A REPLY TO AN ANSWER To the DEFENCE of AMICIA, Daughter of HUGH CYVELIOK EARL of Chester.  
Wherein it is Proved, That the REASONS Alleged by Sir Peter Leicester. In his former Book, and also in his said Answer, concerning the Illegitimacy of the said Amicia, are invalid, and of no weight at all.  
By Sir Thomas Mainwating of Peover in CHESHIRE, Baronet.  
London, Printed for S. Lowndes over against Exeter-House in the Strand. 1673.   

TO S r PETER LEICESTER, BARONET.  
THe Reasons which you and I have alleged for and against Amicia, being now made public, all Persons may easily judge, whether, (as you believe) it was only the zeal of my opinion touching her Legitimacy, which caused me to endeavour to incline the world to concur with me therein, or that what I said was supported with just Grounds and Reasons; and I doubt not but those of our County that are understanding Persons, will as easily discern from some of your omissions, (although I forbear publicly to take notice of them) that it was something else besides your great love to Truth (pretended by your alleging the old Rule of Aristotle,) which occasioned you thus to asperse your deceased Grandmother. But however things are, you have no reason to suspect any animosities betwixt us, I having in my first Book (as I hope I shall also do in this) endeavoured to avoid all expressions, which I did conceive might be offensive, and I am confident you have no just cause to be angry with me, for endeavouring to defend a deceased Grandmother whom I suppose to be very much injured by you.  
I know not how far your memory may fail you therein, but I am sure I have several times moved you (and particularly came once purposely to you to Tabley) to desire that you would be contented to deliver what you did conceit concerning Amicia, as an uncertainty only, (as you had done that of Roger, Son of Hugh Cyveliok) and did at all those times assure you that if you would so do, and withal, express that some Judges and Heralds were of a different judgement from you, that I would never trouble you or the Reader with any Lines of mine. And the reason why I desired you thus to do, was, because the Reader would certainly conclude Amicia to be a Bastard, though no reasons were alleged, if he saw one who was descended of her, to declare her illegitimate in Print, and did not know that some Learned Men were of a different opinion; but I could not possibly prevail with you herein. And although what you allege be true, that there is no medium betwixt being a Bastard and Legitimate, but that a Man must absolutely be the one or the other, yet, as to the Writer of an History, the case may be different; for he may be certain, that some, concerning whom he writes, may be Legitimate, and others may be Bastards, and accordingly he aught so to place them; but it is possible there may be some which he is uncertain, whether they be Bastards or not; and in that case the Historian ought to express it doubtfully, and not to take upon him absolutely to determine the point upon uncertain grounds.  
As to your saying in the fourth page of your Answer, in the Margin, that you apprehend not why I call Sir Ralph Mainwaring, Chief Justice of Chester, when in those Ages there was only one Judge at a time there.  
My reason wherefore I so did, was because I found that Reginald Grace, who was Judge of Chester, had taken unto him as an Associate, Ralph Hegham, in the thirteenth year of King Edward the I as appears page 172. of your Historical Antiquities: as also, because I found in your said Book, before the time of Sir Ralph Mainwaring, two Deeds of Randle de Gernoniis, (which seemed to imply, that there had been sometimes more Justices of Chester than one at a time,) the one of which as appears, page 128. was directed, Constabulario, Dapifero, Baronibus, JUSTICIARIIS, etc. and the other, as you may see, page 160. was directed, Episcopo Cestriae, Dapifero, Baronibus, JUSTICIARIIS, etc. so that I hope, I am justifiable herein.  
And though it was not usual till after ages, to have two Justices of Chester at one time, and that I have not yet found, that in the time of Ralph Mainwaring, there was any Justice of Chester, but the said Ralph, yet it being possible for the reasons aforesaid, that there might be more than one at a time; I did therefore call the said Ralph, Chief Justice, to show if there were then two, that he was the chief of them, because he acted as Justice of Chester alone, as will thus appear from a Roll of ancient Charts, called Doomsday, remaining in the Castle of Chester, amongst the Records there.  Leuca quae fuit uxor Ranulphi de Kingesleigh veniens in pleno Com. Cestriae coram Radulpho de Mainwaring tunc Justiciario Cestriae & Baronibus, etc. quiet. clam. Richardo de Kingesleigh totam villant de Bertherton unde dotata fuit. 
And whereas you pretend page 4 and 5. of your Answer, (which is the only example which you bring to prove what you there allege) that Geffrey de Dutton, who made the Original Deed of Nether-Tabley had this word Domino, sometimes prefixed to his Name, when he was a Witness, and yet was no Knight; and thence would infer, that the word Dominus is no sure rule, to be always understood of a Knight. I shall before I give an answer unto what you say, transcribe the said Deed out of your Historical Antiquities, as I find it in the 355 page of your said Book.  Sciant praesentes & futuri, quod ego Galfridus de Dutton dedi & concessi & hac praesenti Charta mea confirmavi Margaretae siliae meae, pro homagio & servitio suo totam villam meam, quae vocatur Parva-Tabley, sine ullo retenemento, cum Homagiis & Servitiis, cum Villenagiis, cum Boscis, cum Planis, cum Pratis, & Pascuis, cum Moris & Mariscis, cum Aquis & Molendinis, cum Viis & Semitis, cum omnibus locis praedictae Villae pertinentibus: Tenendam & habendam sibi Margaretae, & Haeredibus suis, de me Galfrido, & Haeredibus meis, liberè quiet, & pacisicè, cum omnibus libertatibus, & Aysiamentis praedictae villae pertinentibus: Faciendo inde mihiforinsecum servitium, quantum pertinet ad duas Bovatas terrae,, unde trigint a Bovatae Terrae faciunt Feodum unius Militis, & faciendo servitium de Hauthoner quantum pertinet ad praedictam villam, pro omni seculari servitio, consuetudine, & demanda, mihi & Haeredibus meis pertinente. Et ego Galfridus & Haeredes mei praedictam villam, ut praedictum est, praedictae Margaretae & haered. suis, contra omnes homines & faeminas in perpetuum warrantizabimus Et ad majorem hujus rei securitatem huic praesenti scripto Sigillum apposui meum. Hiis Testibus, Domino Thoma de Dutton, Domino Galfrido de Dutton, Hugone de Limb, Thoma fratre ejus, Ricardo de Aston, Rogero de Toft, Willielmo de Waleton, & multis aliis. 
Now this Geffrey de Dutton, being that person who did give Little-Tabley, (now called Nether-Tabley, and the principal Seat of your Family) unto Margaret his Daughter and Heir, who first was married to Robert de Denbigh, and afterwards to Sir Nicholas Leicester, and so brought Nether-Tabley unto the Leicester's; A Man would think that you should be very well acquainted with all the Deeds that the said Geffrey made, which are in your custody, and et I doubt not but to make it appear, that you have run into several very gross errors, concerning that Geffrey de Dutton, who made the said Deed; For first, page 4 and 5. of your Answer, you tell us (which is but your own fancy) that the word Dominus was applied to the better sort of Gentlemen in those ages who were no Knights, and that in those elder Ages it was sometimes prefixed, and oftener omitted even to the same Men; as Domino Galfrido de Dutton, who in the Original Chart of Nether-Tabley writes himself only— Ego Galfridus de Dutton dedi, etc. and several other Deeds you have seen of the same person (who you say was lineal Ancestor to Warburton of Arley) wherein you dare affirm among the Witnesses subscribed, he hath five times and more the word Dominus omitted, for once that we find it prefixed to his name; and you are very confident, was not in him, as many others also, to be construed any more than Master Geffrey Dutton, and that he was no Knight;  
To answer which, I shall thus far agree with you, That I believe the said Geffrey Dutton (Son of Geffrey, Son of Adam) who made the said Deed of Little or Nether Tabley was no Knight, But I cannot imagine how it is possible that the said Geffrey de Dutton to that or any other Deeds of his own, could have his Name either with the word domino, or without, either five times for once, or at all, amongst the witnesses subscribed, unless you fancy, that he was a Witness to his own Deeds, which is as gross a thing as I have known; But besides this, you run into another error, and when you do indeed find the word dominus prefixed to the name of Geffrey de Dutton as a Witness to other men's Deeds, you will needs have that Dominus Galfridus de Dutton to be him, who made the said Deed of Nether Tabley, whereas it was not he, but his Father, as I shall presently make very manifest; For it is clear that you have seen no deed made by any Geffrey de Dutton, in which the word dominus is used by the party himself, because, you tell us p. 5 & 6. (but erroneously also, as will anon appear) that the word dominus is never used in old Deeds by the party himself, but where it is joined with another word, as Ego Willielmus Manwaring Dominus de Pever, Ego Robertus dominus Moaldiae; and also, p. 5. you only speak of his Name being subscribed as a Witness, so that all the Proof which you have of a Dominus Galfridus de Dutton is from his being called so by other persons in other men's Deeds: Now, it appearing in your Historical Antiquities, page 250. that Hugh de Dutton, Son of Hugh, Son of Hodard, had a second Son named Adam de Dutton, (from whom you say the Warburtons' of Arley are descended) and the said Adam de Dutton as appears in your said Book, page 384. having issue a Son owned by you to be Sir Geffrey Dutton, which Sir Geffrey, as you confess, page 354 & 355. had issue Geffrey Dutton, who made the said Deed of Tabley, the said Sir Geffrey Dutton the Father being then living, and a Witness to the said Deed, you when you find a Dominus Galfridus de Dutton to be a Witness to any Deed, will not own it (as you ought to do) to be Sir Geffrey Dutton Son of Adam, who indeed was a Knight, but you will have it to be Geffrey Dutton the Grandson of Adam, who was no Knight; But though perhaps you may by such devises as these, impose upon some silly Readers, yet certainly no intelligent person will believe what you say concerning the same.  
Also, I might here ask you, whether the word Dominus when it is prefixed to the name of a person, who is not a Clergyman, doth prove him certainly to be a Knight, or not? If it do, Why will not you call every Layman a Knight, that hath it so prefixed? and if it do not, Why do you in your Historical Antiquities p. 330. & 332. own Sir Thomas Mainwaring of Warmincham, upon the like proof, to be a Knight? And Why (as appears in the 8 Page of your Answer to my Defence of Amicia) did you fully intent to have called Ralph Mainwaring, Roger Mainwaring and William Mainwaring, all Knights, but that you know not by what fate it was forgotten? And, Why do you all along in your later Book acknowledge them to be Knights?  
