ysvt.5-

7

X.80

Cijrtljam jfi^^ i^orittg,

ESTABLISHED iilillll .*5*l IM M.DCCC.XLIII

FOR THE PUBLICATION OF
HISTORICAL AND LITERARY REMAINS
CONNECTED WITH THE PALATINE COUNTIES OE
LANCASTER AND CHESTEE.

Council for the year 1869-70.
19rafttrettt.
JAMES CROSSLEY, Esq., F.S.A.
artcHaroJttfimt.
The Rev. F. R. RAINES, M.A., F.S.A., Hon. Canon of Manchester, Vicar of
Milnrow, and Rural Dean.
Council.
WILLIAM BEAMONT, Esq.
The Very Rev. GEORGE HULL BOWERS, D.D., Dean of Manchester.
R. C. CHRISTIE, Esq., M.A.
The Rev. THOMAS CORSER, M.A., F.S.A., Rector of Stand.
WILLIAM ADAM HULTON, Esq.
THOMAS JONES, Esq., B.A., F.S.A.
WILLIAM LANGTON, Esq.
MAJOR EGERTON LEIGH.
The Rev. JOHN HOWARD MARSDEN, B.D., F.R.G.S., Canon of Manchester.
The Rev. JAMES RAINE, M.A., Preb. of York, Fellow of Durham University.
%Xta.iX\XZX.
ARTHUR H. HEYWOOD, Esq.
g?mtorars ^etwtarg.
R. HENRY WOOD, Esq., F.S.A., F.R.G.S.,
Mem. Corr. Soc. Antiq. de Normandie.

RULES OF THE CHETHAM SOCIETY.
1. That the Society shall be limited to three hundred and fifty members.
''* 2. That the Society shall consist of members being subscribers of one pound annually, such subscrip
tion to be paid in advance, on or before the day of general meeting in each year. The first general meeting
to be held on the 23rd day of March, 1843, and the general meeting in each year afterwards on the 1st day
of March, unless it should fall on a Sunday, when some other day is to be named by the Council.
3. That the affairs of the Society be conducted by a Council, consisting of a permanent President and
Vice-President, and twelve other members, including a Treasurer and Secretary, all of whom shall be
elected, the first two at the general meeting next after a vacancy shall occur, and the twelve other
members at the general meeting annually.
4. That any member may compound for his future subscriptions by the payment of ten pounds.
5. That the accounts of the receipts and expenditure of the Society be audited annually, by three
auditors, to be elected at the general meeting; and that any member who shall be one year in arrear of
his subscription, shall no longer be considered as belonging to the Society.
6. That every member not in arrear of his annual subscription, be entitled to a copy of each of the
works published by the Society.
7. That twenty copies of each work shall be allowed to the editor of the same, in addition to the
one to which he may be entitled as a member.
Applications and communications to be addressed to the President, 2 Cavendish Place, Chorlton-
on-Medloch, Manchester, or to the Honorary Secretary, 9 Blackfriars.

PUBLICATIONS OF THE CHETHAM SOCIETY,

First year (1843-4).
VOL.
I. Travels in Holland, the United Provinces, England, Scotland, and Ireland, 1534-1635. .By Sir
WiUiam Brereton, Bart. Edited by Edward Hawkins, Esq., F.R.S., F.S.A., F.L.S. pp. vm, 206.
II. Tracts relating to Military Proceedings in Lancashire during the Great Civil War. Edited and
Illustrated from Contemporary Documents by George Ormerod, D.C.L., F.R.S., F.S.A., F.G.S.,
author of " The History of Cheshire." pp. xxxii, 372.
III. Chester's Triumph in Honor of her Prince, as it was performed upon St. George's Day 1610, in
the foresaid Citie. Reprinted from the original edition of 1610, with an Introduction and Notes.
Edited by the Rev. Thomas Corser, M.A. pp. xviii, 36.
Second year (1844-5).
IV. The Life of Adam Martindale, written by himself, and now first printed from the original manu
script in the British Museum. Edited by the Rev. Richard Parkinson, B.D., Canon of Manchester.
pp. xvi, 246.
V. Lancashire Memorials of the Rebellion, 1715. By Samuel Hibbert- Ware, M.D., F.R.S.E., &c.
pp. x, 56, and xxviii, 292.
VI. Potts's Discovery of Witches in the county of Lancaster. Reprinted from the original edition of
1613 ; with au Introduction and Notes by James Crossley, Esq. pp. lxxx, 184, 52.
Third year (1845-6).
VII. Iter Lancastrense, a Poem written A.D. 1636, by the Rev. Richard James. Edited by the Rev.
Thomas Corser, M.A. pp. cxii, 86. Folding Pedigree.
VIII. Notitia Cestriensis, or Historical Notices of the Diocese of Chester, by Bishop Gastrell. Cheshire.
Edited by the Rev. F. R. Raines, M.A., F.S.A. Vol. I. pp. xvi, 396. Plate.
IX. The Norris Papers. Edited by Thomas Heywood, Esq., F.S.A. pp. xxxiv, 190.
Fourth year ( 1 846-7).
X. The Coucher Book or Chartulary of Whalley Abbey. Edited by W. A. Hulton, Esq. Vol. I.
lip. xl, 338. Plate.
XI. The Coucher Book or Chartulary of Whalley Abbey. Vol. II. pp. 339-636.
XII . The Moore Rental. Edited by Thomas Heywood, Esq., F.S.A. pp. lxx, 158.

m Publications of the Chetham Society. 3
Fifth year (1847-8).
VOL.
XIII. The Diary and Correspondence of Dr. John Worthington. Edited by Jas. Crossley, Esq. Vol. I.
pp. viii, 398.
XI"V. The Journal of Nicholas Assheton. Edited by the Rev. F.R.Raines, M.A., F.S.A. -p*p.xxx,164.
XV. The Holy Lyfe and History of Saynt Werburge, very frutefull for all Christen People to rede.
Edited by Edward Hawkins, Esq. pp. xxviii, 10, 242.
Sixth year (i 848-9).
XVI. The Coucher Book or Chartulary of Whalley Abbey. Vol. III. pp. xli-liv, 637-936.
XVII. Warrington in 1465, Edited by William Beamont, Esq. pp. lxxviii, 152.
XVIII. The Diary of the Rev. Henry Newcome, from September 30, 1661, to September 29, 1663.
Edited by Thomas Heywood, Esq., F.S.A. pp. xl, 242.
Seventh year ( 1 8 49-5 o) .

XIX. Notitia Cestriensis. Vol. II. Part I. Lancashire, Part 1 . -pp. iv, 160, xxviii.
XX. The Coucher Book or Chartulary of Whalley Abbey. Vol. IV. (Conclusion), pp. Iv-lxiii, !
1314.
XXI. Notitia Cestriensis. Vol. II. Part II. Lancashire, Part II. pp. lxxvii, 161-352. Plate.

Eighth year (i 850-1).

XXII. Notitia Cestriensis. Vol. II. Part III. Lancashire, Part III. (Conclusion), pp, 353-621.
XXIII. A Golden Mirrour ; conteininge certaine pithie and figurative visions prognosticating good
fortune to England, &c. By Richard Robinson of Alton. Reprinted from the only known copy of
the original edition of 1589 in the British Museum, with an Introduction and Notes by the Rev.
Thomas Corser, M.A., F.S.A. pp. xxii, 10, 96.
XXIV. Chetham Miscellanies. Vol. I. Edited by William Langton, Esq. : containing
Papers connected with the affairs of Milton and his Family. Edited by J. F. Marsh, Esq. pp 46.
Plate. Epistolary Reliques of Lancashire and Cheshire Antiquaries, 1653-73. Communicated by George
Ormerod, D.C.L., F.R.S., F.S.A., and F.G.S. pp. 16.
Calendars of the Names of Families which entered their several Pedigrees in the successive
Heraldic Visitations of the County Palatine of Lancaster. Communicated by George Ormerod,
D.C.L., F.R.S., F.S.A., and F.G.S. pp. 26.
A Fragment, illustrative of Sir Wm. Dugdale's "Visitation of Lancashire. From MSS. in the
possession of the Rev. F. R. Raines, M.A., F.S, A. pp. 8.

Ninth year (i 85*1-2).

XXV. Cardinal Allen's Defence of Sir William Stanley's Surrender of Deventer. Edited by Thomas
Heywood, Esq., F.S.A. pp. c, 38.
XXVI. The Autobiography of Henry Newcome, M.A. Edited by Rd. Parkinson, D.D., F.S.A. Vol. I.
pp. xxv, 184.
XXVII. The Autobiography of Henry Newcome, M.A. Vol.11. (Conclusion), pp. 185-390.

4 Publications of the Chetham Society.
Tenth year (1852-3).
VOL.
XXVIII. The Jacobite Trials at Manchester in 1694. Edited by William Beamont, Esq. pp. xc, 132.
XXIX. The Stanley Papers, Part I. The Earls of Derby and the Verse Writers and Poets of the six
teenth and seventeenth centuries. By Thomas Heywood, Esq., F.S.A. pp. 64.
XXX. Documents relating to the Priory of Penwortham, and other Possessions in Lancashire of the
Abbey of Evesham. Edited by W. A Hulton, Esq. pp. lxxviii, 136.

Eleventh year (185 3-4) .
XXXI. The Stanley Papers, Part II. The Derby Household Books, comprising an account of the
Household Regulations and Expenses of Edward and Henry, third and fourth Earls of Derby ;
together with a Diary, containing the names of the guests who visited the latter Earl at his houses
in Lancashire : by William Farrington, Esq., the Comptroller. Edited by the Rev. F. R. Raines,
M.A., F.S.A. pp. xcviii, 247. Five Plates.
XXXII. The Private Journal and Literary Remains of John Byrom. Edited by Richard Parkinson,
D.D., F.S.A. Vol.1. Parti, pp. x, 320. Portrait.
XXXIH. Lancashire and Cheshire Wills and Inventories from the Ecclesiastical Court, Chester.
The First Portion. Edited by the Rev. G. J. Piccope, M.A. pp. vi, 196.

Twelfth year (i 854-5).
XXXIV. The Private Journal and Literary Remains of John Byrom. Vol. I. Part II. pp. 321-639.
XXXV. The House and Farm Accounts of the Shuttleworths of Gawthorpe Hall. Edited by John
Harland, Esq., F.S.A. Part I. pp. 232. Frontispiece.
XXXVI. The Diary and Correspondence of Dr. John Worthington. Vol. II. Part I. 'pp. 248.

Thirteenth year (1855-6).
XXXVII. Chetham Miscellanies. Vol. II. Edited by William Langton, Esq. : containing
The Rights and Jurisdiction of the County Palatine of Chester, the Earls Palatine, the Chamber
lain, and other^)fficers. Edited by Joseph Brooks Yates, F.A.S., G.S., and P.S. pp 37
The Scottish Field. (A Poem on the Battle of Flodden.) Edited by John Robson, Esq pp xv 28
Examynatyons towcheynge Cokeye More, Temp. Hen. VIII. in a dispute between the Lords of'the
Manors of Middleton and Radclyffe. Communicated by the Rev. F.R.Raines, M.A FSA pp 30
A History of the Ancient Chapel of Denton, in Manchester Parish. By the Rev. John' Booker"
M.A., F.S.A. pp. viii, 148. Three*PlHtes. '
A Letter from John Bradshawe of Gray's Inn to Sir Peter Legh of Lyme. Edited bv William
Langton, Esq. pp. 8. J
Facsimile of a Deed of Bichard Bussel to Church of Evesham (for insertion in vol. xxxj.
XXXVIII. Bibliographical Notices of the Church Libraries of Turton and Gorton bequeathed bv
Humphrey Chetham. Edited by Gilbert J. French, Esq. pp. 199. Illustrated Title.
XXXIX. The Farington Papers. Edited by Miss ffarington. pp. xvi, 179. Five plates of Signatures.

Publications of the Chetham Society. 5
Fourteenth year (1856-7).
VOL.
XL. The Private Journal and Literary Remains of John Byrom. Vol. II. Part I. pp. 326 and two
Indexes.
XLI. The House and Farm Accounts of the Shuttleworths of Gawthorpe Hall. Part II. pp. 233-472.
Portrait.
XLII. A History of the Ancient Chapels of Didsbury and Chorlton, in Manchester Parish, including
Sketches of the Townships of Didsbury, Withington, Burnage, Heaton Norris, Reddish, Levenshulme,
and Chorlton-cum-Hardy : together with Notices of the more Ancient Local Families, and Particulars
relating to the Descent of their Estates. By the Rev. John Booker, M.A., F.S.A. pp. viii 337-
Seven Illustrations.

Fifteenth year (i 857-8).
XLIII. The House and Farm Accounts of the Shuttleworths of Gawthorpe Hall. Part III »d x
473-776. r FF
XLIV. The Private Journal and Literary Remains of John Byrom. Vol. II. Part II. pp. 327-654.
Byrom, Pedigrees,pp. 41 and three folding sheets; Index, pp. v.
XLV. Miscellanies : being a selection from the Poems and Correspondence of.the Rev. Thos. Wilson,
B.D., of Clitheroe. With Memoirs of his Life. By the Rev. Canon Raines, M. \., F.S.A. •»». xc,
230. Two Plates.

Sixteenth year (185 8-9) .
XLVI. The House and Farm Accounts of the Shuttleworths of Gawthorpe Hall. Part IV. (Con
clusion), pp. 777-1171.
XLVII. A History of the Ancient Chapel of Birch, in Manchester Parish, including a Sketch of the
Township of Rusholme : together with Notices of the more Ancient Local Families, and Particulars
relating to the Descent of their Estates. By the Rev. John Booker, M.A., F.S.A. pp. viii, 255.
Four Plates.
XLVIII. A Catalogue of the Collection of Tracts for and against Popery (published in or about the
reign of James II.) in the Manchester Library founded by Humphrey Chetham; in which is
incorporated, with large Additions and Bibliographical Notes, the whole of Peck's List of the
Tracts in that Controversy, with his References. Edited by Thomas Jones, Esq. B.A. Part I.
pp. xii, 256.

Seventeenth year (1859-60).

XLIX. The Lancashire Lieutenancy under the Tudors and Stuarts. The Civil and Military Govern
ment ofthe County, as illustrated by a series of Royal and other Letters; Orders of the Privy Council,
the Lord Lieutenant, and other Authorities, &c, &c. Chiefly derived from the Shuttleworth MSS.
at Gawthorpe Hall, Lancashire. Edited by John Harland, Esq., F.S.A. Part I. pp. cxx, 96.
Seven Plates.
L. The Lancashire Lieutenancy under the Tudors and Stuarts. Part II. (Conclusion), pp. 97-333.
LI. Lancashire and Cheshire Wills and Inventories from the Ecclesiastical Court, Chester. The Second
Portion, pp. vi, 283.

6 Publications of the Chetham Society.
Eighteenth year (i 860-1).
VOL.
LII. Collectanea Anglo-Poetica: or, A Bibliographical and Descriptive Catalogue of a portion of a Col
lection of Early English Poetry, with occasional Extracts and Remarks Biographical and Critical.
By the Rev. Thomas Corser, M. A., F.S.A., Rural Dean; Rector of Stand, Lancashire; and Vicar
of Norton, Northamptonshire. Part I. pp. xi, 208.
LIII. Manor,
pp. 207. Frontispiece.
LIV. Lancashire and Cheshire Wills and Inventories from the Ecclesiastical Court, Chester. The Third
Portion. (Conclusion), pp. v, 272.

Mamecestre: being Chapters from the early recorded History of the Barony, the Lordship or
nor, the Vill Borough or Town, of Manchester. Edited by John Harland, Esq., F.S.A. Vol. 1.

Nineteenth year (i 861-2).

LV. Collectanea Anglo-Poetica. Part II. pp. vi, 209-456.
LVI. Mamecestre. Vol.11, pp. 209-431.
LVII. Chetham Miscellanies. Vol. III. Edited by William Langton, Esq. : containing
On the South Lancashire Dialect, with Biographical Notices of John Collier, the author of Tim
Bobbin. By Thos. Heywood, Esq. pp. 84.
Rentale de Cokersand : being the Bursar's Rent Roll of the Abbey of Cokersand, in the County
Palatine of Lancaster", for the year 1501. Printed from the Original. Edited by the Rev. F. R.
Raines, M.A., F.S.A. pp. xviii, 46.
The Names of all the Gentlemen of the best callinge w'-'in the countye of Lancastre, whereof choyse
ys to be made of a c'ten number to lend vnto her Ma'*"* moneye vpon privie seals in Janvarye 1588.
From a manuscript in the possession of the Rev. F. R. Raines, M.A., F.S.A. pp. 9.
Some Instruction given by William Booth Esquire to his stewards John Carington and William
Rowcrofte, upon the purchase of Warrington by Sir George Booth Baronet and William Booth his
son, a.d. mdcxviii. Communicated by William Beamont, Esq. pp. 8.
Letter from Sir John Seton, Manchester ye 25 M'ch, 1 643. Edited by Thomas Heywood, Esq.,
F.S.A. pp. 15.
The Nameg of eight hundred inhabitants of Manchester who took the oath of allegiance to Charles
II. in April, 1679. Communicated by John Harland, F.S.A. pp. 8.
The Pole Booke of Manchester, May ye 22*1 1690. Edited by William Langton, Esq. pp. 43.
Map and folding Table.
Twentieth year (1862-3).
LVIII. Mamecestre. Vol. III. (Conclusion.) pp. xl, 433-627,
LIX. A History of the Chantries within the County Palatine of Lancaster : being the Reports of the
Royal Commissioners of Henry VIII., Edward VI., and Queen Mary. Edited by the Rev. F. R.
Raines, M. A., F.S.A. Vol. I. pp. xxxix, 168.
LX. A History of the Chantries within the County Palatine of Lancaster, &c. Vol.11. (Conclusion).
pp. 169-323.

Twenty-first year ( 1 8 6 3-4).

General Index to the Remains Historical and Literary published by the Chetham Society, vols.I-XXX
pp. viii, 168.
LXI. I. Abbott's Journal. II. An Account ofthe Tryalls &c. in Manchester in 1694. Edited by tho
Rt. Rev. Alexander Goss, D.D. p-p.xix, 32; xxi, 42; 5.
LXII. Discourse of the Warr in Lancashire. Edited by William Beamont, Esq. pp. xxxiv, 164
Two Plates.

Publications of the Chetham Society. 7
Twenty-second year (1864-5).
VOL.
LXIII. A Volume of Court Leet Records of the Manor of Manchester in the Sixteenth Century.
Compiled and edited by John Harland, F.S.A. pp. xix, 208. Frontispiece.
LXIV. A Catalogue of the Collection of Tracts for and against Popery. Part II. To which are added
an Index to the Tracts in both editions of Gibson's Preservative, and a reprint of Dodd's Certamen,
Utriusque Ecclesise. Edited by Thomas Jones, Esq. B.A. pp. x, 269, 17.
LXV. Continuation of the Court Leet Records of the Manor of Manchester, a.d. 1586-1602. By John
Harland, Esq. pp. viii, 128.
Twenty-third year (1865-6).
LXVI. The Stanley Papers. Part III. Private Devotions and Miscellanies of James seventh earl of
Derby, K.G., with a Prefatory Memoir and Appendix of Documents. Edited by the Rev. Canon
Raines, M.A., F.S.A. Vol. 1. pp. i-ccviii. Four Plates.
LXVII. The Stanley Papers. Part III. Vol. 2. pp. ccix-cccxcv. Four Plates.
LXVIII. Collectanea relating to Manchester aud its Neighbourhood, at various periods. Compiled
arranged and edited by John Harland, F.S.A. Vol. I. pp. viii, 258.
Twenty-fourth year (i 866-7).
LXIX. The Admission Register of the Manchester School, with some Notices of the more distinguished
Scholars. Edited by the Rev. Jeremiah Finch Smith, M.A., Rector of Aldridge, Staffordshire,
and Rural Dean. Vol. I., from a.d. 1730 to a.d. 1775. pp. viii, 253.
LXX. The Stanley Papers. Part III. Vol. 3. (Conclusion.) pp. 112 and 65. Frontispiece.
LXXI. Collectanea Anglo-Poetica. Part III. pp. x, 282.
Twenty-fifth year (1867-8).
LXXII. Collectanea relating to Manchester and its Neighbourhood. Vol. II. pp. viii, 252.
LXXIII. The Admission Register of the Manchester School, with some Notices of the more dis
tinguished Scholars. Edited by the Rev. Jeremiah Finch Smith, M.A., Rector of Aldridge,
Staffordshire, and Rural Dean. Vol. II., from A.D. 1776 to A.D. 1807. pp. v, 302.
LXXIV. Three Lancashire Documents of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries, namely : I. The
Great De Lacy Inquisition, Feb. 16, 1311. II. Survey of 1320-1346. III. Custom Roll and Rental
of the Manor of Ashton-under-Lyne, 1421. Edited by John Harland, Esq., F.S.A. pp. xiii, 140.
Twenty-sixth year (1868-9).
LXXV. Lancashire Funeral Certificates. Edited by Thomas William King, Esq., F.S.A., York
Herald. With additions by the Rev. F. R. Raines, M.A., F.S.A., Vice-President of the Chetham
Society, pp. viii, 102.
LXXVI. Observations and Instructions divine and morall. In Verse. By Robert Heywood of Hey
wood, Lancashire. Edited by James Crossley, Esq., F.S.A. pp. xxiv, 108.
LXXVII. Collectanea Anglo-Poetica. Part IV. pp. vi, 260.

8 Publications of the Chetham Society.
Twenty-seventh year (1869-70).
LXXVIII. Tracts written in the Controversy respecting the Legitimacy of Amicia, daughter of
Hugh Cyveliok, earl of Chester. . a.d. 1673-1679. By sir Peter Leycester, bart., and sir Thomas
Mainwaring, bart. Reprinted from the Collection at Peover. Edited, with an Introduction, by
William Beamont, Esq. Parti, pp. xcv. 94. Portrait of sir Peter Leycester.
LXXIX. Tracts written in the Controversy respecting the Legitimacy of Amicia. Part II. pp. 95-322.
Portrait of sir Thomas Mainwaring.
LXXX. Tracts written in the Controversy respecting the Legitimacy of Amicia. Part III. -pp. 323-550.
With frontispiece of Stall at Peover.

Charles Simms and Co., Printers, Manchester.

REMAINS
HISTORICAL & LITERARY
CONNECTED WITH THE PALATINE COUNTIES OF
LANCASTEE AND CHESTEE.
PUBLISHED BY
THE CHETHAM SOCIETY.

VOL. LXXX.

PRINTED FOR THE CHETHAM SOCIETY.
M.DCCC.LXIX.

COUNCIL for 1869-70.

JAMES CROSSLEY, Esq., F.S.A., President.
REV. F. R. RAINES, M.A., F.S.A., Hon. Canon op Manchester;
Vice-President.
WILLIAM BEAMONT, Esq.
THE VERY REV. GEORGE .HULL BOWERS, D.D., Dean of Manchester.
R. C. CHRISTIE, Esq., M.A.
REV. THOMAS CORSER, M.A., F.S.A.
W. A. HULTON, Esq.
THOMAS JONES, Esq., B.A., F.S.A.
WILLIAM LANGTON, Esq.
MAJOR EGERTON LEIGH.
REV. JOHN HOWARD MARSDEN, B.D., F.R.G.S., Canon of Manchester.
REV. JAMES RAINE, M.A., Prebendary of York,
ARTHUR H. HEYWOOD, Esq., Treasurer.
R. HENRY WOOD, Esq., F.S.A., Hon. Secretary.

STALL IN THE GREAT STABLE AT PEOVER,
FROM A DRAWING BY MISS HENRIETTA E. MAINWARING.

TRACTS
WRITTEN IN THE CONTROVERSY RESPECTING THE
LEGITIMACY OF
AMICIA, DAUGHTER OF
HUGH CYVELIOK,
EARL OF CHESTER.
A.D. 1673 — 1679-
BY SIR PETER LEYCESTER, BART, AND
SIR THOMAS "MAINWARING, BART.

Reprinted from the Collection at Peover.

EDITED, WITH AN
INTRODUCTION, BY
WILLIAM BEAMONT, Esq.

PART III.

PRINTED FOR THE CHETHAM SOCIETY.
M.DCCC.LXIX.

Printed by Charles S. Simms,
Manchester.

A

REPLY T O
ANSWER TO MY
TWO BOOKS.

Written by Sr. Petet JLegCdler, Baronet,
Anno Domini, 1 67 5 .

The Second REPLY.

Together with the Cafe of Amicia
truly Stated.

LONDON,
Printed in the Year, 1676.

'THE [A3, recto.]
PREFACE TO THE
READER.

I Received on the 13th. of April, 1675. a very ftrange kind of
Book from Sir Thomas Manwaring, then delivered unto me
by his Servant; wherein I expected a Book of Arguing to
the point of the Controverfie between us : But behold a book
of Railing, catching (as his ufual manner is) at every fmall im
pertinent thing.
That I may the fooner come to the Book it felf, I fhall obferve
%only out of his Epiflle, this one thing, How he minceth the Truth, [A3, verso.i
in telling the Reader  that my Servant did (by my Command)
Jignifie unto him in a Letter, that T would write again, and this
before Sir Thomas had printed one word of his Reply : So that if
he find me thus Stumbling at the firjl, it is well if he do not take
me oft Tripping before I come to my Journeys end.
Whereunto I fay, that he deals not clearly in his words, and
declareth not the whole Truth r For it is true, that I did command
my Servant to write unto him ; but what did I command him to
write ? Was it barely that I would then write again ? No : but to
let him know, that I had then found fome new Precedents which (I
conceived) would clear the point between us, and came to my know
ledge fince I had publijhed my Anfwer ; of which I thought good
to give him timely notice, that I would add them to my Anfwer

326 To the Reader. [vin.
[A 4, recto.] already Printed, which 3were omitted therein; and this before his
Reply was Printed, as Sir Thomas here confeffeth: This was
rather an amendment of my former book, then writing again de
novo ; for as yet he had publijlied no book againft it, but this part
of the Truth he conceals; and if my Servant writ otherwife than to
this effe6l, I utterly difown it to be written by my command: But
before I could get my Addenda Printed, he Publifhed a Reply to
my Anfwer ; wherein werefo many Crimes charged upon me, that
I was forced to a Vindication of my felf , which I did then put into
my Addenda, yet not fo fully as I might have done: See my Ad
denda, p. 8. and alfo p. 27.
And whatfoever I have alfo written more, then what I firft
intended and declared, I have been forced thereunto in my own
defence. And fo I will now briefly come to his Book, and hope to fhew
clearly who Trips moft in the Journey, he or I ; and wherein I do
[Adverse] Trip, it * fhall be readily conf eft: I think mine will not be found
many, nor material to the main point ; but I believe his will be
found Fundamental Errors : And I could wifh that Sir Thomas
would as freely confefs his Trips as I fhall confefs mine, then the
whole bufinefs would foon be at an end.
And herein I Jhall endeavour all along to avoyd all obloquies,
wherewith he aboundeth as much as I can; for Calumnies and
Slanders will find no place among Wife and Good Men, and are
ever inconfiftent with thofe excellent Chriftian Graces of Humility
and meeknefs. Mobberly,
May the 18th. 1675.

••ML®

W23

•^ w* Jb

A Second Reply.

[Page i.]

Pag. i . Of his Anfwer to my two Books.

Ere he faith, that I affirm feveral times, that
Glanvil faith that Lands may be given with
any Woman in liberum maritagium : where
as he faith only, they may be given cum
qudlibet muliere in maritagium.
My Reply.

I did, and do yet affirm it ; and have proved it too ; fee pag.
54. of my former Reply, which yet he hath 2not anfwered : nor
do I believe that he can rationally anfwer my Argument there :
For though Glanvil hath not thefe very words  Lands may
be given with any Woman in liberum maritagium] ; yet he faith
it by Confequence, drawn clearly out of his words, lib. 7. cap. 18.
which is the fame in effeft. .
Nor doth Sir Thomas repeat Glanvil 's words aright ; and yet
he is ready upon all occafions. to tax me with the like : the words
of Glanvil, lib. 7. cap. 1. are  quilibet liber homo, terram habens,
quandam partem terrcefua cumfilidfud, vel cum aliqud aiid qua-
libet muliere, poteft dare in maritagium . . . &c. not barely cum
qualibet muliere.

[Page 2.]

328 Reply to Anfwer to Two Books. [viii.
Pag. 2. Of his Anfwer to my two Books.
Here he faith, I tell him that I have proved Geva to be a
Baftard out of an Hiftorian Contemporary ; by which Ordericus
[Page 3.] Vitalis is meant, 3and yet Ordericus faith no fuch thing.
My Reply.
'Tis true, I faid fo, and have proved it too : See my Anfwer
to his Defence of Amicia, pag. 34, 35. for though he hath not
thefe very words [Geva is a Baftard\ yet by fure Confequence
it follows out of the words of Ordericus, that fhe was a Baftard,
which is all to one effect ; and here is another trip of a fallacy
in Sir Thomas. Pag. 2. Of his Anfwer to my two Books.
1. Here he alfo faith, that I affirm the Common Law is now
altered otherwife than by A£l of Parliament, without quoting
any Author.
2. And alfo that I brag of feveral Precedents where Lands
were given in free Marriage with Baftards ; and yet I prove not
[Page 4.] thefe neceffary words of liberum marita-^gium (as the Lord Cook
calls them) were ufed in any of thofe grants, or that any of thofe
Perfons, with whom fuch Lands were given, were Baftards.
My Reply.
Here is another Trip of Sir Thomas ; for I have quoted the
"Lord Cook himfelf in feveral Cafes for it : See my Anfwer to his
Defence of Amicia, pag. 23, 24, 25, 26. and yet he is not afhamed
to fay here, I quoted no Author for it : And I could yet produce
a number of Cafes more, wherein the Law is altered without any
A6t of Parliament, if it were neceffary.
2. To the Second : I produced thofe ancient precedents to

viii.] Reply to Anfwer to Two Books. 329
fhow, that thofe words [in liberum maritagium] were not an
ciently fo neceffary in grants of free Marriage, as the Lord Cook
would now have them to be ; and then Sir Thomas faith, that I
have not proved any of thofe Perfons with whom fuch Lands
were given (in free Marri-Sage) were Baftards: Sit liber judex, [Pages]
as to that of Geva : See alfo my former Reply, pag. 38. where
Joan Princefs of Wales is clearly proved to be a Baftard by the
Teftimony of moft of our Hiftorians ; but none faying fhe was a
lawful Daughter, and that fhe had Lands given her in free Mar
riage by King John her Father : See my Advertifement to the
Reader, at the end of my two faid Books ; alfo my Addenda,
pag. 3, 4. and my former Reply, pag. 25.
Pag. 3. Of his Anfwer to my two Books.
Here he faith,- I tell him Lewellyn Prince of North- Wales was
Divorced from his Wife Joan, for which I can neither fhew
Author, nor Record. My Reply.
I do not pofitively affirm it : the words in my former Reply,
pag. 44, 6are thefe — if fhe were Re-married to Audley, anno 14. [Page 6.]
Hen. 3. then it is a fure Argument that fhe was Divorced ; and
whether fhe was fo Married or no, 14. Hen. 3. let the Record
Vouched by Vincent, be the Judge.
Here is another Trip of Sir Thomas ; for he faith, that I can
neither fhew Author, nor Record : indeed Vincent doth not fay
fhe was Divorced ; but he faith, fhe was Re-married to Audley ;
and fo by confequence fhe muft needs be Divorced, Lewellyn
being then alive.
But I have now publifhed an Advertifement to the Reader at
the end of my two faid Books, where / have fet forth the Copy
of that Record ; and do find that Vincent hath clearly miftaken
the Record ; for it- proves Robert de Audley did Marry Joan,
uu

330 Reply to Anfwer to Two Books. [viii.
Daughter of Richard de Landd, but nothing at all of any Mar
riage with Joan Princefs of Wales.
[Page?.] Yet nothing hinders, but fhe ? might have been Divorced from
Lewellyn, being taken in Adultery with William de Brews ; and
if Sir Thomas will allow the Note of Dr. Powel to be Authen-
tical herein, pag. 315. of his Notes upon the Welfh-Hiftory,
Lewellyn had another Wife after Joan, called Eva, Daughter of
Fouk de Breant, but had no Iffue by her, as he faith ; which
could not be without a Divorce, unlefs we fuppofe Lewellyn
Married after the death of Joan, for he furvived not Joan above
two or three years ; and then we find him Difeafed with the
Palfey, and in a dying condition, anno 1237. See Mat. Paris,
pag. 437. and therefore probably, if he were fo Re-married at
all, it was before that declining ftate of his : But yet / will not
pofitively affirm that Joan was Divorced.
Pag. 3. Of his Anfwer ibidem.
Here he faith, / have a fine way of Anfwering ; for if / be
[Page a] preft o-8ver-much with any point of Law, then /will tell you of
my own Authority, that the Law in fuch Particulars is clearly
altered, though / cannot tell how, nor at what time.
2. If it be a Record that puts me too hard to it, then / con
ceive the Roll from whence the Deed is written, is miftaken in
fuch and fuch words, and mifwrit therein from the Original.
3. If out of any Hiftory you tell me any thing which / cannot
Anfwer, then / will not fuffer the words to be read as they ought
to be Printed ; but I will fanfie fuch expreffions as will beft fuit
with my turn, and alfo difparage the fame Hiftory, although in
•thofe matters I had formerly faid / did chiefly follow the fame.
My Reply.
Thefe are all nothing but Cavils ; and whence thefe proceed,
every man may judge.

viii.] Reply to Anfwer to Two Books. 331
1. Where do / fay the Law is al-9tered on my own Authority, [Page 9]
and do not prove it by other Authority ? it is his miftake, and
though / cannot tell when precifely, nor perhaps others neither,
yet it is plain fuch particulars are altered, and fuch alterations
are not made in a day, nor all at a time ; for they muft have a
long time of common practice through the Nation, before it
become a common Law ; and at laft becomes a Law by general
confent and practice by degrees.
2. / never fay the Roll is miftaken, but where it is miftaken ;
and / remember not that / fay any Roll or Record at all is mif
taken, fave either that of (Donarium) which / conceived was
mif-writ for (Dotarium) ; and it is ill chid of Sir Thomas (as we
fay Proverbially) when he himfelf conceives (Donarium) to be
there mif-writ for (Dovarium) pag. 1 3. or elfe that of Bacon's,
Deed : See my Reafons in my Addenda, pag. 23. for rectification
of which, / was promifed a fight of the Original, but / could not
obtain it.
10 3. The third is alfo a great miftake: for firft, I have not [Pageio.j
feen any thing out of any Hiftory alledged, but what I have fully
anfwered, as to the point in difference ; nor do I hinder any
words to be read as they ought to be Printed * but when there
be plain errours in the Printing, and fo proved to be errours by
comparing fundry other good Authors to the contrary, as (Hugh)
Earl of Chefler, for (Randle) Earl of Chefter in the Welfh Hiftory,
fub anno 1142. why may not I obferve the errour which Sir
Thomas would boulfter up by an erroneous Amendment, to
ground feveral other grofs errors and miftakes thereupon ? It is
moft certainly a grofs miftake either in the Printer or the Copy ;
and not miftaken for (Hugh, Son to the Earl of Chefter), but for
{Randle Earl of Chefter) :
And then to fay I difparage the Welfh Hiftory, or Dr. Powel,
is another mif-judging of me : all I faid was this — The Welfh
Hiftory is not exa-flly compofed throughout, "nor proved by [Pagen.]
good Authority ; and as I believe it true in many things, fo it
hath fome groffe miftakes ; and fo are fome of Dr. Powels Notes

332 Reply to Anfwer to Two Books. [viii.
thereon full of errors, efpecially in his abfurd Pedegree of the
Earls of Chefter, and in feveral other things : See my former
Reply, pa. 94. And I believe every knowing man (who hath
perufed the fame) will fay as much: indeed there are few
general Hiftories but may have fome miftakes, and without
difparagement too to the Author.
Certainly, here are three or four extraordinary Trips of Sir
Thomas. Now there is nothing material here, further to be taken notice of,
till we come to his nineth page.
Pag. 9. Of his Anfwer to my two Books.
Here Sir Thomas faith that I mifrecite his Argument ; and
that I fay, that the Lord Cook faith thofe words [in liberum ma-
[Page ,2.] ritagium] are fuch words of art, and fo neceffarily 12required, as
they cannot be (underftood) by words equipollent : fo hard it is
to get Sir Peter either to repeat or underftand aright.
My Reply.
Parturiunt montes, nafcetur ridiculus mus : He faith, it is a
hard matter to get me repeat aright ; but for the repeating of
thofe very words of the Lord Cook; fee Sir Thomas Manwarings
Law-Cafes miftaken, pag. 3. pag. 10. and pag. 14. in all which
places I have repeated them aright : So it is no hard matter to
get me repeat aright ; but here indeed the word (underftood) is
mif-writ for (expreft) pag. 4. of my former Reply ; which fhews
it felf to be a miftake in the writing ; and the very fence here,
• would guide a man of reafon into a rectification ; but Sir Thomas
will play at fmall game before he fit out.
And then he faith, I underftand not aright : why fo ? Becaufe
I do not fay — by words equipollent, or amounting to as much.
[Page 13.] 13Oh profound and material point! as though equipollent, or

viii.] Reply to Anfwer to Two Books. 333
amounting to as much, were not the fame thing ; or that there
were more in the words (amounting to as much) than in the
word (Equipollent) : let him fhew me the difference between
them, if he can ; fave only one is a Lattin word, and the other
Englifh : fo that when I had named the one, the other were not
needful to*be named.
Pag. 10. Of his Anfwer to my two Books.
Here he faith, / miftake very much when / fay — that Lands
given in maritagium ; Habendum libere & quiete ab omnifervitio
verfus Capitalem Dominum, de me & hceredibus meis, . . . &c. was
a good grant in free Marriage, by the words of Glanvil in thofe
Ages, and as good as in liberum maritagium): Why fo ? becaufe
Glanvil doth not there or any where elfe, fay that Lands may
be given in free Marri-Uage by thofe, or any other equipollent [Pagei4.j
words, without ufing the words [in liberum maritagium] : and
unlefs he faith this, he faith nothing for Sir Peter's purpofe.
My Reply.
For this fee pag. 54. of my former Reply, where / have proved
it out of Glanvils words by fure confequence, which Sir Thomas
hath not yet anfwered: Sit Liber Iudex. Glanvil, lib. 7. cap. 18.
'Tis true, thofe very words here mentioned by Sir Thomas, are
not in Glanvil ; but Lands granted in maritagium, free from all
Service, &c. (faith Glanvil) was a grant in free Marriage ; and
by fure confequence implyed there out of Glanvil, to be words
anfwerable to the words (in liberum maritagium), which makes
clearly for Sir Peter's purpofe againft Sir Thomas ; for fuch a
grant (faith Glanvil) was a grant in free Marriage, without
telling us that the words (in liberum maritagium) muft be ne-
15ceffarily ufed at all : So that Sir Thomas miftakes himfelf here [page -5.]
very much, and not /.

334 Reply to Anfwer lo Two Books. [viii.
Pag. 12, 13. Of his Anfwer to my two Books.
Here he writeth down Saher de Quencyes Deed, out of my
Hiftorical Antiquities.
In which Deed (faith he, pag. 13.) if Donarium were there mif-
written for (Dotarium), it would not here fignifie Marriage, but
Dower ; and he thinks alfo that the Tranfcriber probably did
miftake (Donarium) for Dovarium; the n and u being anciently
written alike : but he faith alfo, he got a friend carefully to exa
mine the fame in one of the Couchir-books in the Dutchy Office
in Grays-Inn, and the word is there Donarium, without any
miftake at all.
[Page 16.] 16My Reply.
It is true, I did interpret in liberum Donarium in that Deed,
as meant of a Jointure in my Hiftorical Antiquities, pag. 132.
but upon better confideration / conceived it might be more
properly interpreted here, and underftood for free-marriage ; in
my former Reply, pag. 7, 8. and in my Book, ftiled Sir Tho
mas Manwarings Law-Cafes Miftaken, pag. 29. for finding Dos
fometimes anciently taken for Marriage, and finding the word
(liberum) added here unto it, / did conjecture it might have
been mif-written in my Copy in liberum Donarium, for in li
berum Dotarium: and fo all one as to have faid in liberum
maritagium; and the rather for that we find very rarely the
word in liberum donarium fo applyed ; nor do we ufually fay
Lands are given in free Joynture, but in free Marriage.
[Page 17.] 17But now it being in the Couchir-book, in liberum Donarium
• without miftake, as Sir Thomas tells us, he got a Friend to exa
mine it, it muft needs be here interpreted for a free gift : for
Saher de Quency Earl of Winchefter, grants to Robert de Quency
his Son and Heir four Mannours, ad dandum in liberum Dona
rium Hawifia Sorori Comitis Ceftria, uxori ejufdem Roberti.

viii.] Reply to Anfwer to Two Books. 335
This was foon after the Marriage ; for fhe was now the Wife of
Robert, and thefe Lands were given for a free gift to Hawife his
Wife, which is all one as to have faid for a free gift in Marriage
to Hawife ; and a free gift in Marriage is all one as a gift in
Free-marriage : add hereunto, that thofe four Mannors, given
in liberum donarium, as aforefaid, accrewed to the Heires of
Hawife, to wit, to John Lacy, Earl of Lincoln, in right of Mar
garet his Wife, Daughter and Heir of the faid Robert Quency &
Hawife: which by Law ought to defcend upon the Heirs of
Hawife, being given 18in free marriage : Whereunto alfo Roger [Page is.]
de Quency (who fucceeded Earl of Winchefter, upon the death
of the aforefaid Robert de Quency, his Elder Brother without
Iffue Male) releafed all his Right unto the Heirs of the faid
Margaret: See my Hiftorical Antiquities, pag. 271. whereas had
thofe Lands been given to Hawife in Dower or Joynture only,
fhe could but have enjoyed them for her life, and not to her
Heirs. But whether is the more proper interpretation thereof in this
place, let Learned men judge; I will not contend about it. Yet
whereas pag. 15. Sir Thomas would have the Reader to judge of
my Integrity, becaufe I did formerly interpret the words afore
faid to be underftood of a Joynture, and now upon more ferious
deliberation conceive the fame to be meant for a gift in free
marriage, or a free gift in marriage, having the word liberum
joyned with it : I fay it is hard to cenfure my integrity for it :
for that is 19well known to all the County where we both do [Page 19.]
live ; I fhall make no comparifons, for thofe are odious, and
favor of arrogancy.
Again, Sir Thomas hath committed another Trip, pag. 10.
where he expoundeth Mr. Glanvils words (when he fpeaketh of
gifts in frank-marriage) cum aliqud muliere to be meant [with
fome woman] : which words he mifinterpreteth altogether ; for it
is there meant [with any Woman] not with fome Woman : He
hath the fame errour in his Reply to my Anfwer, pag. 40.

