AN ANSWER TO Two Books: The first being styled A REPLY TO Sir Thomas Mainwaring's Book, ENTITLED, AN ANSWER TO Sir Peter Leicester's Addenda; The other styled Sir Thomas Mainwaring's LAWCASES MISTAKEN.  
Written by the said Sir T. M.  
LONDON, Printed for Sam: Lowndes, over against Exeter House in the Strand. M. DC.I.XXV.   

TO THE READER.  
Courteous Reader,  
Upon Saturday the 12th of December last, I received from Sir Peter Leycester a Book, or Books, thus called, viz. Two Books: The first being styled, A Reply to Sir Thomas Mainwaring's Book, Entitled, An Answer to Sir Peter Leycester's Addenda; The other styled, Sir Thomas Mainwaring's Lawcases Mistaken: And although the one of these was dated the 14th day of April 1674. And the other the first day of May following; yet, they came not out in Print till Michaelmas Term in the same year. When I had perused the said Books, I found the latter, to be the same in effect with the former, and scarce met with any thing in either, which he had not had in some of his Books before, and had been formerly answered; so that it was much more difficult to find out any new Matter, than to give an Answer to the same.  
I believe the Reader (when he remembers how Sir Peter, in his Answer to my Defence of Amicia, did declare, That he had taken leave for ever of this Trivial Controversy) will very much wonder to find him in Print, twice since then, upon the same Subject; But for that, he supposeth he hath a good Excuse: For he tells us in his Epistle to the Reader, before the first of his two Books, That although his resolution then was (viz. when he writ his Answer to my Defence of Amicia, 1673.) to have writ no more about it, (especially if I had let him alone;) yet now, contrary to his former intention, he is necessitated thereunto in his own defence, for the removal of those unjust obloquys which are since cast upon him; Whereas his Servant Mr. Thomas Jackson, in a Letter, (written, as he says, by the Command of his Master) did signify to me, that his Master would write again, and this, before I had printed one word of my Reply: so that if we find him thus stumbling at the first, it is well, if we do not take him oft tripping, before he comes to his journey's end. And for his writing again this second time, he hath an excellent Reason; For he says, pag. 16. I have published another Book since, and have (therein) taxed him already for not being just to his word; so that he cannot now incur a greater Censure from me herein, though he alter his former resolution and intention, and write in his own defence, so long as he shall henceforth judge it necessary: so that he is resolved to give me just cause to censure him, if he had not done so before. He also endeavours to apply to me that saying of the angry Man in the Comedy, which he mentions in his said Epistle; but yet he is conscious I will say as much of him, and his Reply, and thereupon submits it to the Reader; in which I shall willingly close with him, and especially if it be a Reader who is well acquainted with his temper and mine: But it is high time to leave the Epistle, and to proceed to give an Answer to his said Books.   

AN ANSWER TO Sir Peter Leycester's TWO BOOKS, etc.  
I Doubt not but the Judicious Reader hath long since observed what strange kind of Arguments Sir Peter Leycester doth insist upon, both in these last, and in all other his former Books; For with all the confidence imaginable he several times affirms, that Mr. Glanvil says, That Lands might be given with any Woman in Liberum Maritagium: whereas he only says, That they may be given cum qualibet muliere in Maritagium, as you may see in the 39, 40, and 41 pages of my Reply, where Mr. Glanvil's words are expressly set down.  
He also says, That he hath proved Geva to be a Bastard, out of an Historian Contemporary, by which Ordericus Vitalis is meant, and yet the said Ordericus hath said no such thing.  
He also affirms, That the Common Law is now altered other ways than by Act of Parliament, without quoting any Author for what he says, although the Common Law hath always been the same, and as my Lord Coke upon Littleton, fol. 115. b. says, Hath no Controller in any part of it, but the High Court of Parliament; and if it be not abrogated or altered by Parliament, it remains still. And whereas my Lord Coke doth also in the same Book, fol 21. b. tell us, That these words, in liberum maritagium, are such words of Art, and so necessarily required, as they cannot be expressed by words equipollent, or amounting to as much; He, for all this, brags of several Precedents where Lands were given in free Marriage with Bastards, and yet proves not that those necessary words in Liberum Maritagium, were used in the granting of any of those Lands, or that any of those persons with whom the said Lands were given were Bastards.  
To conclude, he tells you, That Lhewellin Prince of North-Wales, was divorced from his Wife Joan the Daughter of King John; and for this he can neither show any Author or Record, but only doth dream of such a thing himself: and yet you must believe him in all these particulars, or else (as you may see in the first page of his Reply to my Answer to his Addenda) he will tell you, you do withstand the plainest truth of History and Reason produced.  
He also hath a fine way of answering; For if he be pressed overmuch with any point of Law, he will tell you, of his own authority, that the Law in such particulars hath been clearly altered, though he cannot tell how, or at what time it was so changed. If it be a Record that puts him too hard to it, than he conceives the Roll from whence the Deed is written, is mistaken in such and such words, and miswrit therein from the Original Chart itself. And if out of any History, you tell him of any thing which he cannot answer, than he will not suffer the words to be read as they ought to be printed; but he will fancy such expressions as will best suit with his turn: and will also disparage the said History, although in those matters he had formerly said he did chief follow the same.  
He doth also, to amuse those Readers that are of weak understanding, tell them of Circumquaques, of bits of Law, pieces of Law, brought in by the head and shoulders, fragments of Law, parcels of Law; and in his two last Books, tells me of my impertinencies, of my being impertinent, and of my speaking impertinently, (if one who says he hath counted, do not mistake himself) no less than Thirty times; with several other expressions, too ridiculous to repeat here.  
He also, to keep up his credit with the more simple sort of People, doth offer to join issue with me upon very many Points; and gives me some strange directions to follow: which done, he will then leave it to the World to judge, otherwise there will never be an end. Whereas I will refer it to all judicious persons, whether his Arguments in these two Books, be not the same which he used formerly? and whether they be not sufficiently answered by me in my other Books? which if so, the Controversy is already at an end.  
Now for the manifestation of what I have here alleged, I shall desire the judicious Reader, when Sir Peter Leycester speaks of what Mr. Glanvil hath said, to take notice what is written in the 32 page of my Defence of Amicia, and so on to the 43 page; as also what is written in the 39, 40, and 41 pages of my Reply.  
When he says Geva is a Bastard, than I desire the Reader to peruse the 43, 44, and 45 pages of my said Defence of Amicia, and the 45, 46, 47, and 48 pages of my Reply.  
When he says that the Gift to Geva was a Gift in frank marriage, or that the Town of Drayton Basset did pass to the Heirs of Geva by virtue of that Deed which Randle Earl of Chester made to her; see my Defence of Amicia, pag. 48, 49, and 50; and the 55, 56, 57, 58, and 59 pages of my Reply.  
When he says that Joan the Wife of Lhewellin, was the same Joan which King John had by Agatha, then read the 3, 4, and 5 pages of my Answer to his Addenda.  
When he says, that Ellesmere was given with the said Joan in Libero Maritagio; see the 6 and 7 pages of my said Book.  
When he says, King John had not three Daughters called Joan, or that Joan the Wife of Lhewellin, was the same Joan who was Wife to Robert de Audeley; Read the 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, and 24 pages of the said Answer to his Addenda.  
When he says, the said Joan was divorced from her Husband Lhewellin, (which no man ever said but he himself) then read the 17, 18, 19, and 20 pages of the Answer to his Addenda, where (besides other proofs against what he says) you will find that the Adustery of Joan, whilst she was Wife of Lhewellin, was committed Anno Domini sequenti to that Marriage, which he fancies to be the Marriage of the said Joan Wife of Lhewellin to the said Robert de Audeley.  
