals; and if my Servant writ otherwise than to this effect, I utterly disown it to be written by my command: But before I could get my Addenda Printed, he Published a Reply to my Answer; wherein were so many Crimes charged upon me, that I was forced to a Vindication of myself, which I did then put into my Addenda, yet not so fully as I might have done: See my Addenda, p. 8. and also p. 27.  
And whatsoever I have also written more, than what I first intended and declared, I have been forced thereunto in my own defence.  
And so I will now briefly come to his Book, and hope to show clearly who Trips most in the Journey, he or I; and wherein I do Trip, it shall be readily confessed: I think mine will not be found many, nor material to the main point; but I believe his will be found Fundamental Errors: And I could wish that Sir Thomas would as freely confess his Trips as I shall confess mine, than the whole business would soon be at an end.  
And herein I shall endeavour all along to avoid all abloquys, wherewith he adoundeth as much as I can; for Calumnies and Slanders will find no place among Wise and Good Men, and are ever inconsistent with those excellent Christian Graces of Humility and meekness.  
Mobberly, May the 18th. 1675.   

A Second Reply.  

Pag. 1. Of his Answer to my two Books.  
HEre he saith, that I affirm several times, that Glanvil saith that Lands may be given with any Woman in liberum maritagium: whereas he saith only, they may be given cum quâlibet muliere in maritagium.  

My Reply.  
I did, and do yet affirm it; and have proved it too; see pag. 54. of my former Reply, which yet he hath not answered: nor do I believe that he can rationally answer my Argument there: For though Glanvil hath not these very words— Lands may be given with any Woman in liberum maritagium]; yet he saith it by Consequence, drawn clearly out of his words, lib. 7. cap. 18. which is the same in effect.  
Nor doth Sir Thomas repeat Glanvil's words aright; and yet he is ready upon all occasions to tax me with the like: the words of Glanvil, lib. 7. cap. 1. are— quilibet liber homo, terram habens, quandam partem terrae sua cùm filiâ suâ, vel cum aliquâ aliâ qualibet muliere, potest dare in maritagium— etc. not barely cùm qualibet muliere.    

Pag. 2. Of his Answer to my two Books.  
Here he saith, I tell him that I have proved Geva to be a Bastard out of an Historian Contemporary; by which Ordericus Vitalis is meant, and yet Ordericus saith no such thing.  

My Reply.  
'Tis true, I said so, and have proved it too: See my Answer to his Defence of Amicia, pag. 34, 35. for though he hath not these very words [Geva is a Bastard], yet by sure Consequence it follows out of the words of Ordericus, that she was a Bastard, which is all to one effect; and here is another trip of a fallacy in Sir Thomas.    

Pag. 2. Of his Answer to my two Books.  
1. Here he also saith, that I affirm the Common Law is now altered otherwise than by Act of Parliament, without quoting any Author.  
2. And also that I brag of several Precedents where Lands were given in free Marriage with Bastards; and yet I prove not these necessary words of liberum maritagium (as the Lord Cook calls them) were used in any of those grants, or that any of those Persons, with whom such Lands were given, were Bastards.  

My Reply.  
Here is another Trip of Sir Thomas; for I have quoted the Lord Cook himself in several Cases for it: See my Answer to his Defence of Amicia, pag. 23, 24, 25, 26. and yet he is not ashamed to say here, I quoted no Author for it: And I could yet produce a number of Cases more, wherein the Law is altered without any Act of Parliament, if it were necessary.  
2. To the Second: I produced those ancient precedents to show, that those words [in liberum maritagium] were not anciently so necessary in grants of free Marriage, as the Lord Cook would now have them to be; and then Sir Thomas saith, that I have not proved any of those Persons with whom such Lands were given (in free Marriage) were Bastards: Sit liber judex, as to that of Geva: See also my former Reply, pag. 38. where Joan Princess of Wales is clearly proved to be a Bastard by the Testimony of most of our Historians; but none saying she was a lawful Daughter, and that she had Lands given her in free Marriage by King John her Father: See my Advertisement to the Reader, at the end of my two said Books; also my Addenda, pag. 3, 4. and my former Reply, pag. 25.    

Pag. 3. Of his Answer to my two Books.  
Here he saith, I tell him lewelyn Prince of North-Wales was Divorced from his Wife Joan, for which I can neither show Author, nor Record:  

My Reply.  
I do not positively affirm it: the words in my former Reply, pag. 44. are these— if she were Remarried to Audley, anno 14. Hen. 3. than it is a sure Argument that she was Divorced; and whether she was so Married or no, 14. Hen. 3. let the Record Vouched by Vincent, be the Judge.  
Here is another Trip of Sir Thomas; for he saith, that I can neither show Author, nor Record: indeed Vincent doth not say she was Divorced; but he saith, she was Remarried to Audley; and so by consequence she must needs be Divorced, lewelyn being then alive.  
But I have now published an Advertisement to the Reader at the end of my two said Books, where I have set forth the Copy of that Record; and do find that Vincent hath clearly mistaken the Record; for it proves Robert de Audley did Marry Joan, Daughter of Richard de Landâ, but nothing at all of any Marriage with Joan Princess of Wales.  
Yet nothing hinders, but she might have been Divorced from lewelyn, being taken in Adultery with William de Brews; and if Sir Thomas will allow the Note of Dr. Powel to be Authentical herein, pag. 315. of his Notes upon the Welsh-History, lewelyn had another Wife after Joan, called Eva, Daughter of Fouk de Breant, but had no Issue by her, as he saith; which could not be without a Divorce, unless we suppose lewelyn Married after the death of Joan, for he survived not Joan above two or three years; and then we find him Diseased with the Palsy, and in a dying condition, anno 1237. See Mat. Paris, pag. 437. and therefore probably, if he were so Remarried at all, it was before that declining state of his: But yet I will not positively affirm that Joan was Divorced.    

Pag. 3. Of his Answer ibidem.  
Here he saith, I have a fine way of Answering; for if I be pressed overmuch with any point of Law, than I will tell you of my own Authority, that the Law in such Particulars is clearly altered, though I cannot tell how, nor at what time.  
2. If it be a Record that puts me too hard to it, than I conceive the Roll from whence the Deed is written, is mistaken in such and such words, and miswrit therein from the Original.  
3. If out of any History you tell me any thing which I cannot Answer, than I will not suffer the words to be read as they ought to be Printed; but I will fancy such expressions as will best suit with my turn, and also disparage the same History, although in those matters I had formerly said I did chief follow the same.  

My Reply.  
These are all nothing but Cavils; and whence these proceed, every man may judge.  
1. Where do I say the Law is altered on my own Authority, and do not prove it by other Authority? it is his mistake, and though I cannot tell when precisely, nor perhaps others neither, yet it is plain such particulars are altered, and such alterations are not made in a day, nor all at a time; for they must have a long time of common practice through the Nation, before it become a common Law; and at last becomes a Law by general consent and practice by degrees.  
2. I never say the Roll is mistaken, but where it is mistaken; and I remember not that I say any Roll or Record at all is mistaken, save either that of (Donarium) which I conceived was mis-writ for (Dotarium); and it is ill chid of Sir Thomas (as we say Proverbially) when he himself conceives (Donarium) to be there mis-writ for (Dovarium) pag. 13. or else that of Bacon's Deed: See my Reasons in my Addenda, pag. 23. for rectification of which, I was promised a sight of the Original, but I could not obtain it.  
3. The third is also a great mistake: for first, I have not seen any thing out of any History alleged, but what I have fully answered, as to the point in difference; nor do I hinder any words to be read as they ought to be Printed; but when there be plain errors in the Printing, and so proved to be errors by comparing sundry other good Authors to the contrary, as (Hugh) Earl of Chester, for (Randle) Earl of Chester, in the Welsh History, sub anno 1142. why may not I observe the error which Sir Thomas would bolster up by an erroneous Amendment, to ground several other gross errors and mistakes thereupon? It is most certainly a gross mistake either in the Printer or the Copy; and not mistaken for (Hugh, Son to the Earl of Chester), but for (Randle Earl of Chester):  
And then to say I disparage the Welsh History, or Dr. Powel, is another misjudging of me: all I said was this,— The Welsh History is not exactly composed throughout, nor proved by good Authority; and as I believe it true in many things, so it hath some gross mistakes; and so are some of Dr. powel's Notes thereon full of errors, especially in his absurd Pedigree of the Earls of Chester, and in several other things: See my former Reply, pa. 94. And I believe every knowing man (who hath perused the same) will say as much: indeed there are few general Histories but may have some mistakes, and without disparagement too to the Author.  
Certainly, here are three or four extraordinary Trips of Sir Thomas. Now there is nothing material here, further to be taken notice of, till we come to his nineth page.    