336 Reply to Anfwer to Two Books. [viii.
Pag. 1 6, 17. Of his Anfwer to my two Books.
Here he faith, I tell him how he proves by comparing the Age
of Bertred, that Agatha could not be the Daughter of the Second
William de Ferrare; wherein (faith he) I am pittifully miftaken,
for he did goe about no fuch thing ; but he did fhew pag. 3, 4, 5.
[Page «,.] that Joane, Wife 20of Lewellyn could not be the fame Joan which
King John had by Agatha. My Reply.
O pretty Subterfuge ! hath he any proof at all here, that Joan,
Wife of Lewellyn was not the fame Joan which King John had
by Agatha; but all his proof there bottomed on the Age of Ber
tred, which could not allow Agatha to be the Daughter of the
Second William de Ferrars by Bertred 's Daughter ; fo as to
fuppofe Agatha to be old enough to have Iffue that Joan by
King John, and that Joan to be old enough to be Wife of Le- .
welly n, Anno. 1204. which is a falfe ground taken from Vincent:
but Speed faith, Agatha was Daughter of Robert de Ferrars, and
I agree Vincent to be miftaken therein : Let me fee him prove
the Princefs of Wales to be no Daughter of Agatha by King
John ; what he faith here, is nothing to the purpofe : See my
former Reply, p. 18.
[Page 21.] 21Pag. 22. Of his Anfwer to my two Books.
Here (after a long Oration, nothing at all material) he tells
us — would any man think Sir Peter himfelf within a very few
• lines would be guilty of the like offence, which I unjuftly charged
him withal? and a little after — Sir Peter would diftinguifh be
tween maritagium, and maritagium Servitio obnoxium ; and fay
maritagium is two-fold, but doth not give the members of his
diftin6lion aright.

viii.] Reply to Anfwer to Two Books. 337
My Reply.
Here are two great Trips more of Sir Thomas, for I did nei
ther charge him unjuftly with that diftin6lion, which any man
may read in his book, nor am I guilty of the like offence, as he
faith I am : Shew me, if he can, where I go about any fuch a
diftimftion as he here mentioneth, or fay marriage 22is two-fold, [page22.]
and then give the members of my diftinftion fo abfurdly as he
there hath done ; I wonder he is fo difingenious either to deny
the one or affirm the other : See his Anfwer to my Addenda,
pag. 7. and my former Reply thereunto, pag. 20, 21. I appeal
to all Readers ; and yet in the 19th. pag. of his Anfwer to my
two books, he tells us, it is the want of my underftanding which
caufeth me to blame him for what he there fo faith, and then runs
on in a long harangue to no purpofe, telling us that maritagium
Servitio obnoxium is the Elder Brother . . . &c.

Pag. 24. Of his Anfwer to my two Books.

Here he faith, that I indeed do tell him that thofe Mannors
(Budiford & Suttehele) were given to the faid Lewellyn in libero
maritagio: But the Deed lately belonging to Somerford Oldfield
Efquire doth prove no fuch thing, but doth only 23 prove that [Page 23.]
the faid Lewellyn did miftake himfelf, and did think that they
were given him in free-marriage, when they were not fo given.
My Reply.
Oh fine, a pretty Anfwer indeed ! for though in the Deed it
be faid — Sicut Dominus Johannes Rex ea illi dedit in libero
maritagio] yet here (faith Sir Thomas) Lewellyn miftakes himfelf,
and thought it was fo given, when it was not : it is not in the
Deed (mihi dedit) but (illi dedit), and by confequence could not
be miftaken by Lewellyn only, if it were miftaken ; but by all
others alfo then prefent, and efpecially by the Writer of the faid
XX

338 Reply to Anfwer to Two Books. [viii.
Deed : But whether was Lewellyn, and the Clerk that made the
Deed, and all others then prefent, more like to know the truth
hereof, then Sir Thomas now living 450. years after that Deed
made : Every man may fee the weaknefs of this Anfwer. Sure
[Page 24.] this may ftand for a 2*Trip with a derry-down, but he hath fo
many of them, that I fhall forget to count them all. Ere while
pag. 3. when I am put hard to it, (faith he) then I fay the Roll is
mif-writ : Very well ; but here he denys the very words of the
Deed, and avers againft a Record, and yet gives no reafon for it
neither. What follows /#£-. 26, 27, 28, 29. are all tedious things accord
ing to his cuftom, and little or nothing to the point.
But pag. 26. and in other places elfe-where, when any thing is
faid by him, either not true, or not to the point, then it is my
ignorance that runs me upon miftakes, that I cannot fathom
what he or the Lawyers do fay.
1. He faith, pag. 26. that if a man have Land given in free
marriage with a Wife, he hath only Cuftodiam terra cum uxore,
and therefore cannot difpofe of thofe Lands to any Perfon from
the right Heir.
2. So pag. 28, 29. he tells us that the Writ for the Livery of
[Page 25] Budiford 25to Lewellyn runs in thefe words, — quod Johannes
Rex ei dedit in maritagium cum Johanna, &c. and (faith he) Li
very would be needlefs in a gift of free-marriage, and therefore
concludes, it muft be only in maritagio given, not in libero mari
tagio ; and fo Lewellyn 's Deed to John Scot is miftaken ; and be
it what it will, it will work nothing in this cafe.
My Reply.
1. To the firft : For what he faith, that according to the an
cient Lawyers in thofe elder Ages, that Lands given with a Wife
in free-marriage to a man, the Husband hath only the cuftody
of fuch Lands with his Wife, and therefore cannot difpofe of any
of thofe Lands to any perfon from the right Heir .by fuch a Wife.

viii.] Reply to Anfwer to Two Books. 339
Yet we fee here, that Lewellyn did grant away de facto to John
the Scot, Budiford in free-marriage with Helen his Daughter,
about 26I222. which Lands King John gave unto him in free- [Page 26.]
marriage, with Joan his Daughter, Mother of the faid Helen, by
what right we cannot now tell, whether by the confent of the
right Heir by Joan, or other compenfation elfe-where given; but
certainly it was fo given, and Helen was right Heir to her Mother
Joan, after the death of David her Brother, without Iffue.
2. To the fecond : As to the Writ of Livery concerning Budi
ford, running only in maritagium; it hinders nothing but that the
grant to Lewellyn of Budiford might be in libero maritagio ; as
we fee that of the Caftle of Ellefmere, granted alfo to Lewellyn
by King John, with his faid Daughter Joan in tibero maritagio,
by exprefs words : See the Deed at large in my Advertifement
to the Reader, at the end of my Book, ftiled Sir Thomas Man
warings Law-Cafes Miftaken ; and yet the Livery of Ellefmere
faith only — quod dedimus dilecto filio noftro Lewelino in ma-
25 ritagio filice noftrce: See Sir Thomas Manwarings Anfwer to [Page 27. j
my Addenda, pag. 6. Now maritagio doth as well include free-
marriage, as not free-marriage, according as the Deed runneth.
Pag. 30. Of his Anfwer lo my two Books.
Here he faith, he thinks he can make good what he faid of my
Partiality (which yet he will not fpeak publickly) and that I will
not be excufed by that contradiction of mine ; to wit, That ad
mit I were never fo much partial in what he chargeth me with
(yet I hope what I have written, he finds it impartial to all, fo
far as I go or know) would this cure his uncivil expreffions to
wards me in another thing ? but he leaves out thefe laft words
of mine. 28 My Reply.. ¦ [Page 28.1
Let him find out a contradiction here if he can ; but all his

340 Reply to Anfwer to Two Books. [viii.
fhifts and cavils cannot prevail to cover the truth concerning
Amicia, and which with all his art he cannot folidly refute. So
having done with this Trip, I proceed to the reft.
Pag. 32, 33. Of his Anfwer to my two Books.
Now he would fain juftifie a former error of his, and fhews me
a Deed out of my own Book, pag. 143. (from which Book he
fetcheth many things, but nothing will help his caufe.) In which
Deed, Randal, Duke of Brittain, & Earl of Chefter granted to
Andrew, Son of Mabil, & to his Heirs, fundry liberties, &c.
among which, it is there faid — nee de quereld aliquid in civitate
Ceftrice, vel extrd,.refpondeant in prafentid med, velfummi, Jufti-
[Page29.] ticemei:* upon which he puts in the Margent a 29fpecial mark
thus (* Note) : and after he faith, Now let any Perfon judge
whether there was not a chief Juftice of Chefter in thofe Elder
Ages. But before pag. 32. he tells us moft learnedly, that the word
Juftitia here, is of the Mafculine Gender, and gives us a rule out
of the Grammer for it —
Mafcula nomina in a dicuntur multa Virorum, and was fome
times in thofe Elder Ages ufed for the Judge or Juftice of Chefter,
which he believes I cannot deny.
My Reply.
No indeed, I cannot deny it ; but why ufed for the Judge or
Juftice of Chefter, more than other Judges in thofe Ages ? Surely
it was Anciently ufed for any of our Judges : Glanvil mentioning
• the form of Original Writs, hath it thus — quod Jit coram me vel
Juftitiis meis : So alfo Hoveden, and other of our ancient Hifto-
[Page3o.] rians ufed 30Capitalis Juftitia Anglice for the chief Juftice of
England: But Bracton compiling a Book of the body of our
Law in Latin, under King Henry the third, he changed the
word (Juftitiis) into (Jufticiariis) ; and fetteth down the writs

viii.] Reply to Anfwer to Two Books. 341
accordingly — coram Jufticiariis noftris : Since which time, in
all Writs and Commiffions upon Record, they have been ftiled
Jufticiarij : Lamberds Eirenarcha, lib. 1. cap. 1.
And then for his profound Obfervation, that Juftitia is here of
the Mafculine Gender according to the Rule —
Mafcula nomina in (a) dicuntur multa virorum. Yet he hath
left out three or four of the next words following, which might
fitly have been added to that book of his — Ut fcriba, ajfecla,
fcurra, & rabula. But now for the words of the Deed : It is
certain, that here Eari Randle calls the Judge of Chefter — my
chief Juftice ; and the words of the Deed before-mentioned, I
con-31ceive runs thus in Englifh — That the faid Andrew and [Page 31.]
his Heirs fhould not Anfwer concerning any Suit (or Com
plaint) entered in the City of Chefter, or without, either in my
prefence, or in the preferice of my chief Juftice.
And it is a rare precedent (without a Parallel, I believe in this
kind) that the Earl here calleth him — my chief Juftice; un
doubtedly for fome reafon here intended, and but accidentally
neither ; poffibly in diftindrion from the Judges of his inferiour
Courts : for certainly they were never called chief Juftices of
CJiefter in thofe Ages by common appellation, as at this day
they be called ; neither then were there more Judges of Chefter
than one at a time, nor doth this example prove it otherwife,
nor is the Judge here ftiled — Chief Juftice of Chefter ; only the
Earl here calls him — my Chief Juftice, fpeaking as it were in
his own perfon ; nor will this at all excufe the errour and vain
glory of Sir Thomas, fpeaking 32fo of Rafe Manwaring, and [Page 32.]
calling him as at this day we call the Senior Judge of Chefter; it
was a Trip, it overflipt him ; but he will feldom acknowledge
any errour.
Again, This Deed was made between the year 1188. and 1200.
for all that while Randle, Earl of Chefter affumed the Title of
Duke of Little-Brittain in France, which Title we fee he had
given to him in this Deed : But it cannot be firmly collected

342 Reply to Anfwer to Two Books. [vm-*
that Ralf Manwaring was Judge of Chefter at that very time
when this Deed was made; for he is there fubfcribed by the
name of Ralf Manwaring only, not ftiled Radulfo Manwaring.
Jufticiario Ceftria there, as he is in many other Deeds, and as
he and all others were ufually ftiled, while they were Judges ;
and what Sir Thomas would ftretch to have it fo out of my Hif
torical Antiquities, it will not certainly follow out of my Notes
that Ralf Manwaring was Judge of Chefter all that time, from
[Page 33] 1 188. till Philip Orreby was Judge there; 33nor efpecially all
the time, while Randle was Duke oi Brittain; and therefore Sir
Thomas cannot certainly conclude (as he doth pag. 34.) that Rafe
Manwaring was Judge at that very time, when that Deed was
made. Pag. 3^. to pag. 41. are things not worthy my taking notice of,
nor pertinent to the main point, and have all formerly in my
other books been Anfwered by me over and over again, and
therefore I fhall here pafs them by ; although, if I would cavil
(as Sir Thomas doth) at every pidling thing, I could find many
errors therein. Pag. 43. Of his Anfwer to my two Books.
Here he faith, he is very confident Sir Peter cannot prove, that
perfons who were under age, did then ufe to joyn with their Mo
thers, and to give away their Lands of inheritance.
[Page 34.] 3*2. And then after a long harangue, and writing down of
Mr. Selden 's words, which I had before cited, he faith pag. 45.
(which is all the Anfwer he gives to my Precedent that is ma
terial) that Earl Richard confirmed the Hyde of Land which
• Droco de Andeleia had given to Abbington-Church; and a little
after, addeth — what is this to the Cafe of Hugh Cyvelies, who
did pafs away Stivinghale to the Bifhop of Chefter, and his
Succeffors for ever ?

viii.] Reply to Anfwer to^Two Books. 343
My Reply.
I fay it is the very felf-fame Cafe, one as the other : for Earl
Richard, and Earl Hugh do both joyn with their refpecrive
Mothers, both under Age ; but now forfooth the difference he
would put is this, that the one confirms another man's grant, the
other grants away certain Lands for ever. I would fain know if
a grant of Lands for ever by one under Age, and joyning with
his 3S Mother, be invalid ; why a confirmation of Lands, by one [Page 35.]
under age alfo, and joyning with his Mother, would not be in
valid likewife ; but this confirmation of Lands for ever held firm,
and the Lands continued to the Church oiAbbingtan accordingly.
So we fee how he doubts not but what is there faid, will give all
men fatisfaftion, without rendring any Reafon at all of the diffe
rence in thofe two Cafes.
And I am 'very confident Earl Hugh could not be twelve years
old when he joyned with his Mother in the grant of Stivinghale;
and if the grant were made about the year 1156. to wit, about
two or three years after his Fathers death, I rather think that
Earl Hugh was not above eight years old when he joyned in that
Grant. But certainly Sir Thomas is far wide when he faith, pag. 45.
that Earl Hugh was old enough to take Melyeneth-Caftle, anno.
1 142. or that he was 23. years old, Anno 36 1 153. in which year [Page 36.]
his Father dyed : moft abfurd, and without any ground at all.
But fince I writ this fecond Reply, I have received a fure Re
cord that proves Earl Hugh could not be above three or four
years old at the death of his Father, Anno 1 153. and will lay
afleep for ever all thofe falfe fuppofitions of Earl Hugh's Age;
whereof fee more in my Peroratio ad Lectorem at the end of this
my fecond Reply.
Pag. 46. Of his Anfwer to my two Books.
Here he tells the Reader, that I gave him a Pedegree of the

344 Reply to Anfwer to Two Books. [viii.
•
Barons de Monte alto: In which I make the firft Robert de Monte
alto (who I faid lived in King Stephen's time) to have Iffue, two
Sons, Rafe and Robert, who were afterwards fucceffively Steward*? .
of Chejhire ; all which (faith he) is certainly true : [I could wifh
[Page 37.] he would as ingenioufly confefs all other truths al-37ledged by
me] ; and then he writeth out a Deed of Hugh Cyvelibc, Earl, of
Chefter, out of my Hiftorical Antiquities ; whereunto Robertus
Dapifer de Monte-alto was a Witnefs.
1. And then pag. 48. he faith, this muft needs be the firft Ro
bert de Monte-alto ; and if this Deed of Earl Hugh was made
immediately before the death of this Robert, then Earl Hugh
was a great deal elder than his Wife Bertred: (why fo?) For
(faith he) though the faid Robert did live fomething longer than
Sir Peter doth take notice of, yet he thinks it cannot be proved
that he was living any confiderable time after Euftace (who was
Witnefs to the Grant of Stivinghale) : and he knows no reafon
why we fhould conclude Euftace was flain immediately after he
was a Witnefs to the other Deed, or that this Robert dyed pre-
fently after he was a Witnefs to this Deed.
2. He faith, pag. 49. that he thinks it will appear that this
[page 38.] Deed 38was made in King Stephen's time ; for had it been made
when Henry the Second was King, it would not have been here
faid — Jicut fuit tempore Henriei Regis ; but ficut fuit tempore'
Henriei Primi ; or elfe here would have been fome other words
ufed, to diftinguifh King Henry the firft from the then King.
Pag. 49. Now King Stephen dying, 1154. and Bertred not
born till 1157. it will from this Deed be clear, that if the faid
Hugh had fealed the other Deed immediately before King Ste
phen dyed, yet Earl Hugh would be at the leaft 24 years older
* than Bertred his Wife. My Reply.
Is not here a long Profe of his running all upon-ifs and ands,
without the leaft ground of truth ?

viii.] Reply to Anfwer to Two Books. 345
I. To the firft : I do remember that I have feen fome proof
that the firft Robert de Monte-alto (as he calls him) was living 17.
Stephani: 39what then? why fhould we conclude (faith he) that [Page39.]
Euftace was flain immediately after he was a Witnefs to the one
Deed, or that Robert dyed prefently after he was a Witnefs to
this other Deed ?
Is not here pittiful weak reafons to bottom on ? we find Euftace
flain Anno. 1157. So Stow, and other Hiftorians : as to Robert
de Monte-alto aforefaid, / conceive he furvived Hugh Cyvelioc : I
have not yet feen any thing to induce me to think he dyed before
Earl Hugh; and this Deed of Earl Hugh to the Nuns of Bolinton,
I believe was made far in the Raign of King Henry the Second,
nor can he give any reafon at all to the contrary, and we find not
Rafe de Motite-alto a Witnefs, till Randle Blundevil's time, and
that muft be either in King Richard the Firft's Raign, or towards
the very end of Henry the Second at fooneft.
2. To the fecond : Let him prove this Deed to be made in
King Stephen's time, and / will burn my 40book : as to his reafon [Page 4°-]
of diftinguifhing of one King Henry from another, how many
times do we find mention of the Henrys in old Charters, without
diftinguifhing at all ? Somtimes they are diftinguifhed, and
fometimes not ; but not adding the word of Henriei Regis nunc,
fhews clearly it is meant of Hen. 1.
3. To the third : As he proves nothing from the Deed, nor
when it was made, fo his ifs fignifie nothing ; for Earl Hugh was
certainly a Child under age, when he joyned with his Mother in
the Deed of Stivinghale.
And his ifs are very pretty, if Earl Hugh made this Deed to
the Nuns of Bolinton, immediately before the death of Robert
de Monte-alto aforefaid ; and then you muft take his other (if)
too — if this Deed was made in King Stephen's time, and then
you muft take his third (if) too — if Robert de Monte-alto dyed
foon after King Stephen: what then? why then "Earl Hugh [Page4i.]
muft be a great deal older, at leaft 24. years older than Bertred
his Wife.
YY

346 Reply to Anfwer to Two Books. [viii.
But if thefe (ifs) be all falfe fuppofitions, and if Earl Hugh did
make this Deed towards the middle of the Raign of Henry the
Second, and if Robert de monte-alto outlived Earl Hugh, (all which
are more reafonable to imagine than the other ifs) : what then?
We may then conclude Earl Hugh was not near fo much older
than Bertred his Wife, as Sir Thomas would fuppofe him : See
what fluff he here pfoduceth to prove nothing.
Pag. 49. Of his Anfwer to my two Books.
Here he faith, that whereas I pretend to have fhewed that
Earl Hugh could neither be fo old as he would fuppofe him, nor
yet that the faid Earl was born in the year of Chrift, 1 142. Sir
Thomas Anfwereth, that any man who can but count 20. to
[Page 42] wit, how long it is from 1109. to 42ii29. or from n 10. to 1130.
if he looks on his Defence of Amicia, pag. 51. and on his Reply,
pag. 61. may find that Hugh Cyvelioc might be older than he
faith. My Reply.
But whofoever views his Computation in thofe places, will find
the fame very wilde : every fuppofition upon the utmoft poflibi-
lity ; and as here, fo there, he goes all upon (ifs), which cannot
encline any judicious man to a belief; & here he concludes too,
but upon a bare poffibility, That Earl Hugh might be older than
he now faith ; that is, at leaft 24. years older than Bertred his
Wife, which is certainly a great deceit of the Reader, to encline
a belief that a thing is fo, becaufe it is poffible to be fo: Doth he
• any where prove fubftantially that Earl Hugh was fo much older*
than his Wife, more than what may be very ordinary with other
men in the like Cafe, or reafonably to fuppofe he had a for-
[Page43.] 43mer Wife ? Shew me that if he can : I am fure it cannot be
proved ; fee my Anfwer to his defence of Amicia, pag. 48, 49.
It appears clearly by the Record in the Exchequor at Weft-

viii.J Reply to Anfwer to Two Books. 347
minfter, that Earl Hugh was but fix years older than Bertrey,
or thereabout, which dafheth out all his Ifs for ever : See more
hereof.in my Peroratio ad Lectorem, at the end of this my fecond
Reply. Pag. 50. Of his Anfwer to my two Books.
Here he knocks me dead, and thinks now he proves Amicia
no Baftard for certain, — for he doubts I am no good Arithme
tician, becaufe in my Hiftorical Antiquities, pag. 1 37. I faid I
was eight years older than my Wife, and He hath taken great
pains to fearch out the difference of our Ages, and finds I am
not much above fix years older than my Wife.
/
4iMy Reply. [Page 44.i
It is true, I there faid fo, fpeaking curforily and over-haftily
without due examination ; for I then conceived fhe had been
born in the eighth year of my Age ; but it appears now fhe was
born in the feventh year of my Age ; fo that I am by exact
account only fix years and two moneth, and about two weeks
older than my Wife.
But what is all this to Amicia f The Reader may fee how he
makes it his bufinefs to catch and carp at every thing material
or not material.
Pag. 5 1, to pag. 60. Of his Anfwer to my two Books.
In all this, there is little or nothing material to the main point ;
but he fpends much time in comparing fundry ancient Authors,
to fhew that Matthew Paris is mifprinted in the place urged by
me 45(to wit, in the Edition put out by Dr. Wats, 1640. pag. 79.) [Page 45.}
where he faith ( William) Mandeveyle was taken Prifoner at Saint
Albons, fub anno. 1 142. for (Geffrey) Mandeveyle.

348 Reply to Anfwer to Two Books. [viii.
My Reply.
I will never excufe an errour, nor deny a truth: / would I
could fay as much of Sir Thomas : indeed it is much that this
very word fhould be mif-printed above other words in Mattliew
Paris: I believe neither Sir Thomas, nor any other fcarcely,
upon fuch an accidental bufinefs could have fufpedted it to be fo,
having lighted upon the place by chance, elfe I fhould have made
a ftrifter enquiry ; but it had reafon to put him upon an enquiry.
Yet where he faith, pag. 59. that I dealt deceitfully herein, and
that I did it purpofely : This is another Trip of Sir Thomas; for
[Page 46.] }ja(j j t}jen known j-t to be mif-printed, I would 46 never have
urged it, at leaft without a Note upon it.
However the mif-printing of (Hugh) Earl of Chefter, for (Ran
dle) in the Welfh Hiftory, pag. 197. holds firm for ever : and Sir
Thomas confeffeth it mif-printed in this his Anfwer, pag. 52. very
probably in the latter Copies, the letter (R) ftanding for a word
in the Original book, might be mif-written (71) in the Copy;
which was fuppofed to be Hugh, or elfe for certain the Original
was miftaken.
But for all this, Sir Thomas is fo far from an ingenious Con-
feffion herein, that he will juftifie his abfurd errour of computing
Earl Hugh to be 41. years old when he married Bertred; & this
he grounds upon the Errata at the end of Doftor Powels Notes
on the Welfh Hiftory aforefaid, where it is faid we muft read *-*-*.
pag. 197. line 16. Hugh Son to the Earl of Chefter.
Which amendment is certainly as far. from the truth, as that
(Page 47] already Printed, and it is very queftion-*7able whether the faid
Earl Hugh ever lived to be 40. years old, for he dyed Anno Do-
. mini, 1181. and fuppofe we, that he was eight years old when
his Father dyed Scilicet, 1153. (which / believe is as much as by
reafonable account any indifferent perfon can well judge him fo
to be) yet would Earl Hugh be but 36. years old when he dyed,
Annofcilicet 1 181. and if he were twelve years old at the death
of his Father (which / am confident can never be proved by

viii.] Reply to Anfwer to Two Books. 349
good Authority) yet would Earl Hugh be but 40. years old when
he dyed : See what a fhift Sir Thomas would now make, but to
fuppofe Earl Hugh to have a former Wife, which certainly he
never had ; but it appears now by a Record, that he dyed about
the Age of 32.
Again, Sir Thomas faith, pag. 5 1. that / go about to difparage
Doctor Powel all / can, and that / will not fuffer the Welfh
Hiftory to be read, as it fhould have been Printed ; as alfo pag.
52. that / will now difparage the faid Hiftory, although in 48my [Page4a.]
Hiftorical Antiquities touching the Kings of Wales, I did chiefly
follow the fame.
This is another unkind reflection : Sit liber Judex, pag. 94. of
my former Reply ; my words are thefe — As /" be
lieve it [that is the Welfh- Hiftory] to be true in See page 8.
many things, fo it hath alfo fome grofs miftakes ; fupra.
nor is it at all proved by good Authority, or exactly
compofed through-out ; nor fhall you therein from the beginning
find all the Wives, Children, and Baftards of the Ancient Kings
and Princes of Wales clearly Recorded ; and fo are Do-Stor Powels
Notes thereon full of Errors, and efpecially in his abfurd Pede-
gree of the Earls of Chefter, and in feveral other things.
Here is nothing but what every knowing man (who doth feri-
oufly perufe the fame) will acknowledg to be true ; and fome
miftakes may be, and are in the writings of very Learned men,
and yet no great 49difparagement neither : and I do confefs alfo, [Page 49]
that I followed the Welfh-Hiftory in the Princes of Wales, for I
had no better, nor other to follow.
Pag. 60. Of his Anfwer to my two Books.
Having now concluded his Anfwer to my former Book, he tells
us that in my Latine Epiftle to the Judges (which he fuppofeth
to be mine, though I vouchfafe not to fet mine name thereto) I
faid he was the firft Inftigator of this Controverfie ; but whether

350 Reply to Anfwer to Two Books. [viii.
that be fo or no, he refers the Reader to his Epiftle before his
Defence of Amicia, and to the fecond and third pages of his
Reply. My Reply.
But what Sir Thomas faith there, was not the firft time of this
Controverfie between us : For he faith in that Epiftle, that if I
[Page 5o.] would have 50 delivered what I did conceit about A micia as an
uncertainty only, then I knew he would have refted fatisfied with
the judgment of thofe many knowing perfons, who diffented from
me in opinion therein.
But this was a little before my Hiftorical Antiquities were
Printed ; nay he came to Tabley -falfo, purpofely to
•f About defire me (hearing then that my Book was about to
1672. be Printed) that I would put Amicia under the Title
of the doubtful Iffue of Earl Hugh; when I told
him that I thought it not fit to put down in my book any fuch
third title of doubtful Iffue, for fhe muft certainly be either law
ful or unlawful, which method / had obferved in the reft. I told
him alfo that it was not at all doubtful unto me, for in my judg
ment fhe was certainly a Baftard : And then he faid, if I did
place her under the unlawful Iffue of Earl Hugh, he would write
[Page Si.] againft it, which afterwards he did ; 5I and / believe it had been
as good to have let it alone.
But before this, fwe had long entercourfe (fome
f 1664 years before) by Papers between us upon this Contro-
Alfo verfie, which Papers / have yet by me ; and which
1672. (when my Book was in Printing) he defired I would
• not print any of them without his confent, and / pro-
mifed / would not, and / kept my word with him ; and had it
not been for thofe paffages betwixt us, / had not faid near fo
much of it in my book as / did, and fo much for this. See my
Anfwer to the Defence of Amicia, pag. 3.

viii.] Reply to Anfwer to Two Books. 351
Pag. 60. Of his Anfwer to my two Books.
He tells us alfo in the fame page, that I do not put the quef-
tion of Law aright : but the point muft be otherwaies proved
then by fuch a frivolous queftion as mine is.
™ My Reply. [Pages*.]
I am fure / know not how to put it clearer to the point ; vide
licet, whether Lands in thofe Ages might not by the ancient Law
be given in free-marriage with Baftards ? for Sir Thomas faith,
the Deed of Services in frank-marriage with Amice, proves fhe
was no Baftard, becaufe (faith he) the Law will not allow fuch a
grant with a Baftard : I fey, though at this day the Law will not
allow it, yet it would then allow fuch a grant in the Age when
Amicia lived, as the Law was then taken : muft not now the
queftion be — whether the Law in thofe Ages would fo allow it,
or no ?
And yet it is no fure Argument to prove Amice no Baftard,
though the Law fhould not then allow fuch a grant ; as to argue
thus — Amice had Lands given with her in libero maritagio, ergo,
Amice was no Baftard, for many irregular Deeds may fometimes
pafs, which in ftri£t-53nefs of Law might not prove authentical : [PageS3.]
But / conceive the Law in thofe elder Ages would and did allow
fuch grants ; and we plainly fee he waves the queftion, and will
not abide the teft ; and it, may fuppofe too, that the Opinions of
fome Lawyers (which he brags on in his books) were procured
by putting off a wrong Cafe.
I will alfo agree with him to put the other Cafe to the Judges,
as he would have it put ; videlicet, whether the Law be not now
altered in this and fundry other particulars, from what it was
in elder Ages, and that without any Act. of Parliament? for
otherwife Lands would now pafs with Baftards legally in libero

352 Reply to Anfwer to Two Books. [vin.
Pag. 61. Of his Anfwer to my two Books.
Here he faith, that if / had been fo converfant in Divinity, as
T would have the Judges to believe, it feems ftrange to Sir Tho-
[Page 54] mas that 5*/ had not learned my duty better to my deceafed
Grand-mother; for we are bound to Honour all our Parents,
mediate or immediate, living or dead ; and fo compares my
writings of thefe books to the wicked act. of Cham in the Scrip
ture, who divulged the fhame of his Parent.
My Reply.
In the firft place, let me obferve to the Reader, that this is he
who oft blameth me for mif-repeating, and yet runs into the
fame errour himfelf, and tells us here, that / would have the
Judges to believe that / am much converfant in Divinity ; let
him fhew me where /fay fo, if he can, or that /make, or fay,
that / am converfant in Divinity ; my words are — / prefer
Divinity above all other Studies, this is far from faying, / am
converfant in Divinity.
In the next place, this act. of mine cannot by any rational
[Page 55.] man be faid to be like that of Cham, for he re-b5vera, faw his
Fathers Nakednefs, and did not cover it, but told his Brethren
without : now / could not fee my faid Grand-mother's nakednefs
in that fence, who dyed above 450. years agoe, nor will any man
fay, but himfelf, that I have uttered any fcornful or difgraceful
words at all againft her.
Expofitors on the Fifth Commandment, tell us, it includes in
it the honouring of Kings and all in Authority over us, as well
# as our natural Parents, to whom we owe honour and reverence
in like manner.
And tell me, were ever any of thofe worthy Perfons or Hif-
torians, who have commemorated the Wifes and Concubines,
Children and Baftards of our Kings of England in their Hifto-
ries, ever tearmed Chams for the fame ? Nay, doth not Mofes

vin.] Reply to Anfwer to Two Books. 353
himfelf, in his Hiftory of Genefis, chap. 38. Record the Whoredom
of Judah (who was great Uncle to the Father of Mofes) with
Thamar, his Daughter in Law, 56and alfo her Baftard-Twinns, [Page 56.]
Phares and Zarah f Nay, are not thefe Twinns reckoned up in
the facred Genealogy, Matthew, Chap. 1.
How many great and moft honourable Families have been
defcended from Baftards, Kings, Dukes, Earls, and others ?
I have heard that King James ufed to fay, it was a good
Family that had neither Whore nor Thief a Kin to it : / am
fure it is a rare Family that never had any Baftard.
But Sir Thomas faith, that in fome refpects / have exceeded
that Pattern of Cham, *f though / have done nothing
at, all like that Act. of Cham ; I am fure he is Kim- *f pag. 62.
Kam from the point, but he forgets his own duty,
as to revilings, 1 Cor. 6. 10. and follows not the Pattern of Mi
chael the Arch-angel, who durft not take up a railing accufation
againft the worft of Antagonifts, Jude, verf. 9. and fo much for
the Cafe of Divinity, which he miftakes as well as his Law. It
is 57as Lawful for any Hiftorian to Record the Baftards, as [Page57.]
Lawful Children : It is an error not to do it.
Pag. 62. Of his Anfwer to my two Books.
1. Here he faith, that in the fecond book which / direct, to
all the Judges of England, it fo falls out that there is nothing
therein, but what is in my former books, and is already An
fwered ; though if there had, he fhould not have prefumed to
have given any Anfwer thereto, becaufe thofe learned Perfons
know well enough what the Law was and is, in all particulars.
2. How-ever he cannot but obferve how flightly / fpeak of
the Lord Cook in my 48. page.
3. And alfo, how / have fuch light expreffions in my book
directed to the Judges, as he believes were never ufed before by
any Perfon of difcretion to fuch Reverend and Learned men ;
no wonder therefore if I fpeak courfely of him, 58and tell him of [Page 58.)
fo many impertinencies. z z

354 Reply to Anfwer to Two Books. [vin.
My Reply.
I. To the firft, / believe there is fomething in that Second
book, which is not in my former books, nor yet anfwered by him ;
and though the Learned Judges know what the Law was and is,
better than either of us ; yet we may with modefty offer what
we conceive is right to their more grave judgments ; but it is a
good excufe.
2. To the fecond, / do not fpeak flightly of the Lord Cook in
my 48. page, nor anywhere elfe; my words there are thefe, — As
for the Lord Cooks citing of Bracton or Glanvil, in the Margent,
as Authority, for what he there faith, if he maketh a falfe quo
tation, or fuch, as is not to the point, neither / nor any man elfe
are bound to believe the Lord Cook more than any other.
So let the Reader judge whether this be not another Trip.
[Page 59.] 593. To the third, I conceive / have no fuch light expreffions
that might not be ufed to our light Controverfie, or before
Learned Judges, nor yet fuch as were never before ufed by any
perfon of difcretion, as he alledgeth : he might have done well
to have fhewed what thofe expreffions were ; but perhaps, if
they had been ufed by fuch a difcreet Perfon as himfelf, then
they would not have been accounted light expreffions, but
rather plain to the Point, not rude at all.

Pag. 63. Of his Anfwer to my two Books.

He faith here in the very Conclufion of his book — whether
he be guilty of thofe [Impertinencies] or untruths, or of that
opprobrious Language which / do charge him with, let the
indifferent Reader be judge ; and whereas it appears that / am
refolved to have the laft word, though / have nothing new to
[Page 60.] fay ; and that my writing again ""be contrary both to my duty
to my Deceafed Grand-mother, and to my promife in Print : He
declares that if what I fhall write hereafter be no more to the
purpofe than what / have faid in thofe two laft books, that he
will not appear in Print againft me any more.

viii.] Reply to Anfwer to Two Books. 355
My Reply.
To all which / fay, that / do not know that / have any where
at all charged him either with Impertinencies or Untruths, but
what are fo charged juftly by me, that / can fuddenly call to
remembrance. And for opprobrious Language (wherein this laft Anfwer of
his far exceeds.) / have only this to add for my felf, that in. my
Anfwer to his Defence of Amicia, I think no man can fhew me
any one uncivil expreffion in the whole book ; but afterwards,
when he had in his following books taxed me unjuftly in many
things, and carped at every thing in mine, Pertinent or Imperti-
61 nent, / confefs / was more fevere in my expreffions in my [Page 61.]
latter books, but he led the way ; what / have faid, was but in
vindication of my felf, for my Reputation is as dear to me as his
can be to him ; and though my expreffions fometimes may feem
tart, yet not fo opprobrious neither as he makes them ; had he
kept clofe to the point, and avoided his Calumnies and Cavils,
and confeft his Errors more ingenioufly throughout, T fhould
neither have had occafion to retort, nor have Anfwered to them-
And what / have written above my firft intention, he hath
forced me thereunto.
But now he will appear no more in Print againft me, if what
/ fhall write hereafter be no more to the purpofe than what /
have faid in thofe two laft books.
Whereunto / fay, that for certain there is fo much already faid
62 to the purpofe in them, as is not yet folidly and fubftantially [page62.]
anfwered by him ; and herein I fubmit my felf to all Ingenious
Readers.
Mobberley, May 28.
1675.

s

"P E R 0 R A T I 0
A D
LECTOREM.

Ince I writ this Second Reply, / am credibly informed
that Sir Thomas did write to fome of his Friends about
May or June, Anno Domini, 1675. to this or the like
effea.—

[Page 63.]

