A true state of the Proofs offered at the Bar of the House of Lords, by Robert Son and Heir of Robert, and Grandson of John late Lord Viscount Purbeck, to prove the Legitimacy of Robert the Father.  
IT was observed first, That it is about 56 years since Robert the Father was born, and four since he died.  
2. Of how dangerous a consequence it may prove hereafter, if a precedent of this nature should be now introduced, (to wit) That a man's Legitimacy shall be called in question so long after his birth and death. Or that a Son after such an afflux of years shall be put to prove the Legitimacy of his Father, who died during the Infancy of such Son, or else lose both his Honour and Estate.  
But that all satisfaction imaginable might be given in a matter of this nature, it hath been proved by living Witnesses,  
I. That in Trinity-Term 1648, a Trial was had at the Bar of the Court of Kings-Bench, between Vege Plaintiff and Robert Villers, Esq Father of the now Petitioner Defendant. Upon that Trial the Legitimacy of Robert the Father came in question, for clearing of which point, it was then swore by a Midwife, that she delivered the Lady Frances, Wife of John Lord Viscount Purbeck, of the said Robert, and that he was her Son born of her own body.  
The Nurse that nursed him, swore him to be Son of the said Lady Frances, born of her own body.  
And it was further proved,  
That John Lord Purbeck always owned him to be his Son and Heir. That the Lady Frances his Mother owned him as such.  
That the Lady Hatton owned him to be her Grandson, Christened him, and was his Godmother.  
That John Lord Purbeck writ him several Letters, wherein he called him Son Robert, and by the Superscription directs them to Robert Villers, Esq  
That he sealed Bonds to him, obliged himself to pay him money as to Robert Villers his Son.  
That his Lordship received several sums of Money of him, gave acquittances for the same as received of his Son Robert Villers, Esq  
That John Viscount Purbeck made frequent Visits to the said Robert, and received the like from him; with kindness owned him always to be his Son, expressed great affection to him, gave him his blessing, and often drank to him by the name of Son Robert; many times declared great anger against any person that should but question whether he were his Son or not.  
That he delivered him the Keys of his House at Stoak, when he came there, to keep, and would not trust his servants; and agreed to live with him, and that he should keep House and board him.  
Often received Tokens from him, and talked much amongst his friends of the kindness of his Son Robert.  
Robert in the life time of his Father joined with him in sale of Lands, and in the Conveyances was written Robert Villers, Esq Son and Heir apparent of John Lord Viscount Purbeck.  
John Lord Viscount Purbeck enjoyed the Estate of the Lady Frances his Wife during his life, by the courtesy of England upon account of having Robert Villers his Son lawfully begotten on her body, born alive.  
When Robert Villers sold Stoak-Park, John Lord Viscount his Father made him allow him 6000 l. for his Interest therein for life, upon account, as aforesaid.  
In the year 1647, the said Robert as Son and Heir of Lord John, compounded for his Lordship's Estate at Goldsmith's Hall, which Estate was after his Decease to descend to him as Heir to the Lady Frances his Mother.  
John Lord Purbeck would frequently say his Lady was a very good woman, that he was extremely sorry he had used her so ill, declaring it was occasioned only by his Mother the Countess of Buckingham.  
The Jury upon this or the like evidence, amongst other things comprehended in their special Verdict, found as followeth.  
That Frances Lady Purbeck had Issue-male of her body begotten during the Coverture between them the said Frances Lady Purbeck, and the said John Lord Viscount Purbeck (viz.) the v Robert Villers his eldest Son.  
Upon arguing this Verdict by the Judges, Judgement was given for Rob. Villers the Defendant, and he ever after enjoyed the Estate in question as Son and Heir of his Mother, against the Claim of Vege, who claimed under and in right of one Mr. Cook, and Robert the Petitioner hath enjoyed the Estate in question ever since his Decease.  
This Judgement is upon record, and never reversed to this day.  
