A DEFENCE OF AMICIA, Daughter of HUGH CYVELIOK, Earl of CHESTER.  
Wherein it is proved, That Sir Peter Leicester Baronet, In his Book, Entitled, Historical Antiquities, In Two Books; 

The first Treating in General of Great Britain and Ireland.  
The second containing Particular Remarks concerning Cheshire    
Hath without any just Ground declared the said Amicia to be a Bastard.  
By Sir Thomas Mainwaring of Peover in Cheshire, Baronet.  
London, Printed for Sam. Lowades over against Exeter House in the Strand. 1673.   

TO Sir Peter Leicester, Baronet.  
IT will appear very strange to those who know the nearness of Blood that is betwixt us, that I should appear in Print against you; and I do confess, it is not without some regret, that I am constrained so to do: If you would have been contented to have delivered what you did conceit, concerning Amicia, the Daughter of Hugh Cyveliok, Earl of Chester, as an uncertainty only (as you have done that of Roger, Son of the said Earl Hugh) you know I would have rested satisfied with the Judgement of those many knowing and unconcerned Persons that have dissented from you therein, and would never have given you and the Reader the trouble of any one of these Lines. But since you were so fond of divulging this your supposed new Discovery (notwithstanding your being descended of her) as to determine her in your late published Book, absolutely to be a Bastard; and did also many years since, without any other occasion at all, send a Paper tending to the same purpose, to a than Deputy Herald (though at that time you did wholly mistake the state of the Case) I hope it will not be taken ill if I endeavour to give her a public Vindication.  
I might here take occasion to tell you, that I very much wonder, when you mention Ralph Mainwaring, Chief Justice of Chester, and his Son Roger, and William Mainwaring Younger Son of the said Roger, (which William had Over or Higher Peover by gift of his said Father) that you do not take notice that they were all three Knights, you having seen proof thereof by many Deeds, where the word Dominus is prefixed to each of their names, which was not (that I know of) used to be done to any in those elder Ages, but those that were Knights (Clergy Men only excepted) and accordingly in the 330 and 332 Pages of your Book, you own Sir Thomas Mainwaring of Warmincham, to be a Knight upon the like Proofs; as also, why you have not in the descent of the Mainwaring of Peover, set down Ranulfus that is mentioned in doomsday Book (whom you truly suppose to be a Mainwaring) as also all the other Mainwarings that were before the aforesaid Sir William Mainwaring, in regard they held Over-Peover, or the most part thereof, as well as they held Warmincham. For, that Tadetune which Ranulfus in doomsday Book is said to hold in Mildestric Hundred is Warmincham, it appearing by Ancient Records, that Manerium de Tetton & Manerium de Warmincham est unum & idem Manerium; and it is also clear, that Ranulfus was a Mainwaring, because, though he be there named without a Surname, as Odard or Hudard (the owner of a part of Dutton) and many others were, yet the Surname of Mesnilwaren or Mainwaring (for that name in Records and Deeds is written very many ways) was as appears in your Book Pag. 111. used in the days of King William Rufus (as it also was ever since) and all the Lands that the said Ranulfus had in Cheshire which are mentioned in your Book, Pag. 422, 423, 426, 427. As also all the Lands that Ranulfus held in Norfolk were enjoyed by the Family of the Mainwaring.  
I might also here take notice of your mistake in the 336 Page of your Book, where you blame the Herald for making, in Queen Elizabeth's time, for the than Sir Randle Mainwarings Coat Barry of Twelve pieces Argent and Gules (for which you cite Guillims' Heraldry) but that was the mistake of Guillim, and not of the Herald, as appears by the Pedigree then made, which you have often seen. For, the Coat which the Herald did then allow the said Sir Randle to have a Right unto (as well as to those two placed in your Book, P. 331. and 333. the first whereof, though cut right, is by you blazoned amiss) was Argent six Barulets Gules, which Coat you take notice Sir Roger Mainwaring did Seal with; and the direct Line of the said Sir Roger Mainwaring presently failing (Sir Thomas Mainwaring Eldest Son of the said Sir Roger, having issue Sir Warine Mainwaring, who had issue a Daughter and Heir) I know no reason but the Mainwaring of Peover, who (as is confessed by you Pag. 333.) are now next Heir-Male to the Mainwaring of Warmincham, have a good right to the Six Barnlets with which Sir Roger Mainwaring of Warmincham, Father of Sir William Mainwaring of Peover did Seal, as well as they have to the Two Bars, which Sir Thomas Mainwaring of Warmincham, Brother of the said Sir William Mainwaring did bear.  
I might in like manner here, let you know that I do suspect you have branded several Persons in your Book with Bastardy, without direct Proof thereof. And although I shall not concern myself for any, but some of those which are by you mentioned, when you writ of the base Issue of Hugh Cyveliok; yet if I make it appear that you have there without any certainty aspersed two other Ladies besides Amicia. I hope you will have no just cause to blame,  
SIR, Your most affectionate KINSMAN and Servant Thomas Mainwaring. Baddeley, Feb. 27. 1672/ 3.   

The Words of Sir Peter Leicester, concerning Amicia, Daughter of Hugh Cyveliok, Earl of Chester, in his Historical Antiquities.  
Part 2. Chap. 5. Pag. 134, 135, 136, 137, and 138.  

iv The Base Issue of Hugh Cyveliok.  
PAganus, Dominus de Milton, whom I have seen witness to a Deed, subscribed thus—  
Filius Bastardus Hugonis Comitis Cestriae.  
Roger, witness to a Deed of his Brother Randles, to the Abbey of S. Werburge, whom I conceive was a Bastard.  
Amicia, the Wife of Ralph Mainwaring sometime Judge of Chester, to whom Hugh Cyveliok, Earl of Chester, her Father, gave In libero maritagio servitium Gilib. filii Rogeri, scilicet servitium trium Militum: Faciendo sibi servitium duorum Militum, as the words of the Original Deed do run now in the Possession of Sir Thomas Mainwaring of Over Peover Baronet.  
Also, another Base Daughter, as I conceive, Married one Bacun, and had Issue Richard Bacun, Founder of the Priory of Roucester in Staffordshire, about the Reign of King John; for the safety of his Soul, and the Soul of his Uncle Randle, Earl of Chester. Monast. Part 2. pag. 267.  
And here I cannot but mislike the boldness and ignorance of that Herald, who gave to Mainwaring of Peover, the Quartering of the Earl of Chester 's Coat of Arms. Which device was never done before the Reign of Queen Elizabeth, in the time of Sir Randle Mainwaring, late of Peover, the Elder, my Grandfather by the Mother; for if he ought of right to Quarter that Coat, then must he be descended from a Coheir to the Earl of Chester, but that he was not; for, the Coheirs of Earl Hugh, as you see before, were married to Four of the greatest Peers of the Kingdom, the Earl of Huntingdon, the Earl of Arundel, the Earl of Derby, and the Earl of Winchester 's Son and Heir, who lived not to be Earl: Neither was Mainwaring then an equal Competitor to have Married a Coheir to the Earl of Chester; and it is plain, Ex Placitis, 18 Hen. 3. Rot. 14. in the Tower of London, where the Coheirs implead John the Scot, Earl of Chester, for their part; there is no mention of Amice claiming any part, or any from or under her in the Record: Besides, all Ancient Authors of those times, as Polychronicon, Matthew Paris, Knighton, Stow, and others, would not have omitted her amongst the rest which they have set down, had she been a Coheir, which also she must needs have been, had she been Legitimate; for Hugh Cyveliok never had any other Wife but Bertred, and she survived him.  
And though Amice, in the Deed before mentioned, is styled Filia Hugonis Comitis, without the Addition or Note of Bastard; it was very usual in those elder ages so to do: The like we find of Geva, Base Daughter of Hugh Lupus, and several others.  
V Concerning this Bertred, the Wife of Hugh Cyveliok, I cannot omit the Falsities and Absurdities of some Authors, as Powel on the Welsh History, p. 295. and Ferne in his Lacy's Nobility, p. 53. Both of them calling this Bertred by the name of Beatrix, and saying she was the Daughter of Richard Lucy, Chief Justice of England, a most gross falsity. I am very certain, that Hugh Cyvelioks Wife was not Daughter of Lucy, nor ever called Beatrix in any old Deed or Record, though I find by good authority that there was a Woman called Beatrix Lucy, but never Wife of Earl Hugh.   

The Death of Hugh Cyveliok. Obiit. 1181.  
THis Hugh, Earl of Chester, died at Leek in Staffordshire, and was buried at Chester, Anno Dom. 1181. 27 Hen. 2. Hoveden, Pag. 615. With whom, Westminster, Polychronicon, and Cambden inter Comites Cestriae, do all agree.  
He was Earl of Chester Twenty eight years, and gave the Church of Bettesford to the Prior and Canons of Trentham, after the death of William Barba, who at the time of this Grant possessed the same, a Copy of which Deed, I received from Sir Simon Dews Baronet.  
Now because I find that some are displeased at my placing of Amice, sometime the Wife of Ralph Mainwaring, Judge of Chester, among the Base Issue of Hugh Cyveliok, Earl of Chester; and also, that I am informed that three eminent Judges and four Heralds, are of opinion, That she was Legitimate, and not a Base Daughter of Earl Hugh. It is very necessary, that I put down here my Reasons why I have so placed her, protesting withal, that I have not done it out of any prejudicated opinion, or calumny intended in the least, but only for the truth's sake according to the best of my judgement, and that after a long and diligent scrutiny made herein; for I must ever acknowledge myself to be extracted out of the Loins of this Amice, by my own Mother; but you know the old saying of Aristotle, Amicus Plato, Amicus Socrates, Sed magis amica veritas. Neither were Bastards in those elder Ages of such disrepute as now in our days, Memini me alicubi legisse (saith Spelman in his Glossary on the word Bastardus) Priscos septentrionales Populos etiam spurios admisisse in successionem; and where he farther tells us, that King William the Conqueror began his Letter to Alan, Earl of Little Britain, as he did many other more, in these words, Ego Willielmus cognomento Bastardus. Of which Title (it seems) he was not ashamed, otherwise he would never have used it himself.  
And therefore the Question being no more than this, Whether Amice was a Base Daughter, or no? I will first answer those Reasons which seem to be the chief ground of those worthy Persons abovesaid, who think Amice was no Bastard, and then in order set down my own Reasons, why I conceive her to be a Bastard; submitting myself wholly to the judgement of all Learned Persons herein.   

The Reasons that She was no Bastard.  
