AN ANSWER TO Sir PETER LEICESTER'S Addenda, OR, Some things to be Added in his ANSWER to S it THOMAS MAINWARINGS BOOK.  
WRITTEN By the said Sir Thomas Mainwarings  
LONDON, Printed for Samuel Lowndes over against Exeter-House in the Strand, 1673/4.   

TO Sir Peter Leicester Baronet.  
SIR;  
I Received your Addenda to the Answer to my former Book, on Monday the 12th of January last; in writing of which, whether you are just to your word; or not, let the whole World Judge.  
As for that which you say in the first Page thereof, I think it was not worth your adding to what you had formerly written, unless you could make it to appear that those persons whom you call judicious men, be such whose opinions are like to be of equal weight with those Judges and Heralds who are against you, which (I believe) will be very hard for you to do: And if you could, we should therein be but upon equal terms.  
When you tell me in your 2 Page, that you do give me two or three precedents more, besides that of Geva, to prove that Lands in those elder ages did pass in libero maritagio, I cannot but smile, to see that you still say, that the gift to Geva was such a Precedent, considering how in my Defence of Amicia, Page 43, 44. and so on to the middle of the 50 Page, as also, in my Reply to your Answer, p. 23. and p. 45, 46. and so on to the 60. Page, I have made it to appear, that it is very uncertain that the said Geva was a Bastard, but most certain that the Gift to Geva was not a Gift in Frankmarriage.  
And now I shall come to your pretended new precedents, which you mention Page 2. and so on to the end of the 6 Page of your Addenda, and in my Answer thereto, I shall make it very clear that they are not such precedents as you take them to be, but are gross mistakes of yours, you erring in no less than these five particulars following. First, in conceiving that Joan wife of the said Lhewellin, and daughter to King John, was that base daughter named Joan, which King John had by Agatha daughter to the second William de Ferrars Earl of Derby; Secondly, in saying that the said Lhewellin did marry Joan daughter of King John in the year 1206. Thirdly, in alleging that King John gave Ellesmere in libero maritagio with his said daughter Joan. Fourthly, in pretending that the Manor of Budeford in Warwickshire, and the Manor of Suttehall in Worcestershire were given by King John to the said Lhewellin with any daughter of the said King John. And lastly, in saying that that Joan who was wife to Robert de Andeley, was the same Joan who was wife to the said Lhewellin.  
And first, you err in saying that Joan who was the wife of the said Lhewellin, was the same Joan which King John had by the said Agatha; For as you may see in your Historical Antiquities, p. 132. compared with Vincent, p. 204. (which is the place you bring for proof of what you say) the said Agatha was daughter to William Ferrars Earl of Derby, by his wife Agnes the third sister and coheir of Randle Blundevil Earl of Chester and Lincoln, which Agnes was daughter of Hugh Cyveliok Earl of Chester by his wife Bertred. Now the said Hugh Cyveliok dying as appears in your Hist. Ant. p. 134. in the year 1181. and the said Bertred his wife (as is proved Rot. de Dominabus pueris, etc. in Scacc. penes Remem. R. sub Tit. Linc. Rot. 1.) being but Twenty four years of age when her said husband died, it will from thence appear, that Joan daughter of the said Agatha could not possibly be the wife of the said Lhewellin; For, if we suppose that Randle Blundevil was younger than his third sister Agnes (which I am confident you do not believe) and that the said Bertred was begotten with Child at thirteen years of age, and came so nimbly with her children as to have her first daughter when she was fourteen years old, her second daughter when she was fifteen years old, and her third daughter Agnes when she the said Bertred was sixteen years old, than the said Agnes would be eight years of age in the said year 1181. If we also suppose the said Agatha to be the eldest of the six children of the said William Ferrars and Agnes, (though she might be the youngest) and that she the said Agnes had the said Agatha when she the said Agnes was but fourteen years old, than she the said Agatha would be born in the year 1187. If we also suppose that the said Agatha had her daughter Joan when she the said Agatha was but fourteen years old, than the said Joan would be born in the year 1021. and yet by all this strange way of reckoning, Joan the daughter of Agatha would have been but about three years of age, when the said Lhewellin was married, which (as anon will appear) was in the year 1204. So that this Joan daughter of Agatha was so far from being wife to the said Lhewellin, that there is no likelihood that she was born at the time of the said Lhewellins marriage. But the said Lhewellin was 28 years of age in the year 1204, For, Sylvester Giraldus Cambrensis in his Itiner. Cambr. printed at London 1585. p. 64. and 203. tells us, that in the year 1188, (at which time the said Silvester was living) the said Lhewellin was 12 years old.  
Secondly, you run in to another erro in alleging that the said Lhewellin did marry his wife Joan in the year 1206. whereas he was her Husband in the year 1204. in the 6 year of King John, as will appear by your own Authors, Stow and Speed, and by several others; as also by this Copy of King John's Precept to the Sheriff of Shropshire, to make Livery of the said Lordship of Ellesmere.  
Ex Rot. Clauso de anno Sexto Regis Johannis (in arce Lond.) membrana 7.  
Rex Vicecom. Salop. Salutem. Scias quod dedimus dilecto filio nostro Lewellino manerium de Ellesmere, cum omnibus pertinentiis suis, in maritagio filiae nostrae, Et ideo, etc. Teste, &c, apud Wigorn. 23. Martii.  
Thirdly, You are guilty of a third error, in pretending that King John did give the Lordship of Ellesmere, in libero maritagio with his Daughter Joan; for your own Authors, as well as the aforesaid Record, do only say, that it was given in Maritagio; so that your arguing that Ellesmere was given in maritagio, and therefore was given in libero maritagio, is very irrational; For I have showed in the 39 and 40 pages of my Reply to your Answer, that maritagium is twofold, and that Lands may be given in maritagio, to one that is not of the Blood, but (as I have often proved) Lands cannot be given in free-marriage, but with one that is of the whole Blood, neither can they be so given, unless the word liberum be used as well as the word maritagium, as I have showed in the 56 and 57 pages of my said Reply.  