/ hope now the Conteft between Sir Peter and me will be at an
end ; for Mr. Dugdale, in his Baronage of England, page 41.
hath delivered his Opinion on my fide : and Sir Peter having
appealed to the Judges, Mr. Dugdale thereupon did move them in
the Cafe ; and they upon ^mature debate determined that Amicia [Page 64.]
was no. Baftard. I have feen his laft Sheet, which I have an
fwered, butjhall not yet Print it.
1. This Letter was fhewed up and down Chefter, purpofely to
delude the eafie multitude ; for fince he cannot demonftrate or
fupport the legitimacy of Amicia, either by good Reafon or Au
thority, Sir. Thomas ufed this fecret practice to gain a belief of
his Caufe, as fupported by Opinions ; whereas in truth there is
no fuch thing as a mature debate by our Reverend Judges in the
Cafe oi Amicia; for as yet the Cafe in Law is not agreed upon
by both fides, how then can there be a mature debate, or de
termination of the Controverfie ? for Sir Thomas faith in his

358 Peroratio ad Leblorem. [vm-
Anfwer to my two books, pag. 61. that the point muft be other-
wife proved than by fuch a frivolous queftion as mine is ; and
a little before pag. 60. he faith that in the Epiftle Dedicatory,
[Page 65.] wherein I appeal to the Judges, I do not put 65the queftion
aright ; whereas there can be no other point of Law to be re
folved as to the Controverfie in hand, but this,— Whether Lands
in thofe elder Ages might, and did Lawfully pafs with Baftards
in libero maritagio, or no ? That they might, and did fo pafs, I
have before in my other Books clearly proved as well by the
very words of Glanvil himfelf, and the Law then no where dif-
allowing the fame ; as alfo by three fure Precedents of thofe
Ages. But becaufe Sir Thomas takes this upon truft from Mr. Dug
dale, I fhall here in publick unmask that Letter more fully, to
the undeceiving of all men.
2. As to the Opinion of Mr. Dugdale, it is true, he hath deli
vered his* opinion for the Legitimacy oi Amicia, in his .Book of
the Baronage oi England, newly Publifhed, Tom. 1. pag. 41. And
it is no more than what Sir Thomas formerly told us in his books,
[Page 66] That he was of that judgment before he publifhed his 66faid book
of the Baronage : What then ? many very wife and knowing men
have declared their Opinions with me, that fhe was a Baftard ;
both Divines and Lawyers, and other grave and underftanding
men ; but I fhall examine thefe things more particularly.
3. And in the firft place, I fhall always defire to be underftood
without the leaft detraction from the honour and due praife of
Mr. Dugdale, of whom I have ever had a good efteem, as a moft
diligent and indefatigable fearcher of the Records and Antiqui
ties of our Nation : Sed Bemardus non videt omnia ; nor fhould
I now have mentioned him at all for his opinion herein, but that
Sir Thomas Manwaring brings him here upon the Stage.
Only we may by the way take notice, that fome years agoe
Mr. Dugdale did draw up Sir Thomas Manwaring's Pedegree ;
wherein he puts Amicia, the Wife of Rafe Manwaring, without
[Page 67.] her due di-67ftin£tion (as I conceive) of a Baftard, and is therefore

viii.] Peroratio ad Leclorem. 359
the more concerned to ftickle for Sir Thomas in this Conteft
between us : So that formerly he confulted fome Lawyers for
their Opinions in this Cafe of Hiftory ; for whether Baftard or
no Baftard hath nothing of Law in the Cafe, or whether Hugh
Cyvelioc Earl of Chefter, had any former or other Wife befides
Bertra f thefe are queftions to be refolved by Hiftory, Records,
and Reafon ; but Mr. Dugdale would now fupport his opinion
with a point of Law, and therefore moved fome Lawyers for
their opinions ; but how the Cafe was ftated, no body but him
felf knows, nor what the point of Law was, wherein they delivered
their opinions : and methinks it argued fome doubt within his
own breaft, that fhe was a Baftard ; otherwayes why fhould he
confult any Lawyers in the cafe : and in truth, let the Law be
what it will, fhe was certainly a Baftard, which to my poor reafon,
is as plain 68as the Sun when it fhines ; but it feems he was fatis- [Page 68.]
fied with the Opinions of thofe Lawyers, that fhe was Legitimate,
becaufe (faith he) it is a known Maxime in the Law, that nothing
can be given in Frank-marriage to a Baftard : but this Maxime
is to be underftood with a due diftincrion of the times and ages,
otherwife it will fail ; but I fhall anon fpeak more of this, and of
his moving the Judges in the Cafe ; wherein I fhould be glad to
fee what Cafe he put, and the refolutions of our Reverend Judges
thereon, under their hands ; in the mean time / fhall go on with
Mr. Dugdale's Opinion, whereon Sir Thomas fo much depends.
4. In his faid Book of the Baronage of England, pag. 34. b. he
calls Robert and Ottiwel, two Illegitimate Sons of Hugh (Sir-
named Lupus) Earl of Chefter ; wherein he is to be commended
for fpeaking out, for fo they were without all doubt : Howbeit, /
find not any Author hitherto, who have Writ-69 ten of our ancient [Page 69.]
Earles of Chefter, Commemorating either thefe, or any other at
all, as Baftards, to any of our ancient Earls of Chefter ; neither
Brooks in his Catalogue of Nobility, nor Vincent in his Cor
rections of Brook, nor Milles in his Catalogue of Honour, nor
Fern in his Lacyes-Nobility, nor Powel in his Notes on the
Welfh-Hiftory, pag. 294. nor yet Mr. Dugdale himfelf, in his

360 Peroratio ad Leclorem. [vm*
Warwick-Jliire ; till here in his late book of the Baronage, he
now fpeaks out a little more.
5. But yet in the fame page, he calls Geva (Daughter of Hugh
Lupus, and Wife of Geffry Ridel) a Legitimate Daughter not to
be doubted of, becaufe fhe had Drayton-Baffet given her in Free-
Marriage by her Father, which could not have been fo beftowed
on a Baftard, as our Learned Lawyers do clearly affirm ; thus
Mr. Dugdale.
Which very Deed of Drayton-Baffet to Geva, I have produced
[Page7o.] in my Hiftorical Antiquities, pag. 1°H2. 113. as a fure Precedent
that Lands did pafs with Baftards in Free-marriage in thofe
more ancient Ages, as well as with lawful Daughters,; and have
fully proved Geva to be a Baftard out of an Hiftorian of good
Credit, and Contemporary with Geva, by fure Confequence out
of .his words: See my Anfwer to the Defence oi Amicia, pag. 33.
to pag. 47. which Reafons and Authorities, are not yet folidly or
rationally Anfwered by any, and which I fhall have occafion
further to mention, when I come to the Cafe of Amicia truly
Stated. And here by the way, we may take notice, that thefe two
Sticklers for Geva, Sir Thomas Manwaring, and Mr. Dugdale,
agree not in their points of Law ; for Sir Thomas will not have
thefe words (in libero Conjugio) ufed in the Deed of Drayton, to
be good in Law, to make it a gift in Free-marriage, and only to
convey but an Eftate for life unto Geva ; becaufe the Lord Cook
[Page 71.] affirms that a gift in Free-marriage 71 muft be ftrictly tyed up to
the words (in libero maritagio) and no other : See more of this
in my firft Reply to Sir Thomas, pag. 4. to pag. 15.
But Mr. Dugdale and his Lawyers take the words (in libero
* Conjugio) in the Deed of Drayton to be a good gift in Free-
marriage ; and fo without doubt it was, and in thofe Ages as
good as in libero maritagio ; and did convey an Eftate of Inhe
ritance to the Heirs of Geva, who enjoyed Drayton accordingly.
So we fee Sir Thomas and the Lord Cook are of one Opinion,
and Mr. Dugdale and his Lawyers are of another opinion ; both

viii.] Peroratio ad Leclorem. 361
of them againft the Baftardy of Geva, which yet is clearly col
lected by fure confequence out of Ordericus an Hiftorian, of very
good Credit, and contemporary with Geva, who knew the truth
better than any man now living can poffibly know, and needeth
no point of Law to prove the fame, and cannot be dif-72proved [Page 72.)
by any point of Law whatfoever.
6. As to Amicia, he hath thefe words in his faid Book of the
Baronage, /«£•. 41. — That fhe was Daughter of Earl Hugh.
1. It fufficiently appears, not only from the grant of two
Knights Fees with her in Frank-marriage, to Rafe de Mefnil-
warin, where he fo termeth her, but by another Deed of Roger
de Mefnilwarin, her Son, wherein he calls Randle, Earl of Chefter,
his Uncle, who was Son of the faid Earl Hugh.
2. As to her Legitimacy, I do not well underftand how there
can be any queftion, it being a known Maxime in Law, that
nothing can be given in Frank-marriage to a Baftard.
3. The point being then thus briefly cleared, I fhall not need
to raife further Arguments from Probabilities to back it, then to
defire it may be obferved that Bertra (whom I conclude to be a
fecond Wife) was Married unto him when 73he was in years, and [Page 73.1
fhe her felf very young : So that he having been Earl no lefs
than 28. years, it muft neceffarily follow that this Bertra was not
born till four years after he came to the Earldome ; nor is it any
marvel he fhould then take fuch a young Wife, having at that
time no Iffue-male to fucceed him in this his great Inheritance :
thus Mr. Dugdale.
1. To all which I fay, firft, That it plainly appears fhe was
Daughter of Earl Hugh ; but that fhe was a Lawful Daughter,
that no where appears ; nor did the Earl in the Deed mentioned,
grant her two Knights-Fees in Frank-marriage, as is here al
ledged ; but he granted with her in Frank-marriage, the Service
of Gilbert, Son of Roger ; to wit, the Service of three Knights-
Fees, by doing to the Earl and his Heirs, the Service of two
Knights- Fees ; fo that the Earl releafed only the Service of one
Knights- Fee by this Deed; too mean a Portion 74for a Lawful [Page74.]
3A

362 Peroralio ad Leclorem. [viii.
Daughter of the Earl of Chefter, efpecially for the fole' Daughter
and Heir by a former Wife, as Mr. Dugdale fuppofeth her to be;
fo that res ipfa loquitur, whereas the four lawful Daughters of
Earl Hugh, by his Wife Bertred, Married four of the greateft
Earls then in England, and fhared all the Lands of the Earl-
dome of Chefter; and fure the Eldeft Daughter by a firft Wife
(if the Earl had a former Wife) ought to have had as good a
Portion of Lands or Money, as any of his Younger Daughters
by a latter Wife, which for certain Amicia never had, nor claimed.
2. To the fecond, the Maxime of Law, that nothing can be
given in Frank-marriage to a Baftard, is to be underftood of the
Law, as it is now taken in thefe latter Ages ; but that the Law
was otherwife taken in the time oi Amicia, and thofe more ancient
Ages, I have proved in my former books, both from the words
[Page7j] of Glanvil, who was Chief Juftice oi England, and lived in 7sthe
very Age with Amicia, as alfo by three clear Prefidents of thofe
former Ages ; and fhall have further occafion to mention the
fame in the Cafe of Amicia hereafter following, which I have
briefly and truly ftated by it felf, for the better apprehenfion of
all men.
3. To the third : Here Mr. Dugdale concludeth Bertra to be
a fecond Wife ; but doth not, nor cannot in the leaft prove a
former Wife ; much lefs Amicia to be the Daughter of a former
Wife. And as to his Argument of Probability, / deny abfolutely
that Earl Hugh married Bertra when he was in years ; for
though he were Earl three or four years before fhe was born,
yet it follows not that he did Marry her when he was in years,
for he came to be Earl in his Infancy.
. But that I may lay this Argument of Probability (as he calls
it) afleep for ever, take this Record here following, out of the
[Page 76.] Roll de Dominabus pueris, & Puellis, re-^mainino* in the Ex
chequer at Weftminfter: Which Roll Mr. Dugdale hath there alfo
cited in the Margent, to prove the Age of Bertrey, though not
in the Words which I have here more at large expreffed : I fay,

viii.] Peroratio ad Letlorem. 363
take here the true Coppy of the Record Verbatim, which my
Friend hath twice examined for me, to prevent Miftakes : viz.
( In Rotulo de Dominabus Pueris, & Puellis,
Scaccarium apud J de anno 31. Hen. 2. in Cuftodia Rememora-
Weftminfter. \ toris Regis Exiftente, continetur (inter alia)
\ ut Sequitur, &c.

Com. Lincoln.

Balteflawe - Wapentak.

Matilda Comitiffa Ceftrice eft de donatione Domini Regis: et
fuit fillia Roberti Comitis Gloceftrise filij Regis Henriei Primi,
et eft L annorum, & amplius : Hujus villa? Recepit Comitiffa his
VIII. annis: Ip-^fa tenet Wadinton in dote de feodo Comitis [Page 77.]
CeftricB: et firma eft XXII.libr* per annum: dicta villa valet per
annum XL. lib: Cum hoc inftauramento, Scilicet, II Carucis,
IIII Vaccis, I Tauro, IIII Suibus, I Verre, D ovibus, quce ibi
funt : . .. &c.
Com. Lincoln. Jeretre Wapentak.
Bertreia Comitiffa, filia Comitis de Evereous, uxor Hugonis
Comitis Ceftriae, eft de donatione Domini Regis ; & eft XXIX
annorum. Terra quam Comitiffa habet, XL. lib. Maritagium ;
& defeclus funt ultra, mare, ideo nefciunt Juratores quid valeant.
Dominus Rex prcecepit, quod ipfa haber et XL libr at as terra Do
mini fui in Beltesford, Hemmingly, & Duninton : licet non habuit
nifi XXXV libratas, & Xfolidatas. Quid (ut dicunt) dicta terra
non poteft plus valere cum Inftauramento quod comitiffa ibi recepit;
Scilicet, V Carucis, CCCXLI Ovi-"8bus, X Suibus, I Verre. Sed [Page 78.]
fi in Duninton apponerentur CC oves, & X fues, & I verris, tunc
Valeret.

364 Peroratio ad Letlorem. [viii.
So that, by this Record it clearly appears, that as Bertrey was
twenty nine years of Age, 31. Hen. 2. 1185 ; So Maud (the Mo
ther of Hugh Cyvellioc, Earl of Chefter) was aged fifty years, Anno
Domini 1185. 31. Hen. 2. &c.
And fo Maud muft be born Anno 1135. and Bertrey muft be
born Anno 1156.
Now it cannot be imagined, that Maud could have a Child
before fhe was fifteen years of Age : And then Earl Hugh could
not be born till the year 1150. at fooneft. And by Confequence,
Earl Hugh was about three years old when he came to be Earl ;
and about fix years older than his wife Bertrey.
What a monftrous and wild Computation then hath Sir Thomas
Manwaring made, and upon utmoft Poffibilities too, fuppofed, in
j:Page79.] his Anfwer to my Addenda, pag. 50, 51. 79where he would have
Earl Hugh to be 41. years old when he marryed his Wife Bertrey,
which Marriage he fuppofeth to be Anno 1171 ? So alfo in his
Anfwer to my two Books, pag. 49. Wherunto fee my Firft
Reply, pag. 91. to pag. 94. See alfo in my Second Reply, to his
Objection in that Point, mentioned here a little before.
And how could Earl Hugh now be in years (as Mr. Dugdale
would have him) when he marryed his Wife, fuppofing with Sir
Thomas, the Marriage to fall Anno Domini 1171 ? For, by this
Record Earl Hugh would then be but 21 years old, and his Wife
about 15. years old. So this Argument of Probability is become
an Argument of Improbability of the Earl's having any former
Wife. This Record came to my hands after I had written my Second
Reply : And I am very confident, that when foever any Record,
tending to this Point, concerning Earle Hugh, or Amicia, fhall
{Page 80.], hereafter, at any time, 80be difcovered, it will more and more
illuftrate the Truth of what I have written about them.
7. Having now laid afleep for ever The Argument of the
Sticklers for the Legitimacy of Amicia, drawn from the Erro
neous Computation of Earl Hugh's Age ; I come now to the
Letter of Sir Thomas Manwaring, before mentioned, written by

viii.] Peroratio ad Leclorem. 365
him to a Kinfman both of his and mine, and left with Throp
the Stationer in Chefter, purpofely to be divulged, and made
known to every Man in Town : wherein he writ- (among other
things), That I having appealed to the Judges, Mr. Dugdale had
moved them in the Cafe: who upon Mature debate, determined,
that Amicia was no Baftard, as I was credibly informed by one
who faw the Letter.
But, (as I faid before) How could there be any Mature-debate,
or Determination of the Point in Controverfie by our Reverend
Judges, whiles as yet the Cafe is not at all agreed upon between
us ? For, 81 Sir Thomas waves the Queftion in Law, and will not &*& 8i*]
abide the Teft ; See pag. 60, 61. of his Anfwer to my two books.
For whether Amicia was a Baftard, or no ? this Queftion hath
nothing of any Law in the cafe, and therefore unfit to be put to
our Reverend Judges for their Opinions, unlefs alfo all the Re
cords and Hiftories touching the fame, together with the Reafons
alledged on both fides, were produced before them : It is more
proper for them to Judge only upon the point of Law.
And it is granted on all hands, that Lands cannot pafs with
Baftards in libero maritagio, at this day, as the Law is now taken :
but in the more ancient Ages, when the Deed to Amicia was
made, Lands might and did ufually pafs with Baftards in libero
maritagio : I affirm it out of ancient Precedents ; Sir Thomas
denies it.
Now all Deeds by the rule of Law, are to be Conftrued and
under- 82ftood according to the time when they were made; fo [Page 82.]
that there is now no other Cafe of Law to be put, but this, as I
put the fame in my Epiftle Dedicatory, to all our Reverend and
Learned Judges ; to wit, —
Whether in the Age of Glanvil, Lands lawfully might, and
did ufually pafs with Baftards in Free Marriage, or no ?
Again, I am affured from very good hands (who have lately
enquired of many of our Judges above) that there was no fuch
thing as a mature debate and determination, as Sir Thomas
mentioneth in his Letter, nor their Opinions at all delivered as

366 Peroratio ad Letlorem. [viii.
yet in the Cafe of Amicia, now in Conteft ; and fome of them
faid, that they never had any fuch a queftion asked them, as
whether in the Age of Glanvil, Lands might Lawfully pafs in
Free-marriage with Baftards ?
If Mr. Dugdale hath moved any of the Judges in private, for
[Page 83.] their Opinions in any point of Law about 83 'Amicia, had he but
given me due notice of fuch his intention, I would have met him
half way, and fo the Cafe might have been truly ftated, and the
point thorowly debated ; for he being on the place, might have
thofe opportunities which I could not at this diftance pofiibly
have, and fo the truth would have appeared to the world.
And therefore, that I may deal above-board, I have here fol
lowing, publifhed by it felf, The Cafe of Amicia truly Stated, for
the better apprehenfion and information of all Perfons ; and the
rather, for that Mr. Dugdale only buildeth his Opinion of the
Legitimacy oi Amicia on the fame point of Law, in his Baronage
of England.
And howbeit (as I formerly faid) I left every man to his own
free judgment, thinking rather to eftablifh my own Opinion by
Authorities and good reafon, then by other mens Opinions ; fo I
never went about to hunt for Opinions, efpecially in the Cafe of
[Page s4.] Amicia, (for ma-84ny did concur with me without my feeking)
till after that Letter of Sir Thomas Manwaring before-men
tioned : for I ever counted it an improper thing to prove a point
of Hiftory by a nice point of Law.
But I have lately made fome enquiry, and am affured from
very good hands, that fome of our more eminent Judges above
(and I believe all of them, if they would deliver their Opinions
in the Cafe) do concur with me in the point of Law aforefaid ;
. and fo do alfo other Eminent and Learned Lawyers here below ;
that in thofe elder Ages, a gift in Free-marriage, with a Baftard,
was good, although at this day our Law is otherwayes taken.
So that now there is not fo much as one feeming Argument
of Reafon left to uphold the Legitimacy oi Amicia.
Befides, one of our moft eminent Heralds of our Nation, and

viii.] Peroratio ad Letlorem. 367
King at Armes, is of Opinion with me alfo, that Earl Hugh
never had any other 85Wife but Bertrey, as I have it from a fure [Pagess.]
hand, who was then prefent when he publickly fpoke it, whofe
judgment / may well bottom on ; for I am fure there is no Hif
tory, or Record to prove any other Wife at all, and very many
other judicious and knowing men do concur in opinion, that
Amicia was a Baftard ; and fo / leave it to the judgment of all
men, who are vers'd in Antiquities, Records, and Hiftories.
And fo / have don*?, if Sir Thomas hath done ; and now /
think it will be time for both to have done.

Mobberley, Decem
ber the 17th.
1675.

FINIS.

THE

CASE O F
AMICIA Truly Stated.

By Sir Peter Leycefter,
Baronet.

Augufl the 5th. MDCLXXV.

Qui vult decipi, decipiatur.

Printed in the Year, 1676.

3B

89T H £
CASE O F
A M I C I A
Truly Stated.
THe Queftion concerning Amicia, Wife of Rafe Man
waring, and Daughter of Hugh, Sir-named Cyvelioc,
Earl of Chefter, is briefly this —
Whether the faid Amicia was a Baftard, or no ?
This is altogether a queftion of Hiftory, and nothing of Law at
all in the Cafe.
90 The Reafons Collected out of Hiftory, Records, and Evi
dences, fhewing her to be a Baftard, are thefe —
I. It is confeffed on all hands, that Amicia was no Daughter
by Bertrey, the Wife of Earl Hugh, for then fhe would have
fhared the Lands of the Earldom, with the other Daughters by
Bertrey, which for certain fhe did not, nor ever claimed any part
of the fame, as is moft manifeft by the Record of 18. Hen. 3.
when all the Co-heirs did implead John the Scot, then Earl of
Chefter, upon a Writ de rationabili parte : See my book of Hif
torical Antiquities, pag. 151. as alfo by the teftimonies of many of
our ancient Hiftorians, who have Recorded all thofe Daughters
in their books.

[Page 89.]

[Page 90.]

372

The Cafe of Amicia [viii.

And fhe could be no Daughter by any latter Wife, becaufe
Bertrey furvived Earl Hugh, her Husband : See my faid book of
Antiquities,/^. 132, & 139, & 143, & 148-
[Page 91.] 9lAnd fhe could be no Daughter by any former Wife; becaufe
Earl Hugh never had any other Wife but Bertrey f And the
Sticklers for the Legitimacy of Amicia, do confefs that they
cannot prove any other Wife 'at all ; much lefs can they prove
Amicia to be the Daughter of any fuch Wife : Therefore the
Earl having no other Wife but Bertrey, and Amicia being no
Daughter by Bertrey, Amicia, Daughter of Earl Hugh, muft cer
tainly be a Baftard.
2. Earl Hugh had feveral other Baftards, as is evident by
ancient Deeds;, and if the bare alledging that he had another
Wife be fufficient without due proof, than all his other Baftards
may be made Legitimate, by faying that they were by another
Wife: And our ancient Hiftorians, as Matthew Paris, Poly -Chro
nicon, Knighton, Stow, and others, have Recorded the Lawful
[Page 92.] Children of Earl Hugh; but not one of them 92mentioning*
Amicia in the leaft, nor any former Wife at all, which fome one
or other of them, without doubt would have taken notice of, had
Amicia been a Legitimate Daughter.
3. Rafe Manwaring, the Husband oi Amicia, was not an equal
Competitor at that time, to have Married a Lawful Daughter of
the Earl of Chefter; for we find the Lawful Daughters of this Earl
Hugh were Married to the greateft Earls then in England: The
Earl of Huntington, who was Brother to the King of Scotland,
the Earl of A rundel, the Earl of Derby, and the Earl of Win-
chefter's Son and Heir ; and therefore it is more than probable,
that Amicia was not a Lawful Daughter, efpecially fince no pro-
.vifion confiderable was made for her, who muft have been the
only Daughter and Heir of Earl Hugh, by a firft Wife, as thofe
[Page 93.] of the contrary opinion would make her; 93and if fo, fhe ought
in all Reafon to have had fully as great an Eftate provided for
her, as any of his Children by a latter Wife, which certainly fhe
never had. Wherefore res ipja loquitur ; for nothing appears to-

viii.] Truly Stated. 373
be given unto her, fave only the releafe of the Service of one
Knights Fee, given with her in Frank-Marriage, which fure was
too fmall a Portion for a Lawful Daughter of the Earl of Chefter.
And thus much for the Queftion of Hiftory, whether Baftard,
or no Baftard ?
Which I fubmit wholly to the Judgement of all Wife and
knowing men, who are verfed in Hiftories, Records, and Anti
quities. And many very wife and knowing men, fome Divines, fome
Lawyers, and other grave and underftanding Perfons, have here
in declared that they concurre in Opinion, that Amicia was a
Baftard. 94 But now arifeth another Queftion; for thofe who would have [Page 94]
Amicia to be a Lawful Daughter, and no Baftard (which cannot
be fupported either by Hiftory, Records, or Reafon) they would
ground their Opinion from a point of Law; to wit, that Lands
cannot pafs in Free-Marriage with a Baftard ; and becaufe Ami
cia had a grant of fome Services in Free-Marriage, from the Earl
her Father, therefore they conclude fhe was no Baftard : For all
other Arguments for her Legitimacy are fo void of Reafon and
Authority, that all bottoms on this one Argument ; and the
Queftion now is this —
Whether the Deed of Hugh, Earl of Chefter, (wherein he
granted unto Rafe Manwaring in Free-Marriage with Amicia
his Daughter, the Service of Gilbert, Son of Roger ; to wit, the
Service of three Knights-Fees, by doing to the faid Earl & his
Heirs the Service of two 9S Knights- Fees,) be a fure Argument [Page 95.]
to prove Amicia a Legitimate Daughter?
But for the better Hating of the queftion, it is granted on both
fides, that Lands cannot now pafs in Free-Marriage with a Baf
tard, as the Law is taken at this day. The proper queftion of
Law therefore in the prefent Cafe is this 
Whether by the Law, in Glanvil 's time (who was chief Juftice
of England, under King Henry the Second, and lived in the very
Age with Amicia, when the faid Deed was made) Lands might

374

The Cafe of Amicia [vin.

and did ufually pafs in thofe Elder Ages in Free-Marriage, as
well with Baftards as no Baftards ?
The Arguments for the Affirmative part are thefe 
i. From the very words of Glanvil himfelf (who was the firft
after the Norman-Conqueft, who reduced the Model of our
Common-Law into writing) in his Treatife de Legibus Anglia,
[Page 96] lib. 7. cap. 1. s&Quilibet liber homo quandam partem terra fua
cum filid fud vel cum aliqud alia qudlibet muliere, dare poteft in
maritagium, five habuerit haredem five non, velit hares vel non,
imo & eo contradicente : Alfo lib. 7. cap. 18. Liberum dicitur ma
ritagium, quando aliquis liber homo aliquam partem terrce fuce dat
cum aliqud muliere alicui in maritagium, ita quod ab omni Ser
vitio terra ilia fit quieta, & a Je & haredibus fuis, verjus capitalem
Dominum, acquietanda.
And Bracton exprefly, lib. 2. cap. 7. Quoniam terra data Baftar-
do in maritagium, Jicut & aliis, vel Baftardo per fe, in fe tacitam
habet Conditionem vel exprefjam de reverfione . . . &c. See alfo Sir
Thomas Manwaring 's Law-Cafes Miftaken,/-^. 10, 11.
So that Lands might be given in Free-Marriage to any man,
with any woman whomfoever, without any exception ; and if
[Page 97.] with any Woman whomfoever, then certainly 97with a Baftard;
and Bracton more exprefly, that Lands might then be given to
a Baftard in Marriage ; neither are Baftards any where difallowed
by the Law, either in Glanvil or Bracton, for having Lands given
in Free-marriage.
2. That the Law was fo taken in the time of King John, and
upwards, appeareth by fundry Precedents of thofe elder Ages,
whereby Lands were given in Free-marriage with Baftards.
See one in my Book of Antiquities, pag. 112. wherein Randle,
. Earl of Chefter (Sir-named de Gernouns) gave unto Geva Ridel,
Daughter of Earl Hugh [that was Hugh Lupus] Drayton, in
Free-marriage with the Appurtenances, even as Earl Hugh gave
the fame unto her in Free-marriage : This Deed was made about
the end oi Hen. 1. or King Stephen.
And that Geva was a Baftard,. Ordericus an Hiftorian of good

viii.] Truly Stated. 375
Credit, and Contemporary with Geva, plainly fhews, for lib. 4.
98Ecclefiaftica Hiftoria, pag. 522. He tells us that Hugh Lupus [Page 98]
had many Baftard-Sons & Baftard-Daughters ; yet nameth none
of them in particular, e Pellicibus plurimam Sobolem utriufque
fexus genuit, qua diver Jis infortunijs abforpta pene tota periit:
Ermentrudem filiam Hugonis de Claromonte Beluacenji uxorem
duxit, ex qud Ricardum Ceftrenfis comitates haredem genuit, qui
juvenis liberifque Carens naufragio periit. So that having given
an account of his Wife, and his Son by her, who dyed young,
and without Children, he would certainly have given an Account
of his other Children by his Wife, if he had had any other by
her ; but to put it out of all doubt, he tells us afterwards, lib. 10.
Ecclef. Hift.pag. 787. Ricardus Pulcherrimus puer, quem folum ex
Ermentrude filid Hugonis de Claromonte genuit, Conjulatum (CeJ-
tria Scilicet) tenuit, fo that Earl Hugh only begot Richard on
Ermentrude his Wife & then by fure confequence out of his
words, it muft needs follow that Geva "was one of the Earl's [Page 99. 1
Baftards, fhe being no Child by Ermentrude, his Wife ; which is
clearly proved without a point of Law, and cannot by any point
of Law be taken off.
Again, if Geva had been a Lawful Daughter by Ermentrude,
then fhe would have been fole Heir to her Brother Richard, and
ought to have had the Earldom of Chefter, which fhe never had,
nor ever claimed : See this more fully in my Anfwer to the De
fence oi Amicia, pag. 35. to pag. 40. and if any fhall run to the
old Subterfuge, and fay, fhe might be his Daughter by a former
Wife, let him prove it, and take it ; and fhe could be no Daughter
by a latter Wife, becaufe Ermentrude furvived Earl Hugh her
Husband : See my Hiftorical Antiquities, pag. 1 14.
Other two Precedents we have of Lands, granted in Free-
marriage with Joan, Baftard-Daughter of King John.
1. One, wherein King John granted to Lewellyn, Prince of
100 North-wales, in Marriage with Joan his Daughter, the Cartel [Pag? 100.]
oi Ellefmere in Shropjhire ; Tenendum ei, & haredibus Juis qui
de eo & pradictd filid noftrd exierint, de nobis & haredibus noftris

376 The Cafe of Amicia [vin.
in liberum maritagium ; Salvis conventionibus inter nos & ipfum
de terrd & eodem maritagio factis, &c. Dated Anno Sexto Jo-
hannis Regis, 1204. See the Deed at large in the Advertifement
to the Reader, at the end of my book, ftiled Sir Thomas Man
waring 's Law-Cafes miftaken, pag. 53. tranfcribed from the
Record in the Tower of London.
2. Another fee in my book of Antiquities,/^. 152. wherein
it is Covenanted that John the Scot, Nephew of Randle, Earl
of Chefter and Lincoln by his eldeft Sifter, fhall Marry Helen,
Daughter oi Lewellyn, Prince of North-wales ; and that the faid
Lewellyn fhall give to the faid John in Free-Marriage all the
Mannor of Budjord in Warwick-Jhire, and the Mannor of Sutte-
[Pageioi] hele in Worcefter-Jhire,cum 101 omnibus Pertinentiis,Jicut Dominus
Johannes Rex ea illi dedit in libero maritagio  &c. This
Deed was made about 6. Hen. 3. Anno Chrifti. 1222. Now that
the faid Joan was a Baftard-Daughter of King John, take thefe
feveral Authorities, Vincent upon Brook, pag. 204. Speeds Hif
tory, p. 518. S tow's Annalls Augmented by Howes, pag. 167, 168.
Polychronicon Tranflated into Englifh by Trevija, lib. 7. cap. 33.
Cambdens Brittannia in Shropjhire, pag. 453. alfo Daniel and
Fabian, and Milles Catalogue of Honour, and Sir Richard Ba
ker's Hiftory, who do all call her bafe Daughter of King John;
and no Author at all calls her Lawful Daughter, or reckoneth
her among the Daughters by any of his Wives ; fome of them
fay fhe was begot by King Jbhn on Agatha de Ferrars.
And therefore thefe Deeds and Charters which concerned fo
great Perfons (whom we cannot fuppofe to be without Learned
[Page 102.] Councel about them) are clear Precedents, 102fhowing how the
Law was then taken, and were good Deeds, conveying the Lands
• with Baftards in Free-marriage in thofe Ages, which Lands were
quietly enjoyed accordingly, and nothing can be faid againft
them : Many other Precedents of like nature in thofe ancient
Ages, might without doubt, upon diligent fearch and enquiry,
be found out.
For as much then as it appears by the words of Glanvil, that

viii. J Truly Stated. 377
Lands might then be given with any Woman whomfoever in
Free-marriage, and no Baftards then excepted or difallowed by
the Law, either in Glanvil or Bracton, and that clear Precedents
of thofe elder Ages do prove and fhow, that Lands did then
ufually pafs in Free-Marriage, as well with Baftards, as Lawful
Daughters ; and that all Deeds by the rule of Law, are to be
conftrued and underftood according to the time when they were
made : How can a Deed of Services, given in libero maritagio
(in the Reign 103of Henry the Second) with one juftly fufpefted [Page 103.]
to be a Baftard, be a fure Argument, or any Argument at all,
to prove her Legitimate ?
Wherefore it is very evident, that in thofe elder Ages (as the
Law was then taken in the Reign of King John, and upwards)
Lands lawfully might, & ufually did pafs in libero maritagio with
Baftards, as well as with no Baftards, howbeit at this day our
Law will not permit the fame.

FINIS.

3*=

AN
ADMONITION To the Reader of
Sir Peter Leicejlers Books.
Written by Sir T. M.

Printed in the Year 1676.

3 An Admonition to the Reader of Sir v*v±>
Peter LeicefterV Books.

Courteous Reader,
Hat you may know Hercules by his Foot, and not,
with fome few perfons, confidently believe every
thing which Sir Peter Leicefter doth write, I here
give you an account of the Partiality, Omiffions,
Uncertainties, and Miftakes of the faid Sir Peter,
in thofe two Sheets of his Hiftorical Antiquities, in which he
writes of the Townfhip of Over Peover. And I cannot but won
der that they are fo numerous, confidering he always had liberty
to perufe any Deeds or Copies of Records which I had in my
cuftody ; and that I alfo was 4ever willing to give him any other [Page 4.]
affiftance concerning my Family, which did lie in my power.
Firft, in his 330 page, he calls Ranulphus (who, as he confeffeth,
in the Conqueror's time held this Townfhip of Peover, or the
greateft part thereof) the fuppofed Anceftor of the Mainwarings,
as he alfo ufually doth in other Townfhips where he hath occafion
to name the faid Randle ; and yet, as you may fee, page 208. he
calls Odard the undoubted Anceftor of the Duttons. Now what
reafon he can have to call Odard the undoubted Anceftor of the
Duttons, and Ranulphus but the fuppofed Anceftor of the Main
warings, (except his partiality) I cannot imagine : For, firft, the
Sirname of Mainwaring was a fixed name, whereas the Sirname
of Dutton was taken from that place ; and if another Family had
bought it of the Pofterity of Odard within few Generations after

382 AN ADMONITION TO THE READER [iX.
the Conqueft, they poffibly might have ftiled themfelves after
that place, that being the manner of thofe Ages, as Sir Peter
tells us in his 250 page; and accordingly he not onely gives us
[PageS.] examples there of three Branches 5of the Duttons, viz. Warbur
ton, Chedill, and Afhley, who did all call themfelves after the
Places where they lived, but he gives us many other like in-
ftances in many other places of his faid Book. Secondly, Sir
Peter doth not add the Sirname of de Dutton in his faid 250
page, to the faid Odard, or Hugh Son of the faid Odard, but
onely to Hugh de Dutton, Son of Hugh, who was the Third of
that Family. Whereas the Sirname of Mefnilwaren or Main
waring, was ufed, as you may fee in the ill page of the faid
Book, in King William Rufus his days, by Richard Mefnilwaren,
which (except the faid Ranulphus) is the firft Mainwaring that
we do find. Thirdly, the principal reafon (as I conceive) why
Sir Peter fays, Odard was the undoubted Anceftor of the Duttons,
is, becaufe the Duttons enjoyed thofe Lands, which the faid Odard
held in the Conqueror's time, which were, if I miftake not, part
of Dutton, which the faid Odard held of the Earl of Chefter; and
Afton, and part of Wefton, and part of Halton, which the faid
Odard held under William Fitz-Nigel, Baron of Halton. But as
[Page 6.] the afore-6faid Lands of the aforefaid Odard were enjoyed by
the Duttons ; fo the Lands of the faid Ranulphus, in Blaken,
Wenitone, Tatton, Pever, Warford, Little-Pever, Cepmundewiche,
Ollerton, Seneleftune, Cochejhalle, Hoiloch, Tadetune, (which is the
fame with Warmincham) Norwardine, Sundreland, and Bageley
in Chejhire, and the Lordfhip of Waburne in Norfolk, (being all
the Lands which the faid Ranulphus held in the Conqueror's
time) were certainly enjoyed by the Mainwarings. But this I
Cay not to take off any thing from the Family of Duttons, (for I
am fully fatisfied that Odard was their Anceftor) but to fhew
the Partiality of Sir Peter, in doubting of Ranulphus. more than
of the faid Odard.
2. He tells us in his faid 330 page, That by antient Deeds
there were antiently two Places or Hamlets in Over-Peover, one

IX.] OF SIR PETER LEICESTER'S BOOKS. 383
called Cepmundewich, the other Fodon; whereas there were Seven
fuch Places there, viz. Cepmundewich, Fodon, Hongrill, Hethalis,
Brydenbrugge, Twyford, and Radbroc. And it is very ftrange,
how Sir Peter could omit the laft of thefe, feeing in the very fame
page he fpeaks of Radbrook-houfe in Over-Peover, 7and mentions [Page 7,j
a Deed by which William Mainwaring, then Lord of Over-
Peover, gave illam terram qua vocatur Radbroc integram, unto
Thomas Mainwaring his younger Son.
3. In the Pedigree of the Mainzvarings {page 331) he leaves
out Ranulphus, who is nominated in Doomfday-Book, Richard de
Mefnilwarin, mentioned in his Hift. Antiq. {page in.) Roger de
Mejnilgarin, or Mainwaring, and William and Randal his Sons,
fpoken of by him {page 341.) Roger de Menilgarin, or Mainwa
ring, named by him {page 362.) Sir Ralph Mainwaring, and Sir
Roger Mainwaring his Son, both taken notice of by him, {page
330.) and this upon a pretence, that they were Lords of War
mincham: Whereas I am confident he will not deny, but that the
Mainwarings of Warmincham, were alfo owners of Over-Peover,
or the moft part thereof, until Sir Roger Mainwaring gave Peo
ver to his younger Son Sir William Mainwaring; prefently after
which time, the Line of the Mainwarings of Warmincham failing,
the Mainwarings of Peover became Heirs male to thofe Main
warings of Warmincham, Sir Warine 8 Mainwaring, Son of Sir [Page s.]
Thomas Mainwaring, Son of the faid Sir Roger, dying without
Iffue Male. And though he may pretend, that he did not men
tion thofe Mainwarings of Warmincham, who alfo were owners
of Peover, becaufe they (as he fuppofeth) then lived at Warmin
cham, in another Hundred ; yet in his faid Book he gives an
account of the Defcents of fome, who had Eftates in Bucklow
Hundred, though he then looks upon them as living in other
Hundreds. 4. He tells us {page 332) that Margery Praers, one of the
Coheirs of William Praers of Baddeley, (and Sifter to Joan the
other Coheir, who was Wife to William Mainwaring) married
John Honford of Honford, and afterwards that fhe married Hugh

384 AN ADMONITION TO THE READER [iX.
Holt, 33 Edw. 3. but had no Iffue by Holt, and that fhe had Iffue
by John Honford a Son named John Honford, who was a Baf
tard : But he is miftaken in faying that Holt was her fecond
Husband ; for Margery had her Baftard John Honford, before
fhe had any Husband, and fhe was Wife to Hugh Holt, 33 Edw. 3.
and fhe was Wife to John Honford 46, 47, and 50 of Edw. 3.
5. In the 332 page, he takes no notice, that William Leigh of
[Page 9.] Baggeleigh, who 9 married Joan, the Daughter of William Main
waring of Peover, in the 33 oi Edw. 3. was a Knight ; and yet,
as you may fee in his 217 page, he knew the faid William to be
a Knight. 6. He fays in his faid 332 page, That William Mainwaring
the Elder, who lived 33 Edw. 3. fealed with three Bars, with a
Lion paffant in Chief; whereas the Coat of Arms was Argent,
two Bars Gules, on a Chief of the Second, a Lionpajfant, gardant
Or; and fo it is cut in his own Book, page 331.
7. He takes notice {page 332.) that William, younger Son of
William, Son of William Mainwaring, had a Daughter named
Ellen, who was married to Adam Glafebroke: But he omits John
and Margery, Brother and Sifter to the faid Ellen.
8. He fays {page 332.) that William Son of Roger Mainwa
ring died about 12 or 13 of Edw. 3. whereas I find him Party to
a Deed made on the Eve of S. John Baptift, 14 Edw. 3. and how
long he lived after, I believe no man can tell.
9. He fays {page 332.) that William Mainwaring, Son of
William Mainwaring and Joan Praers, did divide the Lands
[Page 10.] of Baddeley between John Mainwaring 10his Half-brother, and
John Honford; whereas he gave feveral thoufand Acres of
Land, which came by his Mother, and of the which the Demefn
. of Baddeley was part, folely to his faid Brother John, and onely
divided the remainder of the faid Lands ; and the Will which
directs that Divifion, doth alfo direct, the difpofal of the other
Lands. ^ 10. He takes notice {page 333.) that William Mainwaring's
Seal, 17 Rich. 2. had the Impreffion of his Coat and Creft, to

IX.] OF SIR PETER LEICESTER'S BOOKS. 3.85
wit, in an Efcocheon, two Bars onely ; and corner-ways, on the
Dexter Angle, on an Helmet, an Afs-head cooped, &c. which (he
fays) his Heirs have ever fince continued, to wit, Argent two
Bars Gules ; the Creft, An AJs-head cooped, proper : And tells
you, that the faid William died 1399, 22 Rich. 2. Whereas all
the Mainwarings that I can find, who have lived fince the faid
William, have either given the AJs-head on a Torce and Halter 'd,
or elfe the Afs-head Erafed, or elfe the AJs-head unhalter'd, and
within a Crown.
11. He fays {page 333.) that William Mainwaring (the Hus
band of Katherine Belgrave and Clementia Cotton) fetled his
"Eftate, upon his departure out of England towards Guien, [Pagen]
17 R. 2. 1393. and afterwards made his Will, 1394. Whereas
the faid fettlement made 17 R. 2. was alfo a Will, and was but
of part of the Eftate which he had by his Mother ; and befides
that and the other Will, dated 1 394. he made a third Will, 1 399,
by which laft Will he gave directions to his Feoffees how to
difpofe of all his Mothers Lands ; but he difpofed not of thofe
Lands he had as Heir to his Father, by any of the faid Wills.
12. He fays {page 333.) that John Mainwaring of Over-
Peover married Margaret, the Widow of Sir John Warren of
Poynton in Chejhire, and Daughter and Heir of Sir John Staf
ford of Wigham, about 13 Rich. 2. For Sir John Warren died
the Tenth of Rich. 2. But how Sir John Warren's dying in the
Tenth of Rich. 2. doth prove, that the faid John Mainwaring
married his Widow, about the Thirteenth of Rich. 2. I confefs I do
not underftand.
13. He fays {page 333.) that John Mainwaring was made
Sheriff of Chejhire, 4. Hen. 4. and continued Sheriff 5 H. 4. and
6 H. 4. but he omits his being Sheriff 7 H. 4.
12 14. He fays {page 333.) that John Mainwaring died 1 1 H. 4. [Page 12.]
1410. whereas he was certainly dead in the year 1409.
15. He fays {page 334.) that Margery furvived her Husband
Randle Mainwaring, and erecled a Stone-Chappel on the South-
fide of Over-Peover Church, with the two Monuments therein for
3D

386 AN ADMONITION. TO THE READER
her felf and her Husband, 1456. Whereas the faid Margery was
certainly dead in the year 1449. and died feveral years before her
faid Husband, as you may fee in the 75, 76, 77, and 78 pages of
my Defence of Amicia, printed in the year 1673.
16. He fays {page 334.) that Sir John Mainwaring of Over-
Peover died about the very end of Edw. 4. Reign ; but the faid
King Edward died in the Twenty-third year of his Reign, and
the faid Sir John Mainwaring was certainly dead on the 14 day
of April, in the Twentieth year of the faid Kings Reign, as
appears by a Precept to the Efcheator of Chejhire, bearing the
faid date.
17. He omits in the 335 page, Agnes the Daughter oijohn
[Page 13.] Mainwaring of Peover, Efq; and Wife of Sir Robert 13 Nedham
Knight ; and this, although he had been informed of a two-fold
undoubted proof thereof, as you may fee in the 79 and 80 pages
of my Dejence oj Amicia, before mentioned.
18. He pofitively fays {page 335) that Katherine the Daugh
ter of Sir John Mainwaring, was married to William, Son of
Humphrey Newton of Pownall, 13 H. 8. 15 21. But the Deeds
concerning thofe Lands which fhe was to have in Joynture (at
which time fhe was certainly unmarried) were dated the firft and
fecond of March, in 13 H. 8. which was in the year 1521. ac
cording to the account of the Church of England, but in the
year 1522. according to the Julian account. Now the Dominical
Letter being that year E. and the Golden Number 3. the fecond
of March would be Shrove- Sunday, and E after-day on the twen
tieth of April; and Lent being a time not ufual for Marriage,
and efpecially in the time of King Henry the Eighth, in all pro
bability the Marriage was not till, after E after ; and if fo, it was
• not until the year 1522. However there is no certainty of what
Sir Peter there fays.
[PageI4.] 14i9. He alfo (in the 335 page) tells us, how Sir John Main
waring was Sheriff of Flint/hire. 6H.8.15 14. but takes no notice
of his being Sheriff there in the 23 and 24 years of King Hen. 7.