And whereas you say, p. 5 & 6. that, the word Dominus is never used in old Deeds, by the party himself, but when it is joined with another word, as Ego Willielmus Mainwaring Dominus de Pever, Ego Robertus Dominus Moaldiae, but is only used when the party is subscribed as a witness; Though that be true for the most part, yet it doth not always hold, as will appear by two Deeds of Sir Thomas Mainwarings of Warmincham, which I have by me, sealed with two Bars in Green-wax, written about thus, S. Tom le Maynwarig; which Deeds you have seen, and are as followeth;  
Sciant praesentes & futuri quod ego Dominus Thomas de Menylgaring dedi concessi & hac praesenti carta mea confirmavi Hamoni filio Johannis de Bruerio pro homagio & servitio suo quinque acras terrae in Villa de Cogishull, illas, scilicet, quas de me prius tenuit ad terminum, cum aumento perficiendi quinque acras integras sine impedimento, & sicut sepe fossato metis & bundis circueuntur & continentur, & cum omnibus aliis pertinentiis suis, & pro tribus marcis & dimid. argenti, quas mihi dedit praemanibus: Habendum & tenendum de dicto Domino Thoma & haeredibus suis, dicto Hamoni & haeredibus suis & assignatis, libere, quiet, integre, hereditary, imperpetuum, in bosco, in plano, in pratis, in pascuis, in viis, in semitis, in aquis, in moris, in omnibus communibus, & asyamentis Villae de Cokishull ubique pertinentibus: Reddendo inde annuatim dicto Domino Thome & haeredibus suis duos solidos & sex denarios ad duos anni terminos, videlicet, ad Nativitatem Sancti Johannis Baptistae quindecem denarios, & ad festum Sancti Martini in yeme quindecem denarios pro omni servitio seculari, exactione & demanda mihi & haeredibus meis pertinentibus: Et ego vero dictus Dominus Thomas & haeredes mei dicto Hamoni & haeredibus suis & assignatis totas predict as quinque acras terrae cum omnibus pertinentiis suis sicut praenotatum est contra omnes homines & foeminas warantizabimus & defendemus imperpetuum. In hujus rei testimonium huic praesenti carta● sigillum meum apposui, Hiis Testibus, Hugone de Duram, Willielmo Bernard tunc Seneschallo domini Thomae de Menylgaring, Richardo Starkye, Roberto de Wynninton, Ranulpho de Berthorton, Thoma de Queloc, Johanne de Merbury, Rogero clerico, & aliis.  
Sciant praesentes & futuri quod ego Dominus Thomas de Menylgaring dedi concessi & hac praesenti carta mea confirmavi Roberto de Bexeckne pro homagio & servitio totam illam terram quam mercatus fuit de Hugone de Berdeney sicut sepe & fossato circuitur & includitur & metis & bundis continetur cum omnibus pertinentiis suis: Habendum & tenendum de me & haeredibus meis & assignatis dicto Roberto & haeredibus suis & assignatis, libere, quiet, integre, hereditary, in pace, bene, in bosco, in plano, in aquis, in viis, in semitis, in pratis, in pasturis, cum housbold & haybold, & tacfre, de omnibus propriis porcis suis infra omnes metas de Cokishull, & cum omnibus aliis communibus & esyamentis praedictae villae spectantibus: Reddendo inde annuatim mihi & haeredibus meis & meis assignatis quindecem denarios argenti ad duos anni terminos, videlicet ad nativitatem sancti Johannis Baptistae septem denarios & obolum & ad festum sancti Martini in yeme septem denarios & obolum pro omnibus servitiis secularibus exactionibus & demandis praedictae terrae pertinentibus: Et ego vero Dominus Thomas de Menilgaring & haeredes mei & assignati mei dicto Roberto & haeredibus suis & assignatis totam praedictam terram sicut sepe & fossato circuitur & includitur, & sicut proenotatum est contra omnes homines & faeminas imperpetuum warrantizabimus & defendemus: Pro hac autem donatione concessione & cartae meae confirmatione dedit mihi dictus Robertus quatuor solidos argenti praemanibus: In cujus rei testimonium huic praesenti cartae sigillum meum apposui: Hiis testibus, Richardo Starkey, Willielmo Bernard tunc Seneschallo Domini Thomae de Menilgaring, Johanne de Merbury, Hugone de eadem, Hugone silio Hamonis de Comberbach, Ad. de Acton, Roberto de Burwys, Rogero Clerico, & aliis.  
And as to what you say, page 8. of your Answer, that as the word Sir, is in common discourse applicable to persons of quality from the highest to the lowest in its larger notion, so Dominus is applicable to any Knight or Gentleman, as if you should say, Domine quaeso, num hoc verum est quod dieo, neene?  
I grant it to be true, but then as you observe, the word Sir, or the word Dominus must only so be taken in its larger notion, but that is so far from weakening what I say, that it doth confirm it; For though if I speak to one whose name is Peter, that is but a Gentleman, I may properly use the word Sir to him, yet I cannot properly join the word Sir to his name, and call him Sir Peter, unless the said person be either a Baronet or a Knight, and that is the case in these old Deeds, where the word Dominus is prefixed to the names of the said Knights.  
Also, if the word Dominus do only signify Master, (as you would have it) What is the reason, that in some Deeds it is only put before the names of some of the witnesses, and not before the names of others? although those other persons to whose names it is not put, many times are Lords of several Manors, and persons of very great Estate.  
As to what you allege, page 6. of your Arswer to my defence of Amicia, that in the 27 page of my said Defence, Radulfus de Meidnilwaring after his Daughter Bertrey was marriageable is there named without his Title of Dominus; You yourself have answered that a little before, by confessing (though the word Domino is usually set to the name of such a person when he is named a witness) that the word Dominus is never used by the party himself, but where it is joined with another word, as Ego Willielmus Mainwaring Dominus de Peover, Ego Rogerus Dominus Moaldiae, which though for the most part it be very true, yet I have showed that it doth not ever hold; But instead of observing that you had given a full answer to this objection of your own, you strangely fancy, that I would possibly say, that that Deed was made before the said Ralph was Justice of Chester; whereas in the 74 page of my said Book, I had told you, that the said Deed was so far from being made before the said Ralph was Justice of Chester, that it was made after he had parted with the said Office; And thus you became guilty of a double levity, first, in making an objection, which you yourself had answered but in the preceding page, and then in framing an answer thereto for me, directly contrary to what I had formerly said.  
And whereas you say, page 8. that you had rather give to any, especially to my Family, more than is due, then less; I could wish I had just cause to be of that opinion; For I am sure you have omitted in our Descent, not only Ranulfus, who is nominated in Doomsday Book, but also Richard Mesnilwaren mentioned in your Historical Antiquities, pag● 〈◊〉 Roger de Menilgarin, and 
* Note. That page. 117. of your Historical Antiquities, you have placed Randle before William, contrary to what you have done Pa. 341. and contrary to Monasticon Anglicanum. Par. 1. Pa. 985.  William and Randle his Sons, spoken of by you page 341. Roger de Menilgarin or Mainwaring, named by you page 362. Sir Ralph Mainwaring and Sir Roger Mainwaring his Son, both taken notice of by you pa. 330. and this upon a pretence, that they were Lords of Warmincham, whereas I am confident you will not deny but that the Mainwaring of Warmincham were also owners of Over-Peover or the most part thereof, until Sir Roger Mainwaring gave Peover to his younger Son Sir William Mainwaring, and it was not long after, that the Mainwaring of Peover became Heirs male to those Mainwaring of Warmincham, Sir Warine Mainwaring, Son of Sir Thomas, Son of the said Sir Roger, dying without issue Male; Also I am sure you denied to do us right in one other particular, when you did it in the like case for another Family, which had not so clear proof for it as mine had.  
As for your new quarrel, (page 9 of your Answer) with the Herald, for giving to Sir Randle Mainwaring my great Grandfather six Barrulets, as his most proper Coat, whereas you say, ever since the time of Sir Roger Mainwaring, aswell the Heirs of the right Line, as also the Mainwaring of Peover (after they became next Heirs Male) have constantly born the two bars, for some hundreds of years; I might reply and tell you, that the Mainwarings, of Peover have not constantly given, Argent, two Bars Gules, since they became Heirs Male to the Mainwaring of Warmincham, as appears by my Deeds; Neither do I think that Mr. Cambden did look upon the Six Barrulets, as a Coat most peculiar to us; for, in his Britannia in his Description of the County of Chester, he names the two Bars as the Coat most proper to our Family, as appears by these words of his, when he writes of Astbury Church, viz. Haec enim perpulchra est, cujus porticus Occidentalis ipsam Ecclesiam, quae sane alta, sua altitudine adaequat, & pyramidem adjunctam habet. In caemeterio duae jacent sepulchrales Militum effigies, in quorum scutis sunt duae directae areolae sive Barrae. Verum cum coloribus suis destituantur non facile quis dixerit fuerintne ex Breretonis, Mainwaringis, vel de Venables, quae clarissimae sunt in vicinia familiae, & ejusmodi Barras variantibus coloribus gentilitiis in clypeis gestant.  
I rather think that my Great Grandfather having a Fancy to that Coat of Six Barrulets more than to that of the two Bars, because the most ancient of our Deeds were sealed therewith, that Mr. Cambden gave him liberty to bear either the one or the other, which I see not but it might be done, being our Family had for several generations usually born the one, and the other had been born by our Ancestor, and had never been used by any other Family, and I am sure, though you be so captious with us, that you yourself have of late years given a different Crest, from what had for a long time been born by your Predecessors, because you found a more ancient Crest in some of your Seals: And whereas you instance in the great Suit, betwixt Scroop and Grosvenour in the Marshal's Court, under Richard the II. concerning the bearing of a Coat of Arms, whereto both challenged a right and propriety by usage, but no other way; You thence rightly infer, that usage makes a right in such cases; but when you say, that usage only makes a right; you are mistaken therein, For (not to mention the case in hand, where a man's Ancestor hath born a Coat, which for sometime hath been laid aside, but never taken up by any other Family) a Man could then have no right to a Coat, which was given him by a King of Arms.  
I am still of opinion, that you have branded several persons in your Book with Bastardy, without any proof thereof, but shall not yet concern myself for any (besides my own Ancestor) except such as you give me just occasion to take notice of; And as for Geva and Richard Bacun's Mother, the first of them is not yet by you proved to be a Bastard, and I shall certainly hereafter make it appear, that the second was no Daughter of Hugh Cyveliok, so that Amicia is like to receive no blow at all; And if they were both Bastards, it would be no prejudice to Amicia, because I have in my former Book fully proved, that the gift to Geva was not a Gift in Free-Marriage, (as that to Amicia was) and you do not pretend at all, that any such gift was made to the Mother of Richard Bacun.  
And whereas you tell me you believe that Geva and the wife of Bacun had never been spoken of, nor suspected, nor doubted of by me, had not the case of Amicia been concerned I can assure you I should have been of the same opinion concerning them, if you had never mentioned Amicia; but if you had not pretended from their Cases, to raise some Arguments against the said Amicia, I should never have troubled myself about them, and therefore I forbear to tell you of all mistakes, except such as the case in hand doth give me just occasion to observe. And whereas you say, page 12. that you think you shall make good what you have alleged, with as much certainty as the nature of the thing and times will admit. And also page 27. that Geva was certainly a Bastard, by as good proof us can possibly be expected in such a case; You do thereby implicitly confess, that you do not make those things appear with any certainty at all.  
I have now done with what you have said concerning my Epistle, and shall now proceed to consider of your Answer to the Book itself; and because you do in several places, again say, what you have said heretofore, I hope the Reader will excuse me, if I be constrained sometimes to repeat the same things, which I also have formerly said.  
