THE LEGITIMACY OF AMICIA, DAUGHTER OF HUGH CYVELIOK Earl of Chester, CLEARLY PROVED.  
With Full ANSWERS to all OBjECTIONS that have at any time been made against the same.  
By Sir THOMAS MAINWARING of Peover in Cheshire, Baronet.  
LONDON, Printed for Sam. Lowndes over against the Exeter Exchange in the Strand, 1679.   

TO THE Reader.  
Courteous Reader,  
HOW unwilling I was to have entered into a public Debate concerning Amicia, the Daughter of Hugh Cyveliok Earl of Chester, I think doth clearly appear in my Epistle to Sir Peter Leicester, before my Defence of the said Amicia, wherein I  told him, That if he would have been contented, to have delivered what he did conceit concerning her, as an uncertainty onely,( as he had done that of Roger Son of the said Earl Hugh) that he knew I would have restend satisfied with the judgement of those many knowing and unconcerned Persons, that had dissented from him therein, and would never have given him and the Reader the trouble of any lines of mine.  
Though Sir Peter Leicester would not grant me this request, yet of his own accord, he proposed at the first,( as appears by several Letters of his to me, which I yet have, and were all written with his own hand) that what I had objected against his Reasons, should be printed in the Body of his Historical Antiquities; But afterwards altering his mind therein, he offered to have it put into the Addenda, at the end of his said Book; and he withal did declare, that he intended not to reply, but if he did, he would reply but once, and afterwards sent me a short Reply, which he there said was the last that he would writ concerning the same.  
Notwithstanding this, he did again change his mind, and was unwilling that what I had written, should be printed with his Addenda, at the end of his said Historical Antiquities; and instead of Printing the short Reply, which he sent to me, he sent for the said Reply back, and did Print an Answer to my Defence of Amicia, which was larger than what Sir Peter and I had then both of us published upon that occasion; for, as appears in my Defence of Amicia, Sir Peter's words, and what I did writ, were comprehended in 75 pages, whereas his Answer alone did contain 79. And in that Answer of his, which was dated May 15. 1673. he did also in Print affirm, that he had taken leave for ever of that controversy.  
But for all these Declarations both under his Hand, and in Print, he put out another little Book, which he also called Addenda, or some things to be added in his said Answer dated November 6. 1673. Then he put out two Books together, the one called, A Reply to my Book, entitled, An Answer to Sir Peter Leicester's Addenda, Dated April 14. 1674. and the other he was pleased to call, My Law Cases Mistaken, and was dated the first of May 1674. And afterwards he Printed another, which he called, An Advertisement to the Reader, and was dated on the third day of March following; but because I found very little of weight in this last Book, I did not then publish any Answer to the same.  
But notwithstanding this forbearance of mine, Sir Peter did again put out at once, three several Books, the first whereof he called his Second Reply, which was dated May 28. 1675. the second he called Peroratio ad Lectorem, and it was dated December 17. 1675. and the third he called, The Case of Amicia truly Stated; which, though Printed and Paged after his Peroratio, was dated before it, viz. August the 5th. 1675. the reason whereof an intelligent Reader I suppose will easily discern; and in all these three Books, as also in his Advertisement to the Reader, there was little if any thing that was new, except two Records.  
In the latter end of his said Peroratio, he said, He had done if I had done; which I looked upon to be as much as if he had said he would never have done, so long as I did writ; upon which I was put to a stand, and did not well know what to do; for as I considered on the one hand, that I had the honour to be her Heir Male, and that not only most of the great Families in England, but also, Absit verbo Invidia, our most gracious Sovereign, and many other great Kings and Queens did come out of her Loins, and that therefore I was bound in duty to use my Endeavours to clear her herein; so on the other hand, I concluded, that if I did continue Writing, I should perpetuate the controversy, which I was wholly unwilling to do, and did therefore resolve 
See My Admonition, p. 20. , as far as in me did lye, that nothing more of mine should be published in the life-time of Sir Peter, whethersoever he did out-live me or not. And I do assure the Reader, that I did not make this delay, upon any fear of what could reasonably be supposed could have been by him replied; for as I have answered all those numerous Arguments, which he hath hitherto made use of, so I see no cause to suspect, that he could have discovered any new one, which would have been more strong than those formerly brought; and though he be dead, yet all learned persons can easily judge whether what is here said be substantial, or not; and I profess I do not writ this, out of any conceit that it is any disgrace to descend of a Bastard, but only because I conceive that my Grandmother is very much wronged herein; for I believe there is scarcely any person whatsoever,( if any at all) but it would appear that he did descend of some one that was Illegitimate, if the descent of all those persons was known, with whom his Family had matched, and of all others of whom he did collaterally descend.  
PEOVER, Dec. 24. 1678. T. M.   

THE LEGITIMACY OF AMICIA, Daughter of Hugh Cyveliok Earl of Chester, Clearly Proved.  

BEfore I come to the Reasons which have been alleged either for or against Amicia, I hold it necessary to recite these three Deeds following, that those who red them, and the Reasons on both sides, may the better understand the full state of the Case.  

HUgo Comes Cestr' Constabular' Dapifer'& omnibus Baronibus suis& Universis 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 supper 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. Bettr. 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. Sciatis 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' Com' Cestr'. Hug' Com' Ultoniae, Phil' de Orreby tunc Justic. Cestr. Joh. de Ptell' Hug. Malebiss. Ric. de Vern. Ran. de Meidnilwar. Clerico. Lidulf. de Tuaml' Rob. de Periis, Ric. de Kingesl. Norm. Pant. Tho. de Orreby, allured. de Sulinni. Pet. khan. Gg. de Aldith. Ric. de Rodest. Clerico& multis Aliis.   

OMnibus hanc Cartam visuris vel audituris Rogerus de Menilwarin aeternam in Domino salutem. Noverit Universitas vestra me pro salute ainae Domini Ranulphi quondam Comitis Cestriae& Lincolniae Avunculi mei& pro salute ainae 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, Ut 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 quamdocunque volverint 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.    

Now that the said Amicia was undoubtedly legitimate, will be proved by these following Arguments or Reasons;  

I. First, Because the said Hugh Cyveliok, as appears by the first of the said Deeds, did give unto Ralph de Menilwarin or Mainwaring with his daughter Amicia in free Marriage the service of Gilbert son of R●ger, viz. the service of three Knights Fees, doing to the said Hugh and his Heirs the service of two Knights Fees; But our Common Law neither now, nor at any time ●eretofore allowing that Lands or Services could be given In libero Maritagio, with any person that was not of the blood of the Donor, as you may see cook upon Littleton, Fol. 21. b. Consequently neither Lands nor Services could be so given with a Bastard daughter by the reputed Father, because a Bastard is not de sanguine Patris, as you may find Dyer, Fol. 374. b. And therefore it necessary follows, because the said Amicia had Services given with her in frank Marriage by her said Father, that the said Amicia was not a Bastard.   

II. Secondly, If the Reader please to observe, how in the first dead, Hugh Cyveliok's Countess is a Witness to the giving of those Services in Free Marriage with Amicia daughter to the said Earl Hugh; As also how in the second dead, Ralph Mainwaring's daughter is called Bertred after the Countess, which probably, according to Sir Peter Leicester's opinion under his own hand in April, 1664. was occasioned by the said Countess being Godmother to the said Bertred Mainwaring; As als● how Randle Earl of Chester, was a Witness to what was given with the said B●●tred Mainwaring in Free Marriage to Henry de Alditelegh, who was Great Grandfather to the Famous James Audley who warred in France; As also how, as appears in Sir William Dugdale's Antiquities of Warwickshire, Pag. 88. Ralph Mainwaring was with the said Earl at Coventry, and a Witness to his Charter to the Burgesses there; As also how Roger de Meinwaring and Henry de Alditeley, who married his Sister. Monast. Anglic. part 1. pag. 891. are Witnesses to the Deeds of Randle Earl of Chester and Lincoln, concerning his abbey of Deulacres; As also how the said Roger Mainwaring, as appears by the said third dead, did give some privileges to the said abbey of Deulacres; As also how Ralph Menilwarin or Mainwaring, as appears by Sir Peter Leicester's Historical Antiquities, part 2. pag. 130, 131, 139, 143, and 144. is a Witness to one dead 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;) As also how the said Ralph de Meidinwarin or Mainwaring, is a Witness to Hugh Cyveliok's dead of Confirmation to the Priory of Calc in Darbishire, as you may see in the Additions to the Second Tome of Monasticon. Anglic. Printed with the Third Tome, pag. 97. I shall leave it( without any more words) to the Reader to judge, whether these Circumstances be not such, as do show a more great and constant Intimacy, betwixt the said two Families, than probably would have been, if Ralph Mainwaring had married but an illegitimate daughter of the said Earl.   

III. Thirdly, Because as you may see in the said third dead, Roger Menilwarin or Mainwaring, Son of the said Ralph and Amicia, doth call Randle Earl of Chester and lincoln his Uncle, which if Amicia had been illegitimate he would not have presumed to have done; for though it be true, that Bastards in Histories and Records are many times called, cousin, Brother, Uncle, Son, and Daughter, yet that is done where the persons came to be very Great, as Robert Earl of Gloucester did, or else they are so called 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 it will be very hard to find one that can certainly be proved a Bastard, or the Son of a Bastard, who doth in a dead made by himself, 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, so that this Argument is also of very great force and weight.   

IV. Fourthly, I do conceive, that Hugh Cyveliocks passing of services in the first dead to the said Amicia, and using these words, Cum filia mea, doth absolutely prove that she was a lawful Child, and by consequence by a former Wife; for if you take notice of what Sir Henry Spelman writes in his Glossary, on the word Bastardus, you will find him quoting Constum. 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 Filia, as she is in the said dead, unless she had been a Legitimate Child.   

Fifthly, I desire the Reader well to observe these two Deeds following, the first whereof doth belong to Henry Mainwaring of Kermincham, in Cheshire Esquire, and the other to Thomas Ravenscroft of Bretton in the County of Flint, Esquire, the words whereof do here follow, as they were copied out several years since from the Originals, by Sir William Dugdale Knight.  

SCiant& omnes praesentes quam futuri quod ego Robertus Dominus Moaldie& senescallus Cestrie, concessi& praesenti Karta confirmavi domui sce' Werburge Virginis in Cestria& Monachis ibidem Deo servientibus totam Villam de Goostree plene& integre cum omnibus pertin' suis in puram& perpetuam elemosynam pro salute anime me& animarum praedecessorum meorum, liberam quietam& solutam ab omni seculari servicio& omni seculari exactione. Ita quod in eadem Villa de Goostree 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 hoeredum meorum quicquid libertatis superaddere posset. 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 Thurschet Rog' de Menilwar' Willielmo de Venables. Toma Dispensatore Rob' fil' Picot' Petro' Clerico Com' Ricardo de Vern' Rob' de Menilwar' Brito Paulum Patr' de Moberl' Liulf' de Twamlow. Peers de Sur' Ran' de Praers' Ricardo de Kingsl' Jo' de sancta Maria,& multis aliis.   

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 Raul' Com' Cestr'& hered' suis faciend' servicium de predict' terr' sc. De quatuor feod'& dimid' praenominato Domino meo Raul' Com' Cestr'& haered' suis. Et ego vero Alanus de Boidele& hered' mei predict' terr' cum omnibus pertin' praenominato Willielmo de Boidele& haered' suis contra omnes homines& feminas cum pertin' warantizab. Et quia volo quod hec mea donatio& quiet' clam' stabilis& inconcussa& rat' permaneat praesenti scripto sigillum meum apposui. His test' Domino Raul' 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 Williemo de Venables. Toma fil' Willielmi do Goulborn, Petro de Bekering. Rob' tunc persona Gropenhale scriptor' hujus scripti& multis aliis.   
I shall also desire the Reader to take notice of what Sir Peter Leicester hath observed in his Historical Antiquities, p. 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) Haereditarie Constabularium& Supremum conciliarium post me& supper omnes optimates& Barones totius terrae meae. As also p. 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 in Sir Peter Leicester's Book, p. 129. 130. 139. 144 and 162. In all which, the Constable and Steward are name 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 dead abovesaid of Alan de Boidele, is name 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 dead mentioned in in Sir Peter's Book, p. 139. why the said Ralph Mainwaring is name next to the Countess of Chester, and before Roger Constable of Cheshire; as also why in a dead in the 143 page. of the said Book, the said Ralph Mainwaring is again name 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 Sir Peter Leicester, p. 152 and 159. to have Royal Authority within himself, and not unfitly to be styled 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 Kings 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 the said Earls.  
Add hereunto, that when Earl Hugh Cyvelioke, did by his Charter mentioned by Sir Peter Leicester, p. 131. acquit the Abbot and Monks of Stanlaw, of some Toll in Chester( which could be but a little before the said Earls death, because the said Earl died in the year 1181. And the abbey of Stanlaw, as is confessed by Sir Peter, p. 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 dead 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 dead.  
Now this pre-eminence could not be given to the said Ralph, because he was Justice of Chester( that Office being below the Offices of Constable and Steward, as appears before) but because of the Relation of the said Ralph to the said Earl, and certainly such great respect would not have been shewed him, upon that account, if his Wife had been an illegitimate Child.   

VI. Sixthly, Because there was such a vast disproportion of years, betwixt Hugh Cyveliok, and his Wife Bertred, that it cannot be in reason imagined, that the said Earl Hugh being so great a person, should stay unmarried, until his said Wife Bertred was Marriageable; for the said Bertred was but Twenty four years of age in the year 1181. when the said Earl Hugh dyed, as appears, Rot. de Dominabus, pueris, &c. In Scacc. penes Remem. R. Sub Tit. Line. Rot. 1. by which it appears, that the said Bertred was born in the year 1157. But the said Earl Hugh, as you may find in the Third Part of Sir William Dugdale's Monasticon Anglicanum, Pag. 226. did, together with his Mother maud, give Stivinghale,( which was not Stivinghale, vulgò Stishall, in come. Stafford, as Sir Peter Leicester, in the 86 page. of his first Reply tells us, but it was Stivinghale, which is a Member of Coventry, as you may see in Sir William Dugdale's Antiquities of Warwickshire, Pag. 88, 128, 129. and in Sir Peter Leicester's Historical Antiquities, Pag. 129.) And besides the said Stivinghale, the said Earl Hugh, and his Mother maud, did give a Mill next to the Park, and some other Grounds, to Walter Durdent Bishop of Chester, and his Successors, to which dead Eustace the Constable was Witness; Now the said Earl Hugh being not in a capacity to seal a dead, until he was One and twenty years of age, and the said Eustace being slain( as appears by Sir Peter Leicester's Historical Antiquities, Pag. 266.) in a battle against the Welsh in the said year 1157. If the said dead was made immediately before the said Eustace was slain, the said Hugh must needs be at the least One and twenty years older than his Wife Bertred; But, it is very likely that dead was made some years before, viz. immediately upon the death of Randle de Gernoniis; For the said Randle died Excommunicate in the year 1153. as you may see in Sir Peter's Histor. Antiquities, Pag. 129. and Stivinghale, and those other Lands were given for his Absolution, and the health of his Soul.  
But, besides what is here proved, if you look at the latter end of the Welsh History put out by Dr. Powel 1584, immediately before the Table, you will see that the 16 line of the 197 page. of the said Welsh History is misprinted, and that in the said page. it should have been Printed thus: About the same time Hugh, Son to the Earl of Chester, fortified his Castle of Cymaron, and wan Melienyth to himself. And you may also there find, that the time when the said Hugh wan Melienyth, was in the year 1142.  
Now that this Welsh History is of good credit, I suppose cannot be reasonably denied; for as Sir Peter Leicester in the 44 page. of his Historical Antiquities doth aclowledge, that in these Welsh matters he doth chiefly follow the same; so on the other hand you may find in Vossius his Book de Historicis Latinis, Pag. 389.& 390. and in Isaackson's Chronology, Pag. 323. And in Baleus his Book de Illustribus Scriptoribus Majoris Britanniae, Printed at Basil, Apud Joannem Oporinum, Pag. 195, 196. And in Pitseus his Book de illustribus Angliae Scriptoribus, Printed at Paris 1619. Pag. 215. that the said Caradocus Lhancaruan was the Author of the said Book, and flourished in the year 1150, and by consequence was living in the year 1142, when the said Hugh wan Melienyth; And the said Pitseus tells us in the aforesaid page., that the said Caradocus was elegans Poeta, eloquens Rhetor,& Historicus non contemnendus; And the said Baleus, Pag. 196. says that he was totus consecratus ad res gestas recentium Britanniae regulorum illust●● das; And in Baleus and Pitseus in the aforesaid Pages, and in Powells Notes on the said History, Pag. 206. you may find this following Distichon; viz. 
Historiam Britonum doctus scripsit Caradocus  
Post Caduualladrum regia sceptra notans.  So that as to the proving of the taking of Melienyth by the said Hugh, and the time when it was so taken, Caradocus Lhancaruan is a Witness free from any exception, that can be justly made.  
The onely Question therefore is, Of what Age the said Hugh then was? And because that is uncertain, and that I am willing to reckon so, as may be most disadvantageous to myself, I will suppose him to be then but Twelve years old, which is the same Age that Silvester Giraldus, in that Edition printed at London 1585. Pag. 203. says Prince Lhewellin ap Jorweth was of, when he began to infest his Uncles, and is indeed as young, as I have observed any to appear in such marshal Affairs. Now, if we should believe that Hugh Cyveliok did mary the said Bertred so soon as she was Fourteen years of Age, then the said Marriage would happen in the year 1171. at which time, if Hugh Cyveliok was born in the year 1130, and was but Twelve years old when he wan Melienyth, in the year 1142. yet he would be Forty one years of Age, when he married the said Bertred. It cannot therefore be imagined, that so great a person should continue unmarried till he was above Forty years old, or that he should mary to his first Wife, one so much different from him in years; But, when he had married a former Wife, who dyed, leaving him only a daughter or daughters, it is no wonder if in his Age, he married a young Lady, to the intent he might have Issue-male to succeed him in so great an Estate.  
Also if you look in Sir Peter Leicester's Historical Antiquities, Pag. 131. you may find this dead 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 ind praedictis Sanctimonialibus injuriam vel contumeliam faciat. Teste Roberto Dapifero de Monte alto, Filippo de Kima, Simone silio Osberti, Willielmo Patric, Radulfo silio Warneri, Rogero de Maletot, Johanne Priore de Trentham, Orm ejus Canonico, Rogero Monacho de Hambi, Willielmo Clerico Comitis qui Chartam scripsit apud Belitesford,& multis aliis.  
I also think fit to remind the Reader, how I did heretofore acquaint him, in Print, that I had a Pedigree by me of the Barons de Monte-alto, drawn not long since by Sir Peter Leicester, 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.  
Now, that, Robert de Monte-alto, Steward of Cheshire, who was Witness to this dead, was the first Robert de Monte-alto, will be manifest, because the second Robert came not to be Steward of Cheshire during the life of Earl Hugh, as appears by the said Pedigree, as also in Sir Peter's Book of Historical Antiquities, Pag. 143. and in the 33 page. of my Answer to Sir Peter's two Books, where you find ralph the Steward, elder Brother to the second Robert, out-living Earl Hugh, and being a Witness to a dead of Earl Randle Son to the said Hugh, it will therefore necessary follow, if this dead of Earl Hugh was made immediately before the death of that Robert de Monte-alto, 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 dead, or that this Robert dyed presently after he was a Witness to this dead; nay, I think it will appear, that the aforesaid dead to the Nuns of Bolinton, was certainly made some years before the said Robert dyed, 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 Henry the Second. Now King Stephen dyed in the year 1154, and Bertred being not born till the year 1157, it will from this dead be very clear, that if Earl Hugh had sealed the said dead immediately before King Stephen dyed, yet Earl Hugh would be at the least Twenty four years older than Bertred his Wife. And therefore no likelihood at all, that the said Bertred was his first Wife.    