When he says, Joan the Wife of Lhewellin was a Bastard; then see the 21, and so on to the end of the 30 page of the said Book. And although he says, page 50. that what I say concerning Joan the Wife of Lhewellin, being King John's legitimate Daughter by his Wife Hawise, is so ridiculous, that another would be ashamed to own it: Yet I can show under the hands of persons eminently knowing in these matters, what great satisfaction they have received in this particular, by what I have written concerning the same; also besides those proofs which I have formerly brought, he doth acknowledge that Vaughan in his British Antiquities, pag. 29. doth call her the Daughter of King John: and in a Record concerning Budiford, mentioned by me hereafter in this Book, she is also called the Sister of King Henry III, without the least blemish of Bastardy at all.  
I might here very well make an end, but because some persons may be deceived with some of Sir Peter's Flourishes, I shall (passing by his angry and uncivil Language, with which he doth ever abound) endeavour to clear some things, by which he might otherways impose upon some silly men.  
In the first of his two Books in his second page, he says, I had in the 55 pag. of my Reply to his Answer, said, those Reasons of mine (there mentioned) were unanswerable; whereas I said, they were not at all answered by him; and that the one of them was so far from being answered, that it was not understood by him, unless he only pretended not to understand it, because he perceived he could not give an answer to it; so that it seems, in his opinion, to doubt whether he can answer an Argument, is the same thing as to say, it is unanswerable.  
In his fourth and fifth pages, he wonders if I can english the words in Libero Conjugio, that I will not allow such a Gift to be a Gift in Frank Marriage; and yet he doth acknowledge, that a Gift in Connubio soluto ab omni servitio, is not a Gift in Free Marriage: whereas if construing might be the Rule in this Case, that might be made a Gift in Free Marriage as well as the other; for the word Connubium, as you may see in Gouldman's Dictionary, doth only signify Lawful Wedlock or Marriage; and therefore is a better word than his word Conjugium, which signifies Unlawful, as well as Lawful Conjunction: If construing might also take place in this Case, a Gift in Libero Conjugio, or a Gift in Libero Connubio, would be a Gift in Frank Marriage at this day, as well as formerly, and all other equipollent words would also amount unto such Gifts; whereas the Law, for the reason given by my Lord Coke, will, in this Case, allow of no such Gift, unless there be used both the word Liberum, and the word Maritagium.  
He also in the said fourth page, doth again misrecite that Argument of mine, which he doth there mention; for he says, that my Lord Coke saith, that these words in Liberum Maritagium, are such words of Art, and so necessarily required, as they cannot be understood by words equipollent; whereas my Lord Coke says, they cannot be expressed by words equipollent, or amounting to as much; so hard it is to get Sir Peter either to repeat, or understand aright.  
In the seventh page he also mistakes himself very much, when he tells you, that Lands given in Maritagium, Habendum sibi & Haeredibus suis libere & quiet ab omni servitio versus Capitalem Dominum de me & Haeredibus meis, was a good Grant in Free Marriage, by the very words of Glanvil in those ancient Ages, and was as good as in Liberum Maritagium; if he means thereby, that Lands might be given in Free Marriage, by those words of Glanvil, in a Deed, without using the words in Liberum Maritagium; for Mr. Glanvil doth there only tell us what Free Marriage is, and it is the same now that it was then; but Mr. 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 says this, he says nothing for Sat Peter's purpose: And this may give an Answer to what he hath also said in his 14 and 54 pages of his first Book, and in the 26 and 27 pages of the latter of his two Books.  
And whereas he doth often tell you in all his Books, that Mr. Glanvil says, that Lands may be given with any Woman in Liberum Maritagium; he as often tells you, that which Mr. Glanvil never said. Indeed Mr. Glanvil says, that Lands may be given cum qualibet Muliere, (with any Woman whatsoever) in Maritagium; but when he speaks of Gifts in Free Marriage, he says, they may be given cum aliqua Muliere, (with some Woman) and the Law, in this particular, is still the same; for Lands may now be given in Maritagium, with any Woman whatsoever; but Lands can only be given in Free Marriage with some Women, viz. such as are of the Kindred of him who gives the Lands.  
He also very much mistakes (and wilfully I doubt) the Deed made in the time of King John, where he says, Saher de Quency Earl of Winchester, granted to Robert his Son and Heir, certain Manors ad dandum in Liberum Dotarium Hawisiae Sorori Comitis Cestriae, Vxori ejusdem Roberti, which Deed I shall here give you at large, as I find it in the 133 page of his Historical Antiquities. SAherus de Quency Comes Wintoniae, omnibus Hominibus, & Amicis suis, praesentibus & futuris, salutem. Sciatis, me concessisse & dedisse & praesenti Chartâ meá confirmasse Roberto de Quency Filio meo & Haeredi ad dandum in liberum Donarium Hawisiae Sorori Comitis Cestriae, Vxori ejusdem Roberti, Bucehebeiam, & Grantesset, & Bradeham, & Herdewich, cum omnibus earundem terrarum pertinentiis, pro centum Libratis terrae: Et si hae praedictae terrae non valeans per Annum centum Libras, Ego in aliis terris meis de propriâ Haereditate meâ in Anglia, ei tantum perficiam, quòd plenari● habeat centum Libratas terrae per visum & considerationem legalium Militum hominum videlicet, Comitis Cestriae, & meorum. Et praeterea Dedi eidem Roberto Feoda duorum Militum, scilicet, Feodum Matthei Turpin in Winterslawa it Wilteshire, pro servitio Feodi unius Militis, ad dandum simul cùm terris nominati● praedictae HawisiaeVxori suae in liberus Donarium. Testibus his, Comite Davide, Willielmo Comite de Ferrars, Philippo de Orreby, Roberto de Basingham, Ricardo de Lindescia, Willielmo de Grumpington, Henrico de Braibroc, Willielmo de Syelford, David Giffard, Willielmo Picot, Hugone & Thoma & Henrico Dispensariis, Waltero de Coventrey, Waltero Daivilla, & multis aliis.  
And now as you may see in the 29 page of his second Book, he says, That in his Historical Antiquities, the word Donarium was there misprinted for the word Dotarium; whereas the word Dotarium is not in the said Copy which he Cites, as a knowing Friend of mine doth inform me, who, at my request, did very lately and carefully examine the same in one of the Couchir Books in the Duchy Office in Grayes-Inn; but the word is Donarium, which probably the Transcriber did mistake for Dovarium, the u and n being anciently written alike, and the v consonant not then used. But if the word had been Dotarium, it would not signify Marriage, as he doth fancy, although Does is doomsday Book be called Maritagium; for Does is twofold, and that Does which is Dotarium, is the same with. Dovarium, which we in English call Dower, and is not that Does which sometimes is called Maritagium: For this see Glanvil, lib. 6. cap. 1. whose words are these, Does duobus modis dicitur, does enim dicitur vulgaritèr, id quod aliquis liber homo dat sponsae suae ad ostium Ecclesiae tempore desponsationis suae, etc. And lib. 7. cap. 1. In alia enim acceptione, accipiter does secundum leges Romanas (which three last words, with some others, he leaves out in the eighth page of the first of his two last Books) secundum quas proprie appellatur does, id quod cum muliere datur viro, quod vulgariter dieitur Maritagium; Now that Dotarium, is that Does which is Dower, and not that Does which is called Maritagium, you may see in Sir Henry Spelman's Glossary Printed at London 1664. p. 174. whose words are these: ¶ De eo Dotis genere, quod uxoribus constituunt Angli.  
¶ Doarium, Dodarium, Dotarium, Dinarium, Dotalitium.] Omnia recte interpretatur vernaculum nostrum Dover, non Latinum does. Est enim propriè does, illud quod maritus accipit cum uxore: haec verò id quod in remunerationen dotis, reportat uxor. And Sir Peter very well knows, that what is given in the aforesaid Deed, was only given as a Dower or Jointure, and not as a Gift in Free Marriage, as you may see in the 132 page of his Historical Antiquities, where he thus writes: HAwise, fourth Daughter of Earl Hugh by Bertred, married Robert Quency Son and Heir of Saher the Quency Earl of Winchester. She had the Earldom of Lincoln, to wit, the Castle and Honour of Bolingbroke, and all the Lands of Earl Randle in Lindsey and Holland in Lincolnshire, for which she gave 50 l. for relief. On Hawise was estated for 
* Note.  Jointure, Bukby, Grantesset, Bradeham, and Herdwick, as appears by this Deed in the Couchir Book of the Duchy Office, Tom. 2. Honour sive Soca de Bolingbroke, num. 26. pag. 508.  