In the 14 and 15 pages, you do tell me that I said I would remind you of that which you had formerly been told, viz. Who those Heralds were that gave to Mainwaring of Peover the quartering of the Earl of Chester's Coat, in Queen Elisabeth's time, and withal do say, that I never told you, till long time after that part of your Book was written, which, perhaps may be true, because that part of your Book was written very long since, viz. in the year 1647. but I am sure I have often told you of them, and you have also often seen the Pedigree itself, under the hands of Mr. Cambden, and Mr. Samson Erdeswick; the rest in that place is only the repeating of your former quarrel with them, for suffering us to quarter the Earl of Chester's Coat, but if we can really prove, that we are of the Half Blood, whatever you conceive of it, I suppose all indifferent persons will think it but meet, that we should have the like liberty that all others have in the like case, in these last ages of ours.  
What you say in the 16 and 17 pages, hath been some of it formerly said in your Historical Antiquities, and also in the 15 page of this your Answer, and there is nothing there that is new, but that you only allege, that as to my note of Dukes and Earls to have been anciently Judges of Chester, I should have distinguished the times, for that was not till the Reign of Richard the II. (who made Deputies to act in their stead) before which time there were no such great persons Judges there, nor from Henry the Sevenths' time downwards; But what necessity there was for me particularly to distinguish the times in which those great Dukes and Earls were Judges of Chester, I do not know; For I only instanced in that to show, that the place of Judge of Chester was anciently a place of great repute, and though it was some time after the death of John Scot, before any such great persons were made Judges of Chester, by the Kings of England, and that in all the times of the Earls of Chester, before that Earldom was united to the Crown, there could not be any Dukes or Earls made Judges there, because there were no such persons belonging to the then Earls, (except John Lacie Constable of Chester, who was not made Earl of Lincoln, as appears in your Historical Antiquities page 270. till the 23 of November 1232. which was but four years and upwards before the death of John Scot the last of the said Earls) yet there were ever anciently persons of good quality that were Judges of Chester, and if it had not been always a place of great repute, the Kings of England would never have made such very great persons to have succeeded them therein.  
As to what you allege in the 18, 19, 20, and 21 pages of your Answer, I do not doubt (though you affirm it can never be proved) but that I have already in my former Book, given most persons satisfaction, that Amicia was of the Half-Blood to Earl Randle, by a former wife of Earl Hugh; And whereas you object, that it is more rational to imagine, 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 former Book, pa. 23, 24, and 25. shown that there is no strength in this Argument of yours; And I may here further add, that if you will search for examples, you 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 you 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 die, and leave only issue Female by a 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 Brother will naturally be more kind to those Sisters that are of the Whole-Blood, and about the same age, and bred up with him, than he will be to her that is but his Half-Sister, and much older than himself.  
And whereas you say, pa. 18, and 19 that the expectation of Earl Randle Blundevile's Sisters of the Whole Blood (which I conceive added to their fortunes, whereby they matched to so great persons) could not be much, being grounded upon great uncertainties, since it could not be foreseen (when they married) that their Brother should die without issue, who afterwards married two wives successively, purposely to have issue of his own Body, to inherit his own Lands; I do think if you consider it, you cannot in good earnest believe, that the said Earl Randle Blundevil's four Sisters were married before the said Earl married his first wife, whatever they were when he married his second wife; For, Bertred the Mother of Randle Blundevil being aged but twenty four years when her Husband Earl Hugh died, as appears, Rot. de Dominabus pueris, etc. in Scacc. penes remem. R. sub Tit. Linc. Rot. 1. and the said Randle, as appears in your Historical Antiquities, page 146. being married to Constance the Widow of Geffrey, fourth Son of King Henry the II. and Daughter and Heir of Conan Duke of little Britain, and Earl of Richmond, in the year 1187. at which time the said Bertred was but about Thirty years old; Can any one think that all the five Children of the said Bertred were then married?  
And whereas you say, that it was I who informed you of the three eminent Judges, and four Heralds that were of opinion, that Amicia was Legitimate: If your meaning be, that I was the only person who informed you thereof, I must impute it to the weakness of your memory, which fails you in this particular; For, you had many times seen our Pedigree, attested by Mr. Cambden and Mr. Samson Erdeswick, who did allow her to be a Legitimate Daughter, and several years since, two other Heralds, who are yet living, at Chester did declare to you in my hearing, that she could not be a Bastard, and the one of them then named to you a Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, and a Lord Keeper of the Great Seal of England (both now deceased) who did concur with them therein, and you have also seen an opinion of a Third, Judge under his Hand, together, with Reasons for the same; and though you speak so slightly of the opinions of Judges and Heralds, in comparing them to Hands got to a Petition or Certificate, and pretend it was without hearing the Reasons on the other side; I very well know (though it seems you have forgotten it) that that hand which was obtained, was procured, because you seemed to desire to know his opinion in the case; And I also know that those two Heralds, who at Chester did declare their judgements against you, did then hear all the reasons that you could then allege.  
As to what you say, pa. 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, and part of the 27, in all which you would willingly prove, that the Common-Law is now altered some other way than by Statute, you do but lose your labour, and can never prove the same; For, in that Maxim of the Law, where it is said, That whatsoever was at the Common-Law, and is not ousted or taken away by any Statute, remaineth still; the words ousted or taken away, must needs be taken conjunctively, and must necessarily bear this sense, that the Common-Law still is the same in all points, as it was before, except where taken away by Statute; and if those words should be taken otherwise, then, the meaning would be this, that that part of the Common-Law which doth remain, doth remain, which would be a very strange Maxim; And whereas you heretofore urged some places, to prove, that the Common-Law is altered at this day from what it was in former ages, long after the time of King Henry the II. which you now also urge again in the 24 page of your latter Book; I must give you the same answer which I formerly did, viz. That those places do not prove that the Common-Law at this day doth vary from what it was in former ages, in any particular, but only that it was taken to be otherways in those days, and that it was but just like some Cases in our Reports, which have at several times been adjudged directly contrary to each other; but notwithstanding that, the Common-Law was still the same; And that I might come as near you as I could; I did then acknowledge that though the Common-Law was ever the same, where not altered by Parliament: yet in former ages, they did in some particulars, take the Law to be otherways than they now do; And I did also acknowledge, that if you could prove, that they had done so formerly in this case of Frankmarriage, that it would have taken off much of the strength of my Argument from the words in libero Maritagio, because, that ancient Deeds and Grants (according to what my Lord Coke on Littleton says, fol 8. b. at the bottom) are to be expounded as the Law was taken to be at the time of the Grant: Now these places which you allege, do not prove a change of the Common-Law, in any particular, other than by Statute, but only that the Law was sometimes differently taken in one Age, from what it was in another Age; for in your 24 page, where you cite Coke upon Littleton, fol. 34. Sect. 39 you do not there say, that my Lord Coke's words were, That the Law was different in Glanvile's time in the particular you there mention, from what it is now; but you say, that he saith that in ancient times, as it appears by Glanvile, lib. 6. cap. 1. it was taken (that is, the Law 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 holdeth, which is) That a Man may Endow his Wife ad Ostium Ecclesiae of his whole Land, or of the half, or other less part, which is the very same thing that I said; And where you again cite Coke upon Littleton, fol. 8. a. towards the bottom, you bring him in, saying, that of ancient time the Heir was permitted to have an action of Debt upon a Bond made to his Ancestor and his Heir, but the Law is not so at this day; but my Lord Coke doth not say as you do, viz. That the Law is not so at this day, but that the Law is not so holden at this day; so that he still avoids the expression of the Law being changed. (otherways than by Statute) although it was differently holden in several Ages; And thus, as you may see Coke upon Littleton, fol. 21. b. in the Case of Piers de Saltmarsh and others, it was judged in King Edward the Thirds time, and in King Edward the Fourths time, That a Man might give Land to his Son in Frankmarriage, but in King Henry the Eighths' time, it was holden otherways, 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 yours 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 than could never do contrary to the Common-Law, For, when they had declared (though erroneously) that the Common-Law ought to be otherways taken, than it was formerly, the Common-Law by your Rule, would be thereupon changed, and what they did, would ever be legal, The absurdity whereof every one may easily discern.  
What you say page 27, 28, 29, 30, and 31. to all those Reasons which I did give, to show that whensoever the word Mulier is used in the case of Frankmarriage, it shall by common-intendment be understood of a Woman that is of the Kindred, will, (I believe) give no knowing person any satisfaction at all; for though you pretend yourself to be very pleasant, when you say you have seldom known (nor you believe any other) any such question as this, Whether Hugh Cyveliok had a former Wife, to be proved by argument of Scripture, or nicety of Law, which is merely a question of History, yet certainly the understanding Reader, will easily perceive that this is but a shift, and will also discern, that I did not bring that place of Scripture to prove that Hugh Cyveliok had a former wife, but that I made use of it by way of answer, to take off what you had alleged, and I do not at all doubt, but that Text will fully satisfy, that all expressions which seem Universal, are not always to be expounded without any limitation at all; but as you would extend that expression of Glanvill too far, so you run to the other extreme concerning this of Deuteronomy 14.26. and would restrain these words, or for whatsoever thy soul desireth, only to those things there mentioned, viz. Oxen, Sheep, Wine, and strong Drink, which would be a Tautology, and several times in the same verse give them liberty to make use of Oxen, Sheep, Wine, or strong Drink, whereas undoubtedly the Jews at their said Feasts had also liberty to eat the Goat the Hart, Roebuck, Fallow Deer, Wild Goat, Pigarg, Wild Ox, the Chamois, as also all clean Fowls, Fishes, and other clean meats whatsoever, allowed them by their Law; and therefore this expression being as universal as that of Glanvill, and yet being to be expounded, so as to agree with the Laws of that Kingdom, why should not this seeming universal expression of Glanvill be so expounded, as to agree with the Laws of our Kingdom? And if so, sure what I say is to the point in hand.  
Also, If this Text of Scripture should be restrained as you would have it, it would not contradict, but confirm what I said; For, what expression can seem more universal than this, viz. whatsoever thy soul desireth, and yet you confess it ought not to be understood without some limitation, and indeed, you restrain it more than I do.  
And though it be true, that Bastards both were and yet are capable of receiving Lands after they have gained a name by reputation, yet they are not capable of having Lands passed with them in libero maritogio, though it be passed with them by the name of Daughter, without the addition of Bastard; and though you pretend that Amicia had gained a name by reputation, yet you do not, nor cannot tell what it is, for certainly Amicia and Daughter are not any reputed names.  
Neither do I put my argument about Glanvil's contradicting himself, as you put it, as will appear, pa. 34, and 35. of my former Book, so that you leave what I there say, wholly unanswered. Neither do I say, that the Lawyers of latter ages do expound the Law, that Lands cannot pass in Free-marriage with Bastards now, ergo, it was so taken in Glanvil's time; but I have given you many reasons, why the Law was taken in the time of Glanvill, in the point of Free-Marriage, as it is taken now; to which you give no other answer, but that you will leave it to wise Men to judge, who will take the pains to scan them, whether they be pertinent; And I do willingly appeal to all wise men, whether that be an Answer to those Eight Reasons, for if it be I am much mistaken therein.  