IX.] OF SIR PETER LEICESTER'S BOOKS. 387
and 1 Hen. 8. and 2 Hen. 8. and probably ever from then till the
end of 6 Hen. 8.
20. He fays {page 335.) that Sir John Mainwaring died 8 H. 8.
1515. Whereas no part of the eighth year of King Hen. 8. was
in 1515. neither did Sir John die in the eighth year of the faid
King. 21. He fays {page 335.) that Sir Randle Mainwaring, after the
death of his firft Wife, married Elizabeth, the Daughter of Sir
Ralph Leicefter of Tojt, 6 Edw. 6. 155 1. but he cannot prove that
they were married until the year 1552.
22. He fays {page 336.) that Philip Mainwaring of Over-
Peover, Efq. fifth Son of Sir John Mainwaring, and Brother
and next Heir-male to Sir Randle, married Anne, Daughter of
Sir Rauje Leicefter of Toft ; and tells us from his Monument
the time of the faid Philip's death. But though the reft of them
died young, yet Philip was born the feventh, and not the fifth
Son of the faid Sir ,5^72, 15 as appears by the Monument of the [Page 15.]
faid Sir John, which is in the fame Chappel that the Monument
of the faid Philip is in.
23. He fays (in the fame page) that the Herald in the Reign
of Queen Elizabeth, made for the Coat of the faid Sir Randle the
elder, Barry of twelve pieces, Argent and Gules. But the Coat
which the faid Sir Randle did then ufually bear, was, Argent fix
Barulets Gules, which the faid Sir Randle did give, becaufe the
moft antient of the Deeds of the Mainwarings were fealed with
fix Barulets ; but the Mainwarings fince then have again given
two Bars onely, according to what they had done of a long time
before, the two Bars having been alfo ufed to Deeds without
date : Alfo in the 330 page, you may read, that Sir Peter knew
the antient Coat to be fix Barulets, and not to be Barry oj twelve
pieces Argent and Gules.
24. He alfo fays (in that fame page) that Sir Randle Mainwa
ring the elder, built the Hall of Over-Peover a new, 1586. the
Fabrick being now of Brick ; but one part of the faid Houfe was
built 1585. and another part was built 1586.

388 AN ADMONITION TO THE READER [iX.
[Pageie.] 1625. He fays {page 336.) that Sir Philip Mainwaring, young-
eft Son of Sir Randle Mainwaring the elder, of Peover, Knight,
was Secretary of Ireland to the Earl of Strafford, 1638. Whereas
the faid Sir Philip was his Majefty's Secretary of State there.
26. He fays {page 336.) that Sir Philip Mainwaring died, 2°
die Augufti, 1661. at London ; But he died at Weftminfter, at Sir
Philip Warwick's Houfe, which is in or near to St. James's Park.
27. He alfo fays (in the fame page) that Anne, third Daughter
of Sir Randle Mainwaring, oi Peover, the younger, (which Anne
was Coufin-Germain to the faid Sir Peter) married Robert Brier-
wood of Chefter, Counfellor at Law, after, Sir Robert Brierwood,
Knighted 1643. and Judge of three Shires in Wales': But he takes
no notice that he was made Sergeant at Law 1640. nor that he
was made one of the Judges of the Kings Bench, 1643. Indeed
amongft the Recorders of Chefter {page 187.) he tells us, that
the faid Sir Robert was made Judge of the Common-Pleas, and
Knighted at Oxjord 1643. But the faid Sir Robert was never
[Page i7] any Judge of the Court of Com-*"1 mon-Pleas, but the King did
conftitute him, unum Jufticiariorum ad placita coram Rege, in
the year 1643. that is, he then made him one of the Judges of
the King's Bench, or Upper Bench: But it feems Sir Peter did not
know the meaning of the aforefaid words. He alfo (in the 334
page) fays, That Sir John Nedham, who married Margaret, the
Daughter of Randle Mainwaring, was Jucticiarius de Banco, and
Judge of Chefter, 1 Edw. 4. that is, he was then one of the Judges
ofthe Court of Common-Pleas, and Judge of Chefter ; for he was
Jufticiarius de Banco, in the year 1457. 35 Hen. 6. and he was
Judge of Cliefter 1 Edw. 4. But as Sir Peter did miftake Jufti
ciarius ad placita coram Rege, to be a Judge of the Common-Pleas;
#fo I fuppofe he did there erroneoufly take Jufticiarius de Banco
to be a Judge of the King's Bench, or elfe I believe he would have
told us, that the faid John Needham was afterwards made a Judge
of the King's Bench; for he had a Patent to be one of the Judges
of that Court 1472. 1 1 Edw. 4. as you may fee in the Chronica

ix.] of sir peter . Leicester's books. 389
Series, at the end of Mr. Dugdale's Origines Juridiciales, printed
in the year 1666.
1828. He fays {page 336.) That Philip Mainwaring Efq; Son [Page 18.]
and Heir of Sir Randle the younger, married Ellen, Daughter
of Edward Mynjhul of Stoke, Efq; 20 Jac. 1622. But the faid
Philip and Ellen were married 1617. and their eldeft Son Ran
dle -was born the 25 of July, 16 19. and their fecond Son Philip
was born the 25 oi May, 1621.
29. He fays {page 337.) that Mrs. Ellen Mainwaring built a
ftately Stable and Dove-houfe at Peover, in the year 1654. But
the faid Stable was built in the year 1653. anc*** finifhed within
1654. and the faid Dove-houfe was not built till the year 1656.
30. He fays {page 336.) That Margaret Daughter of Sir Ran
dle Mainwairing the younger, and Wife of Henry Birkenhead,
died at Chefter 25 July 1661. but fhe died on Saturday the 20 of
July 1 66 1. and was buried at Backford on Tuefday the 23 day of
the faid moneth.
I alfo think good (having this opportunity) to remind the
Reader, how in the 63 page of my Anfwer to Sir Peter's two
Books, I did declare, That fince it did appear, that he was re
folved to have 19the laft word, although he had nothing new to [Pagei9.]
fay, that if what he did after that time write, did prove no more
to the purpofe, than what he had faid in his faid two Books, that
I would not appear in Print againft him any more, but would
chufe to vindicate my Grandmother and my felf by word of
mouth, whenfoever I fhould have an opportunity fo to do. And
for this reafon, when Sir Peter did, within a few days after, print
his Advertifement to the Reader, becaufe it did contain little,
but a miftake of his, of a Record concerning Lhewellin Prince of
North-Wales, I did thereupon forbear to publifh that Anfwer
which I did write to the fame. Since that time Sir Peter hath
put out at once no lefs than three Books concerning the fame
Subject., viz. His Second Reply, his Peroratio ad Lector em, and a
Third, which he calls, The Cafe of Amicia truly ftated; which

390 AN ADMONITION TO THE READER [lX.
certainly was a great deal of loft labour, if his former Books
had made the Cafe fo clear, as he all along hath pretended
they did.
In all thofe Books which Sir Peter hath written upon this
[Page 20.] occafion, the 20fame things are faid over and over again, fo very
often, as I believe the like will not be found elfewhere ; fo that
it would be pleafant, if fome perfon, who hath little elfe to do,
would take* an account how many times he hath repeated the
fame things. Since he did declare in his firft Reply, that he had
taken his leave for ever of this Controverfie ; he hath printed no
lefs than feven feveral things, and four of them fince I did appear
publickly againft him ; and in the end of his Peroratio ad Lecto-
rem, he fays he hath done, if I have done, which is as much as
to fay, That fo long as I print any thing concerning Amicia, he
will never have done : For this caufe, though I intend fpeedily
to write an Anfwer to that part of the Record, which is mentioned
in the 76 page, and the firft part of the 77 page in his faid Pero
ratio, yet I do not defign it at prefent for the publick Prefs ;
however, I fhall willingly fhew both it, and my Anfwer to his
Advertifement to the Reader, to all knowing perfons, who fhall
come to me, and defire to fee the fame ; and I do not doubt but
[Page 21.] to give them full fatisfaction 21of Sir Peter's miftakes, concerning
both thofe Records, and that they do not prove thofe things
which he doth conceit they do.
As for that Letter of mine, which Sir Peter doth fpeak of in
the 61, 80, 82, and 84 pages in his Peroratio ad Lectorem, it is
poffible I might write to a Kinfman of his and mine, to acquaint
him how Mr. Dugdale had delivered his Opinion in Print on my
fide ; as alfo what I had received from a very good hand, con-
oerning feveral of our Judges ; but I know nothing at all of my
Letter being left with Mr. Throp, the Stationer in Chefter, to be
divulged and made known to every man in Town. And I am
fure I did not write, that Mr. Dugdale had moved the Judges in
the cafe ; for Mr. Dugdale was not in London when that Meetin°*

IX.] OF SIR PETER LEICESTER'S BOOKS.

391

was, neither did he or I know of it, till that Meeting was paft,
and it was occafion'd by Sir Peter's Appeal to them : But though
he once thought the Judges of this Land fit perfons to determine
this Controverfie, yet he now fays in the 81 page in his Peroratio
ad Lectorem, That this Queftion 2<ihath nothing oj any Law in the [Page 22]
cafe, and therefore unfit to be put to our Reverend Judges for their
Opinions, unlefs all the Records and Hiftories touching the fame,
together with the Reafons alledged on both fides, were produced
before them: It is. more proper for them to judge onely upon the
point of Law. Now how they can judge upon the point of Law,
if there be nothing of any Law in the cafe, may be perhaps very
difficult for any but Sir Peter to tell.
He alfo in the 66 and 67 pages of his faid Book, fays, That
Mr. Dugdale, fome years ago, did draw up my Pedigree, wherein
he put Amicia without the diftincrion of a Baftard, and is there
fore the more concern'd to ftickle for me, in this conteft : But
though he deal not well with me, in charging me unjuftly with
many things in his former, and alfo in thefe his laft Books, (which
thofe that are Learned will eafily difcover) yet Mr. Dugdale is a
perfon of that knowledge and integrity, that I believe he cannot
perfwade any one man, that Mr. Dugdale doth ftickle for me
herein upon that account. And Sir Peter himfelf very 23well [Page 23.]
knows, that long before that Pedigree of mine was drawn, Mr.
Dugdale was of the fame judgment concerning Amicia, of which
he is now.
I do alfo expect., that Sir Peter will write feveral Books againft
what I have here publifhed, about his Miftakes concerning my
Family ; which if he do, I fhall not go about publickly to anfwer
any of them, becaufe I know I fhould then undertake a work
which would never have an end : But if any one will come to
me, I will fhew proof of all the Uncertainties, Omiffions, and
Miftakes, which I have charged Sir Peter withall, and they are
not any of them to be imputed to the Printers negligence ; for
Sir Peter rectifies fome Omiffions and Errors in his Hiftorical

392 AN ADMONITION TO THE READER, ETC. [lX.
Antiquities, at the end of his Anfwer to my Defence of Amicia,
and tells the Reader, That thofe Amendments tvill fet him ftreight,
together with the Correction of the Erratd s of Printing, committed
by the great negligence of the Printer, which are now mentioned
and rectified by a diftinct page, at the end oj the faid Book. And
[Page 24.] there are none of thofe which I charge him with, 24 mentioned
in either of the faid places, except that about the Chappel at
Peover, which the faid Margery, the Wife of Randle Mainwaring,
did erect.; and that about Agnes Mainwaring, Wife of Sir Robert
Nedham; both which he did not rectifie, until I told him of thofe
Errors, in the latter end of the firft Book, which I did write.

Baddeley, Augufl ^T Af
4. 1676.

FINIS.

AN

ANSWER

TO

Sir Thomas Manwarings

BOOK, Intituled,

An Admonition to the

READER of

Sir Peter Leicefter 's Books.

WRITTEN

By the fame Sir Peter Leicefter.

Printed in the Year, 1677.

AAn Anfwer to Sir Thomas Man
warings Book, &c.

[Page i.]

IN the firft place, I defire the learned and ingenious Reader
to take notice of the very firft words of Sir Thomas Man
warings Admonition — [That you may know Hercules by
his Foot :] whereby he would infinuate the blafting of my
Credit and Reputation, even before he begins one word of his
Book ; and it is all one, as if he fhould have faid in downright
words, take heed of believing any thing which Sir Peter writes :
For here I will fhew you the Partiality, Omiffions, Uncertainties,
and Miftakes of the faid Sir Peter, in thofe two Sheets of his
Hiftorical Antiquities, in which he writes of 2the Townfhip of
Over-Peever, which are fo numerous, that little credit is to be
given to any thing he writes elfewhere ; for ex pede Hercules, and
it is no matter what he writes of the Baftardy oi Amicia, or any
thing elfe : See here the fcope of his defign.
Had he given me notice of my Miftakes in private, it would
have fhewed more handfomly in him, and more acceptable to
me ; but he now publifheth to the World his own Malignancy,
which will be a greater difhonour to himfelf than thefe pitiful
exceptions can be a difparagement to me, for my Reputation is
out of his reach, Cum tamen non mordeat, oblatrat.
But let us now take a view of thefe his pitiful exceptions which
he would fo unhandfomly charge upon me as Errours.

[Page 2.]

396 An Anfwer to the Admonition. [x.
To the I. Pag. 4.
Here he faith that in Pag. 330 of my Book, I call Ranulphus
[Page 3.] in Doomf-3 day-Book the fuppofed Anceftor of the Manwarings:
But pag. 208. I call Odard the undoubted Anceftor of the Dut
tons: Now what reafon I can have for that, except my Partiality,
he cannot imagine.
My Anfwer..
Yes, Reafon enough for it, though he cannot or will not ima
gine it :
For I have feen fundry Deeds of the firft Age after the Nor-
man-Conqueft, namely made in the time of King Henry the firft,
wherein I find Hugh the Son of Odard fo ftiled, and Hugh Son
of Hugh Son of Odard: See Pag. 264. of my Book, and Pag. 1 17.
fub Anno 1 1 19. and alfo Pag. 250. whereas I fhould be glad to fee
any one Deed of that Age, mentioning or calling Richard Mef-
nilwarin Son of Ranulphus.
Again, the ancient Roll of the Barons of Halton which I have
feen and tranfcribed in one of my Manufcripts, noted Lib. Cap.
[Page 4.] fol. 84, 85. (which Roll feemed to be written 4in a Charadler of
300 Years ftanding at the leaft,) faith thus — Ab ipfo Hudardo
venerunt omnes Duttonienfes. See alfo Monafticon Anglicanum,
Vol. 2. pag. 187. and alfo pag. 249. of my Book, but I never knew
nor heard of any fuch ancient Roll or Record, wherein it is
faid — Ab ipfo Ranulpho venerunt omnes Manwaringi.
Again, I have feen the ancient Sword, called at this day
Hudards-Sword, and is yet in the poffeffion of the Heirs of
JDutton of Dutton, and for many Ages hath been paffed as an
Heir-Loom from Heir to Heir for many Generations ; and I
have feen fome Wills of the Duttons, giving the fame as an
Heir-Loom to the Heir by that name of Hudards-Sword, which
by tradition received hath been conftantly preferved by the
Heirs of that Family with great veneration, the like (I believe)

x.] An Anfwer to the Admonition. 397
cannot be fhown by any Family of this County, or fcarcely in
England. See in my ~&ooV, pag. 250. I fay not this to extenuate
any Family, but sto fhew the Antiquity of this Family which [Pages.]
hath been feated at Dutton even from the Conqueror's time to
this prefent, and continued in the name of the Duttons, until
in our days it devolved by a Daughter and Heir unto the Lord
Gerard of Gerards-Bromley in Stafford-Jhire.
And therefore I might well call Odard the undoubted Ancef
tor of the Duttons, and by much furer proof than (I believe) can
be produced to prove the Manwarings to be defcended from
Ranulphus aforefaid.
Neither do I look upon the Lands coming to either of the
Families to be ne're fo fure a proof as what I have mentioned
above ; for poffibly Lands might defcend by a Daughter and
Heir, or by Purchafe, and yet Richard Manwaring might not be
Son of Ranulphus, as is certainly recorded of the Duttons from
Odard. Howbeit, I am fo much fatisfied with the Lands found in Pof
feffion of the Manwarings, in the very next Ages after William
the Conqueror, that I fuppofe the fame 6 Ranulphus to be the [Page 6.]
Anceftor of the Manwarings, but I cannot fay it is fo certain as
the other :
What reafon now hath Sir Thomas to charge me with Partiality
in the Cafe ? To the 2. Pag. 6.
Here he faith, that in the fame 330 Pag. I tell him of two
Places or Hamlets in Over-Peever anciently called Cepmunde
wich, the other Fodon, whereas there were feven fuch places
there, which he reckoneth up. Anfwer.
But Sir Thomas miftakes himfelf therein, for neither Radbroke,

398 An Anfwer to the Admonition. [x.
nor the other four there mentioned by him, were called Hamlets,
as Cepmundewich and Fodon were : See Pag. 331. of my Book,
for although there might be fome parcels of Land in Over-Peever,
[Page 7.] fo called, either Fields or Tenements, yet were 7thofe parcels
never called Hamlets in any Deed that I ever faw as yet : Now
Hamlets are as it were a Ville within a Ville, and are places
more confpicuous, and ufually containing a greater quantity of
Land than a private Place, Field, or Tenement, gaining certain
names as thofe did, and other Places alfo might do ; nor was it
fit for me to take notice of all fuch inconfpicuous places in my
Book, though I did take notice of the Hamlets ; for that were
to make my work endlefs, and to ftuff tt with trifles : But I did
take notice of Radbroke, becaufe it was a Freehold at this day,
and now not belonging to Manwaring, which made me the rather
to mention the fame ; and though it be locus cognitus in Over-
Peever at this day, yet no Hamlet at all.
To the 3. Pag. 7.
Here he tells us, that I have left out in the Pedegree of the
[Page 8.] Manwarings, (Pag. 331.) Ranulphus men-8tioned in Doomjday-
Book, Richard Mejnilwarin, Roger de Mejnilgarin, or Mainwa
ring, and William and Randle his Sons, Roger de Menilgarin or
Mainwaring, Sir Ralph Manwaring, Sir Roger Manwaring his
Son. Anjwer.
But if he had viewed well Pag. 330. of my Book, he might
have found the laft Roger Manwaring, and Ralph Manwaring
"his Father fometime Judg of Chefter, to have been mentioned
there, but that either of them were Knights, it doth not certainly
appear to me, as in my leffer Book I have formerly given my
reafons ; and for the defcents here mentioned before, Ralph
Manwaring, I think he himfelf will have much ado to put them

x.] An Anfwer to the Admonition. 399
into right order as they ought to be ; I am fure I cannot ; and
though they were Lords of Over-Peever, or the greateft part
thereof, yet certainly none of them lived at Over-Peever, till
William 9 Manwaring had Over-Peever given him by Roger [Page 9]
Manwaring of Warmincham his Father in the raign of Henry
the third, and fo feated himfelf here in Bucklow-Hundred, where .
his Heirs have ever fince continued to this day.
However, my defign was only to fhow who held every parti
cular Town in Bucklow-Hundred from the time of William the
Conqueror to this day, or fo far forth as I could difcover, together
with the Pedegrees of the better fort of Families feated within
that Hundred, or fo many of them as my leafure would permit
me to go through, the other Hundreds being out of my intended
task ; and this he takes notice of himfelf, Pag. 8. fo that having
fhewed how the Manwarings of Peever firft branched out from
the Manwarings of Warmincham, it was only fuitable to my
defign to bring down that defcent to this day. The like I
have done of the Savages of Clifton, and of the Brookes oi
Norton. 10Yet I cannot but take notice how he calls the firft William [Page 10]
Manwaring of Over-Peever, and the firft of the Manwarings
who feated himfelf there, by the title of Sir William Manwa
ring ; whereas it is moft certain that he was no Knight, nor can
any Deed be produced wherein he was ever fubfcribed as a
Witnefs, with the word Domino prefixed, as Domino Guillielmo
Manwaring de Peever, if Sir Thomas would but furvey his own
Deeds with an impartial eye :
For if he finds any William fubfcribed Domino Guillielmo
Manwaring in that Age, it is to be underftood of Sir William
Manwaring Parfon of Wernith, who was contemporary with the
other William Manwaring of Peever, and fuch Deed or Deeds I
my felf have feen : See Pag. 330. of my Book, and my Anfwer
to the defence of Amicia Pag. 7, 8. alfo my firft Reply, Pag. 73.
and my Addenda, Pag. 16, 17.
But the firft Knight of the Family of the Manwarings of

400 An Anfwer to the Admonition.
[Pagen.] Over-Peever, "was Sir John Manwaring oi Peever, living in the
time of King Henry the fixth, and died about 20. Edw. 4.
So that hitherto I have committed no errour at all in thefe
things he chargeth upon me.
To the 4. Pag. 8.
In this I confefs I may be miftaken, in faying that Holt was
the fecond Husband of Margery Praers, fince he finds John
Honford was her Husband 46, 47. and 50. Edw. 3. for then
Honford muft needs be her fecond Husband, and Holt the firft,
which by long pawfing on his own Deeds, he might the better
difcover. To the 5. Pag. 8, 9.
William Leigh of Baggiley was no Knight 33. Edw. 3. when
he married Joan Manwaring, for he was then very young and
under age, and therefore no errour in what I there have faid :
[Page 12.] Howbeit he was afterwards a Knight, I2which I did take notice
of in his due place. To the 6. Pag. 9.
He that tricked out the Seal for me, faw as well as my felf,
that the Seal was three Bars, and not two Bars, to the beft of
our Judgments ; but William Manwaring the younger, did in
his Seal ufe only two Bars 17. Richard 2. when the Heirs Males
of the Manwarings of Warmincham failed, and alfo left out the
Lyon in chief, as I have there truly obferved.
« To the 7. Pag. 9.
I muft needs omit John and Margery Brother and Sifter to
the faid Helen, which I then knew nothing of, and poffibly other
things may be hereafter difcovered, which ought not to be im-

x.] An Anfwer to the Admonition. 401
puted as an errour to me when I writ my Book, but fo far as I
writ, was true.
13 Befides, It was not my defign to colle<5t all the Children of [Pagei3.]
the younger Sons : Now thefe were the Children of a younger
Son. It was only my task to colleft the Wives and Children
of the right Heirs of each Family in Bucklow-Hundred.
To the 8. Pag. 9.
He faith here, that he finds William (Son of Roger Manwa
ring) living 14. of Edw. 3. and how long after, he believes no
Man can certainly tell.
Now I faid he died about 12, or 13. oi Edw. 3. which expref-
fion of mine fhews only a guefs, without an exaft certainty ; a
very poor exception to be put in Print.
To the 9. Pag. 9, 10.
Here he faith, that I faid William Manwaring the younger
divided the Lands of Baddiley between John Manwaring his
Half-Brother, and uJohn de Honford; but (faith he) William [Pagei4]
gave the Demain of Baddiley folely to his Half-Brother, and
divided the remainder of the Lands of Baddiley :
Why then he divided the Lands of Baddiley.
To the 10. Pag. 10.
Here he faith, that all the Manwarings that he can find, have
either given for their Creft an Aff-head on a Torce, and haltered,
or elfe an Aff-head erafed, or elfe an Aff-head unhaltered, and
within a Coronet. Anfwer.
So that he makes here no certain Creft at all to his Family :
A very worthy exception: But they have given the Aff-head
3F

402 An Anfwer to the Admonition.
fomeway, and it is certain, that William Manwaring the younger
in his Seal, 17. of Rich. 2. did then give the Aff-head couped,
which his Heirs have, or fhould have continued.
[Page is] is To the ll. Pag. n.
Here he faith, that the faid William Manwaring did not by
any Will difpofe, but of a part of his Eftate, namely of the
Lands which came by his Mother, nor did he by any Will fettle
the Lands which he had as Heir to his Father.
Anfwer.
Indeed I neither faid he fetled the Lands of the one nor the
other, but only that he fetled his Eftate, which if it were either
of his Mothers Lands, or Fathers Lands, I have faid truth ; nor
is it any matter whether of the one or of the other, to my purpofe.
To the 12. Pag. n.
Here he faith, that he cannot underftand how the dying of Sir
John Warren io. of Rich. 2. doth prove that John Manwaring
[Pagei6.] married 16his Widow about 13. of Richard the fecond.
Anfwer.
But it is probable to be about that time, for it may well be
imagined, that it muft be fome competent time after Sir John
Warren's death, nor can any Man expeft punctual proof of every
.thing in thefe cafes ; and if Sir Thomas cannot mend it, it may
ftand, till better proof appear.
To the 13. Pag. 11.
Here he faith, that I have obferved that the faid John Man-

x.] An Anfwer to the Admonition. 403
waring was Sheriff of Cheff-Jhire 4, 5, and 6, of Henry 4. but
have omitted 7, of Henry 4. Anfwer.
Certainly, this is a childifh exception, as moft of the other be :
Is it poffible that any Man that ever 17did write, or fhall write [Page 17.]
hereafter of matters of this kind, fhould comprehend every par
ticular ? and this is not worthy the labour of mending, and is
well enough without it. To the 14. Pag. 12.
Here he faith, that Pag. 333. I fay John Manwaring died 11.
oi Henry 4. 1410. whereas he was certainly dead in the Year 1409.
This is alfo a pitiful exception : why doth he not now produce
authority for the exacT: time of his death ?
To the 15. Pag. 12.
Here he faith, that Pag. 334. I faid Margery furvived her Hus
band Randle Manwaring, whereas fhe was certainly dead in the
Year 1449, and died feveral Years before her Husband.
18 Anfwer. [Page 18.]
But this miftake I rectified in Print long fince, at the end of
my faid Book, among the Errata, and alfo at the end of my An
fwer to the defence oi Amicia, fo foon as I knew the certainty of
it, and therefore ought not to be charged upon me.
To the 16. Pag. 12.
Here he faith, that I faid Sir John Manwaring died about
the very end of Edw. 4. his Raign, but he was dead for certain
the 14. of April. 20. of Edw. 4.

404 An Anfwer to the Admonition. [x.
Anfwer.
Had I but faid towards the latter end of Edw. 4. I had not
much erred, and I could not put down the exaft time till I knew
it : Now Edw. 4. raigned but 22 Years in all.
[Page 19.] 19To the 17. Pag. 12, 13.
Here he faith, that I omitted Agnes Daughter of John Man
waring of Peever Efquire, and Wife of Sir Robert Nedham.
Anfwer.
Indeed at firft I made fome doubt of the truth hereof, becaufe
I found in my Lord Kilmorey's Pedegree, under the Herald's
Seal, that the faid Sir Robert Nedham married Maud Daughter
of Sir John Savage: But as foon as I found out the truth, I
rectified that omiffion in Print, at the end of my Anfwer to the
defence of Amicia, Pag. 87, as will appear by the faid Book,
Printed 1673, and did alfo blot out that Match with Savage in
my own Book, in the Pedegree of that Family, pag. 233. and yet
he imputes it now again, as if I had not mended the fame, which
is unjuftly charged here.
[Page 20.] ™>To the 18. Pag. 13.
Here he faith, that Katharine Manwaring married William
Newton probably 1522, and I had faid it was 1521, fo that there
was no certainty of what I there faid.
• Anfwer.
I fay it is as probable they were married 1521, as 1522, and
can abfolute certainties be always found out in matters of this
nature in every particular ? therefore let it ftand till he proves it
to be an errour.

x.] An Anfwer to the Admonition. 405
To the 19. Pag. 14.
Here he faith, that Pag. 335, I fay Sir John Manwaring was
Sheriff of Flint-Jhire 6. of Henry 8. but I take no notice that he
was Sheriff there 23 and 24 of Henry 7, and alfo 1 and 2 of
Henry 8. 21 Anjwer. [Page 2-..]
What if I did not? It is true what I have faid, and well
enough without it : for (as I faid before) it is not" poffible that I
fhould comprehend every particular, nor any Man elfe ; and fhall
my Credit of writing Truth be impeached by him for this, becaufe
I cannot know every thing ? therefore I have committed no errour
herein. To the 20. Pag. 14.
In the fame Pag. 335, I fay Sir John Manwaring died 8. of
Henry 8. 15 15. and no part of 8. Henry 8. falls in Anno 1515.
Anfwer.
What of all this ? It perhaps were better placed to be Anno
15 16, or 15 17. let him find out the abfolute time, and I will
mend it. mTo the 21. Pag. 14. [Page 22.]
Here he faith, that Pag. 335. I fay Sir Randle Manwaring
after the death of his firft Wife, married Elizabeth Daughter of
Sir Ralph Leicefter of Toft 6. of Edw. 6. 1551, but (faith he) I
cannot prove they were married till the Year 1552.
Anfwer.
Therefore let it ftand donee probetur in contrarium, it may yet
be fo for ought I know.

406 An Anfwer to the Admonition. [x.
To the 22. Pag. 14.
Here he faith, that Pag. 336. I fay Philip Manwaring Efquire
was the fifth Son of Sir John Manwaring, but he was the feventh
Son born, and not the fifth, as appears by the Monument of the
faid Sir John in Over-Peever Church, wherein the Monument of
the faid Philip is alfo.
[Page 23.] v* Anfwer. 4
It may be fo, but they all died young, and Philip became
Heir : If it be an errour, it is but a fmall one, and not material.
To the 23. Pag. 15.
Here he confeffeth what I fay to be truth, that the Herald in
the raign of Queen Elizabeth made for Sir Randle Manwaring's
Coat, Barry of twelve pieces, Argent and Gules : See Guillims
Heraldry, Pag. 373. but (faith he) the Manwarings fince then
have again given two Bars only ; and the Coat which the faid
Sir Randle did then ufually bear, was fix Barrulets ; and that I
knew the ancient Coat to be fix Barrulets Pag. 330. and not
Barry of twelve pieces. Anfwer.
[Page 24.] It is true, that I faid the ancient 24Deed oi Roger Manwaring
made in the raign of King Henry the third, was fealed with an
Efcocheon of fix Barrulets, Pag. 330. but that Coat devifed for
•the faid Sir Randle, Guillim the Herald calls it Barry of twelve
pieces : I know not the criticifm in thefe terms of Heraldry, the
Heralds themfelves are the beft Judges herein, and whether we
call it the one, or the other, it is not a Pin matter ; nor have I
committed any errour at all, for I there vouched Guillim for it.

x.] An Anfwer to the Admonition. 407
To the 24. Pag. 15.
Here he faith, that I fay the faid Sir Randle Manwaring the
elder, built the Hall of Over-Peever anew, 1586. but (faith he)
part of the faid Houfe was built 1585, and another part was
built 1586. A nfwer.
Is not here a worfhipful exception? It. is more proper to
afcribe 25the time when it was built to the finifhing of it, than [Page2S.]
when it was begun, for it was not all built till it was finifhed.
To the 25. Pag. 16.
Here he faith that Pag. 336. I call Sir Philip Manwaring
Secretary of Ireland to the Earl of Stafford, 1638. whereas the
faid Sir Philip was his Majefties Secretary of State there.
Anfwer.
Here I confefs my words were not well ordered, for I intended
no more there, than that he was Secretary of Ireland in the time
of the Earl of Stafford, then Lord Lieutenant there, 1638. But
I have corrected this in my Notes at the fide of my own Book
long before, without any admonition from Sir Thomas.
26 To the 26. Pag. l6. [Page 26.]
Here he faith, that I fay the faid Sir Philip Manwaring died
the fecond of Auguft 1661, at London, but (faith he) he died at
Weftminfter, in Sir Philip Warwick's Houfe, which is in or near
to St. James's Park. Anfwer.
Is not here a ridiculous exception for a wife Man to make ?

408 An Anfwer to the Admonition. [x.
Do not we always fay in the Country — fuch a Man died at
London; whether he died at Weftminfter, or in any of the Su
burbs, according to our common ufe of fpeaking, it is no matter
for taking notice at whofe Houfe.
To the 27. Pag. 16, 17.
Here he faith, that I take no notice that Sir Robert Brierwood
[Page 27] was made Sergeant at Law 1640, nor 27that he was made one
of the Judges of the Kings-Bench 1643. and further faith, that
Pag. 187, I fay the faid Sir Robert was made Judg of the Com
mon-Pleas 1643. whereas he was never made Judg of the Court of
the Common-Pleas, but of the Kings-Bench : And alfo, that Pag.
334. I fay Sir John Nedham was Juftitiarius de Banco, whereby
he fuppofeth I did there erroneoufly take Juftitiarius de Banco to
be a Judg of the Kings-Bench. Anfwer.
For the firft, It was not neceffary nor material, to take notice
in that place of Sir Robert Brierwood's being made either Ser
geant at Law, or Judg of the Kings-Bench ; for though it would
have been fuller to have put them in here, yet it is no errour
without it : And I had before (as Sir Thomas here confeffeth)
among the Recorders of Chefter, Pag. 187, there taken notice
[Page 28.] both of his being Sergeant at Law, 28and being made Judg of
the Common-Pleas ; howbeit Sir Thomas faith, it fhould have
been Judg of the Kings-Bench; be it fo, I had it but by common
fame. Then as to Judg Nedham, I called him Juftitiarius de Banco,
fag. 334. which he fuppofeth I do there erroneoufly take for a
Judg of the Kings-Bench, yet doth he not find me any where fo
expounding it, fo that he will fuppofe I have committed an
errour, before there be one.

x.J An Anfwer to the Admonition. 409
To the 28. Pag. 18.
Here he faith, that Pag. 336. I fay Philip Manwaring Efquire
married Helen Daughter of Edward Minjhul of Stoke 20 Jacob.
1622. whereas they were married 1617, 15 Jacob.
Anjwer.
This (I believe) is the moft material miftake now charged upon
29me, and I have now rectified the fame, nor do I well remember [Page 29.]
now how it came about. To the 29. Pag. 18.
Here he faith, that Pag. 337. I fay that the Stable and Dove-
houfe at Over-Peever were built by Mrs. Helen Manwaring 1654,
whereas the Stable was built 1653, and finifhed within the Year
1654, and the faid Dove-houfe was not built till the Year 1656.
Anfwer.
This, is another Childifh exception to put in Print, neither is
the firft of thefe any errour at all.
To the 30, but mifprinted 29. Pag. 18.
Here he faith, that Pag. 336. I fay Margaret Wife of Henry
Birkenhed died at Chefter 25 of July 1661, but fhe died on Sa
turday the 20 of July 1661.
30 Poffibly I might mifwrite the number 25 for 20, or it might [Page 3o.j
be miftaken by the Printer.
Thus have I taken a view of all his trivial exceptions parti
cularly, and I believe fuch ridiculous things were never before
publifhed in Print by any wife Man, and moft of them rather
Cavils than real Errours, all which he ranketh under thefe four
general Heads, Partiality, Omiffions, Uncertainties, and Miftakes.
3G

410 An Anfwer to the Admonition. [x.
i. As to Partiality. I thank God I dare aver with a clear
Confcience that I had not the leaft intendment of Partiality
towards any ; in a word, if there be any thing like Partiality in
my Book, it is towards his Family, and whatfoever he chargeth
me with in this refpeft., it is altogether unjuft.
2. As to Omiffions. No moderate Man who fhall ferioufly
weigh all circumftances of this nature, can judg it equal to im
pute fuch as errours ; it is fufficient, that thofe things be true
[Page 3i.] which I do mention, 31and fo far as I did then know; for let
any Man but confider, what multitude of particulars or things
may be hereafter difcovered in future Ages, which yet are in
obfcurity and appear not, efpecially in matters of this nature ;
nay, how many things could I my felf now add to my Book,
relating to England, Scotland and Ireland, and other things in
this County, and Hundred (which I have colle&ed fince) in cafe
it might receive a fecond Edition, which in this firft were un
known unto me, and other things not well digefted or confidered
by me, and God knows whether I may live to fee a fecond Im-
preffion of it, or no ; if I fhould, how many other things might
yet be afterwards further difcovered : Collections and Corrections
would ftill be further neceffary, a thing incident to all Books,
efpecially of this kind ; nor is it poffible for a mortal Man to
comprehend every particular, for ftill there will be a deficiency,
[Page 32.] 32 though he take all the care imaginable: But thefe omiffions
charged upon me by Sir Thomas in his Admonition, (befides
the unhandfomnefs of it,) are fo inconfiderable, as they be not
worthy an amendment moft of them.
3. As to Uncertainties. Some things will ftill be in the dark
for want of exa£t proof in remote Ages, either for punctual time
.or circumftances ; neither are probable conjectures to be totally
rejected herein, though the abfolute certainty be not exactly
known, and fuch may ftand without any imputation of errour,
till the contrary do appear by good proof.
4. Laftly, as to Miftakes. Humanum eft Errare, Wilful mif
takes are unworthy, but miftakes through ignorance are more

x.] An Anfwer to the Admonition. 41 1
pardonable, efpecially fmall miftakes and inconfiderable ; but
thefe now charged upon me, would have been more handfomly
done by a private admonition than a publick, and in Print 33too, [Page 33]
and in fuch a malignant manner alfo.
And as to all the Omiffions, Uncertainties, and Miftakes before.
mentioned, they are fo immaterial, that if my Book fhould re
ceive a fecond Impreffion; an indifferent Perfon would not think
it neceffary to amend above three or four of them, befides thofe
already acknowledged and amended in Print by me before his
Admonition publifhed ; for though many of them may be ob
ferved by Sir Thomas for his private ufe, yet are neither worthy
nor fit for a publick view, as to my defign, and well enough
without amendment. Pag. 19. of his Admonition.
Here he reminds the Reader of his former words, Pag. 63, of
his Anfwer to my two Books, which he repeateth here, namely, —
That fince it did appear that I was refolved to have 34the laft [Page34.]
word, although I had nothing new to fay ; if what I did after
that time write, did prove no more to the purpofe than what I
had faid in my two Books aforefaid, he would not appear in Print
againft me any more, but would chufe to vindicate his Grand
mother and himfelf by word of mouth, whenfoever he fhould
have opportunity fo to do. Anfwer.
Hereby he would now have the Reader to believe, that what
I have writ lately in my fecond Reply, is nothing more to the
purpofe than what I had faid in my two Books, otherwife he
would again have appeared in Print againft me, for he had left
himfelf that Starting-hole ; but now he would chufe to vindicate
his Grandmother and himfelf, by word of mouth, whenfoever he
had an opportunity ; fo that he would now infinuate, that though

412 An Anfwer to the Admonition. [x.
[Page 35] he had promifed to appear no more 35in Print againft me con
cerning Amicia, yet he might now appear againft me in Print by
a fcandalous Admonition. Pag. 19. of his Admonition.
Here he faith in the fame Page, that fince that time (that is,
fince he appeared Publickly in Print againft me : he might have
done well to have excepted this Admonition) I have put out at
once no lefs than three Books concerning the fame Subject, that
is, concerning the Baftardy oi Amicia.
Anfwer.
Now thefe three Books are but one Book digefted into three
parts, and printed all at one time, which he fo formally calls a
fecond Reply, Peroratio ad Lectorem, and the cafe of Amicia
truly ftated, for the nature of the things required there to be
[Page 36.] handled apart, which (faith he) 36was certainly a great deal of
loft labour, if my former Books had made the cafe fo clear, as I
all along pretended they did.
But not fo neither, for though the cafe might be clear enough
before, yet I believe it is now made more clear, by removing
thofe mifts which Sir Thomas had endeavoured to caft upon the
Truth. Pag. 20. of his Admonition.
Here Sir Thomas faith, that in all the Books I have written
upon this occafion, the fame things are faid over and over again,
as he believes the like cannot be found elfewhere ; fo that it
would be pleafant if fome Perfon who hath little elfe to do,
would take an account how many times I have repeated the
fame things.

x.] An Anfwer to the Admonition. 413
Anfwer.
Whereunto I fay, that the like 37may be found even in his own [Page 37.]
Books, whofoever will take pains to read them over ; and what if
the fame things be fometimes repeated ? thefe muft needs fall as
oft as occafion is offered.
But now in the fame twentieth Page he faith,  Though he
intends fpeedily to write an Anfwer to that part of the Record
which is mentioned in the 76 and 77 Pages of my Peroratio, yet
he doth not defign it at prefent for the publick Prefs, but he will
fhow both it, and his anfwer to my former Advertifement, unto
all knowing Perfons who defire to fee the fame, and he doth not
doubt but to give them full fatisfadtion of my miftakes con
cerning both thofe Records, that they do not prove thofe things
which I conceit they do.
Surely I can have no miftake concerning them, if the Record
be truly writ by me, which my Friend hath twice examined, nor
do I conceit they prove any thing but what 38is plain to every [Page 38.]
rational Man ; and it appears by other proof, that Robert Earl of
Glocefter was not above ten Years old when he was married, and
thofe can be no very knowing Perfons who fhall be fo captivated
in their reafon by him as to receive full fatisfacTion concerning
my miftakes therein.
For if Sir Thomas fhall not aver againft a Record (as fome
time he hath done againft an original Deed) his cavils cannot
Another the truth, nor defend what he here faith when it fhall
come publickly to be fcanned.
Pag. 21. of his Admonition.
Speaking here of his Letter mentioned by me in my Peroratio
ad Lectorem, he faith it is poffible he might write to a Kinfman
of his and mine, that Mr. Dugdale had delivered his opinion in
Print on his fide, as alfo what he had received from a very good

414 An Anfwer to the Admonition. [x.
[Page 39.] hand concerning feveral of 39our Judges, but he knows nothing
of his Letter being left with Throp the Stationer in Chefter, and
he is fure he did not write that Mr. Dugdale moved the Judges
in the cafe, for he was not then in London when that Meeting
was, nor knew of it till that Meeting was paft, and it was occa-
fioned by my Appeal to them. Anfwer.
Do but fee now his equivocation. It is poffible he might write
that Mr. Dugdale hath delivered his opinion in Print : why doth
he not fpeak downright, and fay, that he did fo write concerning
Mr. Dugdale's, opinion ? when it is moft certain that he did fo
write to that Kinfman, and feveral others, and though he fays
he knows nothing of the Letter being left with Throp the Sta
tioner, yet it is moft certain that Throp had it, and fhewed it to
[Page 40.] others; why doth he not fay 40 what it is that he had received
from that very good hand concerning the Judges ? and then he
faith, the meeting of the Judges was occafioned by my Appeal
to them : I'le fwear, that neither I, nor any from me, by my
knowledg or procurement, did move any of them to that Meet
ing : and on the other hand, I believe they would not have had
any fuch Meeting if no Body had moved them to it ; and I
would fain know what queftion was moved to them, and by
whom. Pag. 22. of his Admonition.
Here he faith, that the queftion (as I alledge) whether Baftard
pr no Baftard hath nothing of any Law in the cafe, and that it is
more proper for the Judges to judg only upon the point of Law :
Now (faith he) how they can judg of the point of Law if there
be nothing of any Law in the cafe, may perhaps be very diffi
cult for any but Sir Peter to tell.

x.] An Anfwer to the Admonition. 415
^Anfwer. [Page 41.]
Thus the Reader may fee his old way of catching at words,
though he knows my meaning well enough : I do ftill affirm,
that whether Amicia be a Baftard or no, hath nothing properly
of any Law in the cafe, but it is meerly a queftion of Hiftory,
and cannot be proved but by Hiftory, Records and Reafon ;
and 'becaufe our reverend Judges have not leafure to fearch up
all the Hiftories and Records touching the fame, it is not fit to
be put to them for their opinions, unlefs alfo all the Records and
Hiftories, together with all the reafons alledged on both fides
were produced before them : But becaufe Sir Thomas and others
would prove it by a point of Law (though very improperly) for
merly difcuffed between us in our Books, and which I alledge
will not reach the prefent cafe, nor hath he any probable argu
ment 42out of any Hiftory, Record, or Evidence to prove her [Page 42.]
legitimate : I fay it is more proper for the Judges to judge on
that point of Law in difference between us, than whether Amicia
be a Baftard or no, or whether Hugh Cyvelioc had a former Wife
or no, which hath no Law in the cafe.
Pag. 23. of his Admonition.
Here laftly he tells us, he expefts I will write feveral Books
againft what he hath here publifhed about my miftakes concern
ing his Family, which if I do, he will not go about publickly to
anfwer any of them ; but if any one will come to him, he will
fhow proof of all the Uncertainties, Omiffions, and Miftakes
which he hath charged me withall.
Anfwer.
Whereunto I fay that I fhall 43write no more concerning this [PaBe43.]
Admonition than this Anfwer here publifhed, unlefs he fhall alfo
publifh more fcandalous things againft me.