After which, he immediately doth verbatim recite the aforesaid Deed; let the Reader therefore judge of the integrity of Sir Peter, who in his new Books pretends, that the aforesaid Lands were given in Free Marriage to the Lady Hawise; and yet in his Historical Antiquities, doth acknowledge that they were estated for Jointure only, as by his words before mentioned doth clearly appear.  
And whereas he says, pag. 9 that it is not absolutely true which my Lord Coke doth say, viz. That at this day, the words in Liberum Maritagium, have no other words equipollent; for then a Deed in English granting Lands in Free Marriage, or a Deed in French de terres en Frank Marriage would be void grants; for neither of these have in strict terms the words in Liberum Maritagium, etc. wherefore certainly he understood it of a Grant in Latin: His arguing therein is very weak; for the English words in Free Marriage, and the French words en Frank Marriage, are the same words in Law, with the Latin words in Liberum Maritagium, though in different Languages; but the words in Libero Conjugio, though capable of the same construction in English with the words in Libero Maritagio, are but equipollent to them, and so the words, in Wedlock free from all Services, are but equipollent to the English words in Free Marriage; and the French words, en Nopsage acquit de Services, are but equipollent to the French words, En Frank Marriage.  
Also by this Rule, a gift of Lands, by a Latin Deed in Libero Maritagio, would be void, because they are not in strict terms the words in Liberum Maritagium; so that the Reader may see what strange kind of Arguments Sir Peter doth use.  
In the 17 page, he tells me, that in the fourth and fifth pages of my Answer to his Addenda, I further prove, by comparing the age of Bertred, that Agatha could not be Daughter to the second William de Ferrars by Agnes his Wife; whereas he is pitifully mistaken, for I did go about no such thing, but did in the 3, 4, and 5 pages show, that Joan, who was the wife of Lhewellyn, could not be the same Joan which King John had by the said Agatha, and that was all which I did there prove.  
In the 18 and 19 pages he says, that though the Writ (meaning King John's Precept to the Sheriff of Shropshire, to make Livery of Ellesmere to Lhewellin after his Marriage with Joan the daughter of King John) if you begin the year of our Lord the 25th day of March, was in the year 1204. yet it would fall out to be in the year 1205, if with ancient Historians we begin the year on the first day of January; but it would be a pretty Trick, if from either of these reckon, he could make out what he said in the second page of his Addenda, viz. that the Marriage of the said Lhewellin with the said Joan, was in the year 1206.  
In his 20 and 21 pages, he thinks he gives me no quarter; for he tells me, that I would distinguish between Maritagium, and liberum maritagium, and say, maritagium is twofold, but I do not give the members of my distinction aright; for a good Logician (Sir Peter is the man meant without all doubt) would tell me, that the members of a good distinction must be opposite, and not as I distinguish, Maritagium est duplex, vel maritagium, vel liberum maritagium; The members are here coincident, for Liberum maritagium est maritagium: glanvil's distinction is good, Maritagium est vel liberum vel servitio obnoxium: so that Maritagium the genus comprehends the members, and both opposite one to another, as either free marriage, or not free marriage. This is Sir Peter's charge, and a very great one, as he believes: But for answer hereunto, I doubt not but the Reader hath taken notice how in my Reply, p. 39 & 40. I did observe that Maritagium was twofold, and that it was distinguished into Maritagium liberum, and Maritagium servitio obnoxium: so that when I did intent to take notice how it was distinguished, Sir Peter cannot but acknowledge that I did right; the only colour of Cavil that he hath, is, because I afterwards say, that whensoever any Lands are given in a Deed in maritagio only, it is always the same thing in Law, as if they were given in maritagium servitio obnoxium, and it is only his want of understanding that causeth him to blame me for what I so say, for that expression will not thwart with what I said before; this will appear, because that maritagium servitio obnoxium, is the elder Brother to maritagium liberum; for when Lands are given in maritagio servitio obnoxio, such Gifts are agreeable to the Common Law of England; but when they are given in liberum maritagium, as you may see Coke upon Littleton, fol. 21. b. they create an estate of inheritance against the general Rule of the Law; and therefore though this younger Son be connived at, and tolerated, yet, as you may there see, the Law requireth that such Gifts be legally pursued, and that is the reason why such Gifts cannot be made to any but to those of the Blood, as also why the words in liberum maritagium, are such words of Art, and so necessarily required, as that they cannot be expressed by words equipollent, or amounting to as much: Now the Common Lawyers (as you may see Coke upon Littleton, fol. 189. a.) have a Rule, that Additio probat minoritatem; and thereupon it is that my Lord Coke there tells you, that the younger Son giveth the difference; and pursuant to this Rule, when a Gift is made in maritagio, which is intended to be liable to services, (that being the elder Brother) they use the word maritagio in the Deed, and no more; but when it is given in free Marriage, (which is the younger Brother) according as my Lord Coke tells you, the word liberum (which is the difference) is absolutely necessary: And herewith agrees the common practice; for I never saw in all my life, where Lands were given in maritagio, liable to services, that the words in maritagio servitio obnoxio, were used in any of the said Deeds, but only the words in maritagio; and if they did intent that any other services should be done, over and above those services which the Law did create by the words in maritagio, than they did afterwards in the said Deeds, mention those other services, but else not.  
Also the word Foedum, or Fee, is twofold, viz. Foedum simplex, and Foedum tale, and yet in this Case, like unto the other, Fee-simple being the elder Brother to Fee-tail, (all Inheritances being in Fee-simple before the Statute of Westminster 2. cap. 1. as Littleton tells you, lib. 1. cap. 2. sect. 13.) if it be said in any Book, that a Man is seized in Fee, without more saying, it shall be intended in Fee-simple; for it shall not be intended by this word (in Fee) that a man is seized in Fee-tail, unless there be added to it this addition Fee-tail, as you may see in Littleton, lib. 3. cap. 4. sect. 293. And according to this Rule, our Common Lawyers do all of them constantly use the like expressions at this day; so that there is no more reason for him to tell me, that I do not distinguish aright in this Case of Maritagium, than there is to tell them, that they do not distinguish aright as to the word Foedum, the word Foedum being as much the Genus to Fee-simple and Fee-tail, as the word Maritagium is the Genus to Marriage liable to services, and to Frank Marriage.  
But would any one think, if I had committed so great an Error herein, (as he would persuade the World I had done) that Sir Peter himself, within a very few lines, and in the same 21 page, should really be guilty of the like offence, which he did unjustly charge me withal; and yet you shall see that it is so, for both in his 21 page, and 55 page, he tells you, that Maritagio was often in those Ages, (viz. of Mr. Glanvil) understood for libero maritagio, both by Historians and old Deeds; you shall therefore see how Sir Peter's own argument in his 20 and 21 pages, may, mutatis mutandis, be thus retorted upon himself, viz. Here 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; for a good Logician would tell Sir Peter, that the Members of a good Distinction must be opposite, and not as he doth here distinguish, Maritagium est duplex, vel maritagium, vel maritagium servitio obnoxium; the Members are here coincident, for Maritagium servitio obnoxium est maritagium: Glanvil's Distinction is good; Maritagium est vel liberum vel servitio obnoxium: so that Maritagium the Genus, comprehends the Members, and both opposite one to another, as, either free marriage, or not free marriage; let Sir Peter therefore answer this his own Argument as he thinks fit.  
As to what he pretends in the 22, 23, and 24 pages, I did not say that the Gift of Ellesmere to Lhewellin, was but an Estate for Life, it being said in the Precept, to make Livery to be an Estate in maritagio, (though not in libero maritagio) and to make Livery thereof would have been needless, if it had been a Gift in free marriage; Neither is Joan his Wife proved to be a Bastard, so that that Precedent is out of doors; but I did give some Reasons why that Precedent would have stood him in no stead, if she had been a Bastard, and that a Gift in free marriage; and could yet say more in that particular, if occasion did require: but that not being the Case, I will forbear to say any more concerning the same.  