But if it were so, that you could have proved Joan, the wife of the said Lhewellin, to have been the base Daughter of King John by the said Agatha: and if it had been so, that this gift of Ellesmere had been in libero maritagio, yet it would have stood you in no stead; for as you may see Coke upon Littleton, fol. 21. b. if the Donee (in a Gift of Frankmarriage) that is cause of the gift be not of the blood of the Donor, yet there may pass an Estate for life, if Livery be made; And in this case of Ellesmere (as appears before) Livery was made; And you may find in the Welsh History, put out by Doctor powel, p. 306. and Mat. Par. p. 625, and 626. that though Ellesmere was enjoyed by the said Lhewellin, yet it was not long enjoyed by his Son David, but was the next year after the death of Lhewellin in (or about) the Feast of the Decollation of St. John Baptist, in the hands of King Henry the III. and as appears by good Record, the custody thereof, together with the Hundred of Ellesmere, was afterwards committed by the same King to the Trust of Hamonle Strange.  
Fourthly you are also mistaken in thinking that the Manors of Budeford and Suttehall, were given by King John to Lhewellin with his Daughter Joan, and for all your boasting demand of what can be clearer? yet your Deed is far from proving what you suppose it doth; For it neither says that King John gave those Manors cum filia sua bastarda, or that he gave them cum filia sua.  
And whereas you say in the fourth page of your Addenda, that the said Prince Lhewellin never married any Daughter of King John but the said Joan, I shall thus far agree with you, That he married a Daughter of King John's, named Joan; and but one Daughter of his, but not that Joan which you suppose. But certainly your conceit that Lhewellin could not have a former Wife, unless she was another Daughter of the said K. John, is a very wild one; For, King John might give those Manors to Lhewellin with any Woman that was of his kindred; and it is very apparent that our English Kings about that time were very desirous to have Alliance with the Princes of North-Wales; For, besides that Match of Lhewellin with the Daughter of King John, and this Match of John Scot with Helen, Daughter of the said Lhewellin, David ap Owen (Uncle to the said Lhewellin) did marry a Sister of King Henry the II. as you may see in Sylvester Giraldus. p. 203. and the Welsh History, p. 235. And King Edward the I. also caused Lhewellin ap Griffith Lhewellin, to marry a Daughter of Simon de Mountford, Earl of Liecester, which Daughter the said Earl had by a Daughter of King John, and this, although the said Lhewellin, ap Griffith Lhewellin would have married elsewhere, as you may read in Knighton col. 2462. num. 26, and num. 50. And although we cannot tell the name of her who was the first wife of that Lhewellin, who married Joan the Daughter of King John as aforesaid, we being ignorant of that, as we also are of the Wives of many great persons, and of many other things in those elder ages, yet the said Lhewellin must necessarily have a former Wife, as will appear by these following Reasons.  
First, because most Writers, as Fabian in the 7 Part of his Chronicle, p. 13. a. Stow, p. 167. a. Doctor powel in his Notes on the Welsh History, p, 259. York, p. 20. Speed in his History printed at London, 1632. p. 573. Vincent on Brooke, p. 204. Cambden in his Britania, in Latin, Printed at London, 1607. p. 453. and Knighton, col, 2417. num. 42. do all tell us of Lands given by the said King John to the said Lhewellin, with his Daughter Joan, and yet none of them do say, that these Manors of Budeford and Suttehall, or either of them were given with the said Joan.  
Secondly, Because our best Authors, who tell us what Children the said Lhewellin had by the said Joan, do only name one son, viz. David, and two daughters, viz. Marret married to John de Bruse, and Gladys married to Sir Baph Mortimer, but none of them doth name Helen, so that it seems Helen was no daughter of his by the said Joan.  
Thirdly, Because (as before appears) the said Lhewellin married the said Joan in the year 1204. Now Randle Earl of Chester coming to the City Damiata in the beginning of the year 1218. as you may see in Matt. Paris, p. 303. n. 24. & 309. n. 16. compared together, and this Match of John Scot and the said Helen as you may find in Knighton, col. 2430. n. 9 being agreed on by Randle Earl of Chester and the said Lhewellin before the said Randle went thither (and by consequence about the year 1217.) What likelihood is there that the said Joan could have any daughter old enough to be married to the said John Scot, it being impossible that Lhewellin could at that time have any Child by King John's daughter, who could be above the age of twelve years; And though you pretend that John Scot did marry the said Helen about the year 1222, yet you do that, because she could not well be marriageable till about that time if her Mother had been married in that year, which you falsely supposed she was. But there is no likelihood that Randle Blundevil would go to the Holy Land after the said marriage was agreed on, before it was Consummated, and that he had thereby some assurance that the said Lhewellin would keep that peace which was then made: But, Lhewellen might very well have a daughter by a former wife, who in the year 1217. might be old enough to be married to John Scot, for the said Lhewellin (as appears by the proofs before) was then aged 41 years; And it is like that John Scot was then of a good age, for, if his Grandmother Bertred had his Mother Maude when she the said Bertred was 18 years of age, and if his Mother Maude had him the said John Scot when she was also 18 years of age, yet John Scot would be born in the year 1193, and would be 24 years old in the year 1217.  