416 An Anfwer to the Admonition. [x.
Only I obferve he will not, or rather cannot fhow any proofs
for my partiality, for that is left out here among the other general
Heads mentioned, and it had been better to have left that out
before, for I dare appeal to God and his own Confcience, that he
verily believes that I intended nothing of partiality to any Fa
mily, nor efpecially any malignancy to his, and therefore more
unhandfomly done to charge it upon me before, and moft unjuft.
And what he faith of fhowing proofs of all the Uncertainties,
Omiffions, and Miftakes here charged upon me unto any one
that fhall come unto him, I believe he will have very few to refort
[Page 44.] unto him 44on that account only, unlefs. they were more weighty :
and concerning which, I refer my felf to my Anfwer here above
written.

Mobberley, Sept.
the 20. 1676.

FINIS.

A REPLY TO
Sir Peter Leicefter 's
Anfwer to
Sir Thomas Mainwarings
Admonition to the
READER of
S! Peter Leicefier's Books.
Written
by the fayd
Sir Thomas Mainwaring. *
But never yet Printed.

3H

419

lA Reply to Sir Peter Leicefter' j-
Anfwer, Cfc:

[Page i, J

Ir Peter Leicefter in his Anfwer to my Booke, enti
tuled An Admonition to the Reader of Sir Peter
Leicefter'.-? Books, would willingly clear himfelf
from that partiality, and thofe omiffions, uncer
tainties, and miftakes, which I there charge him
with ;
But he is not able to free himfelf from them or any of them,
as will hereafter appear,
ffor, As to the ffirft; Though 2he pretends he was impartial [Page 2.]
in calling Odard (who is mentioned in Domefday Booke) the
undoubted Aunceftor of the Duttons, whereas he called Ranul
phus (who is alfo mentioned in the faid Domejday Book) but the
fuppofed Aunceftor of the Mainwarings, for fome reafons which
he pretends to give in his faid Anfwer to my Admonition, yet I
think they are fuch as will make his partiality in this particular
to appear more clearly then it did before ;
For, whereas he tells us of 3a Record in the 117. Page of his [Page 3.]
Great Book, Jub anno. 11 19. in which are thefe words, Willielmus
Conftabularius dedit Newtonam fimul cum fervitio Hugonis filij
Vdardi de quatuor Bovatis ; And whereas he alfo fuppofeth this
Hugh Sonne of Hodard to be Hugh Dutton Sonne of Hodard
Dutton, both in the 250. and 264. pages of his faid Book, and
cites the faid Record and the faid two pages of his faid Book, in
the 3. page of his Anfwer to my Admonition in fuch a manner
4 as an unwary Reader may eafily take them for three feveral [Page 4.]

420 REPLY TO ANSWER TO ADMONITION. [xi.
proofes, whereas it is but one fingle Record, So on the other
hand the faid Record is not fuch an undoubted Proofe, as he
fuppofeth it to be ; ffor, as he fayes, it is not abfolutely certain
that Richard Mejnilwaren or Mainwaring who fucceeded the
faid Ranulphus, was fon of the faid Randle, becaufe we do not
find the expreffe words Richard Mejnilwarin fon of Ranulphus,
[Page 5.] so 5I doubt not but the judicious Reader will eafily obferve,
that the aforefaid Record doth not fay cum Jervitio Hugonis
Dutton filij Vdardi, nor cum Jervitio Hugonis filij Vdardi Dut
ton, but cum Jervitio Hugonis filij Vdardi, So that it is poffible
that the aforefaid Hugh Son of Hodard, might be an Hugh
that was Son to another Hodard, and not Son to that Hodard
who held fome part of Dutton and was mentioned in Domejday-
Book ; And whereas he calls him whom he placeth as the Third
[Page 6.] Dutton oi Dutton thus, viz. 6 Hugh de Dutton Jon oj Hugh Jon oj
Hodard, he muft give mee leave to believe he cannot fhew mee
any Deed or Record of that age, which doth mention that Hugh
de Dutton, to be Hugh Jon oj Hugh Jon of Hodard, as Sir Peter
there doth, And if he cannot bring any fuch proofe, it is poffible
that the faid Hugh de Dutton (the Third perfon which he there
mentions) might be owner of thofe Lands which Odard held in
the Conqueror's time, either as heir to him by an heir female,
[Page7.] 7or elfe heir by purchafe, and yet call himfelf Hugh de Dutton
from the place where he lived, it being as Sir Peter hath often
confeffed, very ufuall for perfons in thofe ages fo to do.
Yea, but fayes Sir Peter, the antient Roll oj the Barons of Hal
ton, which I have feen and tranfcribed in one of my Manufcripts,
noted Lib. C. 84. 85. (which Roll feemed to be written in a Cha
racter of 300. years ftanding at the leaft) Jayth that ab ipfo
.Hudardo venerunt omnes Duttonienfes. See alfo Monafticon
[Page 8.] Angli-8 canum, vol. 2. page 187. and alfo page 249. oj my Book,
but I never knew or heard oj any Juch ancient Roll or Record,
wherein it is Jayd ab ipfo Ranulpho venerunt omnes Manwaringi.
To which I anfwer, Firft, that the faid Roll mentioned in Sir
Peter's faid Manufcript, and that in the 187. page of the faid 2

XI.] REPLY TO ANSWER TO ADMONITION. 42 1
Volume of the faid Monafticon, and that which he fpeaks of in
the 249. page of his faid Book, are but one and the fame thing,
9unlefs there be fome fmall circumftantiall differences in them, [Page 9]
occafioned by the often tranfcribing or negligences of fome
Clarks who did write the fame, and yet they are here fo ex-
preffed by Sir Peter that an incautelous Reader may through
inadvertency take them to be three feverall Proofes.
Secondly, Sir Peter in his 4th page of his Anfwer to my Ad
monition fayes he never knew nor heard of any fuch ancient
10Roll or *Record, wherein it is fayd, ab ipjo Ranulpho [Page 10.]
* Note.
venerunt omnes Manwaringi ; By which expreffion thofe
Readers who are not intelligent, may perhaps take that for a
Record, in which it is fayd, ab ipfo Hudardo venerunt omnes
Duttonienjes ; Whereas it is only a thing written by fome pri
vate unknown perfon, and hath feveral apparent falfities therein,
as will herein hereafter appear.
Thirdly, Whereas that Roll nfayes, Ab ipfo Hudardo venerunt [Page-*-*.]
omnes Duttonienjes, that may be very true, and yet for all that it
is poffible, that Hugh de Dutton (the Third perfon mentioned by
Sir Peter in the Pedegree of the Duttons) might defcend of an
heir female of the faid Hudard, and he and all his pofterity take
the name of Dutton from the name of the place where they lived,
which was very ufuall in thofe elder times, as hath been obferved
before by me, and as Sir Peter 12doth acknowledg in many places [Page 12.]
in his Hiftorical Antiquities, and elfewhere.
Fourthly, Sir Peter fays, that the faid Roll which he tranfcribed
as aforefaid, feemed to be written in a Character of 300. years
ftanding at the leaft, by which an unskilfull Reader may perhaps
thinke that the Roll it felfe was much elder, and that the Roll
which Sir Peter faw, might be but a Copie, whereas the 13Origi- [Page 13]
nal it felf was not made before the Twenty Second year of King
Edward the Third, being the year 1 348. as you may fee in Mo
nafticon Anglicanum, vol. 2. page 190. The faid Roll ending
thus, Et Jic hareditas Dominorum de Lacy in Comitatu Ebora-
cenfi, Lincolnienfi, Lancaftrienfi, et Ceftrenfi, et in pluribus alijs

42 2 REPLY TO ANSWER TO ADMONITION. [xi.
locis Regni a nomine, pofteritate dominorum de ~Lacy, ufque ad
haredes Edmundi Comitis Lancaftriae pradicti, eft finaliter jam
[Page i4.] trans- 14 lata, tempore videlicet Edwardi Regis tercij poft eonqueftum,
et anno regni Jui vicejimo fecundo. Now how a Roll written by
an unknown perfon in the 22th year of King Edward the Third
(who was the Eleventh King of England after the Conqueft) can
be an undoubted Proofe of thofe perfons who lived in or near to
the time of the Conqueft, let any indifferent and learned perfon
[Page 15.] judge, and efpecially when it doth not 15name any one man, who
was the pofterity of the faid Odard.
Fifthly, The faid Roll doth apparently fhew itfelf to be of no
credit at all ; ffor as you may fee in Monaft. Angl. vol. 2. p. 187,
188. it fays, that William Conftable of Chejhire fon of William,
and the Third Baron of Halton, dyed without iffue, and left two
Sifters to be his Co-heirs, to wit Agnes & Matilda, and it fayes
[Page 16.] that a Knight whofe name was Euftace marryed the 16fayd Ma
tilda, and had iffue by her a Son named Richard, and that
Aubertus Grelly married the faid Agnes ; The words of the faid
Roll are thefe, Et ifte Willielmus filius Nigelli fundator dicta
domus, obiit et fepultus eft apud Ceftriam. Cui in hareditate Juc-
ceffit filius ejus *Wixxie\ttxUS junior, qui pradictis Canonicis dedit in
excambium alias terras pro terra Jua de Runcorne, et alijs terris
Juis ; Jcilicet ad Northonam villam transjerendo Prioratum ante-
[Pagei7.] dictum. Et ifte Wil-17lielmus obiit in Normannia, unde venerat
avus Juus, et non reliquit haredem de corporejuo, Jed habuit duas
forores,fcilicet Agnetem et Matildem, inter quas divifa fuit hare-
ditatis honoris de Haulton. Matildem defponfavit quidam Miles
Euftachius nomine, qui fuit poftea interfectus in Wallia. Et Au
bertus Grelly duxit dictam Agnetem uxorem.
Euftachius verb pradictus antequam interficeretur, cum dicta
[Page 18.] Matilda habuit filium qui vocabatur Ricardus. Et ifte 18Ri-
cardus duxit for or em Roberti de Lacy, qua vocabatur Aubrey
Lyfours, de qua genuit duos filios, Jcilicet Iohannem Conftabula-
rium, Fundatorem domus de Stanlowe, &c. Whereas Sir Peter
Leicefter in his Hiftor. Antiquities, pag. 266. tells you that the

XI.] REPLY TO ANSWER TO ADMONITION. 423
faid Agnes (not the faid Matilda) was fecond wife of Euftace
Fitz-Iohn, and that Richard (afterward Conftable of Chejhire)
was their eldeft fon, and for that he quotes the faid 2a Volume
of Monafti-Wcon Anglicanum, pag. 798. 799. wherein you may [PageI9.]
find two Deeds verbatim fet downe amongft others, in the firft
of which the faid Euftace calls Agnes his wife, and in the fecond
(which is there fayd to be in the Cuftody of Sir William Conftable
oi Flamburgh in Yorkjhire Baronet) the faid Agnes calls herfelf
daughter of William Conftable of Chejhire, and there alfo fpeaks
of Euftace her husband, and Richard her fon ; But Sir Peter
Leicejier takes no notice of this great 20 miftake in that Roll, ffor [Page2o.}
if he had, the miftake being fo groffe, it would have taken away
the credit of that Roll, and then there would have been an end
of the Argument brought from ab ipfo Hudardo venerunt omnes
Duttonienfes ;
But here is another great miftake in the faid Roll, and that
Sir Peter himfelf in the 269. page of his Hiftorical Antiquities,
doth take notice of, ffor he obferves that it is fayd in the faid
Roll, that Maude de 21 Clare wife of Roger Lacy was Sifter of [page M.]
the Treafurer of Yorke Minfter, Whereas Sir Peter there tells
you, Bevoys de Clare Treajurer of York Minfter had noe fofter
called Maude ; for all the fofter s are punctually reckoned up in the
Booke of Tewksbery, as you may find them copied out by Vincent
in his Corrections oj Brook' s Catalogue oj Nobility, page 221.
whereby it appears plainly, that thofe Jifters alfo were all bom after
the death of Roger Lacy ; See therefore what Proofes Sir 22 Peter [Page 22.]
doth here bring for undoubted ones, as alfo how impartially he
deals in the $.page of his Anfwer to my Admonition in that ex-
preffion, viz. as is certainly recorded of the Duttons from Odard,
Whereas there is no certainty of what is there fayd ; Neither is
that Roll any Record at all ;
And as to that Argument from Hudard's Sword, as I find not
any thing recorded w^ Hudard did, to make his Sword 23to [Page 23.]
be preferved more than the Swords of other Gentlemen of that
age, So on the other hand, I give not much credit to thefe kind

424 REPLY TO ANSWER TO ADMONITION. [xi.
of Traditions, ffor, I know but of two concerning my owne ffa-
mily, and can prove them both to be certainly falfe ; And if Sir
Peter will create in me ffaith (equally ftrong with his) to believe
that to be Hudard's Sword, he muft fhew me fome mention
thereof in fome Deed, Will, Paper, Parchment, Roll, or Record,
[Page24.] made within fome reafonable time 24after the faid Hudards
death, & not in any Parchm* or Paper made fev'all hundreds of
years aft' his Deceafe. I fhall therefore appeal to the indifferent
Reader, whether there be not as great a certainty that Ranulphus
was the Aunceftor of the Mainwarings, as there is that Hudard
was the Aunceftor of the Duttons ; ffor the Sirname of Mainwa
ring was a fixed name, whereas that of Dutton was taken from
that place, and the Sirname of Mejnilwaren or Mainwaring
[Page 25.] 25as you may fee in the One Hundred and Eleventh page of Sir
Peter's Great Book, was ufed by Richard Mejnilwaren, which
(except the faid Ranulphus) is the ffirft Mainwaring that we do
find, Whereas Sir Peter firft addes the Sirname of Dutton to
Hugh Son of Hugh who was the Third of that ffamily, And in
the Table hanged up att Battaile Abbey, printed with Ordericus
[Page 26.] Vitalis, and in Hollinshead and Stow, and others 26the ffamily
of Mainwaring is named as one of thofe which came in with
William the Conquerour, which that of Dutton is not ; And as
the lands w* Odard held in Dutton, Afton, Wefton, and Halton
came to the Duttons, So the lands of the faid Ranulphus in
Blaken, Wenitone, Tatton, Pever, Warjord, Little-Pever, Cep
mundewich, Ollerton, Seneleftune, Cochejhalle, Hoiloch, Tadetune
(which is the fame with Warmincham) Norwardine, Sundreland,
[Page 27. j and Baggeley in Chejhire, 27and the Lordfhip of Waburne in
Norjolk were certainly enjoied by the Mainwarings, And as
all the lands which the faid Ranulphus had were enjoied by the
* Mainwaring' s, fo for fome generations after the Conqueft we
find very little land which the Mainwarings had befides thofe of
Ranulphus, So that Sir Peter inftead of fuppofing Ranulphus to
be the Aunceftor of the Mainwarings, (if he did not wilfully
[P..ge 28. j fhut his 28eyes) might be as certain of that, as he is that Hodard
was the Aunceftor of the Duttons.

XI. j REPLY TO ANSWER TO ADMONITION. 425
To the Second.
He will not yet acknowledg that there were Seven Hamlets in
Peover, and fays Radbrock and the other ffour there mentioned
by me are not called Hamlets as Cepmundewich and Fodon were,
and he alfo fays that Hamlets are as it were a Ville within a
Ville, and are places more 29 conjpicuous and ujually containing a [Page 29.]
greater quantity oj land then a private place field or tenement
gaining certain names, &c: In Anfwer whereunto, I fhal firft
obferve the ftrange boldnefs of Sir Peter, who having feen Cep-
mondwich and Fodon called Hamlets in a Deed in a private
ffreeholders hand, dated 7. Edw. 3. upon which a ffine was levyed
in the fame year, will thereupon pofitivly fay (though he 30know [Page 30.]
nothing thereof) that nether Radbrock nor the other ffour were
called Hamlets, as Cepmondwich and Fodon were, whereas the
contrary thereof doth plainly appear by feveral of my Deeds,
so that I fuppofe the Reader will not give much credit to what
Sir Peter doth fay.
And Twyford which is one of the ffive Hamlets omitted by
Sir Peter, is called the Mannor of Twyford in Over Peover, the
like whereof (I believe) cannot be found of either the aforefaid
31 Cepmonswich or Fodon; And whereas he alfo fayes an Hamlet [Page 31.]
ufually containes a greater quantity of land then a private place
field or tenement, he well knows that many Hamlets do confift of
fingle Tenements, and amongft the reft Fodon it felf fo doth,
lohn Beard being Owner (as Sir Peter calls it) of one half of
that Mefuage called Fodon, and my Tenant Mr. Richard Acton
being in poffeffion of the other half of Fodon aforefaid.
But Sir Henry Spelman in his GloJJary printed 1664. page 274.
32will tell you what an Hamlet is, who writes thus, Hamel, [Page 32.]
Hamleta, HampJelQ Diminutiva ab Ham pro villa: Jed voces
prima et ultima, rarius occurrunt. Let autem (al. lit,) (ut me
docuit in Hermathena Goropius) membrum fignificat: Jic ut
Hamleta proprie pars et membrum fit alterius villa, potius quam
perje exiftens villula. And afterwards in the fame page he fayes
31

426 REPLY TO ANSWER TO ADMONITION. [XL*
that an Hamlet is that qua medietatem friborgi non obtinuit:
[Page 33.] 33noc eji^ ufo quinque Capitales plegij non deprehenfo funt. And
I doubt not but to fatisfie any indifferent perfon that the other
places are Hamlets afwell as Cepmundewich and Fodon, and
that the moft of them are larger then Fodon is, (All Foden being
hardly of the value of 40" p annu) And certainly Cepmundewich
and Fodon were Hamlets before Thomas de Cepmondewich fo
[Page 34.] called them in his Deed afore-34faid, and would have been fo,
if he had not then given them that term, fo that many places
may be and are Hamlets, w011 were never expreffly fo named in
any Deeds. To the Third.
Wherein I charge him with his omitting in the Pedigree of the
Mainwaring 's (page 331.) Ranulphus, menconed in Domef day
book, Richard Mefnilwarin, Roger de Mefnilgarin, and William
[Page 3S.] and Randle his Sonnes, 3S Roger de Menilgarin, Sir Ralph Main
waring, and Sir Roger his Son ; He anfwers (but very ftrangely)
that if I had veiwed wel, page 330. of his Book, I might have
found the laft Roger Mainwaring and Raph Mainwaring his
jather, Jometime Iudg of Chefter to haue been mentioned there, but
that either of them were knights it doth not certainly appeare to
him; Whereas in the 7. Page of my Admonition I did obferve,
[Page 36.] that 36in his faid 330. page, he did occafionally take notice of the
faid Sir Ralph and Sir Roger, as alfo' fhewed how in other pages
of his faid Book he had mentioned all the reft, which he had
omitted in the faid Pedigree, and did thereupon (as a further
aggravation) tax him for leaving all them out in the faid Pedi
gree, which Pedigree he did begin in the following Page ; And
[Page 37] though he fayes it doth not certainly appeare to him, 37that either
the faid laft Roger or his father Ralph were knights, yet his own
Confcience cannot but tell him that they were knights, and he
hath long fince in print owned them both fo to be, and l' fhall fa
tisfie any perfon that comes to me that they were moft certainly

XI.] REPLY TO ANSWER TO ADMONITION. 427
knights, And I doubt not (though he fayes he cannot do it) but
I can and haue put thofe Mainwarings which he omitted, into
right order, as they ought to 38be, and that with as certaine [Page3s.]
proofes, as he doth that ffamily, of which he would not have any
doubt to be made ; However I cannot but againe wonder at his
ftrange boldnefs in the 8. and 9. pages of his Anfwer to my
Admonition, wherein he fayes, that though they (meaning the
Mainwarings of Peover and Warmincham) were Lords of Over-
Peover, or the greateft part thereof, that yet certainly none of them
lived at 39 Over-Peover til the time of King Henry the Third, [Page 39.]
which is impoffible for him to know ; And why the Mainwarings
of Warmincham might not then afwel live at Peover, if Warmin
cham was their chief Seat, as my ffather and I lived a long time
at Baddeley, though Peover was our principall Seat, or why Peover
might not be the principall Seat of the Mainwarings, though
given by Sir Roger Mainwaring to his younger Son Sir 20 Wil- [Page 4oj
Ham Mainwaring, afwell as Sir Egerton in this age did
give Egerton his principall Seat to his younger Son Sir Philip
Egerton, will be hard, (notwithftanding Sir Peter's certainly to
the contrary) for any man to tell ; And whereas in his 10th page,
(being always excellent at proving Negatives) he fays it is certain
that William Mainwaring (meaning him to whom his father Sir
Roger Mainwaring 41gave Peover in Henry the Third's time) [Page4i.]
was no Knight, and for that end takes notice of a Deed (ffor I
haue reafon to believe he hath feen but one fuch, notwithftanding
his many Quotations) wherein Sit William Mainwaring Parfon
of Wernith was fubfcribed as a witneffe, and thereupon concludes,
if you find any William Jubjcribed Domino Gulielmo Mainwaring
in that age, that is to be underftood i2of William the Parfon; [Page 42.1
Herein he fights with his own fhadow, ffor Sir William Main
waring is not fubfcribed Domino Gulielmo Mainwaring, or as a
witnefs to that Deed which proves him to be a Knight, but that
Deed concerns Lands in an Hamlett in Peover, then paffed away,
whereby a rent was referved to the faid Sir William and his heirs,
and there is another William Mainwaring witnefs to the faid

428 REPLY TO ANSWER TO ADMONITION. [xi.
[Page 43-] Deed, 43and this will fhew that Sir lohn Mainwaring who lived
in the time of Henry the Sixth, was not the firft Knight of the
ffamily of the Mainwarings of Over-Peover, in Sir Peter's owne
fence, But all other perfons will readily allow thofe Mainwa
rings who were owners both of Warmincham and Over-Peover
and were Knights, to be of the ffamily of the Mainwarings of
Peover ; and Sir Peter cannot deny but that I am their heir
[Page 4+] 44male, and that all the Mainwarings who were owners of
Warmincham were owners of Peover alfo, except Sir Thomas
Mainwaring and Sir Warine Mainwaring, who were the two
laft, Warmincham going away to Sir William Truffel of CubleJ-
don the younger with the faid Sir Warine 's daughter and Heir.
To the Fourth.
He doth confefs that he may be miftaken therein, (see, how
[Page 45.] unwilling he is to acknowledg it 45abfolutly) and fayes, by long
paufing on my own Deeds, I might the better difcover it, But it
is better to pawfe awhile, then to make too much haft, for Canis
feftinans cacos parit catulos ; And fure, a little pawfing might
ferve to difcover that Hugh Holt who was husband of Margery
Praers in the 33. year of Edw. 3. was her husband before lohn
Honjord was, who was her husband in 46. 47. and 50. Edw. 3.
[Page 46.] 46To the Fifth.
»
He fays, William Leigh oj Baggiley was no Knight 33. Edw. 3.
when he married loane Mainwaring jor he was then very young
and under age, and therefore no error, &c: Howbeit he was after
wards a Knight, which lie took notice of in due place ; But I fay
^hat his knowing that he was a Knight, and not calling him foe
in my Pedigree, adds to the ffault, and he muft call but very few
[Page 47.] 47 perfons Knights, in Pedigrees, if he will call none fo, but fuch
as were Knights before the time that they were married.

XI.] REPLY TO ANSWER TO ADMONITION. 429
To the Sixth.
He fays, that he that tricked out that feale for him (meaning
that which was two bars with a Lyon paffant guardant on a
Chieje) Jaw afwell as himfelfe, that the feale was Three Barres,
and not Two Barres, to the beft oj their judgments ; But I believe
the perfon that tricked out the 48feale did trick it out right, ffor [Page 48.]
it is cutt right, with Two Barres in Sir Peter's Great Book ; So
that the only fault (I doubt) was, that Sir Peter could not Blazon
that Coat aright ; And he yet will not amend his other Error,
but ftill in his Anfwer to my Admonition to the Reader calls it
a Lyon in Chiefe, inftead of a Lyon on a Chiefe.
To the Seventh.
He fays, he muft needs omitt 49 lohn and Margery, brother and [Page 49.]
Jifter to the Jaid Helen, which he then knew nothing oj &c: and it
was not his defigne to collect all the Children oj the younger Sons ;
But with his leave, I had informed him of the faid lohn and
Margery, and by the fame reafon that he named Hellen, he
fhould haue named the faid Margery and lohn, they being bro
ther and fifter to the faid Hellen.
To the Eighth.
He fays, that he but gueffed at 50the death oj William (fonne of [Page 50.]
Roger Mainwaring) without any exact certainty, wlien he Jay d he
dyed about 12. or 13. of Edw. 3. and therefore fays, that it is a
very poor exception ; But the Exception is no poor one, becaufe I
had informed him, that the faid William was living, and party to
a Deed made on the Eve of S* lohn Baptift 14. Edw. 3. which
Deed he alfo quotes in the Second line of his 332. page, being
the fame page 51 in which he fayd, the faid William dyed about [Page 51.]
12. or 13. oi Edw. 3.

43*3 REPLY TO ANSWER TO ADMONITION. [xi.
To the Nynth.
Whereas I had taxed him with faying that William Mainwa
ring fon of William Mainwaring and loane Praers did divide the
lands of Baddeley between lohn Mainwaring his half brother, and
lohn Honford ; Whereas he had formerly given feverall Thoufand
[Pagesa.] Acres of Land which came by his Mother, and of which 52the
Demefne of Baddeley was part, folely to his faid Brother lohn,
and only divided the remainder of the faid lands ; To this, Sir
Peter anfwers, Why then he divided the lands of Baddeley ; And
I yet fay, he then divided but part of the lands of Baddeley.
To the Tenth.
Whereas he fayd, that William MainwaringVy^a/^ had the im-
preffion of his Coat and Creft, to wit, in an Efcocheon, two bars
[Page S3*] 53only, and cornerways on the Dexter Angle, on an Helmet, an
Affe-head cooped, &c: which he fayd, his heirs have ever fince con
tinued, to wit, Argent, two Barres gules, The Creft An Affe head
cooped proper ; His Anfwer is, (becaufe I fhew they have given
the Affe head feverall other ways) that I make here no certain
Creft to my Family, and calls it a very worthy Exception, But
[Page 54.] with his leave, it fhews his Miftake, and it is 54no wonder, that
Crefts were not then fetled, many perfons having fince then
altered their Crefts, and Sir Peter's ffamily hath fince that time
given two diftinft Crefts, as may be feen in the 21. page of my
Reply to his Anjwer to the Dejence of Amicia, And I am fure
thofe two Crefts of the Leicefter 's of Tabley did differ much more
than thofe of ours, which I haue mentioned.
[Page5S.] * ssTo the Eleventh.
Whereas I had taken notice how Sir Peter had fayd, that
William Mainwaring the husband of Katherine Belgrave and
Clementia Cotton fettled his eftate upon his departure out of Eng-

XI.] REPLY TO ANSWER TO ADMONITION. 43 1
land towards Guien 17. Ric. 2. 1393. and afterwards made his
Will 1394. whereas the faid Settlement made 17. Ric. 2. was
alfo a Will, and was but of part of that Eftate which he 56had [Page 56.]
by his Mother, Sir Peter to this fays, that he nether fayd he fettled
the lands of the one nor the other, but only that he fettled his eftate,
which ij it were ether oj his Mothers lands or Fathers lands, he
fayd truth : But to this I fay, that any ingenious indifferent man
will eafily difcerne the difference betwixt the eftate of the faid
William, and only part of thofe lands 57 which he had from his [Page 57]
Mother by defcent. To the Twelfth.
Sir Peter fays, that probably the marriage of lohn Mainwaring
with Sir lohn Waren'j widow was about the 13th of H. 4. Which
is a thing I never denyed ; But that w011 I obferved was, that Sir
Peter in the 333. Page of his Great Book fayd, they were marryed
about 13th Ric. 2. For, Sir lohn 58 Warren dyed the 10th of Ric. 2. [PageSs.]
And I thereupon fayd, that I did not underftand how Sir lohn
Warren dying in the Tenth of Ric. 2. did prove, that lohn Main
waring marryed his widow, about 1301 Ric: 2: But it feems Sir
Peter doth not yet perceive to what he ought to anfwer in this
place. To the Thirteenth.
He fays, my Exception that 5S ]he omitted lohn Mainwaring'.? [Page 59.]
being Sherriffe of Chefhire 7. H. 4. was a Childifh one, as moft of
the other be; But with his leave I having inform'd him thereof,
he ought to haue obferved it, afwell as he did that he was Sher
riffe there in the 4. 5. and 6. of H. 4.
To the Fourteenth.
When I charge him with faying pofitivly that lohn Main-
60waring dyed 11. of H. 4. 1410. whereas he was certainly dead [Pagefo.]

43*2 REPLY TO ANSWER TO ADMONITION. [xi.
in the year 1409. he fays it is a pittijul exception, and asketh why
I do not produce authority Jor the exact time oj his death; But as
pittiful as he makes it, Vincent in his Corre&ions upon Brooke,
and all others in the like Cafe, make fuch Exceptions, and the
time of his death plainly appears to be 1409. by a Precept to
[Page 61.] the 61 Sherriffe of Chejhire to enquire what lands he dyed feifed
of, dated at Chefter the 13th of March in that very year ; And if
a Writer will take upon him to tell the time of a mans death, he
ought to tell the true year. To the Fifteenth.
He acknowledgeth that to be a miftake, but fays he hath rec-
[Page 62.] tified it in print long fince, at the end oj his faid Booke 62 among
the Errata, and alfo at the end of his Anfwer to the Defence of
Amicia, fo foon as he knew the certainty of it, and therefore ought
not to be charged upon him ; But to this I anfwer, that my work
being at that time to obferve what Miftakes he made in thofe
two Sheets, and this being one of thofe, and not amended by
him till I told him of it in print, it ought to be mentioned by
[Page 63.] me here; And he 63runs into another Error, by faying he rec
tified it, fo foon as he knew the certainty of it, ffor I had told
him of it, before he printed his Great Book.
To the Sixteenth.
Wherein he had fayd that Sir lohn Mainwaring oj 'Over Peover
dyed about the very end oj Edw. the 4th his reign, whereas the faid
King dyed in the 2^ year of his Reign, and the faid Sir lohn
[Page 64.] was certainly dead on the 6414th oi Aprill, which was neare the
*beginning of the 20th year of the faid King ; He doth implicitly
acknowledg his Miftake, ffor he fayes, Had he but fayd towards
the later end of Edw. 4. he had not much erred, and he could not
put down the exact time till he knew it: Now Edw. 4. raigned but
22. years in all; But I fay I did acquaint him with this Miftake,

XI.] REPLY TO ANSWER TO ADMONITION. 433
And he here runs into another little one, 6*5ffor Edw. 4. dyed in [Page6S.]
the 23th year of his reign, and therefore reigned fomething more
then 22. years in all. . To the Seventeenth.
He alfo acknowledgeth that to be a Miftake, and though he
did amend it at the laft, yet for the fame Reafon which I gave
to the 15th it ought to be mentioned here ; But whereas he fays,
fo foon as he found out the truth, he rectified that &6 omiffion in [Page 66.]
print ; That is not fo, ffor I had before then informed him of it,
as you may fee page 78. at the end of my Dejence oj Amicia.
And to put down Maude daughter of Sir lohn Savage inftead
of Agnes Mainwaring was more then an Omiffion, though he be
loath to confefs the fame. To the Eighteenth.
Whereas I had fhewed him that probably William Newton
was not marryed to Katherine 67 daughter of Sir lohn Mainwa- [Page67.]
ring untill the year 1522. although he had pofitivly fayd that
they were marryed in 1521. and thereupon I charged him with
writing an Uncertainty as a pofitive Truth ; He anfwers, That it
is as probable they were marryed 15 21. as 1522. and can abjolute
certainty be always found out in matters of this nature in every
particular ? Therefore let it ftand till it be 68proved to be an Error; [Page 68.]
But this doth not clear Sir Peter from what he ftands charged
with, ffor (as I proved in my Admonition) the Deeds concerning
the Lands which the faid Katherine was to haue in Ioynture (at
the making of which Deeds fhe was certainly unmarryed) were
dated the one the ffirft, the other the Second of March in the
13th of Hen. 8. which was in the year 1521. according to the
Accompt 69of the Church of England, but in the year 1522. [Page69.j
according to the Iulian Accompt. Now the Dominicall- Letter
being that year E. and the Golden-Number 3. the Second of
3K

434 REPLY TO ANSWER TO ADMONITION. [XI.
March would be Shrove- Sunday, and the Twentieth of Aprill
would be Eafler-Day, and Lent being a time not ufuall for Mar
riages, and efpecially in thofe times of Popery, it is more then
[Page 7o.] probable the faid Marriage was not till 70 after Eafter day, And
if fo, it was not untill the year 1522. Hqwever, he doth not
clear himfelf from writing an uncertainty as a certainty, which
is all that he there ftands charged with.
To the Nineteenth.
Whereas he fayd, that Sir lohn Mainwaring was Sherriffe of
Flint-Jhire, 6. Hen. 8. but took noe notice that he was Sherriffe
there 23. and 24. Hen. 7. and alfo 1. and 2. Hen. 8. He anfwers,
[Page 71.] It 71 is true what he hath Jayd, and well enough without it, &c:
andjhall his credit be impeached, &c: becauje he cannot know every
thing? But for all this, He having formerly bene informed of
thefe things, is juftly charged with an Omiffion herein.
To the Twentyeth.
Speaking of the time of Sir lohn Mainwaring's death, he
fays, It perhaps were better placed to be Anno 15 16. or 1517. let
[Page7z.] him find ™out the abjolute time, and I will mend it, But he is
not blamed for faying Sir lohn Mainwaring dyed, 1515. for his
Monument fays he dyed in that year, but for faying he dyed
8. Hen. 8. 15 15. whereas no part of the 8m year of King Henry
8th was in any part of that year ; The 8th year of King Henry 8th
not beginning till the 22th of Aprill 15 16. So that it feemes Sir
[Page 73-] Peter did not underftand 73what he here ftood charged withall.
To the One & Twentyeth.
Whereas he was charged with faying pofitivly, that Sir Randle
Mainwaring after the death of his firft wife, married Elizabeth
daughter oj 'Sir Ralph Leicefter *?/Toft, 6. Edw. 6. 1551. whereas

XI.] REPLY TO ANSWER TO ADMONITION. 435
it cannot be proved that they were marryed till the year 1552.
he anfwers, therefore let it ftand donee probetur contrarium, it
may ^be fo for ought he knows ; Wherein (to fay nothing of the [Page74]
ftrangeneffe of the Rule he there gives) he doth acknowledg
what he fayd to be uncertain, and that is all which he was there
charged with. To the Two & Twentyeth.
Whereas he fayd Philip Mainwaring Efqr was the Fifth fon of
Sir lohn Mainwaring, when indeed he was the Seventh Son
borne, Sir Peter anfwers, it may be fo, but they all dyed young,
and 75 Philip became heir : If it be an Error, it is but ajmall one, [Page 7S.]
and not materiall: In which Anfwer of his, as he doth acknow
ledg his Error, but with an if, foe he alfo runs into two new
Errors, in faying that they all dyed young, and Philip became
heir ; ffor, Sir Randle, the elder brother of the faid Philip lived
to a confiderable age, being firft marryed to Elizabeth the daugh
ter of Sir Randle Brereton of Malpas, and 76widow of Richard [Page 76.1
Cholmondeley of Cliolmondeley in Chejhire Efqr in or before the
year 15 18. by whom he had three daughters who were marryed
in the life time of the faid Sir Randle Mainwaring and the faid
Elizabeth his firft wife, And afterwards the faid Sir Randle mar
ryed Elizabeth the daughter of Sir Ralph Leicefter of Tojt in
Chejhire, by whom he had no iffue, and the" faid Sir Randle
77 dyed the 6th of September in the 4th and $tb years of Philip and [Page77.]
Mary, 1557. So that the faid Sir Randle did not dye young,
living at leaft 39. years after his fayd firft Marriage ; Nether did
the faid Philip become heir, but heir-male to the faid Sir Randle.
To the Three & Twentyeth.
Whereas Sir Peter was charged with faying, that the 18Herauld [Page 78.]
in the reign oj Queen Elizabeth made jor the Coat of Sir Randle
Mainwaring the elder, Barry of Twelve pieces, Argent & Gules,

43*3 REPLY TO ANSWER TO ADMONITION. [xi.
nvhen in truth the faid Sir Randle did then ufually bear Argent,
Six Barulets Gules, and that Sir Peter (as appears by the 330.
page of his Great Book) knew the Coat to be Six Barulets, and
[Page 79.] not to be Barry of Twelve peices Argent & 79 Gules; Sir Peter
anfwers, that it is true, he fayd the ancient Deed of Roger Main
waring made in the reign of King Henry the Third was fealed
with an Efcocheon of Six Barulets ; But alfo fays, that the Coat
devifedfor the faid Sir Randle, Guillim the Herald calls it Barry
of Twelve pieces, and he fays, he knows not the Criticifme in tliefe
termes of Heraldry, &c: and he fays, he hath comitted no error at
[Page 80.] all, for he there vouched Guillim for it; But herein Sir 80 Peter's
unwillingnefs to confefs an Error will eafily appear, ffor though
it be true that Guillim did erre, afwell as Sir Peter, in faying
that the Coat of Sir Randle Mainwaring was Barry of Twelve
pieces, Argent and Gules, Yet Sir Peter, but not Guillim, erred
in faying, In the reign of Queen Elizabeth the Herald made for
this Sir Randle'.? Coat, Barry of Twelve pieces, Argent & Gules ;
[Page 8i.j ffor Guillim fayd no fuch thing, and the 81 Coat that the Herald
then directed to be born, was not (as Sir Peter fays) Barry of
Twelve Pieces Argent & Gules, but Argent Six Barulets Gules ;
And the reafon why the faid Sir Randle (my Great-grandfather)
left off the Two Barres (though there be Deeds without date
fealed with Two Barres) was, becaufe there were more ancient
[Page 82. j Deeds of his Aunceftors 82 fealed with Six Barulets, then there
were that were fealed with Two Barres ; But Sir Peter in ftead
of confeffing this Error, runs into another, in the 23th page of his
Anfwer to my Admonition, where he fays, that here I confeffed
what he Jayd, to be truth, that the Herald in the reign of Queen
Elizabeth made for Sir Randle Mainwaring'^ Coat, Barry of
[Page 83.] 83 Twelve pieces, Argent and Gules, Whereas I am fure I did
neither there, nor anywhere elfe fay any fuch thing.
To the Four & Twentyeth.
Whereas he fayd the Fabrick of Over-Peover being now of

XI.] REPLY TO ANSWER TO ADMONITION. 437
Bricke, was built in 1586, and I fayd, part was built in 1585. and
part in 1586, he fays it is a worjhipfull exception, and that it is
more ^proper to afcribe the time when it was built to the finifhing [Page 84.]
of it, then when it was begun, for it was not all built, till it was
finijhed; To which I anfwer that there had been little caufe for
this objection, if I had not told him that one part was built in
one year, and another part in another year, But an exacl Writer
ought to put things exaftly down ; But 85 this Rule, that an Houfe [page8s.]
muft be fayd to be built in the year that it is finifhed, is a very
odd one, for then an old houfe that was almoft but not wholly
built an hundred years agoe, if the reft fhould be built this year
might be fayd to be a very new Houfe, though the greateft part
thereof by much, was built an hundred years fince.
s6To the Five and Twentyeth. [Page 86.]
He doth acknowledg his words were not well order'd, when
he fayd Sir Philip Mainwaring was Secretary oj Ireland to the
. Earle of Strafford, whereas the faid Sir Philip was His Majeftie's
Secretary of State there, and further fayth that he corrected it in
his Notes at the fide oj his owne Book long bejore, without any
Admonition %iJrom Sir Thomas ; But as it is ftrange that he did [Page s7.]
not difcover this Miftake concerning Sir Philip Mainwaring,
who was his Mother's Brother, in all thofe years that his Book
was written before it was printed, (which was very many years)
so on the other hand, if he did difcover it without any Admo
nition from mee, yet his Book being printed with that Miftake
in it, I had reafon 88to take notice of it, and foe am juftified in [page 88.]
what I did. To the Six & Twentyeth.
He would excufe himfelfe, becaufe he fays he did write accord-
• ing to what we fay in the Country ; But an exaft Writer fhould
write as it really is, and not as people fay in the Country ; And

43*3 REPLY TO ANSWER TO ADMONITION. [xi.
[Page 89.] I only named the houfe to fhew it was not in London, 89but (in
Weftminfter and) a good way from thence.
To the Seven & Twentieth.
In which I obferved, how he had omitted in his 336. page, that
Sir Robert Brerewood was made Serjeant at Law, 1640. as alfo
that he was made one of the Iudges of the Court of Kings-Bench,
1643. As alfo how he had fayd in his 187. page, that Sir Robert
[Page 90.] Brerewood sowas made Iudge of the Common Pleas in 1643!
whereas the King did conftitute him in the year 1643. unum
Iuftitiariorum ad Placita coram Rege, that is, one of the Iudges
of the Kings Bench, or Upper Bench ; but he was never Iudge of
the Common Pleas. And whereas I had alfo obferved how in
the 334. page of his Great Book, he had fayd, Sir lohn Nedham
[Page 91.] who married ^Margaret the daughter of Randle Mainwaring
was Iufticiarius de Banco, and Iudge of Chefter, 1. Edw. 4. and
that I did thereupon fuppofe he did erroneoufly take Iufticiarius
de Banco, to be a Iudge of the Kings Bench, as he had erroneoufly
taken Iufticiarius ad Placita coram Rege to be a Judge of the
Common Pleas, and I alfo gave this reafon, that I did believe he
[Page 92.] took Iufticiarius de Banco 92to be a Judge of the Kings Bench,
or elfe I believe he would have told us, that the faid lohn Ned
ham was afterwards made a Iudge of the Kings Bench ; ffor he
had a Patent to be one of the Iudges of that Court, 1472. 11.
Edw. 4. as may be feen in the Chronica Series at the end of
[Page 93.] Mr. Dugdales Origines Iuridiciales, printed in the 93year 1666;
His Anfwer is, that jor the Firft, it was not neceffary, nor mate
riall, to take notice in that place of Sir Robert Brerewood'j being
made either Serjeant at Law, or Iudge of the Kings Bench ; ffor
though it would have been fuller to have put them in here, yet it is
no Error without it, And I had before (as Sir Thomas here con-
[Page94.] feffeth) among the Recorders of Chefter, pag. 187. ^ there taken
notice both of his being Serjeant at Law, and being made Iudge of
the Common Pleas ; Howbeit Sir Thomas fayth, it fhould have

XI.] REPLY TO ANSWER TO ADMONITION. 439
been Iudge of the Kings Bench ; Be it foe, I had it but by common
fame; Then as to Iudg Nedham / called him Iufticiarius de Banco,
p. 334. which Sir Thomas fuppofeth I did there erroneoufly take Jcr
a Iudge oj the Kings Bench, yet doth 95 not Sir Thomas find me [Page 95.]
anywhere Jo expounding it, Jo that Sir Thomas will Juppoje I have
committed an Error bejore there be one ; In which Anfwer the
Reader may eafily perceive how unwilling Sir Peter is, to ac
knowledg his miftake in calling Sir Robert Brerewood a Iudg of
the Common Pleas, for he only fayes he had, pag. 187. taken
notice both of his being Serjeant at Law, and 96 being made Iudge [Page 96.]
of the Comon Pleas ; howbeit *Sir Thomas faith itjhould
have been Iudge oj the Kings Bench, &c: So loath he is
to direftly confefs his Error, in calling him Iudge of the Common
Pleas ; And then as to that of Iudg Nedham, he fayes, / do not
any where find him expounding Iufticiarius de Banco to be Iudg of
the Kings Bench, fo that 97he fayes, / will Juppoje him to have [Page 97.]
committed an error, before there be one ; But I believe the learned
Reader will eafily difcerne, and reft fatisfied, that as Sir Peter
did erroneoufly take Iufticiarius ad Placita coram Rege to be
Latine for a Iudge of the Court of Common Pleas, So he did
alfo erroneoufly take Iufticiarius de Banco to 98be Latine for a [Page 98.]
Iudg of the Kings Bench, or elfe he would have taken notice that
Iudg Nedham was afterwards made a Iudg of the Kings Bench,
and there is hardly any one who did miftake the one, but he
would miftake the other alfo, And therefore I think Sir Peter
had done better, ingenioufly to have acknowledged "both his [Page 99.]
Errors, then to anfwer as he doth concerning the fame ; And
whereas he fayth in the 28. page, that what he fayd concerning
Sir Robert Brerewood, he had it but by common Jame, I wonder
how that could be, ffor when was there ever any common fame
that Sir Robert Brerewood was made a Iudg of the Court of
Common Pleas, being 100he was never any Iudge of that Court ? [Page 100.]
And feeing Sir Peter doth acknowledg in print, that he writes
what he had but by common fame, I may upon juft grounds de
clare, that there is the lefs reafon, to give too much heed to
what he doth write.