In his 24 page, and so on to the 42, (besides some mistakes of his, which, because they are not material to the point, I will not here take notice of) he spends a great deal of time in proving, that Helen the Wife of John Scot, was the Daughter of Lhewellin, by his Wife Joan Daughter of King John; whereas he did clearly prove the same, in his 28 and 29 pages, in very few words: and the same doth also appear by a Record hereafter mentioned, which very lately came to my knowledge; but yet for all that, this Precedent will do him no good, as well because the said Joan is not proved to be a Bastard, as also because Budeford and Suttehale were not given to the said Lhewellin in libero maritagio, as will anon appear; Sir Peter doth indeed tell us, that those Mannon were given in libero maritagio to the said Lhewellin, but the Deed lately belonging to Somerfield Oldfeld Esq doth prove no such thing, but doth only prove that the said Lhewellin did mistake himself, and think that they were given him in free marriage, when they were not so given; I therefore believing Sir Peter, that those Manors were given in free marriage to Lhewellin, when they were not; and perceiving Lhewellin to say that King John had given them to him, but not telling with whom, and knowing (as appears in the 13, 14, 15, and 16 pages of my Answer to his Addenda) if they were given to him in frank marriage with his Wife Joan the Daughter of the said King, that the said Lhewellin had not power to dispose of them from his Son David, (who was his right Heir) could not find out any other way to reconcile every thing in this particular, but by supposing that Lhewellin had a former Wife who was a Kinswoman to King John, with whom those Lands were given, and by whom he had his Daughter Helen: And what I said was by way of consequence, for I relied only upon my fourth Argument, as appears in the said 13 page, and brought the other three but as concurrent; And what I there believed might very well have been true, for Sir Peter proves that Lhewellin had a former Wife; and if his words had been true in saying that those Manors were given to the said Lhewellin with the said Joan in libero maritagio, my words must necessarily have been true also; for I was only mistaken in Helen's Mother, by building upon that unsound foundation which Sir Peter did there lay.  
But mark what work Sir Peter doth make of it, now he hath proved Helen to be Lhewellin's Daughter by his said Wife Joan; for he in his 37 page grants all my Quotations, (I would I had cause to say the like by him) and also grants what by those Lawyers is said in the 14 and 15 pages of my Answer to his Addenda, which is a certain sign he doth not understand what they do say; for by what is there said, it appears, that if a Man have Land given him in free marriage with a Wife, he hath only custodiam cum uxore, and hath not so much as an Estate for his own life, until he be Tenant by the courtesy of England, and by consequence he cannot dispose of those Lands to any person whatsoever from the next Heir; And this ignorance of his runs him upon his mistake in the 36 and 37 pages of his latter Book, wherein he says, that a man would have but custodiam cum uxore, although the Wife were not of the blood of the Donor: whereas you may see in the 14 and 15 pages of my Answer to his Addenda, that though when Lands be given with a Woman to a Man in frank marriage, it is liberum tenementum uxoris, & non viri, cum non habeat nisi custodiam cum uxore, yet it is (secus) otherways, when the Land is given in marriage, pro homagio & servitio viri, and one reason of this difference betwixt Land given in marriage, for which no service is to be done, and Land given in marriage, for which Homage is to be done, is because in the one Case, the Land may revert to the Donor, but in the other Case, the Land can never revert, as you may find in Glanvil, lib. 7. cap. 18. who, after he hath told you what free marriage is, hath these words: Cum quis itaque terram aliquam cum uxore sua in maritagium ceperit, si ex eadem uxore sua haeredem habuerit filium, vel filiam clamantem & auditum infra quatuor parietes si idem vir uxorem suam supervixerit, sive vixerit haeres sive non, illi in vita sua remanet maritagium illud, post mortem vero ipsius ad donatorem vel ejus haeredes est reversurum. Sin autem ex uxore sua nunquam habuerit haeredem, tunc statim post mortem uxoris ad donatorem vel haeredes ejus revertetur maritagium. Et haec est quaedam causa quare de maritagio tali non solet recipi homagium. Si enim sic donata esset terra aliqua in maritagium vel alio modo quod inde reciperetur homagium tune nunquam de cetero ad donatorem vel ejus haeredes licite possit reverti ut supradictum est. Sir Peter therefore must either confess that Lhewellin had no power to dispose of those Lands in such manner as he did, and then that Precedent will be of no more force, (if the said Joan had been a Bastard) than a Precedent would be of a Man who now should give Lands is libero maritagio, to one who is not of the blood, or else he must acknowledge that those Lands were given to Lhewellin but in maritagio, and so he being liable to do homage for them, might dispose of them as he did please; And that they were given to him but in maritagio, will appear, as well by the making of Livery of them (which is needless in a Gift in frank marriage) as also by these following Records.  Claus. 2. H. 3. M. 1. 
MAndatum est Vic: Warr: quod plenam seisinam habere faciat Leolino Principi Norwall: de Villa de Budiford cum pertinentiis suis quam Dominus Johannes Rex Pater Domini Henrici Regis dedit ei in Maritagium cum Johanna Sorore Henrici Regis uxore ipsius Leulini. Test. 
* Scilicet Williesmo Marescallo Comite Pembrochis tune Rectore Regis & Regni.  Comite apud Westm. 10. Oct.  Rot. Pip. de ann. 2 H. 3. Warr. & Leic. 
WIllielmus de Cantilupo Philippus de Kinton pro eo reddit comp. de cxxviii. li. two. s. bl. de firma de Warewick: & de quater viginti & quinque libris xuj. s. iiii. d. bl. de firma de Leicestreshire.  
— Et Leuelino Principi Norwall: lxxvi s. in Budiford in maritagio cum Johanna uxore sua, de dimidio anno per Breve Regis.  
But the Deed to John Scot Earl of Chester, might be either in libero maritagio, according to the agreement of Lhewellin with Randle Earl of Chester, or else it might be in maritagio only, as it was given to the said Lhewellin; so that be that Deed how it will, it will work nothing in the Case.  
In his 57, 58, and 59 pages, he seems much displeased with what I tell him in the 33 page of my Answer to his Addenda, concerning his partiality, and doth in some respects strain my words further than he should; But though I will not say any thing at this time concerning this particular, for some reasons I have formerly told him of, yet if he doth please to speak of it to me at any time, when any judicious person is present, I think I can make good what I said, and that he will not be excused by that contradiction of his, when he says, page 58 and 59, that Admit he were partial never so much, in what I charge him with, yet he hopes what he hath written, I find it impartial to all, so far as he goes, or doth know.  
In his 60 and 61 pages, he tells me, that I go to excuse an Error of mine, in calling Ralph Maniwaring Chief Justice of Chester, because I found in his Historical Antiquities, page 160, and also in other places, there were in the time of Hugh Cyveliok, sometimes two Justices of Chester, and sometimes but one; But I did not absolutely say, there were two Justices living both together in the time of the said Ralph; I only did insinuate, as you may see, in the 5 page of my Reply, and the 34 page of my Answer to his Addenda, that it was possible there might be more than one at a time, because when Earl Hugh was living I found some Deeds, directed Justiciariis, and I am sure the reasons which he gives to the contrary in the 61 page of the first of his last two Books are very strange ones; for he says that it is there to be understood of the Judges, etc. successively or with their Deputies under them; Now how can any Deed be directed to any Justice and his Successor, before he hath a successor? or to their Deputies under them, if what he says in the same page be true, that then they executed their places themselves, no power being given to them in those ages to make or constitute a Deputy (by Commission) at pleasure, as we have now, and in these latter ages hath been usually done? Neither doth he mend it afterwards, for he says, possibly upon an emergent occasion, the Ancient Earls might constitute another Judge for the present in the absence of the other, to execute the place for a time, and so change them as oft as was thought good: Now if this conceit of his be true, that another Judge was constituted for a time, only in the absence of the former, were there not then two Justices at one time? so that here are three very weak Answers given thereto; But I shall now make it further appear, that there was sometimes a Chief Justice of Chester in those elder Ages, which I will thus prove.  