Against these Arguments many Objections have been raised, that so they might make out in number, what they did want in weight; and particularly against the first Argument, because if that hold, there is no doubt, but the said Amicia was Legitimate;  


And first, it is objected, That Mainwaring was not at that time an equal Competitor to have married a coheir of the Earl of Chester, the Co-heirs being married to four of the greatest Peers of the Kingdom, and therefore from hence, they would insinuate, that the said Amicia was not Legitimate. To which I answer, That I do not affirm that Mainwaring was an equal Competitor to those great Peers, or that the said Amicia was a Coheir to the said Earl Randle, she being, as appears from the aforesaid Arguments by necessary consequence a Daughter to Hugh Cyveliok by a former Wife, and so but half Sister to the said Earl Randle, and therefore could not be a Coheir; for, as you may see in Littleton's tenors, Sect. 2.6, 7, 8, one that is but an half Sister cannot possibly be a Coheir to her Brother, or inherit his Lands; however that could have been no substantial Argument to prove that Amicia was not Legimate.  
1. Because sometimes some particular persons have the fortune to mary Wives far beyond their degrees or Estates.  
2. Neither was Sir Ralph Mainwaring so inconsiderable a person, as perhaps some may conceit him to be: For, besides that, Si● 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.  
And though it hath been objected by Sir Peter Leicester in the 17 page. of his Answer to my Defence of Amicia, that as to the Note of Dukes and Earls to have been anciently Judges of Chester, I should have distinguished of the times; for that was not till the Reign of Richard the Second( who made Deputies to act in their stead) before which time he finds no such great persons Judges there; yet in this Sir Peter was mistaken, for that person which is said in his Catalogue of Judges of Chester to be Judge of Chester in the 15th of Edward the Third, and by him is onely called Ralph Stafford, was Baron of Stafford at that very time, as appears by this following dead, the Original whereof I myself have, and did give to Sir Peter Leceister a Copy thereof.  

SCiant praesentes& futuri quod ego Johanna queen fui ux. Johannis Mautrevers in pura viduitate mea dedi concessi& hac presenti carta mea confirmavi Alex. de Venables totam illam placeam terrae cum domibus& omnibus aliis pertin. quam habeo in villa de Wylaston queen vocat. le Rudyngges Habend.& tenend. predict. Alex. hered.& Assignatis suis totam praedictam placeam terrae cum pertin. de capitali dom. feodi illius per servicia ind debita& de Jur. consueta libere quiet been& in place J●r.& hereditary impertuum cum omnib. libertatib. comoditatib. communibus& easiamentis dicte placie terrae quoquo modo pertinentib. Et ego vero predicta Johanna& heredes mei totam predictam placeam terrae cum pertin. predicto Alex. heredibus& assignatis suis cont. omnes gentes Warantizabimus Acquietabimus& defendemus imperpetuum. In cujus rei testimonium huic presenti cartae Sigillum meum apposui hiis testibus R●dulpho baron de Stafford tunc Justic. Cestriae Willielmo de praers Johanne de Wetenhale Thom. de Erdeswyks Ricardo de Fouleshurst Willielmo Hamelyn& Aliis Dat. apud Cestriam die dominica proxima post festum sancti Barnabe apostoli An. Regni Regis Edwardi tertii post conquestum quinto decimo.   
And as you may see in Mr. Ashmole's Institution of the Order of the Garter, p. 643. 670& 688. and in Vincent's Corrections upon brook, p. 488& 489. and in the first Part of Sir William Dugdale's Baronage of England, pag. 160. the said Ralph Stafford was one of the first Twenty five Knights Companions of the Order of the Garter, and was afterwards, viz. on the 5th of March, 25 Edward III. advanced to the Title of Earl of Stafford; and it is impossible that there could be any Dukes or Earls made Judges of Chester before that Earldom was united to the Crown, because there were no such persons belonging to the said Earls( except John Lacy Constable of Chester, who was made Earl of lincoln, but was not made so as appears in Sir Peter Leicester's Historical Antiquities, pag. 270. till the 23 of November, 1232. which was but something above four years before the death of John Scot, the last of the said Earls.) But there were ever anciently persons of good quality that were Judges of Chester, and if it had not always been a place of good repute, the Kings of England would never have made such very great persons to have succeeded them therein.  
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 Issues the expectations 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 therefore not in a capacity to have a share in that great Estate. And whereas it hath been objected, that Earl Hugh matching his only Daughter, which he had by a former Wife, would have married her to as considerable a person as was either provided by himself, or his Son for his younger Children by a second venture; I do answer and say, That I am not certain whether Amicia was the only Daughter that Earl Hugh had by his former Wife, because, I know some that pretend they can tell of some other Daughter or Daughters which the said Earl Hugh had by his said Wife; but I do confess, I have never seen just proof of any but her; but supposing her to be the only Child by his first Wife, I have in my first Book, pag. 23, 24& 25: shewed that there is no strength in this Argument; And I may here further add, that if any will search for Examples, they may find very many, where the elder Sisters, sometimes, because swayed by their Affections, and sometimes for other Reasons, have not been married to so great persons as the younger Sisters have been; Neither can any one tell what Portions Earl Hugh gave to Amicia, or to any of his other Daughters; Neither is there any necessity that the elder Sister, because by a former Wife, must have as great a Portion as a younger Sister by a latter Wife; because many times persons are not able to give so great Portions in their younger days, as afterwards: and because, the Children of the living Wife are oftentimes better provided for, than those of the dead Wife; and of this, I could, if I pleased, instance in some that I know; and in case the Father dies, and leave only Issue Female by the first, and a Son and Issue Female by a latter Wife( as in this case) there is great likelihood( besides the advantage that the Sisters by the latter Wife would have by being Heirs at Law to their Brother he dying without Issue) that the Bro, her will naturally be more kind to those Sisters that are of the whole Blood, and about the same age, and bread up with him, than he will be to her that is but his half Sister, and much older than himself.  
And though Sir Peter Leicester doth object in the 69 page. of his Answer to the Defence of Amicia, That if Amicia 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 Venters, and the Brother be of the second venture, then 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. And those of the half Blood, are so far from being preferred before those of the whole Blood, that as I have herein before shewed the most remote of the Kindred shall be preferred before those who are but of the half Blood.   

2. Secondly, Against Amicia's being Legitimate, it hath been objected thus;  
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, Antice was a Bastard.  
Now the Minor is to be proved by the Affirmer, Oportet Affirmantem probare; To which I answer,  
First, That by this Rule, Sir Peter Leicester was as much bound to prove Amicia to be a Bastard, as I am bound to prove that Hugh Cyveliok had a former Wife; For he as clearly affirmed that as I affirm the other, and there is no reason why Suppositions should pass for Proofs any more in his 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, than 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 dead that was lately sealed, it will be expected you produce the Witnesses who were present at the sealing and delivery thereof. If your dead was sealed a good while ago, the proving of the Hands will be required: But if the dead be so old, that none alive could know the Hand-writing of the Witnesses, then the dead 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 onely 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 mortens alicujus opponatur 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. And especially upon imagination onely, without direct proof for the same. And proof cannot so easily or truly be had several Hundreds of years after the Parties decease, as it might have been had within a few years after the Party was dead.  
Thirdly, If this Argument would hold as it is here framed, 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 who 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 this Argument, would be Bastards, which I am confident no reasonable man can or will suppose; I shall instance only in one, viz, Roger Menilguarin, who in the Reign of King Henry the First, as you may see in the First Part of Monasticon Anglicanum, Pag. 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 Sir Peter should affirm, That the said William, Randle, and Wido, were Legitimate, which I verily believe he would not scruple to do, I could thus frame his own Argument against him.  
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, &c.  
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 in terminis, prove to have been married,( the Proof lying on the Affirmers side) the Absurdity of which is so great, that Sir Peter himself cries, God forbid all Children should be concluded Bastards, whose Mothers cannot be proved.  
Also it is very hard, if possible, to tell whose Daughter the Wife of Robert de Ferrars, the first Earl of Ferrars and Derby was, and yet he was certainly married, and had Issue William Ferrars, who lived not to be Earl, and Robert de Fertars who succeeded his said Father Robert, in the Earldom, and Wakelin de Ferrars, and a Daughter name Isolda, married to Stephen de Beauchamp, and another Daughter married to Walchelin Maminot. So also it is unknown who was the Wife of the second Robert de Ferrars Earl of Ferrars and Derby, and yet he also was certainly married, and had Issue William his Son, who succeeded him in the said Earldom; so also we cannot find who was the Wife of Ralph de Maunt Earl of Hereford, and yet he was certainly married, and left Issue-male. So also William de Mohun, the Third of that name, and the first Earl of Somerset or Dorset,( for those two Counties always going together in those elder times, and both served by one Sheriff( as you may see in Vincent upon brook, Pag. 472.) gave occasion of indifferency to give the attribute of either, to him that had tertium denarium, the third penny of them) was also certainly married, for his Grandchild Reginold de Mohun was Earl of Somerset after him; and yet our Authors, who writ of these things, do not know whose Daughter the Wife of the said William de Mohun was; And to name no more of very many other Noblemen, whose Wives are not known, what great wonder is it that we do not know who was the first Wife of Hugh Cyvelick, by whom he had only Issue-female, when it is not known who were the Wises, of the above-named great Persons, although they had Issue Male, by the said Wives; And which is worthy of observation, if Bertred, the second Wife of the said Earl Hugh, had dyed before her said Husband, as his first Wife did, we had not known whose Daughter the said Bertred had been; for I think there is no ancient Historian, who doth speak thereof; neither do I know of any Record, except those which relate to the said Bertreds jointure or Dower, which do tell whose Daughter the said Bertred was.   

3. Thirdly, It hath been objected, That whatsoever is given in Frank Marriage, is given as a Portion; But the giving of the Services of three Knights Fees in Frank Marriage, for which the Services of two Knights Fees are to be done, doth not seem to be a competent Portion, for a Legitimate Daughter of the Earl of Chester.  
To which I answer, That the reason why Sir Peter Leicester calls it a Portion, is, because he 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 this doth not well agree with what Sir Peter says in the 135 page. of his Historical Antiquities, and 63 page. of his Answer to my Defence of Amicia, where he tells us, That Bastards in those elder Ages, were not of such disrepute as now in our dayes; And that the ancient Northern People admitted Bastards to succeed in their Inheritance, and that William the Conqueror was not ashamed of that Title, who began his Letter to Alan Earl of Little Britain,( as he did many others) Ego Willielmus cognomento Bastardus; so that I think any Man that will weigh things indifferently, will easily and readily conclude, That if she had been but a Bastard, yet being a Bastard of so great an Earl, and being married to Sir Ralph Mainwaring, who was no inconsiderable Person, she would have had a far greater Portion than those Services upon those terms they were given; for those Services so given, would not be a Portion answerable to the Estate of an ordinary countryman; And this is so clear, that when Sir Peter Leicester was  told, that it was like Sir Ralph Mainwaring had a great deal more with Amicia, he confesseth Pag. 71. of his Answer to the Defence of Amicia, It may be so, What then? So that you may see he was at last convinced, that those Services could not be her whole Portion; And though we cannot now tell what Portion the said Sir Ralph Mainwaring had, yet it is very probable that the Lordship of Henbury in Cheshire, might be part of the Portion of the said Amicia; for as appears in Sir Peter Leicester's Historical Antiquities, Pag. 107. Henbury was one of those Towns which Hugh Lupus held in Demesne; And I do not find that any Mainwaring was possessed thereof, before Sir Ralph Mainwaring, who was Husband to the said Amicia, neither have I ever yet seen or heard of any Record or dead which shows how Henbury first came to the Mainwarings.  
But besides what is here said, Sir Peter Leicester's Rule, That whatsoever is given in Frank Marriage, is given as a Portion; cannot hold good; for any person that pleaseth may give a Woman a Portion, but no man can give any thing in Frank Marriage, with any Woman but such who is of his whole blood: as Sister or Cousin collateral within the fourth Degree, so as they may not Enter-marry by the Law. As Mr. Hughes says in his Grand abridgement of the Law, p. 970.   

4. Fourthly, It hath been objected, That the ancient Historians of our Nation, as Policronicon, 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 also 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.  
To which I answer, That in this Argument, there is no weight at all; for those Historians which Sir Peter Leicester doth speak of there, do not take upon them to give an account of all the Children of Earl Hugh, but only to tell who were the Heirs of Randle Blundevil which none of his Sisters could be, unless such as were of the whole blood to him; and of this Sir Peter was so sensible, that in his Historical Antiquities, p. 138. he doth confess, that this is not a sure evincing Argument; but Sir Peter did forget himself, when he said there was Altum silentium concerning Amicia, among all the Historians which he there name; for Mr. Cambden, which is one of those which Sir Peter himself doth there mention, as he tells us, who were the Coheirs of Randle Blundevil, so he takes notice of the Wife of the said Ralph Menilwarin or Mainwaring, and that without any Brand of Bastardy at all, as you may see in his Britannia, in his Description of the Country of Chester, whose words are these: Cum jam Danus sub Northwich, de qua dixi, cum wevero aquas consociaverit, in occasum recta prolabitur Wever, Peverumque recipit ab ortu, Qui praeterfluit,& nomen facit Pevero, ubi habet sedem vetusta illa nobilis familia de Meinilwarin vulgo Manewaring, e qua Radulphus duxit filiam Hugonis Kevelioc Comitis Cestriae, ut constat ex charta antiqua penes Ranulphum ejusdem familiae nunc heredem. And to let you see how little strength there is in objecting, That a Daughter is not Legitimate, because our Historians do not mention her, I shall here inform you of one Matilda, a Daughter to Randle de Micines or Meschines one of our Earls of Chester, who was married to David Earl of Dundee in Scotland; which David was Brother to malcolm, and William Kings of Scotland, and was Nephew to Matilda or lined, who was Queen of England, and Wife to King Henry the First; and yet all our ancient Historians, except John Bromton, do wholly omit the said maud, and so also doth Sir Peter Leicester, though he spent so many years in Writing and Reviewing what he had written of the Earls of Chester since the Norman Conquest; and so do all our Modern Writers that I have red: The words of the said John Bromton( who writes from the year 588, to the year 1198.) as they are in his Chronicon, col. 966 and 967. are these:  

ANno Domini M. lxix.& Regis Willielmi quarto, Malcolmus rex Scottorum cum infinita multitudine per Cumberlandiam versus orientem se diveriens, vniversam Tesedale& loca ejus finitima ultra citraque feroci depopulatione vastavit. Depopulataque quadam parte Clivelandiae quasi ex subito Hersernesse occupavit. Indeque per terras sancti Cuthberti discurrens, multos rebus& vita privavit, villas& ecclesias cum hiis qui in eas confugerant, concremando, senes& vetulae gladiis obtruncantur, alii indifferenter confodiuntur, raptique ab uberibus matrum parvuli in altum projiciuntur,& lanceis excipiuntur: hac enim crudelitate maxima Scoti bestiis crudeliores pro ludi spectaculo delectabantur, qui demum in terram malam revertentes, juvenes& virgines, robustos, miseros& captivos secum duxerunt,& eos perpetua servitute dampnaverunt, in tantum ut vix esst domus in Scotia, quae servo aut ancilla Anglici generis careret. Tunc vero secundum quosdam, iste Malcolmus rex Scotiae in revertendo de Anglia, dictam Margaretam dicti Edgari sororem primo invenit,& eam in uxorem duxit, per quam post-modum ferocitatem in parte dimisit,& honestior factus est. Et ex qua per processum temporis genuit sex filios,& duas filias, scilicet Edwardum primogenitum, qui cum patre interfectus fuit; Edmundum ante patrem decedentem; Edgarum, qui post patrem novem annis regnavit; Edredum ante patrem decedentem; Alexandrum, qui post Edgarum fratrem suum xvii. annis regnavit,& David, qui post Alexandrum fratrem suum xxix. annis regnavit. Et ex Matilda de sancto Licio genuit Henricum comitem said non regnantem. Genuit etiam Malcolmus rex ex dicta Margareta Matildam postea regis Angliae Henrici primi uxorem, ex qua processit Matildis imperatrix. Altera quoque filia Malcolmi, Maria nomine, Eustachio Comiti Bononiae, postea nupta fuit, de qua processit Matilda quae postea Stephano regi Angliae extitit maritata. Henric. vero Comes filius David regis genuit trees filios, scilicet Malcolmum, qui post David xii. annis regnavit; Willielmum, qui post fratrem suum xlix. annis regnavit,& David Comitem de Dundee. Willielmus vero rex genuit Alexandrum secundum, qui regnavit xxxv. annis,& genuit Alexandrum tertiumqui xxxvii annis regnavit,& genuit Margaretam neptem regis Edwardi Angliae primi post conquestum. David autem comes de Dundee filius Henrici Comitis genuit ex Matilda filia Ranulphi Comitis Cestriae iiii. filias, scilicet Margaretam, Matildam, Isabellam,& Aldam. Margareta vero nupsit Alano de Galeway, ex qua processit Devergoil uxor Johannis de Balliolo, quae genuit Johannem de Balliolo, quem dictus rex Angliae Edwardus primus post conquestum in Regem Scotiae post mortem Alexandri tertii praefecit. Altera vero filia dictae Margaretae Elena nomine, Comitissa Wintoniae, produxit Comitissam de Ferers Margaretam, Elenam de la such,& Elizabetham Comitissam de Boghan. Matilda vero altera filia David Comitis sine liberis decessit. Tercia vero filia ejusdem Comitis David Isabella, nupsit Roberto de Brus, qui genuit Robertum,& ille Robertus genuit Robertum regem Scotiae, qui genuit David regem Scotiae, cvi rex Angliae Edwardus a conquestu tercius sororem snam Johannum maritavit. Quarta vero filia Alda nupsit Henrico de Hastyng, qui genuit Henricum, qui genuit Johannem.   
Now if a Daughter to an Earl of Chester, who was Wife to so great a person, was omitted by our Historians, what wonder can it be, if Amicia the Daughter of Hugh Cyveliok, and the Wife of Ralph Mainwaring, was also omitted by them? And as John Bromton did mention the said Matilda, because he did know there was such a one, though other Historians were ignorant thereof; and as Mr. Cambden did take notice of the Wife of the said Ralph, because he had seen the dead which proved it, in the hands of my Great Grandfather Randle( who was afterwards Sir Randle Mainwaring Knight) so I suppose that our other Authors, both ancient and Modern, would have mentioned the said Matilda and Amicia, if they had seen what John Bromton, and Mr. Cambdon did see.   