44O REPLY TO ANSWER TO ADMONITION. [xi.
To the Eight & Twentieth.
He doth acknowledg that to be a very materiall Miftake,
[Pageioi.] 101foe that there needs noe more to be fayd concerning the fame.
To the Nine & Twentyeth.
Whereas he fayd that the Stable and Dovehoufe at Peover
were built in the year 1654. whereas the Stable was built in the
year 1653. and finifhed within the year 1654. and the Dovehoufe
[Page 102.] was not built till 1656. He anfwers, This l02is. another childifli
exception to be put in print, nether is the firft of thefe any error at
all; But as that of the Dovehoufe is clearly miftaken two years,
fo it is true, that the Stable was built in the year 1653. ffor it
was and would have been a Stable, if that ffret-worke over the
head, and the carv'd worke and turn'd worke wcl1 was done in the
[Page 103.] year 1654. 103had never been made.
To the Thirtyeth.
Whereas he had fayd, that Margaret the daughter of Sir Ran
dle Mainwaring the younger, and wife of Henry Birkenhead dyed
at Chefter, 25. Iuly, 1661. when in truth fhe dyed on Saturday
the 20ttl of Iuly, 1661. and was buryed at Backford on Tuefday
[Page 104.] the 23th of the fame moneth, His Anfwer is, 10i that poffibly he
might mifwrite the number 25. for 20. or it might be miftaken by
the Printer ; But a Miftake he doth confefs it is, and if it was
the Printers, why did he not take notice thereof when he did
correal others of the like kind ?
Thus I have gone over Sir Peter's Anjwer to my Admonition,
[Page ioS.] and have fhewed that 105he cannot clear himfelf from any one of
thofe things which I layd to his charge ; Neither do I believe
any man living can fhew foe many Miftakes within the Compafs
of any two Sheets that were ever put in print.

XI.] REPLY TO ANSWER TO ADMONITION. 441
Before I conclude what I have here to fay, I thinke fit to ob-
ferve how Sir Peter in his Anfwer to my Admonition, l06page 38. [Page 106.]
fayes thus, If Sir Thomas fhall not aver againft a Record (as
fometimes he hath done againft an Originall Deed) his Cavills
cannot Jmother the truth, nor dejend what he here Jay th, when it
Jhall come pub iiquely to be fanned ; By which he firft implies that
I have averred againft an Originall Deed, which I do deny, and
cannot imagine what he 107 doth mean thereby, and fecondly, he [Page io7.]
doth thereby infinuate that I cannot difprove what he doth fup
pofe to be the age of Matilda (Countefs of Chefter) and fome
other things, unlefs I aver againft that Record which Sir Peter
in that Cafe doth cite, But as I fhall agree with him that no man
can aver againft a Record, as alfo that no man can make out a
Record by aver-108 ment, (that is, no man will be admitted to [Page 108.]
fay, a Record fayes fo, or a Record doth not fay fo, but he muft
either produce the Originall Record, or elfe a Copie thereof, and
prove it to be a true Copie) Yet for all this, the Law will give
any man liberty to prove the falfity of any Record, as to matter
of ffaft that is brought againft him, 109if fo he can ; (And this [Page 109.]
manifeftly fhews that Sir Peter doth not underftand what it is
to aver againft a Record) To make good what I here fay, On
Tuefday next before the ffeaft of St. Nicholas the Bifhop, in the
6th year of Ric. 2. when William Mainwaring my Anceftor, Son
to loane one of the daughters and Coheirs of William Praers of
Baddeley 'was ,10beyond the Seas in the King's Service, lohn Son [Page no.]
of lohn Son of Henry de Honford brought an Action againft one
William Pryden for a Mefuage and eight Acres of land in Bur-
land in Cliejhire, pretending himfelf to be the Son and heir of
Margery the other daughter and Coheir of the faid William
Praers, and alfo pretending that the faid William Pryden had
diffeifed his faid Mother Margery of the mfaid Mefuage and [Pagem.]
lands, and at the faid time, the faid lohn Son of lohn Son of
Henry de Honford got poffeffion of thofe lands ; But notwith
ftanding this, the faid William Mainwaring upon his re^rne
into England, by an Inquifition now remaining in the Exchequer
3L

442 REPLY TO ANSWER TO ADMONITION. [xi.
at Chefter, dated the 28th of ffebruary, 21. Ric. 2. in the life time
[Page 112.] of the faid lohn Son of lohn Son of Henry de 112 Honford, did
prove that the faid lohn Son of lohn Son of Henry de Honford
was Bafe Son of her the faid Margery, and not her Son and Heir,
and that there was a Combination betwixt the faid lohn and the
faid William Pryden, And the faid William Mainwaring during
his life had all the Land of the faid Margery after her death,
[Pagena.] and dying without iffue difpofed of her 113 lands, as he pleafed,
and they were enjoyed accordingly ;
Soe alfo, iilohn a Stile and lohn an Oakes be at Suit concerning
land, and lohn a Stile have one or more Verdifts, and recover
againft the other, notwithftanding that Record or Records, lohn
an Oakes may bring it about againe, and plead the land to be his,
[Pagen4.] and perhaps recover the fame, And 114this Sir Peter knows by
a Cafe of his owne, is not impoffible to be done ; Soe alfo if I
fhould fue Sir Peter Leicefter for fome Land of his, and in a
Record alleadg the faid land to be my land, Sir Peter notwith
ftanding that the faid Record fayd that Land was mine, might
plead and alfo prove that land to be his, So that the difproving
[Pagen:.] that matter of faft which 115is contained in a Record, is not an
averring againft a Record, and therefore Sir Peter by this devife
cannot take away my libertie of difproving what he hath fayd in
the aforefaid Cafe, ffor I doubt not but all perfons who have read
my book entituled, The Legitimacy oj Amicia clearly proved, are
abundantly fatisfied of Sir Peter's Miftake of the age of Matilda
[Page u6.] Countefs of Chefter, n6 notwithftanding the faid Record.
And I alfo here declare, that notwithftanding what I have here
written, I doe not at all doubt, but that Hudard or Odard men
tioned in Domejday-Booke, was the lineal Male Aunceftor of the
Duttons of Dutton, But I alfo think it is full as clear that Ranul-
[Page 117.]* phus 117mentioned in the faid Book, was the undoubted lineall
Male Aunceftor of the Mainwarings of Peover, and I fuppofe
every impartial Reader will agree with me herein.

THE
LEGITIMACY AMICIA, DAUGHTER OF
HUGH CYVELIOK
Earl of Chefler,
CLEARLY PROVED.
With Full
Answers to all Objections
that have at any time been made
againft the fame.
By Sir THOMAS MAINWARING
of Peover in Chefhire, Baronet.
LONDON,
Printed for. Sam. Lowndes over againft the
Exeter Exchange in the Strand, 1679.

445

'TO THE

l.Ai, rectp.]

Reader.

Courteous Reader,
OW unwilling I was to have enter'd into
a publique Debate concerning Amicia,
the Daughter of Hugh Cyveliok Earl of
Chefter, I think doth clearly appear in
my Epiftle to Sir Peter Leicefter, before
my Defence of the faid Amicia, wherein
I told him, That if he would have been contented, to
have delivered what he did conceit concerning her, as an
uncertainty onely, (as he had done that of Roger Son of
the faid Earl Hugh) that he knew I Would have 2refted tAi> verso* -
fatisfied with the Judgment of thofe many knowing and
unconcerned Perfons, that had diffented from him there
in, and would never have given him and the Reader the
trouble of any lines of mine.
Though Sir Peter Leicefter would not grant me this
requeft, yet of his own accord, he propofed at the firft,
(as appears by feveral Letters of his to me, which I yet
have, and were all written with his own hand) that what
I had objecled againft his Reafons, fhould be printed in
the Body of his Hiftorical Antiquities ; But afterwards
altering his mind therein, he offer'd to have it put into

446 TO THE READER. [xii.
the Addenda, at the end of his faid Book ; and he withal
did declare, that he intended not to reply, but if he did,
laz, recto.] he would reply but once, and after-3wards fent me a fhort
Reply, which he there faid was the laft that he would
write concerning the fame.
Notwithftanding this, he did again change his mind,
and was unwilling that what I had written, fhould be
printed with his Addenda, at the end of his faid Hifto
rical Antiquities ; and inftead of Printing the fhort Reply,
which he fent to me, he fent for the faid Reply back, and
did Print an Anfwer to my Defence of Amicia, which was
larger than what Sir Peter and I had then both of us
publifhed upon that occafion ; for, as appears in my De
fence of Amicia, Sir Peter's words, and what I did write,
were comprehended in 75 pages, whereas his Anfwer
alone did contain 79. And in that Anfwer of his, which
was dated May 15. 1673. he did alfo in Print affirm, that
[A2, verso.] he had taken leave 4for ever of that Controverfie.
But for all thefe Declarations both under his Hand,
and in Print, he put out another little Book, which he
alfo called Addenda, or fome things to be added in his
faid Anfwer dated November 6. 1673. Then he put out
two Books together, the one called, A Reply to my Book,
Entituled, An Anfwer to Sir Peter Leicefter'i* Addenda,
Dated April 14. 1674. and the other he was pleafed to
call, My Law Cafes Miftaken, and was dated the firft of
mMay 1674. And afterwards he Printed another, which
he called, An Advertifement to the Reader, and was dated
on the third day of March following ; but becaufe I found
very little of weight in this laft Book, I did not then pub-
lifh any Anfwer to the fame.

XII.] TO THE READER. 447
5 But notwithftanding this forbearance of mine, Sir Peter [a3( recto.]
did again put out at once, three feveral Books, the firft
whereof he called his Second Reply, which was dated
May 28. 1675. the fecond he called Peroratio ad Leclo-
rem, and it was dated December 17. 1675. and the third
he called, The Cafe of Amicia truly Stated; which, though
Printed and Paged after his Peroratio, was dated before
it, viz. Auguft the $th. 1675. the reafon whereof an in
telligent Reader I fuppofe will eafily difcern ; and in all
thefe three Books, as alfo in his Advertifement to the
Reader, there was little if any thing that was new, except
two Records.
In the latter end of his faid Peroratio, he faid, He had
done if I had done ; which I looked upon to be as much
as if he had faid he "would never have done, fo long as I [A3, verso.]
did write ; upon which I was put to a ftand, and did not
well know what to do ; for as I confider'd on the one
hand, that I had the honour to be her Heir Male, and
that not only moft of the great Families in England, but
alfo, Abjit verbo Invidia, our moft gracious Sovereign,
and many other great Kings and Queens did come out
of her Loins, and that therefore I was bound in duty to
ufe my Endeavours to clear her herein ; fo on the other
hand, I concluded, that if I did continue Writing, I fhould
perpetuate the Controverfie, which I was wholly unwilling
to do and did therefore refolve*, as far as in , „ .. . ,
* See My Ad-
me did lie, that nothing more of mine fhould monition p.
be publifhed in the life-time of 7Sir Peter, " ' [A4, recto.]
whetherfoever he did out-live me or not. And I do
affure the Reader, that I did not make this delay, upon
any fear of what could reafonably be fuppofed could have

448 TO THE READER. [xii.
been by him replyed ; for as I have anfwered all thofe
numerous Arguments, which he hath hitherto made ufe
of, fo I fee no caufe to fufpcff., that he could have dif
covered any new one, which would have been more
ftrong than thofe formerly brought; and though he be
dead, yet all learned perfons can eafily judge whether
what is here faid be fubftantial, or not ; and I profefs I
do not write this, out of any conceit that it is any difgrace
to defcend of a Baftard ; but only becaufe I conceive that
my Grandmother is very much wronged herein ; for I
believe there is fcarcely any perfon whatfoever, (if any at
[a4, verso.] all) but 8it would appear that he did defcend of fome one
that was Illegitimate, if the defcent of all thofe perfons
was known, with whom his Family had match'd, and of
all others of whom he did collaterally defcend.

peo ver,
Dec. 24. T. M.
1678.

'THE
LEGITIMACY O F
AMICIA, Daughter of
Hugh Cyveliok Earl of Chefter,
Clearly Proved.

[Page i.]

Efore I come to the Reafons which have been
alledged either for or againft Amicia, I hold it
neceffary to recite thefe three Deeds following,
that thofe who read them, and the Reafons on
both fides, may the better underftand the full
ftate of the Cafe.

2 IT Cgo Comes Ceftr' Conftqbular' Dapifer' & omnibus Baroni- [page 2.]
J. J. bus fuis & Univerfis Ballivis & hominibus fuis Francis
& Anglicis tam prafentibus quam futuris falutem. Sciatis me
dediffe & concejfijfe & hac prof enti Karta mea confirmaffe Radulpho
de Menilwarin cum Amicia Filia mea in libero maritagio fervitium
Gilib. filii Rogeri, jcilicet, fervitium trium Militum faciendo michi
fervitium duorum Militum ille & hceredes fui michi & haredibus
meis, quare volo & firmiter prcecipio ut nullus fuper hoc eum vel
haredes fuos vexet, vel amplius quam fervitium duorum Militum
de hoc pradiclo tenemento requirat. Tefte R. Abbate Ceftr' Bertreia
3M

[Page 4.]

45O THE LEGITIMACY OF AMICIA [xii.
Comitiffa Ceftr' Sim. Thujchet, Rogero de Livet, Gilib.filio Pigot.
Rob. fratre fuo, Frumb. de Ridford. Willielmo de Meinilwarin,
Rob. filio Ham. Bettr. Cam. Rob. de Meinilwarin, Ran. de Lee,
Rad. Clerico, Petro Clerico qui hanc Kartam fecit & multis aliis
apud Lee.

R

Adulfus de Meidnilwar' omnibus prafentibus & futuris ad
quos prajens fcriptum pervenerit falutem. Sciatis me dediffe
[Page 3.] & concejfijfe & prajenti carta mea zconfirmaJfe Henrico de Aldite-
legh in liberum maritagium cum Bertrea filia mea Smelewde cum
pertinentiis & Senelleft' : Cum pertinent. & dimid' Pichemere cum
pertinentiis Juis & i. Marc, de redditu annuo in Civitate Ceftr1 de
terra quae juit Fagun. quam Robert' filius Ermwi de me tenuit illi
& haredibus Juis qui de dicla Bertrea filia mea pervenient habend'
& tenend' de me & haredibus meis in feodo & hareditale libere &
quiete plene & pacifice in bojco & piano in pratis & pafcuis in aquis
viis & injemitis in vivariis & in molendinis & in omnibus locis
&¦ libertatibus pradiclis terris pertinentibus Jicut liberum marita
gium melius & liberius teneri pot' : Et ego & haredes mei illi &
diclis haredibus Juis contra omnes homines diclas terras Warran-
tizabimus. Teft' Ran' Com' Ceftr'. Hug' Com' Ultonia, Phil' de
Orreby tunc jfuftic. Ceftr. Joh. de PteW Hug. Malebiff. Ric. de
Vern. Ran. de Meidnilwar. Clerico. LidulJ. de Tuaml' Rob. de
Periis, Ric. de Kingejl. Norm. Pant. Tho. de Orreby, Alured. de
Sulinni. Pet. Chan. Gg. de Aldith. Ric. deRodeft. Clerico & multis
Aliis.

i/~\Mnibus hanc Cartam vijuris vel audituris Rogerus de Me-
V_/ nilwarin aternam in Domino Jalutem. Noverit Univerfitas
veftra me pro Jalute anima Domini Ranulphi quondam Comitis
* Ceftria & Lincolnia Avunculi mei & pro falute anima mea &
animarum antecejjorum & Juccefforum meorum dediffe concejfijfe &
hacprajenti Carta mea confirmajfe Deo & Beata Maria & Abbati
& Monachis de DeulacreJJe & eorum Grangie de Biveleg. in liberam
puram & perpetuam Elemofynam liberam communam in bofco meo

XII.] CLEARLY PROVED. 45 1
de Pevere, fcilicet, Ut accipiant de eodem bofco husbot & haybot
rationabiliter per vifum alicujus foreftariorum meorum quantum
neceffe habuerint, fine impedimento aeriarum niforum meorum
ubicunque nidificaverint, Praterea dedi eis liberam pejfionem &
quietam de pannagio quinquaginta porcis quandocunque voluerint
in pradiclo nemore meo de Pevere, pro hac autem donatione & con-
cejjione mea, Ego Rogerus pradidus & haredes mei de pradiclis
Abbate -5* Monachis de Deulacrejfe nichil exigere poterimus, nifi
orationes & Juffragia ordinis Ciftercienfis. Ego vero & haredes
mei Jepediclam donationem & concejfionem meam fepediclis Abbati
& s Monachis & Grangie de Biveleg contra omnes gentes Warranti- [Pages.]
zabimus imperpetuum. Et ut hac donatio mea rata & inconcujfa
in fempiternum perfeveret earn prajentis Carta teftimonio & Sigilli
mei imprejfione roboravi. Hiis teftibus Willielmo de Menilwarin.
Willielmo Capellano de Lauton. Ricardo de Mojlon. Bened. de
Cawdray, Johanne de Motlawe, Willielmo de Pevere, Hugone de
Weloc. Nicolao de Wereford, Gilberto Gekell, & aliis.
Now that the faid Amicia was undoubtedly legitimate, will be
proved by thefe following Arguments or Reafons ;
I. Firft, Becaufe the faid Hugh Cyveliok, as appears by the firft
of the faid Deeds, did give unto Ralph de Menilwarin or
Mainwaring with his daughter Amicia in free Marriage the
fervice of Gilbert fon of Roger, viz. the fervice of three
Knights Fees, doing to the faid Hugh and his Heirs the
fervice of two Knights Fees ; But our Common Law neither
now, nor at any time heretofore allowing that Lands or
Services could be given In libero Marita-6gio, with any rpage6.]
perfon that was not of the blood of the Donor, as you may
fee Coke upon Littleton, Fol. 21. b. Confequently neither
Lands nor Services could be fo given with a Baftard daugh
ter by the reputed Father, becaufe a Baftard is not de
fanguine Patris, as you may find Dyer, Fol. 374. b. And
therefore it neceffarily follows, becaufe the faid Amicia had

452 THE LEGITIMACY OF AMICIA [XIL
Services given with her in Franke Marriage by her faid
Father, that the faid Amicia was not a Baftard.
II. Secondly, If the Reader pleafe to obferve, how in the firft
Deed, Hugh Cyveliok's Countefs is a Witnefs to the giving
of thofe Services in Free Marriage with Amicia daughter to
the faid Earl Hugh; As alfo how in the fecond Deed, Ralph
Mainwaring 's daughter is called Bertred after the Countefs,
which probably, according to Sir Peter Leicefter's opinion
under his own hand in April, 1664. was occafioned by the
faid Countefs being Godmother to the faid Bertred Main
waring ; As alfo how Randle Earl of Chefter, was a Witnefs
[Page 7.] to what was given with the faid Ber-ltred Mainwaring in
Free Marriage to Henry de Alditelegh, who was Great Grand
father to the Famous James Audley who warred in France; As
alfo how, as appears in Sir William Dugdale's Antiquities of
Warwick/hire, Tag. 88. Ralph Mainwaring was with the faid
Earl at Coventry, and a Witnefs to his Charter to the Bur-
geffes there ; As alfo how Roger de Meinwaring and Henry
de Alditeley, who married his Sifter. Monaft. Anglic, part. 1.
pag. 891. are Witneffes to the Deeds oi Randle Earl of Chefter
and Lincoln, concerning his Abby of Deulacres; As alfo how
the faid Roger Mainwaring, as appears by the faid third
Deed, did give fome Priviledges to the faid Abby of Deula
cres; As alfo how Ralph Menilwarin or Mainwaring, as
appears by Sir Peter Leicefter's Hiftorical Antiquities, part 2.
pag. 130, 131, 139, 143, and 144. is a Witnefs to one Deed of
Hugh Cyvelioks, and to three other Deeds of the faid Earl
Randle (who in fome of them is alfo ftiled Duke of Britain,
. and Earl of Richmond;) As alfo how the faid Ralph de Mei-
[Pages.] dinwarin or Mainwaring, is a 8 Witnefs to Hugh Cyveliok's
Deed of Confirmation to the Priory of Calc in Darbijhire,
as you may fee in the Additions to the Second Tome of
Monafticon. Anglic. Printed with the Third Tome, pag. 97.
I fhall leave it (without any more words) to the Reader to

XII.] CLEARLY PROVED. 453
judge, whether thefe Circumftances be not fuch, as do fhew
a more great and conftant Intimacy, betwixt the faid two
Families, than probably would have been, if Ralph Main
waring had married but an illegitimate daughter of the faid
Earl.
III. Thirdly, Becaufe as you may fee in the faid third Deed,
Roger Menilwarin or Mainwaring, Son of the faid Ralph
and Amicia, doth call Randle Earl of Chefter and Lincolne
his Uncle, which if Amicia had been illegitimate he would
not have prefumed to have done ; for though it be true, that
Baftards in Hiftories and Records are many times called,
Cofin, Brother, Uncle, Son, and Daughter, yet that is done
where the perfons came to be very Great, as Robert Earl of
Gloucefter did, or elfe they are fo called by 9 thofe that write [Page9.]
the Hiftories of them, or elfe are fo termed by their Rela
tions, who out of their humility, did condefcend fo to ftile
them on ordinary occafions, though it were not their due ;
But I believe it will be very hard to find one that can cer
tainly be proved a Baftard, or the Son of a Baftard, who
doth in a Deed made by himfelf, call fo great a perfon as the
Earl of Chefter was, his Brother or Uncle, unlefs he came to
be a very great perfon himfelf, fo that this Argument is alfo
of very great force and weight.
IV. Fourthly, I do conceive, that Hugh Cyveliocks paffing of
fervices in the firft Deed to the faid Amicia, and ufing thefe
words, Cum filia mea, doth abfolutely prove that fhe was a
lawful Child, and by confequence by a former Wife ; for if
you take notice of what Sir Henry Spelman writes in his
Gloffary, on the word Baftardus, you will find him quoting
Couftum. du Normand Artie 77. in Annot. Thus, Quoties
enim agitur de honor e vel commodo filiorum, appellaiione fili-
orum non com- l0prehenduntur Baftardi, I fuppofe therefore [Page 10.]
in this cafe, Amice would not have been ftiled Filia, as

454 THE LEGITIMACY OF AMICIA [xii.
fhe is in the faid Deed, unlefs fhe had been a Legitimate
Child.
V. Fifthly, I defire the Reader well to obferve thefe two Deeds
following, the firft whereof doth belong to Henry Mainwa
ring of Kermincham, in Chejhire Efquire, and the other to
Thomas Ravenfcroft of Bretton in the County of Flint, Ef
quire, the words whereof do here follow, as they were copied
out feveral years fince from the Originals, by Sir William
Dugdale Knight.

S'

' Ciant & omnes prafentes quam futuri quod ego Robertus Do
minus Moaldie & Jenejcallus Ceftrie, concejfi & prajenti
Karta confirmavi domui fee' Werburge Virginis in Ceftria &
Monachis ibidem Deo Jervientibus totam Villam de Gooftree plene
& integre cum omnibus pertin' Juis in puram & perpetuam elemo-
fynam pro falute anime mee & animarum pradecefforum meorum,
liberam quietam & folutam ab omni feculari fervicio & omni
[Page ii.] feculari exaclione. Ita quod in eadem Villa de u Gooftree nihil ad
opus meum vel haredum meorum retinui prater elemofynam &
orationes & tantam libertatem in ipfa eadem Villa pradicle domui
& praditlis Monachis concejfi quod in pofterum nullus haredum
meorum quicquid libertatis fuperaddere pojfit. Et ut hee mea con-
cejfio rata & inconcuffa permaneat imperpetuum earn Jigilli mei
appofitione roboravi. Hiis teftibus Rad' de Menilwar' tunc Jufti-
ciar' Ham' de Majci Gwar de Vern' Rad' fit' Sim' Pho' de
Orreby. Sim' de Thurfchet Rog' de Menilwar' Willielmo de
Venables. Toma Difpenfatore Rob' fil' Picot' Petro' Clerico Com'
Ricardo de Vern' Rob' de Menilwar' Brito Paulum Patr' de
Moberl' Liulj' de Twamlow. Peers de Sur' Ran' de Praers'
Ricardo de Kingfl' Jo' de Jancla Maria, & multis aliis.
S Ciant prafentes & futuri quod ego Alanus de Boidele dedi &
quiet' clam' fratri meo Willielmo de Boidele & hared' fuis
Docclifton injeod' Sr Dominicis cum omnibus pertin' infra Limam.

XII.] CLEARLY PROVED. 455
Tenend' & habend de Domino meo Rani' Com' Ceftr' & hered'
Juis jaciend' Jervicium de pradicl' ter-/ Jc. De quatuor Jeod' &
dimid' pranominato Domino meo Ran! Com' i2 Ceftr & hared' [Page 12.]
Juis. Et ego vero Alanus de Boidele & hered' mei pradicl' terr'
cum omnibus pertin' pranominato Willielmo de Boidele \& hared'
Juis contra omnes homines & jeminas cum pertin' warrantizab.
Et quia volo quod hee mea donatio & quiet' clam' ftabilis & incon-
cujfa & rat' permaneat prajenti Jcripto Jigillum meum appojui.
His teft' Domino Ran! Comite Ceftr' domino Rad' de Mainwa-
ringhe tunc Jufticiar' Ceftr' domino Roberto de Monte alto, Domino
Hug' Dijpenjar' Domino Ham' Jen' de Majcy, Domino Warino de
Vernun, Domino Willielmo de Venables. Toma fit' Willielmi de
Goulborn, Petro de Bekering. Rob' tunc perjona Gropenhale Jcrip-
tor' hujus Jcripti & multis aliis.
I fhall alfo defire the Reader to take notice of what Sir Peter
Leicefter hath obferved in his Hiftorical Antiquities, p. 160. how
that Earl Randle de Gernoniis (as doth appear by the Charter
there mentioned) did give the Office of Conftable of Chejhire, in
Fee to Euftace, Baron of Halton, and his Heirs ; and did con-
ftitute the faid Euftace (to ufe the words of the faid Charter)
Hareditarie Conftabularium & Supremum conciliarium 13poft me [Page 13.]
& fuper omnes optimates & Barones totius terra mea. As alfo
p. 161. how the Baron de Montealto or Moald, being Dapifer,
Senefchal, or Steward of Chejhire in Fee, had the fecond Place,
which is alfo confirmed by feveral Deeds, mentioned in Sir
Peter Leicefter's Book, /. 129. 130. 139. 144 and 162. In all
which, the Conftable and Steward are named before the Juftice
of Chefter, and all the other Barons ; which being fo, it will be
difficult to give a Reafon (ii Amicia was but a bafe Daughter)
why Sir Ralph Mainwaring, in the Deed abovefaid of Alan de
Boidele, is named as a Witnefs next to the Earl of Chefter, and
before Sir Robert de Monte-alto or Moald, Steward of Chejhire,
and fo many of the other Barons ; as alfo in a Deed mentioned
in Sir Peter's Book, p. 139. why the faid Ralph Mainwaring is

456 THE LEGITIMACY OF AMICIA [XII.
named next to the Countefs of Chefter, and before Roger Con
ftable of Chejhire; as alfo why in a Deed in the 143 page of the
faid Book, 'the faid Ralph Mainwaring is again named next to
the faid Countefs, and before Ralph, the Steward of Chejhire.
[Page 14.] But if Amicia was a Legitimate Daugh-14ter, the reafon
thereof will be apparent : For though it be true, that the Hus
band cannot be Ennobled by the Marriage of his Wife, yet the
Earl of Chefter being a Count Palatine, and one that is confeffed
by Six Peter Leicefter, p. 152 and 159. to have Royal Authority
within himfelf, and not unfitly to be ftiled a Petty King, having
under him his Conftable of Chejhire in Fee, in imitation of the
Lord High Conftable of England, and his Steward of Chejhire in
Fee, after the example of the Lord High Steward of England;
and his Noblemen about him, in imitation of the Barons of the
Kingdom ; as alfo his Chamberlain, who fupplieth the Place of
Chancellor, and his Juftices of Chefter (who have like power to
the Judges of the Courts of Kings Bench and Common Pleas) as
alfo a Baron of the Exchequer, a Sheriff, and other Officers
proportionate to thofe of the Crown : It is no wonder at all, if
thefe great Perfons did voluntarily give Precedence to Sir Ralph
Mainwaring during his life, in regard he had married a lawful
Daughter to one of the faid Earls.
[Page 15.] Add hereunto, that when Earl Hugh l5Cyvelioke, did by his
Charter mentioned by Sir Peter Leicefter, p. 131. acquit the Abbot
and Monks of Stanlaw, of fome Toll in Chefter (which could be
but little before the faid Earls death, becaufe the faid Earl died
in the year 1 181. And the Abby of Stanlaw, as is confeffed by Sir
Peter, p. 267. was founded but in the year 1 178.) The faid Earl
• in his faid Charter (contrary to all former Precedents, which I
have feen) doth name the Juftice of Chefter before both the
Conftable of Chejhire, and Steward of Chejhire; and the reafon
thereof, I fuppofe to be, becaufe the -faid Ralph Mainwaring,
who was Son-in-Law to the faid Earl, was then Juftice oi Chefter,

XII.] CLEARLY PROVED. 457
as he alfo was fome years in the life time of Randle Blundevill ;
though the faid Ralph, as appears by his aforefaid Deed made
to Henry de Alditelegh, did afterwards part with the faid Office,
Philip de Orreby being Juftice of Chefter, when the faid Philip
was a Witnefs to the faid Deed.
Now this Preeminence could not be given to the faid Ralph,
becaufe he was Juftice of Chefter (that Office being be-16low the [Page 16.]
Offices of Conftable and Steward, as appears before) but becaufe
of the Relation of the faid Ralph to the faid Earl, and certainly
fuch great refpecl: would not have been fhewed him, upon that
account, if his Wife had been an illegitimate Child.
VI. Sixthly, Becaufe there was fuch a vaft difproportion of
years, betwixt Hugh Cyveliok, and his Wife Bertred, that it
cannot be in reafon imagined, that the faid Earl Hugh being
fo great a perfon, fhould ftay unmarried, until his faid Wife
Bertred was Marriageable ; for the faid Bertred was but
Twenty four years of age in the year 1181. when the faid
Earl Hugh dyed, as appears, Rot. de Dominabus, pueris, &c.
In Scacc. penes Remem. R. Sub. Tit. Line. Rot. 1. by which
it appears, that the faid Bertred was born in the year 1157.
But the faid Earl Hugh, as you may find in the Third Part
of Sir William Dugdale's Monafticon Anglicanum, Pag. 226.
did, together with his Mother Maude, give Stivinghale,
(which was not Stivinghale, vulg6 Stijhall, in Com. Stafford,
as Sir Peter Leicefter in 17the 86 Page of his firft Reply tells [page 17.]
us, but it was Stivinghale, which is a member of Coventry,
as you may fee in Sir William Dugdale's Antiquities of
Warwickjhire, Pag. 88, 128, 129. and in Sir Peter Leicefter's
Hiftorical Antiquities, Pag. 129.) And befides the faid Sti
vinghale, the faid Earl Hugh, and his Mother Maude, did
give a Mill next to the Park, and fome other Grounds, to
Walter Durdent Bifhop of Chefter, and his Succeffors, to
which Deed Euftace the Conftable was Witnefs ; Now the
3N

458 THE LEGITIMACY OF AMICIA [xii.
faid Earl Hugh being not in a capacity to feal a Deed, until
he was One and twenty years of age, and the faid Euftace
being flain (as appears by Sir Peter Leicefter's Hiftorical
Antiquities, Pag. 266.) in a Battel againft the Welfh in the
faid year 1157. If the faid Deed was made immediately
before the faid Euftace was flain, the faid Hugh muft needs
be at the leaft One and twenty years older than his Wife
Bertred; But, it is very likely that Deed was made fome
years before, viz. immediately upon the death of Randle de
Gernoniis; For the faid Randle died Excommunicate in the
[Page 18.] year 1153. as 18you may fee in Sir Peter's Hiftor. Antiqui
ties, Pag. 129. and Stivinghale, and thofe other Lands were
given for his Abfolution, and the health of his Soul.
But, befides what is here proved, if you look at_theTatter end
of the Welfh Hiftory put out jyy~&9^Powel 2S *--*4* immediately
before the Table, you will fee that the iB'linffl?f the 1.97 Page of
the faid Welfh Hiftory is. mifprinted, and that Ai the faid Page it
fhould have been Printed thus : About theOgne time Hugh, Son
to the Earl of Chefter, fortified his Caftle ff Cymaron, and wan
Melienyth to himjelj. And you may. alfo there find, that the
time when the faid Hugh wan Melienyth, was in the year 1 142.

Now tfMxfevdhfcWPtfo Hijlfory is of good credit, I fuppofe can
not hg^afonably denied j^for as Sir Peter Leicefter in the 44
Pas-fof his Hiftorical Antiquities doth acknowledge, that in thefe
Wjljh matters he doth-dbiefly follow the fame ;' fo on the other
hrpd you may fiifdin Voffius his Book de Hiftoricis Latinis, Pag.
[Page 19.] 389. & 390. ancj*. in IJaackson's Chronology, Pag. 19323. And in
. Baleus his_Jkfbk de Illuftribus Scriptoribus Majoris Britannia,
Printed at Bafil, Apud Joannem Oporinum, Pag. 195, 196. And
in Pitjeus his Book de illuftribus Anglia Scriptoribus, Printed at
Paris 16 19. Pag. 215. that the faid Caradocus Lhancaruan was
the Author of the faid Book, and flourifhed in the year 1150,
and by confequence was living in the year 1 142, when the faid

XII.] CLEARLY PROVED. 459
Hugh wan Melienyth ; And the faid Pitjeus tells us in the afore
faid Page, that the faid Caradocus was elegans Poeta, eloquens
Rhetor, & Hiftoricus non contemnendus ; And the faid Baleus,
Pag. 196. fayes that he was totus conjecratus ad res geftas re-
centium Brittania regulorum illuftrandas ; And in Baleus and
Pitjeus in the aforefaid Pages, and in Powells Notes on the faid
Hiftory, Pag. 206. you may find this following Diftichon ; viz.
Hiftoriam Britonum doilus fcripfit Caradocus
Poft Caduualladru-m regia Jceptra notans.
So that as to the proving of the taking of Melienyth by the faid
Hugh, and the time when it was fo taken, Caradocus Lhancaruan
is a Witnefs free from any exception, that can be juftly made.
20 The onely Queftion therefore is, Of what Age the faid Hugh [Page 20.]
then was ? And becaufe that is uncertain, and that I am willing
to reckon fo, as may be moft difadvantageous to my felf, I will
fuppofe him to be then but Twelve years old, which is the fame
Age that Silvefter Giraldus, in that Edition printed at London
1585. Pag. 203. fayes Prince Lhewellin ap Jorweth was of, when
he began to infeft his Uncles, and is indeed as young, as I have
obferved any to appear in fuch Martial Affairs. Now, if we
fhould believe that Hugh Cyveliok did marry the faid Bertred fo
foon as fhe was Fourteen years of Age, then the faid Marriage
would happen in the year 1171. at which time, ii Hugh Cyveliok
was born in the year 11 30, and was but Twelve years old when
he wan Melienyth, in the year 1 142. yet he would be Forty one
years of Age, when he married the faid Bertred. It cannot
therefore be imagined, that fo great a perfon fhould continue
unmarried till he was above Forty years old, or that he fhould
marry to his firft Wife, one fo much different from him in years ;
But, when he had married a former Wife, who dyed, leaving him
only a daughter or 21 daughters, it is no wonder if in his Age, he [Page 2*-.]
married a young Lady, to the intent he might have Iffue-male
to fucceed him in fo great an Eftate.

460 THE LEGITIMACY OF AMICIA [xii.
Alfo if you look in Sir Peter Leicefter's Hiftorical Antiquities,
Pag. 131. you may find this Deed of Earl Hugh, in which his
Mother doth not join with him, which I think fit in this place to
Tranfcribe.