That the word Justitia (which then is of the Masculine Gender according to that Rule, Mascula nomina in a dicuntur multa virorum) was sometimes in those elder Ages used for the Judge or Justice of Chester, I believe he cannot deny, because in his Historical Antiquities, page 144, I find a Deed thus directed; Ranulphus Comes Cestriae, Constabulario suo, & Dapifero, Justitice, & Vicecomiti Baronibus & Ballivis suis, salutem. I also in the 143 page of the said Book, find this Deed following: RAnulphus Dux Britanniae, & Comes Cestriae & Richmondiae, Omnibus tam praesentibus quam futuris qui Chartam istam viderint & audierint, Salutem. Sciatis quod ego dedi & concessi Andreae Filio Mabiliae, & Haeredibus suis, ut sint liberi & quieti de me & meis Haeredibus de Teloneo per totam terram meam, & in aqua, & in terra, & in Civitate Cestriae, & extra, & a Brevibus portandis, & a Prisonibus capiendis & custodienis, & a Namis capiendis, & a Vigiliis faciendis nocte vel die, & a caeteris hujusmodi consuetudinibus & exactionibus, nec de querelâ aliquâ in Civitate Cestriae, vel extra, respondeant in praesentiâ meâ, 
* Note.  vel summi Justitiae mei: Et super forisfacturam meam x Librarum prohibeo, ne aliquis eos de supradictis libertatibus impediat vel inquietet, sed eas libere & quiet teneant, Reddendo mihi & Haeredibus meis annuatim vi Denarios ad Festum Sancti Michaelis. Hiis Testibus, Bertre Comitissa Cestriae, Radulfo de Meinewarin, Radulfo Seneschallo, Hugone de Boidele, & Alano fratre ejus, Roaldo, Roberto Cam. Roberto Saraceno, Ranulfo Dubeldai, Nicolao filio Roberti, Thoma fratre suo, Willielmo Marmiun, Ricardo Poibel, Rogero Clerico, & multis aliis. Apud Cestriam.  
And now let any person judge whether those words in praesentia mea, vel Summi Justitiae mei, do not clearly prove, that there was a Chief Justice of Chester in those elder Ages; for that Deed was made in the time of the said Ralph Mainwaring, he being a witness to the same. And as I have proved in the fifth page of my Reply, that if there were then two Justices, the said Ralph was the Chief; so it will also easily appear, that the said Deed was made, when the said Ralph was Judge; for you may find in Sir Peter's Historical Antiquities, pag. 143, & 144. that Randle Earl of Chester did first write himself Duke of Britain in the year 1187, and did relinquish that Title in the year 1200. And you may see in the 172 page of the said Book, that Philip de Orreby (who immediately succeeded the said Ralph) was not made Judge till about the year 1209.  
In the 62 and 63 pages, he thinks that he hath at last found out a fine device to cure what he formerly said; for whereas I told him (page 9 of my Reply) that I could not imagine how it was possible that the said Geffrey de Dutton, to that, or any other Deeds of his own, could have his name either with the word Domino, or without, either five times for once, or at all, amongst the Witnesses subscribed, unless he did fancy that he was a Witness to his own Deeds: He now pretends, that when he said he had seen several other Deeds of the same person, he meant and understood, several other Deeds touching the same person: for the word (of) is used many times for concerning, as, of or concerning the same person, etc. which Answer of his doth not at all make the matter better than it was before; for, as Men do not use to be Witnesses to their own Deeds, so they did not use (and especially in those ages when the Deeds were so short) to be Witnesses to Deeds which concerned themselves; And though he may possibly show me a Deed made concerning a Geffrey de Dutton, to which a Geffrey de Dutton was a Witness, because there were several Geoffrey's de Dutton living at that time; yet he must excuse me, if I do not believe that he can show me either several Deeds, or any one Deed in that age which doth concern a Geffrey de Dutton, to which that Geffrey de Dutton was a Witness, who was the Party concerned.  
In his 64 page he says, what he said in his Addenda, p. 11. is not contrary to what he did write in the bottom of the fifth page of his Answer to the Defence of Amicia. Let the Reader therefore see how Sir Peter says in the 11 page of his Addenda, that, Geffrey Dutton was no Knight; For otherways he would have called himself by his Title, as, Ego Galfridus de Dutton Miles, or Ego 
* Note.  Dominus Galfridus de Dutton dedi, etc. which few Men will omit in their own Deeds, if they have really the honour of Knighthood. And let him also observe, how at the bottom of the fifth page of his said Answer, speaking of the word Domino, he says, that word is never used in old Deeds by the party himself, but where it is 
* Note.  joined with another word, as, Ego Willielmus Manwaring Dominus de Peover; and then let him judge whether those expressions be contrary to each other, or not.  
In his 65 page he says, that I would fain palliate another gross mistake, in making Geffrey de Dutton the Father, to live on to be a Witness to the Deed of Geffrey de Dutton to his Daughter Margaret of the Manor of Nether Tabley; but if the Reader please to see the 36, 37, 38, and 39 pages of my Answer to his Addenda, it will there appear to be very uncertain, whether it was any mistake at all: And he himself after he hath said all he can, doth confess in the 67 page of the first of his said two Books, that his Deeds do but probably demonstrate, that Geffrey Dutton the Father was dead before; see therefore what a stir he keeps about nothing, for it is not material whether this be a mistake or not. And whereas he pretends page 68, that it is petitio principii to say, that the word Dominus doth always show, that the person to whose name it is applied, was a Knight, or Clergyman; yet I have showed that it is usually applied to such persons, which is the only proof that can be had in this Case; and it lies upon him to prove, if he will contradict me therein, that it was so applied to some one, who was neither Knight nor Clergyman; for of the higher Nobility I do not speak, to which kind of persons the word Dominus, either as it signifies Lord or Sir, might sometimes be applied: And though he says that those very worthy persons Mr. Wood and Mr. Blunt, are of opinion that the word Domino was sometimes also prefixed in those elder ages to the names of persons of better sort and quality, though no Knights, as well as to Knights and Clergymen, contrary to the opinion of some other skilful men, (as learned persons do sometimes differ from each other;) yet he doth not instance in any one example to make good what he says, and it will be a very hard matter so to do; for the proving that the word Dominus hath been prefixed to a persons name, and sometimes afterwards omitted, will not be sufficient, because I can prove that some who were certainly Knights, have been afterwards named without having the word Dominus prefixed, or the word Miles added to their names.  
In the 39 page of my Answer to his Addenda, I told him of some words, which he pretended to have written, which I could not find in his Book; and for this in the 69 page of the first of his two Books, he says I would bespatter him with a falsity therein, although in the 70 page, he confesses those words were not in his Answer expressly, etc. and that it was a negligent error; and yet for all this, in the 64 and 65 pages of the first of his new Books, he pretends that the words Ego Dominus A. B. dedi, etc. (which were some of the words I could not find in his said Book) were spoken of before, in the 7th page of his Book there mentioned, so that he commits the same Error again.  
In the 68 page, he again takes notice how I had formerly said, that Margaret was the Daughter and Heir of Geffrey Dutton, whereas he says she was his Daughter, but not Heir, and this he calls a gross mistake of mine; but a gross mistake it cannot be, because the said Margaret and her Heirs did enjoy several Manors which were her Fathers, and because it is not material to the point in hand, whether she was or was not his Daughter and Heir. And whereas he is displeased at me for saying, if it was any mistake at all, he must thank himself for that; for since he did so untruly quote the Book of Barlings, and so many other places, he must excuse me, if I dare not rely too much upon his bare word.  