5. Fifthly, It hath been objected. That without any alteration 〈…〉 by any Act of Parliament, the Common-Law in sundry things is altered at this day, from what it was in former ages, long after Henry the Second, cook upon Littleton, fol. 34. sect. 39. cook ibid. fol. 3. a. fol. 8. a. at the bottom of the page., and on the other side of the bottom, and fol. 26. b. sect. 29. wherein there is supposed to be Proofs that the Common-Law is altered in many things without any Act of Parliament, from what it was in those elder times.  
To which I answer,  
1. First, That if the Common-Law had been or could be altered other ways than by Act of Parliament, yet it would make nothing, as to the Point in hand, unless the Common-Law had been altered in the Case of Frank Marriage itself.  
2. Secondly. That Sir Peter Leicester did mistake himself when he thought my Lord cook said, that the Common-Law had been altered in those particulars, which Sir Peter doth mention in these places which are cited before; Indeed my Lord cook tells us, that the Common-Law was taken and holden sometimes differently from what it is taken now, and withal, fol. 8. b. at the bottom tells us, that if it be an ancient Grant, it must be expounded as the Law was taken at the time of the Grant; And these Cases which Sir Peter Leceister doth city, are some of those which my Lord cook doth bring to prove that the Common Law was differently taken in former Ages in some things, from what it is taken to be in this Age, but not to prove that there was a change of the Common Law, without an Act of Parliament; To instance therefore in every one of those particulars which Sir Peter Leicester hath as aforesaid taken notice of; In that in fol. 34. sect. 39. my Lord cook tells us, that in ancient times, as it appeareth by Glanvil, lib. 6. cap. 1. It was taken that a Man could not have endowed his Wife Ad ostium Ecclesiae, of more than a third part, but of less he might; But at this day the Law is taken, as Littleton here holdeth. But my Lord cook says not that the Law is altered therein from what it was; so also fol. 3. a. he says, The Parishioners or Inhabitants, or Probi homines of Dale, or the Churchwardens, are not capable to purchase Lands, but Goods they are, unless it were in ancient time, when such Grants were allowed; here my Lord cook says not one word that the Common Law is herein altered, but only that some kind of Grants were allowed then, which would not be allowed now, and this agrees with that f. 8. b. on the other side at the bottom, where he says, if it be an ancient Grant, it must be expounded as the Law was taken at the time of the Grant; so also fol. 8. a. at the bottom of the page.. He says of ancient time the Heir was permitted to have an Action of Debt upon a Bond made to his Ancestors and his Heirs, but the Law is not so holden at this day; so in that fol. 26. b. sect. 29. But it hath been said, that if a Man give Land to another, and to his Heirs of the Body of such a Woman lawfully begotten; that this is no Estate Tail for the uncertainty by whom the Heirs shall be begotten, for that the Brother of the Donee or other Cousin, may have Issue by the Woman which may be Heir to the Donee, and Estates in Tail must be certain; therefore our Author, to make it plain in all his Cases, added to these words( his heirs) which he shall Inegnder. But that opinion is since our Author wrote overruled, and that Estate judged to be an Estate Tail, and begotten shall be necessary intended begotten by the Donee.  
So that my Lord cook, doth not in any of those places say; that the Law is therein altered, but he all along avoids that expression, and only tells us, that such and such Grants were allowed, the Law was so and so taken, and so and so holden, and such and such an opinion hath been over-ruled, and accordingly all such other like expressions of my Lord cook, are thus to be understood; But withal it must be acknowledged( as was before expressed) that in those particular Cases, where the law hath been holden otherwise, then it is holden now, that if it be an ancient Grant, it must be expounded, as the Law was taken at the time of the said Grant. And thus, as you may see cook upon Littleton, fol. 21. b. in the Case of peers de Saltmarsh, and others, it was judged in King Edward the Third's time, and in King Edward the Fourth's time, That a Man might give Land to his Son in Frank Marriage, but in King Henry the Eigth's time it was holden otherwise, the former Books being not remembered; but notwithstanding, that this Point was judged thus differently, the Law was still the same, and all that can be said is, that some of the Judges did not judge right, according to the Common Law; and indeed, if this Rule of Sir Peter Leicester's was true, that because the Judges in one Age did take the Common Law to be otherways, than it was taken in former Ages, that therefore the Common Law was changed; The Judges then could never do contrary to the Common Law; for when they had declared( though erroneously) that the Common Law ought to be otherwise taken, than it was formerly, the Common Law by Sir Peter's Rule, would be thereupon changed, and what they did, would ever be Legal, the absurdity whereof every one may easily discern.  
And indeed my Lord cook is so far from being of opinion that the Common Law hath or can be changed, unless by Act of Parliament, that in the first Part of his Institutes, fol. 115. b. he tells us, That whatsoever was at the Common Law, and is not ousted or taken away by any Statute, remaineth still. And a few lines lower he also says, The Common Law 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.   

6. Sixthly, It hath been objected, that in this very particular Case of Frank-Marriage the Law is different now from what it was in those former Ages, and this hath been pretended to be proved by the words of Glanvil, who lived in the same Age with Amicia( and as Sir Henry Spelman tells us) was the first that reduced our Law into Writing; as also by the words of Bracton, who was the second that did writ of our English Laws, and lived in the time of King Henry the Third, as also by Precedents of some Lands given to Geva the Wife of geoffrey Riddel, and Daughter of Hugh Lupus, and to joan the Wife of Lhewellin, Prince of north-wales, and Daughter of King John; which Gifts of the said Lands Sir Peter Leicester will have to be Gifts in Frank-Marriage, and also says that the said Geva, and joan, were both of them Bastards:  
And to make this out, Sir Peter in that Book of his, which he was pleased to call my Law Cases Mistaken, pag. 5& 6. names us seven several particulars, which he calls Parcels of the Law in Glanvil's time, and those more ancient Ages; and Sir Peter says they are contrary to those produced by me. But all these seven Parcels of Sir Peter's Law, are easily answered; for neither Glanvil, nor any other Author that I can find, ever said any word of the first six of them; and as to the seventh, though he there tells us that Earls and great Lords in those former Ages, did often Join with their Mothers, who then had the Tuition of them in Deeds and Charters, whiles they were very young, yet, as will appear anon, I believe there will be but one single Precedent found, in which any young Lord, who was under Age, Joined with his Mother, and did use her Seal to any Charter or dead; neither will that Case relate to this of Amicia in the least degree. But let us take a view of those words of Glanvil, lib. 7. c. 1. which sir Peter Leicester doth so much rely upon as they are by him truly quoted in the seventh page. of the second of his two Books, which words are these:  
IN alist acceptione accipitur does secundum leges Romanas: secundum quas proprié appellatur does, id quod cum muliere datur viro: quod vulgariter dicitur Maritagium.: Potest itàque quilibet liber homo, terram habens, quandem partem terrae suae cum filiâ suâ, vel cum aliquâ aliâ quâlibet muliere, dare in maritagium, sieve habuerit haeredem sieve non, velit haeres vel 〈…〉& eo contradicente.  
Also lib. 7. cap. 18. Maritagium, autem aliud nominatur liberum, aliud Servitio obnoxium: liberum dicitur maritagium, quando aliquis liber homo aliquam partem terra suae dat cum aliquâ muliere alicui in maritagium, ità quod ab omni servitio terra illa sit quieta,& a se& haeredibus suis, versus capitalem Dominum acquietanda:& in hâc quidem libertate ita stabit terra illa usque ad tertium haeredem: neo interim tenebuntur haeredes ind facere aliquod homagium: Post tertium vero haeredem, ad debitum servitium terra ipsa revertetur;& homagium ind capietur. Quia, si fuerit pars feodi militaris, pro quantitate terrae servitium feodi ind prestabit.  
Solet autem qu●ndo● terra aliqu● d●●iin maritagi●, Salvo& retent● debil● se●vitio ipsi Capitoli Domino: 〈…〉 tenebuntur maritus midier● ips●●:& baredes sui servitium id facere, said sine h●magi● usque ad tertium h●redem.  
And these are all the word of Gl●nvil, which Sir Peter doth any where city, which do relate to any Gifts mad ●●ither in Free-Marriage, or in Marriage liable to Services.  
And here let me observe, that whereas I have many times blamed Sir Peter Leicester for so often affirming that Glatevil said that Lands might be given with any Woman in liberum maritagium, whereas Glanvil had said no such thing, that Sir Peter at the last, in the second page. of that Reply, which he calls the Second Reply, says, Though Glanvil hath not these very words— Lands may be given with ●y Woman in liberum Maritagium; yet he saith it by consequence drawn clearly out of his words, lib. 7. cap. 18. which( Sir Peter says) is the same in ●ffect. So that Sir Peter with much 〈◇〉 doth aclowledge that Glanvil hath not ●●presly said any such thing, onely it seem● he fancied, that the same may be by consequence drawn out of Glanvil's words; which how Sir Peter did prove I am now to inquire into. As for those words which Glanvil hath, lib. 7. cap. 1. they cannot prove any such thing; for those words, Potest itaque quilibet liber homo, terram habens, quandem partem terrae suae cum filiâ sua, vel cum aliquâ aliâ quali●et nonliere, dare in maritagium, sieve hab●erit haeredem sieve non, velit haeres vol non, imo& eo contradicente. Do only prove that a man may give Lands with any Woman in Maritagium, and therefore Maritagium being two-fold, viz. Maritagium liberum and Maritagium servitio abnoxium, Maritagium being the Gen●●, doth comprehend both Free-Marriage, and Marriage liable to Services; so that if a Man can give Lands with any Woman in Marriage liable to Services, he may give Lands with any Woman in Maritagium; and there never was any doubt made, but that a Man may give Band● with any Woman whatsoever in Marriage liable to Services; But that upon which Sir Peter doth most principally rely, are these words of Glanvil, lib. 7. cap. 18. Maritagium, autem aliud nominatur liberum, aliud servitio obnoxium liberum dicitur maritagium, quando aliquis liber homo aliquam partem terrae suae dat cum aliqua muliere alicui in Maritagium, itâ quod ab omni servitio terra illa sit quieta,& a se& haeredibus suis, versus capitalem Dominum acquietanda.  
For from thence, as you may see in the 54 page. of the first of his two Books, which he calls his Reply, and again, at the bottom of the 29 page., and in the 30 page. of the second of his two Books, Sir Peter Leicester frames this Argument:  
Glanvil there saith, that a Man may give Land with any Woman in Marriage, so that it be acquit from all Service à se& haeredibus suis, versus capitalem Dominum.  
But Land so given( saith Glanvil) est liberum Maritagium. Ergo Glanvil saith, Lands may be given with any Woman in liberum Maritagium.  
To which I answer, That Sir Peter Leicester is the first Man, that ever, so far as I can find, went about to prove a Point of Law by a Syllogism; and in this new way of his he hath no good success; for his mayor and minor Propositions are both of them untrue; for Glanvil neither says, That a Man may give part of his Land with any Woman in Marriage, so that it be acquit from all Service, a se& haeredibus suis, versus capitalem Dominum. Neither doth Glanvil say, That Lands so given( viz. with any Woman) est liberum Maritagium, for Glanvil onely says, That liberum Maritagium, is when a Man gives Lands cum 
Note.  aliqua muliere alicui in Maritagium, ita quod ab omni servitio terra illa sit quieta,& a se& haeredibus suis, versus capitalem Dominum acquietanda; that is, Free-Marriage is where a Man gives Lands with 
Note.  some Woman( viz. one of his Kindred) in Marriage, so that it may be acquit from all Service, &c. and that Lands so given with some Woman est liberum Maritagium, but Glanvil doth not here, nor any where else say, that Lands may be given with any Woman in Maritagium, so that it may beacquit from all Service, &c. for though Sir Peter Leicester doth here and many times elsewhere construe these words ( cum aliqua muliere) with any Woman, yet they are not latin for with any Woman, but for, with some Woman, for Aliquis when alone without Quilibet, or some such other like word, is latin for some one, but not for any one, as you may see in Sir Thomas Eliot's Bibliotheca or Library, Printed 1545. where he renders the word Aliquis thus; Aliquis, Aliquae, Aliquod, Some. Aliquis est, he is a man of no small reputation; So also in Mr. Gouldman's Dictionary printed at Cambridge, 1674. Aliquis vel Aliqui, Aliquae vel Aliqua, Aliquod vel Aliquid; ex alius& quis: {αβγδ}. Somewhat, Something, Some Body, Some One, Aliquis, ut Graecis, {αβγδ}, Capitur pro homine non obscuro. Ut fac ut me velis esse aliquem, Cic. i. e. non prorsus obscurum, Aliquor viginti dies. Plau. i.e. circiter viginis dies. Sic. Var. de re rust. Aliqua foliaquinque. So also Dr. Thomas Holyoke in that large Dictionary of his Printed at London, 1677. Aliquis, vel qui, quae, vel, qua, quod, vel quid; 〈◇〉 achad, {αβγδ}. Some Body, Some One, Somewhat, Something. Aliquis ut Graecis {αβγδ}, capitur pro bomine non obscuro: ut; fac, ut me velis esse aliquam, Cic. i. e. non prorsus, obscurum.¶ Aliquos viginti dies, Plaut. Menaec. i. e. circiter viginti dies, &c.  
And so in Thomas Thomasius, and in other Dictionaries; so that Sir Peter did run himself into very many errors, by his mistaking of the aforesaid words, cum aliqua muliere; for Glanvill is so far, from proving the Law in his time to be different in the point of Frank Marriage from what it is now, that he proves the Law to be the very same then in that particular, that it is now; For he says, as appears before, lib. 7. cap. 1. that Lands may be given with any Woman whatsoever in Maritagium, which is yet true, for Lands may yet be given with any Woman whatsoever in Marriage liable to services, and lib. 7. cap. 18. when he tells us what Liberum Maritagium is, he says Lands may be so given cum aliqua Muliere, with some Woman( viz. with one of the Kindred) which also is true at this very day.  
And hereupon my Lord cook, who knew the Law much better than Sir Peter Leicester, did in the first Part of his Institutes, or Commentary upon Littleton, fol. 21. b.( which is the very same side of the Leaf where he tells us, that the Woman or Man that is the cause of the Gift in Frank Marriage, must be of the blood of the Donor) city in the margin, Glanvill lib. 7. cap. 1. and cap. 18. which certainly he would never have done, if Glanvill instead of confirming, had directly contradicted what my Lord cook had said.   

7. Seventhly, It hath been objected by Sir Peter Leicester, that Bracton( who lived in the Reign of King Henry the Third, and was the second person who since the Conquest did writ of out English Laws) doth say, that Lands might in his time be given in Frank Marriage with any Woman; and for that he citeth these words of Bracton, lib. 2. cap. 7. par. 3. Et est maritagium aliquando liberum, scilicet ab omni servitio quietum;& aliquando servitio obligatum: liberum autem maritagium dicitur, ubi donator oult quod terra, sic data, quieta sit& libera ab omni seculari servitio, quod ad Dominum feodi posset pertinere,& ita quod ille, cvi sic data fuerit, nullum omninò faciat ind servitium usque ad tertium haeredem.  
As also these words of Bracton, lib. 2. cap. 7. par. 1. Quoniam terra data Bastardo in maritagium, sicut& aliis, vel Bastardo per se, in se tacitam habet conditionem vel expressam de reversione— &c.  
To which I answer, that those words of Bracton, lib. 2. cap. 7. par. 3. do only tell us what a Gift in Frank Marriage is, but there is not one word amongst those which Sir Peter doth there set down, which tells us with what kind of persons, such gifts are to be made. And those other words, lib. 2. cap. 7. par. 1. do only prove, that Lands may be given Bastardo in maritagium( which they also may at this day) but there is not one word at all to prove, That Lands may be given to a Man cum Bastarda, whereas in this Case of Frank Marriage, 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. And though Sir Peter in the 11th page. of that Book of his which he unjustly calls, My Law-Cases Mistaken, says that this Answer of mine is very superficial and insufficient; For neiteer the Party to whom, nor the Party with whom, is herein principally considerable, but the Party who is the principal cause if the Donation; yet the contrary will appear by Bracton is own words, lib. 2. cap. 7. par●● which because Sir Peter cuts off too 〈◇〉 with an &c. I will here give you their more at large out of Bracton himself.  

QUoniam terra data Bastardo in 〈◇〉 tagium, sicut& aliis, vel Bast●●● per se, in se tacitam habet conditionem 〈◇〉 expressam de reversione: ideo videndum si terra data fuerit Bastardo in maritag●●● cum aliqua muliere, aut d●●tur ipsis& cor●●● haeredibus commnnibus, aut haeredibus ipsius uxoris tantum, in primo casu revert●t● 〈◇〉 donatorem, si defecerint haeredes 〈◇〉, per modum ●●citum donationis. Si ●●em fit haeredibus nxoris, tunc si haeredes 〈…〉rit de Bastardo, remanebit eorum haeredibus communibus terra, quia tales erunt 〈◇〉 uxoris, quainvis communes, si autem 〈◇〉 munes destecrint, tunc defe●●●● 〈◇〉 data aliis haeredibus ipsius uxoris de altero viro vel à later venientibus.   
From which words, it doth plainly appear, that in this case the Woman with whom the Land is given, is the principal thing that is considerable herein, and not the Bastard to whom the Land is given; For he here only tells us, that when Land is given Bastardo in maritagium cum aliqua muliere, that aut datur ipsis& eorum haeredibus communibus, aut haeredibus ipsius uxoris tantum; whereas if the Woman with whom the Land is given, had not been the principal thing, that is considerable in the said Gift, he would have said, Aut datur ipsis& eorum haeredibus communibus, aut haeredibus ipsius uxoris tantum, aut haeredibus ipsius Mariti tantum. But he says not one word of the Land coming to the Heirs of the Husband alone, though he tells you it may come to the Heirs of the Wife alone, which doth fully prove, that which I do here affirm, viz. That the Party with whom the Land is given, is the principal thing that is considerable, and that therefore though Lands may be given in liberum maritaginm Bastardo-vel Bastardae, yet they may not be so given cum Bastardo vel cum Bastarda. Also Bracton is so far from proving that Land might have been given in his time in Free Marriage with any Woman whatsoever, that he proves, that such Gifts could only be made with a Woman who was of the blood of the Donor, his words, lib. 2. cap. 7. par. 3. are these; Et sciendum quod terra datur aliquando ante sponsalia& propter nuptias à patre mulieris vel alio parent ipsi marito cum muliere aliqua vel utrique simul, scilicet tali viro& uxori suae( quod idem est)& corum haeredibus vel alicui mulieri ad se maritandam, &c. And presently after, Fit etiam talis donatio ante Matrimonium contractum, aliquando in ipso contractu, aliquando post contractum.  
Which 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 we usually say, when a Man is of the same kindred with such a one, that he is of the same Parentage with him) And though Sir Peter Leicester say in the 47 page. of the second of his two Books, that here is not one word to prove what I allege it for; but rather the contrary: For a Father, or other Parent, may give Lands with any Woman in express terms, not to any of his Kindred only, no such word at all. In this Sir Peter doth again mistake himself; For here he doth also falsely construe the words, cum muliere aliqua, with any Woman; whereas I have before proved, they are not latin for with any Woman, but for with some Woman. And besides, Bracton here expressly speaks of a Gift made by the Father of the Woman, or some other Parent,( that is, some other Kinsman) and if the Donor was Father or Cousin to the Woman, the Woman must of necessity be either Daughter or Cousin to the Donor. Also my Lord cook in his Institutes upon Littleton, Fol. 21. b. tells us, That one of those things incident to a Frank Marriage is, that the Woman or Man that is the cause of the Gift, be of the blood of the Donor. And for this, as appears letter ( (i)) he in the margin, cites Bracton, lib. 2. cap. 7.( which is this very place.) And can any Man think, that my Lord cook would have cited that place, and the aforesaid places in Glanvill, to have proved that the Woman or Man who was the cause of the Gift, must be of the blood of the Donor, if Glanvill and Bracton in those places, had said that such Gifts might be made with those who were not of the blood: Also to what purpose should the Law have been changed by the Statute of Westminster the second, in this case of Frank Marriage, from what it was in ancient times, seeing since there were Estates in tail, there could be no great occasion to make Gifts in Free Marriages; and therefore my Lord cook 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.   