FIrst, Our Common Law alloweth not that any Lands can pass in libero Maritagio with a Bastard Daughter, Coke upon Littl. fol. 21. b. And therefore Amice having Land given with her in libero Maritagio by the Deed, it must be presumed that she was no Bastard.  
Answ. To which I answer, That it is true, the Law is so taken at this day with us; but that the Law was so taken in the elder ages of Henry the Second, when Hugh Cyveliok lived and upwards, I very much doubt; and if we mark well this Grant, it is the Grant of Earl Hugh to Ralph Mainwaring with Amice his Daughter, in Frankmarriage of the Service of Gilbert, Son of Roger, to wit, the Service of three Knights Fees, by doing the Service of two Knights Fees to the said Earl and his Heirs; which is rather a Release of the Service of one Knights Fee, than the Grant of any Land. But to pass by this— I say, That the Common Law in sundry things is altered at this day, from what it was in former Ages, long after Henry the Second, Coke upon Littl. fol. 34. Sect. 39 Coke ibid. fol. 3. a. fol. 8. a. At the bottom of the Page, and on the other side (b) at the bottom, Fol. 26. b. Sect. 29. and infinite other particulars may be cited. And that in this particular also of passing Land in libero Maritagio with Bastards, the Law seems clearly to be altered herein since the Reign of Henry the Second. For, the common practice I take to be the Common Law, and I shall give you here one Precedent made about the Reign of King Stephen (and doubtless many others might be mustered up from those elder ages, if any curious person would take pains to search old Deeds and Records) which Deed I received from Sir Simon Dewes, transcribed out of a Manuscript in Arundel House in London, belonging anciently to the Barons of Stafford, wherein the old Charts belonging to the Basset's of Drayton-bassets' in Staffordshire where enrolled about Richard's the Second time. Ibid. fol. 67. a.  
Ranulfus Comes Cestriae Willielmo Constabulario & Roberto Dapifero & omnibus Baronibus suis & hominibus Francis & Anglicis totius Angliae salutem. Sciatis me dedisse & concessisse Gevae Ridell Filiae Comitis Hughes Draytunam cum pertinentiis in libero conjugio, sicuti Comes Hughes ei in libero conjugio dedit & concessit. Et teneat bene & in pace, honorifice, & libere ut melius & liberiûs tenuit tempore Hugonis Comitis & aliorum meorum antecessorum eisdem consuetudinibus & libertatibus. Testibus Gilberto Filio Ricardi, & Adelizâ forore meâ, & Willielmo Blundo, & Alexandro de Tresgor, & Rogero de Bellocampo, & Willielmo de Sais, & Roberto de Sais, & Ricardo Filio Aluredi, & Hugone Filio Osberti, & Henrico de Chalder: Apud Saintonam.  
Wherein Geva is called Daughter of Earl Hugh Lupus, as Amice in that other Deed is termed Daughter of Earl Hugh Cyveliok. Now that Geva was a Bastard is very plain out of Ordericus, a Man that lived in that very age, he tells us, Lib. 10. pag. 787. speaking of Hugh Lupus his death— Richardus pulcherrimus puer quem solum ex Ermentrude Filia Hugonis de Claromonte genuit, etc. Richard, a brave youth; whom only Hugh Lupus begot on Ermentrude, Daughter of Hugh de Claremonte, etc. Nor can this be restrained to the only Son, for than it must have been otherways expressed; and if Hugh Lupus had any other Son or Daughter by Ermentrude, then cannot Richard be said only to be begotten on her by Earl Hugh, and so Geva was a Bastard, or else Ordericus lies. Also the same Author tells us, Lib. 4. p. 522. that Hugh Lupus had also many Base Sons and Daughters by several Strumpets, who were almost all swept away by sundry misfortunes; and very probably, if Hugh Lupus had any more Legitimate Children by his Wife, besides Earl Richard, either Son or Daughter, Ordericus would have Recorded them as well as he hath put down others in like Nature, being indeed his usual method through the whole course of his History. And had Geva been Legitimate, than her Issue ought rather to have succeeded into the Earldom of Chester, than Randle de Meschines, after the Death of Richard, Earl of Chester, for as much as the Sister and her Heirs, aught to inherit before the Aunt and her Heirs; and howbeit many Earldoms have descended to the Heirs-males, and not to the Heirs General, yet in this case were no Heirs-male, but two Females, an Aunt Legitimate, who had it, and a Sister not Legitimate: And show me a Precedent, where ever the Heirs of an Aunt inherited before the Heirs of a Sister, both legally born, and no Heirs-male left, unless in case of Forfeiture by Treason, or some other great cause to hinder the same.  
Secondly, Add to these the words of Glanvile, Chief Justice of England, who lived under Henry the Second, in that very age with Amice, Lib. 7. cap. 1. Quilibet liber homo quandam partem terrae suae cum Filia sua, vel cum aliqua alia qualibet muliere dare potest in Maritagium. sive habuerit haeredem, sive non, velit haeres vel non, imò & eo contradicente. And if a Man might give Land then in Free-marriage with any Woman whatsoever, than he might give it to his Bastard, and then the Law is now changed, for now it must be of the Donors' Blood, and a Bastard is now said not to be of the Donors' Blood, Quasi nullius Filius, and it seems to me, that in those elder ages, Bastards were reputed of the Blood by the frequent appellation of them by the names of Uncle, Brother, Daughter, Son, and Cousin: Besides, our Laws were then imperfect, dark, and obscure in most things, till Bracton, under King Henry the Third, compiled the Body of our Laws, and brought them into a method.  
And now I have done concerning this chief Reason, whereupon those worthy Judges grounded their Opinions; and we daily see Opinions of Lawyers follow the putting of the Case, which many times upon mature deliberation, and hearing of the Case well argued, may then be of another Opinion.  
Now follow the Arguments of lesser moment, which I persuade myself were no Grounds for the Judges aforesaid.  
II. THe disparity of the years between Hugh Cyveliok and Bertred his Wife 〈◊〉 may suppose he had a former Wife; for Bertred was but Twenty six years old at the Death of Earl Hugh 1181. as appears by the Inquisition taken 30 H. 2. 1183. after the death of Hugh Cyveliok; and Hugh was Earl of Chester Twenty eight years, which was one or two years before Bertred was born; besides what years were run up of his age before his Father Randle died, which may be supposed to be a competent term of years; and than it is probably he had a former Wife, and that he stayed not unmarried so long as till Bertred was fit for marriage.  
Answ. Now let us examine the Matter a little, it will give us some light, Robert, Earl of Gloucester, married Mabill, Daughter and Heir of Robert Fitz-Haimon, Anno Dom. 1110. So Stow in his Chronicle. See also Seldon 's Tit. Hon. pag. 647. By her he had Issue four Sons and two Daughters. Maud, the younger Daughter married Randle de Gernoniis, Earl of Chester, Father to Hugh Cyveliok. Vincent upon Brook, p. 216. Now suppose we, Maud to be the fourth Child, probably she was not born till about the year 1117. or thereabout; and that about the year 1139. she was married to Earl Randle, whereby Robert, Earl of Gloucester, strengthened his party for Maud the Empress; at that time she cannot well be supposed to be above Twenty two years old, if she were so much. Now Earl Randle died 1153. So that Hugh Cyveliok could not possibly be above Twelve years old at his Father's death, he might be much less: But suppose we in a middle way, that he was six years old at his Father's death, which is more than can be well affirmed, then could not Earl Hugh be above Seven or eight years elder than Bertred his Wife; And what great matter is this? I myself was eight years older than my Wife when I was married; but it is much more probable that he never had any other Wife, because he had many Bastard Sons and Daughters, whose heat of youth might by a very timely marriage, have been possibly prevented, or at least assuaged in some measure.  
III. Bertred, the Wife of Hugh Cyveliok, was a witness to the Deed in Frankmarriage with Amice, and Amice had a Daughter called Bertred, after the name of the Countess. Ergo, Probably Amice was no Bastard.  
Answ. Truly this is of so little weight that it will need no answer; for I yet apprehend no reason in it.  
iv Roger Mainwaring, Son of Ralph Mainwaring, calls Randle Blundevil, Earl of Chester and Lincoln, his Uncle in another Deed; wherefore it is to be supposed that Amice was no Bastard, otherwise Roger durst not have presumed to have called the Earl Uncle.  
Answ. Histories, Deeds, and Records, are full of Examples in this nature, where we find Bastards frequently called Cousin, Brother, Uncle, Son, and Danghter. For example, Robert, Earl of Gloucester, Base Son of King Henry the First, is frequently called in Histories, Brother to Maud the Empress, Hoveden. p. 553. He is also so styled in a Deed made by Maud the Empress herself, Seldon 's Tit. Hon. p. 649. Called also Cousin to King Stephen, Ordericus, pag. 922. Reginald, Earl of Cornwall, another Base Son of Henry the First, styled Auunculus Regis Henrici Secundi, by Hoveden, pag. 536. Robert and Ottiwel, two Bastard Sons of Hugh Lupus, frequently called Filii Hugonis Comitis Cestriae, and Ottiwel styled Frater Ricardi Comitis Cestriae, Ordericus, p. 602. & 783. & 870. Geva a Base Daughter of Hugh Lupus, styled in old Deeds Filia Hugonis Comitis; and there also she calls Earl Randle her Cousin, Monasticon, Part 1. pag. 439. Also Richard Bacon, Son of another Base Daughter of Hugh Cyveliok, calls Randle Blundevil, Earl of Chester, his Uncle, in another Deed, as Mainwaring in like manner here styles him in this Deed, Monasticon. Part 2. p. 267. Every Man that is but the least versed in Antiquities, knows these things to be very usual.   

The Reasons that Amice was a Bastard.  
1. IF Hugh Cyveliok had no other Wife but Bertred, then Amice must certainly be a Bastard; for she was not a Daughter by Bertred, as is granted on all sides.  
But Hugh Cyveliok never had any other Wife but Bertred. Ergo, Amice was a Bastard.  
Now the Minor is to be proved by the Affirmer, Oportet Affirmantem probare: For as yet I never saw the least proof thereof, either by Deed, Record, or any Ancient Historian, nor yet any inducement of good reason to incline my belief of it; and till this be done, it is unreasonable to impose it upon any Man's belief, by supposing that he had another Wife, for suppositions are no proof at all. It is not enough to suppose Amice might be by a former Wife, but it must be clearly proved, or strongly inferred from solid Reason, that it is so, and that Hugh had a former Wife.  