But what will you say, (though I did admit it to be so, because I would put the Case as hard as I could upon myself) if Glanvil by those words of his, Lib. 7. cap. 1. Quilibet liber homo quandam partem terrae suae cum filia sua, vel cum aliqua alia qualibet muliere dare potest in Maritagium, sive habuerit haeredem, sive non, velit haeres vel non, imo & eo contradicente did not say or mean that a man might give lands in Free-marriage with any woman whatsoever, but only that he might give lands with any woman in that kind of Marriage, which was not free; For, if you observe him well, he doth not there say, that any man whatsoever can give Lands in liberum maritagium with any woman whatsoever, but only that it may be so given with any woman in Maritagium; Now that Maritagium is twofold, Glanvil himself tells you, Lib. 7. cap. 18. where he says, Maritagium autem, aliud nominatur liberum, aliud servitio obnoxiums liberum dicitur Maritagium quando aliquis liber homo aliquam partem terrae suae dat cum aliqua muliere alicui in Maritagium ita quod ab omni servitio terra illa sit quieta, & a se & haeredibus suis, versus capitalem dominum acquietanda, & in hac quidem libertate, ita stabit terra illa usque ad tertium haeredem nec interim tenebuntur haeredes inde facere aliquod homagium, post tertium vero haeredem, ad debitum servitium terra ipsa revertetur, & homagium inde capietur. Many of which words of Glanvil you may also find cited by my Lord Coke on Littleton, fol. 21. b. Now if you well observe it, Glanvil doth not there say that a man may give Lands in liberum Maritagium cum qualibet muliere, but only in Maritagium; But when he speaks of Free-marriage he useth the expression cum aliqua muliere, with some woman, viz. one of the Kindred so that without doubt he using the same expression with Mr. Bracton who was the next Writer after him, he also understands it in the like manner, as the other did; But if Mr. glanvil's expressions (Lib. 7. cap. 1.) had concerned Free-marriage, yet I have formerly showed, that the word Mulier in that case, could only have been understood of a woman of the Kindred: Also my Lord Coke upon Littleton, fol. 21. b. when he hath told you that one of the four things incident to a Frankmarriage is, that the Woman or Man that is the cause of the Gift, be of the blood of the Donour, not long after on the Margin of the same Page quotes Glanvil, lib. 7. cap. 1. (the place on which you build) which he would never have done, if that place had been contradictory to his opinion, and certainly, if Glanvills' words in that place are to be understood as you would have them, they do contradict what my Lord Coke there says, unless the Law in that point was taken after one manner in Glanvil's time, and after another manner in my Lord Coke's time, which if it had been so, my Lord Coke had been concerned to have taken notice thereof, having not otherway to reconcile it with what he had said.  
What you say, pag. 32 & 33. is not at all to the purpose; For, you there tell us, that Bastard Sons, bastard Daughters, bastard Brothers, etc. in all Settlements and Conveyances of these last ancient Ages, are termed Bastards, but you say that was never used in the Ancient Ages; But, this is only your bare saying, without any proof at all, so that your word herein will not pass, unless you had showed us several ancient Settlements and Conveyances, in which, bastard Sons, bastard Daughters, bastard Brothers, etc. are named without the word Bastard joined to them, which I am confident you cannot do, unless when very great persons are named, who by reason of their greatness, are usually excepted in such cases as those; And indeed you do not only want proof to make good what you here say, but I have formerly brought proof of the contrary, from Sir Henry Spelman, who in his Glossary on the word Bastardus, says, Quoties enim agitur de honore vel commodo filiorum, appellatione siliorum non comprehenduntur bastardi. And as to what you affirm, that Bastards be of the blood both now and in former ages, though the Law will not allow them so, because they now are esteemed in the eye of the Law quasi nullius filius; For if A. have a Bastard Son or Daughter, which is really his, they must needs be of his blood: for no Law can extinguish Nature; though by common Law they are not now esteemed so; There is no force in what you so say, Because, in this case Children are looked at, as they are in Law, and not as they are really, because, it cannot be known what they are really; And therefore if A. have a bastard child which is really his, yet it shall not inherit, because it is in Law nullius filius; and on the other side, If A. have a Wife who doth play false with him, and hath a Child begotten of her body by another man, yet this Child shall inherit, because it is in Law the Child of A. And whereas you also ask the Question, What if you say that the reason why in the Deeds of those elder Ages, they were called Daughters, without any addition of Bastard, whereby the party owned them to be of their blood, was, that the Lands passed in libero maritagio with such might descend to their heirs? For our Lawyers now tell us, that Bastards are capable of receiving Lands, after they have gained a Name by reputation; Why may not then Bastards, having gained the names of Daughters, receive a grant from their owned Fathers, either in Frankmarriage or otherways?  
Your Question will be easily answered, because the consideration of the Gift in Free-marriage is the blood that is betwixt the Donour, and that Donee with whom the Land is given; But a Bastard is not the sanguine patris (Dyer, Fol. 374. b.) and the calling of any person Daughter, who is not so in Law, will not make her of the blood, for if that would serve, a Man might call any other Woman his Daughter, that is not so, and then give Lands with her in Frankmarriage: Besides, to what purpose should such tricks as these be used, which will not hold, when though a Man cannot give Lands in Free-marriage with his Bastard Daughter, yet there are other ways, whereby any Man that pleases and hath a disposing power, may settle Lands on a Bastard Daughter and her heirs: Also, if Glanvills' words did prove, as you would pretend they do, To what purpose should men in those ages, leave the word Bastard out of their Deeds of Free-marriage to their bastard Daughters, with design thereby to cause such lands to continue to them and their heirs, if such gifts might be made with any woman whatsoever; so that you never observe how finely you have argued here, against yourself.  
Where you say, in the 34, 35, 36 and 37 Pages of your Book, that though you do not find Geva called a Bastard in express terms, yet you find it employed in an Author contemporary (meaning Ordericus) by certain and sure consequence, which you believe can never be fully answered; and for the fortifying of which, you pretend to give some reasons; Give me leave (since you give the occasion) again to say, what I have formerly said, viz. that though Ordericus, speaking of Hugh Lupus his death, doth add these words, Richardus autem pulcherrimus puer quem solum ex Ermentrude filia Hugonis de Claramonte genuit. I am not yet satisfied, but that he might as well mean, that he was the only Son which Earl Hugh had by Ermentrude, as that he was the only child that he had by her; For there is no necessity to take the word solum adverbially, neither is it marked as an Adverb in Ordericus his Book, though it be so in yours, and yet in his Book, Adverbs are usually marked; And though you allege that Ordericus doth not say quem solum filium, as I interpret him, but indefinitely, quent 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 Ermentrude, etc. 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. You must give me leave to descent from you 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, than (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 you also seem to take it in your Historical Antiquities, p. 113 & 114. (But misprinted 121 & 122.) Yet Mr. Gouldman in his Dictionary will tell you that it is a mistake, where on the word puer he thus writes, Nonnullis habetur communis generis, sed male, ex Ovidiano illo Carmine, de Iphide puella in puerum mutata;  Dona puer solvit quae faeminavoverat Iphis. 
And though you say, that Geva could not be by any former Wife, because Earl Hugh had never any other Wife; Yet that is more than either you or I know, for, there were many things done in those Ages which never came to our knowledges. And therefore I do not take upon me to tell, whether Geva was by a former Wife than Ermentrude, or whether she was by Ermentrude, or whether she was a Bastard, But I say, she might be any of the three, for any thing that you have yet proved, and so long as it is uncertain what she was, you can bring no considerable Argument from her against Amicia; And if you could prove her a Bastard, it would signify nothing, because the Deed made to her, is not a gift in Frankmarriage (as hath formerly and will hereafter appear.)  
And whereas you ask, p. 36. Being I expound the words of Ordericus to be, that Earl Hugh had no other Son, What advantage it is to my purpose, unless Geva was that Daughter, and was legitimate? I answer, That possibly Geva might be that Daughter, or possibly Geva might be by a former Wife, and that Daughter which Earl Hugh had by Ermentrude, might die before Earl Richard, so that nothing of certainty can be gathered from such Arguments as these.  
As to what you say, p. 38, 39, 40 & 41. that I am not to argue upon possibilities, and because it might possibly be so, to say, that the Earldom of Chester was anciently entailed on the heir's Males; I Answer, That I do not positively aver any such thing, But let the case be how it will, and whethersoever Geva or Randle de Meschines was the heir general to Richard Earl of Chester, it seems to me that the said Earldom, did not come by descent, to the heir general, whoever that was; For, it clearly appears that Geva had it not, and Randle de Meschines had it not by descent; For, if what James York in his Union of Honour, p. 105. says, be true, Randle de Meschines was made Earl by Grant of King Henry the First; and Ordericus p. 876. tells us, that he restored to the said King Henry, all the Land which he had by his Wife the Widow of Roger de Romara, for the Earldom of Chester; which was more than was needful for him to do, if he had a good title thereto by descent.  
And whereas you ask me, Why may I think that the King (though he gave it to Randle) did not give the honour and lands unto him, as in whom was the greatest right to have it? and do say, that to this I give no answer at all. I may well tell you, that I could not give an Answer, until you did ask the Question, and you never asked the Question in your former Book; But the Answer which I shall now give to this Question, is, That I suppose, Kings in such cases do that, which to them seems most just, but yet Kings in these cases, as well as in others, are of different Judgements from one another very many times, and indeed the very same Princes will be sometimes of one mind, and sometimes of another mind, concerning the same thing; And thus we see, when Randle Blundevile Earl of Chester died, which was in the year 1232. King Henry the Third did suffer the four Sisters of the said Earl Randle, who were of the whole blood, to inherit that estate, and the said Earldom went to John Scot son of David Earl of Huntingdon in right of Maud his Mother, the eldest of the said four Sisters; But when the said John Scot died, which was in the year 1237, the said King Henry the Third would not suffer the said Earldom of Chester to come to any of the Sons of any of the Sisters of the said John Scot, though he had before permitted it to come to the Son of the eldest Sister of the said Randle Blundevile.  
And whereas you say, that if Geva had been but of the half-blood, she would by all probability have busled hard for so great an Estate in those Ages, before she had lost it. I do wonder very much at what you say, Because, any Cousin that is of the whole blood (how many degrees soever the distance is) will inherit at Law, before a Brother or Sister that is but of the half-blood; And whereas you say, I am come to an excellent way of arguing, by ifs, and and's, and possibilities, by which means Answers may be made to any thing even to eternity. I do not offer from those kinds of Arguments or Answers, to determine any thing certainly, but only make use of them to show the uncertainty of several things which you urge; But, you pretend certainties from such kind of Arguments, and particularly in this case of Amicia: For, all the reasons which you allege against her would not prove her to be a Bastard, if those Arguments that are brought on her behalf were all laid aside.  