Fourthly, (which doth absolutely clear the point) the said Lhewellin could not possibly have given the Manors aforesaid in free marriage with his daughter Helen unto the said John Scot, unless they had been given to the said Lhewellin with a former wife, and that the said Helen was the heir unto his former wife; For when lands are given in free marriage, the husband hath not the inheritance of the said lands, neither hath he so much as an estate for life, until he be Tenant by the Courtesy of England; And you cannot pretend (according to your old subterfuge) that the Law in this point was differently holden in those elder times from what it is now; For, as you may see in my Lord Coke on Littleton, fol. 22. a. the husband in the time of King Edward the Third, was so far from having the inheritance of Lands given to him in Frankmarriage, that if he and his wife were divorced, the woman should enjoy the whole land; And for this he citys in the Margin 13 Edw. 3. tit. Ass. 19 Edw. 3. Ass. 83. with several other proofs of the like nature; Also in the time of King Edw. 1. as you may see in the Ancient Treatise called Fleta, the inheritance in these cases was in the wife, and not in the husband: For in the 3 Book and 11th Chapter, de donationibus in maritagiis it is thus said, Et quamvis fiat mentio in donatione, quod terra data sit in maritagium tali viro, cum tali uxore, res data tamen est liberum tenementum uxoris, & non viri, cum non habeat nisi custodiam cum uxore, donec liberum tenementum sibi accrescat, per legem Angliae: Secus si pro homagio & servitio viri & in Maritagium facta fuerit donatio. And so also Bracton (who lived in the time of King Henry the Third, and also in the time of the said Lhewellin) lib. 2. cap. 11. says, Si autem fiat mentio quod terra data sit in maritagium cum uxore & eorum haeredibus, communes haeredes de corpore utriusque admittantur, qui si defecerint, revertitur terra data, & alii remotiores excluduntur: quia res data est liberum tenementum uxoris, & non viri, cum non habeat nisi custodiam cum uxore. Si autem sic terra detur in Maritagium, viro cum uxore & eorum haeredibus, pro homagio & servitio viri (quod fit aliquando) licet detur in liberum maritagium, quae sunt sibi ad invicem adversantia sive repugnantia, tunc prefertur homagium, & erit acsifieret donatio tam viro quam uxori. And so also my Lord Coke on Littleton, fol. 21. b. tells us, That if the King give Land to a man with a woman of his kindred in frankmarriage, and the woman dyeth without issue, the Man in the King's case shall not hold it for his life, because the woman was the cause of the gift, but otherways it is in the case of a common person, and for this in the Margin he citys 9 H. 3. Dower. 202. So also Mr. Glanvile (who l●ved in the time of King Henry the Second, and before the time of the said Lhewellin) lib. 7. cap. 18. to the same purpose says, Cum quis itaque terram aliquam cum uxore sua in maritagium ceperit, si ex eadem uxore sua haeredem habuerit filium, vel filiam clamantem & auditum infra quatuor parietes si idem vir uxorem suam supervixerit, sive vixerit haeres sive non, illi in vita sua remanet maritagium illud, post mortem vero ipsius ad donatorem vel ejus haeredes est reversurum. Sin autem ex uxore suae nunquam habuerit haeredem, tunc statim post mortem ●xeris ad donatorem vel haeredes ejus revertetur maritagium; so that it is clear that the lands which were given with the said Helen to the said John Scot were given to the said Lhewellin with a former wife, who was Kinswoman to the said King John, and Mother to the said Helen, for otherwise the said Gift to John Scot could not be good; But if they were given to the said Lhewellin with a wife who was Mother to the said Helen, but dead at the time of the gift to the said John Scot, than the said Lhewellin being Tenant by the Courtesy of England, and the inheritance being in the said Helen he might pass away his Estate to the said John Scot with the said Helen, and they might lawfully hold the said Manors in libero maritagio, according to the Agreement made betwixt the said Randle Earl of Chester and Lincoln, and the said Lhewellin Prince of North-Wales.  
Lastly, You err a fifth time in saying, that Joan the wife of Robert de Audeley was the same Joan who was wife to the said Lhewellin; For, that cannot possibly be, because Robert de Audeley married Joan the base daughter of King John by Agatha, who might well be marriageable in the 14 year of King Henry the Third, which fell out to be in the years 1229. and 1230. But, I have before shown that there is no possibility that the said Joan daughter of Agatha could be wife to Lhewellin in the year 1204. nor any likelihood that she then was born. And this mistake of yours doth further appear, because (as before is showed) Prince Lhewellin was husband to the said Joan in the year 1204. and (as you well know and confess) he died not till the 24th year of King Henry the 3d. How then can that joane who was wife to Robert de Audeley in the 14th year of King H. 3. be the same Joan who was wife to Lhewellin? unless she had two husbands living at one time. Or, How can what your Author Vincent says be true, That she was remarried to Robert de Audley, 14 H. 3. after the death of Lhewellin, seeing the said Lhewellin died not till the 24th year of Henry 3d? and did also outlive his wife Joan three years? Certainly, if Vincent had known as well as you, how long the said Lhewellin lived, he would never have said that Joan the wife of Robert de Audley was the same Joan who was wife of Lhewellin; But though you do acknowledge that Vincent did err in saying Lhewellin was dead, when Joan was married to Robert de Audeley, yet you would willingly justify the other part of his error, in making Audeleys wife Joan to be the same woman with Lhewellins wife Joan, and to do this, you fancy that Lhewellin was divorced from his wife Joan, though there be no Author who doth allege any such thing. And, Can we think that a Prince of North-Wales, and a daughter of King John could be divorced, and one or both of them marry again in the life-time of each other, and no writer take notice thereof? Or, can it be, that Mat. Paris, who lived at that very time, should (in his 365. Page) speak of William de Braus his being taken in Adultery with the said Joan, with an (ut dicebatur) only? Or, the Welsh History (p. 286.) with an (as it was reported) if the Adultery was so notorious, as that she was divorced for it? Indeed, you tell us out of Knighton, col. 2439. that Anno Domini 1228. 13 H. 3. Leolinus Princeps Walliae rebllare cepit:— Tandem vero post concursus varios, & discrimina multa, per quoddam maritagium cum Rege concordatus est, & in pace dimissus; and from these words, per quoddam maritagium, you would insinuate a Divorce, and a new Marriage of the said Joan, with Robert de Audeley, which divorce and marriage is further fetched than any thing that I ever heard of in all my life; For, it is not likely that the putting away of the King's Sister could be a means to procure Peace, and none knows betwixt what parties the marriage there spoken of was; But you did well to break off at the words in pace dimissus, for if you had added these words of Knighton, which immediately follow the other, viz. Anno Domini sequenti (the Figures 1229. being also put in the margin) Lewelinus eundem Willielmum de Braus Baronem nobilem quem ad festa Paschalia invitaverat, post epularum copiam super adulterio & violatione uxoris suae accusans, & malitiose eum & hostiliter ingressus est, & eum in carcerem trudens morte turpissima & absque omni judicio sententialiter interemit. It would from thence have appeared that neither the Divorce or second marriage of the said Joan could thereby be meant, unless you would have a Divorce in the year 1228, for an Adultery not committed till the year 1229. And with Knighton agrees the said Mat. Maris, p. 365. n. 10. (mentioned in the 5 Page of your Addenda) who saith, that William de Braus was hanged for that supposed Adultery, in the month of April, in the year 1230. And we well know, there is but one week betwixt the last day of the year 1229. and the first day of April 1230.  