Neither is it a sufficient answer hereunto to say, That it is unreasonable to conclude all Children Bastards, whose Mothers cannot be proved, God forbidden: But in this Case we find a Wife certainly Recorded, and a Son and four Daughters (who were afterwards Coheirs, and carried away all Earl Hugh 's Lands) clearly proved by Records, and Ancient Historians; and also Earl Hugh is certainly known to have had many Bastards both Sons and Daughters, which gives occasion of strong suspicion, that Amice was a Bastard, she being neither Recorded by any Historian, nor ever had or claimed any Land as a Coheir; and therefore here is a necessity of proving a former Wife; which, for my part, I believe firmly Earl Hugh never had.  
2. Whatsoever is given in Frankmarriage, is given as a Portion. Now the Release of the Service of one Knights Fee in Frankmarriage, seems not a competent Portion for a Legitimate Daughter of the Earl of Chester, especially for the eldest Daughter, for so she must be, being of the first venture, which always is more worthy than the second, if she were at all Legitimate. And we find the other Daughters married to four of the greatest Earls in England. All which is a strong presumption, that Amice was a Bastard and no Legitimate Daughter.  
To this it may be answered, That possibly Earl Hugh might give Amice a great Portion in Money, though she had no Lands; and I say possibly too, he might give her no Money, or at lest nothing considerable. Which great Portion in Money, when it shall appear to be true, may take off the strength of this Argument or Second Reason, till than it must be very pressing.  
3. The Ancient Historians of our Nation, as Polychronicon, writ by the Monk of Chester, Henry Knighton, the Monk of Leicester, and others; also Stow and Cambden have Recorded the lawful Daughters and Coheirs of Earl Hugh. And so the Record of 18 Hen. 3. And had Amice been a Legitimate Daughter, it is likely that these Historians would not all have omitted her, but of her there is Altum silentium among all the Historians and Records which I have yet seen, though indeed I look upon this only as a probable, not as a sure evincing Argument.  
These were the Reasons which inclined my Opinion to place Amice in that order as I have done; but since there are some Learned Men of another Opinion, I must leave every Person to the dictate of his own Reason.    

THE DEFENCE OF AMICIA, Daughter of Hugh Cyveliok, Earl of Chester.  
I Do very much wonder that you should so peremptorily call Amicia a Base Daughter of Hugh Cyneliok, unless you had more sure grounds to go upon: And though it be only my task to defend the said Amicia, yet I do suppose I shall make it appear before I have done, that you go upon no absolute certainty, in calling her that was Mother to Richard Bacun, Founder of the Priory of Roucester in Staffordshire, another Base Daughter of the said Hugh Cyveliok, or in calling Geva a Base Daughter of Hugh Lupus.  
At present give me leave to remind you what you have been formerly told, viz. That those Heralds that gave to Mainwaring of Peover the quartering of the Earl of Chester's Coat in Queen Elizabeth's time, were Mr. William Cambden and Mr. Samson Erdeswick (Persons, who very well understood themselves) and I do not know why you should so much mislike their boldness and ignorance (as you call it) for their so doing: For, though we did not anciently quarter that Coat, it not being usual in that age, when that match was made, for any so to do; and that it may perhaps in strictness be true, that it doth yet only belong to those of the whole Blood to Quarter Coats, and that to show their Right; yet it being now a common practice for those who are of the half Blood also to do it, to manifest, That they descend of the same Father that those of the whole Blood do, I know not why it should be accounted a crime in us, more than in others in the like Case.  
As for your Objecting, That Mainwaring was not then an equal Competitor, to have married a Coheir of the Ear! of Chester, the Coheirs being married to Four of the greatest Peers of the Kingdom: We do not say, That he either was an equal Competitor, or that she was a Coheir to Earl Randle, she being the Daughter to Hugh Cyveliok, by a former Wife, and so but half Sister to the said Earl Randle; however, that could have been no substantial Argument to prove that Amicia was not Legitimate.  
1. Because, sometimes some particular Persons have the fortune to marry Wives far beyond their Degrees or Estates.  
2. Neither was Sir Ralph Mainwaring so inconsiderable a Person, as perhaps you may conceit him to be. For, besides that, Sir Roger Mainwaring, Son of the said Sir Ralph, did after the death of the said Sir Ralph give to Sir William Mainwaring his younger Son, Peover, as also some other Lands; the said Sir Ralph had also the Lordship of Waburne in Norfolk, and the Lordships (or great part) of Road, Blakenhal, Warmincham, Northerden, Ashton juxta Kelsall, Henbury, and Pexhull. Willaston, Great Warford, Little Warford, Whelock, Winnington, Cokishall, Tatton, Senellestune, Smalwood, and half of Pichmere, as also other Lands in Cheshire; the most of which came to Sir William Trussel, who about Edward the First's time, married Matilda, the sole Daughter and Heir of Sir Warine Mainwaring, Son of Sir Thomas Mainwaring, Son of Sir Roger, Son of the said Sir Ralph and Amicia: And the said Sir Ralph was Chief Justice of Chester, which anciently hath been a place of that great repute that Dukes of York, Gloucester, Exeter, and Ireland; and Earls of Nottingham, Wiltshire, Suffolk, Shrewsbury, and Derby; besides, other great Persons have heretofore enjoyed the same.  
3. Neither was the Case the same with the other Daughters of the Earl of Chester, when Ralph Mainwaring married with Amicia, as it was afterward, for Amicia was married in the life time of her Father Earl Hugh; whereas those Four came to be such great Fortunes upon the death of their Brother Randle, Earl of Chester and Lincoln, without Issue, to whom they then became Heirs, they being his Sisters of the whole Blood; and though all, or most of them were married before they came to be his Heirs, yet the said Earl Randle having never had Issue, the expectation of that Estate added to their other Portions, must needs make them very considerable Fortunes; whereas Amicia was but of the half Blood, being a Daughter of Earl Hugh by a former Wife.  
And whereas you do acknowledge that you have been informed, That Three eminent Judges, and Four Heralds are of opinion that Amicia was Legitimate, and not a Base Daughter, you received that information several years ago; but you were also lately told by one, whom I hope, you have no reason to discredit; that since then, several other Learned Judges and Heralds had been consulted. All which did concur in the same opinion, that Amicia was Legitimate.  
But before I come to the Reasons that are by you alleged, either for or against Amicia, give me leave to recite these Three Deeds following, that those who read them, and the Reasons on both sides, may clearly understand the full State of the Case.  
HVgo Comes Cestr' Constabular' Dapifer' & omnibus Baronibus suis & Vniversis Ballivis & hominibus suis Francis & Anglicis tam praesentibus quam futuris salutem. Sciatis me dedisse & concessisse & hac praesenti Karta mea confirmasse Radulpho de Menilwarin cum Amicia Filia mea in libero maritagio servitium Gilib. filii Rogeri, scilicet, servitium trium Militum faciendo michi servitium duorum Militum ille & haeredes sui michi & haeredibus meis, quare volo & firmiter praecipio ut nullus super hoc eum vel haeredes suos vexet, vel amplius quam servitium duorum Militum de hoc praedicto tenemento requirat. Teste R. Abbate Cestr. Bertreia Comitissa Cestr. Sim. Thuschet, Rogero de Livet, Gilib. filio Pigot. Rob. fratre suo, Frumb. de Ridford. Willielmo de Meinilwarin, Rob. filio Ham. Better. Cam. Rob. de Meinilwarin, Ran. de Lee, Rad. Clerico, Petro Clerico qui hanc Kartam fecit & multis aliis apud Lee.  
RAdulfus de Meidnilwar' omnibus praesentibus & futuris ad quos praesens scriptum pervenerit salutem. Saiatis me dedisse & concessisse & praesenti carta mea confirmasse Henrico de Alditelegh in liberum maritagium cum Bertrea filia mea Smelewde cum pertinentiis & Senellest ': Cum pertinent. & dimid' Pichemere cum pertinentiis suis & i. Marc. de redditu annuo in Civitate Cestr' de terra quae fuit Fagun. quam Robert' filius Ermwi de me tenuit illi & haeredibus suis qui de dicta Bertrea filia mea pervenient habend' & tenend' de me & haeredibus meis in feodo & haereditate libere & quiet plene & pacifice in bosco & plano in pratis & pascuis in aquis viis & in semitis in vivariis & in molendinis & in omnibus locis & libertatibus praedictis terris pertinentibus sicut liberum maritagium melius & liberius teneri pot ': Et ego & haeredes mei illi & dictis haeredibus suis contra omnes homines dictas terras Warrantizabimus. Test' Ran ' come Cestr. Hug' come Vltoniae, Phil' de Orreby tunc Justice. Cestr. Joh. de Ptell ' Hug. Malebiss. Ric. de Vern. Ran. de Meidnilwar. Clerico. Lidulf. de Tuaml' Rob. de Periis, Ric. de Kingest. Norm. Pant. Tho. de Orreby, Alured. de Sulinni. Pet. Chan. Gg. de Aldith. Ric. de Rodest. Clerico & multis aliis.  
OMnibus hanc Cartam visuris vel audituris Rogerus de Menilwarin aeternam in Domino salutem. Noverit Vniversitas vestra me pro salute animae Domini Ranulphi quondam Comitis Cestriae & Lincolniae Auunculi mei & prosalute animae meae & animarum antecessorum & successorum meorum dedisse concessisse & hac praesenti Carta mea confirmasse Deo & Beatae Mariae & Abbati & Monachis de Deulacresse & eorum Grangie de Biveleg. in liberam puram & perpetuam Elemosynam liberam communam in bosco meo de Pevere, scilicet,  accipiant de eodem bosco husbot & haybot rationabiliter per visum alicujus forestariorum meorum quantum necesse habuerint, sine impedimento aeriarum nisorum meorum ubicunque nidificaverint, Praeterea dedi eis liberam pessionem & quietam de pannagio quinquaginta porcis quandocunque voluerint in praedicto nemore meo de Pevere, pro hac autem donatione & concessione mea, Ego Rogerus praedictus & haeredes mei de praedictis Abbate & Monachis de Deulacresse nichil exigere poterimus, nisi orationes & suffragia ordinis Cisterciensis. Ego vero & haeredes mei sepedictam donationem & concessionem meam sepedictis Abbati & Monachis & Grangie de Biveleg contra omnes gentes Warrantizabimus imperpetuum. Et ut haec donatio mea rata & inconcussa in sempiternum perseveret eam praesentis Cartae testimonio & Sigilli mei impressione roboravi. Hiis testibus Willielmo de Menilwarin. Willielmo Capellano de Lauton. Ricardo de Moston. Bened. de Cawdray, Johanne de Motlawe, Willielmo de Pevere, Hugone de Weloc. Nicolao de Wereford, Gilberto Gekell & aliis.  