8. Eightly, It hath been objected, That Geva was a base daughter of Hugh Lupus, and that she had Lands given her in Frank Marriage, as doth appear by this following dead.  

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& eoncessit. Et teneat been& in place, honorifice,& liberè, ut melius& liberius tenuit tempore Hugonis Comitis& aliorum meorum antecessorum eisdem consuetudinibus& libertatibus. Testibus Gilberto filio Ricardi,& Adelizâ sorore mea,& Willielmo Blundo,& Alexandro de Tresgor,& Rogero de Bellocampo,& Willielmo de says,& Roberto de says,& Ricardo filio Aluredi,& Hugone filio Osberti,& Henrico de Chalder: Apud Saintonam.   
To which I answer first, That there is no proof at all, that the said Geva was a Bastard; And secondly, That the said Gift was not a Gift in Frank Marriage.  
First, I say, there is no proof that the said Geva was a Bastard, neither doth any Author either ancient or modern call her so, except Sir Peter Leicester alone. And she is by one very knowing person expressly said to be a legitimate Child. Indeed Sir Peter hath very often positively said, that Ordericus did say she was a a Bastard, but in his Second Reply,( which is the sixth Treatise he did writ concerning Amicia) after he had been many times  told, that Ordericus had said no such thing, he is forced page. 3. to confess, that Ordericus hath not these very words ( Geva is a Bastard) but yet he pretends, that by sure consequence it follows out of the words of Ordericus, that she was a Bastard, which( he says) is all one to effect; And to make this out, he cites Ordericus. lib. 4. Ecclesiasticae Historiae, Pag. 522. whose words are these E Pellicibus plurimam Sobolem utriusque sexûs genuit, quae diversis infortuniis absorpta penè tota periit: Ermentrudem filiam Hugonis de Claromonte Beluacensi uxorem duxit, ex quâ Ricardum Cestrensis Comitatûs haeredem genuit, qui juvenis liberisque Carens naufragio periit. But because those words do not prove that Geva was one of those Bastards which Hugh Lupus had, he doth not so very much insist upon them, as he doth upon what Ordericus doth writ, Lib. 10. Ecclesiast. Hist. pag. 787. where Ordericus says thus, Ricardus Pulcherrimus puer, quem so lune ex Ermentrude filiâ Hugonis de Claromonte genuit, Consulatum( Cestriae scilicet) tenuit; For he says that these words of Ordericus do put it out of doubt, that Earl Hugh only begot Richard on Ermentrude his Wife, and says that then by sure consequence out of those words it must needs follow, that Geva was one of the Earl's Bastards, she being no Child by Ermentrude his Wife; But by those words, Richardus autem pulcherrimus puer quem solum ex Ermentrude filia Hugonis de Claromonte genuit; Ordericus might as well mean, that he was the onely Son which Earl Hugh had by Ermentrude, as that he was the onely 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's Book, though it be so in Sir Peter's, and yet in Ordericus's Book, Adverbs are usually marked. And though Sir Peter Leicester allege, that Ordericus doth not say quem solum filium, as I interpret him, but indefinitely, quem solum ex Ermentrude genuit; and so, whether solum be understood adverbially, or whether it be taken for a noun, no more can be made of it in English than thus, Richard a beautiful Youth, whom only Earl Hugh begot on Ermentruae, &c. and so, whether we English it, whom only he begot, or whom he only begot, it retains the same sense, and shows that no other person, either Son or Daughter, was begotten on Ermentrude by Earl Hugh. I must take leave to dissent from him herein; For, I conceive this expression of quem solum genuit, doth amount to as much as if he had said, quem solum filium genuit; which if it do, then( notwithstanding the said expression) Earl Hugh might possibly have a Daughter or Daughters by the said Ermentrude; For, to what Antecedent can the word quem so properly relate, as to the word puer? and if so, then quem solum puerum, is as much as quem solum filium, and so doth not exclude him from having a Daughter or Daughters by the said Ermentrude; For, though the word puer be by some understood to signify a Child of either Sex, as Sir Peter Leicester also seems to take it in his Historical Antiquities, pag. 113.& 114.( But misprinted 121.& 122.) Yet Mr. Gouldman in his Dictionary will tell us that it is a mistake, where on the word puer he thus writes, Nonnullis habetur communis generis, said male, ex Ovidiano illo carmine, de Iphide puella in puernm mutata, Dona puer solvit quae foemina voverat Iphis.  
And though Sir Peter Leicester says, that Geva could not be by any former Wife, because Earl Hugh had never any other Wife; yet that is more than either Sir Peter Leicester or I know; for there were many things done in those Ages which never came to our knowledges.  
Neither is there any force in what Sir Peter doth 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 Ermentrude( Ordericus being express therein) and possibly for some Reasons he might have another Wife besides Ermentrude: 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 Sir Peter speaks 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 onely speaks of them occasionally, and so he doth also 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 Sir Peter's Objection, That if Geva had been Legitimate, her Issue ought to have succeeded into the Earldom of Chester, rather than Randle de Meschines after the death of Richard Earl of Chester; That doth not necessary follow, whethersoever Geva was a lawful Daughter of Hugh Lupus by a former Wife, or that she was his Daughter by his Wife Ermentrude: For if she was his Daughter by a former Wife, she would be but of the half blood to Richard Earl of Chester, and then Randle de Meschines would be Heir before her; But it seems to me, that Randle de Meschines was not the next Heir to Earl Richard; for as Mr. Cambden in his Britannia, in his Description of Cheshire, tells us,[ which is also spoken of by Sir Peter in his Historical Antiquities, pag. 105.] King William, commonly called The Conqueror, created Hugh Lupus Count Palatine of Chester, Totumque hunc comitatum tenendum sibi,& haeredibus ita libere ad Gladium: sicut ipse Rex tenebat Angliam ad coronam, dedit;( haec enim sunt verba Donationis) qui statim sibi Barones substituit, &c. so that this Earldom by the words of the said Grant, being not tied up to the Heirs Males of the Body of the said Hugh Lupus, nor to the Heirs of the Body of the said Hugh, but to his Heirs in general, if Randle de Meschines had been the next Heir to Hugh Lupus, the Earldom would have descended to the said Randle, but that it did not do; for James York in his Union of Honor, pag. 105. says, That this Randle was made Earl by Grant of King Henry the First; and Sir Peter Leicester in his Historical Antiquities, pag. 118.( for which he cited Ordericus, a contemporary Author, pag. 876.) tells us, that the said Randle restored to King Henry all the Lands which he had by his Wife the Widow of Roger de Romara, for the Earldom of Chester; which he did not need to have done, if he had been the next Heir; so that I cannot imagine any reason of this new Grant to Randle de Meschines, unless Geva was a Legitimate Daughter; but if Geva was a Legitimate Daughter of Hugh Lupus, then there might a Case happen, which would make it necessary that whoever was Earl of Chester, must have a new Grant; for if Earl Richard, when he died left two Sisters, viz. Geva and another Sister, the Earldom would be then at an end; for as you may see in Vincent's Correction of brook, pag. 545. if an Earldom be conferred upon any person and his Heirs, if that person, or whoever else succeeds him doth die, leaving two or more Daughters, or two or more Sisters to be his Heirs, in this case the Earldom doth escheat, and fall into the Kings hands, because it could not be divided; for though Lands may, yet Honor non potest dividi; and how easily might Geva have a Sister, who might die young presently after the death of Richard Earl of Chester, without being taken notice of by our Authors, doth clearly appear by the former Precedents in the like Cases; and if Geva and another Sister of hers were both living when Earl Richard died, the Earldom would extinguish, and being once extinguished, could not revive again, upon the death of the said Geva's Sister; And whereas it hath been objected by Sir Peter Leicester in the 39 page. of his answer, That if Geva had been Legitimate, it is more than probable, she would have looked after the obtaining of so great an Inheritance, yea, and obtained it too before Randle; Nay had she been but of the half Blood, she would by all probability have buzled hard for so great an Estate in those Ages, before she had lost it. In this Sir Peter was mistaken; for if she had been but of the half Blood, I have before proved that any Kinsman or Kinswoman, though never so remote, would have inherited Earl Richard's Lands before the said Geva; and if Geva was Legitimate and sole Daughter to Hugh Lupus by his Wife Ermentrude, and consequently only Sister of the whole Blood to Earl Richard, yet it doth not necessary follow, that she would have had the Lands; for when Randle Blundevill died, his Sisters of the whole blood, had not the Estate of the said Randle, but John Scot, eldest Son to maud the eldest Sister of the said Randle, was Earl of Chester; and when the said John Scot died, leaving only Sisters to be his Heirs, none of the Husbands or Sons of any of the said Sisters of the said John Scot, was made Earl; and the said King Henry III. also laid that fair Inheritance unto the domain of the Crown, and assigned other Revenues elsewhere to the said Heirs. The words of Mr. Cambden in his Britannia in his Description of Cheshire, speaking of John Scot are these, Qui cum itidem nulla suscepta prole diem obiisset, Rex Henricus tertius tam lauto patrimonio, oculum adjiciens, Domanio Regio adscripsit, Johannisque sororibus alios alibi reditus assignavit; Ne( ut ipse Rex dixit) tanta haereditas inter colos diduceretur; And as the Sisters of the said Randle Blundevill and the Sisters of the said John Scot, though they did not inherit the Earldom, had some other Lands given them, and were well provided for, so Geva Sister of Earl Richard, as you may see in Sir William Dugdale's first Part of the Baronage of England, pag. 34. b. had also Lands given unto her, and was married to geoffrey Ridell, who is there said to be an eminent Man in those days, viz. Justice of England under King Henry the First; and it is certain that when Earl Richard died, his Lands did not descend to the next Heir; for if Geva was his next Heir, she had them not; and if Geva was not his next Heir, then Randle de Bricasard, by some called Randle de Micenis or Randle Meschines was his next Heir, and though the said Randle de Meschines had the Lands of Earl Richard, Son of Hugh Lupus, yet they came not to him by descent; for as I have before shewed out of Ordericus Vitalis, and out of Sir Peter Leicester's Historical Antiquities, the said Randle restored to King Henry the First, all the Land which he had by his Wife, the Widow of Roger de Romara for the Earldom of Chester; and it is also plain that the said Randle did give money for the said Earl Richard's Lands; for it appears Rot. Pip. de An. 5 Regis Steph. Rot. 12. M. 1. Linc. that in the said fifth year of King Stephen, Ranulph Earl of Chester( Son to the said Randle de Meschines) is certified to be indebted to the King in a thousand Pounds, De debito patris sui, pro terra Hugonis Comitis. So that here is no Proof at all, that the said Geva was an unlawful Child.  
But secondly, If there had been any Proof, that the said Geva had been a Bastard, yet it would have been nothing to the Case in hand, because the said Gift unto the said Geva was not a Gift in Frank-Marriage; if we peruse what my Lord cook upon Littleton says, fol. 21. b. he will there tell us, that these words In liberum Maritagium, are such words of Art, and so necessary 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, &c. 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 dead to Geva, the words are not in liberum Mritagium, 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 to a Bastard, or any other person whatsoever. And if we look well on the dead 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 bear& in place, &c. ut melius& liberius tenuit, &c. Also if we observe my Lord cook upon Littleton, a little before fol. 21. b. he will tell us, that four things are incident to a Frank-Marriage? 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 Frank-Marriage, because what is here given, is given to Geva alone, and not to an Husband with her; there being here no Donees, but one Donee onely, and the Estate was not to continue till 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 Deeds to Geva was not a Gift in Frank-Marriage, and is also very uncertain, whether Geva was a Bastard, as Sir Peter doth suppose.  
And though I believe the Bassets did afterwards enjoy the same Lands, which in the aforesaid dead were given to Geva, because in Monasticon Anglicanum, Par. 1. p. 439. and in Sir Peter Leicester's Historical Antiquities, p. 113.( but mis-printed 121.) I find geoffrey Rydel and Ralph Basset called the Heirs of the said Geva; as also that the said Drayton was called Drayton Basset, yet I do not know how or by virtue of what dead, they did enjoy the same; for if these persons were the Heirs of her Body, and the aforesaid dead a Gift in Frank-Marriage, why did not Earl Randle confirm or grant those Lands to her Heirs, as well as to her; and if they were not the Heirs of her Body, she could not be a Bastard; for as my Lord cook on Littleton, fol. 3. b. tells us, a Bastard can have no Heir but of his own Body.  
And whereas Sir Peter Leicester in the 45 page. of his Answer to the Defence of Amicia says, that though my Lord cook say that by those words in connubio soluto ab omni servitio, there passeth but an Estate for life, yet he saith not, that by those words in libero conjugio, or by the words in libero connubio, that there passeth onely an Estate for life; in this Sir Peter was also mistaken; for my Lord cook positively says, that an Estate of Inheritance cannot be passed by a Gift in Free-Marriage by any other words but those very words in liberum Maritagium, and that no equipollent words or words amounting to as much will serve the turn, as you may see cook upon Littleton, fol. 21. b. And in that very place, he tells us the reason thereof, is, because the words in liberum Maritagium create an Estate of Inheritance, against the general Rule of the Law, and therefore the Law requireth that they should be legally pursued; and whereas sir Peter also objects, that by this Rule, a Gift of Lands by the words in Frank-Marriage in an English dead, and a Gift de terres en Franke-Marriage, in a French dead, would be voided Grants; in this Sir Peter did also mistake; for the Latin words in liberum Maritagium, and the English words in Frank-Marriage, and the French words en Frank-Marriage, are the very same, although in different Languages; but the words in libero connubio, or in libero conjugio, or in Maritagio soluto ab omni servitio, or the French words, en Nopsage acquit de services, or the English words in Wedlock Free from all Services, and all such other like, are but equipollent words, and an Estate of Inheritance will not pass thereby.  
And whereas the said Sir Peter being very desirous if he could to prove, that anciently Lands might be given in Free Marriage by other words than the words in Liberum Marritagium tells us in the second of his two Books, pag. 28.& 29. that does is called Marritagium in Doomsday Book; and for that end he cites cook upon Littleton, fol. 31. And also says that does is called Maritagium by Glanvill, lib. 7. cap. 1. And also tells us of a dead made in the time of King John, transcribed in one of the Couchir Books of the duchy Office in Grays-Inne at London, Tom. 2. Honor sieve soca de Bolingbroke, num. 26. pag 508. in which Saher de Quency, Earl of Winchester, gives to Hawise, Sister to the Earl of Chester, and Wife of Robert, Son of the said Saher de Quency, certain Lands in liberum Donarium; which word Donarium, Sir Peter Leicester says is misprinted for the word Dotarium, and thereupon says that the words in liberum Dotarium in that dead, are the same with the words in liberum Maritagium; I shall therefore, before I answer the same, give you the words of the said dead, as I find it in Sir Peter's Historical Antiquities, pag. 133.  