Also, in the 6 Page of your Addenda, where you tell us out of the Welsh History put out by Doctor Powel, that Lewellin's wife died in the year 1237. if you would have added what is further said in the same Page, it would have given satisfaction that Lhewellins wife was never divorced, For, Page 293. you may thus read, The next Spring (1237.) died Joan daughter to King John, Princess of Wales, and was buried upon the Sea shore within the Isle of Anglesey at Lhanvaes' as her pleasure was, where the Prince did build an house of barefoot-Friars over her grave. Now certainly the Welsh History would not then have called her Princess of Wales, nor her husband have built that house over her, if she had been divorced from Lhewellin, and Married to the said Robert de Audeley.  
If any object, That though Joan the wife of Lhewellin was not the base daughter of King John by Agatha, yet it is like she was his base daughter by some other woman, because of those Authors which you cite to that purpose; I answer, and say, that it is nothing to the case of Amicia, whether the said Joan was a Bastard or not, as I have before proved; But however it doth not yet certainly appear to me that she was so; For, though Vincent upon Brooke, Speed, Stow, and the Monk of Chester who did write the Poly-Chronicon, and some others do say, that she was a Bastard, yet they are not much to be regarded, because the said Author of the Poly-Chronicon, (as Vossius tells you in his Book de Historicis Latinis, p. 487.) died in the year 1363. which was 159. years after Lhewellin married the said joane, and yet the said Monk lived long before any other Author (which I have taken notice of) who doth call her a Bastard. Let us therefore examine the matter a little; and in order thereto, let us observe how many wives the said King john had.  
First, he married Alais daughter of the Earl of Moriana in the year 1173. as you may read in Brompton's Chronicon, col. 1082. n. 35. Hoveden (Frankfurt Edition, printed 1601.) Page 532. n. 5. Matt. Paris (put out by Doctor Watts) Page 127. n. 5. (which Editions of Hoveden and Paris, I do all along follow) and the like you may find in Vincent upon Brooke, Page 133. who also there tells you, that by Moriana is not meant Moreton, but Savoy, with which Matt. Parnell p. 751. n. 46. doth also accord; But the said Alais being then scarcely seven years of age, as you may see in Matt. Paris, p. 127. n. 6. and dying presently after, the said King john could not possibly have any issue by that wife.  
Soon after this, viz. in the year 1176. (as you may read in Hoveden, p. 553. n. 46. and Matt. Paris, p. 132. n. 29) there was an Agreement for a marriage to be had between the said john (than youngest son of the said King H. 2.) and a daughter of William Earl of Gloucester, son of Robert Earl of Gloucester, which said daughter is not there named, but her name was Hawisia or Avis, and the marriage afterwards took effect, but he was divorced from her in the year 1200, as will anon appear.  
Thirdly, immediately upon his Divorce he married Isabel daughter of the Earl of Engolisme, who was his last wife; for, she survived him; and by her he had issue (as will be agreed by all) Henry, (afterwards King Henry the Third) Richard, Earl of Cornwall, (afterwards King of the Romans) joane wife of Alexander the second, King of Scots, Eleanor, first married to William Marshal the younger, Earl of Pembroke, and afterwards to Simon Mountford Earl of Leicester, as also Isabel, who was sixth wife to Frederick the second, Emperor of Germany.  
But King john marrying the said Isabel in the year 1200. could have no child by her old enough to be married to the said Lhewellin in the year 1204.  
Neither could joane the wife of Alexander King of Scots be the same joane who was wife to Robert de Audeley, for, she was wife to the said Alexander in the year 1221. as appears in your Hist. Ant. p. 60. and Mat. Paris, p. 313. n. 12. and died before her husband (say you) in the year 1236. and was buried at London; But, Mat. Paris, who lived in the same time with her (p. 468. n. 34.) tells you the very day of her death, and says she died in the year 1238. in England, and was buried at Tarente. But you in your 60 p. and Mat. Paris, p. 770. n. 39 do agree that the said Alexander did survive the said joane, and that he died in the year 1249.  
The only question than will be, Whether Lhewellins wife was King john's legitimate daughter by his wife Hawisia? which if she was, than some of our Authors taking notice but of two daughters named joane, which the said King had, did thereupon mistake joane the wife of Lhewellin, for joane the wife of Robert de Audeley, and so did misled several of our later Authors into the like error.  
Sure I am, that Mat. Paris, who was contemporary with the said joane, p. 231. n. 52. calls her the King's daughter, without the addition of Bastard, or any thing tending thereto; His words are these, Quo facto, venit alius Nuncius ex parte filiae ejusdem Regis uxoris videlicet Leolini Regis Walliae, etc. Also in the reign of King H. 3. her son David is by him (p. 537. 569. and in many other places) styled Nepos Regis, and p. 695. called Nepos Regis ex Sorore, and p. 570. he is said to be propinquus Regi consanguinitate. Also Knighton, col. 2417. n. 42. thus says of her, Rex Johannes dedit filiam suam Leolino Principi Walliae in uxorem, & cum ea dedit castellum & totum territorium de Ellesmere in confinio Walliae. And the King himself in the aforesaid Record gives her the title of filiae nostrae.  
Also in Lib. Barlings (in which Book besides what concerns the Abbey of Barlings in Lincolnshire, there are certain Annals (beginning An. 1050. and ending An. 1231.) she is called the said King's daughter, without the Addition of Bastard; For, as I am informed by a judicious person, who, at my request did lately search the said Book in Sir john Cottons Library, these words Lewelinus disponsavit filiam Regis I. are the only words, fol. 22. b. which concern the said matter: And yet you, in the 2d. Page of your Addenda do say, That the said Joan Lib. Barlings, Fol. 22. b. is acknowledged and called base daughter of K. John. I hope therefore the Reader will take heed how far he gives credit to what you say.  