And now I shall consider of your Answer to the first Reason on the behalf of Amicia; which Reason, I think, should have been expressed to this, or the like effect, viz.  
Our Common Law neither now doth, nor heretofore ever did allow, that Lands or Services could be passed In libero Maritagio with a Bastard Danghter by the Reputed Father, because a Bastard is not De sanguine Patris. And therefore Amicia having Services given with her In libero Maritagio by her Father, it necessarily follows that Amicia was no Bastard.  
To which, your Answer is, that it is true, the Law is so taken at this day; but you much doubt, whether it was so taken in the elder Ages of Henry the Second, and upwards; and to make good what you say, you cite my Lord Coke upon Littleton in several places; as also Glanvile, Chief Justice of England, who lived in the same time that Amicia did; and you also allege, that you have found a Precedent where Lands were given by the Father in Free Marriage with his Base Daughter.  
To what you urge out of my Lord Coke, I do thus say, That I do conceive the Common Law, where not altered by Parliament, is the same at this day that it was formerly; and therefore my Lord Coke on Littleton, telling us Pag. 115. b. that it is a Maxim of the Law, That whatsoever was at the Common Law, and is not ousted or taken away by any Statute, remaineth still. I might thence argue, That if it had ever been at the Common Law, that a Man might have given Lands or Services In libero Maritagio with a Bastard, or one that is not of the Blood, that it would be lawful to do so still, because that part of the Law is not ousted, or taken away by any Statute; but a Man cannot do so now: And therefore the Common Law never was, that a Man might give Lands or Services with a Bastard in Free Marriage, or to one that was not of the Blood. So that those places which you have cited, do not prove, That the Common Law at this day doth vary from what it was in former ages in any particular, but only that it was taken to be otherwise in those days; and it is but just like some Cases in our Reports, which have at several times been adjudged directly contrary to each other, but notwithstanding that, the Law was still the same.  
But that I may come as near you as I can, I shall acknowledge, that though the Common Law was ever the same, where not altered by Parliament, yet in former Ages they did in some particulars, take the Law to be otherwise then they now do; and if you could prove, that they did so in this Case of Free Marriage, it would take off much of the strength of this Argument, because that Ancient Deeds and Grants (according to what my Lord Coke on Littleton, says fol. 8. b. at the bottom) are to be expounded as the Law was taken to be at the time of the Grant: But this is so far from making against my opinion, that I think it doth add very much strength thereto; for if it had been taken in former Ages, that Lands might have been given in Free Marriage with a Bastard, or one not of the Blood, it certainly would sometime or other, have been so observed by some of the Sages of the Law; for where the Law hath been taken in one Age after one manner, and in another age after another manner, it is so remarkable, that it could not pass unobserved by all.  
As to what you allege out of Glanvil, who says, Quilibet liber homo quandam partem terrae suae cum Filia sua vel cum aliqua alia qualibet muliere dare potest in Maritagium. I do conceive it is the same thing in Law, and shall be so intended, as if it had been expressly said, With any Woman of his Kindred; and that for these Reasons.  
First, Because though such kind of Expressions seem to be Universal, and without any exception at all; yet they shall not be so largely taken, but shall be expounded so as may agree with the Laws of that Kingdom or Nation, to which they particularly do relate; and for this I shall give you an example out of Scripture itself. In the Fourteenth Chapter of Deuteronomy, and the Twenty sixth Verse, there was a Liberty given to the Jews in some Cases, and at some of their Feasts, to eat whatsoever their Soul lusted after, and whatsoever their Soul desired: And yet this was not to be expounded universally of all Meats whatsoever (in case they desired the same) but must be meant only of such Meats as were legally clean, and allowed them to eat by their Law. And thus, when we also say, That any Man that hath Money enough, may buy Lands when he pleaseth, it shall not be understood of any Man whatsoever: For, a Traitor, or a Jew, or one that is convicted of Felony, or an Alien cannot purchase Land in England; but it shall be understood of one that is by Law enabled so to do: And so in like manner the words Cum alia qualibet muliere, must be understood only of such a Woman as is capable of such a gift, which a Woman that is a Bastard, or not of the Blood, or a Jew, or an Alien, etc. is not. For in these kind of Gifts, as Mr. Bracton tells you, Lib. 2. cap. 11. the Land so given is Liberum tenementum uxoris, & non viri, cum non habeat nisi custodiam cum uxore.  
Secondly, Because I do conceive that Glanvil hath immediately contradicted himself, unless by these words, Cum aliqua alia qualibet muliere, he understands a Woman that is of the Blood of the Donor: For he tells us in the same Chapter, and the very next words to those that you cite, That none can give Lands in remunerationem servitii sui, to hold good after the death of the Donor, unless there be Seisin in the life time of the Donor, which is untrue. If a Man having a mind so to reward his Servants, can give Lands with his Woman-servant to a stranger, or with his Woman-servant to his Manservant in Free Marriage. For, where Lands are given In libero Maritagio, according to Law, there needs no Seisin; and where they are given contrary to the Law, viz. (to one not of the Blood of the Donor) Seisin doth only make it an Estate for Life, as my Lord Coke says in his Institutes, Part 1. pag. 21. b. So that it seems clear, Glanvil by the words Cum aliqua alia qualibet muliere, understands one of the Blood of the Donor, as well as I hope hereafter to prove that Bracton doth by the words Cum aliqua muliere.  
Thirdly, Because that though Glanvil, lib. 7. cap. 1. says, A Man may give part of his Heritage to his Bastard; and that also Bracton in his Second Book, and beginning of his Seventh Chapter tells us, That Lands may be given Bastardo in Maritagium cum aliqua muliere; yet neither of them hath one word at all to prove, That Lands may be given to a Man cum Bastarda, whereas in this Case of Frankmarriage, the party with whom the Land is given, not the party to whom the Land is given, is the principal thing that is considerable herein.  
Fourthly, Because my Lord Coke in the First Part of his Institutes, fol. 21. b. tells us, That if the King give Land to a Man with a Woman of his Kindred in Frankmarriage, and the Woman dieth without Issue, the Man in the King's Case shall not hold it for his life, because the Woman was the cause of the Gift; but it is otherwise in the Case of a common Person. And to prove this, in the Margin he citys, 9 H. 3. Dower 202. Whereas, if you look Fitz-herberts' Grand Abridgement, 9 Hen. 3. Dower. 202. the words run thus, Si le Roy donne certain tre a un homme ove une feme en marriage, si le bar' nad issue pur la feme il naver la tre apres la morte la feme mes cest issu q' la feme au devaunt inherit, etc. So that you see in these Cases of Free Marriage, my Lord Coke makes no difference between these words, Ove une feme, and these words, With a Woman of his Kindred; and by the same Reason, being in the Case of Frankmarriage also Glanvile's words, Cum alia qualibet muliere, are to be understood, with any other Woman of his Kindred only. Also, which is very observable, Glanvile was first made Justice of England, 26 Hen. 2. as Mr. Dugdale tells you in his Chronology of Lord Chancellors, Lord Keepers, Lord Treasurers, Justices, etc. which was about Forty five years before the 9 Hen. 3. Therefore what likelihood is there, that the Law should be differently taken in so short a time, from what it was in the time of Glanvile, and especially since the Statute of Westminster, the Second, was not made till about Threescore years after the Nineth of King Henry the Third.  
Fifthly, Because the Author of the Book called The Laws Resolutions of women's Rights, Printed by the Assigns of John More, 1632. doth tell us, That in old time these Gifts in Frankmarriage were to be made to them of the Kindred, as well as now. His words in his Thirty third Section of Frankmarriage, pag. 73. are these. It was, as I suppose, more frequent in the old time, that Men gave Lands with their Daughters in Marriage, than it was at this day; but now as than if a Man liberally and freely, without any Money or other considerations, save only Love and Natural Affection, give Lands or Tenements to another Man, with a Woman which is a Daughter, Sister, or Cousin to the Donor in Frankmarriage, whether it be tempore Matrimonii, vel ante, vel post. This word Frankmarriage maketh an Estate of Inheritance, viz. to the Donees, and the Heirs of their Two Bodies, and they shall hold quite of all manner of Services (except the pure Fealty) till the Fourth degree be past; but the Issue in the Fifth degree, and his Descendant, shall hold of the Donor and his Heirs, as they hold over.  
Sixthly, Because the Author of the old Treatise, commonly called Fleta, in the Third Book, and Eleventh Chapter, De donationibus in Maritagiis, doth imply that these kind of Gifts must be made to them of the Kindred; his very words are these, Est autem quoddam Maritagium liberum ab omni servitio solutum donatori, vel ejus haeredibus usque ad tertium haeredem vel usque ad quartum gradum faciendum & debent gradus sic computari, ut Donatorius primum faciat gradum, haeres ejus secundum gradum, haeres haeredis tertium, & haeres secundi haeredis quartum, qui quidem tenebitur ad servitium ut ad homagium, prius autem minime ne Donator vel ejus haeredes per homagium, homagii acceptionem a reversione repellantur, sed in quarto gradu pro eo quod tune vehementer presumitur quod terra non est pro defectu haeredum donatoriarum reversura, quia etsi propinquos haeredes non habeat, vel cum habeat & defecerint ad donatorem vel ejus haeredes qui homagium ceperint non erit terra reversura, dum tamen aliquis remotus de consanguinitate appareat, qui jus in haereditatem poterit vendicare alioquin evanescit homagium, & revertetur. Et cum de sanguine homagium factum fuerit, extunc obligatur homo ad servitium, quia servitium semper sequitur homagium, etc.  
Seventhly, Because Bracton, lib. 2. cap. 7. par. 3. says thus, Et sciendum quod terra datur aliquando ante sponsalia & propter nuptias a patre mulieris vel alio parente ipsi marito cum muliere aliqua vel utrique simul, sc. tali viro & uxori suae (quod idem est) & eorum haeredibus vel alicui mulieri ad se maritandam, etc. And presently after, Fit etiam talis donatio ante Matrimonium contractum aliquando in ipso contractu, aliquando post contractum. Which in my apprehension is as much as to say, That this kind of Gift can only be made by the Father, Mother, or some other Kinsman, (for the word parens or parent in Latin and French hath oftentimes that signification) and of this opinion was my Lord Coke. For in his Institutes upon Littleton, pag. 21. b. he tells you, That one of those things incident to a Frankmarriage is, that the Woman that is the cause of the Gift, be of the Blood of the Donor, and for this as appears Letter (1) amongst other Proofs, he in the Margin citys Bracton, lib. 2. cap. 7. Also, which is very considerable, Mr. Bracton here useth this expression Cum muliere aliqua, and yet meaneth a Kinswoman, and why then should we think that Mr. Glanvile doth not mean a Kinswoman, though he use this expression Cum alia qualibet muliere, and especially since my Lord Coke in the very Page of his Institutes last mentioned, quotes Mr. Glanvile, lib. 7. cap. 18. And amongst others, that expression of his Cum aliqua muliere in Maritagium; and also in the Margin citys Glanvile, lib. 7. cap. 1. (the very place on which you frame your Argument) which he would never have done, if he had thought the opinion of Glanvile had been contradictory to his own. And if there had been any such thing, as that the Law in this point had been severally taken in so very short a space, as betwixt the time of Bracton and Glanvile, sure my Lord Coke would in that place have taken notice thereof.  