SAherus de Quency Comes Wintoniae, omnibus Hominibus& Amicis suis, praesentibus& futuris, salutem. Sciatis, me concessisse& dedisse& praesenti Chartâ meâ confirmâsse Roberto de Quency Filio meo & Haeredi ad dandum in liberum Donarium Hawisiae Sorori Comitis Cestriae, Uxori ejusdem Roberti, Bucehebeiam& Grantesset,& Bradeham,& Herdewich, cum omnibus earundem terrarum pertinentiis, pro centum Libratis terrae: Et si hae predictae terrae non valeant per annum centum Libras, Ego in aliis terris meis de propriâ Haereditate meâ in Anglia, ei tantum perficiam, quòd plenariè 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 in Wilteshire, pro servitio Feodi unius Militis, ad dandum simul cum terris nominatis praedictae Hawisiae Uxori suae in liberum 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& Ihoma& Henrico Dispensariis, Waltero de Coventrey, Waltero Daivilla,& multis aliis.   
And now as you may see in the 29th page., of the 2d of his two Books, 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 carefully examine the same in one of the Couchir Books in the duchy Office in Grays-Inn; but the word is Donarium, which probably the Transcriber did mistake for Donarium, 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 in Doomsday Book be called Maritagium: For does is twofold, and that does which is Dotarium, is the same with Donarium, 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, &c. And lib. 7. cap. 1. In alia enim acceptione, accipitur does secundum Leges Romanas,( which 3 last words, with some others, Sir Peter leaves out in the 8th page. of the first of his two Books) secundum quas proprie appellatur does, id quod cum muliere datur viro, quod vulgariter dicitur Maritagium; Now that Dotarium, is that does which is Dower, and not that does which is called Maritagium, y●● may see in Sir Henry Spelman's Glossary, Printed at London 1664. page. 174. whose words are these: ¶ De eo Dotis genere, quod uxoribus constituunt Angli.  
¶ Doarium, Dodarium, Dotarium, Dauarium, Dotalitium.] Omnia recte interpretatur vernaculum nostrum dover, non Latinum does. Est enim proprie does, illud quod maritus accipit cum uxore haec vero id quod in remunerationem dotis, reportat uxor.  
And Sir Peter did very well know, that what is given in the aforesaid dead, 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 de Quency, Earl of Winchester. She had the Earldom of Lincoln, to wit, the Castle and Honor of Bolingbroke, and all the Lands of Earl Randle in Lindsey and Holland in Lincolnshire, for which she gave 50l. for Relief. On Hawise was estated for 
Note.  Jointure, Bukby, Grantesset, Bradeham, and Herdwick, as appears by this dead in the Couchir Book of the duchy Office, Tom. 2. Honor sieve Soca de Bolingbroke; num. 26. pag. 508.  
So that you see Sir Peter hath formerly confessed, that this Gift in liberum Donarium, was only a Jointure settled on the said Hawise; and it could not be a Gift in liberum Maritagium, because Saher de Quincy doth not give the Lands there mentioned, unto Hawise the Wife of his Son Robert( as Sir Peter says he did) but he gives them to his Son Robert ad dandum Hawisiae uxori ejusdem Roberti. And though a Man may settle Lands in jointure upon his Wife, yet he cannot give Lands unto her in Free-Marriage, for that would be to give Lands unto himself; and whereas Sir Peter in the 26 and 27 pages of the second of his two Books, tells us, that the words in liberum Maritagium, in the more ancient Ages, were not by Law so strictly required, and says this is clear out of Glanvil, lib. 7. cap. 18. where he tells us, That a Grant of Land with any Woman in Maritagio, Habendum praedictam terram sibi& haeredibus liberam& quietam ab omni servitio, à se& haeredibus suis, versùs capitalem Dominum; This was a good Grant in libero Maritagio, and was as good as if the words had been in libero Maritagio: and therefore the words of my Lord Cook touching liberum Maritagium reach not the age of Glanvill, so as always then to be tied up to those very words, and no other. Sir Peter therein fathers upon Mr. Glanvill what he never said or meant; for Mr. Glanvill doth not say that Lands might be given with a Woman in Frank Marriage, by other words than the words in liberum Maritagium; neither doth Sir Peter say right, when he affirms that Mr. Glanvill says, That a Grant of Land may be given with any Woman in Maritagio, Habendum praedictam terram sibi& haeredibus liberam& quietam ab omni servitio, à se& haeredibus suis, versus capitalem Dominum; For Mr. Glanvill only tells us, That liberum dicitur Maritagium, quando aliquis liber homo aliquam partem terrae suae dat cum aliquâ Muliere( that is, not with any Woman, but with some Woman, viz. one of the Kindred) alicui in Maritagium, ita quod ab omni servitio terra illa sit quieta,& à se& haeredibus suis, versus capitalem Dominum acquietanda:& in hac quidem libertate ita stabit terra illa usque ad tertium haeredem: nec interim tenebuntur haeredes ind facere aliquod homagium: Post tertium vero haeredem, ad debitum servitium terra ipsa revertetur;& homagium ind capietur. All which hath been proved to be Law at this day, as well as it was in Glanvil's time.   

IX. Ninthly, It hath been objected by Sir Peter, that Joan the Wife of Llhewellyn ap Jorwerth, Prince of north-wales, was base Daughter of John King of England, and that there are several Precedents, that Lands were given to the said Joan in Frank Marriage.  
To which I Answer:  
First, That it is not absolutely certain that the said joan was a Bastard.  
And secondly, That those Precedents which are alleged by Sir Peter, of Lands given in Frank Marriage to the said joan are not any of them Gifts in Frank Marriage, and therefore will not at all work any thing in the case in hand.  
1. First let us examine whether it be certain, that the said joan was a Bastard or not; and in order thereunto, let us observe how many Wives the said King John had. First, he married Alais Daughter of the Earl of Moriana, in the year 1173. as we may red in Brompton's Chronicon, col. 1082. n. 35. Hoveden( Faankfurt Edition printed 1601.) pag. 532. n. 5. mat. Paris( put out by Dr. Watts) pag. 127. n. 5.( which Editions of Hoveden and Paris, I do all along follow) and the like we may find in Vincent upon brook, pag. 133. who also there tells us, that by Moriana is not meant Moreton, but Savoy, with which mat. Par. p. 751. n. 46. doth also accord; but the said Alais being then scarcely seven years of age, as we may see in mat. Par. p. 127. n. 6. and dying presently after, the said King John could not possibly have any Issue by that Wife.  
Soon after this, viz. in the year 1176.( as you may red in Hoveden, p. 553. n. 46. and mat. Paris, p. 132. n. 29.) there was an Agreement for a Marriage to be had between the said John( then youngest Son of the said King Henry II.) and a Daughter of William Earl of gloucester, Son of Robert Earl of gloucester; which said Daughter is not there name, but her name was Hawisia or Avis, and the Marriage afterwards took effect, but he was divorced from her in the year 1200. as will anon appear.  
Thirdly, Immediately upon his Divorce he married Isabel Daughter of the Earl of Engolisme, who was his last Wife; for she survived him, and by her he had Issue( as will be agreed by all) Henry( afterwards King Henry the Third) Richard Earl of cornwall,( afterwards King of the Romans) joan Wife of Alexander the Second King of Scots, elinor, first married to William Marshall the younger, Earl of Pembroke, and afterwards to Simon Mountford, Earl of Leicester, as also Isabel, who was sixth Wife to Frederick the Second, Emperor of Germany.  
But King John marrying the said Isabel in the year 1200. could have no Child by her old enough to be married to the said Lhewellin in the year 1204.  
The only question then will be, whether Lhewellins Wife was King John's Legitimate Daughter by his Wife Hawisia, for that she must be if she was Legitimate; and the Marriage between the said John and Hawisia being agreed on, in the year 1176, the said Hawisia might very well have a Daughter old enough to be married to the said Lhewellin, in the year 1204.  
To prove that the said joan Wife of Lhewellin was a Bastard, Sir Peter Leicester in the 101 page. of that Book, which he calls the Case of Amicia truly Stated, cites these several Authorities. Vincent upon Brook, p. 204. Speed's History, p. 518. Stow's Annals Augmented by How's p. 167, 168. Policronicon Translated into English by Trevisa, lib. 7. cap. 33. Cambden's Britannia in Shropshire, p. 453. also Daniel and Fabian, and Mill's Catalogue of Honour, and Sir Richard Baker's History, who do all call her Base Daughter of King John; and no Author at all calls her lawful Daughter, or reckoneth her among the Daughters of any of his Wives: some of them say she was begot by King John on Agatha de Ferrars.  
To which I answer first, that I believe it doth not yet certainly appear, by any dead, Record, or Contemporary Author, that the said joan was a Bastard, and by consequence, there is no absolute proof that she was Illegitimate; for the Author of the Polycronicon is the first of those Authors which Sir Peter doth mention, or I have taken notice of, who doth call the said joan a Bastard, and the said Author of the Polycronicon( as Vossius tells us in his Book, de Historicis Latinis, pag. 487.) dyed in the year 1363. which was 159 years after the said Llhewellin married the said joan. But all those Records, Deeds, and ancient Authors, which I have seen do call her Daughter onely, without any Brand of Bastardy at all; For this, see the Copy of King John's Precept to the Sheriff of Shropshire, to make Livery of the said Lordship of Ellesmere.  
Ex Rot. Clauso de anno sexto Regis Johannis( in arce land) membrana 7.  
REX Vicecom. Salop. Salutem. Scias quod dedimus dilecto filio nostro Lewellino manerium de Ellesmere, eum omnibus pertinentiis suis, in Maritagio filiaenostrae, Et ideo, &c. Teste, &c. apud Wigorn. 23 Martii.  
So also.  
Claus. 2. H. 3. M. 1.  
MAndatum est Vic. War. quod plenam seisinam habere faciat Leolino Principi Norwall. de Villa de Budiford cumpertinentiis suis quam Dominus Johannes Rex pater Domini Henrici Regis dedit ei in Maritagium cum Johannae sorore Henrici Regis uxore ipsius Leulini. Test. 
Scilicet Willielmo Marescallo Comite Pembrochiae tunc Rectore Regis& Regni.  Comite apud Westm. 10. Oct.  
So also.  

Ex Rotulo Chartarum de anno sexto Regis Johannis, numero 32.  
Charta Lewellini Principis Walliae.  
JOhannes Dei gratia, &c. Sciatis, nos dedisse, concessisse,& hac Charta nostra confirmasse, Lewellino Principi Northwalliae, in Maritagium cum Johanna filia nostra Castrum de Ellesmara cum omnibus pertinentiis suis:   
So also mat. Paris, who was contemporary with the said joan, p. 231. n. 52. calls her the Kings daughter, without the addition of Bastard, or any thing tending thereto; his words are these, Quo facto, venit alius nuntius ex parte filiae ejusdem Regis uxoris videlicet Leolini Regis Walliae, &c. Also in the Reign of King Henry III. her Son David is by him( p. 537. 569. and in many other places) styled Nepos Regis, and p. 695. called Nepos Regis ex Sorore; and p. 570. he is said to be propinquus Regi consanguinitate.  
Also Knighton, col. 2417. n. 42. thus says of her, Rex Johannes dedit filiam suam Leolino Principi Walliae in uxorem,& cum ea dedit castellum& totum territorium de Ellesmere in confinio Walliae. And the King himself in the aforesaid Record gives her the title of filiae nostrae.  
Also in lib. Barlings( in which Book, besides what concerns the abbey of Barlings in Lincolnshire, there are certain Annals( beginning An. 1050. and ending An. 1231.) she is called the said Kings daughter, without the Addition of Bastard; there being these words onely in the said Book in Sir John Cotton's Library, which do concern the said joan, viz. Lewelinus disponsavit filiam Regis I.  
So also Vanghan in his British Antiquities,( as he is cited by Sir Peter Leicester in the first of his two Books, pag. 28.& 29.) gives us out of an old Manuscript these very words:  
LEwellinus Gervasii filius princeps Walliae, primo desponsavit Tanglwyst, filiam Lhowarch Vychan de qua genuit Griffith& Gwlades ddu, quondam uxorem Radulphi de Mortuo mari: Post mortem dicta Tanglwyst, idem Lewelynus desponsavit Johannam, filiam Johannis Regis Angliae, de qua genuit David, principem;& Guelliant uxorem Johannis Lacy Comitis Lincolniae,& Angharad primo desponsatam Johanni de Brewis Domino de Brechon; post cujus decessum, desponsata fuit Malgoni Vachan ap Maelgon ap Rees,& ex eadem uxore genuit filiam quae maritata est Johanni Scotico, Comiti Cestriae, qui fuit nepos Ranulphi Comitis Cestriae ex parte sororis suae.  
So that we see in all these record, Deeds and old Authors, there is not one word tending to prove that the said joan was an illegitimate Child.  
Also our later Authors, as Vincent and others, who say that she was illegitimate, do many of them say, That King John was divorced from his second Wife, as well for that she was barren, as within the degrees of Consanguinity; which barrenness, if it could be made to appear, would certainly prove the said joan to be a Bastard; And this opinion hath so far prevailed in this last Age, that whereas learned Mr. Cambden, as we may see in his Britannia in latin printed at London 1607. p. 259. speaking of the divorce of the said Hawisia,( whose name he mistakes, and calls Isabel) doth only use these words, illam repudiatam, Doctor Philemon Holland in the English Translation( unjustly) renders it thus, That King John did repudiate her upon pretences, as well that she was barren, as that they were within the prohibited degrees of Consanguinity. But our ancient Historians say nothing of her being barren. For this see Hoveden( who was living all the time that Hawisia was Wife to King John) p. 803. n. 34. in the year 1200.  
EOdem Anno factum est divortium inter Johannem Regem Angliae& Hawisam uxorem suam filiam Willielmi Comitis Gloucestriae per Heliam Burdegalensem Archiepiscopum,& per Willielmum Pictavensem,& per Henricum Sanctonensem Episcopos: erant enim affines in tertio gradu consanguinitatis. Facto itaque Divortio inter Johannem Regem Angliae,& uxorem suam, ipse Rex Angliae consilio Domini sui Philippi Regis Franciae duxit sibi in uxorem Isabel filiam Ailmari Comitis de Engolismo, &c.  
So also mat. Paris( living in the time of the said joan) p. 200. n. 23. in the said year 1200.  
EOdem tempore celebrato Divortio inter Regem Anglorum& uxorem suam Hawisam Comitis Gloverniae filiam; eo quod affines erant in tertio gradu consanguinitatis; Duxit idem Rex, consilio Regis Francorum Isabel filiam Comitis Engolismi.  
So also Mat. Westminster in that Edition printed at London, 1570. lib. 2. p. 76. n. 25.  
ANno gratiae. M. CC. Rex Johannes Isabellam filiam Comitis Engolismi duxit in uxorem,& dominica proxima ante festum sancti Dyonisii consecrata est in Reginam ab Huberto Cantuariensi Archiepiscopo, quia celebratum fuit divortium inter ipsum& Hawisiam, Comitis Gloverniae filiam, eo quod contingebant se in tertio consanguinitatis gradu.  
See also the words of Rad. de Diceto,( who lived in the time of the said King John) col. 706. n. 5. which words are these:  
CElebratum est divortium inter Johannem Regem Angliae& filiam comitis Glocestriae in Normannia, ab Episcopis Lisoriensi, Baiocensi, Abrincensi,& aliis Episcopis qui interfuerant, quam ipse tempore patris permissione Romanae Ecclesiae duxerat in uxorem cum Comitatibus de Glocestria, de Sumersatum, de Devenesire, de Cornwaille,& aliis quamplurimis per Angliam honoribus. Set ille sublimioris thori spe raptatus, consilio pravorum eam abegit, unde magnam summi Pontificis, scilicet, Innocentii tertii,& totius curiae Romanae indignationem incurrit, praesumens temere contra leges& canones dissolvere quod eorum suerat auctoritate colligatum.  
See also Lipsius in his Monita& exempla politica, printed at Amsterdam 1630. p. 220. who there tells us, that sterilitas sola est causa divortii, quoties apud principes valuit, and then judge if she had been barren, whether that would not have been alleged as a cause of King Johns putting her away, as well as his desire of matching into a more sublime Family; And( which is very observable, all those Authors which Sir Peter Leicester cites in the said 101 page., or who I have met with, who do either say that King Johns said Wife was barren, or do call the said joan the Wife of the said Lhewellin a Bastard, do not any one of them( except Sir Richard Baker) know the true Christian Name of the said divorced Wife of the said King John, but are either silent therein, or else( which almost all of them do) do call her Isabell instead of Hawisia; and how are those persons like to know whether she had Issue or not, seeing they did not so much as know her true Christian Name? Also Mr. Vincent in his corrections upon brook, pag. 204. cites a dead of which Sir Peter Leicester in his Advertisement to the Reader, pag. 60. gives us these words, and no more.  

Chartae 14. Hen. 3. membrana. 5.  
Pro Roberto de Audley.  
Henricus Rex salutem. Inspeximus Chartam Richardi de Landa in haec verba.  
SCiant praesentes& futuri, quod ego Richardus de Landa dedi& concessi& bac praesenti Charta mea confirmavi Roberto de Audley& haeredibus suis in liberum maritagium cum Johanna filia mea centum& trees solidatos& quatuor denaratas terrae cum Pertinentiis in Insula Scapeya. Hiis Testibus, &c.   
But Sir Peter Leicester omits a great part of the said dead, and amongst the rest these words, Sicut carta Regis Johannis quam ind habeo rationabiliter Testatur, which words do show that King John gave those said Lands to the said Richard de Landa.  
Now though this dead doth prove that joan the Wife of Robert de Audley was by the Law of England, the Daughter of Richard de Landa, yet Mr. Vincent in the said 204 page. of his Corrections upon brook( being that very page. in which he cites the said dead) tells us that this joan, the Wife of Robert de Audley, was really the Base Daughter of King John, begotten on his Paramour Agatha the Daughter to William de Ferrars, the second Earl Ferrars of that Christian Name, as he says shall be more largely discovered in the Life of King John; which if so, the said Agatha was then the Wife of the said Richard de Landa. And that Kings did sometime beget Children on the Bodies of other Mens Wives, which yet were owned as the base Children of the said Kings is not without Precedent; for( to instance in no more) you may find in Sir Richard Baker's Chronicle, printed at London, 1665. pag. 66. That King Henry the Second, by his famous Concubine the Wife of Ralpe Blewet, a Knight, had a Son name Morgan, who was Provost of Beverley, and being to be elected Bishop of Durham, went to Rome for a Dispensation, because being a Bastard, he was else uncapable: But the Pope refusing to grant it, unless he would pass as the Son of Blewet, he absolutely answered, he would for no cause in the World deny his Father, and choose rather to lose the Dignity of the Place, than of his blood, as being the Son, though but the base Son of a King. But the said Mr. Vincent mistakes this joan, Wife of Robert de Audley, to be the same joan who was Wife of Lhewellin Prince of Wales; for he says that after the death of lewelin, she was re-married to Robert de Audley, which cannot be, because as appears before, Lhewellin was Husband to his Wife joan in the year 1204. and as you may find in the Welsh History, put out by Dr. powel, pag. 293. The said joan Daughter to King John, and Princess of Wales, died in the Spring, 1237. and was butted upon the Seashoar, within the Isle of Anglesey, at Lhanvaes, as her pleasure was, where the Prince did build a House of Bare-foot friars, over her Grave; But the said Lhewellin, as you may see in the said Welsh History, pag. 298. and in Sir Peter Leicester's Historical Antiquities, pag. 47. and in mat. Paris, put out by Dr. Watts, pag. 525. died tertio Idus Aprilis, scilicet die sancti Guthlaci, Anno Christi, 1240. so that he outlived his said Wife joan three years; and therefore the said joan de Audley could not be that joan who was Wife of the said Lhewellin, but must of necessity be another joan. And why might not other Writers mistake this joan Wife of Robert de Audley, to be the same joan who was Wife of Lhewellin, as well as Mr. Vincent did; and thereupon call joan the Wife of Lhewellin a Bastard. But though Mr. Vincent do here promise to discover more fully in the Life of King John, that joan the Wife of Robert de Audley was the Daughter of King John, by the said Agatha de Ferrars, yet because the said Mr. Vincent did not( that I can find) live to writ the Life of the said King John, so that I cannot learn what Arguments he would have brought for the further discovery of what he did undertake; I will therefore for the present wave the same, and not conclude that she was Legitimate, although she might be so, for any thing that doth yet to the contrary appear.  
Secondly, Sir Peter Leceister objects that Lhewellin gave with helen his Daughter unto John Scot, Earl of Cbester, the Mannor of Budeford in Warwickshire, and the Mannor of Suttehel in Worcestershire, In libero Maritagio cum omnibus pertinentiis sicut Dominus Johannes Rex ea illi dedit in libero Maritagio, and therefore says, that nothing can be more clear than that the Gift of Budeford and Suttehel with the said joan Wife of Lhewellin, was an express Gift in Frank-Marriage. And for the proving of this, he gives us this Agreement or dead, which he supposeth to be made about Anno Domini 1222. 6 H. 3.  
HAEcest conventio facta inter Dominum Ranulfum Comitem Cestriae& Lincolniae,& Dominum Lhewellinum Principem Northwalliae; Quod Johannes de Scotiâ, nepos praedicti Comitis de sorore, suâ primogenita, ducet in uxorem Helenam filiam ipsius Lhewellini: ita quod dictus Lhewellinus dabit dicto Johanni in libero Maritagio totum manerium de Budeford in Warewied,& manerium de Suttehele in Comitatu Wigorniae cum omnibus pertinentiis, sicut Dominus Johannes rex ea illi dedit in libero maritagio: Et totum manerium de Welneton in Comitatu Salopesburiae, cum omnibus pertinentiis infrà villam& extrà. Habendum dicto Johanni,& haeredibus suis ex dictâ Helenâ provenientibus, sicut idem Lhewellinus ea aliquo tempore melius& integrius tenuit. Et preterea dabit eidem Johanni mill marcas Argenti, &c. Testibus Domino Reverendo Episcopo de sancto Asaph, Domino H. Abbate Cestriae, Domino Hugone de Lasci Comite Ultoniae, Phillippo de Orreby tunc Justiciario Cestriae, H. de Aldideley, Gualtero de Daivill, Ricardo Fitton, Edrevet Liagham, Edmundo filio Righerit. Coronon filio Edrevet, Helin Idhit, Magistro Estruit, Magistro Adâ, Davide Clerico Lhewellini, Magistro H.— Clericis Domini Comitis Cestriae,& multis aliis.  
To which I answer, that as it is not certain that the said joan was a Bastard, so this dead is only an Agreement, in the nature of Articles betwixt Randle Earl of Chester, and lincoln on the one part, and Lhewellin Prince of North-Wales on the other part; concerning an intended Marriage betwixt the said John and helen, for they were not then married, as appears by the said Articles or dead; and the said Lhewellin doth not thereby give to the said John Scot, Budeford and Suttehel, but only Covenants that he will give them unto him, as appears by the word Dabit, which is the future Tense; and it is very likely that the said Budeford and Suttehel were given to the said Lhewellin, in Maritagio, without the word libero, as will be proved by these Records.  