In your Answer to my Defence of Amicia, p. 42 & 43. you again cavil with me, without any just cause, and say, that the case that I did there put, comes as near to the case of Geva, as an Apple to an Oyster, But whether it be so as you say, let the Reader judge. In your Historical Antiquities, p. 136. (which words of yours are also in the 10 & 11 pages of my Defence of Amicia) you have these words, viz. And howbeit many Earldoms have descended to the heirs Males, and not to the heirs general, yet in this case were no heirs Male, but two Females, an Aunt legitimate, who had it, and a Sister not legitimate, and show me a precedent wherever the heirs of an Aunt inherited before the heirs of a Sister, both legally born and no heires-male left, unless in case of forfeiture by Treason, or some other great cause to hinder the same. From these words of yours, I did not offer to raise any cavil, by telling you, that though honours or lands may be given to any persons whatsoever, by those who have power to dispose of the same, that yet they cannot properly be said to descend to any but to the next heirs, and therefore in point of descent, it is impossible that any one that is further off, should be preferred before another that is nearer; Neither did I tell you, how you did name an Aunt legitimate, in stead of the Son of an Aunt legitimate that had it; But I supposing (as I think any other would have done from these words of yours) that your meaning was, that Randle de Meschines must needs have more right to succeed in that Earldom of Chester than Geva had, because, the said Randle did enjoy the same, and that you thought it to be very clear, that whensoever there were no heirs-Male left, if the honour went to any of the Kindred, the King did always prefer that person who was next of blood to it, except in case of Treason, or the like, and did thereupon desire me to show you a precedent to the contrary, if I so could, and you instancing in the Earldom, and not in the Lands, I did thereupon show you where one that was a Baron by Writ, died without heir Male, leaving two Sisters only, and the Baronry came to the Husband of the younger Sister, and not to the Husband of the elder Sister, it being the pleasure of the King to call Sir Hunt Bourcher, who had Married the younger Sister, to the Parliament, and not to call Sir Thomas Nevil, who had Married the elder Sister; And if this be not a like case to that of Geva and Earl Randle (if Geva was legitimate) I am still very much mistaken; And whereas you now demand of me, If Geva was legitimate, Why the Lands of Richard Earl of Chester did not come to her, whatever the Earldom did: Though I cannot give you the certain reason, because the thing was done so long since, yet I can show you several possibilities why they might not; For, either it might be the will and pleasure of the then King, that Randle de Meschines should have the Estate as well as Earldom, and that Geva should have recompense made her some other way, (as the Sisters of John Scot Earl of Chester in the like case afterwards had) or perhaps she might be of the half-blood to Earl Richard, and Randle de Meschines be heir at Law before her, or perhaps the said Ear I Richard having a greater kindness for the said Earl Randle than he had for Geva, (there being sometimes great unkindnesses betwixt Brothers and Sisters) might give his Estate to the said Randle de Meschines.  
Those Arguments of mine which you mention p. 44. and are pretended to be Answered by you, pag. 45, 46 & 47. remain yet in their greatest strength, and are not at all answered by you, nay, the one of them is so far from being answered, that it is not understood by you, unless you only pretend not to understand it, because, you perceive you cannot give an answer to it, and I rather think that to be the truth of the case, Because you have not recited my Argument as I did express it; For you recite it thus; Because Coke upon Littleton, foe 21. b. tells us that these words in liberum Maritaginm are words of Art, and so are necessarily required: and there you break off abruptly; Whereas I told you that the Deed which you alleged to be made to Geva would not at all concern Amicia, if Geva was a bastard, because it was no gift in Frankmarriage, as that gift to Amicia was; And for a proof thereof I told you, that my Lord Coke upon Littleton in the place abovesaid did tell you, that these words in liberum maritagium are such words of Art, and so necessarily required (in these kind of gifts) as they cannot be expressed by words equipollent, or amounting to as much; And he also there gave you the reason, which was, that these words in liberum Maritagium did create an Estate of Inheritance, against the general Rule of the Law, and therefore the Law required, that it should be legally pursued; And to explain this, he also said, that if a man give Lands to another with his Daughter, in connubio soluto ab omni servitio, etc. yet there passeth in this case but an Estate for life; For although those words be the same in sense, as the words in libero maritagio be, yet being not the very same words, they do not create an Estate of Inheritance; But you contrary to all this, would not believe my Lord Coke, if he should have said that the words in libero conjugio did make but an Estate for life, (which he hath indeed by consequence said) But you will have the words liberum conjugium to create an Estate of Inheritance, as well as the words liberum maritagium (which no man before you ever said) Whereas no words that are equipollent, or amounting to as much can do it, it being impossible to make an Estate in Free-marriage, if there be wanting either the word liberum, or the word Maritagium.  
Also, as the words in libero conjugio can make but an Estate for life, so it is also clear, that in your Deed of Earl Randle to Ceva, there was no more intended than an Estate for life, it running all along in the singular number Et teneat bene & in pace. etc. ut melius & liberius tenuit, And it is likely the Deed of Earl Hugh did run after the same manner, by that expression sicuti Comes Hughes ei in libero conjugio dedit, But I believe the Basset's did afterwards enjoy the said lands, though how, or by virtue of what Deed, I am not able to declare; For, in Monasticon Anglicanum, Part 1. p. 439, and in your Historical Antiquities, p. 113. (but misprinted 121.) I find Geffrey Ridell and Ralph Basset called the heirs of the said Geva; Now if those persons were the heirs of her body, and the aforesaid Deed a Gift in Frankmarriage, 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 Coke on Littleton, fol. 3. b. tells you, A Bastard can have no heir but of his own body.  
And whereas I brought another Argument to prove that this Gift of Geva could not be a Gift in Frankmarriage, Because my Lord Coke says, that one of the things incident to a Frankmarriage is, that the Donees shall hold freely of the Donour till the fourth degree be past, which cannot be in Geva's case, Because there was no Donees, but one Donee only, and the Estate could not continue until the Fourth degree was past, because it was only for Geva's life; You tell me that my Lord Coke upon Littleton, fol. 21. b. citeth Peter Saltmarch's Case, and Fitz-Herbert de natura brevium, fol. 172. that lands may be given by a Man to his Son in Free-marriage, and why not to his Daughter alone in Free-marriage? But I pray you, How can there be a Gift in Free-marriage, if there be no Marriage at all? and, How can there be a Marriage, if the Man or Woman be alone? But you misunderstand this place (as you do many others) For, my Lord Coke, if you observe him well, doth not there say, that such a Gift can be made with a Man alone, or with a Woman alone, But there tells you, that a gift in free-marriage may be either to a Man with a woman, or as some have held, to a Woman with a Man, and for proof thereof, citys Peter Saltmarsh his case, and Fitz-Herbert; And this is no more than what I said in the 49 Page of my former Book, where I also shown you how Bracton did therewith accord; But there is none of them that saith as you do, That land may be given in Frankmarriage to a Man without a Woman, or to a Woman without a Man.  
In your 48 & 49 Pages, you would willingly persuade the Reader that Earl Randle de Gernoniis Father to Earl Hugh Cyveliok was Married by Robert Earl of Gloucester unto Maude his Daughter, thereby to draw him to the part of Queen Maude his Sister, about the very year 1139. before which time we find no mention in our ancient Historians of Randle's acting against King Stephen, but in that very year we do, and then by some of them styled Son-in-law to the Earl of Gloucester. But I pray you, Why is it not full as likely, that before that time, Randle de Gernoniis was Married to the Daughter of the said Earl of Gloucester, and thereby was the more easily drawn to that party, to which he stood so near related, as that, that match should be made purposely to draw him to that party? And how could you hear much of that Earl Randle's actings against King Stephen, before the year 1139? seeing Gervasius a Benedictine Monk of Canterbury (who lived in the Reign of King John) tells us, in his Chronicles or Annals, col. 1345. l. 60. that it was in the year 1138, when Robert Earl of Gloucester did begin to quarrel with the said King Stephen.  
And whereas you yet seem unsatisfied that Earl Hugh was of such an age as probably to have had another Wife before Bertred, and do now say, p. 49. if we reckon by utmost possibilities, that Earl Hugh could not possibly be above sixteen or seventeen years older than Bertred; I do very much wonder thereat, seeing I have formerly from the Argument which you used to prove it to be otherways, made it manifest, that he might possibly be several years above double her age, and that so clearly, that I am confident, no man besides yourself, will offer to deny the same; For I then told you that whether the Marriage of Robert Earl of Gloucester with Mabill Daughter and heir of Robert Fitz-Hamon was according to Selden in the year 1109. or according to Stow in the year 1110. the said Mabill might have Maude her second Daughter in the year 1112, which Maude if she was Married to Earl Randle de Gernoniis in the year 1128, when she was sixteen years of age, might have her Son Hugh Cyvelick in the year 1129. which if true, the said Earl Hugh was fifty two years old at his death, For he died in the year 1181, and if so, than he was four years above twice the age of Bertred, For she was but Twenty four years old when the said Earl Hugh died, as appears, Rot. de Dominabus pueris, etc. in Scacc. penes Remem. R. sub Tit. Linc. Rot. 1. And it is certain, that the said Earl Hugh was Earl of Chester about four years before his Wife Bertred was born, besides what age he was of, when his Father died, and his Daughter Amicia was Married in his life time, and none knows how many years before his death. And if the Marriage of the said Robert Earl of Gloucester with the said Mabill was in the year 1109. then he might possibly be Five years above double the age of his Wife Bertred; And this is the more likely to be true, Because, though Mr. Selden be a later Writer, than Mr. Stow is, yet Mr. Selden citys one that lived long before Mr. Stow, as will appear by the old English Rithmical Story, attributed to one Robert of Gloucester, and recited in the 647. Page of Mr. Seldens Titles of Honour.  
In your Answer, pag. 50, 51, 52 & 53. you endeavour to weaken the Third and Fourth reasons which were brought as concurrent proof on the behalf of Amicia, by saying, that Hugh Cyveliok is Wife was a witness to her Husband's Deed, which a Wife cannot now be, she being not capable to be a Witness, either for or against her Husband, whereby you would insinuate a change of the Law in that particular from what it was formerly, and you also say, that if Hugh Cyveliok had had a former Wife, sure Ralph Mainwaring would have called his Daughter after her, and not after the then Countess; And you there make nothing of Roger Mainwaring's calling Randle Earl of Chester and Lincoln his Uncle in a Deed, nor of Henry de Audley's being a Witness to the Deeds of Randle Earl of Chester and Lincoln, and of Robert de Ferrars, (which later you say is far fetched) nor of Ralph Mainwarings and Roger Mainwarings being Witnesses to so many Deeds of those that were Earls of Chester in their times.  
But to these things, I say, that the Law is still the same as it was formerly, in the particular by you here mentioned; For, both anciently and at this day also, I know nothing that hinders, but that the Wife may subscribe as a Witness to a Deed which her Husband doth make, and though she neither anciently could, nor yet can be a witness for or against her Husband, yet there is this use of it, that if the Wife survive her Husband, and it come to be controverted amongst other parties, whether such a Deed was Sealed by him, or not, she in the time of her Widowhood, may be a good Witness for the proving of the same.  
And as to the calling of Sir Ralph Mainwarings Daughter by the name of Bertred after the present Countess, and not after the name of Hugh Cyvelioks first Wife; That is no wonder at all, it being more ordinary to call Daughters after their Godmothers Names, than after the names of their own Grandmothers, and especially when the Godmothers are of great quality; Now the said Amicia's Daughter being called Bertred (which is a very unusual name) it is more than probable, (according to what you expressed to me under your hand in April 1664.) that Bertred the Countess was Godmother to the said Bertred Mainwaring, And if so, it is very unlikely that Amicia was illegitimate; For Wives are seldom Godmothers to their Husband's Bastards, or to the Children of such Bastards.  
Also, Sir Ralph Mainwaring and Sir Roger Mainwaring and Henry de Audley the Sou-in-law of the said Sir Ralph Mainwaring being so often Witnesses to the Deeds of the Earls of Chester, and to the Deeds of their very near Relations, doth certainly show there was then a very great and constant intimacy betwixt the said Families.  