Neither have I as yet found any Author who lived in that Age with her, who hath said that she was a Bastard; Indeed, our later Authors as Vincent and others, who say that she was illegitimate, do many of them say, That King john was divorced from his second wife, as well for that she was barren, as within the degrees of consanguinity, which barrenness, if it could be made to appear, would certainly prove the said joane to be a Bastard; And, this opinion hath so far prevailed in this last age, that whereas learned Mr. Cambden, as you may see in his Britannia in Latin printed at London 1607. p. 259. speaking of the Divorce of the said Hawisia (whose name he mistakes and calls Isabel) doth only use these words illam repudiatam, Doctor Philemon Holland in the English Translation (unjustly) renders it thus, That King John did repudiate her upon pretences, as well that she was barren, as that they were within the prohibited degrees of consanguinity. But our ancient Historians say nothing of her being Barren.  
For this see Hoveden (who was living all the time that Hawisia was wife to K. John) p. 803. n. 34. in the year 1200. Eodem Anno factum est divortium inter Johannem regem Angliae et Hawisam uxorem ejus filiam Willielmi comitis Gloucestrriae per Heliam Burdegalensem Archiepiscopum, & per Willielmum Pictavensem, & per Henricum Sanctonensem episcopos: erant enim affines in tertio gradu consanguinitatis. Facto itaque Divortio inter Johannem regent Angliae, & uxorent suam, ipse Rex Angliae consilio domini sui Philippi regis Franciae duxit sibi in uxorem Isabel filiam Ailmari comitis de Engolismo, etc.  
So also Mat. Paris (living in the time of the said joane) p. 200. n. 23. in the said year 1200. Eodem tempore celebrato Divortio inter Regem Anglorum & uxoorem suam Hawisam comitis Gloverniae filiam, eo quod affines erant in tertio gradu consanguinitis. Duxit idem Rex, consilio Regis Francorum Isabel filiam comitis Engolismi.  
So also Mat. Westminster in that Edition printed at London, 1570. lib. 2. p. 76. n. 25. Anno gratiae. M. CC. Rex Johannes Isabellam filiam comitis Engolismi duxit in uxorem & Dominica proxima ante festum sancti Dyonisii consecrata est in reginam ab Huberto Cantuariensi Archiepiscopo, quia celebratum fuit divortium inter ipsum & Hawisiam comitis Gloverniae filiam, eo quod contingebant se in tertio consanguinitatis gradu.  
Now certainly these ancient Authors must needs in this point be credited before those that lived so long after them, and especially since all those that I have met with who say she was barren, or do call her a Bastard, do not one of them know her true Christian-name, but are either silent therein, or else (which the most of them do) do call her Isabel instead of Hawisia.  
See also the words of Rad. de Diceto (who lived in the time of the said King john) col. 706. n. 5. which words are these, Celebratum est divortium inter Johannem regem Angliae & filiam comitis Glocestriae in Normannia, ab episcopis Lisoriensi, Baiocensi, Abrincensi. & aliis episcopis qui interfuerant, quam ipse tempore patris permissione Romanae ecclesiae duxerat in uxorem cum Comitatibus de Glocestria, de Sumersatum, de Devenesire, de Cornwaille, et aliis quamplurimis per Angliam honoribus. Set ille sublimioris thori spe raptatus, consilio pravorum cam abegit, unde magnam summi Pontificis scilicet, Innocentii tertii, et totius curiae Romanae indignationem incurrit, praesumens temere contra leges et canones dissolvere quod eorum fuerat auctoritate colligatum.  
And now let any man judge, if she had been barren, whether that would not have been alleged as a cause of King john's putting her away, as well as his desire of matching into a more sublime family; So that I see no reason to conclude the said joane to be a Bastard, until it be proved that she was so, by some Record, Deed, or good Author who lived in that Age, and especially since the said Hawisia's daughter (if she had one) might very well be old enough in the year 1204. to be married to the said Lhewellin Prince of North-Wales; But it is not material to the case in hand, whether the said joane was a Bastard or not, Because all the Gifts you mention in your Addenda, were either not gifts in free-marriage, or else were not given to the said Lhewellin with the said joane.  
As to what you say in your 7 Page, I did in my former Book give you several Reasons, why the words of Glanvil did not prove what you supposed they did, and in the 38 and 39 Pages of my Reply did tell you how you had left them unanswered, and did also there nform you, that Mr. Glanvil did not say, That Lands might be given with any woman in liberum maritagium, but only in maritagium; and yet after all this, you have the confidence again to father upon Mr. Glanvil what he never either meant or said.  
In your 8. Page, you say I have charged you with many absolute untruths and gross absurdities, and in stead of modest and clear Answers to the very point or hinge of the controversy, did burst out into extravagant expressions in things upon the By, which gives you occasion to imagine that I think my cause declining. But those, and several other of your expressions, seeming to proceed more from passion then reason, I shall at present pass them by, and do not doubt, but I shall be able to clear myself, from any thing which you have or can particularly charge me withal; And whereas you pretend that my confidence did arise, because you are tied up by your Promise to write no more touching Amicia. I will assure you I received no encouragement thereby, for I do not take you to be so great a  as you suppose yourself to be; And if I had relied upon your promise, I had been much mistaken, but I did very well know what you meant to do, for (besides what I heard from others) the same day my Reply was finished, you did write a Letter to me, wherein was your pretended new precedent of Budeford and Suttehal, and before any part of my last Book was printed, I received notice from your servant by your command, that you would print some precedents as Addenda to your former Book, but it seems that resolution, as also another, (as I was informed) of writing an Answer in a third persons name, were both laid aside, and what you did came out as Addenda to your later Book; But how, in so doing, you were just to your word, I cannot imagine, for, what you did write till the end of the 7. Page, did all concern Amicia; and, by the same reason you did write now, you may write always, and say you do so as Addenda only to your said second Book.  