Pag. 9 Of his Answer to my two Books.  
Here Sir Thomas saith that I mis-recite his Argument; and that I say, that the Lord Cook saith those words [in liberum maritagium] are such words of art, and so necessarily required, as they cannot be (understood) by words equipollent: so hard it is to get Sir Peter either to repeat or understand aright.  

My Reply.  
Parturiunt montes, nascetur ridiculus mus: He saith, it is a hard matter to get me repeat aright; but for the repeating of those very words of the Lord Cook; see Sir Thomas Manwarings Lawcases mistaken, pag. 3. pag. 10. and pag. 14. in all which places I have repeated them aright: So it is no hard matter to get me repeat aright; but here indeed the word (understood) is mis-writ for (expressed) pag. 4. of my former Reply; which shows itself to be a mistake in the writing; and the very sense here, would guide a man of reason into a rectification; but Sir Thomas will play at small game before he sit out.  
And then he saith, I understand not aright: why so? Because I do not say— by words equipollent, or amounting to as much.  
Oh profound and material point! as though equipollent, or amounting to as much, were not the same thing; or that there were more in the words (amounting to as much) than in the word (Equipollent): let him show me the difference between them, if he can; save only one is a Latin word, and the other English: so that when I had named the one, the other were not needful to be named.    

Pag. 10. Of his Answer to my two Books.  
Here he saith, I mistake very much, when I say— that Lands given in maritagium; Habendum libere & quiet ab omni servitio versus Capitalem Dominum, de me & haeredibus meis,— etc. was a good grant in free Marriage, by the words of Glanvil in those Ages, and as good as in liberum maritagium): Why so? because Glanvil doth not there, or any where else, say that Lands may be given in free Marriage by those, or any other equipollent words, without using the words [in liberum maritagium]: and unless he saith this, he saith nothing for Sir Peter's purpose.  

My Reply.  
For this see pag. 54. of my former Reply, where I have proved it out of glanvil's words by sure consequence, which Sir Thomas hath not yet answered: Sat Liber Index. Glanvil, lib. 7. cap. 18.  
'Tis true, those very words here mentioned by Sir Thomas, are not in Glanvil; but Lands granted in maritagium, free from all Service, etc. (saith Glanvil) was a grant in free Marriage; and by sure consequence employed there out of Glanvil, to be the words answerable to the words (in liberum maritagium), which makes clearly for Sir Peter's purpose against Sir Thomas; for such a grant (saith Glanvil) was a grant in free Marriage, without telling us that the words (in liberum maritagium) must be necessarily used at all: So that Sir Thomas mistakes himself here very much, and not I.    

Pag. 12, 13. Of his Answer to my two Books.  
Here he writeth down Saher de Quencyes Deed, out of my Historical Antiquities.  
In which Deed (saith he, pag. 13.) if Donarium were there miswritten for (Doterium), it would not here signify Marriage, but Dower; and he thinks also that the Transcriber probably did mistake (Donarium) for Dovarium; the n and u being anciently written alike: but he saith also, he got a friend carefully to examine the same in one of the Couchir-books in the Duchy Office in Grays-Inn, and the word is there Donarium, without any mistake at all.  

My Reply.  
It is true, I did intrepret in liberum Donarium in that Deed, as meant of a Jointure in my Historical Antiquities, pag. 132. but upon better consideration I conceived it might be more properly interpreted here, and understood for free-marriage; in my former Reply, pag. 7, 8. and in my Book, styled Sir Thomas Manwarings Lawcases Mistaken, pag. 29. for finding Does sometimes anciently taken for Marriage, and finding the word (liberum) added here unto it, I did conjecture it might have been miswritten in my Copy in liberum Donarium, for in liberum Dotarium: and so all one as to have said in liberum maritagium; and the rather for that we find very rarely the word in liberum donarium so applied; nor do we usually say Lands are given in free Jointure, but in free Marriage.  
But now it being in the Couchir-book in liberum Donarium without mistake, as Sir Thomas tells us, he got a Friend to examine it, it must needs be here interpreted for a free gift: for Saher de Quency Earl of Winchester, grants to Robert de Quency his Son and Heir four Manors, ad dandum in liberum Donarium Hawisiae Sorori Comitis Cestriae, uxori ejusdem Roberti. This was soon after the Marriage; for she was now the Wife of Robert, and these Lands were given for a free gift to Hawise his Wife, which is all one as to have said for a free gift in Marriage to Hawise; and a free gift in Marriage, is all one as a gift in Free-marriage: add hereunto, that those four Manors, given in liberum donarium, as aforesaid, accrued to the Heirs of Hawise, to wit, to John Lacie, Earl of Lincoln, in right of Margaret his Wife, Daughter and Heir of the said Robert Quency & Hawise: which by Law ought to descend upon the Heirs of Hawise, being given in free marriage: Whereunto also Roger de Quency (who succeeded Earl of Winchester, upon the death of the aforesaid Robert de Quency, his Elder Brother without Issue Male) released all his Right unto the Heirs of the said Margaret: See my Historical Antiquities, pag. 271. whereas had those Lands been given to Hawise in Dower or Jointure only, she could but have enjoyed them for herself, and not to her Heirs.  
But whether is the more proper interpretation thereof in this place, let Learned men judge; I will not contend about it. Yet whereas pag. 15. Sir Thomas would have the Reader to judge of my Integrity, because I did formerly interpret the words aforesaid to be understood of a Jointure, and now upon more serious deliberation conceive the same to be meant for a gift in free-marriage, or a free gift in marriage, having the word liberum joined with it: I say it is hard to censure my integrity for it: for that is well known to all the County where we both do live; I shall make no comparisons, for those are odious, and savour of arrogancy.  
Again, Sir Thomas hath committed another Trip, pag. 10. where he expoundeth Mr. glanvil's words (when he speaketh of gifts in frankmarriage) cum aliquâ muliere, to be meant [with some woman]: which words he misinterpreteth altogether; for it is there meant [with any Woman] not with some Woman: He hath the same error in his Reply to my Answer, pag. 40,    

Pag. 16, 17. Of his Answer to my two Books.  
Here he saith, I tell him how he proves by comparing the Age of Bertred, that Agatha could not be the Daughter of the Second William de Ferrare; wherein (saith he) I am pitifully mistaken, for he did go about no such thing; but he did show pag. 3, 4, 5. that Joan, Wife of lewelyn could not be the same Joan which King John had by Agatha.  

My Reply.  
O pretty Subterfuge! hath he any proof at all here, that Joan, Wife of lewelyn was not the same Joan which King John had by Agatha; but all his proof there bottomed on the Age of Bertred, which could not allow Agatha to be the Daughter of the Second William de Ferrars by Bertred's Daughter; so as to suppose Agatha to be old enough to have Issue that Joan by King John, and that Joan to be old enough to be Wife of lewelyn, Anno. 1204. which is a false ground taken from Vincent: but Speed saith, Agatha was Daughter of Robert de Ferrars, and I agree Vincent to be mistaken therein: Let me see him prove the Princess of Wales to be no Daughter of Agatha by King John; what he saith here, is nothing to the purpose: See my former Reply, p. 18.    

Pag. 22. Of his Answer to my two Books.  
Here (after a long Oration, nothing at all material) he tells us— would any man think Sir Peter himself within a very few lines would be guilty of the like offence, which I unjustly charged him withal? and a little after— Sir Peter would distinguish between maritagium, and maritagium Servitio obnoxium; and say maritagium is twofold, but doth not give the members of his distinction aright.  