Claus. 2. H. 3. M. 1.  
MAndatum est Vic. war. quod plenam seisinam habere faciat Leolina Principi Norwall. de villa de Budeford cum pertinentiis suis quam Dominus Johannes rex pater Domini Henrici Regis deditei in Maritagium cum Johanna sorore Henrici Regis uxore ipsius Leulini. Test. 
Scilicet Wi●ielmo Marescallo Comite Pe●●●●chiae tunc Rectore Regis& Regni.  Comite apud Westm. 10. octo.  
Rot. Pip. de and. 2 H. 3. Warrr.& Leic.  
Willielmus de Cantilupo Philippus de Kinton pro eo reddit comp. de cxxviii l. ii s. bl. de firma de Warewick:& de quater viginti& quinque libris xvi s. iiii d. bl. firma de Leicestershire.  
— Et Leuelino Principi Norwall: lxxvi s. in Budiford in Maritagio cum Johanna uxore sua, de dimidio anno per Breve Regis.   
And as there are in these Records the words in Maritagio, without the word libero, so also there was livery made of the same Lands, which in a Gift in Frank-Marriage is needless to be done; but be it how it will, there can be no Argument drawn from this dead or Agreement betwixt Earl Randle and Lhewellin; for it is very apparent, that he who did writ the said dead or Agreement was a very ignorant Person, and did not at all understand what a Gift in Frank-Marriage was; for if King John gave Budeford and Suttehel to the said Lhewellin with his Daughter joan, in Maritagio, without the word libero, then the said Lhewellin, might give them to John Scot, with his Daughter helen, in whatsoever manner he did please; but if King John gave the said manors of Budeford and Sutte●e● to Lhewellin with his Daughter joan, in libero Maritagio, then the said Lhewellin could not give away from his Son David( who outlived the said Lhewellin) the said manors of Budeford and Suttehel, to John Scot, with his Daughter helen; for though he who hath Lands given to him in Marriage liable to Services, hath the Inheritance of the said Lands, and may dispose of them as he doth please; yet he who hath lands given to him in Frank Marriage hath not the inheritance of the said lands, but hath only Custodiam cum uxore, and therefore cannot dispose of the same; and yet this ignorant person, who did writ the said Agreement or dead, doth suppose that King John gave Budeford and Suttehel in Frank-Marriage to Lhewellin, and that the said Lhewellin might give them in Frank-Marriage to the said John Scot.  
Neither can it be objected, that the Law hath been changed in this Point, or otherways holden from what it is now; for I will show that the Law was the same in this particular, and also so holden after the time of the said Lhewellin, in the time of the said Lhewellin, and before the time of the said Lhewellin, and that I do thus prove;  
If you look in my Lord cook upon Littleton, fol. 22. a. you will find that the Husband in the time of King Edward III. was so far from having the inheritance of Lands given to him in Frank Marriage, that if he and his Wife were divorced, the Woman should enjoy the whole, Land; and for this he cites in the margin, 13 Edw. 3. Tit. Ass. 19 Edw. 3. Ass. 83. with several other proofs of the like nature;  
Also in the time of King Edward I. as you may see in the ancient Treatise called Fleta,( which was written in that Kings time) the inheritance in these cases of Frank Marriage was in the Wife with whom the Land was given, and not in the Husband, but it was 
Note.  Secus otherways, when Lands were given in Marriage pro Homagio& servitio viri, as you may see in the third Book and 11th Chapter, de Donationibus in Maritagiis, where it is thus said, Et quamvis fiat mentio in donatione, quod terra data sit in Maritagium tali viro, cum tali uxore, res data tamen est liberum tenementum uxoris,& non viri, cum non habeat nisi custodiam cum uxore, donec liberum tenementum sibi accrescat, per legem Angliae: Secus 
Note.  si pro homagio& servitio viri,& in Maritagium facta fuerit donatio. And so also the Law doth continue until this day.  
Also in the 9 H. 3.( which is but three years from that year in which Sir Peter Leicester doth suppose the said dead, or Agreement, betwixt the said Randle Earl of Chester, and the said Lhewellin to be made) the inheritance of those Lands which were given to a Man with a Woman in Frank Marriage, was in the Wife, and not in the Husband; for my Lord cook on Littleton, fol. 21. b. tells us, That if the King give Land to a Man with a Woman of his Kindred in Frank Marriage, and the Woman dieth without Issue, the Man in the Kings case shall not hold it for his life, because the Woman was the cause of the gift, but otherways it is in the case of a common person, and for this in the margin he cites 9 H. 3. Dower. 202. so that it seems, though a Man might be Tenant by the courtesy of England of Lands given to him by a Subject in Frank Marriage with his Wife, yet where the King did so give the Lands, if the Woman after she had Issue did die, and her Issue all die before her; the Husband in that case would not be Tenant by the courtesy of England, or enjoy the Lands for his life, so far was he from then having the Inheritance of the said Lands.  
So also Bracton( who was the second that did writ of our English Laws, and was living in the the time of King Henry, III. and in the time of the said Lhewellin) lib. 2. cap. 11. thus says:  
Si autem fiat mentio quod terra data sit in Maritagium cum uxore& eorum haeredibus, communes haeredes de corpore utriusque admittantur, qui si defecerint, revertitur terra data,& alii remotiores excluduntur: quia res data est liberum tenementum uxoris,& non viri, cum non habeat nisi custodiam cum uxore. Si autem sic terra detur in Maritagium viro cum uxore& eorum haeredibus, pro homagio& servitio viri( qued fit aliquando) licet detur in libertum Maritagium, quae sunt sibi ad invicem adversantia sieve repugnantia, tunc prefertur homagium,& erit acsi fieret donatio tam viro quam uxori.  
And that the Maritagium which Bracton here first speaks of, was Maritagium Liberum, is very apparent, because we see here, he immediately after speaks of Lands given in Marriage not free, viz. of Lands given in Maritagium, pro homagio& servitio viri; so also Mr. Glanvil, who lived before the time of the said Lhewellin, viz. in the time of King Henry II. and was the first that did writ of our English Laws, lib. 7. cap. 18. after he hath  told us what Free Marriage is, hath these words:  
Cum quis itaque terram aliquam cum uxcre sxa in Maritagium ceperit, si ex eadem uxore sua haeredem habuerit silium, vel filiam clamantem& auditum infra quatuor parietes, si idem vir uxorem suam supervixcrit, sieve vixerit haeres sieve non, illi in nita 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 ind reciperetur homagium, tunc nunquam de cetero ad donatorem, vel ejus haeredes licite posset reverti ut supradictum est.  
So that Mr. Glanvil also here tells us, that the Husband hath not the Inheritance of such Lands as are given to him in Frank Marriage with his Wife, for where Lands are given in Marriage, for which homage is not to be done, if the Husband have Issue by his Wife, whether that Issue live or die, the Husband shall( by the courtesy of England) hold those Lands for his life; but if he never have Issue, then those Lands upon the death of the Wife shall revert to the Donor, or his Heirs, so far was the Husband from having the Inheritance thereof; but on the other hand we see, that Mr. Glanvil tells us, that if Land be given in such Marringe, for which homage is done, that the Husband hath the inheritance of the said Lands, and may dispose of them as he doth please, because such Lands can never revert to the Donor or his Heirs, as Lands given in Frank Marriage may do; so that hereby the gross ignorance of him, that did writ that dead or Agreement betwixt the said Earl Randle, and the said Lhewellin, doth sufficiently appear, and there can be no Argument brought from their covenanting to do a thing, which could not possibly be done.  
And here because Sir Peter Leicester says, that the words in Maritagio were oftentimes in old Deeds taken for the words in Libero Maritagio, I think it convenient to prove, that whensoever Lands are given by dead, with these words in Maritagio, without any other word joined therewith, that such Lands were given in Marriage liable to services; for although Maritagium be twofold viz. Maritigium Liberum& Maritagium servitio ●onexium, as I have long since in the 39 and 40 pages of my reply to Sir Peter's answer to my Defence of Amicia, proved both out of Mr. Glanvil, and other Authors, yet when the word Maritagium is used alone in a dead, and Lands are passed by dead to a Man with a Woman in Maritagio, without either the word Libero, or the words Servitio obnoxio, in this case the word Maritagium cannot be the Genus, and comprehend both Maritagium Liberum, and Maritagium Servitio obnoxium; for it is impossible that a Man should at one and the same time, hold the very same Lands of the same person, in Frank Marriage, and in Marriage liable to services; the onely question therefore is, when a Man gives Lands with any one in Maritagio onely, without either the word libero, or the words servitio obnoxio, what construction the Law will make of such a dead; and whether it shall be a Gift in Frank Marriage, or a Gift in Marriage liable to services?  
Now that such a dead shall be construed in Law to be a gift liable to services will thus appear;  
First, Because if such a dead be made with the words in Maritagio only, and no other word be expressed in the said dead to declare that it should be a Gift in Frank Marriage, it is impossible that those Lands should be held free from all services; For if, as my Lord cook upon Littleton tells us fol. 21 b. these words in Liberum Maritagium are such words of art, and so necessary required( in a Gift in Frank Marriage) as they cannot be expressed by words equipollent, or amounting to as much; How can it be that Lands given in Maritagio, can be held free from services, when there are no equipollent words, nor any expression at all, to show that the Donor intended that the said Lands should be held free from services?  
Secondly, Because 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 we may see in cook 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 we 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 those of the blood, as also why the words in Liberum Maritagium, are such words of Art, and so necessary required, as that they cannot be expressed by words equipollent, or amounting to as much.  
Also our Common Lawyers have a Rule( as we may see cook upon Littleton, fol. 189. a.) that Additio probat minoritatem; and thereupon it is that my Lord cook there tells us, 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 dead, and no more; but when it is given in Free Marriage,( which is the younger Brother) according as my Lord cook tells us, the word Liberum( which is the difference) is absolutely necessary: and herewith agrees the common practise; 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 intend that any other services should be done, over and above those services which the Law did create by the words in Maritagio, then, they did afterwards in the said Deeds mention those other services, but else not.  
So also the word Foedum, or Fee is twofould, 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 us, 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 these words ( in Fee) that a Man is seized in Fee-tail, unless there be added to it this addition Fee-tail as we 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 also in Blazoning Coats of arms, and particularly to instance in my own; Because the plain bar is the elder Brother to all other bars, it shall not be said, that I bear Argent two plain bars Gules, but only that I bear Argent two bars Gules, and yet the word Foedum is as much the Genus to Fee-simple and Fee-tail, and the word bar as much the Genus to a plain bar, a bar engrailed, a bar Nebule, and all other sorts of bars, as the word Maritagium is the Genus to Maritagium Liberum, and Maritagium servitio obnoxium. And as the words in Faedo alone without the word simplict joined with them, shall signify in Fae-simple; and as the word bar alone shall in Blazoning be understood to be a plain bar and not any other sort of bar whatsoever, so the words in Maritagio in a dead, if no other word be joined therewith, shall in Law be construed to be in Marriage liable to services.  
And this doth show that Sir Peter Leicester was mistaken, when in the 20 and 21 pages of the first of his two Books, he charged me with saying, that Maritagium est duplex, vel Maritagium, vel liberum Moritagium; For I never said or thought any such thing, but when I did divide Maritagium, I did divide it into Maritagium liberum, and Maritagium servitio obnoxium, as you may see in the 39 and 40 pages of my Reply; and I have here made it to appear, that when Lands are given in Maritagio, without any other word added thereto, they are then given in Marriage liable to services; but the saying so doth not distinguish Maritagium, into Maritagium, and Maritagium liberum, as Sir Peter did thereupon say that I did.  
3. Thirdly, Sir Peter Leicester in his Advertisement to the Reader, gives us this Record, in these following words.  

Ex Rotulo Chartarum de anno sexto Regis Johannis, numero 32.  
Charta Lewelini  
Principis Walliae.  
JOhannes Dei gratia, &c. Sciatis, nos dedisse, concessisse,& hac Charta nostra confirmasse Lewelino Principi Northwalliae, in Maritagium cum Johanna filia nostra Castrum de Ellesmara cum omnibus pertinentiis suis: Tenendum ei& haeredibus suis qui de eo& praedicta filia nostra exierint, de nobis& haeredibus nostris in liberum Maritagium, salvis Conventionibus inter nos& ipsum de terra& eodem Maritagio factis: Et nos& haeredes nostri praedictum castrum cum pertinentiis suis ei,& praedictis haeredibus suis, Warrantizabimus contra omnes qui in eo jus clamare volverint: Quare volumus, &c. quod praedictus Lewelinus& praedicti haeredes sui habeant& teneant praedictum castrum de Ellesmara cum omnibus pertinentiis suis, been& in place, libere& quiet, integre, in bosco& plano, in pratis& pascuis, in viis& semitis, in aquis& molendinis, in Stagnis & vivariis, in moris& marciscis,& Piseariis,& in omnibus aliis locis& rebus, cum omnibus libertatibus& liberis Consuetudinibus ad illud Castrum pertinentibus, sicut praedictum est. Testibus Domino Henrico Cantuariensi Archiepiscopo, G. filio P. Comite Essexiae Willielmo Comite Sarum, Johanne de Cursy: Datum per manum H. de Wellen. Archidiaconi Wellensis à apud Dovorum, 16 die Aprilis, anno, &c. 6.  
Convenit cum Recordo, Gulielmus Ryley Deputatus Algar. May Militis, Februario, 1674.   
By which Record Sir Peter Leicester says it plainly appears, that this Grant to lewelin with joan Daughter of King John, was a Grant in liberum Maritagium( in express words) of the Castle of Ellesmere in Shropshire, dated the 16 day of April, in the sixth year of the Reign of King John, which falleth in the year after the Incarnation of Christ, 1204.  
1. To which I answer, First, That it doth not plainly appear, as hath before been shewed, that the said joan, Wift of Lhewellin, was a Bastard; and in this very Record,( as she is in all the rest) she is called the Kings Daughter, without the least blemish of Bastardy at all.  
2. Secondly, It is manifest by a Record herein before by me mentioned, that Livery was made of Ellesmere unto Lhewellin by the Sheriff of Shropshire, about the 6th year of King John; and as Livery doth not need to be made upon a legal gift in Frank Marriage, so on the other hand my Lord cook on Littleton, fol. 21. b. tells us, that if Lands be given in Frank Marriage with one that is not of the blood of the Donor; yet an Estate for life will pass, if Livery be made; and we may find both by the Welsh History put out by Dr. powel, pag. 306. and mat. Paris put out by Dr. Watts, pag. 605,& 626. that the next year after the death of the said Lhewellin, the said Ellesmere was in the hands of King Henry the III. and it appears by good Record, that it was afterwards committed by him to the trust of Hamon le Strange; so that such a Grant, and such an enjoyment as this was, might have been, if the said joan had been certainly a Bastard, and therefore cannot have any relation to this Case of Amicia at all. And whereas Sir Peter hath heretofore objected, that if this had been but an Estate for life, it would have reverted to the King upon the death of joan, who dyed four years before her Husband Lhewellin, in that he is clearly mistaken, because the Grant and Livery were both of them made to Lhewellin himself; And whereas he also would have it, that Ellesmere did not of right belong to King Henry the III. and thereupon in the first of his two Books; taking notice of the Articles betwixe King Henry the III. and David Prince of North Wales, doth ask this question. What needed this Covenant from David of Ellesmere, if it were the right of King Henry before that Agreement made? Sir Peter if he had so pleased, might easily have discerned that there was the same Covenant and Grant from the said David, concerning some Lands of Roger de Montealto Steward of Chester, and of some other Barons, &c. of the right and title to which lands there could be no doubt.  
3. But Thirdly, What disputes soever might have arisen about this Grant, if it had been made by a common person, because the granting part thereof is in Maritagium, without any other word, but the Tenendum is in liberum Maritagium; yet there being a difference betwixt the Kings case, and the case of a common person, this Grant was certainly a voided grant and by consequence is of no force or weight at all as to the matter in hand; for as we may red in the case of tenors put out by Baron Barry, and Printd at Dublin 1637. pag. 48. in the Grants of a common person, the Rule of Law is, that the Grant shall be taken most strongly against the Grantor; But in the King's Grants the Rule is, that they shall be taken most benificially for the King, and most strongly against the Patentees. Also in the same 48. page., there is another Rule, that the Grant of of the King shall not be extended to pass any thing contrary to the intent of the King expressed in his Grant; and if the Grant cannot take effect, according to his intent expressed in his Grant, the Grant is voided. And accordingly in the 49. and 50 pages there are these cases put, where the Grants would have been good in the Cases of common persons, but not in the Case of the King.  
In the Lord Lovell's Case, 18 H. 8. B. Pat. 104. The King ex certa scientia,& mero motu, grants Lands to one and his Heits-males; If a common person had made such a Grant, the Law would say, that the word Males were voided, and the Fee simplo should pass; But will the Law make such construction in the Kings Grant? No; There the Grant shall be voided, for, he was deceived in his Grant, in that it cannot take effect according to his intent expressed in his Letters Patents. 29 Eliz. in the Exchequer, the Case was, King Hen. 7. was seized of two manors, scilicet de Ryton& Condor; He Grants ex certa scientia& mero motu totum illud Manerium de Ryton& Condor; Adjudged that the Grant was voided.  
The like Case was resolved, 30. Eliz. where the Queen was seized of the manors of Milborne, and Saperton in the County of Lincoln, and the Queen grants ex certa scientia& mero motu totum illud Manerium de Milborne cum Saperton in come. Line, and it was held, that neither of the manors did pass; and yet if a common person had made such Grants, the Grantee in both the said Cases should have had both the said manors.  
By which said Rules and Cases it also appears, that this Grant of Elesmer &c. to Lbewellin was a voided Grant, and by consequence of no force at all; For that the King was deceived in his Grant, when he made the tenendum in liberum Maritagium, is very plain, as well because the King grants the said Castle and Lands in Maritagium only,( which by Law implies Marriage liable to services) as also, because it appears by those words in the Grant, Salvis conventionibus inter nos& ipsum de 
Note.  terra& codem maritagio factis, that the King intended to have money paid, or service done to him, for the said Castle and Lands, and by consequence they were not to be held in liberum Maritagium.  
So that all the objections against my first Argument, though so very numerous, are fully answered, and wholly removed out of the way, and by necessary consequence it appears, that Amicia was Hugh Ceviliok's legitimate Child.    