Eightly, and lastly, The Law appears to be the same in this Case which it was in Glanvile's time, because as Littleton tells us in his 271 Section, Gifts in Free-marriage were by the Common Law before the Statute of Westminster the Second. Now the Common Law hath always been the same, and as my Lord Coke tells us in his First Part of Institutes, fol. 115. b. 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: But the Parliament hath made no alteration concerning Gifts in Free-marriage, except the said Statute of Westminster the Second, cap. 1. By which they turned the Estate that passed by those Gifts in Feesimple into an Estate Tail, (all Inheritances being Feesimple before the said Statute) so that in other respects the Law in this Case remains as it did. And that this is so, I conceive is very clear, because, I suppose neither you, nor any other person, can tell any one particular in which the Common Law is, or hath been altered but by Act of Parliament: Neither could there be any occasion to alter the Common Law, or to take it otherways in this particular than they did formerly, because since there were Estates in Tail, there could be no great occasion to make Gifts in Free-marriages; and therefore my Lord Coke says in his First Part of Institutes, fol. 178. b. That such Gifts are almost grown out of use, and serve now principally for Moot Cases and Questions in the Law, that thereupon were wont to arise.  
Neither is there any weight in what you say, That it seems to you, that in those elder Ages Bastards were reputed of the Blood, by the frequent appellation of them by the names of Uncle, Brother, Daughter, Son, and Cousin; for, by the same Reason you should repute them of the Blood now, this Age being as civil to them in their expressions, as any former Age could possibly be.  
And for the Precedent you give me, wherein you say Lands were given in libero maritagio with a Bastard, I conceive it will not hold;  
Because it doth not certainly appear, that Geva was a Bastard; for, in all the Records that you cite, she is called Earl Hugh's Daughter; and in one of them, she calls Randle Earl of Chester her Cousin, which makes it probable that she was Legitimate, especially, since I do not find by any Deed, Record, or Author whatsoever, that she is at any time called a Bastard.  
As for your saying, That it is plain out of Ordericus, p. 787. that Geva was a Bastard, because, speaking of Hugh Lupus his death, he adds these words, Richardus autem pulcherrimus puer quem solum ex Ementrude Filia Hugonis de Claromonte genuit. I am not satisfied, but he might as well mean, that he was the only Son which Earl Hugh had by Ementrude, as that he was the only Child that he had by her. For, there is no necessity to take the word Solum adverbially; neither is it marked as an Adverb in Ordericus his Book, though it be so in yours, and yet in his Book Adverbs are usually marked. And though that Ordericus (if his meaning were so) might have worded it more clearly, yet he many times expresseth himself worse than he doth here, and particularly Pag. 871. And though he tells us, Pag. 522. that E pellicibus plurimam sobolem utriusque sexus genuit; yet he doth not say that Geva was one of them.  
Neither is there any force in what you allege, that probably if Hugh Lupus had any more Legitimate Children by his Wife besides Earl Richard, either Son or Daughter, that Ordericus would have Recorded them as well as others, being indeed his usual method through the whole course of his History. For he could have no Legitimate Son but Earl Richard, unless he had another Wife besides Ementrude (Ordericus being express therein) and possibly for some Reasons he might have another Wife besides Ementrude: But whether Geva was by a First or second Wife, I know no necessity to conclude that Ordericus should Record her, I finding no such usual method of his, as this which you speak of: For he doth not (that I see) make it his business to Record what Wives or Children the Earls of Chester, and other great Men had, but only speaks of them occasionally, and so he also doth of some of their Illegitimate Children; but if he made it his design to give an exact account of these things, he ought to reckon Geva, either amongst the lawful, doubtful, or illegitimate Children of Hugh Lupus.  
And as to your Objection, That if Geva had been Legitimate, her Issue ought rather to have succeeded into the Earldom of Chester, than Randle de Meschines, after the death of Richard Earl of Chester, That doth not at all follow, because, it is possible the Earldom of Chester, at that time (as most times Earldoms anciently were) might be Entailed on the Heirs-males only, and then the Male Line being extinct, why might not the King confer it as well upon Randle de Meschines, who was a near Kinsman, as upon a stranger? Which later course is also usual at this day. And it is very probable, that the Earldom was Entailed on the Heirs-males only; for James York in his Union of Honour, p. 105. says, That this Randle was made Earl by Grant of King Henry the First; and if so, it came not to him by Descent: So that all which you here object is fully answered. But if it had been so, that the Earldom had been to Descend to the Heirs General; if Geva was Daughter of Hugh Lupus by another Wife, besides Ementrude; then the Earldom of Chester would have Descended from Earl Richard to Randle Meschines by his Mother, being Aunt of the whole Blood to Richard, and not to his Sister Geva, or her Issue, they being but of the Half Blood to him.  
And whereas you desire me to show you a Precedent wherever the Heirs of an Aunt inherited, before the Heirs of a Sister, both legally born, and no Heirs-male left, unless in Case of Forfeiture by Treason, or some other great cause to hinder the same. I shall now show you where an Honour in such a Case came to the Heirs of the younger Sister, and not to the Heirs of the elder Sister, which is full as much as if it were done in the Case of a Sister and an Aunt. If you peruse the Magazine of Honour, Collected by Mr. Bird, and enlarged by Sir John Doderidge, One of His Majesty's Justices of the King's Bench, pag. 96. you will there find, That whereas Radulfe, Lord Cromwell, being a Baron by Writ, died without Issue, having Two Sisters, and Coheirs, Elizabeth the Eldest married to Sir Thomas Nevil, and Joan the Younger married to Sir Hunt Bourcher: He who had married the Younger Sister, was called to the Parliament as Lord Cromwell, and not the said Sir Tho. Nevil, who had married the Elder Sister; so that you see no convincing Argument can be brought from the enjoyment of the Earldom by Randle de Meschines, however the Case prove to be.  
I do therefore still conceive, That it is very clear that Lands or Services never were in any Age passed, In libero Maritagio with a Bastard, or with any one that was not of the Blood, but only for Term of Life, and that with Livery and Seisin; and consequently, all persons to whom such Deeds or Grants were made (unless for life only) are certainly to be concluded Legitimate; and if you will bring a Convincing Precedent to the contrary, do not produce a Record or Deed of Lands or Services given with one that you suppose to be a Bastard, or not of the Blood; but first clearly prove, That the party was certainly a Bastard, or not of the Blood, by some Deed, Record, or Ancient History, and show Lands or Services so given with her and then there will be some strength in such a Precedent.  
But what will you say, If this Deed which you allege to be made to Geva, will not at all concern Amicia, if Geva were a Bastard. If you peruse what my Lord Coke upon Littleton, says pag. 21. b. he will there tell you, 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. As if a Man give Lands to another with his Daughter In connubio soluto ab omni servitio, etc. yet there passeth in this Case but an Estate for Life; for seeing that these words In liberum Maritagium create an Estate of Inheritance against the general Rule of Law, the Law requireth that they should be legally pursued. And in this Deed to Geva, the words are not In liberum Maritagium, but In libero Conjugio; and so are but like the words In connubio soluto ab omni servitio, which make but an Estate for Life, and so might be passed either to a Bastard, or any other person whatsoever. And if you look well on the Deed to Geva, it is worded as if it intended only an Estate for Life, there being no mention of her Heirs, and running also in the singular number, Et teneat bene & in pace, etc.  melius & liberius tenuit, etc. Also, if you observe my Lord Coke upon Littleton, a little before on the same Page, he will tell you, that Four things are incident to a Frankmarriage: The first whereof is, That it be given for consideration of Marriage, either to a Man with a Woman, or as some have held, to a Woman with a Man, (and with this Bracton, lib. 2. cap. 7. doth accord.) And the fourth thing is, That the Donees shall hold freely of the Donor, till the fourth degree be past, (with which the old. Treatise called Fleta, lib. 3. cap. 11. doth agree.) For both which Reasons, this Gift cannot be a Gift in Frankmarriage, because, what is here given, is given to Geva alone, and not to an Husband with her; as also, there are here no Donees, but one Donee only, and the Estate was not to continue until the fourth degree was past, but was only an Estate intended for the Life of Geva, as appears before; whereas what was given by Earl Hugh to Ralph Mainwaring with his Daughter Amicia, and by Ralph Mainwaring to Henry de Alditelegh with his Daughter Bertred, was given in Free-marriage, and their Heirs are mentioned in both the Deeds: It remains therefore clear, That the Deed to Geva was not a Gift in Frankmarriage, and is also very uncertain, whether Geva was a Bastard, as you suppose.  
The second Reason alleged to prove, That Amicia was Legitimate, hath also yet its full strength, and is not at all weakened by any thing that you have said: For, I think it will still appear, that Earl Hugh was much Elder than his Wife Bertred; and therefore probably had a former Wife, who dying and leaving him no Issue-male, it is no wonder at all, if he that had so great an Estate, did afterwards marry a Lady that was very much younger than himself. And though you do affirm, That Earl Hugh could not be above Seven or eight years older than Bertred his Wife, I suppose I shall make it appear, that there might be many more years betwixt them, and that from the Argument upon which you yourself do reckon, viz. The Marriage of Robert Earl of Gloucester, with Mabill Daughter and Heir of Robert Fitz-Haimon. For whether the said Robert Earl of Gloucester, according to Selden, married the said Mabill in the year 1109. or according to Stow in the year 1110. The said Mabill might possibly have Maud, her second Daughter in the year 1112. Which Maud, if she was married in the year 1128. when she was Sixteen years of Age to Earl Randle de Gernoniis, might have her Son Hugh Cyveliok in the year 1129. Which if true, the said Earl Hugh was Fifty two years of age at his death, for he died in the year 1181. And if so, than he was four years above twice the age of Bertred; for she was aged but Twenty four years when the said Earl Hugh died, as appears Rot. de Dominabus pueris, etc. In Scacc. penes Remem. R. sub Tit. Linc. Rot. 1. And it is certain, That the said Earl Hugh was Earl of Chester about four years before his Wife Bertred was born, besides what age he was of, when his Father died: But I may very well abate you several years of this account, and yet Earl Hugh be a great deal older than his Wife Bertred.  