My Reply.  
Here are two great Trips more of Sir Thomas, for I did neither charge him unjustly with that distinction, which any man may read in his book, nor am I guilty of the like offence, as he saith I am: Show me, if he can, where I go about any such a distinction as he here mentioneth, or say marriage is twofold, and then give the members of my distinction so absurdly as he there hath done; I wonder he is so disingenuous either to deny the one or affirm the other: See his Answer to my Addenda, pag. 7. and my former Reply thereunto, pag. 20, 21. I appeal to all Readers; and yet in the 19th. pag. of this Answer to my two books, he tells us, it is the want of my understanding which causeth me to blame him for what he there so saith, and then runs on in a long harangue to no purpose, telling us that maritagium Servitio obnoxium is the Elder Brother— etc.    

Pag. 24. Of his Answer to my two Books.  
Here he saith, that I indeed do tell him that those Manors (Budiford & Suttehele) were given to the said lewelyn in libero maritagio: But the Deed lately belonging to Somerford Oldfield Esquire, doth prove no such thing, but doth only prove that the said lewelyn did mistake himself, and did think that they were given him in free-marriage, when they were not so given.  

My Reply.  
Oh fine, a pretty Answer indeed! for though in the Deed it be said— Sicut Dominus Johannes Rex ea illi dedit in libero maritagio] yet here (saith Sir Thomas) lewelyn mistakes himself, and thought it was so given, when it was not: it is not in the Deed (mihi dedit) but (illi dedit), and by consequence could not be mistaken by lewelyn only, if it were mistaken; but by all others also then present, and especially by the Writer of the said Deed: But whether was lewelyn, and the Clerk that made the Deed, and all others then present, more like to know the truth hereof, then Sir Thomas now living 450. years after that Deed made: Every man may see the weakness of this Answer. Sure this may stand for a Trip with a derry-down, but he hath so many of them, that I shall forget to count them all. Ere while pag. 3. when I am put hard to it, (saith he) than I say the Roll is mis-writ: Very well; but here he denys the very words of the Deed, and avers against a Record, and yet gives no reason for it neither.  
What follows pag. 26, 27, 28, 29. are all tedious things according to his custom, and little or nothing to the point.  
But pag. 26. and in other places elsewhere, when any thing is said by him, either not true, or not to the point, than it is my ignorance that runs me upon mistakes, that I cannot fathom what he or the Lawyers do say.    

1. He saith, pag. 26. that if a man have Land given in free marriage with a Wife, he hath only Custodiam terrae cum uxore, and therefore cannot dispose of those Lands to any Person from the right Heir.  
2. So pag. 28, 29. he tell us that the Writ for the Livery of Budiford to lewelyn runs in these words,— quod Johannes Rex ei dedit in maritagium cum Johanna, etc. and (saith he) Livery would be needless in a gift of free-marriage, and therefore concludes, it must be only in maritagio given, not in libero maritagio; and so Lewellyn's Deed to John Scot is mistaken; and be it what it will, it will work nothing in this case.  

My Reply.  
1. To the first: For what he saith, that according to the ancient Lawyers in those elder Ages, that Lands given with a Wife in free-marriage to a man, the Husband hath only the custody of such Lands with his Wife, and therefore cannot dispose of any of those Lands to any person from the right Heir by such a Wife.  
Yet we see here, that lewelyn did grant away de facto to John the Scot, Budiford in free-marriage with Helen his Daughter, about 1222. which Land's King John gave unto him in free-marriage, with Joan his Daughter, Mother of the said Helen, by what right we cannot now tell, whether by the consent of the right Heir by Joan, or other compensation elsewhere given; but certainly it was so given, and Helen was right Heir to her Mother Joan, after the death of David her Brother, without Issue.  
2. To the second: As to the Writ of Livery concerning Budiford, running only in maritagium, it hinders nothing but that the grant to lewelyn of Budiford might be in libero maritagio; as we see that of the Castle of Ellesmere, granted also to lewelyn by King John, with his said Daughter Joan in libero maritagio, by express words: See the Deed at large in my Advertisement to the Reader, at the end of my Book, styled Sir Thomas Manwarings Lawcases Mistaken; and yet the Livery of Ellesmere saith only— quod dedimus dilecto filio nostro Lewelino in maritagio filiae nostrae: See Sir Thomas Manwarings Answer to my Addenda, pag. 6. Now maritagio doth as well include free marriage, as not free-marriage, according as the Deed runneth.    

Pag. 30. Of his Answer to my two Books.  
Here he saith, he thinks he can make good what he said of my Partiality (which yet he will not speak publicly) and that I will not be excused by that contradiction of mine; to wit, That admit I were never so much partial in what he chargeth me with (yet I hope what I have written, he finds it impartial to all, so far as I go or know) would this cure his uncivil expressions towards me in another thing? but he leaves out these last words of mine.  

My Reply.  
Let him find out a contradiction here if he can; but all his shifts and cavils cannot prevail to cover the truth concerning Amicia, and which with all his art he cannot solidly refute. So having done with this Trip, I proceed to the rest.    

Pag. 32, 33. Of his Answer to my two Books.  
Now he would fain justify a former error of his, and shows me a Deed out of my own Book, pag. 143. (from which Book he fetcheth many things, but nothing will help his cause) In which Deed, Randal, Duke of Britain, & Earl of Chester granted to Andrew, Son of Mabil, & to his Heirs, sundry liberties, etc. among which, it is there said— nec de querelâ aliquiâ in civitate Cestriae, vel extrâ, respondeant in praesentiâ meâ, vel summi, Justitiae mei: * upon which he puts in the Margin a special mark thus (* Note): and after he saith, Now let any Person judge whether there was not a chief Justice of Chester in those Elder Ages.  
But before pag. 32. he tells us most learnedly, that the word Justitia here, is of the Masculine Gender, and gives us a rule out of the Grammar for it—  
Mascula nomina in a dicuntur multa Virorum, and was sometimes in those Elder Ages used for the Judge or Justice of Chester, which he believes I cannot deny.  

My Reply.  
No indeed, I cannot deny it; but why used for the Judge or Justice of Chester, more than other Judges in those Ages? Surely it was Anciently used for any of our Judges: Glanvil mentioning the form of Original Writs, hath it thus— quod sit coram me vel Justitiis meis: So also Hoveden, and other of our ancient Historians used Capitalis Justitia Angliae for the chief Justice of England: But Bracton compiling a Book of the body of our Law in Latin, under King Henry the third, he changed the word (Justitiis) into (Justiciariis); and setteth down the writs accordingly— coram Justiciariis nostris: Since which time, in all Writs and Commissions upon Record, they have been styled Justitiarij: Lamberds Eirenarcha, lib. 1. cap. 1.  
And then for his profound Observation, that Justitia is here of the Masculine Gender, according to the Rule—  
Mascula nomina in (a) dicuntur multa virorum. Yet he hath left out three or four of the next words following, which might fitly have been added to that book of his— Ut scriba, assecla, scurra, & rabula. But now for the words of the Deed: It is certain, that here Earl Randle calls the Judge of Chester— my chef Justice; and the words of the Deed , I conceive runs thus in English— That the said Andrew and his Heirs should not Answer concerning any Suit (or Complaint) entered in the City of Chester, or without, either in my presence, or in the presence of my chief Justice.  
And it is a rare precedent (without a Parallel, I believe in this kind) that the Earl here calleth him— my chief Justice; undoubtedly for some reason here intended, and but accidentally neither; possibly in distinction from the Judges of his inferior Courts: for certainly they were never called chief Justices of Chester in those Ages by common appellation, as at this day they be called; neither then were there more Judges of Chester than one at a time, nor doth this example prove it otherwise, nor is the Judge here styled— Chief Justice of Chester; only the Earl here calls him— my Chief Justice, speaking as it were in his own person; nor will this at all excuse the error and vain glory of Sir Thomas, speaking so of Ralph Manwaring, and calling him as at this day we call the Signior Judge of Chester; it was a Trip, it overslipt him; but he will seldom acknowledge any error.  
Again, This Deed was made between the year 1188. and 1200. for all that while Randle, Earl of Chester assumed the Title of Duke of Little-Brittain in France, which Title we see he had given to him in this Deed: But it cannot be firmly collected that Ralf Manwaring was Judge of Chester at that very time when this Deed was made; for he is there subscribed by the name of Ralf Manwaring only, not styled Radulfo Manwaring Justiciario Cestriae there, as he is in many other Deeds, and as he and all others were usually styled, while they were Judges; and what Sir Thomas would stretch to have it so out of my Historical Antiquities, it will not certainly follow out of my Notes, that Ralf Manwaring was Judge of Chester all that time, from 1188. till Philip Orreby was Judge there; nor especially all the time, while Randle was Duke of Britain; and therefore Sir Thomas cannot certainly conclude (as he doth, pag. 34.) that Ralph Manwaring was Judge at that very time, when that Deed was made.  
Pag. 35. to pag. 41. are things not worthy my taking notice of, nor pertinent to the main point, and have all formerly in my other books been Answered by me over and over again, and therefore I shall here pass them by; although, if I would cavil (as Sir Thomas doth) at every piddling thing, I could find many errors therein.    