H

Ugo Comes Ceftria, Conftabulario Juo, Dapijero, omnibus
Baronibus Juis, omnibus Hominibus fuis, Francis & An
giitis, tam futuris quam prafentibus, falutem, Concedo Saclimo-
nialibus de Bolintona ftagnum meum de Dunintona firmum terra
mea jicut fuit tempore Henriei Regis, in perpetuam Elemofynam
pro anima mea, & Patris mei, & meorum Antecejforum : Et
pracipio omnibus Hominibus meis, quod habeant meam firmam
pacem, ita quod nullus inde pradiclis Saclimonialibus injuriam
vel contumeliam facial. Tefte Roberto Dapijero de Monte alto,
Filippo de Kima, Simone filio Osberti, Willielmo Patric, Radulfo
filio Warneri, Rogero de Maletot, Johanne Priore de Trentham,
[Page 22.] Orm ejus Cano-^nico, Rogero Monacho de Hambi, Willielmo Cle
rico Comitis qui Char tam fcripfit apud Beltesford, & multis aliis.
I alfo think fit to re-mind the Reader, how I did heretofore
acquaint him, in Print, that I had a Pedigree by me of the Barons
de Monte-alto, drawn not long fince by Sir Peter Leicefter, and
written all with his own hand, in which he makes the firft Robert
de Monte-alto Steward of Chejhire (who he fayes lived in the time
of King Steven) to have Iffue, (befides other Sons who were
younger) two Sons, Raph and Robert, who were afterwards fuc-
ceffively Stewards of Chejhire all which is certainly true.
Now, that, Robert de Monte-alto, Steward of Chejhire, who was
^ Witnefs to this Deed, was the firft Robert de Monte-alto, will be
manifeft, becaufe the fecond Robert came not to be Steward of
Chejhire during the life of Earl Hugh, as appears by the faid
Pedigree, as alfo in Sir Peter's Book of Hiftorical Antiquities,
Pag. 143. and in the 33 Page of my Anfwer to Sir Peter's two
[Page 23.] Books, where you find Raph 23the Steward, elder Brother to the

XII.] CLEARLY PROVED. 46 1
fecond Robert, out-living Earl Hugh, and being a Witnefs to a
Deed of Earl Randle Son to the faid Hugh, it will therefore
' neceffarily follow, if this Deed of Earl Hugh was made immedi
ately before the death of that Robert de Monte-alto, who was a
Witnefs thereto, that the faid Earl Hugh was a great deal elder
than his Wife Bertred ; for though the faid Robert did live fome-
thing longer than Sir Peter doth take notice of, yet I think it
cannot be proved that he was living any confiderable time after
the faid Euftace, and I know no reafon why we fhould conclude
that Euftace was flain immediately after he was a Witnefs to the
other Deed, or that this Robert dyed prefently after he was a
Witnefs to this Deed ; nay, I think it will appear, that the afore
faid Deed to the Nuns of Bolinton, was certainly made fome years
before the faid Robert dyed, viz. in the time of King Stephen; for
if it had been made when Henry the fecond was King, Earl Hugh
would not have faid, Sicut juit tempore Henriei Regis, (as he there
doth) but he would have faid, Sicut juit tempore Henriei primi, or
elfe he would have ufed fome other words to 24diftinguifh King [Page 24. j
Henry the Firft, from the then King Henry the Second. Now
King Stephen dyed in the year 11 54, and Bertred being not born
till the year 1 157, it will from this Deed be very clear, that if
Earl Hugh had fealed the faid Deed immediately before King
Stephen dyed, yet Earl Hugh would be at the leaft Twenty four
years older than Bertred his Wife. And therefore no likelihood
at all, that the faid Bertred was his firft Wife.
Againft thefe Arguments many Objections have been raifed,
that fo they might make out in number, what they did want in
weight ; and particularly againft the firft Argument, becaufe if
that hold, there is no doubt, but the faid Amicia was Legitimate;
And firft, it is objected, That Mainwaring was not at that
time an equal Competitor to have married a Co-heir of the Earl
of Chefter, the Co-heirs being married to four of the greateft Peers
of the Kingdom, and therefore from hence, they would infinuate,

462 THE LEGITIMACY OF AMICIA [xii.
that the faid Amicia was not Legitimate. To which I anfwer,
[Page 25.] That I do not affirm that Mainwaring was 25an equal Competi
tor to thofe great Peers, or that the faid Amicia was a Co-heir to
the faid Earl Randle, fhe being, as appears from the aforefaid Ar
guments by neceffary confequence a Daughter to Hugh Cyveliok
by a former Wife, and fo but half Sifter to the faid Earl Randle,
and therefore could not be a Coheir ; for, as you may fee in
Littleton's Tenures, Se£t. 2, 6, 7, 8, one that is but an half Sifter
cannot poffibly be a Coheir to her Brother, or inherit his Lands ;
however that could have been no fubftantial Argument to prove
that Amicia was not Legitimate.
1. Becaufe fometimes fome particular perfons have the fortune
to marry Wives far beyond their degrees or Eftates.
2. Neither was Sir Ralph Mainwaring fo inconfiderable a
perfon, as perhaps fome may conceit him to be : For, befides
that, Sir Roger Mainwaring, Son of -the faid Sir Ralph, did after
the death of the faid Sir Ralph, give to Sir William Mainwaring
his younger Son, Peover, as alfo fome other Lands ; the faid Sir
Ralph had alfo the Lordfhip of Waburne in Norfolk, and the
[Page 26.] Lordfhips, (or great part) 26of Rode, Blakenhal, Warmincham,
Notherden, AJhton juxta Keif all, Henbury, and Pexhull, Willafton,
Greate Warjord, Little Warjord, Whelock, Winnington, Cokifhall,
Tatton, Senelleftune, Smalwood, and half of Pichmere ; as alfo
other Lands in Chejhire; the moft of which came to Sir William
Truffel, who about Edward the Firft's time, married Matilda,
the fole Daughter and Heir of Sir Warine Mainwaring, Son of
Sir Tliomas Mainwaring, Son of Sir Roger Mainwaring, Son of
,the faid Sir Ralph and Amicia: And the faid Sir Ralph was
Chief Juftice of Chefter, which antiently hath been a Place of
that great Repute, that Dukes of York, Glocefter, Exeter and
Ireland, and Earls of Nottingham, Wiltjhire, Suffolk, Shrewsbury,
and Derby ; befides other great Perfons have heretofore enjoyed
the fame.

XII.] CLEARLY PROVED. 463
And though it hath been objected by Sir Peter Leicefter in the
17 page of his Anfwer to my Defence oi. Amicia, that as to fhe
Note of Dukes and Earls to have been antiently Judges of Chef
ter, I fhould have diftinguifhed of the times ; for that was not
till the Reign of Richard the Second (who made Deputies to aft
in 27 their ftead) before which time he finds no fuch great perfons [Page 27.]
Judges there ; yet in this Sir Peter was miftaken, for that perfon
which is faid in his Catalogue of Judges of Chefter to be Judge
of Chefter in the 15 th of Edvuard the Third, and by him is onely
called Ralph Stafford, was Baron of Stafford at that very time,
as appears by this following Deed, the Original whereof I my
felf have, and did give to Sir Peter Leicefter a Copy thereof.
S Ciant prafentes & futuri quod ego Johanna que fui ux. Jo-
hannis Mautrevers in pura viduitate mea dedi conceffi &
hac prajenti carta mea confirmavi Alex, de Venables totam illam
placeam terra cum domibus & omnibus aliis pertin. quam habeo in
villa de Wylafton que vocal, le Rudyngges Habend. & tenend.
pradicl. Alex, hered. & Ajfignatis fuis totam pradiclam placeam
terra cum pertin. de capitali dom. feodi illius per fervicia inde
debita & de Jur. confueta libere quiete bene & in pace Jur. &
hereditarie imperpetuum cum omnib. libertatib. comoditatib. com-
munibus & eajiamentis dicle placie terra quoquo modo pertinentib.
Et ego vero predicla Johanna & heredes mei totam prediclam
placeam "^ terra cum pertin. prediclo Alex, heredibus & ajfignatis [page28.]
fuis cont. omnes gentes Warantizabimus Acquietabimus & defende-
¦mus imperpetuum. In cujus rei teftimonium huic prejenti carta
Sigillum meum appojui hiis teftibus Radulpho Barone de Stafford
tunc Juftic. Ceftria Willielmo de praers Johanne de Wetenhale
Thorn, de Erdejwyks Ricardo de Foulejhurft Willielmo Hamelyn
& Aliis Dat. apud Ceftriam die dominica proxima poft jeftum
fancli Barnabe apoftoli An. Regni Regis Edwardi tertii poft con-
queftum quinto decimo.
And as you may fee in Mr. AJhmole's Inftitution of the Order

464 THE LEGITIMACY OF AMICIA [xii.
of the Garter, p. 643. 670 & 688. and in Vincent's Correclions upon
Brooke, p. 488 & 489. and in the firft Part of Sir William Dug
dale's Baronage of England, pag. 160. the faid Ralph Stafford was
one of the firft Twenty five Knights Companions of the Order
of the Garter, and was afterwards, viz. on the $th oi March, 25
Edward III. advanced to the Title of Earl of Stafford, and it is
impoffible that there could be any Dukes or Earls made Judges
of Chefter before that Earldom was united to the Crown, becaufe
[Page 29.] there were no 29fuch perfons belonging to the faid Earls (except
John Lacy Conftable of Chefter, who was made Earl of Lincolne,
but was not made fo as appears in Sir Peter Leicefter's Hiftorical
Antiquities, pag. 270. till the 23 of November, 1232. which was
but fomething above four years before the death of John Scot,
the laft of the faid Earls.) But there were ever antiently perfons
of good quality that were Judges of Chefter, and if it had not
always been a place of good repute, the Kings of England would
never have made fuch very great perfons to have fucceeded them
therein. Neither was the Cafe the fame with the other Daughters of
the Earl of Chefter, when Ralph Mainwaring married with Ami
cia, as it was afterward, for Amicia was married in the life time
of her Father Earl Hugh, whereas thofe four came to be fuch
great fortunes upon the death of their Brother Randle, Earl of
Chefter and Lincolne, without Iffue, to whom they then became
Heirs, they being his Sifters of the whole Blood; and though all,
or moft of them were married before they came to be his Heirs,
[Page 30.] yet the 30faid Earl Randle having never had Iffue, the expecta
tions of that Eftate added to their other Portions, muft needs
make them very confiderable Fortunes ; whereas Amicia was
but of the half Blood, being a Daughter of Earl Hugh by a
former Wife, and therefore not in a capacity to have a fhare in
that great Eftate. And whereas it hath been objected, that
Earl Hugh matching his only Daughter, which he had by a
former Wife, would have married her to as confiderable a per-

XII. J CLEARLY PROVED. 465
fon as was either provided by himfelf, or his Son for his younger
Children by a fecond Venter ; I do anfwer and fay, That I am
not certain whether Amicia was the only Daughter that Earl
Hugh had by his former Wife, becaufe, I know fome that pre
tend they can tell of fome other Daughter br Daughters which
the faid Earl Hugh had by his faid Wife ; but I do confefs, I
have never feen juft proof of any but her ; but fuppofing her to
be the only" Child by his firft Wife, I have in my firft Book, pag.
23, 24 & 25. fhewed that there is no ftrength in this Argument ;
And I may here further add, that if any will fearch for Examples,
they may find very many, where the elder 31 Sifters, fometimes, [Page3i.]
becaufe fwayed by their Affections, and fometimes for other Rea
fons, have not been married to fo great perfons as the younger
Sifters have been ; Neither can any one tell what Portions Earl
Hugh gave to Amicia, or to any of his other Daughters ; Neither
is there any neceffity that the elder Sifter, becaufe by a former
Wife, muft have as great a Portion as a younger Sifter by a
latter Wife ; becaufe many times perfons are not able to give fo
great Portions in their younger days, as afterwards : and becaufe,
the Children of the living Wife, are oftentimes better provided
for, than thofe of the dead Wife ; and of this, I could, if I pleafed,
inftance in fome that I know; and in cafe the Father dies, and
leave only Iffue Female by the firft, and a Son and Iffue Female
by a latter Wife (as in this cafe) there is great likelihood (befides
the advantage that the Sifters by the latter Wife would have by
being Heirs at Law to their Brother he dying without Iffue) that
the Brother will naturally be more kind to thofe Sifters that are
of the whole Blood, and about the fame age, and bred up with
him, than he will be to her that is but 32his half Sifter, and much [Page 32.]
older than himfelf.
And though Sir Peter Leicefter doth objeft in the 69 page of
his Anfwer to the Defence oi Amicia, That if Amicia had been
Legitimate, fhe being of the firft Venter, would have been more
worthy than thofe of the Second, though that be true, when the
30

466 THE LEGITIMACY OF AMICIA [xii.
Sifters Claim as Heirs to their Father ; yet when they come to
Claim as Heirs to their Brother (as in this Cafe) if there be
Sifters of two Venters, and the Brother be of the fecond Venter,
then the Sifters that are of the fecond Venter, fhall be preferred
before thofe of the firft Venter, becaufe thofe of the fecond Ven
ter are of the whole Blood. And thofe of the half Blood, are fo
far from being preferred before thofe of the whole Blood, that
as I have herein before fhewed the moft remote of the Kindred
(hall be preferred before thofe who are but of the half Blood.
2. Secondly, Againft Amicia's being Legitimate, it hath been
objected thus ;
[Page 33.] 33 If Hugh Cyveliok had no other Wife but Bertred, then Amice
muft certainly be a Baftard ; for fhe was not a Daughter by Ber
tred, as is granted on all fides.
But Hugh Cyveliok never had any other Wife but Bertred.
Ergo, Amice was a Baftard.
Now the Minor is to be proved by the Affirmer, Oportet Affir-
mantem probare ; To which I anfwer,
Firft, That by this Rule, Sir Peter Leicefter was as much bound
to prove Amicia to be a Baftard, as I am bound to prove that
Hugh Cyveliok had a former Wife ; For he as clearly affirmed
that as I affirm the other, and there is no reafon why Suppo-
fitions fhould pafs for Proofs any more in his cafe, than they
fhould do in mine.
Secondly, That lefs Proof by many degrees will ferve, to prove
a thing that was done long fince, than will be required to prove
that which was done lately. To inftance in one Cafe, which may
[Page 34.] ferve inftead of many. If you be to prove a 3*Deed that was
lately fealed, it will be expefted you produce the Witneffes who

XII.] CLEARLY PROVED. 467
were prefent at the fealing and delivery thereof. If your Deed
was fealed a good while ago, the proving of the Hands will be
required : But if the Deed be fo old, that none alive could know
the Hand-writing of the Witneffes, then the Deed carries its own
Proof with it : And the like reafon there is in all Cafes of Anti
quity, and efpecially in thofe that are fo very antient as this is.
For, if I did only prove her called a Daughter, being it is fo long
fince, fhe ought to be prefumed Legitimate, unlefs the contrary
do appear. For the proving fhe was not by Bertred, does not
prove that fhe was a Baftard ; But onely proves that fhe was
either a Baftard, or elfe by a former Wife : And our Law at this
day is, That a Baftard cannot be proved a Baftard but in his
Life-time ; and fo it anciently was alfo, as appears by the old
Treatife called Fleta, lib. 6. cap. ^g.Jecl. 14. where it is thus faid,
Si autem poft mortem alicujus opponatur Baftardia, non allocabi-
tur ; cum dejunclus ad talem exceptionem rejpondere non poterit.
Now, if a Perfon cannot be proved a Baftard immediately after
his 35 death, becaufe he cannot anfwer for himfelf, What reafon [Page3s.j
is there to charge Amice with Baftardy fo many hundred years
after her deceafe. And efpecially upon, imagination onely, with
out direft proof for the fame. And proof cannot fo eafily or
truly be had feveral Hundreds of years after the Parties deceafe*
as it might have been had within a few years after the Party
was dead.
Thirdly, If this Argument would hold as it is here framed, we
fhould have almoft nothing but Baftards in the ancient times :
For if all muft be Baftards, if we could not tell who their Mo
thers were, nor direclly prove who their Fathers married, we
might then conclude, moft Perfons to be Baftards that lived in
the firft and fecond Centuries after the Conqueft. I fhall not
offer to put the Cafe upon any other Family but my own (though
it doth reach a multitude of others.) But as to my own, if I
miftake not, I find Eight perfons whofe Wives we are altogether
ignorant of, and Six of thofe perfons left Iffue, all which Iffue,

468 THE LEGITIMACY OF AMICIA [xii.
by this Argument, would be Baftards, which I am confident no
[Page 36.] reafonable man can or will 36 fuppofe ; I fhall inftance only in
one, viz, Roger Menilguarin, who in the Reign of King Henry
the Firft, as you may fee in the Firft Part of Monafticon Anglica-
num, Pag. 985. gave P lumley (a place in Chejhire, near to Peover)
to the Abby of S. Werburge at Chejler; and as it appears by the
faid Record, the faid Roger Mainwaring had Three Sons, Wil
liam, Randle, and Wido. Now if Sir Peter fhould affirm, that
the faid William, Randle, and Wido were Legitimate, which I
verily believe he would not fcruple to do, I could thus frame his
own Argument againft him.
If Roger Melinguarin had no Wife, then, William, Randle, and
Wido Sons of the faid Roger, were certainly Baftards : But Roger
Melinguarin aforefaid had no Wife. Ergo, &c.
Now if this Argument would hold againft Amicia, it would
alfo hold againft thefe Three Children of Roger Mainwaring,
and indeed againft all other Perfons whofe Fathers we could hot
dire6lly, and in terminis, prove to have been married, (the Proof
[Page 37.] lying on the Affirmers fide) 37the Abfurdity of which is fo great,
'that Sir Peter himfelf cryes, God jorbid all Children Jhould be
concluded Baftards, whoje Mothers cannot be proved.
Alfo it is very hard, if poffible, to tell whofe Daughter the
Wife of Robert de Ferrars, the firft Earl of Ferrars and Derby
was, and yet he was certainly married, and had Iffue William
Ferrars, who lived not to be Earl, and Robert de Ferrars who
fucceeded his faid Father Robert, in the Earldom, and Wakelin
de Ferrars, and a Daughter named Ifolda, married to Stephen de
Beauchamp, and another Daughter married to Walchelin Mami-
not. So alfo it is unknown who was the Wife of the fecond
Robert de Ferrars Earl of Ferrars and Derby, and yet he alfo
was certainly married, and had Iffue William his Son, who fuc
ceeded him in the faid Earldom ; fo alfo we cannot find who was

XII.] CLEARLY PROVED. 469
the Wife of Ralph de Maunt Earl of Hereford, and yet he was
certainly married, and left Iffue-male. So alfo William de Mo-
hun, the Third of that name, and the firft Earl of Somerfet or
Dorjet, (for thofe two Counties alwayes going together in thofe
elder times, and both ferved 3sby one Sheriff (as you may fee in [Page 38.]
Vincent upon Brooke, Pag. 472.) gave occafion of indifferency to
give the attribute of either, to him that had tertium denarium,
the third peny of them) was alfo certainly married, for his
Grandchild Reginold de Mohun was Earl of Somerfet after him ;
and yet our Authors, who write of thefe things, do not know
whofe Daughter the Wife of the faid William de Mohun was ;
And to name no more of very many other Noblemen, whofe
Wives are not known, what great wonder is it that we do not
know who was the firft Wife of Hugh Cyveliok, by whom he had
only Iffue-female, when it is not known who were the Wives, of
the above-named great Perfons, although they had Iffue Male,
by the faid Wives : And which is worthy of obfervation, if Ber
tred the fecond Wife of the faid Earl Hugh, had dyed before her
faid Husband, as his firft Wife did, we had not known whofe
Daughter the faid Bertred had been ; for I think there is no
ancient Hiftorian, who doth fpeak thereof; neither do I know
of any Record, except thofe which relate to the faid Bertreds
Joynture or Dower, which do tell whofe Daughter the faid Ber
tred was.
39 3. Thirdly, It hath been objected, That whatfoever is given [Page39.]
in Frank Marriage, is given as a Portion : But the giving of the
Services of three Knights Fees in Frank Marriage, for which the
Services of two Knights Fees are to be done, doth not feem to
be a competent Portion, for a Legitimate Daughter of the Earl
of Chefter.
To which I anfwer, That the reafon why Sir Peter Leicefter
calls it a Portion, is, becaufe he would have it thought that this
was all her Portion ; and thence would infer, that fhe was Illegi-

470 THE LEGITIMACY OF AMICIA [xii.
timate, becaufe fo very little was given with her ; But this doth
not well agree with what Sir Peter fayes in the 135 Page of his
Hiftorical Antiquities, and 63 Page of his Anfwer to my Defence
oi Amicia, where he tells us, That Baftards in thofe elder Ages,
were not of fuch difrepute as now in our dayes ; And that the
ancient Northern People admitted* Baftards to fucceed in their
Inheritance, and that William the Conqueror was not afhamed
of that Title, who began his Letter to Alan Earl of Little
Britain, (as he did many others) Ego Willielmus cognomento
[Page 40.] Baftardus; fo 40that I think any Man that will weigh things
indifferently, will eafily and readily conclude, That if fhe had
been but a Baftard, yet being a Baftard of fo great an Earl,
and being married to Sir Ralph Mainwaring, who was no in-
confiderable Perfon, fhe would have had a far greater Portion
than thofe Services upon thofe terms they were given ; for thofe
Services fo given, would not be a Portion anfwerable to the
Eftate of an Ordinary Countreyman ; And this is fo clear, that
when Sir Peter Leicefter was told, that it was like Sir Ralph
Mainwaring had a great deal more with Amicia, he confeffeth
Pag. 71. of his Anfwer. to the Defence oi Amicia, It may be fo,
What then ? So that you may fee he was at laft convinced,
that thofe Services could not be her whole Portion ; And though
we cannot now tell what Portion the faid Sir Ralph Mainwaring
had, yet it is very probable that the Lordfhip of Henbury in
Chejhire, might be part of the Portion of the faid Amicia; for
as appears in Six Peter Leicefter's Hiftorical Antiquities, Pag. 107.
Henbury was one of thofe Towns which Hugh Lupus held in De-
[Page 41.] mefne ; And I do not find that any Mainwaring was 41 poffeffed
thereof before Sir Ralph Mainwaring, who was Husband to the
, faid Amicia, neither have I ever yet feen or heard of any Record
or Deed which fhews how Henbury firft came to the Main
warings. But befides what is here faid, Sir Peter Leicefter's Rule, That
whatfoever is given in Frank Marriage, is given as a Portion ;

XII.] CLEARLY PROVED. 47 1
cannot hold good ; for any perfon that pleafeth may give a
Woman a Portion, but no man can give any thing in Frank
Marriage, with any Woman but fuch as is of his whole Bloud :
as Sifter or Coufin collateral within the fourth Degree, fo as
they may not Enter-marry by the Law. As Mr. Hughes fays
in his Grand Abridgment of the Law, p. 970.
4. Fourthly, It hath been objected, That the Antient Hifto
rians of our Nation, as Polichronicon, writ by the Monk of Chefter,
Henry Knighton, the Monk of Leicefter, and others ; alfo Stow
and Cambden have Recorded the Lawful Daughters and Coheirs
of Earl Hugh. And alfo the Record of 18 Hen. 3. And had
Amice been a Legitimate Daughter, it is 42likely that thefe Hif- [Page42.]
torians would not have omitted her, but of her there is A hum
filentium among all the Hiftorians and Records.
To which I anfwer, That in this Argument, there is no weight
at all ; for thofe Hiftorians which Sir Peter Leicefter doth fpeak
of there, do not take upon them to give an account of all the
Children of Earl Hugh, but only to tell who were the Heirs of
Randle Blundevil which none of his Sifters could be, unlefs fuch
as were of the whole Bloud to him ; and of this Sir Peter was fo
fenfible, that in his Hiftorical Antiquities, p. 138. he doth confefs,
that this is not a fure evincing Argument ; but Sir Peter did
forget himfelf, when he faid there was Ahum filentium concern
ing Amicia, among all the Hiftorians which he there named ;
for Mr. Cambden, which is one of thofe which Sir Peter himfelf
doth there mention, as he tells us, who were the Coheirs of
Randle Blundevil, fo he takes notice of the Wife of the faid
Ralph Menilwarin or Mainwaring, and that without any Brand
of Baftardy at all, as you may fee in his Britannia, in his De-
fcri-43ption of the Country of Chefter, whofe words are thefe: [Page43.]
Cum jam D anus fub Northwich, de qua dixi, cum wevero aquas
confociaverit, in occafum recla prolabiturWever, Peverumq; recipit
ab ortu, Qui praterfiuit, & nomen facit Pevero, ubi habet fedem

472 THE LEGITIMACY OF AMICIA [xii.
vetufta ilia nobilis familia de Meinilwarin vulgo Manewaring,
e qua Radulphus duxit fi Ham Hugonis Kevelioc Comitis Ceftria,
ut conftat ex charta antiqua penes Ranulphum ejusdem. familia
nunc heredem. And to let you fee how little ftrength there is in
obje-fting, That a Daughter is not Legitimate, becaufe our Hifto
rians do not mention her, I fhall here inform you of one Matilda,
a Daughter to Randle de Micines or Mefchines one of our Earls
of Chefter, who was married to David Earl of Dundee in Scot
land; which David was Brother to Malcolme, and William Kings
of Scotland, and was Nephew to Matilda or Maude who was
Queen of England, and Wife to King Henry the Firft ; and yet
all our antient Hiftorians, except John Bromton, do wholly omit
the faid Maude, and fo alfo doth Sir Peter Leicefter, though he
fpent fo many years in Writing and Reviewing what he had
[Page 44.] written of the Earls 44of Chefter fince the Norman Conqueft;
and fo do all our Modern Writers that I have read : The words
of the faid John Bromton (who writes from the year 588, to the
year 1198.) as they are in his Chronicon, col. 966 and 967. are
thefe :

K

Nno Domini M. Ixix. & Regis Willielmi quarto, Malcolmus
rex Scotorum cum infinita multitudine per Cumberlandiam
verjus orientem Je divertens, vniverjam Tejedale & loca ejus fini-
tima ultra citraq; jeroci depopulatione vaftavit. Depopulataq;
quadam parte Clivelandia quafi ex fubito Herjernejfe occupavit.
Indeq; per terras Jancli Cuthberti difcurrens, multos rebus & vita
privavit, villas & ecclejias cum iis qui in eas conjugerant, concre-
mando, Jenes & vetula gladiis obtruncantur, alii indifferenter
conjodiuntur, raptiq; ab uberibus matrum parvuli in ahum proji-
# ciuntur, & lanceis excipiuntur : hac enim crudelitate maxima Scoti
beftiis crudeliores pro ludi Jpeclatulo deleclabantur, qui demum in
terram malam revertentes, juvenes & virgines, robuftos, miferos &
captivos Jecum duxerunt, & eos perpetua Jervitute dampnaverunt,
[Page 45.] in 45 tantum ut vix effet domus in Scotia, qua Jervo aut ancilla
Anglici generis careret. Tunc vero Jecundum quofdam, ifte Mai-

XII.] CLEARLY PROVED. 473
colmus rex Scotia in revertendo de Anglia, diclam Margaretam
dicli Edgari fororem primo invenit, & earn in uxorem duxit, per
quam poft-modum ferocitatem in parte dimifit, & honeftior Jaclus
eft. Et ex qua per proceffum temporis genuit fex filios, & duas
filias, Jcilicet Edwardum primogenitum, qui cum patre interjeclus
fuit ; Edmundum ante patrem decedentem ; Edgarum, qui poft
patrem novem annis regnavit ; Edredum ante patrem decedentem ;
Alexandrum, qui pojt Edgarum Jratrem Juum xvii. annis regnavit,
& David, qui poft Alexandrum jratrem Juum xxix. annis regnavit.
Et ex Matilda de fanclo Licio genuit Henricum comitem Jed non
regnantem. Genuit etiam Malcolmus rex ex dicla Margareta
Malildam poftea regis Anglia Henriei primi uxorem, ex qua pro-
ceffit Matildis imperatrix. Altera quoq; filia Malcolmi, Maria
nomine, Euftachio Comiti Bononia, poftea nupta juit, de qua pro-
cejfit Matilda qua poftea Stephano regi Anglia extitit maritata.
Henrie. vero Comes filius David regis genuit tres filios, Jcilicet
Malcolmum, qui poft David xii. annis ^regnavit; Willielmum [page46.]
qui poft jratrem Juum xlix. annis regnavit, & David Comitem de
Dundee. Willielmus vero rex genuit Alexandrum Jecundum, qui
regnauit xxxv. annis, & genuit Alexandrum tertium, qui xxxvii.
annis regnavit, & genuit Margaretam neptem regis Edwardi
Anglia primi poft conqueftum. David autem comes de Dundee
filius Henriei Comitis genuit ex Matilda filia Ranulphi Comitis
Ceftria iiii. filias, fcilicet Margaretam, Matildam, Ifabellam, &
Aldam. Margareta vero nupfit Alano de Galeway, ex qua pro-
cejjit Devergoil uxor Johannis de Balliolo, qua genuit Johannem
de Balliolo, quem diclus rex Anglia Edwardus primus poft con
queftum in Regem Scotia poft mortem Alexandri tertii prajecit.
Altera vero filia dicla Margareta Elena nomine, Comitiffa Win
tonia, produxit Comitijfam de Ferers Margaretam, Elenam de la
Souch, & Elizabetham Comitijfam de Boghan. Matilda vero
altera filia David Comitis fine liberis decejfit. Tercia vero filia
ejufdem Comitis David ffabella, nupfit Roberto de Brus qui genuit
Roberlum, & ille Robertus genuit ¦ Robertum regem Scotia, qui
genuit David regem Scotia, cui rex Anglia Edwardus a conqueftu
3P

474 THE LEGITIMACY OF AMICIA [xii.
[Page 47.] tertius fororem fuam Johannam ma-*1 ritavit. Quarta vero filia
A Ida nupfit Henrico de Haftyng, qui genuit Henricum, qui genuit
Johannem. Now if a Daughter to an Earl of Chefter, who was Wife to fo
great a perfon, was omitted by our Hiftorians, what wonder can
it be, if Amicia the Daughter of Hugh Cyveliok, and the Wife of
Ralph Mainwaring, was alfo omitted by them ? And as John
Bromton did mention the faid Matilda, becaufe he did know
there was fuch a one, though other Hiftorians were ignorant
thereof ; and as Mr. Cambden did take notice of the Wife of the
faid Ralph, becaufe he had feen the Deed which proved it, in the
hands of my Great Grandfather Randle (who was afterwards Sir
Randle Mainwaring Knight) fo I fuppofe that our other Authors,
both Antient and Modern, would have mentioned the faid Ma
tilda and Amicia, if they had feen what John Bromton, and Mr.
Cambden did fee.
5. Fifthly, It hath been objected, That without any alteration
[Page 48.] made by any Aft of Parliament, the Common-48 Law in fundry
things is alter'd at this day, from what it was in former ages,
long after Henry the Second, Coke upon Littleton, fol. 34. feci:. 39.
Coke ibid. fol. 3. a. fol. 8. a. at the bottom of the Page, and on the
other fide of the bottom, and fol. 26. b. feft. 29. wherein there is
fuppofed to be Proofs that the Common-Law is altered in many
things without any Aft of Parliament, from what it was in thofe
elder times.
To which I anfwer,
1. Firft, That if the Common-Law had been or could be
altered other ways than by Aft of Parliament, yet it would
make nothing, as to the Point in hand, unlefs the Common-Law
had been altered in the Cafe of Frank Marriage itfelf.
*
2. Secondly. That Sir Peter Leicefter did miftake himfelf

XII.] CLEARLY PROVED. 475
when he thought my Lord Coke faid, that the Common-Law
had been altered in thofe particulars, which Sir Peter doth men
tion in thefe places that are cited before ; Indeed my Lord Coke
tells us, that the Common-Law was taken and holden fometimes
differently from what it is ta-49ken now, and withal, fol. 8. b. at [Page49.]
the bottom tells us, that if it be an antient Grant, it muft be
expounded as the Law was taken at the time of the Grant ;
And thefe Cafes which Sir Peter Leicefter doth cite, are fome of
thofe which my Lord Coke doth bring to prove that the Com
mon Law was differently taken in former Ages in fome things,
from what it is taken to be in this Age, but not to prove that
there was a change of the Common Law, without an Aft of
Parliament ; To inftance therefore in every one of thofe parti
culars which Six Peter Leicefter hath as aforefaid taken notice of;
In that in fol. 34. feft. 39. my Lord Coke tells us, that in antient
times, as it appeareth by Glanvil, lib. 6. cap. 1. It was taken that
a Man could not have endowed his Wife Ad oftium Ecclefia, of
more than a third part, but of lefs he might ; But at this day the
Law is taken, as Littleton here holdeth. But my Lord Coke fays
not that the Law is altered therein from what it was ; fo alfo fol.
3. a. he fays, The Parifhioners or Inhabitants, or Probi homines of
Dale, or the Churchwardens, are not capable to purchafe Lands,
but Goods they are, unlefs 50it were in antient time, when fuch [Page 50.]
Grants were allowed ; here my Lord Coke fays not one word
that the Common Law is herein altered, but only that fome
kind of Grants were allowed then, which would not be allowed
now, and this agrees with that f. 8. b. on the other fide at the
bottom, where he fays, if it be an antient Grant, it muft be ex
pounded as the Law was taken at the time of the Grant, fo alfo
fol. 8. a. at the bottom of the page. He fays of antient time the
Heir was permitted to have an Aftion of Debt upon a Bond
made to his Anceftors and his Heirs, but the Law is not fo holden
at this 'day ; fo in that fol. 26. b. feft. 29. But it hath been faid,
that if a Man give Land to another, and to his Heirs of the Body
of fuch a Woman lawfully begotten ; that this is no Eftate Tail

476 THE LEGITIMACY OF AMICIA [xii.
for the uncertainty by whom the Heirs fhall be begotten, for
that the Brother of the Donee or other Coufin, may have Iffue
by the Woman which may be Heir to the Donee, and Eftates in
Tail muft be certain ; therefore our Author, to make it plain in
all his Cafes, added to thefe words (his heirs) which he fhall In-
[PageSi.] gender. But that opinion is fince our Author 51 wrote overrul'd,
and that Eftate judged to be an Eftate Tail, and begotten fhall
be neceffarily intended begotten by the Donee.
So that my Lord Coke, doth not in any of thofe places fay ;
that the Law is therein altered, but he all along avoids that
expreffion, and only tells us, that fuch and fuch Grants were
allowed, the Law was fo and fo taken, and fo and fo holden, and
fuch and fuch an opinion hath been over-rul'd, and accordingly
all fuch other like expreffions of my Lord Coke, are thus to be
underftood ; But withal it muft be acknowledged (as was before
expreffed) that in thofe particular Cafes, where the Law hath
been holden otherwife, then it is holden now, that if it be an
antient Grant, it muft be expounded, as the Law was taken at
the time of the faid Grant. And thus, as you may fee Coke
upon Littleton, fol. 21. b. in the Cafe of Piers de Saltmarjh, and
others, it was judged in King Edward the Third's time, and in
King Edward the Fourth's time, That a Man might give Land
to his Son in Frank Marriage, but in King Henry the Eigth's
time it was holden otherwife, the former Books being not re-
[Page52.] membred; but notwithftand-52ing, that this Point was judged
thus differently, the Law was ftill the fame, and all that can be
faid is, that fome of the Judges did not judge right, according to
the Common Law ; and indeed, if this Rule of Sir Peter Lei
cefter's was true, that becaufe the Judges in one Age did take
the Common Law to be otherways, than it was taken in former
Ages, that therefore the Common Law was changed : The Judges
then could never do contrary to the Common Law ; for when
they had declared (though erroneoufly) that the Common Law
ought to be otherwife taken, than it was formerly, the Common
Law by Sir Peter's Rule, would be thereupon changed, and what

XII.] CLEARLY PROVED. 477
they did, would ever be Legal, the abfurdity whereof every one
may eafily difcern.
And indeed my Lord Coke is fo far from being of opinion that
the Common Law hath or can be changed, unlefs by Aft of
Parliament, that in the firft Part of his Inftitutes, fol. 115. b. he
tells us, That whatfoever was at the Common Law, and is not
oufted or taken away by any Statute, remaineth ftill. And a few
lines lower he alfo fays, The Common Law hath no Controler
in any Part 53of it, but the High Court of Parliament, and if [Page 53.]
it be not abrogated or altered by Parliament, it remains ftill.
6. Sixthly, It hath been objefted, that in this very particular
Cafe of Frank-Marriage the Law is different now from what it
was in thofe former Ages, and this hath been pretended to be
proved by the words of Glanvil, who lived in the fame Age with
Amicia (and as Sir Henry Spelman tells us) was the firft that
reduced our Law into Writing ; as alfo by the words of Braclon,
who was the fecond that did Write of our Englifh Laws, and
lived in the time of King Henry the Third, as alfo by Precedents
of fome Lands given to Geva the Wife of Geffrey Riddel, and
Daughter of Hugh Lupus, and to Joane the Wife of Lhewellin,
Prince of North-wales, and Daughter of King John; which Gifts
of the faid Lands Sir Peter Leicefter will have to be Gifts in
Frank-Marriage, and alfo fays that the faid Geva, and Joane,
were both of them Baftards :
And to make this out, Sir Peter in that Book of his, which he
was pleafed to call vny Law Cajes Miftaken, pag. 5 & 6. 54 names [PageS4.]
us feven feveral particulars, which he calls Parcels of the Law in
Glanvil'.:-* time and thofe more antient Ages ; and Sir Peter fays
they are contrary to thofe produced by me. But all thefe feven
Parcels of Sir Peter's Law, are eafily anfwered ; for neither Glan
vil, nor any other Author that I can find, ever faid any word of
the firft fix of them ; and as to the feventh, though he there tells
us that Earls and great Lords in thofe former Ages, did often

478 THE LEGITIMACY OF AMICIA [xii.
Join with their Mothers, who then had the Tuition of them in
Deeds and Charters, whiles they were very young, yet, as will
appear anon, I believe there will be but one fingle Precedent
found, in which any young Lord, who was under Age, Joined
with his Mother, and did ufe her feal to any Charter or Deed ;
neither will that Cafe relate to this oi Amicia in the leaft degree,
But let us take a view of thofe words of Glanvil, lib. 7. c. 1. which
Sir Peter Leicefter doth fo much relie upon as they are by him
truly quoted in the feventh page of the fecond of his two Books,
which words are thefe :
[Page 55.] 65 T N aiid acceptione accipitur Dos fecundum leges Romanas :
J- fecundum quas proprie" appellatur Dos, id quod cum muliere
datur viro : quod vulgariter dicitur Maritagium : Poteft itaq;
quilibet liber homo, terram habens, quandem partem terra Jua
cum filid Jud, vel cum aliqud aiid qudlibet muliere, dare in mari
tagium, five habuerit haredem five non, valit hares vel non, imo
& eo contradicente.
Alfo lib. 7. cap. 18. Maritagium, autem aliud nominatur li
berum, aliud Servitio obnoxium : liberum dicitur maritagium,
quando aliquis liber homo aliquam partem terra fua dat cum
aliqud muliere alicui in maritagium, itd quod ab omni fervitio
terra ilia fit quieta, & a Je & haredibus Juis, verfus capitalem
Dominum acquietanda : &¦ in hdc quidem libertate ita ftabit terra
ilia ujque ad tertium haredem: nee interim tenebuntur haredes
inde jacere aliquod homagium : Poft tertium verb haredem, ad
debitum Jervitium terra ipfa revertetur ; & homagium inde capi-
etur. Quia, fo fuerit pars feodi militaris, pro quantitate terra
• fervitium feodi inde preftabit.
[Page 56.] 56Solet autem quandoq; terra aliqua dari in maritagio, Salvo
& retento debito Jervitio ipfo Capitali Domino : & tunc quidem
tenebuntur maritus mulieris ipfous : & haredes Jui Jervitium id
facere, fed fine homagio ufque ad tertium haredem.