And as to the Third and fourth Reasons, they were only urged as concurrent Proof, with the Argument brought from the words In libero Maritagio, yet I conceive there are many more circumstances than you take notice of: And therefore when I have observed them all, viz. That in the first Deed, Hugh Cyveliok's Countess is a Witness, by which the said Earl gives Services to the said Amicia in Free-marriage, and calls her his Daughter: And in the second, That Ralph Mainwarings Daughter is also called Bertred after the Countess, and Randle Earl of Chester, a Witness to what was given with her in Free-marriage to Henry de Alditelegh, who was Great Grandfather to the Famous James Audley that warred in France. And in the third, How Roger Mainwaring in his Gift to the Monks of Deulacress, calls Randle Earl of Chester and Lincoln his Uncle; and how, as appears in Mr. Dugdale's Antiquities of Warwickshire, pag. 88 Ralph Mainwaring was with the said Earl at Coventry, and a Witness to his Charter to his Burgesses there; as also, how Roger de Meinwarin and Henry de Aldithele, who married his Sister, Monast. Angl. Part 1. pag. 891. are Witnesses to the Deed of Randle Earl of Chester and Lincoln, concerning his Abbey of Deulacress; as also, how the said Henry de Audley, Monastic. Angl. Part 2. pag. 509. was a Witness to the Deed of Robert de Ferraris, whose Mother was one of the Sisters and Coheirs to the aforesaid Earl Randle; as also, how Ralph Menilwaringe or Mainwaring, as appears by your Book, Part 2. pag. 130. 131. 139. 143. and 144. is a Witness to one Deed of Hugh Cyvelioks, and to three other Deeds of the said Earl Randle, (who in some of them is also styled Duke of Britain, and Earl of Richmond) I shall leave it (without any more words) to the Reader to judge, whether these Circumstances be not such as do show more great and constant intimacy betwixt the said Two Families, then probably would have been, if Amice had been a Bastard; and if so, they strongly concur to prove her Legitimate, which is all the use that is made of those Arguments.  
And although you Object, That you frequently find in Histories and Records, that Bastards are called Cousin, Brother, Uncle, Son, and Daughter. I grant it to be true, yet that is either done where the persons came to be very great, as Robert Earl of Gloucester did, or else, are called so by those that writ the Histories of them, or else are so termed by their Relations, who out of their Humility did condescend so to style them upon ordinary occasions, though it were not their due. But I believe you can hardly find one that you can certainly prove to be a Bastard, or the Son of a Bastard, who doth presume in a Deed to call so great a person, as the Earl of Chester was, his Brother, or Uncle, unless he came to be a very great person himself.  
Also I do verily believe, that Richard Bacun's Mother was not a Base Daughter of Hugh Cyvelioks, nor any Daughter of his at all, because, as you may see Monast. Angl. Part 2. pag. 267. When Richard Bacun did found the Priory of Roucester in Staffordshire, his Uncle Randle Earl of Chester was then living, and a William was then Archbishop of York, and one whose name did begin with R. was then Bishop of Chester; but if the Catalogue of Archbishops and Bishops at the end of Isaackson's Chronology be right, there was no William Archbishop of York, during the life of Randle Blundevile; nor any Man Bishop of Chester, whose Christian name began with R. except Richard Peche, who died in the year 1182. At which time Randle Blundevile could not be of age to Seal any kind of Deed, because Bertred, the said Randle's Mother, was then but about Twenty five years of age. I rather think that Bacun's Uncle, mentioned Monastic. Angl. Part 2. pag. 267. was Randle de Gernoniis; for he was Earl from the year 1128. to about the year 1152. And in the year 1143. as Isaackson says, William Sisters Son to King Stephen, was Archbishop of York, but was ousted of it again, till about 1152. or 1153. And Roger Clinton from the year 1128. until the year 1149. was Bishop of Leichfield and Coventry; which Bishop in elder ages, was the same with the Bishop of Chester. But that Randle Earl of Chester, who is mentioned Monast. Angl. Part 2. pag. 268. was indeed Randle Blundevile, who was Earl from about the year 1180. till about the year 1232. (Roger Constable of Chester, who lived in the time of no other Earl Randle, being a Witness to the said Deed) But what the said Randle Blundevile did, was but by way of Confirmation, which in former times was very usual to be obtained from Princes several Generations after; as to instance in one Case, instead of many. If you read Monastic. Angl. Part 2. pag. 24 & 25. you will find King Henry the First, Reciting and Confirming what had been given to the Priory of Huntendune, and Pag. 27. you may find King Henry the Third doing the like; and yet there was a greater space betwixt King Henry the First, and King Henry the Third, than there was betwixt Randle de Gernoniis and Randle Blundevile. So that you may see, such great persons as these may have some Children which our Historians take no notice of: And you may also discover upon what slender Grounds you have charged Richard Bacun's Mother with Bastardy, she being so far from being a Base Daughter to Hugh Cyveliok, that she was no Daughter of his at all; but she was Sister to Randle de Gernoniis, and Daughter to Randle Meschines.  
But I shall now come to Answer the Reasons that you bring to prove, That Amice was a Bastard. And your first is this.  
If Hugh Cyveliok had no other Wife but Bertred, then Amice must be certainly a Bastard; for she was not a Daughter by Bertred as is granted on all fides: But Hugh Cyveliok never had any other Wife but Bertred. Ergo, Amice was a Bastard. And you say the Minor is to be proved by the Affirmer; For, Oportet Affirmantem probare.  
To this I say,  
First, That by this Rule you yourself are as much bound to prove her a Bastard, as I am bound to prove that Hugh Cyveliok had a former Wife; for you as clearly affirm that, as I affirm the other; and there is no reason why Suppositions should pass for Proofs any more in your Case, than they should do in mine.  
Secondly, That less Proof by many degrees will serve to prove a thing that was done long since, then will be required to prove that which was done lately. To instance in one Case, which may serve instead of many: If you be to prove a Deed that was lately Sealed, it will be expected you produce the Witnesses who were present at the Sealing and Delivery thereof. If your Deed was sealed a good while ago, the proving of the Hands will be required: But if the Deed be so old, that none alive could know the Handwriting of the Witnesses, than the Deed carries its own Proof with it: And the like reason there is in all Cases of Antiquity, and especially in those that are so very ancient as this is. For, if I did only prove her called a Daughter, being it is so long since, she ought to be presumed Legitimate, unless the contrary do appear. For the proving she was not by Bertred, does not prove that she was a Bastard; but only proves that she was either a Bastard, or else by a former Wife: And our Law at this day is, That a Bastard cannot be proved a Bastard but in his life time; and so it anciently was also, as appears by the Old Treatise called Fleta, lib. 6. cap. 39 sect. 14. where it is thus said, Si autem post mortem alicujus apponatur Bastardia, non allocabitur; cum defunctus ad talem exceptionem respondere non poterit. Now, if a Person cannot be proved a Bastard immediately after his death, because he cannot answer for himself, What reason is there to charge Amice with Bastardy so many hundred years after her decease.  
Thirdly, I do conceive that the Passing of Services In libero Maritagio with Amice, doth absolutely prove that she was a lawful Child, and by consequence by a former Wife: Also, if you take notice of what Sir Henry Spelman writes in his Glossary, on the word Bastardus, you will find him quoting Coustum. du Normand. Artic. 77. in Annot. thus, Quoties enim agitur de honore vel commodo Filiorum, appellatione Filiorum non comprehenduntur Bastardi. I suppose therefore in this Case, Amice would not have been styled as she is in the said Deed, unless she had been a Legitimate Daughter.  
Fourthly, If this Argument of yours would hold as you have framed it, we should have almost nothing but Bastards in the Ancient times: For if all must be Bastards, if we could not tell who their Mothers were, nor directly prove their Fathers married, we might then conclude, most persons to be Bastards that lived in the First and second Centuries after the Conquest. I shall not offer to put the Case upon any other Family but my own (though it doth reach a multitude of others.) But as to my own, if I mistake not, I find Eight persons whose Wives we are altogether ignorant of, and Six of those persons left Issue, all which Issue, by your Argument would be Bastards; which I am confident you cannot, nor will not suppose. I shall instance only in one, viz. Roger Melinguarin who in the Reign of King Henry the First, as you may see in the First Part of Monasticon Anglicanum, p. 985. gave Plumley (a place in Cheshire, near to Peover) to the Abbey of S. Werburge at Chester; and as it appears by the said Record; the said Roger Mainwaring had Three Sons, William, Randle, and Wido. Now if you should affirm, That the said William Randle and Wido, were Legitimate, which I verily believe you will not scruple to do, I could thus frame your own Argument against you.  
If Roger Melinguarin had no Wife, then, William, Randle, and Wido, Sons of the said Roger were certainly Bastards: But Roger Melinguarin aforesaid had no Wife. Ergo, etc.  
Now if this Argument would hold against Amicia, it would also hold against these three Children of Roger Mainwaring, and indeed against all other persons whose Fathers we could not directly and interminis prove to have been married (the Proof lying on the Affirmers side) the Absurdity of which is so great, that you yourself cry, God forbidden all Children should be concluded Bastards, whose Mothers cannot be proved.  
But if it be possible for a Man to have one Wife, and we not know who she was, Why may not a Man have two Wives, & we be ignorant who the former Wife was.  
Yea, but (say you) in this Case we find a Wife certainly Recorded, and a Son and Four Daughters, who were afterwards Coheirs, and carried away all Earl Hugh 's Lands, clearly proved by Records and Ancient Historians; and also Earl Hugh is certainly known to have many Bastards, which gives occasion of strong suspicion that Amice was a Bastard; and therefore here is a necessity of proving a former Wife, which you firmly believe Earl Hugh never had.  
For answer hereunto, I say that I do believe if Randle Blundevile had left any Issue Male, you had not met with such Proof of the Four Sisters his Coheirs, as you now do: For, the falling of that great Estate to them, they being of the whole Blood to their Brother, is the occasion of their being Recorded, and so much taken notice of by Historians. And though this Earl Hugh their Father had some Issue that was not lawful, (as many of the great persons of that age had,) yet that hinders not but he might have two Wives; neither had he so many Bastards as you lay upon him, for, I have showed before, That Richard Bacun's Mother was not any Child of his: And I do conceive I have by necessary consequence proved, That the said Earl Hugh had a Wife, who was Mother to Amicia, though we cannot tell who she was. And it is no great wonder, if the old Historians do not mention who Hugh Cyveliok's first Wife was, for, there is not any of the Ancient Writers that I know of, who doth make it his business to tell what Wives and Children this Earl Hugh had; nay, I think there is no Ancient Historian that doth mention his Wife Bertred: And therefore, we had never known who she had been, but only because she survived her Husband, and was mentioned in the Inquisition taken after his death, and because her Daughters after the death of their Brother came to be Heirs.  