And though you pretend that Sir Ralph Mainwaring was very conversant with the Earl, because he was Judge, and therefore came so often to be a Witness, and say, that we may find the like number of Charters or more, to which Philip Orreby Judge of Chester was witness in like nature; I conceive that you are deceived therein, although Philip Orreby was Judge of Chester perhaps longer than Sir Ralph Mainwaring was; For I do believe that I can make it to appear by what Deeds I have, and what Deeds I have seen of others, that Sir Ralph Maeinwaring and his Son Sir Roger Mainwaring were witnesses to more Deeds of Hugh Cyvelioks and Randle Blundevil than any other persons of any one Family were; Add hereunto (which I have in my former Book mentioned) that Sir Roger Mainwaring in a Deed of his own calls Randle Earl of Chester and Lincoln his Uncle, and how I did there observe, that though the Writers of Histories, did sometimes give to Bastards, the name of Cousin, Brother, Uncle, Son, and Daughter, I did believe you could hardly find any one that you could certainly prove to be a Bastard, or the Son of a Bastard, that did presume in a Deed to call so great a person as the Earl of Chester was, his Brother or Uncle, unless he came to be a very great Person himself; And this is so true, that in the 53 Page you are forced to confess that such Precedents are scant, but yet you think you have found one, viz. Randle de Estbury, or Astbury, who in a Deed mentioned in the Addenda of your Historical Antiquities is called, the Earl of Chester 's Nephew, and is put the last of all the witnesses, and was certainly but an ordinary Gentleman, nor Knight nor Lord. But this Precedent will fail you, for two Reasons, First, Because you do as good as confess that you cannot prove him to be a Bastard, (and he might perhaps be a younger Brother, or Son of a younger Brother, and so not necessarily 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; Also if you observe it, there were no Witnesses to the said Deed, besides the said Randle de Astbury, except David de Malpas (whom I conceive was Baron of Malpas) and William his Son.  
And whereas you say, you 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 you his Extraction certainly, because he lived so long since, and we only find him mentioned as a witness in one Deed, 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 Cyveliok by his former Wife) he might possibly be the Son of Roger, Son of Hugh Cyveliok; And I know no great reason why the said Roger should by you be suspected to be a bastard, For, you only find him (as appears by your Historical Antiquities, p. 134. and in my First Book, p. 1.) mentioned as a Witness to a Deed of his Brother Randle 's, to the Abbey of Saint Werburge: So that you conceive 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 Fifty years; Also it is very strange, if Amicia was a Bastard, and the Father or Mother of the said Randle de Astbury was also a Bastard, that those Bastards could find none to call their Children after, but the than Countess, and the than Earl, For the Daughter of Amicia was called Bertred after Randle Blundevill's Mother, and Randle de Astbury was of the same Name with the said Earl; But admitting that the said Roger was a Bastard, Why might not Randle de Astbury however be his Son? and then, What necessity (of what you say in your Addenda) of either finding out another Base Son, or another Base Daughter of the said Hugh Cyveliok; But you have been very willing to charge him with many Bastards both Sons and Daughters, although I find no great Reason to suspect that he had any at all unless Paganus de Milton, and it is possible in that case, you having neither the Deed, nor a Copy of the Deed by you, that you might take Hugh Cyveliok for Hugh Lupus, as well as in another Deed (as will anon appear) you did take Randle Blundevil for Randle de Gernoniis.  
I am still of the same opinion that I was formerly of, viz. That Richard Bacuns Mother was not a Base Daughter of Hugh Gyveliok, nor any Daughter of his at all, but that she was daughter to Randle Meschines, and Sister to Randle de Gernoniis; And I think those reasons which I have given in my former Book do fully prove the same. And albeit you tell me in the 54, 55, and 56 pages of your latter Book, that truly I am deceived in it, yet I do not doubt but to satisfy all the world, that it is you (and not I) that are deceived therein; And whereas you say, it is true (as I observe) that there was no such Archbishop of York called Will. nor Bishop of Chester, whose Christian name began with R. both living at one time, either in the time of Randle de Blundevill or Randle de Gernoniis. I answer, I did make no such observation at all, but the contrary, For, I shown you that in the time of Randle de Gernoniis; William, Sister's Son to King Stephen, was Archbishop of York, for a time, viz. about 1142 or 1143. (though he was afterwards ousted of it again till 1152. or 1153.) and Roger Clinton was Bishop of Coventry and Litchfield, (which then was the same with the Bishop of Chester) from the year 1128, until the year 1148 or 1149. And I then also told you, that there was no William, Archbishop of York at anytime during the life of Randle Blundevill, nor any man Bishop of Chester, whose Christian name began with R. except Richard Peche, who died about the time that Hugh Cyveliok died, viz. in 1182 (though some say, in 1181. and some in 1183.) at which time Randle Blundevill could not be of age to Seal any kind of Deed, because Bertred the said Randle's Mother, was then but about Twenty five years old; and this Argument you perceive to be so strong against you in this point, that you have no way to avoid it, but by giving a strange answer to it, which is, that you do conceive the Roll from whence the Deed in Monasticon (Par. 2. Pa. 267.) is written, is mistaken in Will, and R. and miswrit therein from the Original Chart itself; Which liberty if a Man might take, he might answer any thing in the world; and your reason for so saying is, Because Richard Bacun in his said Deed doth say, that he had procured the warranty of Randle Earl of Chester his Uncle, for the ratifying of that Grant; and the very next Deed following in the Roll, and transcribed in the Monasticon, is the Deed of Randle Earl of Chester, with Confirmation and Warranty accordingly, whereunto Roger Lacie, Constable of Cheshire is a witness, who only lived in the time of Randle Blundevill, and no other Earl of Chester, as I may see clearly proved among the Barons of Halton in your Book, nor is there any other Deed of Confirmation and Warranty to be found by any Earl, save this; wherefore (you say) certainly it must be Randle Blundevil whom Richard Bacun calleth Uncle in his own Deed of the Foundation of the said Priory. And you also say, the Bishop of Chester (being also Bishop of Litchfield and Coventry at that time) he was not then subject to the jurisdiction of York but Canterbury; and you also say, That there was no Archbishop of York called Will. nor Bishop of Chester, whose Christian name began with R. both living at one time, either in the time of Randle Blundevill or Randle de Gernoniis, that you can find.  
To which I answer, That it is not to be doubted, but that Richard Bacun did obtain the Warranty and Confirmation of that Randle Earl of Chester, who was his Uncle, and then living; neither is it to be doubted, but that the Deed, to which Roger Constable of Cheshire was a witness, was the Deed of Randle Blundevil, I having proved it to be so, in the 56 page of my former Book, because Roger Constable of Cheshire was living in the time of no other Randle but Randle Blundevil, so that you did not need to send me to see that clearly proved among the Barons of Halton in your Book; but the Deed of Confirmation of that Earl who was Uncle of Richard Bacun, is not in the Monasticon, but was probably lost, as many other ancient Deeds were: and that Deed of Randle Blundevill, which is there, is but another Deed of Confirmation, according to the mode of those times, when, it was usual to obtain such, from several Princes, several Generations one after another; and for proof hereof, I did desire you to read Monasticon Anglicanum, Par. 2 Pa. 24, and 25. where you might find King Henry the I. reciting and confirming what had been given to the Priory of Huntendune, and pa. 27. how King Henry the III. did the like, and yet there was a greater space betwixt King Henry the I. and King Henry the III. than there was betwixt Randle de Gernoniis and Randle de Blundevil; and very many others of the like nature, may be found, by those who will take the pains to make search in the several Monasticons.  
Also, it is very strange, that you should fancy that the Roll, where the said Deed in Monasticon was written, should be mistaken both in Will. and R. especially since the word Will. was the first word in the said Deed; neither is it a badge of any mistake in the said Deed, because the Archbishop of York is named in it, though the Bishop of Chester (being at that time the same with the Bishop of Coventry and Litchfield) was not then subject to the Jurisdiction of York, but Canterbury; For, the Archbishop of York was not named upon that account, but, because some of the places mentioned in the said Deed, were within the Province and Diocese of York, as particularly Rosington was, it being within the West-riding of Yorkshire; but I suppose your principal reason why you suspect the Roll was mistaken is, because you say, there was no such Archbishop of York, called Will. nor Bishop of Chester, whose Christian name began with R. both living at one time, either in the time of Randle Blundevill or Randle de Gernoniis, that you can find. Which saying of yours seems very strange to me, but I believe all your doubt is about the Will. that was Archbishop of York, because Dr. Heylin (a late Writer) in his Catalogue of Bishops doth not mention the said Williams being chosen Archbishop immediately upon the death of Thurstan; for I am confident that you are well satisfied that Roger Clinton was Bishop of Chester (as appears by the Third Part of the Monasticon, page 218. as also by Bishop Godwin, Jsaackson, Doctor Heylin, Simeon Dunelmensis, Matt. Paris, and many other ancient Authors) from about 1128. until about the year 1148. or 1149. which fell out to be in the time of Randle de Gernoniis, for he was Earl, (as appears in your Book) from about the year 1128, till about the year 1153. And I doubt not but to make it as clear, that a William was Archbishop of York in the time of the said Randle de Gernoniis and Roger Clinton, and though the said William was afterwards ousted, yet whilst he enjoyed that Archbishopric, he was, and would in Deeds, and otherways, be owned as Archbishop of York;  
Now that a William was Archbishop of York, in the time of the said Earl and the said Bishop, I have already shown you in my former Book, out of Isaackson's Chronology, and shall thus make it further to appear;  
If you look into Bishop Godwin's Catalogue of the Bishops of England, printed at London 1615, page 581. in the life of Heny Murdack, Archbishop of York, you may find him saying thus.  
King Stephen had a kinsman named William, 
1142. Stephen 8.  (that was Son unto Emma his Sister, by Earl Herbert) a Man no less noble in Mind and Virtue, than Stock and Lineage. He being Treasurer of York. was now elected unto the Archbishopric, and having obtained Consecration also, sent to Rome for his Pall. His speed there was not so good as he looked for; by some Adversaries many exceptions were taken against him, whereby it came to pass, not only his Suit was put off, and stayed for that time, but also Process awarded to admonish him to come thither in Person to answer the accusations laid against him. At his coming to Rome, he found his Adversaries many and Mighty. And among the rest it is remembered, that St. Bernard, then living, was very earnest against him. Eugenius the Pope, had been brought up in the Abbey of Clareval under St. Bernard, together with Henry Murdac, whom William's adversaries had set up to be a Suitor for his Archbishopric. The Pope being thus carried away with the persuasion of his old Acquaintance, and some show of matter, was content to deprive William, and to place Henry Murdac in his room, whom he caused to be Consecrated presently, and sent him home into England with his Pall. King Stephen hearing this News, was much grieved with the disgrace of his Nephew, which all Men judged undeserved. Therefore He stood upon Terms with the new Archbishop, and required him to Swear unto Him fealty in some extraordinary manner; and when he denied, easily took occasion of displeasure against him. The Townsmen of York that loved William exceedingly for his Gentleness and Virtuous behaviour amongst them; hearing how the King was affected; refused to receive Murdac into their City. For this resistance he suspended them: which notwithstanding, Eustach the King's Son, commanded Service to be said as at all other times was accustomed. By means hereof, as also by reason that the King's Officers were very terrible and heavy enemies unto all that had laboured for the Deprivation of William: Seditions and Tumults were daily raised in the City, amongst which a certain Archdeacon, a Friend of the Archbishop, was slain. Two or three years these stirs continued, till at last, the King's wrath (by means) being appeased, York-men were content to receive their Archbishop peaceably. He governed very austerely the space of ten years, died Octob. 14. 1153. at Sherborne, and was buried in his Cathedral Church. And when Bishop Godwin hath thus said, he presently after tells you, how the said William (there called Saint William) after the death of Henry Murdac was again restored to the said Archbishopric.  