Against my second Argument, Sir Peter Leicester in the 52 page. of his Answer to my defence of Amicia, doth object, That although Sir Ralph Mainwaring was witness to very many Deeds of the then Earls of Chester, and was also much conversant with them, as appears by those many circumstances which I have therein taken notice of; yet this was occasioned by his place, he being Judge, and that Philip de Orreby, who was Judge of Chester next after the said Ralph, was also a witness to the like Multitudes of Charters or more.  
To which I answer, that although Phillip de Orreby was Justice of Chester above twenty years, yet I believe it cannot be proved that the said Phillip was witness to near so many Charters of the Earls of Chester, as the said Ralph was; And which shows that the familiarity betwixt the said Earls, and the said Ralph, was not upon that account which Sir Peter speaks of, we find as before appears that the said Ralph, was a witness to Hugh Civiliok's Deeds of confirmation to the Priory of Cale in Darbyshire, and was with Randle Blundevil at Coventry, and a witness to his Charter to the Burgesses there, which could not be occasioned, by his being Judge.   

And as to my third Argument, Sir Peter Leicester gives this only Answer, as we may see in the 53 page. of his answer to my defence of Amicia, that indeed Precedents are scant; but some there be: what do you think of Ranulpho de Astbury nepote Comitis Cestriae; who is put the last of all the Witnesses in the dead, as you may see in the Addenda of my Book? Certainly he was but an ordinary Gentleman, nor Knight, nor Lord: But you will say, I cannot prove him a Bastard; yet I should be glad to find out his Extraction, if he were not: 'tis a shrewd presumption.  
So that Sir Peter doth in effect confess, that he hath no such Precedent at all, and indeed this precedent will fail him for two reasons.  
First Because Sir Peter doth as good as confess, that he cannot prove him to be a Bastard,( and he might perhaps be a younger Brother or son of a younger Brother, and so not necessary a Knight or a Lord.)  
And Secondly; Because he doth not call himself the Earl's Nephew, but is called so by others; and that is so far from contradicting, that it doth confirm what I said in my former Book.  
And whereas Sir Peter Leicester says, he should be glad to find out the Extraction of the said Randle de Astbury, if he were not a Bastard. Though it be perhaps impossible now to tell him his Extraction certainly, because he lived so long since, and we only find him mentioned as a witness in one dead, yet I doubt not but to satisfy the Reader, that he and his Father and Mother might all be legitimate; For,( not to say that he might be a son of some other Daughter of the said Hugh Civiliock by his former wife) he might possibly be the Son of Roger, Son of Hugh Civiliock; and I know no reason why the said Roger should by Sir Peter be suspected to be a Bastard, for he only finds him( as appears by his Historical Antiquities, pag. 134.) mentioned as a witness to a dead of his Brother Randle's, to the abbey of St. Werburge: So that he conceives him to be a Bastard, because neither he, nor any Issue Male of his, succeeded in the Earldom of Chester, after the death of Randle Blundevil; whereas the said Roger might be lawful, and be Father to this Randle de Astbury, and yet both he and the said Randle de Astbury might die before the said Randle de Blundevil; For he lived very long, and was Earl of Chester above 50 years: so that this third Argument of mine is not answered at all.   

And whereas I have in my 4th Argument, shewed out of Sir Henry Spelman's Glossary on the word Bastardus, how the said Sir Henry quotes Constum. du Normand. Artic. 77. in Annot. thus: Quoties enim agitur de honore vel commodo filiorum, appellatione filiorum non comprehenduntur Bastardi: And have from thence argued, that Amice would not have been styled filia, as she is in the said dead, unless she had been a legitimate Child; Sir Peter in the 63d page. of his Answer to my Defence of Amicia, doth object against this in these very words.  
And what you add out of Spelman, is little to the purpose; that in Cases of Honour and Profit, distinction was then made; that by the Appellation of Sons, Bastards are not comprehended by the Customs of Normandy: What then? this supposeth that in other Cases, and formerly by the Appellation of Sons, Bastards were comprehended: This makes directly against you, and you know what Spelman saith in the very words next following— That the ancient Northern people admitted Bastards to succeed in their Inheritance; and that William the Conqueror was not ashamed of that title, who began his Letter to Alan, Earl of Little Britain,( as he did many others) Ego Willielmus cognomento Bastardus. But what is all this to the answering of the Argument, or proving Hugh Cyveliok to have had a former Wife? only you would have the words in libero Maritagio, to prove Amice absolutely legitimate: this is all the Answer you give to the Point; and this will not do it, as is before proved, whither I have referred the ingenious Reader.  
To which I answer, First, that though Sir Peter Leicester doth here say, that this( which I here city) supposeth that in other Cases, and formerly by the Appellation of Sons, Bastards were comprehended: And that this makes directly against me; yet he is very much deceived in so saying: For if in other Cases by the Appellation of Sons, Bastards were comprehended, but were not comprehended by that Appellation in Cases of Profit; it will from hence appear that Amicia was legitimate, because she was called Filia in a Case, that did concern her Profit, and by consequence her Father must have a former Wife. And whereas he tells us, out of the next words of Spelman, viz. that the ancient Northern People admitted Bastards to succeed in their Inheritance; and that William the Conqueror was not ashamed of that Title, who began his Letter to Alan, Earl of Little Britain, as he did many others, Ego Willielmus cognomento Bastardus.  
I do not know how Sir Peter can apply those expressions to the Case in hand, and if he could, they would make against him; For, when Bastard Children were so much esteemed, as to be admitted to succeed in the inheritance, then certainly illegitimate Daughters were very near of equal repute with those that were legitimate. And by this Rule, why should not Amicia, if she was a Bastard, be so called, as well as Paganus was?( who as Sir Peter says, was the son of Hugh Civiliok) or why should Hugh Civiliok himself, be more ashamed to call her so, than William the Conqueror was to style himself a Bastard.  
But these Cases of Princes differ much from those of Subjects; For Sir Richard Baker in his Chronicle printed at London, 1665. page. 22. in the Life and Reign of King William the conqueror, tells us, that in those days it was not unfrequent, for Princes to confer their Principalities after their own deceases, upon whom they pleased, counting it as lawful to appoint successors after them, as substitutes under them; And he also observes how in our time, and Kingdom, the Duke of Northumberland prevailed with King Edward the sixth, to exclude his two Sisters, Mary and Elizabeth, and to appoint the Lady Jane Grey, Daughter of the Duke of Suffolk, to succeed him: so that Precedents brought from Princes, will in this Case be of no force at all.   

And whereas I have shewed in my 5th Argument, that although the Constable of Cheshire( who had that Office in Fee) was by Charter to go next to the Earl of Chester; And the Dapifer, Seneschal or Steward of Cheshire,( who also had that Office in Fee, was to go next to the said Constable, that yet the said Ralph Mainwaring, notwithstanding the said Charters, is not only name as a Witness before the said Constable, Seneschal, and other Barons, in those Deeds which I have there mentioned, but that also the Earl of Chester himself in his Charter,( contrary to all other Precedents in the times of other Justices which I have seen) doth name the Justice of Chester before both the Constable of Cheshire, and Steward of Cheshire. And that I did suppose, that the reason why the said Ralph had that great respect, was, because he had married a lawful Child of the said Earl, it being too great to have been shewed him, if he had only married one who was a Bastard; and that it will be very difficult to give any other reason thereof: Sir Peter Leicester in the 77th page. of his Answer to my Defence of Amicia, doth only give this Answer in these very words.  
To this I say, it will not be difficult at all to give a reason, and much more easy, than to give a reason, why Amice should be no Bastard, because Sir Raufe Manwaring is sometime subscribed before the Barons of Cheshire. The reason I give is this, that anciently in those Ages, the Justice was put sometimes before the Barons, and sometimes after; and sometimes after the Constable, and Dapifer, and before the rest of the Barons, as it happened: For proof, see the dead in my Book, making the Baron of Halton, the prime Baron, pag. 160. where the Justice comes after all the Barons; also in the dead of Earl Randle to his Barons, pag. 162. where the Justice comes next after the Constable and Dapifer, and before the other Barons; see also in my Book, pag. 130, 131. two Deeds made by Hugh Cyveliok: In the one, the Justice is put after the Constable and Dapifer: In the other, the Justice is put before them; many other like examples may be produced elsewhere: I will appeal herein to Mr. Dugdale, or to any Antiquary in England; and considering the great uncertainty of subscription of Witnesses in old Deeds, sometimes putting one before another, in one dead, and again putting the same person after the other in another dead; sometimes putting Domino prefixed before the names of some persons in one dead, and omitting the word Domino before the names of the same persons in another dead, whereof I have spoken, pag. 5, 6. in the beginning of this Book. I say, had you well considered or observed these things, it was not worth your labour to have added those three or four leaves in the close of your Book.  
To which I reply, That what Sir Peter says in the 77, 78, and 79 pages of his said Answer, is so far from answering that Argument of mine, which is contained between the 69, and 75 pages of my first Book, that that which Sir Peter pretends to be an Answer,( if rightly understood) is the very Argument which I there frame against him; For, though what he says, pag. 78. be true, that sometimes the Justice is put after the Constable and Dapifer, and sometimes before the Constable and Dapifer, yet all the Justices of Chester, except Sir Ralph Mainwaring, are name in the Charts of the Earls of Chester, after the Constable and Dapifer, and are also name after the Constable and Dapifer, when they were witnesses to any Deeds; But it is only in the time of the said Sir Ralph Manwairing, when the Justice is name before the Constable and Dapifer in the Charts of the said Earls, and it is only he who is name as a Witness, and that frequently before the Constable and Dapifer as I have proved by several Deeds, which I then mentioned both out of Sir Peters former Book, and elsewhere, and doth also further appear, by another dead in his Historical Antiquities, pag. 205. where the said Sir Ralph Mainwaring is also name as a witness before the then Dapifer, Ralph de Montealto; and this respect was shewed to the said Sir Ralph Mainwaring, although, as we may see in his said Book, pag. 160.& 161. that the Constable by Charter was to go next the Earl, and had his Office in Fee, and that the Steward was to go next after the Constable, and had his Office also in Fee.  
But when Phillip Orreby, who did succeed the said Sir Ralph Manwairing, was Justice of Chester, then, according to the old usual way, as appears in the 162. page. of Sir Peters first Book, the Constable and Dapifer were again name in the Earls Chart before the Justice of Chester, and also as we may see at the bottom of the 144 page. and top of the 145 page. of his said Book, the said Constable was name as a Witness before Phillip de Orreby, though then Justice of Chester; and I believe Sir Peter cannot show any Chart of any of the Earls of Chester, in which any other Justice of Chester had the like pre-eminence; neither do I think he can show any Deeds, in which any other Justice is name as a witness before the Constable or Dapifer; and if any such single Precedent can perchance be found, I am confident it will prove to be a dead wherein the said Philip de Orreby is name as a witness, and was occasioned by the simplicity of the clerk, who did writ the said dead, who finding Sir Ralph Mainwaring Justice of Chester( the immediate Predecessor of the said Philip de Orreby) to be written as a witness before the Constable and Dapifer, might thereupon think that Philip de Orreby should also be so placed, though it was not allowed to the said Philip.  
And although Sir Peter truly objects, p. 78. how great the uncertainty of subscription of witnesses was in old Deeds, sometimes putting one before another in one dead, and after putting the same person after the other in another dead; yet, that will be nothing in this Case, for Sir Peter himself confesses, pag. 160.& 161. of his Historical Antiquities; notwithstanding the uncertainty of subscription of Witnesses, that after certain Offices were annexed to certain Barons, that the matter was without controversy( as to the Constable and Dapifer) and that the Constable of Cheshire in Fee carried it clear by his Office, which was annexed to his Barony, and that the Steward was the next after him.  
And therefore this pre-eminence being thus given to the said Sir Ralph, and to him only; and he also, so far as I have found, being ever name before all the other Barons of Cheshire, after he had married the said Amicia, as well when he had partend with his Office of Justice, as before; I think I may still say, it will be difficult to give a reason thereof, if he did not mary a lawful Daughter of the aforesaid Earl.   

6. Sixthly, My last Argument to prove Amicia lawful, was raised, from the vast disproportion of years, that was betwixt Hugh Cyveliok, and his Wife Bertred, it not being at all probable, that so great a person as Earl Hugh was, should continue unmarried, without having a former Wife until the said Bertred became marriageable. And this I formerly proved by three reasons.  
First, By showing how Earl Hugh did join with his Mother Matilda, in giving by dead Stivinghale, and other things, to Walter Durdent Bishop of Chester, and his Successors, to which dead Eustace the Constable was a Witness, and I having there proved out of Sir Peter Leicester's Historical Antiquities, that the said Eustace was slain in the year 1157( in which year the said Bertred was born) it would from thence follow, that if that dead was sealed immediately before the said Eustace was slain, yet the said Hugh must needs be at the least 21 years older than his Wife Bertred.  
Secondly, I have shewed out of Caradocus Lhancaruensis( whom I have proved to be an Author of good credit, and to be living at that time) that the said Hugh in the year 1142. fortified his Castle of Cymaron and wan Melyenith to himself; and if the said Hugh was but 12 years of age at that time, yet he would be about 41 years old when he married the said Bertred.  
And Thirdly, I have mentioned a dead which is in Sir Peter Leicester's Historical Antiquities, which the said Hugh when he was Earl, made to the Nuns of B●lington, in which is this expression, Sicu● fuit tempore Heurici Regis; by which it appears, that the said dead was made in the time of King Steven: For the said Hugh, as Sir Peter Leicester tells us, came to be Earl in the year 1153. 18. of King Steven, and dyed Anno Domini 1181. 27 H. 2. But in the time of King Henry the second, it could not be made; for then Earl Hugh 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 Henry the second. And if it was made in the time of King Steven, he dying in the year 1154. which was three years before the said Bertred was born, if the said dead was made immediately before King Steven dyed, yet Earl Hugh would be at least 24 years older than Bertred his Wife.  
Against every of these three reasons, Sir Peter Leicester doth object, and as to the first he tells us, how Richard Earl of Chester joined with his Mother Ermentrude in the Grant of Wadmundesley, Anno Domini 1106. when he was scarce 12 years old, and so would have the Case of Stivinghale, to be like that of Wadmundesley, and therefore will suppose Earl Hugh, when he made the dead of Stivinghale to be then but about 12 years old also, because his Mother then joined with him. But in my Answer to Sir Peter's two Books, pag. 41, 42, 43, 44, 45,& 46. I have shewed out of the Book of Abington, that that dead of Wadmundesiey was sealed with the 
Note.  Seal of the Earls Mother only, and not with the Earls Seal at all, and that it was taken notice of as a strange Case, and other very material differences, I have there observed besides, to which, for brevity sake, I shall refer the Reader at this time.  
And whereas he hath objected against my second reason, that Caradocus Lhancaruan is not to be believed, because he says King Steven took geoffrey Mandevyle Prisoner at St. Albans in the year 1142. whereas mat. Paris in that Edition put out by Dr. Wats, pag. 79. says it was William Mandevyle; if you look in Henry of huntingdon, who lived in the time of the said King Steven, pag. 393. lin. 15. And in the History of Simeon Dunelmensis,( who also lived in the time of the said King Steven, and whose History was continued for about 25 years, by John Prior of Hagulsted or Hexam) Col. 273. lin. 15. And in Roger Hoveden( who lived in the times of King Henry the II. King Richard the I. and King John) in his Annals printed at frankfurt, 1601. pag. 488. l. 41. And in Gulielmus Nubrigensis, who lived in the times of King Richard the I. and King John, lib. 1. cap. 11. And in Ralph de Diceto, who was Dean of Pauls in King John's time, in his Abbrev. Chronic. Col. 508. l. 32. And in Gervasius, a Benedictine Monk of Canterbury,( who lived in the time of King John) Col. 1360. lin. 7. And in John Bromton's Chronicon, which ends with the death of King Richard the I. Col. 1033. lin. 1. you will there find, that according to what Caradocus Lhancaruensis says, his name was Goffrey, and not William Mandevyle. And if Sir Peter had but looked in Mat. Paris on the other side of the leaf, pag. 80. l. 20. he would have found Mat. Paris also calling him geoffrey Mandevyle, so that the calling of him William in the former leaf, was either a slip of the Printer, or of Mat. Paris's Pen. Neither is that second Objection which Sir Peter makes against this second reason, of any force: For whereas it is misprinted, Hugh Earl of Chester, instead of Hugh Son to the Earl of Chester, as appears by the amendment of the Errata, at the end of the said Book, Sir Peter Leicester of his own Authority, without naming any Author to justify what he says, tells us, that it should have been printed Randle Earl of Chester, and not Hugh Son to the Earl of Chester; but I will appeal to the Reader, who is most like to know, how it was in Caradocus Lhancaruensis's Welsh Manuscript, whether Sir Peter, who never saw it, or Dr. Powel, who translated the same into English out of Welsh. And whereas Sir Peter Leicester in the 39 and 40 pages of his second Reply, objects against my third reason, and says, that in the said dead to the Nuns of Bolington, the not adding the words of Henrici Regis nunc, shows clearly it is meant of Hen. I. In that he says very true, for the words sicut fuit tempore Regis Henrici, do certainly relate to King Henry the first's time, because when this dead was made, there had been no other King Henry; but it shows clearly, that this dead was made in King Steven's time; for if it had been made in King Henry the seconds time, it would have said, sicut fuit tempore Regis Henrici primi, or else it would have used some other expression, to distinguish King Henry the I. from King Henry the II. the then King. And if that dead was made in King Steven's time, then my said Argument is still in force; for King Steven dyed three years before Bertred was born. And I think I may securely say, it will be hard for any one to show me the like expression to that of sicut fuit tempore Henrici Regis, in any dead, that he can make appear was made by a Subject in the time of King Henry the II. or any other later King Henry, or in the time of any other King in the like Case.  
But besides these Objections against my said three reasons, Sir Peter Leicester knowing very well,( according to what he did once aclowledge in the 49 page. of his Answer to my Defence of Amicia) that if there was any great number of years betwixt the age of Hugh Cyveliok, and his Wife Bertred, a man might then reasonably suppose, that the said Earl had a former Wife, doth labour very much to prove, there was no great difference of age betwixt them, and to that purpose he gives us this Record.  