Also, it is very hard to tell who were Wives to Walter Gifford, the First Earl of Buckingham; John of Henault, Earl of Cambridge; Baldwin de Ripariis, Earl of Devonshire; William Fitz-Piers, Earl of Essex; Robert de Ferrars, the First Earl of Ferrars, (and as some say of Derby) Robert de Ferrars, Second Earl of Ferrars; Ralph de Maunt, Earl of Hereford; William de Iper, Earl of Kent; William de Romara, Earl of Lincoln; Morchar, Earl of Northumberland; Gospatrick, Earl of Northumberland; Robert Mowbray, Earl of Northumberland, and several others; and therefore, what great wonder would it be for Hugh Cyveliok to have a former Wife, and yet we to be ignorant who that former Wife was.  
Your second Reason against Amicia will not hold, For though what is given in Frankmarriage, be given in consideration of Marriage, yet it cannot properly be called a Portion. For, such Gifts may be made either before Marriage, at Marriage, or after Marriage, as you may see Coke on Littl. 21. b. And besides, what is given as a Portion remaineth to the Husband for ever, and is wholly at his disposal; but Lands given in Frankmarriage, shall after the death of the Husband and Wife (if they die without Issue) revert to the Donor: Also any person that pleaseth may give a Woman a Portion, but none but one of the whole Blood can give Lands with a Woman in Frankmarriage, as Mr. Hughes says in his Grand Abrigdment of the Law, pag. 970.  
But the reason why you call it a Portion, is, Because you would have it thought that this was all her Portion, and thence would infer, that she was Illegitimate, because so very little was given with her: But I think any Man that will weigh things indifferently will easily conclude, That if she had been but a Bastard, yet being a Bastard of so great a person, she would have had a great deal more given her then these Services, upon those terms that they were given, and especially considering how you have observed out of Sir Henry Spelman, that Bastards were not in such disrepute in those former ages, as they are now; and besides, I have made it appear, that Sir Ralph Mainwaring was no inconsiderable person, and therefore would deserve a great deal more. And you may also find in one of the Deed's , that though the said Sir Ralph had Issue Male, yet he gave that which was of far greater value in Free-marriage with a Daughter of his own: But I perceive, if this Deed of Earl Hughes had been lost, you would not have believed that Sir Ralph Mainwaring had had any thing with Amicia, because than it would not have appeared, which is a strange way of arguing, about things that were done so long since. And, if this be a good reason, I wonder you do believe that Earl Hugh had any Portion with his Countess Bertred, because (for aught I yet know) it doth not appear that he had.  
As for your alleging how the other Four Sisters were married, I have answered that before; and though you say, That if Amice had been Legitimate, she being of the first Venture, would have been more worthy than those of the second, though that be true when the Sisters Claim as Heirs to their Father; yet when they come to Claim as Heirs to their Brother (as in this Case) if there be Sisters of two Ventures, and the Brother be of the second Venture, than the Sisters that are of the second Venture shall be preferred before those of the first Venture, because those of the second Venture are of the whole Blood. I shall therefore here conclude what I have to say to your second Reason, when I have told you, that I do not understand why you call this Gift of Earl Hugh's (as you do in two several places) A Release of the Service of one Knights Fee.  
Your third and last Reason, I conceive hath no weight at all; For those Historians and others which you speak of there, do not take upon them to give an account of all the Children of Hugh Cyveliok, but only to tell who were the Heirs of Randle Blundevill; and of this you are so sensible, That you confess this Argument not to be evincing, and yet it is as strong as your first Reason. But I cannot but wonder when you name Mr. Cambden to be one of those that take no notice of Amicia, being you well know that he hath mentioned her in his Britannia, in his Description of the County of Chester; and though not as a Coheir to her Brother Randle, (for that she was not) yet without the least brand of being a Bastard: Also all those Judges and Heralds, of whom you have formerly heard, and all other persons (except yourself) which have seen my Deeds, have from the Expressions therein, been fully convinced, that she must needs be Legitimate; and amongst others, that worthy and judicious person, William Dugdale Esquire, our Norroy, King of Arms, is of the same judgement, as will appear in his Historical Discourse of the Baronage of England (which will be shortly ready for the Press.) In which, from the Authorities and Reasons there briefly cited, he concludes, That Bertred was a second Wife, and that Amicia was a Lawful Daughter of the said Earl Hugh by aformer Wife, though it be not known who that Wife was, and which is worthy observation, the said Mr. Dugdale hath heard you allege your Reasons to the contrary, but did not find them such as to be satisfactory to him: I hope therefore that I shall not because of my Relation to that Noble Lady, be thought to be Partial or Singular herein, since that it appears she stands vindicated by the Sentence of so many knowing and unconcerned persons; but it will necessarily follow, that you have dealt very severely with your said Grandmother, and that upon such weak Grounds, as your Three Pretended Reasons, which will not prove her to be a Bastard, if those Arguments that were brought on her behalf, were all laid aside.  
I have now answered the Objections which you have brought against Amicia, the Wife of Sir Ralph Mainwaring; but before I conclude, I shall acquaint you, and the Reader, with two Deeds; the first whereof, doth belong to Thomas Ravenscroft of Bretton, in the County of Flint, Esquire; and the other to Henry Mainwaring of Kermincham in Cheshire, Esquire, the words whereof do here follow, as they were copied out several years since from the Originals by William Dugdale Esquire.  
SCiant praesentes & futuri quod ego Alanus de Boidele dedi & quiet ' clam' fratri meo Willielmo de Boidele & haered' suis Doccliston in feod' & dominicis cum omnibus pertin' infra Limam. Tenend' & habend' de Domino meo Ranl' come Cestr' & haered' suis faciend' servicium de praedict' terr' sc. De quatuor feod' & dimid' praenominato domino meo Ranl' come Cestr. & haered' suis. Et ego vero Alanus de Boidele & haered' mei praedict. terr. cum omnibus pertin' praenominato Willielmo de Boidele & haered' suis contra omnes homines & feminas cum pertin' warantisab. Et quia volo quod hec mea donatio & quiet ' clam' stabilis & inconcussa & rat' permaneat praesenti scripto sigillum meum apposui. His test' Domino Ranl' Comite Cestr' domino Rad ' de Mainwaringhe tunc Justiciar' Cestr' domino Roberto de Monte alto, Domino Hug' Dispensar' Domino Ham ' Sen' de Mascy, Domino Warino de Vernun, Domino Willielmo de Venables. Tomazin fil' Willielmi de Goulborn, Petro de Bekering. Rob' tunc persona Gropenhale scriptor' hujus scripti & multis aliis.  
SCiant & omnes praesentes quam futuri quod ego Robertus dominus Moaldie & senescallus Cestrie, concessi & praesenti Karta confirmavi domui sce ' Werburge Virgins in Cestria & Monachis ibidem Deo servientibus totam Villam de Goostree plene & integre cum omnibus pertin' suis in puram & perpetuam elemosynam pro salute anime niee & animarum praedecessorum meorum, liberam quietam & solutam ab omni seculari servicio & omni seculari exactione. Ita quod in eadem Villa de Goostre nihil ad opus meum vel haeredum meorum retinui praeter elemosynam & orationes & tantam libertatem in ipsa eadem Villa praedicte domui & praedictis Monachis concessi quod in posterum nullus haeredum meorum quicquid libertatis superaddere possit. Et ut hec mea concessio rata & inconcussa permaneat imperpetuum eam sigilli mei appositione roboravi. Hiis testibus Rad ' de Menilwar' tunc Justiciar' Ham ' de Masci Gwar de Vern' Rad ' fil' Sim ' Pho ' de Orreby. Sim ' de Thuschet ' Rog' de Menilwar' Willielmo de Venables. Tomazin Dispensatore Rob' fil' Picot' Petro Clerico come Ricardo de Vern' Rob' de Menilwar' Brito Paulum Patr' de Moberl' Liulf' de Twamlow. Peers de Surtm' Ran ' de Praers' Ricardo de Kingsl' Jo ' de sancta Maria, & multis aliis.  
I shall also desire you to take notice of what you yourself have observed in your Historical Antiquities, pag. 160. how that Earl Randle de Gernoniis (as doth appear by the Charter there mentioned) did give the Office of Constable of Cheshire, in Fee to Eustace, Baron of Halton, and his Heirs; and did constitute the said Eustace (to use the words of the said Charter) hereditary Constabularium & supremum conciliarium post me & super omnes optimates & Barones totius terrae meae. As also Pag. 161. how the Baron de Montealto or Moald, being Dapifer, Seneschal, or Steward of Cheshire in Fee, had the second place, which is also confirmed by several Deeds mentioned by you, Pag. 129. 130. 139. 144. and 162. In all which, the Constable and Steward are named before the Justice of Chester, and all the other Barons; which being so, it will be difficult to give a Reason (if Amicia was but a Base Daughter) why Sir Ralph Mainwaring, in the Deed abovesaid of Alan de Boidele, is named as a Witness next to the Earl of Chester, and before Sir Robert de Monte alto or Moald, Steward of Cheshire, and so many of the other Barons; as also in a Deed mentioned in your Book, Pag. 139. why the said Ralph Mainwaring is named next to the Countess of Chester, and before Roger, Constable of Cheshire; as also, why in a Deed in the 143 Page of your Book, the said Ralph Mainwaring is again named next to the said Countess, and before Ralph, the Steward of Cheshire.  
But if Amicia was a Legitimate Daughter, the reason thereof will be apparent: For though it be true, that the Husband cannot be Ennobled by the Marriage of his Wife, yet the Earl of Chester, being a Count Palatine, and one that is confessed by you, Page 152 & 159. to have Royal Authority within himself, and not unfitly to bestiled a Petty King, having under him his Constable of Cheshire in Fee, in imitation of the Lord High Constable of England, and his Steward of Cheshire in Fee, after the example of the Lord High Steward of England, and his Noblemen about him, in imitation of the Barons of the Kingdom; as also his Chamberlain, who supplieth the place of Chancellor, and his Justices of Chester, (who have like power to the Judges of the Courts of King's Bench and Common Pleas,) as also a Baron of the Exchequer, a Sheriff, and other Officers proportionable to those of the Crown: It is no wonder at all, if these great persons did voluntarily give Precedence to Sir Ralph Mainwaring during his life, in regard he had married a lawful Daughter to one of their said Earls.  