Pag. 43. Of his Answer to my two Books.  
Here he saith, he is very confident Sir Peter cannot prove, that persons who were under age, did then use to join with their Mothers, and to give away their Lands of Inheritance.  
2. And then after a long harangue, and writing down of Mr. Selden's words, which I had before cited, he saith pag. 45. (which is all the Answer he gives to my Precedent that is material) that Earl Richard confirmed the Hyde of Land which Droco de Andeleia had given to Abbington-Church; and a little after, addeth— what is this to the Case of Hugh Cyvelios, who did pass away Stivinghale to the Bishop of Chester, and his Successors for ever?  

My Reply.  
I say it is the very selfsame Case, one as the other: for Earl Richard, and Earl Hugh do both join with their respective Mothers, both under Age; but now forsooth the difference he would put is this, that the one confirms another man's grant, the other grants away certain Lands for ever I would fain know if a grant of Lands for ever by one under Age, and joining with his Mother, be invalid; why a confirmation of Lands, by one under age also, and joining with his Mother, would not be invalid likewise; but this confirmation of Lands for ever held firm, and the Lands continued to the Church of Abbington accordingly.  
So we see how he doubts not but what is there said, will give all men satisfaction, without rendering any Reason at all of the difference in those two Cases.  
And I am very confident Earl Hugh could not be twelve years old when he joined with his Mother in the Grant of Stivinghale; and if the grant were made about the year 1156. to wit, about two or three years after his Father's death, I rather think that Earl Hugh was not above eight years old when he joined in that Grant.  
But certainly Sir Thomas is far wide when he saith, pag. 45. that Earl Hugh was old enough to take Melyeneth-Castle, anno. 1142. or that he was 23. years old, Anno. 1153. in which year his Father died: most absurd, and without any ground at all.  
But since I writ this second Reply, I have received a sure Record that proves Earl Hugh could not be above three or four years old at the death of his Father, Anno 1153. and will lay asleep for ever all those false suppositions of Earl Hugh's Age; whereof see more in my Peroratio ad Lectorem, at the end of this my second Reply.    

Pag. 46. Of his Answer to my two Books.  
Here he tells the Reader, that I gave him a Pedigree of the Barons de Monte alto: In which I make the first Robert de Monte alto (who I said lived in King Stephen's time) to have Issue, two Sons, Ralph and Robert, who were afterwards successively Stewards of Cheshire; all which (saith he) is certainly true: [I could wish he would as ingeniously confess all other truths alleged by me]; and then he writeth out a Deed of Hugh Cyvelioc, Earl of Chester, out of my Historical Antiquities; whereunto Robertus Dapifer de Monte-alto was a Witness.  
1. And then pag. 48. he saith, this must needs be the first Robert de Monte-alto: and if this Deed of Earl Hugh was made immediately before the death of this Robert, then Earl Hugh was a great deal elder than his Wife Bertred: (why so?) For (saith he) though the said Robert did live something longer than Sir Peter doth take notice of, yet he thinks it cannot be proved that he was living any considerable time after Eustace (who was Witness to the Grant of Stivinghale): and he knows no reason why we should conclude Eustace was slain immediately after he was a Witness to the other Deed, or that this Robert died presently after he was a Witness to this Deed.  
2. He saith, pag. 49. that he thinks it will appear that this Deed was made in King Stephen's time; for had it been made when Henry the Second was King, it would not have been here said— sicut fuit tempore Henrici Regis; but sicut fuit tempore Henrici Primi; or else here would have been some other words used, to distinguish King Henry the first from the then King.  
Pag. 49. Now King Stephen dying, 1154. and Bertred not born till 1157. it will from this Deed be clear, that if the said Hugh had sealed the other Deed immediately before King Stephen died, yet Earl Hugh would be at the least 24. years older than Bertred his Wife.  

My Reply.  
Is not here a long Prose of his running all upon ifs and and's, without the least ground of truth?  
1. To the first: I do remember that I have seen some proof that the first Robert de Monte-alto (as he calls him) was living 17. Stephani▪ what then? why should we conclude (saith he) that Eustace was slain immediately after he was a Witness to the one Deed, or that Robert died presently after he was a Witness to this other Deed?  
Is not here pitiful weak reasons to bottom on? we find Eustace slain Anno. 1157. So Stow, and other Historians: as to Robert de Monte-alto aforesaid, I conceive he survived Hugh Cyvelioc: I have not yet seen any thing to induce me to think he died before Earl Hugh; and this Deed of Earl Hugh to the Nuns of Bolinton, I believe was made far in the Reign of King Henry the Second, nor can he give any reason at all to the contrary, and we find not Ralph de Monte-alto a Witness, till Randle Blundevil's time, and that must be either in King Richard the First's Reign, or towards the very end of Henry the Second at soon.  
2. To the second: Let him prove this Deed to be made in King Stephen's time, and I will burn my book: as to his reason of distinguishing of one King Henry from another, how many times do we find mention of the Henrys in old Charters, without distinguishing at all? Sometimes they are distinguished, and sometimes not; but not adding the word of Henrici Regis nunc, shows clearly it is meant of Hen. 1.  
3. To the third: As he proves nothing from the Deed, nor when it was made, so his ifs signify nothing; for Earl Hugh was certainly a Child under age, when he joined with his Mother in the Deed of Stivinghale.  
And his ifs are very pretty, if Earl Hugh made this Deed to the Nuns of Bolinton, immediately before the death of Robert de Monte-alto aforesaid; and than you must take his other (if) too— if this Deed was made in King Stephen's time, and then you must take his third (if) too— if Robert de Monte-alto died soon after King Stephen: what then? why then Earl Hugh must be a great deal older, at least 24. years older than Bertred his Wife.  
But if these (ifs) be all false suppositions, and if Earl Hugh did make this Deed towards the middle of the Reign of Henry the Second, and if Robert de monte-alto outlived Earl Hugh, (all which are more reasonable to imagine than the other ifs): what then? We may then conclude Earl Hugh was not near so much older than Bertred his Wife, as Sir Thomas would suppose him: See what stuff he here produceth to prove nothing.    

Pag. 49. Of his Answer to my two Books.  
Here he saith, that whereas I pretend to have showed that Earl Hugh could neither be so old as he would suppose him, nor yet that the said Earl was born in the year of Christ, 1142. Sir Thomas Answereth, that any man who can but count 20. to wit, how long it is from 1109. to 1129. or from 1110. to 1130. if he looks on his Defence of Amicia, pag. 51. and on his Reply, pag. 61. may find that Hugh Cyvelioc might be older than he saith.  

My Reply.  
But whosoever views his Computation in those places, will find the same very wild: every supposition upon the utmost possibility; and as here, so there, he goes all upon (ifs), which cannot incline any judicious man to a belief; & here he concludes too, but upon a bare possibility, That Earl Hugh might be older than he now saith; that is, at least 24. years older than Bertred his Wife, which is certainly a great deceit of the Reader, to incline a belief that a thing is so, because it is possible to be so: Doth he any where prove substantially that Earl Hugh was so much older than his Wife, more than what may be very ordinary with other men in the like Case, or reasonably to suppose he had a former Wife? Show me that if he can: I am sure it cannot be proved; see my Answer to his defence of Amicia, pag. 48, 49. It appears clearly by the Record in the Exchequer at Westminster, that Earl Hugh was but six years older than Bertrey, or thereabout, which dasheth out all his Ifs for ever: See more hereof in my Peroratio ad Lectorem, at the end of this my second Reply.    