In your 9 Page you again tell me, That I begin my Reply with an untruth, because I say, that those of our County who are understanding persons will easily discern from some of your Omissions, that it was something else besides your great love to truth which occasioned you to Asperse your deceased Grandmother, and you tell me I might have done well to have showed; To which I answer, that I will not reflect upon persons in print, but if any one desire privately to know what those Omissions were, if I cannot give full satisfaction of your gross partiality, let me bear the blame: And, I know no reason, since you pretended it was your great love to truth which did occasion you to Write against Amicia, but that I might in general terms let the World know it was something else which moved you so to do; and I will appeal to the Reader, whether I did not avoid all offensive expressions in what I said.  
In your 10. Page, you are also over-captious; For I having found in your Historical Antiquities two Deeds made by Randle de Gernoniis father to Hugh Cyveliok, (in the time of which Hugh, Ralph Mainwaring was Justice of Chester) and those two Deeds being directed Justiciariis, although I know of none who can tell the name of any more than one of them; I did therefore, lest there should be two Justices in the time of the said Ralph, in my first Book call him Chief Justice, because he acted alone, but did withal in my second Book acknowledge, that I had not found that there was then any other Justice in the time of the said Ralph, and for this, you tell me I should have been more ingenious, and do say, I do very well know that there was no other Judge of Chester at that time, which being a Negative, it is impossible for me to know; Also, as you may see in Monasticon Anglicanum, Part 3. p. 97 & 226. and in your Hist. Ant. p. 130. & 131. there was in the time of the said Earl Hugh sometimes two Justices of Chester, and sometimes but one; So that there possibly might be another Justice of Chester, when the said Ralph was Judge there: And whereas you give a glance at my vainglory, by pretending you are loath to say it was so: I desire to know how I could possibly be vainglorious therein▪ since it was full as honourable for the said Ralph to be sole Justice of Chester, as to be Chief Justice in case there were two.  
In your 11 and 12 Pages, you deny that you said that Geffrey Dutton was witness to his own Deed or Deeds, but to the Deeds of others, and say, it was my gross mistake in saying so; But, if any persons read the 4 and 5 Pages of your Answer to my first Book, they may easily see that you apply the words Domino Galfrido de Dutton in that Deed of Tabley to that Jeffrey de Dutton who made the said Deed, and they will also find you saying, That in several other Deeds of the same person (meaning still the same Geffrey) 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. Let the Readers therefore (if they can) find out, how you could imagine his name to be at any time amongst his own Witnesses, if you did not take him to be a Witness to his own Deeds.  
You also in the same Pages of your Addenda say, That if he had been a Knight he would have called himself by his Title, Ego Galfridus de Dutton Miles; or, Ego Dominus Galfridus de Dutton dedi, etc. But, this is directly contrary to what you did write at the bottom of the 5. Page of your second Book; and it is well known, that in very ancient times, every one who was a Knight, did not always give himself the Title of Miles or Dominus in his own Deeds, neither had he always the same Title given to him by others, which, if occasion required, I could make to appear.  
You also tell me, that when I say That Dominus Galfridus de Dutton witness to the other Geffrey Duttons Deed of Nether-Tabley was his Father, it was my gross mistake, For it was Geffrey Dutton of Chedle. And you also say, that there were four Geffrey Duttons, two of Budworth, Father and Son, and two of Chedle Father and Son, much contemporary; and for the proving of those two of Budworth (those of Chedle being not there named) you send me to your Book of Antiquities, Page 226. there to be informed of what (you say) you see I do not know. But, if I did not know of those two Geffrey Duttons, how could I tell you in the 10. Page of my Reply that Adam de Dutton had issue Sir Jeffrey, who had issue Geffrey who made the said Deed of Tabley? or, How could I say that Geffrey the Father was a Witness to that Deed? and, How doth it yet appear that the Dominus Galfridus de Dutton, who was Witness to the said Deed of Tabley was Geffrey Dutton of Chedle, and not the other Sir Geffrey Dutton of Budworth? For, though the year 1238 be the last time you say you met with him, yet, as appears in your Hist. Antiq. p. 216. you have not seen the Deeds of Sir George Warburton, who is his heir-male; therefore the said Geffrey might very well live on to be a Witness to that Deed. But, whether the said Sir Geffrey of Budworth the Father was then living or not, one of the Geffrey Duttons of Chedle was also a Knight, as appears in your Hist. Ant. p. 206. (though you conceal it in your Addenda because you would have the Reader to believe there was no Sir Geffrey Dutton living when that Deed of Tabley was made) which will as well serve my turn; for, if Sir Geffrey of Budworth was then dead, than the Domino Galfrido de Dutton is in that Deed to be applied to Sir Geffrey Dutton of Chedle; And whilst they were both living, whensoever you sinned Domino Galfrido de Dutton among the witnesses, it is certainly to be applied to one of the Knights, and when you find Galfrido without Domino, it is as certainly meant of some Geoffrey Dutton that was no Knight.  
And whereas you object, p. 13. That Sir Geffrey Dutton of Budworth must needs be dead, or else Geffrey the Son could not have passed away those Lands. That doth not follow, for I have known more than once, not only Sons in the lifetimes of their Fathers, but also Grandchilds, who have been possessed of Lands in their grandfathers time; And whereas you say that Margaret was daughter, but not Daughter and heir of Geffrey Dutton; I cannot tell how that will appear without the sight of Sir George Warburtons' Deeds; Because Sir Peter Dutton might be son to a Geffrey Dutton, and yet be Brother and heir-mal to Geffrey the Father of Margaret. But be it how it will, she having the Manors of Nether-Tabley, Wethale, and Hield, it can be no gross one, if it be any mistake at all.  
In your 14 Page, you would willingly heal an expression in your former Book, by confessing it was too short; but, to make amends for this, you now overdo it; and because you would make us believe that you formely meant as you now pretend, you say, that a little after, you did speak of Knights who usually styled themselves thus— Ego Dominus A. B. dedi, etc. or, Ego Dominus A. B. Miles dedi, etc. But, whoever can find those words in your Answer, can find out that which I am not able to do.  