Scacearium apud Westminster.  
In Rotulo de Dominabus Pueris,& Puellis, de anno 31. Hen. 2. in Custodia Rememoratoris Regis existent, continetur( inter alia) ut sequitur, &c.  
come. Lincoln.  
Balteslawe-Wapentak.  
MAtilda Comitissa Cestriae est de donatione D●●i●i Regis:& fuit filia Roberti Comitis Glocestriae filii Regis Henrici primi,& est Lannorum,& amplius: Hujus villae recepit Comitissa his VIII. annis: Ipsa tenet Wadinton in dote de feodo Comitis Cestriae:& firma est XXII. libr. per annum: dict a villa valet per annum XL. lib. cum hoc instauramento, scilicet, II. Carucis, IIII. Vaccis, I. Tauro, IIII. suibus, I. verre, D. ovibus, quae ibi sunt— &c.  
come. Lincoln.  
Jeretre Wapentak.  
Bertrea Comitissa, filia Comitis de Evereous, uxor Hugonis Comitis Cestriae, est de donatione Domini Regis;& est xxix. annorum Terra quam Comitissa habet, xl. lib. 
My Copy is Maritagium& does ejus sunt ultrà mere.  Maritagium;& defectus sunt ultrà mere, ideo nesciunt Juratores quid valeant. Dominus Rex praecepit, quod ipsa haberet xl. libratas terrae Domini sui in Beltesford, Hemmingly,& Duninton: licet non habuit nisi xxxv. libratas,& x. solidatas. Quia( ut dicunt) dicta terra non potest plus valere cum Instauramento quod Comitissa ibi recepit; scilicet, v. Carucis, cccxli. ovibus, x. suibus, i, verre. said si in Duninton apponerentur cc. oves,& x. sues,& i. verris, tunc valeret.   
And from this Record, Sir Peter Leicester tells us, that it clearly appears that the said Matilda or maud was born, anno, 1135. and was aged fifty years, anno Domini, 1185. 31 Hen. 2. and that therefore Earl of Hugh could not be born till the year 1150. at soonest, and so could be but about six( or seven) years older than his Wife Bertred; and hereupon he says that he hath laid this Argument asleep for ever, which was brought from their great difference in age.  
To which I answer, that this Argument is so far from proving clearly what Sir Peter Leicester doth suppose it to prove, that it is of no force at all; for I shall yet make it manifest to all, that Hugh Cyveliok was very many years elder than his Wife Bertred, and that Matilda her self was also of a far greater age than Sir Peter Leicester from this Record doth suppose her to be; and therefore besides those three Reasons which I have formerly given, I shall also give these several Reasons to make good what I do here say:  
And first, I desire the Reader to observe, that though this Record tell us, that the age of Bertred was twenty nine years, in the 31 year of King Henry the Second, yet it doth not say that Matilda was aged fifty years at that time, but that she was then aged fifty years and more, which it might say, and say true, if the said Matilda had been ninety years of age 〈◇〉 that time.  
And Secondly, I shall appeal to those who are versed in these matters, whether it be any strange thing to find a person said to be aged thirty years and more, or forty years and more, when they are really aged many years more, than that number of years which is particularly mentioned, and especially when the weaker Sex is concerned, and the age of the Party not material to the Case in hand.  
Thirdly, I desire the Reader to observe, how this new Argument of Sir Peter's doth clash with what he hath said before; for in the 89 page. of his first Reply, he supposeth Earl Hugh either to be born in the year 1145. or in the year 1143. The first of which reckonings if Matilda was born in the year 1135. makes him to be born when his Mother was but ten years old, and the second reckoning makes him to be born, when his Mother was but 8 years old, so little did Sir Peter consider what he hath formerly said.  
Fourthly, What likelihood can there be, that Matilda was born in the year, 1135. since we find that she and her Son Earl Hugh sealed the dead of S●●●inghale in the life-time of Eustace the Constable, who, as appears before, was slain in the year, 1157. whereas by that reckoning Matilda her self could not have been one and twenty years of age, when she and her Son seared that dead of Stivinghale, unless that dead was sealed but about a year before the death of the said Eustace; for from the year, 1135. in which Sir Peter supposeth Matilda to be born to the year 1157. in which Eustace was slain, is but two and twenty years.  
Fifthly, It is not likely that Matilda was so young as Sir Peter did conceive her to be, because as you may see in Mr. Selden's Titles of Honor, printed at London, 1631. pag. 647. out of an old Rithmical Story attributed to one Robert of Gloucester, the Father and Mother of the said Matilda were married in the year, 1109. The Verses concerning the said Marriage are many, but the words as to the time of the Marriage are these: 
This was End leave hundred year and in the nith year right  
After that ure Louerd was in his moder a hight.  Now if the said Matilda was born in the year, 1135. she then was not born till six and twenty years after the Marriage of her Father and Mother, which though possible, is yet very improbable so to be; indeed Stow in his Annals printed at London, 163.1. pag. 137.50. b. makes this Marriage in the year 1110. but he there mistakes the Christian Name of the Wife of the said Robert Earl of Gloucester, and calls her maud instead of Mabel; and for that reason, as also because the Author of the said Rithmical Story was first in time, he ought to be credited in this Point before Mr. Stow; however it could make but one year difference in time.  
Sixthly, If the said maud, according to Sir Peter's fancy, was not born till the year, 1135. then, as Sir Peter himself confesseth in his Peroratio, pag. 78. Earl Hugh could not be imagined to be born till the year, 1150. at soonest; and if he was not born till the said year, 1150. he then would have been but one and thirty years of age, when he died; for as you may see in Sir Peter's Historical Antiquities, pag. 134. he died in the year 1181. Now what likelihood is there that this Earl Hugh should be but one and thirty years of age when he died, seeing he had his Daughter Amicia married in his life-time to Ralph Mainwaring, and none knows how many years before the death of the said Earl.  
Seventhly Speed in his History of Great-Brittain, printed 1632. pag. 473. a. Daniel in his Collection of the History of England, pag. 62. Polydore Virgil in his Histor. Anglic. put out by Thysius, and printed at Leyden, 1651. pag. 264. mat. Paris, put out by Dr. Wats, and printed at London, 1640. p. 78. Henry huntingdon who lived in King Stephen's time printed at Frankfurt, 1601. pag. 390. Roger Hoveden( who was, as Vossius says, Inter Domesticos Regis Henrici secundi) in the same Edition at Frankfurt, p. 485. John Prior of Hagulstad, or Hexham, who lived in Henry the seconds time, col. 269. John Brompton, col. 1030,( which two last were printed at London, 1652,) and Gulielmus Neubrigensis, who lived in King Richard the First, and King John's time, in that Edition printed at Heidelberg, 1587. p. 363. and Ordericus Vitalis, who lived in King Stephen's time. lib. 13. Eccles. Hist. pag. 921. and the Author of the Treatise called Chronica Normanniae, p. 978. do some of them in the year, 1141. and some of them sooner,( but occasionally onely) take notice of that relation of Father in Law, and Son in Law that was betwixt Robert Earl of Gloucester, and Randle Earl of Chester, and Sir Peter himself, as we may see in his Historical Antiquities, p. 121. and in his Answer to the Defence of Amicia, p. 48 and 49. doth aclowledge that some Authors do speak of that Relation, in the year 1139. Now the said Randle Earl of Chester, as Sir Peter says in his Historical Antiquities, was a Gallant Man at Arms, and took King Stephen prisoner in the year 1141. and he also was in the Field, and in very great danger in the year 1136. as we may see in the History written by Simeon Dunelmensis, and continued by John Prior of Hagulstad, col. 259. What likelihood therefore is there that he should be Husband to the said maud in the year 1139. which Sir Peter confesseth he was, if she was not born till the year 1135. especially considering that none of the said Authors( that I can find) do tell us the time of their Marriage, or take any notice that she was a Child: Nay Mr. Daniel is so far from that, that he says the Earl of Chester left his Brother and Wife within the said Castle, to defend it, but the Earl of Chester's name is there misprinted, instead of Randle, he being called Ralph.  
Eighthly, Sir Peter Leicester in his Historical Antiquities, p. 131 and 132. gives us this dead following in these very words;  
ROberto Dei gratia Lincolniensi Episcopo,& Capitulo sanctae Ecclesiae Lincolniae, totique Clero illius Praesulatus, Hugo comes Cestriae Salutem. Necnon&& Constabulario,& Dapifero,& Baronibus,& Ministris,& Famulis,& Homiinbus suis omnibus, tam Cleris, quam Laicis, salutem similiter, vos scire volo, me concessisse& confirmasse sancti-monialibus de Grenefelt illam terram quam Willielmus filius Otuheri eis in Elemosynam perpetuam dedit; quam vero pater meus Comes Ranulphus eis concessit Carta sua confirmatam: Ea propter volo& praecipio, quod praefatae sanctimoniales terram illam perenniter been& quiet,& libere habeant& possideant; Testibus Matilda Comitissa master mea, Simone silio Willielmi, Rogero Capellano, Ricard Capellano& aliis multis; Apud Beltesford valet.  
Now this dead being made by Earl Hugh without his Mother Matilda joining with him( she being only Witness to the said dead) and it being sealed only with the Earls Seal( which said Seal Sir Peter doth there describe) it will not I suppose be denied but that the said Earl was then at age when he sealed the said dead; now there being at the time of the making of the said dead a Robert Bishop of lincoln living, and there being no Robert who was Bishop of lincoln during any of the time that the said Hugh was Earl, except Robert de Chis●ey, surnamed by some de Querceto, by others Chesueto( which as Bishop Godwin says was all one, the one being drawn from the French, the other Latin, both signifying a Grove of Oaks) it will thereupon follow that this dead was made whilst the said Robert de Chisuey was alive; now Gulielmus Nubrigensis printed at Heidelberg, 1587. pag. 398. and mat. Westminster printed at London, 1570. part. 2. pag. 48. and several others tells us, that this Robert de Chisuey died in the year 1167. and Bishop Godwin, in that Edition printed at London, 1615. pag. 293. tells us the very day, and says it was January 8. 1167. And John Brompton, col. 1059. says it was in the 14 of Hen. 2. which agrees right with Bishop Godwin, if he reckon according to the Church of Englands Account; Now if the said Matilda had been born in the year 1135. according to Sir Peter's fancy, she would have been but about 32 years of age in the year 1167. If therefore that dead had been made at the very time of the death of the said Bishop( which there is no reason to believe it was) yet the said Hugh being then at age, if his Mother had been born in the year, 1135. she must have had her Son Hugh when she her self was but about eleven years old, which is unreasonable to imagine, and therefore we may safely conclude she was born many years before.  
Ninthly, If you look into the first Part of Sir William Dugdale's Baronage of England, pag. 40. we shall find him speaking of a Record( of which I have now a Copy) which shows, that in 10 Hen. 2. Hugh Cyveliok was one of those Temporal Lords who came to an accord with the King for their ancient Liberties. Now the tenth year of King Henry the Second falling out part of it in the year 1163. and part of it in the year 1164.( in which latter year the said Record is dated) the said Matilda, if she had been born in the year 1135. would have been then but about Nine and twenty years old; and who can imagine that any man should have been employed or mentioned in so great a Concern, whose Mother was then no more than Nine and twenty years of age.  
Tenthly, If we look in that Treatise which is called Gesta Stephani Regis, pag. 952. which Treatise was written by a Contemporary, though an unknown Author, and is bound up with Ordericus Vitalis in that Edition printed at Paris, 1619. Although the said Treatise be imperfect, and have two leaves wanting in that very place, yet we may there find enough to show that the said Matilda( who was the only Wife of the said Earl Randle) must need be born long before the year 1135. for as appears there, a little before the besieging of lincoln Castle( which Siege as appears by other Authors, as also by Sir Peter Leicester in his Historical Antiquities, pag. 121& 122. was in the year 1141.) the said Earl of Chester was in lincoln Castle with his Wife and Sons; and how could the said Earl at that time have Sons, if Matilda, who was his only Wife was then but six years of age; The words of the said Treatise are these;  
Plurimo itaque evoluto tempore, cum nec comes solito devotiùs Regi pareret, cumque in Lincolnensi 
Note.  cum uxore& filiis commorans castello, civibus& affinibus dira injungere, cives Regi privatim& occultè nu●c●is destinatis, ut ad Comitem cum svorum suffragiis obsidendum quam festinus adesset, cum multa supplicatione saepiùs mandarunt. Rex autem repent& improvisè adveniens, à civibus susceptus, castellum evacuatum penèinvenit; exceptis uxore& fratre Comitis, paucisque eorum suffraganeis, quos idem Rege civitatem subeunte ibi relinquens, vix à castello solus effugit. Rege itaque constanter& animose castellum obsidente, quique includebantur balistis,& aliis diversi studii machinis gravissimè infestante, Comes Cestriae, mandatis Roberto Comite Glaorniae, said& Milone,& omnibus, qui se in Regem armarant; said& Walensium gravi secum& intolerabili conducta multitudine, unà omnes conspiratione, imò& concordi animo ad Regem expugnandum pariter convenerunt. Erat autem festivus Purificationis dies, &c.  
So that you here see that the same Comes or Earl, who is said to be then in Lincoln Castle, cum uxore& filiis, is the same Earl, that fled out of the Castle, and left there his Wife and Brother, and came again with several men out of Cheshire and Wales, and that the said Earl who did so was the Earl of Chester, we find in most Historians, and also in Sir Peter Leicester's Historical Antiquities, pag. 122. so that hence also it is very clear that Matilda was not born in the year 1135. for she could not be Mother of several Children when she was but about six years of age.  
Eleventhly, William Malmesbury in that Edition printed at Frankfurt, 1601. in the second Book of that which he calls his Historia Novella, pag. 186. in the year, 1142. thus writes, Rex Stephanus ante Natale à Lindocolina provincia pacifice abcesserat, Comitemque Cestrensem,& ejus fratrem honoribus auxerat. Is Comes filiam Comitis Glocestrensis, 
Note.  jamdudum a tempore Regis Henrici duxerat. Now this Author as to his Testimony is beyond all exception, for he lived in the time of the said Earl of Chester and Ma●de, and cannot be supposed to be ignorant when their Marriage was; for he was well known to Robert Earl of gloucester, Father of the said Maud, and dedicated his said Book called Historia Novella, as also his Book de Gestis Regum Anglorum, to the said Earl; and as his words cannot possibly be otherwise construed than so, as to make the said Marriage to be at the least in the year, 1135.( King Henry the First dying the second of December in that year) so no one can imagine but that the said Maud was born long before that year, there being no probability that Randle Earl of Chester, who was so brave a Man, should mary a new born Child; but there is no doubt but that the meaning of those words are, that the said Randle married the said maud some years before the death of King Henry the First, and consequently before the time that Sir Peter doth suppose the said maud to be born; for as Mr. Goldman tells us in his Dictionary, the Letter A, prima significatione connotat terminum loci unde aliquid movetur, ut redeo a villa, &c. hinc ad alia transfertur, ut notet causam agentem, unde sit motus,& tempus, unde proceditur,& declaratur per cum; ut, a parvo te novi, h. e. cum parvus esses. And accordingly we say in the English Tongue, I knew such a one from a Child,( that is) I knew him when he was a Child, so that the aforesaid expression of William of Malmesbury, doth not exclude, but include some of the time of King Henry the I.  
Twelfthly, Gulielmus Gemiticensis, who lived in the times of William the Conqueror, William Rufus, King Henry the I. and some part of King Steven, and consequently was living when the said Matilda was married, will give us very good satisfaction in the point in hand; this Willielmus Gemiticensis, as you may see in Vossius's Book, de Historicis Latinis, and in Willielmus Gemiticensis's own Books, did writ six Books de Gestis Normannorum, and dedicate them to William the Conqueror, and did afterwards add a 7th Book, in which he did writ some little of William Rufus, but more largely of King Henry the I. whose death( which happened Decemb. 2. 1135.) he declares, but writes of nothing later than the year 1137. and in that year he only speaks of the death of some great persons, and some few inconsiderable things. Now it cannot( as I think) be probably supposed, that this Gulielmus Gemiticensis could be less than 30 years of age, when he had finished his first six Books de gestis Normannorum, and dedicated them to William the Conqueror: And if that happened in the last year of the said King William, the said Wilhelmus Gemeticensis would be 30 years of age in the year 1087.( for in that year William the Conqueror dyed) and by this computation the said Gulielm. Gemit. would be 80 years of age, when he finished his last Book in the year 1137. which is the utmost time that we find him to writ. Now the said Wilhelmus Gemiticensis, in that Edition put out by Mr. Cambden, and printed at Frankfurt, 1603 in his last Book, and 38 Chapter, in that very Chapter where he tells us of the death of King Henry the I. and how King Stephen succeeded him,( which things happened in the year 1135.) doth thus writ:  
Mortuo autem Ranulpho( this was the first Earl Randle of Chester) successit ei item Ranulphus filius ejus, vir in rebus bellicis strenuous. Hujus autem Ranulphi sororem duxit Richardus filius Gisleberti, ex qua suscepit trees filios, Ipse denique Richardus peremptus est à Walensibus ut praefixum est, Praedictus autem Ranulphus Comes accepit uxorem Mathildem filiam Roberti Comitis Glocestriae, ex qua genuit duos filios 
Note.  Hugonem& Richardum.  
Now how can it be imagined, that this old Wilhelmus Gemiticensis, who did writ but to 1137, should in the same Chapter that he tells us of the death of King Henry the I.( which happened in the year 1135.) tell us of Hugh and Richard, the two Sons of the said Matilda, if the said Matilda was not born till the year 1135.  
And these words of Wilhelmus Gemiticensis, besides what they prove themselves, do also strongly confirm what Caradocus Lancaruensis( the before mentioned contemporary Author) had formerly said; For if the said Hugh, the elder of those Sons, was five years old in that year, that the said Gulielmus Gemiticensis doth mention the said Hugh and his younger Brother Richard, the said Hugh would then be as old as I suppose him to be, in that year in which the said Caradocus says that the said Hugh fortified his Castle of Cymaron, and wan Melyenith to himself.  
So that there is no doubt at all, but that Hugh Cyvelioc himself was several years older, than Sir Peter Leicester doth suppose Matilda the Mother of the said Hugh Cyvelioc to be, and by consequence there must be a vast difference betwixt the age of the said Hugh, and the said Bertred, who was second Wife of the said Hugh.  
Baddeley, May 22. 1677.  
FINIS.