Pag. 50. Of his Answer to my two Books.  
Here he knocks me dead, and thinks now he proves Amicia no Bastard for certain,— for he doubts I am no good Arithmetician, because in my Historical Antiquities, pag. 137. I said I was eight years older than my Wife, and he hath taken great pains to search out the difference of our Ages, and finds I am not much above six years older than my Wife.  

My Reply.  
It is true, I there said so, speaking cursorily and over-hastily without due examination; for I then conceived she had been born in the eighth year of my Age; but it appears now she was born in the seaventh year of my Age; so that I am by exact account only six years and two month, and about two weeks older than my Wife.  
But what is all this to Amicia? The Reader may see how he makes it his business to catch and carp at every thing material or not material.    

Pag. 51, to pag. 60. Of his Answer to my two Books.  
In all this, there is little or nothing material to the main point; but he spends much time in comparing sundry ancient Authors, to show that Matthew Paris is misprinted in the place urged by me (to wit, in the Edition put out by Doctor Wats, 1640. pag. 79.) where he saith (William) Mandeveyle was taken Prisoner at Saint Albon, sub anno. 1142. for (Geffrey) Mandeveyle.  

My Reply.  
I will never excuse an error, nor deny a truth: I would I could say as much of Sir Thomas: indeed it is much that this very word should be misprinted above other words in Matthew Paris: I believe neither Sir Thomas, nor any other scarcely, upon such an accidental business could have suspected it to be so, having lighted upon the place by chance, else I should have made a stricter enquiry; but it had reason to put him upon an enquiry.  
Yet where he saith, pag. 59 that I dealt deceitfully herein, and that I did it purposely: This is another Trip of Sir Thomas; for had I then known it to be misprinted, I would never have urged it, at least without a Note upon it.  
However the misprinting of (Hugh) Earl of Chester for (Randle) in the Welsh History, pag. 197. holds firm for ever: and Sir Thomas confesseth it misprinted in this his Answer, pag. 52. very probably in the latter Copies, the letter (R) standing for a word in the Original book, might be miswritten (♄) in the Copy; which was supposed to be Hugh, or else for certain the Original was mistaken.  
But for all this, Sir Thomas is so far from an ingenious Confession herein, that he will justify his absurd error of computing Earl Hugh to be 41. years old when he married Bertred; & this he grounds upon the Errata at the end of Doctor powel's Notes on the Welsh-History aforesaid, where it is said, we must read— pag. 197. line 16. Hugh Son to the Earl of Chester.  
Which amendment is certainly as far from the truth, as that already Printed, and it is very questionable whether the said Earl Hugh ever lived to be 40. years old, for he died Anno Domini, 1181. and suppose we, that he was eight years old when his Father died Scilicet, 1153. (which I believe is as much as by reasonable account any indifferent person can well judge him so to be) yet would Earl Hugh be but 36. years old when he died, Anno scilicet 1181. and if he were twelve years old at the death of his Father (which I am confident can never be proved by good Authority) yet would Earl Hugh be but 40. years old when he died: See what a shift Sir Thomas would now make, but to suppose Earl Hugh to have a former Wife, which certainly he never had; but it appears now by a Record, that he died about the Age of 32.  
Again, Sir Thomas saith, pag. 51. that I go about to disparage Doctor Powel all I can, and that I will not suffer the Wesh History to be read, as it should have been Printed; as also pag. 52. that I will now disparage the said History, although in my Historical Antiquities touching the Kings of Wales, I did chief follow the same:  
This is another unkind reflection: Sit liber Judex, 
See page ioii. supra.  pag. 94. of my former Reply; my words are these— As I believe it [that is the Welsh-History] to be true in many things, so it hath also some gross mistakes; nor is it at all proved by good Authority, or exactly composed through out; nor shall you therein from the beginning find all the Wives, Children, and Bastards of the Ancient Kings and Princes of Wales clearly Recorded; and so are Doctor powel's Notes thereon full of Errors, and especially in his absurd Pedigree of the Earls of Chester, and in several other things.  
Here is nothing but what every knowing man (who doth seriously peruse the same) will acknowledge to be true; and some mistakes may be, and are in the writings of very Learned men, and yet no great disparagement neither: and I do confess also, that I followed the Welsh-History in the Princes of Wales, for I had no better, nor other to follow.    

Pag. 60. Of his Answer to my two Books.  
Having now concluded his Answer to my former Book, he tells us that in my Latin Epistle to the Judges (which he supposeth to be mine, though I vouchsafe not to set mine name thereto) I said he was the first Instigator of this Controversy; but whether that be so or ●o, he refers the Reader to his Epistle before his Defence of Amicia, and to the second and third pages of his Reply.  

My Reply.  
But what Sir Thomas saith there, was not the first time of this Controversy between us: For he saith in that Epistle, that if I would have delivered what I did conceit about Amicia, as an uncertainty only, than I knew he would have rested satisfied with the judgement of those many knowing persons, who dissented from me in opinion therein.  
But this was a little before my Historical Antiquities were Printed; nay he came to Tabley 
† About 1672.  also, purposely to desire me (hearing then that my Book was about to be Printed) that I would put Amicia under the Title of the doubtful Issue of Earl Hugh; when I told him that I thought it not sit to put down in my book any such third title of doubtful Issue, for she must certainly be either lawful or unlawful, which method I had observed in the rest. I told him also that it was not at all doubtful unto me, for in my judgement she was certainly a Bastard: And then he said, if I did place her under the unlawful Issue of Earl Hugh, he would write against it, which afterwards he did and I believe it had been as good to have let it alone.  
But before this, 
† 1664 Also 1672.  we had long intercourse (some years before) by Papers between us upon this Controversy, which Papers I have yet by me; and which (when my book was in Printing) he desired I would not print any of them without his consent, and I promised I would not, and I kept my word with him; and had it not been for those passages betwixt us, I had not said near so much of it in my book as I did, and so much for this. See my Answer to the Defence of Amicia, pag. 3.    

Pag. 60. Of his Answer to my two Books.  
He tells us also in the same page, that I do not put the question of Law aright; but the point must be otherways proved then by such a frivolous question as mine is.  

My Reply.  
I am sure I know not how to put it clearer to the point; videlicet, whether Lands in those Ages might not by the ancient Law be given in free-marriage with Bastards? for Sir Thomas saith, the Deed of Services in frankmarriage with Amice, proves she was no Bastard, because (saith he) the Law will not allow such a grant with a Bastard: I say, though at this day the Law will not allow it, yet it would then allow such a grant in the Age when Amicia lived, as the Law as then taken: must not now the question be— whether the Law in those Ages would so allow it, or no?  
And yet it is no sure Argument to prove Amice no Bastard, though the Law should not then allow such a grant; as to argue thus— Amice had Lands given with her in libero maritagio, ergo, Amice was no Bastard, for many irregular Deeds may sometimes pass, which in strictness of Law might not prove authentical: But I conceive the Law in those elder Ages would and did allow such grants; and we plainly see he waves the question, and will not abide the test; and it may suppose too, that the Opinions of some Lawyers (which he brags on in his books) were procured by putting off a wrong Case.  
I will also agree with him to put the other Case to the Judges, as he would have it put; videlicet, whether the Law be not now altered in this and sundry other particulars, from what it was in elder Ages, and that without any Act of Parliament? for otherwise Lands would now pass with Bastards legally in libero maritagio.    

Pag. 61. Of his Answer to my two Books.  
Here the saith, that if I had been so conversant in Divinity, as I would have the Judges to believe, it seems strange to Sir Thomas that I had not learned by duty better to my deceased Grandmother; for we are bound to Honour all our Parents, mediate or immediate, living or dead; and so compares my writings of these books to the wicked act of Cham in the Scripture, who divulged the shame of his Parent.  