Now to offer any Proofs in any Court against the Legitimacy of the said Robert, were to aver against a Record, which in no Court will be admitted.  
And if all the matters aforesaid were not sufficient of themselves to prove the Legitimacy of Robert the Father;  
Yet the Common Law will on this fact and other circumstances, as length of time, enjoyment of Estates, living in England, etc. abundantly do it.  
That the House may be satisfied of the reasons why Robert Villers his name was changed sometimes to Wright, other times to Howard;  
It is humbly desired that the Petition of Frances Viscountess Purbeck presented to the House of Lords in 1640, may be read, which will abundantly satisfy the reason of that fact.  

The Contents whereof followeth,  
That 23 years before in her Minority by the command of her Father, she married John Lord Purbeck, who had with her a great Estate, besides 10000 l. paid to the Duke of Bucks, Brother to the said Viscount, upon the Duke's agreement to buy Land with it, and settle it on her and her Issue.  
Not long after the Marriage, the Countess of Bucks, Mother to the said Viscount, upon pretence of weakness and distempers of her Lord, caused them to live apart, during which time they disposed his Estate, (which most came from her Father) and left her without maintenance; and when she repaired to the said Countess and her Agents for relief, she was most barbarously carried into the open street by force, and there left void of relief. That her Husband and her Estate being kept from her, King James directed her relief; whereupon the Duke of Bucks, who had all her Estate, agreed to allow her 1000 l. per Annum, and her Jewels, Apparel and Householdstuff: but when she came to settle the same, clauses were inserted in the Deed to bar her from co-habiting again with her Lord on pain of forfeiting her Jewels, Clothes, Householdstuff, etc. and the Annuity to cease during such Cohabitation; all which her necessities obliged her to consent unto.  
That afterwards she and her Lord met several times, but it was privately, and concealed as much as might be, to avoid the forfeiture aforesaid.  
Sets forth, that though her Lord was thought so weak as not fit to live with her, yet they had in this condition gotten from him Conveyances of all his Estate of Inheritance, and converted great part of his other Estate to their own use, and possessed themselves of all the Evidences of her Father's Estate, which ought to remain to her and her Issue.  
This done, and designing to ruin her Honour, also the Countess of Bucks with many others in her company, when the Petitioner was with Child near her time, and in bed, in a riotous manner, in nighttime, entered her Chamber, haled her out of bed, and Sir Edward Villers Knight, one of the Company, inhumanely held her, that Midwives and others might search her whether she was with Child or not, to the endangering her and her Child's life: which barbarous usage forced her to withdraw herself to a private place from her enemies, till she was delivered, and to take upon her a feigned name for herself and Son Robert, born of her body, and pretend to be Wife of one John Wright, merely to secure both from their rage & fury.  
No sooner was it discoursed that she was delivered, but the was immedia●●●● committed to Prison, from whence she was no sooner released, but she was aga●● illegally recommitted, and if enlarged the same was upon Bail, whereby to her great dishonour she was forced to constant attendance.  
And designing to ruin her in her Honour as well as Estate, she was cited into the High Commission Court for a supposed crime of Adultery, and there by an unwarrantable illegal sentence condemned, fined 500 l. and unlawfully committed to Prison; for inducing which sentence, they by negative proofs contrary to Law, endeavoured to prove that the Petitioner and her Lord had not met in a year before the birth of her Son Robert, the contrary whereof appeared by many affirmative proofs, and was denied to be tried by the word of her own Husband.  
That after she had obtained a Rule of Common Pleas for a Prohibition to High Commission Court, yet could she never get the Prohibition under the Seal.  