In your 16, 17 and 18 Pages, you keep a great stir about the word domino, when it is prefixed to any names in subscriptions, and though you were willing in your last Book to call Sir Ralph Mainwaring, Sir Roger Mainwaring, Sir Thomas Mainwaring, and Sir William Mainwaring, all of them Knights, yet now you are dissatisfied concerning all but Sir Thomas Mainwaring, to whose name in a Fine you find the word Milite added, and you would willingly insinuate that the Dominus Willielmus Mainwaring was he who was Parson of Wernith, (though without any cause as appears by the Deed wherein he is named.) And you ask me, whether I have any Deed of Ralph Mainwaring Judge of Chester, with the word Milite added, which you well know that I have not, it being much, that I have those Deeds of his which I have, being he was Judge of Chester so long since, viz. in the time of Richard the First; But, I pray you, Why is not the word Domino, when prefixed to the name of a Witness who was not a Clergyman, good proof that he was a Knight? (especially since some who are likely to be the most skilful in those matters, are of opinion that it is.) And why, if it be not good proof, were you lately more complimental than you are now, and did break your old Rule of Amicus Socrates, Amicus Plato, etc. in calling Ralph, Roger, and William Mainwaring Knights? Or, Why do not you prove the word domino prefixed to some persons name, before he was made a Knight? Or, to one who was no Clergyman, and but an Esquire, at the time of his death? Or, Why doth not the word domino prefixed to each of the names of the aforesaid Ralph, Roger, and William Mainwaring prove them to be Knights, as well as it doth prove one of the Geffrey Duttons of Budworth, and one of the Geffrey Duttons of Chedle to be Knights? For, you confess, Page 13. of your Addenda, that you do not remember any of them writing Ego Dominus Galfridus Dutton, dedi, etc. And, Why did not you answer the Question which I asked of you in the 16. Page of my Reply? viz. 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. And, What is the reason that you do not call all the four Geffrey Duttons Knights, as well as two of them? seeing in the 13 p. you say, You have (if you mistake not) seen them all sometimes subscribed with Domino prefixed, but not any of them writing himself, Ego Dominus, etc. Or, How comes it to pass, that neither of the two Knights did ever write so, if what you say in your 11th Page be true? Sure the Reader will easily perceive, what strange work you yet make with these Geoffrey's and their Deeds.  
In your 18th Page you also say, That I fasten upon you another untruth, where I tell you, that you have seen the opinion of a Judge under his hand, with Reasons for the same touching Amicia. But, whether this be an untruth or not, let what you formerly sent me under your own hand determine, where you name the Judge, and also take notice that his reasons were given under his hand; Let me therefore advise you for the future to be more cautious what you writ. And whereas you also say, That your memory is not so bad, but you could remember something of it or his name; Let the Reader look in your Hist. Ant. p. 135. l. 3. and p. 136. l. 43. or see your words in the 5 p. l. 15. and 12. p. l. 5. printed with my Defence of Amicia, and he will there find that you did know the Reasons of the said Judge.  
And whereas you pretend, It was impossible for you to have alleged to the two Heralds, the tenth part of what you could have done in so short a space; I shall leave that to them, they being both yet living, as also whether they have found any thing in your former Books concerning Amicia, which they have not heard from you before. And as for your Lawyer of very good note, and good Antiquary, you do well in concealing his Name, But certainly he was very unkind that would not furnish you with some Precedents to make good what he said.  
What you say in the 20th Page, and so on to the middle of the 23 Page, shows clearly, that you are resolved not to be convinced; For, when at the first I proved out of Monast. Angl. Part 2. p. 267. that Richard Bacuns Mother could not be Hugh Cyveliok's daughter, because it was Randle de Gernoniis, not Randle Blundevil, whom the said Richard called Uncle, in regard there was a William Archbishop of York, and one whose Name began with an R. which was then Bishop of Chester, both living in the time of the said Randle de Gernoniis: but that there was no William Archbishop of York, during all the time of Randle Blundevil, nor any man Bishop of Chester whose name began with R, after the said Randle Blundevil could be old enough to seal a Deed, as also, because Bacuns witnesses were contemporary with Randle de Gernoniis; You in the 54 and 55 Pages of your Answer, do not only say that you conceive the Roll from whence the Deed in Monasticon was written is mistaken in Will. and R. (which was a strange Answer) but you also say, There was no such Archbishop of York called William, nor Bishop of Chester whose Christian name began with R. both living at one time, either in the time of Randle Blundevil or Randle de Gernoniis that you can find. But when you perceived that I had clearly proved by several Authors, that a William was Archbishop of York, and that Roger Clinton was Bishop of Chester in the time of Randle de Gernoniis, so that you could no longer deny the same; You now in your Addenda would willingly avoid the Argument, because the said William upon his first Election had not the Pall, which all that know any thing will easily perceive to be a very weak Answer; For he was consecrated Archbishop, and had possession of the Archbishopric till after the deaths of Pope Innocent the Second, Pope Celestine the Second, and Pope Lucius the Second; And if he was reputed Archbishop, he would be called so, as well in Deeds as otherways: And it is no wonder, since he was looked upon by many to be the right Archbishop, and to be wrongfully suspended by Pope Engenius, (as you may see in my Reply, Page 77. and so on to the 87. Page) if some persons do name him according to the time of Election, and others according to the time of his Restauration, which doth reconcile those different placings which you mention in your 22 p.  
And whereas you again object, That Chester was then within the Province of Canterbury, not York; I answered that in my last Book, where I told you that the Archbishop 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 Westriding of York shire; And if that Deed was not directed to an Archbishop of York, How came the word Eboracensi there? But if you had foreseen I would have asked you this question, I doubt not but you would have said, That the word Eboracensi was miswrit, as well as the word Will, and the letter R.  