Also, if you look in John Brompton's Chronicon, col. 1028. l. 63. in the life of King Stephen, you may find him thus saying;  Dicto autem Thurstino Eboracensi Archiepiscopo Monasterii Fontanensis aliorumque octo fundatore, ut dictum est, decedente (and he died, says the said Brompton, col. 1028: l. 25. in the year 1140. with which Bishop Godwin doth accord) Singuli Ecclesiae Eboracensis Canonici, beatum Willielmum ejusdem Ecclesiae Thesaurarium praeferunt, tam pro honestate morum, quam excellentia meritorum. Iste namque Willielmus ex spectabili prosapia Regis Stephani ortus, praeclaris natalium titulis fuerat insignitus; erat enim silius potentissimi viri Comitis Herberti. Qui quamvis post decessum dicti Archiepiscopi Thurstani, ad sedem Eboracensem electus fuerat; invidia tamen & impetuosus amor dominandi quemdam ejusdem Ecclesiae Archilevitam adeo in regionem dissimilitudinis traxerant, ut inter eligentes discidium excitavit, ipsum Willielmum a saniori parte eïectum impediens licet de ejus electione clerus & populus acclamassent laudum praeconia, suspenditur igitur causa ad Apostolicae sedis examen provocata. 
See also the said Brompton to the same purpose, Col. 1041. l. 10.  
Also Roger Hoveden who lived in the time of King Henry the Second, King Richard the First, and King John; in the First Part of his Annals, Printed at Frankfort 1601. Page 490. l. 51. writes thus of the Restitution of the said William, eodem anno obiit Henricus Eboracensis Archiepiscopus, quo defuncto, Willielmus Archiepiscopus, quem Papa Eugenius suspenderat, Romam profectus est, & invenit gratiam apud Anastasium Papam, & redditus est ei Archiepiscopatus Eboracensis. And I think it is not to be doubted, though I have not yet found the place, but that the said Hoveden doth speak of his being chosen after the death of Thurstan, because Isaakson in his Chronology, citys Hoveden for what he there says, but he names not the Pages.  
Also, Thomas Stubbs (a Dominican) writing of the Archbishops of York, col. 1721. l. 15. thus says,  Vicessimus nonus successit in Archiepiscopatum Eboracensis ecclesiae Henricus Murdak ●isterciensis ordinis Monachus ae professor probatissimus, vir magnae sanctitatis & abstinentiae laudabilis. Defuncto namque, ut praemittitur, Thurstino Eboracensi Archiepiscopo, convocatisque ad electionem pontificis Canonicis ecclesiae Eboracensis, Willielmus ejusdem Ecelesiae Thesaurarius & Canonicus exigentibus suis meritis a Majori & saniore parte in Archiepiscopum est electus. Erat enim strenuissimi Comitis Herberti filius ex Emma sorore Regis Anglorum Stephani progenitus. Vir quidem genere nobilis sed morum excellentia & vita mundissima incomparabiliter insignis. Interea vero Osbertus archidiaconus Eboracensis invidiae stimulo agitatus, facta inter eligentes dissentione, confirmationem ipsius electi licet ab omnibus dignus haberetur pertinaciter impedivit: suspenso igitur negotio partibusque coram Romano pontifice super hujus electionis discussione personditer vocatis, idem Willielmus persequentibus illum adversariis suis &  accusantibus conseerationis gratiam minime potuit optimere. Light ergo in curia Romana sub Papa Innocentio secundo, Celestino secundo, & Lucio secundo per annos quinque & amplius del ito processu currente, nichil inventum est quod ejus consecrationem deberet elongare. Verum summus Pastor Eugenius Cisterciensis ordinis Monachus anno Dominicae incarnationis M. C. xlvi. in Papam consecratus electionem dicti Willielmi non ratione personalis inhahabilitatis, mmo pro libito suaevoluntatis cassavit, etc. 
And there he also after speaks of the Restauration of the said William to the said Archbishopric: so that it seems by this Author that the said William held the said Archbishopric upon his first election, till after the deaths of Pope Innocent the Second, Pope Celestine the Second, and Pope Lucius the Second, viz. till about the year 1146. but was then ousted by Pope Eugenius, and restored again by Pope Anastasius, after the death of Henry Murdac about the year 1153.  
Also Gulielmus Neubricensis, who lived in the Reigns of King Richard the First, and King John, page 368. l. 10. thus writes,  Venerabili Trustino defuncto, Eboracensis Ecclesiae Pontificatum suscepit Gulielmus ejusdem Ecclesiae Thesaurarius, vir plane secundum carnem nobilis, & morum ingenua lenitate amabilis. Qui cum ad sedem Apostolicam respensales idoneos propetendo solemniter pallio direxisset: emergentibus adversariis & multa contra eum proponentibus negatum est. Jussusque ad eandem sedem in propria persona accedere & pro semetipso tanquam aetatem habens allegare: causis tamen ingravescentibus atque invalescentibus adversariis, piae quoque memoriae Papa Eugenio contra eum, sive per veritatem, sive per surreptionem implacabiliter irritato depositus est, etc. 
So also Gervasius a Benedictine Monk of Canterbury, who lived in the time of King John, Col. 1357. l. 52. in the year 1142. thus says,  Rex autem Stephanus dedit Archiepiscopatum Eboracensis ecclesiae cuidem clerico nomine Willielmo, quibusdam clericis ejusdem Ecclesiae consentientibus, aliis vero ut audebant reclamantibus, unde factum est ut cum Theodbaldus Cantuariensis archiepiscopus sie factae non consentiret electioni, Henricus frater Regis Wintoniensis episcopus apostolicae sedis legatus, praesumptuosa semper magnanimitate famam colligens, praedictum electum apud Wintoniam consecraret. Abiit itaque novus sacratus Eboracum, & vix duobus annis sedit in pace. 
Also, Radulsus de Diceto, who was Dean of Paul's, and lived in the time of King John, Col. 508. l. 11. thus writes, Thurstino Eboracensi archiepiscopo suc cessit Willielmus.  
Also, Matt. Paris (who lived in the time of King Henry the Third) in his Greater History put out by Doctor Watts, Page 78. says thus in the year 1139. Tune defuncto Turstano Eboracensi Archiepiscopo, Willielmus ejusdem Ecclesiae Thesaurarius successit.  
Also, Simeon Dunelmensis, a Benedictine Monk, who lived in the Reign of King Stephen, and in the time of the said William, Col. 79. l. 39 speaking of the Archbishops of York, thus says; Post Oswaldum isti sibi ordine successerunt, Aldulfus, Vulstanus, Eelfricus, Kinsius, Aldredus, Thomas Girardus, Thomas, Turstinus, Willielmus, Henricus, Rogerus; There placing the aforesaid William before Henry Murdac.  
And John Prior of Hagulstald, in his Continuation of the History of the said Simeon, Col. 268. l. 41. thus writes; Anno M.C. xlii. Post mortem Turstini archiepiscopi clerici Eboracenses secundum desideria cordis sui varia & vaga sententia circumacti fuerant toto anno super electione facienda. Elegerant autem persuadente legato Henrico Wintoniae nepotem Regis Stephani Henricum de Coilli. Qui quia praefuit abbatiae Kadomensi, noluit dominus apostolicus eum praefici archiepiscopatui nisi renunciaret priori honori. Mense Januario iterum de electione tractantes, in personam Willielmi Thesaurarii plurimi consenserunt. And presently after, l. 60. further says, Perductum itaque electum ad Lincolniam rex libenter suscepit, & in terris & possessionibus Eboracensibus confirmavit.  
Now though a lesser number of Authors might have served to prove that there was a William Archbishop of York, living in the time both of Randle de Gernoniis and Roger Clinton, yet I thought fit to cite all these, to let the world see that it was nothing else, which made you that you could not find it to be so, but because you would not find it to be so; For, I know, you have most (if not all) of the said Authors, and if you would have made search, you might easily have found what is here said.  
But besides what is here alleged, if you had but observed those Deeds of Richard Bacun and Randle Blundevil which are mentioned Monasticon Anglicanum, Part 2. Page 267 & 268. and the Deeds of Randle de Gernoniis that are in your own Historical Antiquities, you would easily have known that the said Richard Bacun did live in the time of the said Randle de Gernoniis; For to the said Deed of Richard Bacun, Hugo Wac, Willielmus Constabularius de Donington, Thurstanus Banastre, Willielmus Bacoun, Robertus Bacoun, Willielmus de Colevile, Richardus Pincerna, Willielmus de Binulle, Galfridus Dispensarius, Willielmus Capellanus, and Johannes Capellanus are Witnesses: and to the said Deed of Randle Blundevil, Rogerus Constabularius Cestriae, Rogerus de Montealto Seneschallus Cestriae, Simon de Kyma, Thomas Dispensarius, Simon de Thochet, Willielmus de Hardreshulle, Hugo de Nevilla, Henricus de Longo Campo, Philippus de Horreby, Samson Prior de Trentham, and Thomas Clericus are witnesses.  
Now as it would appear probable (if there were nothing else in the case) that this Deed of Richard Bacun was not made in the time of Randle Blundevil, because there is not any one person a witness to the said Deed of Richard Bacun, who was a witness to the said Deed of Randle Blundevil (or to any other Deed of his, that I can find) So it certainly appears from your Historical Antiquities, that those who were witnesses to Richard Bacuns said Deed, did live in the time of Earl Randle de Gernoniis, and not in the time of Randle Blundevil; For, as you may there see, Page 126 & 127. in the Deed made by Henry Duke of Normandy, to the said Randle de Gernoniis, the aforesaid Hugh Wac, and Richard Pincerna were then witnesses on the behalf of the said Randle, also Page 128. to one Deed of the said Randle, the said William Colevile was a witness, and to another of the said Randle's Deeds the said Willielmus Capellanus and Richardus Pincerna were witnesses, and Page 160 & 161. to another Deed of the said Randle de Gernoniis the said Thurstan Banaster, Richard Pincerna, and William the Chaplain were witnesses; and so also the said Richard Pincerna, Thurstanus Banaster, and Willielmus Capellanus were witnesses to another Deed of the said Randle de Gernoniis concerning Neither-Whitley, mentioned by you, Page 387. Though you there run upon a mistake, and say that Randle Blundevil made that Deed, which cannot be, Because those witnesses (as appears before) did live in the time of Randle de Gernoniis, and not in the time of the said Randle Blundevil, they being no witnesses at any time to any Deed of Randle Blundevils' that I can find, although he was Earl of Chester above fifty years, so that nothing can possibly be more clear than this is.  
As to the word aspersed which you fault me for using, I do not apprehend that it signifies a malicious seeking to throw dirt in another's face unjustly; For, to asperse, properly signifies but to besprinkle, with which, malice will seldom rest satisfied: and I will do you this right, to declare that I believe it is not malice, but a desire to divulge your supposed new Discovery, which occasioned you thus to do.  