Add hereunto, that when Earl Hugh Cyvelioke, did by his Charter mentioned by you, Page 131. acquit the Abbot and Monks of Stanlaw, of some Toll in Chester, (which could be but a little before the said Earl's death, because, the said Earl died in the year 1181. And the Abbey of Stanlaw, as is confessed by you, Page 267. was Founded but in the year 1178.) The said Earl in his said Charter (contrary to all former Precedents which I have seen) doth name the Justice of Chester before both the Constable of Cheshire, and Steward of Cheshire; and the Reason thereof, I suppose to be, because the said Ralph Mainwaring, who was Son in Law to the said Earl, was then Justice of Chester, as he also was, some years in the life time of Randle Blundevill; though the said Ralph, as appears, by his aforesaid Deed made to Henry de Alditelegh, did afterwards part with the said Office, Philip de Orreby being Justice of Chester, when the said Philip was a Witness to the said Deed.  
Now this preeminence could not be given to the said Ralph, because he was Justice of Chester? (that being below the Offices of Constable and Steward, as appears before) but because of the Relation of the said Ralph, to the said Earl: But as this respect was too great to have been showed him, if he had only married one that was a Bastard; so it doth not consist with your conceits, that the said Amice was Illegitimate, and that the said Ralph had nothing else with her, but the aforesaid Services: For indeed they were not of sufficient value to be a Portion suitable to the Estate of a very mean Gentleman.  

I Have at present done with this Discourse, concerning the aforesaid Amicia, but being desirous to rectify all Mistakes which do concern my Family, in all the Particulars that I can, I think it not inconvenient to inform the Reader of one of yours, in the 334 Page of your Book, wherein, speaking of Margery the Wife of Randle Mainwaring, you say, This Randle Manwaring of Over Peover, styled commonly Honkyn Manwaring in the Language of those times, died 35 H. 6. 1456. Lib. B. page 21. E. Buried at Over Peover in the Stone Chapel on the Southside of the Church: Which Chapel Margery his Wife surviveing, erected, with the two Monuments therein for herself and husband, Anno Dom. 1456.  
For albeit it be very true, that the said Randle Mainwaring did marry Margery, the Daughter of Hugh Venables, Baron of Kinderton, and Widow of Richard Bulkeley of Chedle in Cheshire, yet the said Margery did not survive the said Randle, and after his death, Erect the said Chapel and Monuments therein: For although on the Eighth day of August, in the Year of our Lord God, One thousand six hundred and forty, the Pictures of the said Randle Mainwaring and Margery were tricked out by a very good hand, as they were then remaining in a Glass Window of the said Chapel, Kneeling, with this Inscription, viz. Orate pro animabus Ranulphi Maynwaring & Margeriae Vxoris ejus qui istam Capellam, Anno Dom. Mccccluj ............  
And although the Year when the said Chapel was built, is still to be seen in the said Window, yet that doth not prove, that the said Margery survived her Husband Randle, and erected the said Chapel and Monuments: For, the word qui cannot possibly relate to Margery alone, but doth, as I conceive, (in the true meaning thereof) relate only to the said Randle: For it appears by an Inquisition taken after the Death of the said Margery, that the said Margery held in Dower, at the time of her Death (Ex dotatione Richardi Bulkeley quondam viri sui) the third part of the Moiety of the Manor of Chedle; as also Five Messages in Middlewich; One Message and Sixty Acres of Land and Wood in Newton near Middlewich; Ten Acres of Land in Ashley and Hale; Eight Acres of Land in Occleston; Six Messages and Two hundred Acres of Land, Meadow, and Wood, in Whatcroft; Six Messages and One hundred and twenty Acres of Land, Meadow, and Wood, in Holme juxta Davenport; the Moiety of the Scite of one Water-Mill, and Four Acres of Wood in Little Stanthorne, and the Moiety of the Manor of Timperley: And it is also found by the said Inquisition, that William de Bulkeley was the next Heir of the said Margery.  
Now this Inquisition being taken in the Twenty seventh year of King Henry the Sixth; and the said Randle Mainwaring, together with his Three Sons, Sir John, William, and Randle, (for the said John was Knighted in the life time of his Father) being all Three mentioned, as then living, in a Deed of mine, dated the Saturday next after the Feast of Saint Hillary, in the Thirtieth year of King Henry the Sixth; and I having also in my custody another Deed, dated the Sunday next before the Feast of Corpus Christi, in the said Thirtieth year of the said King, made betwixt the said Randle Mainwaring the Elder, and Sir John Mainwaring Knight, his Son, on the one party, and John of Ashley of the other party, concerning a Marriage to be had betwixt Hamnet, Son and Heir Apparent of the said John Ashley, and Margaret Daughter of the said Sir John Mainwaring (which Deed is also mentioned by you Page 334.) It is from hence very clear, that the said Margery did not survive her said Husband Randle Mainwaring, and erect the said Chapel and Monuments therein, after the said Randles death.  
There is also omitted by you in your Historical Antiquities, Agnes the Daughter of John Mainwaring of Over Peover Esquire, who was Sister to Sir John Mainwaring, and Wife of Sir Robert Nedham Knight: And of this Match, there is very good Proof, (which you have been informed of) I having by me the Pictures of the said Sir Robert and Dame Agnes, as they were carefully tricked out the Tenth day of August, in the year of our Lord, One thousand six hundred and forty, from a Glass Window in Holmes Chapel in Cheshire; where they were then Kneeling, with the Coats of Arms of Nedham and Mainwaring empaled betwixt them, and Three Sons Kneeling behind the said Sir Robert, and Two Daughters Kneeling behind the said Dame Agnes, together with this Inscription.  Orate pro bono Statu Roberti Nedam Militis & Agnetis Vxoris ejus & pro animabus Thomae, Johannis, & Roberti filiorum & pro bono statu Matildae & Johannae filiarum ejus Roberti fieri in Anno Domini Mcccccxliiij. 
Also, in the Chancel of the Parish Church of Adderley, in the County of Salop, being the usual Burial place of the nedham's of Shenton, in the said County, (which Family of Nedham, is now honoured with the Title of Viscount Kilmorey of the Kingdom of Ireland) there do yet remain the Monuments of the said Sir Robert and Dame Agnes, there being on a Blowish Marble Stone, the Pictures of the said Sir Robert Nedham, and Dame Agnes, and Seven Sons, and Two Daughters; as also an Inscription (all of them of Brass) which Inscription is as followeth.  HEre lieth Buried under this Stone the Bodes of Sir Robart Nedeham Knight, and Dame Agnes his Wyffe, Daughter of john Maynwaring of Pever Esquyer, which said Robart deceased the iiii day of june, An. Domini 1556. And the said Agnes deceased the two day of may. Anno Domini 1560.  
FINIS.   

Books Printed for, and sold By Samuel Lowndes at his Shop over against Exeter House in the Strand.  

DE Jure Uniformitatis Ecclesiasticae, or Three Books of the Rights belonging to an Uniformity in Churches: In which things, the Laws of Nature, and Nations, and of the Divine Law concerning the Ecclesiastical State with the Civil, are unfolded. By Richard Davis, Chaplain to His Grace, the Duke of Buckingham, in Fol.  
The true Prophecies of Michael Nostradamus', Physician to Henry the Second, Francis the Second, and Charles the Nineth, Kings of France, and one of the best Astronomers that ever were. A work full of curiosity and learning. Translated by Theo. de Garencieres, Doctor of Physic, London. Folio.  
Aerius Redivivus: Or the History of the Presbyterians, containing the Beginnings, Progress, and Successes of that active Sect. Their oppositions to Monarchical and Episcopal Government, their Innovations in the Church, and their Imbroilments of the Kingdoms, and Estates of Christendom, in the pursuit of their designs from the year 1536. to the year 1647. By Peter Heylyn, D. D. And Chaplain to Charles, the First and Second Monarches of Great Britain.  
The Complete Horsman, and Expert Farrier, in Two Books. 1. Showing the manner of breeding good Horses, with their choice Nature, Riding, and Dieting, as well for Running as Hunting; as also, directing the Groom, and Keeper, his true Office. 2. Directing the most exact and approved manner, how to know, and cure, all Diseases in Horses. A work containing the Secrets and best skill belonging, either to Farrier, or Hors-Leach, the Cures placed Alphabetically; with hundreds of Medicines never before Imprinted by any Author. In Quarto.  
The Famous Conclave, wherein Clement the Eight was elected Pope; with the Intrigues, and Cunning Devices of that Ecclesiastical Assembly, in Quarto.  
A Familiar Discourse between George a true hearted English Gentleman, and Hans a Dutch Merchant, concerning the present Affairs of England, in Quarto.  
A Short and Strange Relation of some part of the Life of Taffaletta, The Great Conqueror and Emperor of Barbary, in Quarto.  
Paul Festeau's French Grammar, being the newest and exactest Method now extant, for the attaining to the Purity of the French Tongue. Augmented and enriched with several choice and new Dialogues, in Octavo.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Or a View of all Religions in the World, with the several Church Governments from the Creation, to these times; also a discovery of all known Heresies in all ages, and places, and choice observations and reflections throughout the whole World. Enlarged and Perfected by Alexander Ross, in Octavo.  
Of Credulity and Incredulity in things Divino and Spiritual, (among other things) a true and faithful Account is given of the Platonic Philosophy, as it hath reference to Christianity: As also the business of Witches, and Witchcraft, fully argued and disputed by Merick Causabon, Doctor in Divinity, and one of the prebend's of Christ Church in Canterbury, in Octavo.  
Cicero against Catiline, In four Invective Orations, concerning the whole manner of discovering that notorious Conspiracy, in Octavo.  
Sermon Preach Devant le Roy a Whitehal. Par le Docteur Tillotson, Doyen de Canterbury. In Octavo.  
The Sinners Tears, in Meditations, and Prayers. By Tho. Fettiplace, Dom. Pet. Cantab. In Twelve.  
The Gentile Sinner, or England 's Brave Gentleman Charactered. In a Letter to a Friend, as he is, and as he should be. By Clement Ellis, M. A. Fellow of Qu. Col. Oxon.  
Private Devotions, digested into Six Litanies. 1. Confession, 2. Deprecation, 3. Supplication, 4. Thanksgiving, 5. Intercession, 6. For the Sick. With Directions and Prayers for the Lords day, Sacrament, Day of Death and Judgement; and two daily Prayers for Morning and Evening. Twenty fours.   
FINIS.