My Reply.  
In the first place, let me observe to the Reader, that this is he who oft blameth me for misrepeating, and yet runs into the same error himself, and tells us here, that I would have the Judges to believe that I am much conversant in Divinity; let him show me where I say so, if he can, or that I make, or say, that I am conversant in Divinity; my words are— I prefer Divinity above all other Studies; this is far from saying, I am conversant in Divinity.  
In the next place, this act of mine cannot by any rational man be said to be like that of Cham, for he revera, saw his Father's Nakedness, and did not cover it, but told his Brethren without: now I could not see my said Grand-mother's nakedness in that sense, who died above 450. years ago; nor will any man say, but himself, that I have uttered any scornful or disgraceful words at all against her.  
Expositors on the Fifth Commandment, tell us, it includes in it the honouring of Kings and all in Authority over us, as well as our natural Parents, to whom we own honour and reverence in like manner.  
And tell me, were ever any of those worthy Persons or Historians, who have commemorated the Wife's and Concubine's, Children and Bastards of our Kings of England in their Histories, ever termed Cham's for the same? Nay, doth not Moses himself, in his History of Genesis, chap. 38. Record the Whoredom of Judah (who was great Uncle to the Father of Moses) with Thamar, his Daughter in Law, and also her Bastard-Twinns, Phares and Zarah? Nay, are not these Twins reckoned up in the sacred Genealogy, Matthew, Chap. 1.  
How many great and most honourable Families have been descended from Bastards, Kings, Dukes, Earls, and others?  
I have heard that King James used to say, it was a good Family that had neither Whore nor Thief a Kin to it: I am sure it is a rare Family that never had any Bastard.  
But Sir Thomas saith, that in some respects I have exceeeded that Pattern of Cham, 
† pag. 62.  though I have done nothing at all like that Act of Cham; I am sure he is Kim-Kam from the point, but he forgets his own duty, as to revile, 1 Cor. 6.10. and follows not the Pattern of Michael the Arch angel, who durst not take up a railing accusation against the worst of Antagonists, Judas vers. 9 and so much for the Case of Divinity, which he mistakes as well as his Law. It is as Lawful for any Historian to Record the Bastards, as Lawful Children: It is an error not to do it.    

Pag. 62. Of his Answer to my two Books.  
1. Here he saith, that in the second book which I direct to all the Judges of England, it so falls out that there is nothing therein, but what is in my former books, and is already Answered; though if there had, he should not have presumed to have given any Answer thereto, because those learned Persons know well enough what the Law was and is, in all particulars.  
2. However he cannot but observe how slightly I speak of the Lord Cook in my 48. page.  
3. And also, how I have such light expressions in my book directed to the Judges, as he believes were never used before by any Person of discretion to such Reverend and Learned men; no wonder therefore if I speak coursely of him, and tell him of so many impertinencies.  

My Reply.  
1. To the first, I believe there is something in that Second book, which is not in my former books, nor yet answered by him; and though the Learned Judges know what the Law was and is, better than either of us; yet we may with modesty offer what we conceive is right to their more grave judgements; but it is a good excuse.  
2. To the second, I do not speak slightly of the Lord Cook in my 48. page, nor any where else; my words there are these,— As for the Lord Cooks citing of Bracton or Glanvil, in the Margin, as Authority, for what he there saith, if he maketh a false quotation, or such, as is not to the point, neither I nor any man 〈◊〉 else are bound to believe the Lord Cook more than any other.  
So let the Reader judge whether this be not another Trip.  
3. To the third: I conceive I I have no such light expressions that might not be used to our light Controversy, or before Learned Judges, nor yet such as were never before used by any person of discretion, as he allegeth: he might have done well to have showed what those expressions were; but perhaps, if they had been used by such a discreet Person as himself, than they would not have been accounted light expressions, but rather plain to the Point, not rude at all.    

Pag. 63. Of his Answer to my two Books.  
He saith here in the very Conclusion of his book— whether he be guilty of those [Impertinencies] or untruths, or of that opprobrious Language which I do charge him with, let the indifferent Reader be judge; and whereas it appears that I am resolved to have the last word, though I have nothing new to say; and that my writing again be contrary both to my duty to my Deceased Grandmother, and to my promise in Print: He declares that if what I shall write hereafter be no more to the purpose than what I have said in those two last books, that he will not appear in Print against me any more.  

My Reply.  
To all which I say, that I do not know that I have any where at all charged him either with Impertinencies or Untruths, but what are so charged justly by me, that I can suddenly call to remembrance.  
And for opprobrious Language (wherein this last Answer of his far exceeds.) I have only this to add for myself, that in my Answer to his Defence of Amicia, I think no man can show me any one uncivil expression in the whole book; but afterwards, when he had in his following books taxed me unjustly in many things, and carped at every thing in mine, Pertinent or Impertinent, I confess I was more severe in my expressions in my latter books, but he led the way; what I have said, was but in vindication of myself, for my Reputation is as dear to me as his can be to him; and though my expressions sometimes may seem tart, yet not so opprobrious neither as he makes them; had he kept close to the point, and avoided his Calumnies and Cavils, and confessed his Errors more ingeniously throughout, I should neither have had occasion to retort, nor have Answered to them.  
And what I have written above my first intention, he hath forced me thereunto.  
But now he will appear no more in Print against me, if what I shall write hereafter be no more to the purpose than what I have said in those two last books.  
Whereunto I say, that for certain there is so much already said to the purpose in them, as is not yet solidly and substantially answered by him; and herein I submit myself to all Ingenious Readers.    
Mobberley, May 28, 1675.   