In his 67 page, he doth confess he calls one, Sir Geffrey Dutton of Chedil in his Book: but he calls him not Sir Geffrey Dutton of Chedil Knight, as I allege; whereas I cannot imagine what he should be but Sir Geffrey Dutton of Chedil Knight, being he was no Clergyman, unless he would have him to be Sir Geffrey Dutton Esq or Sir Geffrey Dutton Gentleman. And though he pretends, page 73. that Esquires were none in those ages, I shall refer the Reader for that to Mr. Selden's Titles of Honour, pag. 830, 831, etc. Though I confess the word Esquire doth not often occur as a legal Addition, till after the Statute of Additions made in the first year of King Henry V.  
From the end of the 73 page, to the end of the 84, instead of producing an Example where the word Dominus was applied to the name of a Layman, who was but an Esquire or Gentleman, (which was the thing which he ought to have done) he vainly spends his time in acquainting you with some Notes of his, in Manuscript, never yet printed, on the several Notions of the word Dominus, and the English word Sir; but as he hath there omitted some things to which those words were used to be applied, so he went too far, when in his 77 and 79 pages, he applied to the Lady Hawise the Quency the word Dominus, and the word Sir.  
In his 86 page, and so on, to almost the end of the 89, he would fain persuade the Reader, that Hugh Cyveliol was not One and twenty years of age when he joined with his Mother Maude in giving Stivinghale to Walter Durdent Bishop of Chester, and his Successors, to which Deed Eustace the Constable was a Witness, and tells you of a Precedent in his Book of Antiquities, pag. 114. & 115. where you may find Richard Earl of Chester joining with Ermentrude his Mother in the Grant of Wudemundeslai to the Abbey and Church of Abington in Berkshire, Anno 6. Henrici 1. Anno Domini 1106. whiles he was scarce 12 years old, whereof the Book of Abington immediately before the Deed, saith thus, fol. 47. Ipse Comes benefactum extulit, & suo descripto roboravit: quod descriptum Sigillo quidem matris Signari constitit: nondum enim militari Baltheo cinctus, materno Sigillo literae quaelibet ab eo directae includebantur, hac de re; quod eò annotatur, Comitissae potiùs quam Comitis Sigillo signatur. But he doth not give you the Deed in either of his two little Books, therefore I think fit to Transcribe it here, for the satisfaction of those who have not seen the same, as I find it in his Historical Antiquities, pag. 114. but misprinted 122. RIcardus Cestrensis Comes, & Ermentrudis Comitisia mater ejus, Nigello de Oilii, & Rogero filio Radulfi, & omnibus Baronibus de Oxenford Scira, Salutem & Amicitiam. Sciatis quia pro amore Dei & anima Patris mei, & remission nostrorum Peceatorum, Concedimus hidam illum, quam Droco de Andeleia dedit Eeclesiae Abbendonensi, quae est in loco qui dicitur Wudemundeslai: Nos eidem Ecslesia concedimus & auctorizamus perpetuò habendam, solidam & quietam ab omni nostro servitio: Et Rogerus filius Radulsi & Successores ejus sint quieti in nostro servitio, quantum ad illam hidam pertinet: Et defendimus, ut nullo modo Rogerus, vel alius per eum, inquietet habitantes in terra illa: Hoo autem fecimus & testimonio nostrorum Baronum; scilicet Willielmi filii Nigelli, & Hugonis filii Normanni, & Ricardi Balaste, & Willielmi filii Auskitilli, & Ricardi filii Nigelli, & Domini Goisfridi Capellani & aliorum. Hoc actum est in sexto Anno Regni Henrici Regis, in mense Mail, in die Pentecostes.  
And to make the Reader believe that Hugh Cyveliok was not of age when he sealed the said Deed of Stivinghale, he tells you pag. 86. of his first Book, and pag. 30. of his latter Book, that what Earl Richard then did, was according to the Law and Customs of those elder Ages, and that Earls and great Lords in those former Ages did often join with their Mothers (who had the Tuition of them) in Deeds and Charters whiles they were very young, and before they attained the age of One and Twenty years; whereas I am confident Sir Peter cannot prove, that persons who were under age, did then use to join with their Mothers, and so give away their Lands of Inheritance; for Mr. Selden in his Titles of Honour, pag. 785. at the bottom, and pag. 786. (the place which Sir Peter citys) tells us, that this of the Earl of Chester, (viz. Earl Richard) is only a Note of a Monk after the Entry of the Charter of Confirmation, and no part of the Body of the Charter; And in regard that he sees no other Testimony of ancient time to second it with the like, he should think that the Monk was either grossly deceived in his reason of Nondum enim Militari Balteo cinctus est, or else that he meant only that the Earl was a Child within age, and that by reason of his Minority, Wardship, and the Tuition of his Mother (who joineth with him in the Charter) her Seal was only used to it, as also to his Letters; Also a little after, in the same page, Mr. Selden thus says, Now the Law being that whosoever was Knighted, though before the age of One and Twenty, was of full age in regard of any Wardship, or any other Tuition (as presently is further showed) and the use being that such great Lords were Knighted often, before they were of that age, and so had their full age supplied; and that perhaps also, while they were in ward, they used only their Guardians Seals, lest the authority of a Seal of their own, before they had discretion to use it, might have done them prejudice, in point of 
* Note.  honour at least, if not in matter of profit. It is likely enough, that the Monk here took the phrase of being not Knighted, to serve for being not of full age; So that the having of a Seal was not peculiar to this Order of Knighthood, but to such only (of what condition soever) as were of full age: Also Sir Peter doth not in either of his two new Books give you the Charter of this Earl Richard and his Mother, but only tells you of it in general terms; for he cannot but see that it is not a selling or giving away any Land of Inheritance, but is only (according to Mr. Selden) a confirming of that Hyde of Land which Droco de Andeleia had given to Abington Church; And Mr. Selden a little after in the next page says, though the wardship of the Body be ended (in the case of Knighting after the death of the Tenant by receiving the Order of Knighthood) yet 
* Note.  the Land continues to the Lords, until the full age of the Heir, as if he had not received the Order. What then is this to the Case of Hugh Cyveliok, who did pass away Stivinghale to the Bishop of Chester, and his Successors for ever? And without doubt the said Land was given immediately after the death of Earl Randle, Father to the said Hugh; for he dying Excommunicate, his friends in that age, would be very impatient until he was absolved; and it cannot be imagined that Maude did join with her son Hugh, because he was under age; for that he could not be, because he here passed away Lands for ever, as also because he was old enough to take Melyenith Castle in the year 1142; and if he was then but 12 years of age, he would be 23 years old in the year 1153, about which year his Father Earl Randle died; his Mother therefore certainly had Stivinghale (which is not in Staffordshire, as Sir Peter in his 86 page supposeth, but is a Member of Coventry, as you may see in Mr. Dugdale's Antiquities of Warwickshire, pag. 88, 128, 129. and in Sir Peter's Historical Antiquities, pag. 129.) as part of her Jointure, and thereupon joined with her Son; And indeed it had been a great shame to her, if her Son Hugh had been such a tender Infant as Sir Peter doth suppose him to be, to make him part with those Lands, upon that occasion (if it could have been so done) and she to part with nothing at all.  
But though I doubt not but what is here said, will give full satisfaction to all judicious persons, yet I think fit to acquaint the Reader that I have a Pedigres by me, of the Barons de monte alto, drawn not long since by Sir Peter himself, and written all with his own hand, in which he makes the first Robert de Monte alto, Steward of Cheshire (who, he says, lived in the time of King Steven) to have issue (besides other Sons who were younger) two Sons, Ralph and Robert, who were afterwards successively Stewards of Cheshire, all which is certainly true.  