That way of Arguing which you use in the 57 Page is very odd; For, Because you suppose the Respondent will deny your Minor, you would have him give over answering, and turn Opponent, and so endeavour to disprove what you ought to prove; But what you say, Page 58. that you have proved Amicia to be a Bastard, unless Hugh Cyveliok had a former Wife, and also Page 59 that if he had no other Wife but Bertred, and she no Daughter to Bertred, then certainly if she be a Daughter and so called, she must needs be a Bastard, is undoubtedly true; For Amicia must needs be a bastard, unless she was legitimate.  
You grant in your 59 Page, That my proving, Amicia to be called a daughter so long since, she ought to be presumed legitimate, till the contrary appear; But why therefore do not you presume her so to be? And though you pretend there are many strong reasons to the contrary, yet I have showed the invalidity of them all, and therefore what I have formerly said stands good, and is to the point, viz. That the proving that she was not by Bertred, does not prove that she was a bastard, but only proves that she was either a bastard, or by a former wife.  
And as to what you allege, Page 60. that, though the Law allows not this in plead, what hinders but Bastardy may be proved by History or Argumentation after the party's death? As, suppose in a Register-Book you find such a Bastard Christened one hundred years ago, may not you justly call that person a bastard, whom you find so Registered? I do answer and say, That even in that case, though it be good proof, that there was then a Bastard of that name, yet if in any Deed (or otherways) in the same Age you find one of that name, you are not to be too positive that that Man was that Bastard, because, there might be more persons than one of the same Name, whose Fathers might also be of the same Name each with other; and though these mistakes might easily be cleared by the party concerned whilst he was alive, yet it may be difficult sometimes to do it after he is dead: And that is (as I suppose) one reason why the Law gives no liberty to prove Bastardy against any Man after his death. But the cases of the children of John of Gaunt by Katherine Swynford are not like to this case, For you certainly know that they were born Bastards, but afterwards legitimated; and I think, after their legitimation, they might have had the same remedies against any that did call them Bastards, that persons lawfully born might have.  
Whereas I tell you out of Sir Henry Spelman, that in cases of honour and profit (by the customs of Normandy) appellatione filiorum non comprehenduntur bastardi; You answer and say; that in other cases, and formerly by the appellation of sons, bastards were comprehended, and that this makes directly against me; But how this makes against me, in what cases soever bastards were formerly comprehended by the appellation of Sons and Daughters, if they were not comprehended in cases of honour and profit, I cannot tell, seeing that Amicia is called a Daughter, and that in a case of so great profit, that you will needs have it to be her whole Portion.  
And whereas you mention 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-Britaine as he did many others, Ego Willielmus cognomento Bastardus.  
I do not know how you can apply those expressions to the case in hand, and if you could, they would make against you; For, when Bastard children were so much esteemed, as to be admitted to succeed in the inheritance, then certainly illegitimate Daughters would have great Portions as well as those that were legitimate, And why should not Amicia, if she was a Bastard, be so called, as well as Paganus was? (who, as you say, was the Son of Hugh Cyveliok) Or why should Hugh Cyveliok himself, be more ashamed to call her so, than William the Conqueror was to style himself a Bastard:  
What else you have said, Page 61, 62 & 63. hath been said over and over again by you, and hath formerly received a full Answer.  
In the 64 & 65 Pages you recite and endeavour to fortify an Argument of mine, which I brought not as a good Argument, but compared it to one of yours, to show the invalidity thereof; neither did I at all doubt, but that William, Randle and Wydo (Sons of the aforesaid Roger Mainwaring) were all legitimate, it being good proof thereof, that in so ancient a Record, they are all three called Sons of the said Roger; But I shown you by the Rule by which you went viz. that none should be believed lawful, unless we could directly and in terminis prove their Fathers to be married, that the said William, Randle, and Wido, and most persons that lived in the First and Second Centuries might be concluded to be Bastards; And though you tell me, that I here argue well (which must needs be, because this Argument of mine is so like to yours) and that you would say to my Minor, that Roger had a Wife though we yet know not who she was; and that this appears certainly, because the Lands descended from heir to heir, and that you tell me, how you would frame your affirmative part more formally; Yet in stead of trying whether you could in terminis prove (which by this your Rule you ought to do) whether William who was the eldest of the three Sons of the said Roger, was his lawful Son, or but a bastard, you beg what you should prove, and take it for granted that he was the Son and Heir, and say, that if the Son and Heir of Roger succeeded by descent in his Father's Inheritance, than Roger had a Wise; whereas if William was the Son and Heir of Roger, the said Roger his Father must needs have a Wife, whethersoever William succeeded in the Inheritance by descent, or was disinherited; For, none but a lawful Son, can be a Son and Heir; and the same question you beg, when you pretend (p. 65.) to prove the sequel of your Major. For in that Argument you say, Ergo, if the Son and Heir of Roger succeeded by descent in the Inheritance, than Roger must needs have a Wife, and nothing appears here of a ●…al settlement; But besides you begging of the Question, the only reason which you bring to prove the said William did succeed by descent (and by consequence that his Father was Married) is, betause, nothing appears here of a special settlement; But this is not a proving certainly and in terminis that the said Roger had a Wife, for though no special settlement doth appear yet, if we must be tied to this your way of proving, William might possibly be a Bastard, and might come in by special settlement, though the said settlement be now lost; So that this retorted Argument is but weakly answered.  
What you say, Page 66, 67, 68 & 69, is but what you have formerly said and I have abundantly answered, and your alleging that Amicia being of the first venture, is therefore more worthy than those of the second, is sufficiently confuted by those words of mine, which you repeat in your 70 Page; For though it be true that if a Man die, and leave only Daughters, which are by several Wives, that those of the first venture, shall be more worthy than those of the second, yet if a Brother die (as in this case) and have no issue of his own, nor any Brother, but only leave Sisters, which were by two several ventures, if that Brother was of the second venture, (as Randle Blundevile was) then those Sisters that were of the second venture, shall be preferred before those of the first, Because, those were of the whole blood to their Brother, whereas the Sisters by the first venture were but of the half blood.  
What you allege, Page 71, 72 & 73, doth not prove that Earl Hugh's Grant, was a Release of the Service of one Knights-Fee; But that, and all the rest in those Pages (as you truly say) being nothing to the argument in hand, I will not trouble myself or the Reader therewith: Only let me obseve, that there is no probability at all, but that Sir Ralph Mainwaring had a far greater Portion with his Wife than those Services; For, the having the service of three Knights-Fees, doing the service of two Knights-fees, was in effect the having the service but of one Knights-Fee, and as I told you in my former Book, was not a Portion suitable to the Estate of a very mean Gentleman; so that it was certainly a free-gift of the said Earl, after the said Marriage was past and consummated; And that Grant to him is so far from proving, that he had no greater Portion, that you yourself, when you are told, 'tis like he had a great deal more, do confess (Page 71.) it may be so, What then? And if it be so, that he had a greater Portion, and it doth not appear how much that Portion was, you can raise no Argument from thence, so that this your second Reason is very invalid.  
Also 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 your Historical Antiquities, Page 107. Henbury was one of those Towns which Hugh Lupus held in Demaine, 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 Deed which shows how Henbury first came to the Mainwaring.  
And whereas you tell me, (Page 74, when you speak of your Third and last Reason) that I might have done well to have answered your first Reason better; I shall appeal to the Reader, whether your Third Reason, which you yourself confess not to be evincing, be not as strong as your first, and upon the matter the same with it; as also, whether I have not given both your first and third Reasons a very full answer, in the 62, 63, 66 & 67 Pages of my former Book, and therefore it will not be taken off without better reason given by you, than your bare denying it to be a substantial Answer; So that all your three Reasons against Amicia, are of no weight at all.  
Also, what I have there said will give full satisfaction to the Question you did please to ask, viz. Whether I find that the Historians have left out any of Earl Hugh's legitimate Children, except this whom I suppose to be legitimate? For, those Historians only taking upon them to Record who were heirs to Randle Blundevil; If Hugh Cyveliok had had never so many Daughters by his former Wife, they would never have taken notice of any of them.  
And whereas you observe, Page 75. How I say, that Mr. Cambden hath mentioned Amicia, though not among the Coheires, yet without the brand of a Bastard, and do reply, that I know well that he is but of late standing, and not an Historian contemporary with Amicia, and that you and I do also mention her. It is very strange that you should thus say, whereas the only reason why I did speak of Mr. Cambden, was, because, you had said, That he was one of those Historians who had taken no notice of the said Amicia, and I only named him to show you your mistake therein.  
The rest which you say in the 75 & 76 Pages, is but what you have formerly said, and hath received an answer before.  
In your 77, 78 & 79 Pages, you are also so far from answering that Argument of mine, which is contained between the 69 & 75 Pages of my former Book, that that which you pretend to be an Answer (if rightly understood) is the very Argument which I there frame against you; For, though what you say, Page 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 named in the Charts of the Earls of Chester, after the Constable and Dapifer, and are also named after the Constable and Dapifer, when they were witnesses to any Deeds; But it is only in the time of the said Sir Ralph Mainwaring, when the Justice is named before the Constable and Dapifer, in the Charts of the said Earls, and it is only he who is named 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 your former Book, and elsewhere, and doth also further appear by another Deed in your Historical Antiquities, Page 205. where the said Sir Ralph Mainwaring is also named as a Witness before the then Dapifer, Ralph de Montealto; And this respect was showed to the said Sir Ralph Mainwaring, although, as you may see in your said Book, Page 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 Philip Orreby, who did succeed the said Sir Ralph Mainwaring, was Justice of Chester, then, according to the old usual way, as appears in the 162. Page of your First Book, the Constable and Dapifer were again named in the Earl's Chart before the Justice of Chester, and also as you may see at the bottom of the 144 Page, and the top of the 145 Page of your said Book, the said Constable was named as a Witness before Philip de Orreby, though then Justice of Chester; And I believe you cannot show any Chart of any of the Earls of Chester, in which any other Justice of Chester had the like preeminence; neither do I think you can show any Deeds in which any other Justice is named 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 Deed wherein the said Philip de Orreby is named as a Witness, and was occasioned by the simplicity of the Clerk, who did write the said Deed, 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; But it appears by the aforesaid proofs, and by several other Deeds, that it was not allowed to the said Philip; And although you truly object, in the 78 Page, How great the uncertainty of subscription of Witnesses was in old Deeds, sometimes putting one before another in one Deed, and after putting the same person after the other in another Deed; yet, that will be nothing in this case; for, you yourself confess, Page 160 & 161. of your 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 preeminence being thus given to the said Sir Ralph, and to him only; and he also, so far as I have found, being ever named before all the other Barons of Cheshire, after he had Married the said Amicia, as well when he had parted 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 Marry a lawful daughter of the aforesaid Earl.  
I have now done, but cannot concur with you, that the Honour of our Grandmother (the Mother of Amicia) is a trivial thing; However, I am glad to Read, That you take your leave for ever of this Controversy, because I hope all occasion of future Contest will be thereby taken away betwixt You and Him who is,  
SIR, Your Affectionate Kinsman and very humble Servant Thomas Mainwaring. Baddeley, August 5 1673.  
FINIS.