PERORATIO AD LECTOREM.  
SInce I writ this Second Reply, I am credibly informed that Sir Thomas did write to some of his Friends about May or June, Anno Domini, 1675. to this or the like effect.—  
I hope now the Contest between Sir Peter and me will be at end; for Mr. Dugdale, in his Baronage of England, page 41. hath delivered his Opinion on my side: and Sir Peter having appealed to the Judges, Mr. Dugdale thereupon did move them in the Case; and they upon mature debate determined that Amicia was no Bastard. I have seen his last Sheet, which I have Answered, but shall not yet Print it.  
1. This Letter was showed up and down Chester, purposely to delude the easy multitude; for since he cannot demonstrate or support the legitimacy of Amitia, either by good Reason or Authority, Sir. Thomas used this secret practice to gain a belief of his Cause, as supported by Opinions; whereas in truth there is no such thing as a mature debate by our Reverend Judges in the Case of Amicia; for as yet the Case in Law is not agreed upon by both sides, how then can there be a mature debate, or determination of the Controversy? for Sir Thomas faith in his Answer to my two books, pag. 61. that the point must be otherwise proved than by such a frivolous question as mine is; and a little before pag. 60. he saith that in the Epistle Dedicatory, wherein I appeal to the Judges, I do not put the question aright; whereas there can be no other point of Law to be resolved as to the Controversy in hand, but this,— Whether Lands in those elder Ages might, and did Lawfully pass with Bastards in libero maritagio, or no? That they might, and did so pass, I have before in my other Books clearly proved as well by the very words of Glanvil himself, and the Law than not where disallowing the same; as also by three sure Precedents of those Ages.  
But because Sir Thomas takes this upon trust from Mr. Dugdale, I shall here in public unmask that Letter more fully, to the undeceiving of all men.  
2. As to the Opinion of Mr. Dugdale, it is true, he hath delivered his opinion for the Legitimacy of Amicia, in his Book of the Baronage of England, newly Published, Tom. 1. pag. 41. And it is no more than what Sir Thomas formerly told us in his books, That he was of that judgement before he published his said book of the Baronage: What then? many very wife and knowing men have declared their Opinions with me, that she was a Bastard; both Divines and Lawyers, and other grave and understanding men; but I shall examine these things more particularly.  
3. And in the first place, I shall always desire to be understood without the least detraction from the honour and due praise of Mr. Dugdale, of whom I have ever had a good esteem, as a most diligent and indefatigable searcher of the Records and Antiquities of our Nation: Sed Bernardus non videt omnia; nor should I now have mentioned him at all for his opinion herein, but that Sir Thomas Manwaring brings him here upon the Stage.  
Only we may by the way take notice, that some years ago Mr. Dugdale did draw up Sir Thomas Manwaring's Pedigree; wherein he puts Amicia, the Wife of Ralph Manwaring, without her due distinction (as I conceive) of a Bastard, and is therefore the more concerned to stickle for Sir Thomas in this Contest between us: So that formerly he consulted some Lawyers for their Opinions in this Case of History; for whether Bastard or no Bastard hath nothing of Law in the Case, or whether Hugh Cyvelioc Earl of Chester, had any former or other Wife besides Bertra? these are questions to be resolved by History, Records, and Reason; but Mr. Dugdale would now support his opinion with a point of Law, and therefore moved some Lawyers for their opinions; but how the Case was stated, no body but himself knows, nor what the point of Law was, wherein they delivered their opinions: and methinks it argued some doubt within his own breast, that she was a Bastard; otherways why should he consult any Lawyers in the case: and in truth, let the Law be what it will, she was certainly a Bastard, which to my poor reason, is as plain as the Sun when it shines; but it seems he was satisfied with the Opinions of those Lawyers, that she was Legitimate, because (saith he) it is a known Maxim in the Law, that nothing can be given in Frankmarriage to a Bastard: but this Maxim is to be understood with a due distinction of the times and ages, otherwise it will fail; but I shall anon speak more of this, and of his moving the Judges in the Case; wherein I should be glad to see what Case he put, and the resolutions of our Reverend Judges thereon, under their hands; in the mean time I shall go on with Mr. Dugdale's Opinion, whereon Sir Thomas so much depends.  
4, In his said Book of the Baronage of England, pag. 34. b. he calls Robert and Ottiwel, two Illegitimate Sons of Hugh (Surnamed Lupus) Earl of Chester; wherein he is to be commended for speaking out, for so they were without all doubt: Howbeit, I find not any Author hitherto, who have Written of our ancient Earls of Chester, Commemorating either these, or any other at all, as Bastards, to any of our ancient Earls of Chester; neither Brooks in his Catalogue of Nobility, nor Vincent in his Gorrections of Brook, nor Milles in his Catalogue of Honour, nor Fern in his Lacyes-Nobility, nor Powel in his Notes on the Welsh-History, pag. 294. nor yet Mr. Dugdale himself, in his ; till here in his late 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 Geoffrey 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 tied up to the words (in libero maritagio) and not 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 Frankmarriage, to Ralph 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 Maxim in Law, that nothing can be given in Frankmarriage 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 herself 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 Earldom; 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 Frankmarriage, as is here alleged; but he granted with her in Frankmarriage, 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 Earldom 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 Maxim of Law, that nothing can be given in Frankmarriage 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 Precedents 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 itself, 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 Probability (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 Margin, 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 Copy 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, etc.  
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 VIII. annis: Ipsa tenet Wadinton in dote de feodo Comitis Cestriae: et firma est XXII. libr. per annum: dict a villa valet per annum XL. lib: Cum hoc instauramento, Scilicet, TWO Carucis, IIII Vaccis, I Tauro, IIII Suibus, I Verre, Dovibus, quae ibi sunt:— etc.  
Com. Lincoln.  
Jeretre-Wapentak.  
Bertreia Comitissa, filia Comitis de Evereous, uxor Hugonis Comitis Cestriae, est de donatione Domini Regis; & est XXIX annorum. Terra quam Comitissa habet, XL. lib. Maritagium; & defectus sunt ultrà mare, ideo nesciunt Juratores quid valeant. Dominus Rex praecepit, quod ipsa haberet XL libratas terrae Domini sui in Beltesford, Hemmingly, & Duninton: licet non habuit nisi XXXV libratas, & X solidatas. Quiá (ut dicunt) dicta terra non potest plus valere cum Instauramento quod comitissa ibi recepit; Scilicet, V Carucis, CCCXLI Ovibus, X Suibus, I Verre. Sed si in Duninton apponerentur CCoves, & X sues, & I verris, tunc Valeret.  
So that, by this Record it clearly appears, that as Bertrey was twenty nine years of Age, 31. Hen. 2. 1185; So Maud (the Mother of Hugh Cyvellioc, Earl of Chester) was aged fifty years, Anno Domini 1185. 31. Hen 2. etc.  
And so Maud must be born Anno 1135. and Bertrey must be born Anno 1156.  
Now it cannot be imagined, that Maud could have a Child before she was fifteen years of Age: And then Earl Hugh could not be born till the year 1150. at soon. And by Consequence, Earl Hugh was about three years old when he came to be Earl; and about six years older than his wife Bertrey.  
What a monstrous and wild Computation then hath Sir Thomas Manwaring made, and upon utmost Possibilities too, supposed, in his Answer to my Addenda, pag. 50, 51. where he would have Earl Hugh to be 41. years old when he married his Wife Bertrey, which Marriage he supposeth to be Anno 1171? So also in his Answer to my two Books, pag. 49. Whereunto see my First Reply, pag. 91. to pag. 94. See also in my Second Reply, to his Objection in that Point, mentioned here a little before, Pa: 46, 47.  
And how could Earl Hugh now be in years (as Mr. Dugdale would have him) when he married his Wife, supposing with Sir Thomas, the Marriage to fall Anno Domini 1171? For, by this Record Earl Hugh would then be but 21 years old, and his Wife about 15. years old. So this Argument of Probability is become an Argument of Improbability of the Earl's having any former Wife.  
This Record came to my hands after I had written my Second Reply: And I am very confident, that when soever any Record, tending to this Point, concerning Earl Hugh, or Amicia, shall hereafter, at any time, be discovered, it will more and more illustrate the Truth of what I have written about them.  
7. Having now laid asleep for ever The Argument of the Sticklers for the Legitimacy of Amicia, drawn from the Erroneous Computation of Earl Hugh's Age; I come now to the Letter of Sir Thomas Manwaring, before mentioned, written by him to a Kinsman both of his and mine, and left with Throp the Stationer in Chester, purposely to be divulged, and made known to every Man in Town: wherein he writ. (among other things), That I having appealed to the Judges, Mr. Dugdale had moved them in the Case: who upon Mature debate, determined, that Amicia was no Bastard, as I was credibly informed by one who saw the Letter.  
But, (as I said before) How could there be any Mature-debate, or Determination of the Point in Controversy by our Reverend Judges, whiles as yet the Case is not at all agreed upon between us? For, Sir Thomas waves the Question in Law, and will not abide the Test; See pag. 60, 61. of his Answer to my two books.  
For whether Amicia was a Bastard, or no? this Question hath nothing of any Law in the case, and therefore unfit to be put to our Reverend Judges for their Opinions, unless also all the Records and Histories touching the same, together with the Reasons alleged on both sides, were produced before them: It is more proper for them to judge only upon the point of Law.  