He also in his Historical Antiquities, pag. 131, doth give you this Deed of Earl Hugh, in which his Mother doth not join with him, which I think fit in this place to Transcribe. HUgo Comes Cestriae, Constabulario suo, Dapifero, omnibus Baronibus suis, omnibus Hominibus suis, Francis & Anglicis, tam futuris quam praesentibus, Salutem. Concedo Sanctimonialibus de Bolintona Stagnum meum de Dunintona firmum terrae meae sicut fuit tempore Henrici Regis, in perpetuam Elemosynam pro anima mea, & Patris mei, & meorum Antecessorum: Et praecipio omnibus Hominibus meis, quod habeant meam firmam pacem, ita quod nullus inde praedictis Sanctimonialibus injuriam vel contumeliam faciat. Teste Roberto Dapifero de Monte alto, Filippo de Kima, Simone Filio Osberti, Willielmo Patric, Radulfo Filio Warneri, Rogero de Maletot, Johanne Priore de Trentham, Orm ejus Canonico, Rogero Monacho de Hambi, Willielmo Clerico Comitis qui Chartam scripsit apud Beltesford, & multis aliis.  
Now that Robert de Montealto Steward of Cheshire, who was Witness to this Deed, was the first Robert de Montealto, will be manifest, because the second Robert came not to be Steward of Cheshire during the life of Earl Hugh, as appean by the said Pedigree, as also in Sir Peter's Book of Historical Antiquities, pag. 143. and in the 33 page of this Book, where you find Ralph the Steward, elder Brother to the second Robert, outliving Earl Hugh, and being a Witness to a Deed of Randle Son to the said Hugh; it will therefore necessarily follow, if this Deed of Earl Hugh was made immediately before the death of that Robert de Montealto, who was a Witness thereto, that the said Earl Hugh was a great deal elder than his Wife Bertred; for though the said Robert did live something longer than Sir Peter doth take notice of, yet I think it cannot be proved that he was living any considerable time after the said Eustace, and I know no reason why we should conclude that 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; nay, I think it will appear, that the aforesaid Deed to the Nuns of Bolinton, was certainly made some years before the said Robert died, viz. in the time of King Stephen; for if it had been made when Henry the Second was King, Earl Hugh would not have said sicut fuit tempore Henrici Regis, (as he there doth) but he would have said, sicut fuit tempore Henrici primi, or else he would have used some other words to distinguish King Henry the first from the then King. Now King Stephen dying in the year 1154. and Bertred being not born till the year 1157. it will from this Deed be very clear, that if Earl Hugh had sealed the said Deed immediately before King Stephen died, yet Earl Hugh would be at the least 24 years older than Bertred his Wife.  
And whereas he pretends that he shows, (pag. 93.) that Earl Hugh could neither be so old as I would now suppose him, nor yet that he was born Anno 1142. I answer thereto, that any man who can but count 20. (viz. how long it is from the year 1109. to the year 1129. or from the year 1110. to the year 1130.) if he looks on my Defence of Amicia, pag. 51. and my Reply, pag. 61, 62. may find that Hugh Cyvelick might be older than I say▪ But I doubt Sir Peter is no good Arithmetician, as well because of what he say here, as also because he says in his Historical Antiquities, pag. 137. (which words you may also find before my Defence of Amicia, pag. 14.) that he was eight years older than his Wife, when he was married; whereas he is not now much above six years older, for as you may see in his Historical Antiquities, pag. 361. he was born the third of March, 1613. and his Lady was baptised the 23 day of May, 1620. And I believe Sir Peter will acknowledge he reckons his own birth, not according to the Julian, but according to the account of the Church of England; and if he should say otherways, he might be easily confuted: for as you may find in the said 361 page, he had a sister named Margaret, who was born September 29, 1612. and buried at Great Budworth, Octob. 12, 1612. so that Sir Peter could not be born the third day of March, 1613. according to the Julian account; for than his birth would have been but a little above five months after his said sister was born.  
And whereas in the 49, 50, 51, 52 pages of my Answer to his Addenda, I have proved out of the Welsh History written by Caradocus Llanearuan, that Hugh Cyveliok in all probability had another Wife before Bertred, because he could be no less than 41 years of age when he married her, (although we suppose that he married her so soon as she was 14 years old) Sir Peter to avoid this proof, doth endeavour all he can to disparage Dr. powel who did put out the said History, and writ Notes thereon; but he was not so contemptible a person as Sir Peter would make him, for Mr. Wood in his History and Antiquities of Oxford, lib. 2. pag. 319. doth call the said Doctor, Rerum Antiquarum rimatorem industrium, atque Historiarum Britannicarum peritissimum: and Sir Peter doth also very well know that it is not the Doctor, but Caradocus Llancaruan which I do cite; he also will not suffer the said Book to be read as it should have been printed, but would have it read according as he doth please; which liberty if he may take, he hath very ill fortune, if he cannot keep it from saying any thing contrary to his own mind; then he will read it, not as it ought to have been printed, but as it is misprinted, and thinks he shows a great deal of skill, in proving that it cannot be true as it is misprinted, which every one will confess as well as himself. And lastly, although in his Historical Antiquitles in the Fifth Chapter, concerning the Kings of Wales, and Princes of Wales, in which Chapter he did quote Ingulphus, Orderiews, Cambden, Matthew Paris, and others, and did tell you there in his 44 page, that in these Welsh matters, he did chief follow the Welsh History put out by Dr. powel, 1584. yet now he will also disparage the said History all that he can.  
But that he may seem to have some reason for what he says, he will tell you, that in that very place where Caradocus speaks of taking Melyenith, he also says, that at that time King Steven took Geffrey Mandevile Prisoner at St. Albon, whereas Mat: Paris sub anno 1142. says, it was William Mandevile who was there taken, and therefore he will not have Caradocus to be believed in other things; but this which Sir Peter here says will be of no force, first, because though Mat: Paris be a very good Author, yet Caradocus (if there was nothing else in the Case) ought to be believed before the said Mat: Paris, because the said Caradocus was living when the said Hugh did win Melyenith, and when the said Geffrey de Mandevile was taken Prisoner, whereas the said Mat: Paris lived a long time afterwards, for he died in the year 1259. which was 117 years after that time; secondly, because what Carodocus says concerning the said Geffrey in his said 197 page, is very true, whose words are these: AT that time, (viz. 1142.) King Steven took Geffrey Mandevile Prisoner at St. Albon, where the Earl of Arundel was like to be drowned by default of his Horse; The Earl Mandevile gave to the King for his liberty, the Tower of London, with the Castles of Walden and Plassey, who afterward lived by spoil of Abbeys, and was slain in a skirmish against the King.  
Now that Caradocus doth not mistake herein, will thus appear, If you look in Henry of Huntingdon, (who lived in the time of the said King Stephen) pag. 393. line 15. you may thus read: EOdem anno cepit Rex Gaufridum de Magnavilla in Curia sua apud sanctum Albanum magis secundum retributionem nequitiae consulis, quam secundum j●● gentium, magis ex necessitate quam ex honestate; Nisi enim hoc egisset, perfidia consulis illius regno privatus fuisset; Igitur ut Rex eum liberaret, reddidit ei Turrim Londoniae & Castellum de Waledene & illud de Plaisseiz, possessionibus igitur carene consul praedictus invasit Abbatiam Ram●siensem & Monachis expulsis raptores immisit, & Ecclesiam Dei speluncam fecit latronum.  
Also if you peruse the History of Simeon Dunelmensis (who lived in the time of the said King Steven, and whose History was continued for about 25 years by John Prior of Hagulsted) col. 273. line 15. you may thus read: Galfridus enim de Magnavilla ejectis Monachis Monasterio de Ramesbi abusus est vice Castri.  
Also Roger Hoveden (who lived in the times of King Henry 2. R. 1. and King John, in his Annals printed at Franfurt, 1601. pag. 488. l. 41.) thus says: ANno autem ipso consul Gaufridus de Mandevilla Regem validissime vexavit, & in omnibus valde gloriosus effulsit; Mense autem Augusti miraculum justicia sua dignum virtus divina monstravit; Duos namque qui monachis evulsis Ecclesias Dei converterant in Castilia, similiter peecantes simili poena mulctavit; Robertus namque Marmiun vir bellicosus hoc in Ecclesia de Coventree perversus exegerat; Porro Gaufridus ut diximus in Ecclesia Ramesiensi scelus idem patraverat.  
And a little before in the said page, he also tells how the said Geffrey was taken Prisoner at St. Albon, and delivered the Tower of London, and the Castles of Wallinden and Plasseis to the then King.  