That being a Prisoner in the Gatehouse by the Archbishop of Canterbury's Command on the aforesaid Sentence, finding the Archbishop her violent Prosecutor, and the chief Judge in Pronouncing sentence against her, she made an escape to prevent the great danger which through his power she thought herself in. For which she begged their Lordship's Honourable and favourable opinion, and their Intercession to the King on her behalf for his Royal Pardon; prays that in Honourable care of her and her posterity they would order the safe custody of all the Evidences relating to her Estate, and that she might have the said 1000 l. per Annum, which she was to have according to the agreement, (which then had not been paid her) and so to consider of the illegal sufferings she had lain under, and damages by her sustained, as that right might be done according to justice.  
And that William Alcock Administrator to the late Duke of Bucks, the Countess of Denbigh, and all others that pretended title to the Lord Purbecks' Lands, and the Archbishop of Canterbury, Sir Henry Martin, Knight, and others employed in the illegal Proceed aforesaid, may appear and answer. To the end the Petitioner might receive relief, and the offenders receive punishment according to their demerit.  
If the Fine levied in 1661., 
Peruse the Lords Journal, Febr. 10. 1640.  by Robert Lord Purbeck, be insisted upon to bar Robert his Son of his Honour; Please to consider Ruthin's Case:  
Resolved (nemine contra dicente) that no Peer of this Realm can drown or extinguish his Honour, but that it descend to its descendants, neither by Surrender, Grant, Fine, or any other Conveyance to the King.  
Resolved that no Person that hath any Honour in him, and a Peer of this Realm, may alien or transfer his Honour to any other Person.  
That amongst all the precedents insisted upon by Mr. Attorney General, there is not one single instance of any one Peer his levying a fine of his Honour, that had Issue-male born to claim the same after his Decease.  
As to the Objection that John Lord Viscount Purbeck never had any Patent.  
It is Answered,  
That no Peer of the Realm can sit as a Viscount in the Lord's House, but must have a Patent; which when he is first introduced, is brought into the House by the Heralds at Arms, and read by the Clerk of the Parliament. That he had such a Patent is clear, for otherwise there had been no need of his Petitioning the King to give him leave to surrender the same, nor of the Kings accepting such surrender, which it is plain his Majesty did do.  
The Patent being surrendered, 'tis impossible for the Petitioner now to produce it, nor can a Copy thereof be had from the Enrollment-Office, because the same is cut out of the Roll, as will plainly appear upon a view.  
But when, by whom, or upon what account that was done, is not known.  
In the Signet and Privyseal Book of Accounts for the 17 Jacob. it appears 6 l. 13 s. 4 d. was paid for the Fees of the said Patent due to those Offices.  
The Docket of the said Patent was entered in the Crown-Office the 19 Jun. 17 Jacob. It was also enroled in the Haniper-Office the 21 Jun. 17 Jacob.  
And no entry of any Docket is made in the Haniper till after the Grant passeth the great Seal, nor in the Heralds-Office.  
Nevertheless at the Heralds-Office, in their Book of Partitions B. Fol. 18, mention is made the last November 17 Jacob. of the Partition of 18 l. received for the Fees of Viscount Purbeck both for his Barony of Stoak, and Viscountship, and of 18 s. received for a Receipt given for the said Money.  
The King granted him 1000 l. per Ann. by Patent, 
Jac. 18.  by the name of Our Right and Wellbeloved John Viscount Purbeck. which certainly he would not have done, nor the other accepted of (by that name) if he had not been a Viscount.  
In the Lord's Journal, 
Jan. 20.  where every day the Names of all the Lords were entered, amongst the rest John Lord Viscount Purbeck is named, and so every day forward to the 23 of Feb. when he is entered present, and continued entered to the 3d. of March following, when he is again entered present, and is every day after entered, till the 19 of King James.  
In the Journal of that Parliament, 
21, 22, Jac.  John Lord Viscount Purbeck is every day entered to the time of Prorogation, which was the 16 Feb. 1624.  
The first Parliament of that year, 
1 Car.  his Lordship is entered in the Journal every day of the Session, which continued from the 17 March 1627., to the 27 Jun. 1628.