And it is granted on all hands, that Lands cannot pass with Bastards in libero maritagio, at this day, as the Law is now taken: but in the more ancient Ages, when the Deed to Amicia was made, Lands might and did usually pass with Bastards in libero maritagio: I affirm it out of ancient Precedents; Sir Thomas denies it.  
Now all Deeds by the rule of Law, are to be Construed and understood according to the time when they were made; so that there is now no other Case of Law to be put, but this, as I put the same in my Epistle Dedicatory, to all our Reverend and Learned Judges; to wit—  
Whether in the Age of Glanvil, Lands lawfully might, and did usually pass with Bastards in Free-Marriage, or no?  
Again, I am assured from very good hands (who have lately enquired of many of our Judges above) that there was no such thing as a mature debate & determination, as Sir Thomas mentioneth in his Letter, nor their Opinions at all delivered as yet in the Case of Amicia, now in Contest; and some of them said, that they never had any such a question asked them, as whether in the Age of Glanvil, Lands might Lawfully pass in Free-marriage with Bastards?  
If Mr. Dugdale hath moved any of the Judges in private, for their Opinions in any point of Law about Amicia, had he but given me due notice of such his intention, I would have met him half way, and so the Case might have been truly stated, and the point thoroughly debated; for he being on the place, might have those opportunities which I could not at this distance possibly have, and so the truth would have appeared to the world.  
And therefore, that I may deal above-board, I have here following, published by itself, The Case of Amicia truly Stated, for the better apprehension & information of all Persons; and the rather, for that Mr. Dugdale only buildeth his Opinion of the Legitimacy of Amicia on the same point of Law, in his Baronage of England.  
And howbeit (as I formerly said) I left every man to his own free judgement, thinking rather to establish my own Opinion by Authorities and good Reason, then by other men's Opinions; so I never went about to hunt for Opinions, especially in the Case of Amicia, (for many did concur with me without my seeking) till after that Letter of Sir Thomas Manwaring : for I ever counted it an improper thing to prove a point of History by a nice point of Law.  
But I have lately made some enquiry, and am assured from very good hands, that some of our more eminent Judges above (and I believe all of them, if they would deliver their Opinions in the Case) do concur with me in the point of 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 otherways 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 Arms, 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 publicly spoke it, whose judgement 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 judgement of all men, who are versed in Antiquities, Records, and Histories.  
And so I have done, if Sir Thomas hath do; 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 Ralph 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, showing 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 than 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 Coheirs did implead John the Scot, than 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 Wife 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 alleging that he had another Wife be sufficient without due proof, than 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. Ralph 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 Huntingdon, who was Brother to the King of Scotland; the Earl of Arundel; the Earl of Derby; 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 Frankmarriage, 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 concur 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 Ralph 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 dat cum aliquâ muliere alicui in maritagium, ità quod ab omni Servitio terra illa sit quieta, & à se & haeredibus suis, versus capitalem Dominum, acquietanda.  
And Bracton expressly, lib. 2. cap. 7. Quoniam terra data Bastado in maritagium, sicut & aliis, vel Bastardo per se, in se tacitam habet Conditionem vel expressam de reversione— etc. See also Sir Thomas Manwaring's Lawcases mistaken, pag. 10, 11.  
So that Lands might be given in Free-Marriage to any man, with any woman whomsoever, without any exception; and if with any woman whomsoever, then certainly with a Bastard; and Bracton more expressly, that Lands might then be given to a Bastard in Marriage; neither are Bastards any where disallowed by the Law, either in Glanvil or Bracton, for having Lands given in Free-marriage.  
2. That the Law was so taken in the time of King John, and upwards, appeareth by sundry Precedents of those elder Ages, whereby Lands were given in Free-marriage with Bastards.  
See one in my Book of Antiquities, pag. 112. wherein Randle, Earl of Chester (Sir-named the Gernouns) gave unto Geva Ridel, Daughter of Earl Hugh [that was Hugh Lupus] Drayton, in Free-marriage with the Appurtenances, even as Earl Hugh gave the same unto her in Free-marrige: This Deed was made about the end of Hen. I. or King Stephen.  
And that Geva was a Bastard, Ordericus an Historian of good Credit, and Contemporary with Geva, plainly shows; for lib. 4. Ecclesiasticae Historia, pag. 522. He tells us that Hugh Lupus had many Bastard-Sons & Bastard-Daughters; yet nameth none of them in particular, è Pellicibus plurimam Sobolem utriusque sexûs genuit, quae diversis infortunijs absorpta penè tota periit: Exmentrudem filiam Hugonis de Claromonte Beluacensi uxorem duxit, ex quâ Ricardum Cestrensis comitatûs haeredem genuit, qui jnvenis liberisque Carens naufragio periit. So that having given an account of his Wife, and his Son by her, who died young, and without Children, he would certainly have given an Account of his other Children by his Wife, if he had had any other by her; but ●o put it out of all doubt, he tells us afterwards, lib. 10. Eccles. Hist. pag. 787. Ricardus Pulcherrimus puer, quem solum ex Ermentrude filiâ Hugonis de Claromonte genuit, Consulatum (Cestriae Scilicet) tenuit, so that Earl Hugh only begot Richard on Ermentrude his Wife & then by sure consequence out of his words, it must needs follow that Geva was was one of the Earl's Bastards, she being no Child by Ermentrude, his Wife; which is clearly proved without a point of Law, and cannot by any point of Law be taken off.  
Again, if Geva had been a Lawful Daughter by Ermentrude, than she would have been sole Heir to her Brother Richard, and aught to have had the Earldom of Chester, which she never had, nor ever claimed: See this more fully in my Answer to the Defence of Amicia, pag. 35. to pag. 40. and if and shall run to the old Subtersuge, and say, she might be his Daughter by a former Wife, let him prove it, and take it; and she could be no Daughter by a latter Wife, because Ermentrudo survived Earl Hugh her Husband: See my Historical Antiquities, pag. 114.  
Other two Precedents we have of Lands, granted in Free-marriage with Joan, Bastard-Daughter of King John.  
1. One, wherein King John granted to lewelyn, Prince of North-wales, in Marriage with Joan his Daughter, the castle of Ellesmere in Shropshire; Tenendum ei, & haeredibus suis qui de eo & praedictâ filiâ nostrâ exierint, de nobis & haeredibus nostris in liberum maritagium; Salvis conventionibus inter nos & ipsum de terrâ & eodem maritagio factis, etc. Dated Anno Sexto Johannis Regis, 1204. See the Deed at large in the Advertisement to the Reader, at the end of my book, styled Sir Thomas Manwaring's Lawcases mistaken, pag. 53. transcribed from the Record in the Tower of London.  
2. Another see in my book of Antiquities, pag. 152. wherein it is Covenanted that John the Scot, Nephew of Randle, Earl of Chester and Lincoln by his eldest Sister, shall Marry Helen, Daughter of lewelyn, Prince of North-wales; and that the said lewelyn shall give to the said John in Free-Marriage all the Manor of Budford in , and the Manor of Suttehele in Worcester shire, cum omnibus Pertinentiis, sicut Dominus Johannes Rex ea illi dedit in libero maritagio— etc. This Deed was made about 6. Hen. 3. Anno Christi. 1222. Now that the said Joan was a Bastard-Daughter of King John, take these several Authorities, Vincent upon Brook, pag. 204. Speeds History, p. 518. Stow's Annals Augmented by Howes, pag. 167, 168. Polychronicon Translated into English by Trevisa, lib. 7. cap. 33. Cambdens Brittannia in Shropshire, pag. 453. also Daniel and Fabian, and Milles Catalogue of Honour, and Sir Richard Baker's History, who do all call her base Daughter of King John; and no Author at all calls her Lawful Daughter, or reckoneth her among the Daughters by any of his Wives; some of them say she was begot by King John on Agatha de Ferrars.  
And therefore these Deeds and Charters which concerned so great Persons (whom we cannot suppose to be without Learned Council about them) are clear Precedents, showing how the Law was then taken, and were good Deeds, conveying the Lands with Bastards in Free-marriage in those Ages, which Lands were quietly enjoyed accordingly, and nothing can be said against them: Many other Precedents of like nature in those ancient Ages, might without doubt, upon diligent search and enquiry be found out.  
For as much then as it appears by the words of Glanvil, that Lands might then be given with any Woman whomsoever in Free-marriage, and no Bastards then excepted or disallowed by the Law, either in Glanvil or Bracton, and that clear Precedents of those elder Ages do prove and show, that Lands did then usually pass in Free-marriage, as well with Bastards, as Lawful Daughters; and that all Deeds by the rule of Law, are to be construed and understood according to the time when they were made: How can a Deed of Services, given in libero maritagio (in the Reign of Henry the Second) with one justly suspected to be a Bastard, be a sure Argument, or any Argument at all, to prove her Legitimate?  
Wherefore it is very evident, that in those elder Ages (as the Law was then taken in the Reign of King John, and upwards) Lands lawfully might, & usually did pass in libero maritagio with Bastards, as well as with no Bastards, howbeit at this day our Law will not permit the same.   
FINIS.  

ERRATA.  
PAge 7, line 16, 〈◊〉 diseased for diseased; p. 8, l. 12, you for he, p, 14, l. 10, Index for Judex; p. 14, l. 19 The, to be expunged; p. 15, l. 9, Doterium for Dotarium; p. 30, l. 1, Cupitalis for Capita●is; p. 48. last line, man for men; p. 40, l. 22, 23. this this, expunge the one of them; p. 58, l. 19, 20. man man, expunge the one of them; p. 42, mispaged for 59; p. 76. in the margin, Seaccarium for Seaccarium.