Also Gulielmus Nubrigensis (who lived in the times of R. 1. and King John) thus writes, lib. 1. cap. xi.  EOdem tempore Rex Stephanus cepit Gaufridum de Magnavilla in curia sua apud Sanctum Albanum: non quidem honest & secundum jus pro merito ejus: & metu scilicet, quod expediret, quam quod deceret plus attendens. Erat enim idem Gaufridus homo Audacissimus, & magnarum virium, simul & Artium: praeclaram illam Arcem Lundoniensem cum duabus aliis Munitionibus non ignobilibus possidens, & subtili astutia ingentia moliens. 
And afterwards in the same Chapter he speaks how the King did wrest from the said Geffrey the Tower of London, with his two other Castles, and also what the said Geffrey did to the Monastery of ramsey.  
Also Ralph de Diceto, who was Dean of Paul's in King John's time, in his Abbrev: Chronic: col. 508. line 32. thus says: 1142. 
STephanus Rex Gaufridum de Magnivilla cepit in Curia sua, qui ut liberaretur, reddidit turrim Lundoniae & Castilia sua.   
Also Gervasius a Benedictine Monk of Canterbury (who lived in the time of King John, col. 1360. line 7.) thus writes: M CX LIIII. REx Stephanus cepit Comitem Gaufridum de Mandavilla in Curia sua apud sanctum Albanum, magis ex necessitate, quam ex honestate, Nisi enim hoc fecisset, ut a pluribus dicebatur, perfidia Comitis regno privandus esset. Captus itaque Comes nulla potuit occasione liberari, nisi sua Castella resignans Regiae pareret voluntati. Reddidit ergo Turrim Londoniae & Castellum de Waldene & illud de Plessiz & liberatus est. Comes igitur munitionibus carens, & a Militari crudelitate se cohibere non valens; invasit abbatiam de Rameseia, & de Ecclesia Dei non ●●ritus Justitiam, speluncam fecit Latronum.  
Also John Brompton col. 1033. l. 1. EOdem anno Comes Galfridus de Mandavilla a Rege captus pro restitutione turris Londoniensis & Castelli de Walde postea liberatur, qui possessionibus carens, cum adhuc magnam haberet familiam confestim abbathiam Sancti Benedicti de Rameseye invasit & Monachis expulsis raptores immisit, & sanctum Monasterium speluncam fecit latronum.  
But I shall, after all this, show you what Mat: Paris himself says in that Edition put out by Dr. Wats, pag. 79. which is the same place which Sir Peter doth cite, whose words are these: EOdem tempore Rex Stephanus cepit Willielmum de Mandevilla apud Sanctum Albanum unde reddidit Regi Turrim Londoniarum cum Castellis de Waldene & de Plessiz antequam a vinculis solveretur. Qui carens possessionibus paternis, invasit abbatiam Ramefiensem, atque Monachis expulsis raptores immisit.  
But on the other side of the Leaf, viz. pag. 80. l. 17. in the year 1143. he thus says: EOdem anno Robertus Marmimi vit bellicosus qui Monachos Coventrenses a suo Monasterio expulerat, & de Ecclesia illa Castellum fecerat, dum contra hostes decertaret, inter praedones suos, ante ipsum Monasterium, solus peremptus est, & excommunicatus morte depascitur sempiterna. 
* Noto.  Eodem vero tempore Gaufridus Consul de Mandavilla qui idem scelus patraverat in Monasterio 
* Note.  Ramesiensi ante ipsam Ecclesiam inter Consortes suorum acies, a pedite quodam vilissimo solus sagitta percussus, occubuit interfectus, etc. So that the Reader may plainly see, how deceitfully Sir Peter doth here deal; for finding him in Mat: Paris called William de Mandevile on one side of the Leaf, (through either the slip of Mat: Paris 's Pen, or the Printer's negligence) he acquaints the Reader with that, but never tells him how he is on the other side of the Leaf called Geffrey de Mandevile. And that this was purposely done, may easily appear, because if Mat: Paris had called him William on both sides of the Leaf, yet Caradocus, who was then living, having called him Geffrey, Sir Peter should have consulted other Authors, to have seen which of them two had been in the right; but these ancient Authors being against him, it was a good way to let them alone.  
I shall therefore leave it to the Reader to judge, whether Caradocus Llancaruan be not to be believed concerning Hugh Cyvelioks taking of Melyenith, being the same was taken when he was living; as also whether it doth not certainly appear by that proof, that Hugh Cyvelio● was at the least 41 years old when he married Bertred, and by consequence in all probability imaginable had a former Wife, for which reason, (if the other proofs were laid aside) there is no just cause to suspect Amicia to be illegitimate, and with this I will conclude my Answer to his former Book.  
In the Latin Epistle to the Judges, (which I suppose to be Sir Peter's, though he doth not vouchsafe to set his name thereto) he said I was the first Instigator of this Controversy; but whether that be so or not, let the Reader judge by what I have said in my Epistle before my Defence of Amicia, and in the second and third pages of my Reply. Also in the same Epistle, when he doth appeal to the Judges, he doth not put the question, Whether the Law was different in the time of Glanvil in this point of free marriage from what it is now? But he proposeth this Question, Whether or no in the time of Glanvil, by our ancient Law, it was lawful for any Man to give Land in free marriage with his Bastard Daughter, although the Law being now changed, the Law doth not at this day permit a Gift in frank marriage with a Bastard Daughter? By which he proves himself to be very like the Gentleman he speaks of in the 14 pages of both his Books, who would needs dispute about a Cross, and the question must be— Whether the Cross was a Cross or no Cross? For if the Law be now clearly and certainly changed in this particular point of frank marriage, from what it was in the days of Glanvil (as he in his Question absolutely says it is) it is then as certain, that Lands might have been given in free marriage to those not of the blood in the time of Glanvil, as it is certain, that a Cross is a Cross; (but this Point must be otherways proved than by such a frivolous question as this is.)  
He also in the same Epistle, tells those Reverend Judges, how highly he prefers Divinity before other Studies; but if he had been so conversant therein, as he would have them to believe, it seems strange to me, that he hath not better learned his duty to his deceased Grandmother; for we are bound to honour all our Parents, whether mediate or immediate; and whether they be living, or dead: And I believe he will not find any Precedent in Scripture, where any one did divulge the shame of any person, out of whose loins he did descend except that of wicked Ham, which pattern is in some respects exceeded by Sir Peter; for Ham did really find his Father naked: and when the other Sons of Noah had co●●ered their Father with a Garment, he did not offer to reveal his Father's nakedness again and again.  
As for his second Book, which he directs to all the Judges of England, it so falls out, that there is nothing therein, but what is in his former Books, and is already answered; though if there had, I 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, and cannot receive any information therein, either from Sir Peter, or me, or be deceived by his misrecitals in his said Books; However, I cannot but observe how slightly he speaks of the Lord Coke in his 48 page, and also how he hath such light expressions in his Book directed to the Judges, as I believe were never used before by any person of discretion, to such Reverend and Learned Men. No wonder therefore, if he speak coursely of me, and tell me of so many Impertinencies; but whether I be guilty of them, or of those untruths, or of that opprobrious language, which he doth charge me with, let the indifferent Reader be Judge. And whereas it doth appear, that he is resolved to have the last word, although he have nothing new to say; and that his Writing again be contrary both to his duty to his deceased Grandmother, and to his promise in Print: I do therefore declare, If what Sir Peter writes hereafter be no more to the purpose, than that is which he hath said in his two (last) Books, that I will not appear in Print against him any more, but will choose to vindicate my Grandmother and myself by word of mouth, whensoever I shall have any opportunity so to do; only let me now acquaint the judicious Reader, that some other Judges have declared their opinion concerning the Legitimacy of Amicia, besides those three who formerly did so, and who were spoken of by Sir Peter, in the 49 page of the latter of his last Books.  
Baddeley, Febr. 15. 1674/ 5. T. M.  
FINIS.