In your 23, 24, and 25 Pages, you are disingenuous, and do not recite my Argument aright; For you pretend it only to lie in this, That Hugh Wac and Richard Pincerna (two of the Witnesses to Bacuns Deeds) were also Witnesses to a Deed made Anno 1152. which falls in the latter end of the life of Randle de Gernoniis, whereas whoever will read the 88 and 89 Pages of my Reply, will find that I named five Witnesses of Richard Bacuns, viz. Hugh Wac, Richard Pineerna, William Colevile, Thurstan Benaster, and William the Chaplain, and also did instance in five Deeds to which Randle de Gernoniis was a party, to each of which, one, two, or three of the said Bacuns said witnesses were also witnesses; and if you please you may also find a sixth Deed in Monast. Angl. Part 1. p. 987. b. and a seventh Deed in Monast. Angl. Part 2. p. 260. b.  
That which you did allege concerning two Deeds made at a great distance, is nothing like this Case; Neither is there any weight in William Bacun's being a witness to a single Deed of Randle Blundevils', for, he might be a young Man when he was witness to Richard Bacuns Deed, and living to be old might be a witness to one of Randle Blundevils' Deeds, But it is probable he was Son, Grandson, or other Kinsman of the other William Bacun; But, you deal a little fallaciously with your Reader, when you say it was but Twenty nine years betwixt the death of Randle de Gernoniis, and the time that Randle Blundevil was Earl; For, though that be true, yet it would be a longer time before Randle Blundevil could be old enough to seal a Deed, for his Mother was but Twenty four years old when he came to be Earl.  
What you object, p. 26 and 27, concerning the deed of Warranty of Randle de Gernoniis, or concerning Richard Bacuns being contemporary with Randle Blundevil, is sufficiently answered; For, Why might not the said Deed of Warranty be lost, as well as many thousands of other Deeds are? And that Richard Bacun was contemporary with Randle de Gernoniis, I have abundantly proved. And though in your 27 Page, you would have Bacuns Mother to be Hugh Cyvelioks daughter, yet in the 25 Page you confess, that it is probable she was a Bastard of Randle de Meschines, but finding that to contradict what you afterwards said, you have since the Printing thereof blotted it out of those Books which you have disposed of in these parts; And, although I do not see but that Bacuns Mother might be a lawful daughter of the said Randle de Meschines, yet I will not further engage in her defence, but pass by that, and the course language which you repeat at the latter end of your Book.  
I have now done with your Addenda but since you have so abounded in that, particular, I hope you will give me leave to add a word or two to what I have formerly said.  
I have heretofore proved that the aforesaid Bertred was but Twenty four years of age in the year 1181, when her Husband died, by which it appears, that she was born in the year 1157. I do also find in the Third Part of Mr. Dugdales Monasticon Anglicanum, p. 226. that Hugh Cyveliok and his Mother Maude did give Stivinghale, with a Mill next the Park, and some other Grounds, to Walter Durdent Bishop of Chester and his successors, to which Deed Eustace the Constable was witness; Now the said Earl Hugh being not in a capacity to seal a Deed until he was One and twenty years of age, and the said Eustace being slain (as appears by your Hist. Ant. p. 266.) in a Battle against the Welsh in the said year 1157. If the said Deed was made immediately before the said Eustace was slain, the said Hugh must needs be at the least One and twenty years older than his Wife Bertred; But, it is very likely that Deed was made some years before, viz. immediately upon the death of Randle de Gernoniis, For the said Randle died Excommunicate, and Stivinghale and those other Lands were given for his Absolution, and the health of his Soul.  
But, besides what is here proved, if you look at the latter end of the Welsh History put out by Dr. Powel 1584., immediately before the Table, you will see that the 16 line of the 197 page of the said Welsh History is misprinted, and that in the said Page it should have been Printed thus: About the same time Hugh son to the Earl of Chester, sprtified his Castle of Cymaron, and wan Melienyth to himself. And you may also there find, that the time when the said Hugh wan Mclienith was in the year 1142.  
Now that this Welsh History is of good credit, I hope you will not deny; For, in the 44 Page of your Historical Antiquities, you acknowledge, that in these Welsh matters you chief follow the same; And Dr. Powel in his Epistle, as also in his Notes on the said History, p. 206. tells us, That Caradocus Lhanearuan is reputed and taken of all learned men to be the Author of what is therein written, until the year 1156. And as you may find in Vossius his Book, de Historicis Latinis, p. 389. and in Isaacksons Chronologie, p. 323. the said Caradocus was living when the said Hugh wan Melienith.  
The only Question therefore is, Of what age the said Hugh then was? And because that is uncertain, and that I am willing to reckon so, as may be most advantageous to you, I will suppose him to be then but Twelve years old, which is the same age that Silvester Giraldus, p. 203. says Prince Lhewellin ap Jorweth was of, when he began to infest his Uncles, and is indeed as young, as I have observed any to appear in such Martial Affairs. Now, if we should believe that Hugh Cyveliok did Marry the said Berired so soon as she was fourteen years of age, than the said Marriage would happen in the year 1171. at which time, if Hugh Cyveliok was born in the year 1130, and was but 12 years old when he was Melienith, in the year 1142, yet he would be 41 years of Age when he Married the said Bertred. It cannot therefore be imagined, that so great a person should continue unmarried till he was above Forty years old, or that he should Marry to his first Wife, one so much different from him in years; But, when he had Married a former Wife, who died leaving him only a daughter or daughters, it is no wonder if in his age, he Married a young Lady, to the intent he might have Issue-male to succeed him in so great an Estate; I hope therefore, though you told me in the 49 Page of your Reply, That you can gather no such quantity of years in respect of Hugh Cyvelioks age, reasonably to suppose him to have had a former Wife, that these proofs will show, that there were very many years betwixt them, and that thereupon you will be so reasonable as to believe he had a Wife before he Married Bertred; And, if he had a former Wife, there would be no cause to suspect Amicia to be illegitimate, if your pretended Precedents had been such as you did untruly suppose them to be; with which I will conclude what I have now to say, when I have subscribed myself  
Your Affectionate Cousin and Servant, Thomas Mainwaring. Baddeley, Feb. 13. 1673/ 4.