XII.] CLEARLY PROVED. 479
And thefe are all the words of Glanvil, which Sir Peter doth
any where Cite, which do relate to any Gifts made either in
Free-Marriage, or in Marriage liable to Services.
And here let me obferve, that whereas I have many times
blamed Sir Peter Leicefter for fo often affirming that Glanvil
faid that Lands might be given with any Woman in liberum
maritagium, whereas Glanvil had faid no fuch thing, that Sir
Peter at the laft, in the fecond Page of that Reply, which he
calls the Second Reply, fays, Though Glanvil hath not theje very
words  Lands may be given with any Woman in liberum Ma
ritagium ; yet he faith it by confequence drawn clearly out of
his words, lib. 7. cap. 18. which (Sir Peter fays) is the fame in
effeft. So that Sir Peter with much ado 57doth acknowledge [Page 57.]
that Glanvil hath not exprefly faid any fuch thing, onely it
feems he fancied, that the fame may be by confequence drawn
out of Glanvil's words ; which how Sir Peter did prove I am
now to enquire into. As for thofe words which Glanvil hath,
lib. 7. cap. 1. they cannot prove any fuch thing ; for thofe words,
Poteft itaque quilibet liber homo, terram habens, quandem partem
terra Jua cum filid Jua, vel cum aliqud aiid qudlibet muliere, dare
in maritagium, Jive habuerit haredem five non, velit hares vel non,
imo & eo contradicente. Do only prove that a Man may give
Lands with any Woman in Maritagium, and therefore Marita
gium being two-fold, viz. Maritagium liberum and Maritagium
fervitio obnoxium, Maritagium being the Genus, doth comprehend
both Free-Marriage, and Marriage liable to Services ; fo that if a
Man can give Lands with any Woman in Marriage liable to Ser
vices, he may give Lands with any Woman in Maritagium; and
there never was any doubt made, but that a Man may give Lands
with any Woman whatfoever in Marriage liable to Services ; But
that upon. which Sir Peter doth moft princi-58pally rely, are [Page 58.]
thefe words of Glanvil, lib. 7. cap. 18. Maritagium, autem aliud
nominatur liberum, aliud fervitio obnoxium : liberum dicitur ma
ritagium, quando aliquis liber homo aliquam partem terra fua dat

480 THE LEGITIMACY OF AMICIA [xii.
cum aliqua muliere alicui in Maritagium, itd quodab omnifervitio
terra ilia Jit quieta, & aje & haredibus Juis, verjus capitalem Do-
minum acquietanda.
For from thence, as you may fee in the 54 page of the firft of
his two Books, which he calls his Reply, and again, at the bottom
of the 29 page, and in the 30 page of the fecond of his two Books,
Sir Peter Leicefter frames this Argument :
Glanvil there faith, that a Man may give Land with any Wo
man in Marriage, fo that it be acquit from all Service d fe &
haredibus Juis, verjus capitalem Dominum.
But Land fo given (faith Glanvil) eft liberum Maritagium.
Ergo Glanvil faith, Lands may be given with any Woman in
liberum Maritagium.
[Page 59] 59To which I anfwer, That Sir Peter Leicefter is the firft Man,
that ever, fo far as I can find, went about to prove a Point of
Law by a Syllogifm ; and in this new way of his he hath no
good fuccefs ; for his major and minor Propofitions are both of
them untrue ; for Glanvil neither fays, That a Man may give
part of his Land with any Woman in Marriage, fo that it be
acquit from all Service, a Je & haredibus Juis, verjus capitalem
Dominum. Neither doth Glanvil fay, That Lands fo given (viz.
with any Woman) eft liberum Maritagium, for Glanvil onely
fays, That liberum Maritagium is when a Man gives Lands cum
^ * aliqua muliere alicui in Maritagium, ita quod ab omni
Jervitio terra ilia fit quieta, & a Je & haredibus Juis,
% verjus capitalem Dominum acquietanda; that is, Free-Marriage
is where a Man gives Lands with *fome Woman (viz.
one of his Kindred) in Marriage, fo that it may be ac
quit from all Service, &c. and that Lands fo given with fome
Woman eft liberum Maritagium, but Glanvil doth not here, nor
[Page 60] anywhere elfe 60fay, that Lands may be given with any Woman

XII. J CLEARLY PROVED. 48 1
in Maritagium, fo that it may be acquit from all Service, &c. for
though Sir Peter Leicefter doth here and many times elfewhere
conftrue thefe words (cum aliqua muliere) with any Woman, yet
they are not Latine for with any Woman, but for, with fome Wo
man, for Aliquis when alone without Quilibet, or fome fuch other
like word, is Latine for fome one, but not for any one, as you
may fee in Sir Thomas Eliot's Bibliotheca or Library, Printed
1545. where he renders the word Aliquis thus ; Aliquis, Aliqua,
Aliquod, Some. Aliquis eft, he is a man of no fmall reputation ;
So alfo in Mr. Gouldman's Diftionary printed at Cambridge,
1674. Aliquis vel Aliqui, Aliqua vel Aliqua, Aliquod vel Ali
quid; ex alius & quis: rh evi&, 1J1N. Somewhat, Something,
Some Body, Some One, Aliquis, ut Gratis, Tt?, Capitur pro
homine non objcuro. Ut Jac ut me velis effe aliquem, Cic. i. e.
non prorfus objcurum, Aliquos viginti dies. Plau. i. e. cir titer
viginti dies. Sic. Var. de re ruft. Aliqua Jo Ha quinque. So alfo
Dr. Thomas Holyoke, in that large Diftionary of his Printed
at London, 1677. Aliquis, -vel qui, qua, vel, 61qua, quod, vel [Page 61.]
quid ; ins achad, *rk evi<&. Some Body, Some One, Somewhat,
Something. Aliquis ut Gratis ti?, capitur pro homine non ob
jcuro: ut; fac, ut me velis effe aliquam, Cic. i. e. non prorfus,
obfcurum. IT Aliquos viginti dies, Plaut. Mensec. i. e. circiter
viginti dies, &c.
And fo in Thomas Thomafius, and in other Dictionaries ; fo that
Sir Peter did run himfelf into very many errors, by his miftaking
of the aforefaid words, cum aliqua muliere: for Glanvill is fo far,
from proving the Law in his time to be different in the point of
Frank Marriage from what it is now, that he proves the Law to
be the very fame then in that particular, that it is now ; For he
fayes, as appears before, lib. 7. cap. 1. that Lands may be given
with any Woman whatfoever in Maritagium, which is yet true,
for Lands may yet be given with any Woman whatfoever in
Marriage liable to fervices, and lib. 7. cap. 18. when he tells us
what Liberum Maritagium is, he fayes Lands may be fo given
3Q

482 THE LEGITIMACY OF AMICIA [xii.
cum aliqua Muliere, with fome Woman (viz. with one of the Kin
dred) which alfo is true at this very day.
[Page 62.] 62And hereupon my Lord Coke, who knew the Law much
better than Sir Peter Leicefter, did in the firft Part of his fnfti-
tutes, or Commentary upon Littleton, fol. 21. b. (which is the very
fame fide of the leaf where he tells us, that the Woman or Man
that is the caufe of the Gift in Frank Marriage, muft be of the
Blood of the Donor) cite in the Margent, Glanvill lib. 7. cap. 1.
and cap. 18. which certainly. he would never have done, if Glan
vill inftead of confirming, had direftly contradifted what my
Lord Coke had faid.
7. Seventhly, It hath been objefted by Sir Peter Leicefter,
that Braclon (who lived in the Reign of King Henry the Third,
and was the fecond perfon who fince the Conqueft did write of
our Englifh Laws) doth fay, that Lands might in his time be
given in Frank Marriage with any Woman ; and for that he
citeth thefe words of Braclon, lib. 2. cap. 7. par. 3. Et eft mari
tagium aliquando liberum, Jcilicet ab omni fervitio quietum ; &
aliquando Jervitio obligatum : liberum autem maritagium dicitur,
[Page 63.] ubi donator vult 63quod terra, fie data, quieta Jit & libera ab omni
Jeculari Jervitio, quod ad Dominum Jeodi ppjfit pertinere, & ita
quod ille, cui fie data fuerit, nullum omninb facial inde fervitium
ufqUe ad tertium haredem.
And alfo thefe words oi Braclon, lib. 2. cap. 7. par. 1. Quoniam
terra data Baftardo in maritagium, focut & aliis, vel Baftardo per
Je, inje tacitam habet conditionem vel exprejfam de reverfione — &c.
To which I anfwer, that thofe words of Braclon, lib. 2. cap. 7.
par. 3. do only tell us what a Gift in Frank Marriage is, but
there is not one word amongft thofe which Sir Peter doth there
fet down, which tells us with what kind of perfons, fuch gifts are
to be made. And thofe other words, lib. 2. cap. J. par. 1. do only

XII.] CLEARLY PROVED. 483
prove, that Lands may be given Baftardo in maritagium (which
they alfo may at this day) but there is not one word at all to
prove, That Lands may be given to a Man cum Baftarda,
whereas in this Cafe of Frank Marriage, the Party with whom
the Land is given, not the Party to whom the Land is given, is
the principal thing that is confiderable herein. And though Sir
Peter 64in the 11th Page of that Book of his, which he unjuftly [page64.]
calls, My Law-Cajes Miftaken, fayes that this Anfwer of mine is
very Juperficial and infufficient ; For neither the Party to whom,
nor the Party with whom, is here principally confiderable, but the
Party who is the principal cauje oj the Donation ; yet the contrary
will appear by Braclon' s own words, lib. 2. cap. f.par. 1. which
becaufe Sir Peter cuts off too fhort, with an &c. I will here give
you them more at large out of Braclon himfelf.
QUoniam terra data Baftardo in maritagium, ficut & aliis, vel
Baftardo per Je, in Je tacitam habet conditionem vel exprej-
Jam de reverfoone : ideo videndum fo terra data juerit Baftardo in
maritagium cum aliqua muliere, aut datur ipfos & eorum haredibus
communibus, aut haredibus ipfous uxoris tantum, in primo caju
revertetur ad donatorem, fi dejecerint haredes communes, per mo-
dum taciturn donationis. Si autem fit haredibus uxoris, tunc fi
haredes habuerit de Baftardo, remanebit eorum haredibus communi
bus terra, quia tales erunt haredes uxoris, quamvis communes, fi
autem. communes dejecerint, tunc dejcendit terra fie 65data aliis [Page 65.]
haredibus ipfous uxoris de altero viro vel a latere venientibus.
From which words, it doth plainly appear, that in this cafe
the Woman with whom the Land is given, is the principal thing
that is confiderable herein, and not the Baftard to whom the
Land is given ; For he here only tells us, that when Land is
given Baftardo in maritagium cum aliqua muliere, that aut datur
ipfos & eorum haredibus communibus, aut haredibus ipfous uxoris
tantum ; whereas if the Woman with whom the Land is given,
had not been the principal thing, that is confiderable in the faid

484 THE LEGITIMACY OF AMICIA [xii.
Gift, he would have faid, Aut datur ipfos & eorum haredibus
communibus, aut haredibus ipfous uxoris tantum, aut haredibus
ipfous Mariti tantum. But he fayes not one word of the Land
coming to the Heirs of the Husband alone, though he tells you
it may come to the Heirs of the Wife alone, which doth fully
prove that which I do here affirm, viz. That the Party with whom
the Land is given, is the principal thing that is confiderable, and
that therefore though Lands may be given in liberum marita-
[Page66.] gium Baftardo vel Baftarda, yet they may 66not be fo given cum
Baftardo vel cum Baftarda. Alfo Braclon is fo far from proving
that Land might have been given in his time in Free Marriage
with any Woman whatfoever, that he proves, that fuch Gifts
could only be made with a Woman who was of the blood of the
Donor, his words, lib. 2. cap. "j.par. 3. are thefe; Et Jciendum quod
terra datur aliquando ante Jponjalia & propter nuptias d patre
mulieris vel alio parente ipfo marito cum muliere aliqua vel utrique
femul, Jcilicet tali viro & uxorijua (quod idem eft) & eorum hare
dibus vel alicui mulieri ad fe maritandam, &c. And prefently
after, Fit etiam talis donatio ante Matrimonium contraclum, ali
quando in ipfo contraclu, aliquando poft contraclum.
Which is as much as to fay, That this kind of Gift can only
be made by the Father, Mother, or fome other Kinfman, (For
the word Parens or Parent in Latine and French, hath often
times that fignification ; and we ufually fay, when a Man is of the
fame kindred with fuch a one, that he is of the fame Parentage
with him) And though Sir Peter Leicefter fay in the 47 page of
[Page 67.] the fecond of his 67two Books, that here is not one word to prove
what I alledge it for ; but rather the contrary : For a Father, or
• other Parent, may give Lands with any Woman in exprefs terms,
not to any oj his Kindred only, no fuch word at all. In this Sir
Peter doth again miftake himfelf; For here he doth alfo falfly
conftrue the words, aim muliere aliqua, with any Woman ;
whereas I have before proved, they are not Latine for with any
Woman, but for with fome Woman. And befides, Braclon here

XII.] CLEARLY PROVED. 485
exprefly fpeaks of a Gift made by the Father of the Woman, "or
fome other Parent, (that is, fome other Kinfman) and if the Do
nor was Father or Coufin to the Woman, the Woman muft of
neceffity be either Daughter or Coufin to the Donor. Alfo my
Lord Coke in his Inftitutes upon Littleton, Fol. 21. b. tells us,
That one oj thofe things incident to a Frank Marriage is, that the
Woman or Man that is the caufe of the Gift, be of the blood of the
Donor. And for this, as appears letter (i) he in the margent, cites
Braclon, lib. 2. cap. 7. (which is this very place.) And can any
Man think, that my Lord Coke would have cited that place, and
the aforefaid places in G'lanvill, to have -pro- 63ved that the Wo- [Page 68.]
man or Man who was the caufe of the Gift, muft be of the blood
of the Donor, if Glanvill and Braclon in thofe places, had faid
that fuch Gifts might be made with thofe who were not of the
blood : Alfo to what purpofe fhould the Law have been changed
by the Statute of Weftminfter the fecond, in this cafe of Frank
Marriage, from what it was in ancient times, feeing fince there
were Eftates in tail, there could be no great occafion to make
Gifts in Free Marriages ; and therefore my Lord Coke fays in
his firft Part of Inftitutes, Fol. 178. b. Thatjuch Gifts are almoft
grown out of ufe, and ferve now principally for Moot Cafes and
Queftions in the Law, that were thereupon wont to arife.
8. Eighthly, It hath been objefted, That Geva was a bafe
daughter of Hugh Lupus, and that fhe had Lands given her in
Frank Marriage, as doth appear by this following Deed.
RAnulfus Comes Ceftria Willielmo Conftabulario & Roberto
Dapifero & omnibus Baronibus fuis & hominibus Fran
cois & Angiitis totius Anglia falutem. Sciatis me dediffe & [Page 69.]
concejfijfe Geva Ridell filia Comitis Hughes Draytunam cum
pertinentiis in libero conjugio, ficuti Comes Hughes ei in libero
conjugio dedit & conceffit. Et teneat bene & in pace, honorifice,
& libere, ut melius & liberius tenuit tempore Hugonis Comitis &
aliorum meorum antecejforum eijdem confuetudinibus & libertati-

486 THE LEGITIMACY OF AMICIA [xii.
bus. Teftibus Gilberto filio Ricardi, & Adelizd forore mea, &
Willielmo Blundo, & Alexandro de Trejgor, & Rogero de Bello-
campo, & Willielmo de Sais, & Roberto, de Sais, & Ricardo filio
Aluredi, & Hugone filio Osberti, & Henrico de Chalder : Apud
Saintonam. To which I anfwer firft, That there is no proof at all, that the
faid Geva was a Baftard ; And fecondly, That the faid Gift was
not a Gift in Frank Marriage.
Firft, I fay, there is no proof that the" faid Geva was a Baftard,
neither doth any Author either ancient or modern call her fo,
except Sir Peter Leicefter alone. And fhe is by one very know-
[Page 7o.] ing perfon exprefly faid to be a legitimate Child. In-70 deed Sir
Peter hath very often pofitively faid, that Ordericus did fay fhe
was a Baftard, but in his Second Reply, (which is the fixth
Treatife he did write concerning Amicia) after he had been
many times told, that Ordericus had faid no fuch thing, he is
forced page 3. to confefs, that Ordericus hath not thefe very
words (Geva is a Baftard) but yet he pretends, that by fure
confequence it follows out of the words of Ordericus, that fhe
was a Baftard, which (he fays) is all one to effeft ; And to make
this out, he cites Ordericus lib. 4. Ecclefiaftica Hiftoria, Pag. 522.
whofe words are thefe, E Pellicibus plurimam Sobolem utriufque
fexus genuit, qua diverfis infortuniis abforbta pene tota periit:
Ermentrudem filiam Hugonis de Claromonte Beluacenfi uxorem
duxit, ex qud Ricardum' Ceftr enfis Comitates haredem genuit, qui
juvenis liberijque Carens naujragio periit. But becaufe thofe
words do not prove that Geva was one of thofe Baftards which
tHugh Lupus had, he doth not fo very much infift upon them, as
he doth upon what Ordericus doth write, Lib. 10. Ecclefiaft. Hift.
pag. 'ji'j. where Ordericus fays thus, Ricardus Pulcherrimus puer,
[Page 71.] quem Jolum ex Ermentrude ^ filid Hugonis de Claromonte genuit,
Conjulatum ( Ceftria Jcilicet) tenuit ; For he fays that thefe words
of Ordericus do put it out of doubt, that Earl Hugh only begot

XII.] CLEARLY PROVED. 487
Richard on Ermentrude his Wife, and fays that then by fure
confequence out of thofe words it muft needs follow, that Geva
was one of the Earl's Baftards, We being no Child by Ermentrude
his Wife ; But by thofe words, Richardus autem pulcherrimus puer
quem Jo lum ex Ermentrude filia Hugonis de Claromonte genuit ;
Ordericus might as well mean, that he was the onely Son which
Earl Hugh had by Ermentrude, as that he was the onely Child
that he had by her ; For there is no neceffity to take the word
Jolum adverbially, neither is it marked as an Adverb in Orderi-
cus's Book, though it be fo in Sir Peter's, and yet in Ordericus's
Book, Adverbs are ufually marked. And though Sir Peter Lei
cefter alledge, that Ordericus doth not fay quem Jolum filium,
as I interpret him, but indefinitely, quem Jolum ex Ermentrude
genuit ; and fo, whether Jolum be underftood adverbially, or
whether it be taken for a noun, no more can be made of it in "
Englijh than thus, Richard a beautiful Youth, whom only Earl
Hugh begot 72on Ermentrude, &c. and fo, whether we Englifh it, [page72.]
whom only he begot, or whom he only begot, it retains the fame
fenfe, and fhews that no other perfon, either Son or Daughter,
was begotten on Ermentrude by Earl Hugh. I muft take leave
to diffent from him herein ; For, I conceive this expreffion of quem
folum genuit, doth amount to as much as if he had faid quem
folum- filium genuit ; which if it do, then (notwithftanding the
faid expreffion) Earl Hugh might poffibly have a Daughter or
Daughters by the faid Ermentrude ; For, to what Antecedent
can the word quem fo properly relate, as to the word puer f and
if fo, then quem Jolum puerum, is as much as quem Jolum filium,
and fo doth not exclude him from having a Daughter or Daugh
ters by the faid Ermentrude ; For, though the word puer be by
fome underftood to fignifie a Child of either Sex, as Sir Peter
Leicefter alfo feems to take it in his Hiftorical Antiquities, pag.
113. & 114. (But mifprinted 121. & 122.) Yet Mr. Gouldman in
his Diftionary will tell us that it is a miftake, where on the word
puer he thus writes, Nonnullis habetur communis generis, Jed male,
ex Ovidiano Wo carmine, de Iphide puella in puerum mutata,

488 THE LEGITIMACY OF AMICIA [xii.
[Page 73. ] 73 Z)om puer jolvit qua jcemina voverat Iphis.
And though Sir Peter Leicefter fays, that Geva could not be by
any former Wife, becaufe Earl Hugh had never any other Wife ;
yet that is mqre than either Sir Peter Leicefter or I know ; for
there were' many things done in thofe Ages which never came to
our knowledges.
Neither is there any force in what Sir Peter doth alledge, that
probably if Hugh Lupus had any more Legitimate Children by
his Wife befides Earl Richard, either Son or Daughter, that Or
dericus would have recorded them as well as others, being indeed
his ufual method through the whole courfe of his Hiftory. For
he could have no Legitimate Son but Earl Richard, unlefs he
had another Wife befides Ermentrude (Ordericus being exprefs
therein) and poffibly for fome Reafons he might have another
Wife befides Ermentrude : But whether Geva was by a firft or
fecond Wife, I know no neceffity to conclude that Ordericus
[Page 74.] fhould Record her, I finding no fuch 74 ufual method of his, as
this which Sir Peter fpeaks of: For he doth not (that I fee)
make it his bufinefs to Record what Wives or Children the Earls
of Chefter, and other great Men had, but onely fpeaks of them
occafionally, and fo he doth alfo of fome of their Illegitimate
Children ; but if he made it his defign to give an exaft account
of thefe things, he ought to reckon Geva, either amongft the
Lawful, Doubtful, or Illegitimate Children of Hugh Lupus.
And as to Sir Peter's Objeftion, That if Geva had been Le
gitimate, her Iffue ought to have fucceeded into the Earldom
» of Chefter, rather than Randle de Mejchines after the death of
Richard Earl of Chefter ; That doth not neceffarily follow, whe-
therfoever Geva was a lawful Daughter of Hugh Lupus by a
former Wife, or that fhe was his Daughter by his Wife Ermen
trude: For if fhe was his Daughter by a former Wife, fhe would
be but of the half Bloud to Richard Earl of Chefter, and then

XII.] CLEARLY PROVED. 489
Randle de Mejchines would be Heir before her ; But it feems to
me, that Randle de Mejchines was not the next Heir to Earl
Richard ; for as 75Mr. Cambden in his Britannia, in his Defcrip- [Page 75.;
tion of Chejhire, tells us, [which is alfo fpoken of by Sir Peter in
his Hiftorical Antiquities, pag. 105.] King William commonly
called The Conqueror, created Hugh Lupus Count Palatine of
Cfiefter, Totumq; hunc comitatum tenendum fibi, & haredibus ita
libere ad Gladium : Jicut ipfe Rex tenebat Angliam ad coronam,
dedit; (hac enim funt verba Donationis) qui ftatim fibi Barones
Jubftituit, &c. fo that this Earldom by the words of the faid
Grant, being not tied up to the Heirs Males of the Body of the
faid Hugh Lupus, nor to the Heirs of the Body of the faid Hugh,
but to his Heirs in general, if Randle de Mejchines had been the
next Heir to Hugh Lupus, the Earldom would have defcended
to the faid Randle, but that it did not do ; for James York in his
Union oj Honor, pag. 105. fays, That this Randle was made Earl
by Grant of King Henry the Firft ; and Sir Peter Leicefter in his
Hiftorical Antiquities, pag. 118. (for which he cited Ordericus, a
contemporary Author, pag. 876.) tells us, that the faid Randle
reftored to King Henry all the Lands which he had by his Wife
the Widow oi Roger l6de Romara, for the Earldom of Chefter ; [Page 76.;
which he did not need to have done, if he had been the next
Heir ; fo that I cannot imagine any reafon of this new Grant to
Randle de Mejchines, unlefs Geva was a Legitimate Daughter ; but
if Geva was a Legitimate Daughter of Hugh Lupus, then there
might a Cafe happen, which would make it neceffary that who
ever was Earl of Chefter, muft have a new Grant ; for if Earl
Richard, when he died left two Sifters, viz. Geva and another
Sifter, the Earldom would be then at an end ; for as you may
fee in Vincent's Correclion of Brooke, pag. 545. if an Earldom be
conferred upon any perfon and his Heirs, if that perfon, or who
ever elfe fucceeds him doth die, leaving two or more Daughters,
or two or more Sifters to be his Heirs, in this cafe the Earldom
doth Efcheate, and fall into the Kings hands, becaufe it could
not be divided ; for though Lands may, yet Honor non poteft
3R

49O THE LEGITIMACY OF AMICIA [xii.
dividi ; and how eafily might Geva have a Sifter, who might
die young prefently after the death of Richard Earl of Chefter,
without being taken notice of by our Authors, doth clearly ap-
[Page77.] pear ^y the former Precedents 77in the like Cafes ; and if Geva
and another Sifter of hers were both living when Earl Richard
died, the Earldom would extinguifh, and being once extin-
guifhed, could not revive again, upon the death of the faid
Geva's Sifter ; And whereas it hath been objefted by Sir Peter
Leicefter in the 39 page of his anfwer, That if Geva had been
Legitimate, it is more than probable, fhe would have looked
after the obtaining of fo great an Inheritance, yea, and obtained
it too before Randle ; Nay had fhe been but of the half Blood,
fhe would by all probability have buzled hard for fo great an
Eftate in thofe Ages, before fhe had loft it. In this Sir Peter
was miftaken ; for if fhe had been but of the half Blood, I have
before proved that any Kinfman or Kinfwoman, though never fo
remote, would have inherited Earl Richard's Lands before the
faid Geva; and if Geva was Legitimate and fole Daughter to
Hugh Lupus by his Wife Ermentrude, and confequently only
Sifter of the whole Blood to Earl Richard, yet it doth not ne-
ceffarily follow, that fhe would have had the Lands ; for when
[Page 78.] Randle Blundevill died, 78his Sifters of the whole Bloud, had
not the Eftate of the faid Randle, but John Scot, eldeft Son to
Maude the eldeft Sifter of the faid Randle, was Earl of Chefter ;
and when the faid John Scot died, leaving only Sifters to be his
Heirs, none of the Husbands or Sons of any of the faid Sifters
of the faid John Scot, was made Earl ; and the faid King Henry
III. alfo laid that fair Inheritance unto the Domaine of the
Crown, and affigned other Revenues elfewhere to the faid Heirs.
The words of Mr. Cambden in his Britannia in his Defcription of
Chejhire, fpeaking of John Scot, axe thefe, Qui cum itidem nulla
Jujcepta prole diem obiijjet, Rex Henricus tertius tam lauto patri-
monio, oculum adjiciens, Domanio Regio adjcripfit, Johannijq;
Jororibus alios alibi reditus ajfignavit ; Ne (ut ipfe Rex dixit)
tanta hareditas inter colos diduceretur ; And as the Sifters of

XII.] CLEARLY PROVED. 49 1
the faid Randle Blundevill and the Sifters of the faid John Scot,
though they did not inherit the Earldom, had fome other Lands
given them, and were well provided for, fo Geva Sifter of Earl
Richard, as you may fee in Sir William Dugdale's firft Part of
the Baronage oj "England, pag. 34. b. 79had alfo Lands given unto [Page79.]
her, and was married to Geffrey Ridell, who is there faid to be an
eminent Man in thofe days, viz. Juftice of England under King
Henry the Firft ; and it is certain that when Earl Richard died,
his Lands did not defcend to the next Heir ; for if Geva was his
next Heir, fhe had them not ; and if Geva was not his next
Heir, then Randle de Bricajard, by fome called Randle de Mi-
cenis or Randle Mejchines was his next Heir,, and though the
faid Randle de Mejchines had the Lands of Earl Richard, Son of
Hugh Lupus, yet they came not to him by defcent ; for as I have
before fhewed out of Ordericus Vitalis, and out of Sir Peter Lei
cefter's Hiftorical Antiquities, the faid Randle reftored to King
Henry tlie Firft, all the Land which he had by his Wife, the
Widow of Roger de Romara for the Earldom of Chefter ; and it
is alfo plain that the faid Randle did give Mony for the faid Earl
Richard's Lands ; for it appears Rot. Pip. de An. 5 Regis Steph.
Rot. 12. M. 1. Line, that in the faid fifth year of King Stephen,
Ranulph Earl of Chefter (Son to the faid Randle de Mejchines) is
certified to be indebted to the 80King in a thoufand Pounds, De [page8o.]
debito patris Jui, pro terra Hugonis Comitis. So that here is no
Proof at all, that the faid Geva was an unlawful Child.
But fecondly, If there had been any Proof, that the faid Geva
had been a Baftard, yet it would have been nothing to the Cafe
in hand, becaufe the faid Gift unto the faid Geva was not a Gift
in Frank-Marriage ; if we perufe what my Lord Coke upon Lit
tleton fays, Jol. 21. b. he will there tell us, that thefe words In
liberum Maritagium, are fuch words of Art, and fo neceffarily
required as they cannot be expreffed by words equipollent or
amounting to as much. As if a man give Lands to another with
his Daughter in Connubio Joluto ab omni fervitio, &c. yet there

492 THE LEGITIMACY OF AMICIA [xii.
paffeth in this Cafe but an Eftate for Life ; for feeing that thefe
words In liberum Maritagium create an Eftate of Inheritance
againft the general Rule of Law, the Law requireth that they
fhould be legally purfued. And in this Deed to Geva, the words
are not in liberum Maritagium, but in libero Conjugio ; and fo
[Page 81.] are but like the words in connubio foluto ab om-81 ni fervitio, which
make but an Eftate for life, and fo might be paffed either to a
Baftard, or any other perfon whatfoever. And if we look well
on the Deed to Geva, it is worded as if it intended only an Eftate
for life, there being no mention of her Heirs, and running alfo in
the Singular number, Et teneat bene & in pace, &c. ut melius &
liberius tenuit, &c. Alfo if we obferve my Lord Coke upon Lit
tleton, a little before fol. 2i.b.he will tell us, that four things are
incident to a Frank-Marriage : The firft whereof is, that it be
given for confideration* of Marriage, either to a Man with a Wo
man, or as fome have held, to a Woman with a Man, (and with
this Braclon, lib. 2. cap. 7. doth accord.) And the fourth thing
is, that the Donees fhall hold freely of the Donor, till the fourth
Degree be paft (with which the old Treatife, called Fleta, lib. 3.
cap. 11. doth agree) for both which Reafons, this Gift cannot be
a Gift in Frank-Marriage, becaufe what is here given, is given to
Geva alone, and not to an Husband with her ; there being here
no Donees, but one Donee onely, and the Eftate was not to con-
[Page82.] tinue till the fourth 82 Degree was paft, but was only an Eftate
intended for the life of Geva, as appears before ; whereas what
was given by Earl Hugh to Ralph Mainwaring with his Daugh
ter Amicia, and by Ralph Mainwaring to Henry de Alditelegh
with his Daughter Bertred, was given in Free-Marriage, and their
Heirs are mentioned in both the Deeds : It remains therefore
clear, that the Deeds to Geva was not a Gift in Frank-Marriage,
and is alfo very uncertain, whether Geva was a Baftard, as Sir
Peter doth fuppofe.
And though I believe the Baffets did afterwards enjoy the
fame Lands, which in the aforefaid Deed were given to Geva,

XII.] CLEARLY PROVED. 493
becaufe in Monafticon Anglicanum, Par. 1. p. 439. and in Sir
Peter Leicefter's Hiftorical Antiquities, p. 113. (but mif-printed
121.) I find Geffrey Rydel and Ralph Bqffet called the Heirs of
the faid Geva ; as alfo that the faid Drayton was called Drayton
Bajfet, yet I do not know how or by vertue of what Deed, they
did enjoy the fame ; for if thefe perfons were the Heirs of her
Body, and the aforefaid Deed a Gift in Frank-Marriage, why
did not Earl Randle confirm or grant 83thofe Lands to her [Page83.j
Heirs, as well as to her ; and if they were not the Heirs of her
Body, fhe could not be a Baftard ; for as my Lord Coke on Lit
tleton, fol. 3. b. tells us, a Baftard can have no Heir but of his
own Body.
And whereas Sir Peter Leicefter in the 45 page of his Anfwer
to the Dejence oj Amicia fays, that though my! Lord Coke fay
that by thofe words in connubio Joluto ab omni Jervitio, there
paffeth but an Eftate for life, yet he faith not, that by thofe
words in libero conjugio, or by the words in libero connubio, that
there paffeth onely an Eftate for life ; in this Sir Peter was alfo
miftaken ; for my Lord Coke pofitively fays, that an Eftate of
Inheritance cannot be paffed by a Gift in Free-Marriage by any
other words but thofe very words in liberum Maritagium, and
that no equipollent words or words amounting to as much will
ferve the turn, as you may fee Coke upon Littleton, Jot. 21. b.
And in that very place, he tells us the reafon thereof, is, becaufe
the words in liberum Maritagium create an Eftate of Inheri
tance, againft the general Rule of the Law, and therefore 84the [page84.]
Law requireth that they fhould be legally purfued ; and whereas
Sr Peter alfo objefts, that by this Rule, a Gift of Lands by the
words in Frank-Marriage in an Englifh Deed, and a Gift de
terres en Franke-Marriage, in a French Deed, would be void
Grants ; in this Sir Peter did alfo miftake ; for the Latin words
in liberum Maritagium, and the Englifh words in Frank-Mar
riage, and the French words en Frank-Marriage, are the very
fame, although in different Languages ; but the words in libero

494 THE LEGITIMACY OF AMICIA [xii.
connubio, or in libero conjugio, or in Maritagio foluto ab omnifer
vitio, or the French words, en Nopfage acquite de fervices, or
the Englifh words in Wedlock free from all Services, and all fuch
other like, are but equipollent words, and an Eftate of Inheri
tance will not pafs thereby.
And whereas the faid Sir Peter being very defirous if he could
to prove, that anciently Lands might be given in Free Marriage
in other words than the words in Liberum Maritagium tells us
in the fecond of his two Books, pag. 28. & 29. that Dos is called
[Page 85.] Maritagium in Doomfday Book; and for that end he cites 85Coke
upon Littleton, fol. 31. And alfo fayes that Dos is called Marita
gium by Glanvill, lib. 7. cap. 1. And alfo tells us of a Deed made
in the time of King John, tranfcribed in one of the Couchir Books
of the Dutchy Office in Grays-Inne at London, Tom. 2. Honor five
Joca de Bolingbroke, num. 26. pag. 508. in which Saher de Quency,
Earl of Winchefter, gives to Hawife, Sifter to the Earl of Chefter,
and Wife of Robert, Son of the faid Saher de Quency, certain
Lands in liberum Donarium ; which word Donarium, Sir Peter
Leicefter fayes is mifprinted for the word Dotarium, and there
upon fayes that the words in liberum Dotarium in that Deed,
are the fame with the words in liberum Maritagium ; I fhall
therefore, before I anfwer the fame, give you the words of the
faid Deed, as I find it in Sir Peter's Hiftorical Antiquities, pag.
133-

s-

\Aherus de Quency Comes Wintonia, omnibus Hominibus &
Amicis Juis, prajentibus & juturis, falutem. Sciatis, me
conceffiffe & dediffe & prajenti Charta med coufirmdjfe Roberto de
[Page 8*^] Quency Filio meo 86 & Haredi ad dandum in liberum Donarium
Hawifia Sorori Comitis Ceftria, Uxori ejujdem Roberti, Bucehe-
beiam & Grantefjet, & Bradeham, & Herdewich, cum omnibus
earundem terrarum pertinentiis, pro centum Libratis terra: Et fi
ha pradicla terra non valeant per annum centum Libras, Ego hi
aliis terris meis de proprid Hareditate med in Anglia, ei tantum

XII.] CLEARLY PROVED. 495
perficiam, qubd plenarie habeat centum Libratas terra per vifum
& confiderationem legalium Militum hominum videlicet, Comitis
Ceftria & meorum. Et praterea dedi eidem Roberto Feoda duorum
Militum, Jcilicet, Feodum Mattliei Turpin in Winterftawa in Wilte-
jhire, pro Jervitio Feodi unius Militis, ad dandum fimul cum terris
nominatis pradicla Hawifoa Uxori Jua in liberum Donarium.
Teftibus his, Comite Davide, Willielmo Comite de Ferrars, Phi-
lippo de Orreby, Roberto de Bajingham, Ricardo de Lindejcia,
Willielmo de Grumpington, Henrico de Braibroc, Willielmo de
Syeljord, David Giffard, Willielmo Picot, Hugone & Thoma &
Henrico Dijpenjariis, Waltero de Coventrey, Waltero Daivilla,
& multis aliis.
87 And now as you may fee in the 29th page, of the 2a of his [Page 87.]
two Books, he fays, That in his Hiftorical Antiquities, the word
Donarium was there mifprinted for the word Dotarium; whereas
the word Dotarium is not in the faid Copy which he cites, as a
knowing Friend of mine doth inform me, who, at my requeft,
did carefully examine the fame in one of the Couchir Books in
the Dutchy Office in Grays-Inn ; but the word is Donarium,
which probably the Transcriber did miftake for Douarium, the
u and n being anciently written alike, and the v confonant not
then ufed. But if the word had been Dotarium, it would not
fignifie Marriage, as he doth fancy, although Dos in Doomfday
Book be called Maritagium : For Dos is twofold, and that Dos
which is Dotarium, is the fame with Douarium, which we in
Englifh call Dower, and is not that Dos which fometimes is
called Maritagium: For this fee Glanvil, lib. 6. cap. 1. whofe
words are thefe, Dos duobus modis dicitur, dos enim dicitur
vulgariter, id quod aliquis liber homo dat Jponja fua ad oftium
Ecclefia tempore dejponjationis Jua, &c. And lib. 7. cap. 1. In
8Salia enim acceptione, accipitur Dos Jecundum leges Romanas, [Pagess.]
(which 3 laft words, with fome others, Sir Peter leaves out in the
8th page of the firft of his two Books) Jecundum quas proprie
appellatur dos, id quod cum muliere datur viro, quod vulgariter

496 THE LEGITIMACY OF AMICIA [xii.
dicitur Maritagium ; Now that Dotarium, is that Dos which is
Dower, and not that Dos which is called Maritagium, you may
fee in Sir Henry Spelman's Glojjary, Printed at London 1664.
page 174. whofe words are thefe :
f De eo Dotis genere, quod uxoribus conftituunt Angli.
IT Doarium, Dodarium, Dotarium, Douarium, Dotalitium.]
Omnia rede interpretatur vernaculum noftrum Doner, non Lati-
num dos. Eft enim proprie dos, Mud quod maritus accipit cum
uxore hac vero id quod in remunerationem dotis, reportat uxor.
And Sir Peter did very well know, that what is given in the
aforefaid Deed, was only given as a Dower or Jointure, and not
as a Gift in Free Marriage, as you may fee in the 132 page of his
Hiftorical Antiquities, where he thus writes :
[Page 89] s9 Hawife, fourth Daughter of Earl Hugh by Bertred, married
Robert Quency, Son and Heir of Saher de Quency, Earl of Win-
chefter. She had the Earldom of Lincoln, to wit, the Caftle and
Hdnor of Bolingbroke, and all the Lands of Earl Randle in Lind-
Jey and Holland in Lincolnjhire, for which fhe gave 50 1. for Relief.
On Hawije was eftated for *Jointure, Bukby, Granteffet,
Note Bradeham, and Herdwick, as appears by this Deed in
the Couchir Book of the Dutchy Office. Tom. 2. Honor Jive Soca
de Bolingbroke ; num. 26. pag. 508.
So that you fee Sir Peter hath formerly confeffed, that this
Gift in liberum Donarium, was only a Jointure fetled on the faid
Hawije ; and it could not be a Gift in liberum Maritagium, be-
w caufe Saher de Quincy doth not give the Lands there mentioned,
unto Hawije the Wife of his Son Robert (as Sir Peter fays he
did) but he gives them to his Son Robert ad dandum Hawifia
uxori ejujdem Roberti. And though a Man may fettle Lands in
[Page 90.] Joynture upon his Wife, yet he cannot 90give Lands unto her in
Free-Marriage, for that would be to give Lands unto himfelf;

XII.] CLEARLY PROVED. 497
and whereas Sir Peter in the 26 and 27 pages of the fecond of his
two Books, tells us, that the words in liberum Maritagium, in
the more ancient Ages, were not by Law fo ftriftly required,
and fayes this is clear out of Glanvil, lib. 7. cap. 18. where he
tells us, That a Grant of Land with any Woman in Maritagio,
Habendum pradiclam terramfobi & haredibus liberam & quietam
ab omni Jervitio, d Je & haredibus Juis, versus capitalem Domi
num ; This was a good Grant in libero Maritagio, and was as
good as if the words had been in libero Maritagio: and therefore
the words of my Lord Cook touching liberum Maritagium reach
not the age of Glanvill, fo as alwayes then to be tyed up to
thofe very words, and no other. Sir Peter therein fathers upon
Mr. Glanvill what he never faid or meant ; for Mr. Glanvill doth
not fay that Lands might be given with a Woman in Frank
Marriage, by other words than the words in liberum Marita
gium ; neither doth Sir Peter fay right, when he affirms that
Mr. Glanvill fayes, That a Grant of Land may be given with
any Woman in Maritagio, 91 Habendum pradiclam terramfobi & [Page9i.]
haredibus liberam & quietam ab omnifervitio, a fe & haredibus
fuis, verfus capitalem Dominum ; For Mr. Glanvill only tells us,
That liberum dicitur Maritagium, quando aliquis liber homo ali
quam partem terra fua dat cum aliqud Muliere (that is, not with
any Woman, but with fome Woman, viz. one of the Kindred)
alicui in Maritagium, ita quod ab omnifervitio terra ilia Jit quieta,
& dfe & haredibus Juis, verjus capitalem Dominum acquietanda :
& in hac quidem libertate ita ftabit terra ilia ujque ad tertium
haredem : nee interim tenebuntur haredes inde facere aliquod ho
magium : Poft tertium verb haredem, ad debitum fervitium terra
ipfa revertetur ; & homagium inde capietur. All which hath been
proved to be Law at this day, as well as it was in Glanvil's
time. IX. Ninthly, It hath been objefted by Sir Peter, that Joan
the Wife of Lhewellyn ap Jorwerth, Prince of Northwales, was
bafe Daughter of John King of England, and that there are
3S

498 THE LEGITIMACY OF AMICIA [xii.
feveral Precedents, that Lands were given to the faid Joan in
Frank Marriage.
[Page 92.] 92 To which I Anfwer :
Firft, That it is not abfolutely certain that the faid Joane was
a Baftard. And fecondly, That thofe Precedents which are alledged by
Sir Peter, of Lands given in Frank Marriage to the faid Joane
are not any of them Gifts in Frank Marriage, and therefore will
not at all work any thing in the cafe in hand.
1. Firft let us examine whether it be certain, that the faid
Joane was a Baftard or not; and in order thereunto, let us
obferve how many Wives the faid King John had. Firft, he
married Alais Daughter of the Earl of Moriana, in the year
1 173. as we may read in Brompton's Chronicon, col. 1082. n. 35.
Hoveden (Frankfurt Edition printed 1601.) pag. 532. n. 5. Matt.
Paris (put out by Dr. Watts) pag. 127. n. 5. (which Editions of
Hoveden and Paris, I do all along follow) and the like we may
find in Vincent upon Brooke, pag. 133. who alfo there tells us, that
[Page 93.] by Moriana is not meant Moreton, but Savoy, with which 93Matt.
Par. p. 751. n. 46. doth alfo accord; but the faid Alais being
then fcarcely feven years of age, as we may fee in Matt. Par.
p. 127. n. 6. and dying prefently after, the faid King John could
not poffibly have any Iffue by that Wife.
Soon after this, viz. in the year 11 76. (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 faid John
(then youngeft Son of the faid King Henry II.) and a Daughter
of William Earl of Glocefter, Son of Robert Earl of Glocefter;
which faid Daughter is not there named, but her name was Ha-

XII.] CLEARLY PROVED.

499

wifia or Avis, and the Marriage afterwards took effeft, but he
was divorced from her in the year 1200. as will anon appear.
Thirdly, Immediately upon his Divorce he married Ifabel
Daughter of the Earl of Engolifme, who was his laft Wife ; for
fhe furvived him, and by her he had Iffue (as will be agreed by
all) Henry (afterwards King Henry the Third) Richard Earl of
Cornwal, afterwards King 94 of the Romans) Joane Wife of A lex- [Page94.]
ander the Second King of Scots, Eleanor, firft married to William
Marjhall the younger, Earl oi Pembroke, and afterwards to Simon
Mount jord, Earl of Leicefter, as alfo fjabel, who was fixth Wife to
Frederick the Second, Emperor of Germany.
But King John marrying the faid Ifabel in the year 1200. could
have no child by her old enough to be married to the faid Lhe
wellin in the year 1204.
The only queftion then will be, whether Lhewellins Wife was
King John's Legitimate Daughter by his Wife Hawifia, for that
fhe muft be if fhe was Legitimate; and the' Marriage between
the faid John and Hawifia being agreed on, in the year 1176,
the faid Hawifia might very well have a Daughter old enough
to be married to the faid Lhewellin, in the year 1204.
To prove that the faid Joane Wife of Lliewellin was a Baftard,
Sir Peter Leicefter in the 101 page of that Book, which he calls
the Caje of Amicia truly Stated, 95 cites thefe feveral Authorities. [Page 95.]
Vincent upon Brook, p. 204. Speed's Hiftory, p. 518. Stow's An
nals Augmented by How's, p. 167, 168. Policronicon Tranflated
into Englifh by Trevifa, lib. 7. cap. 33. Cambden's Britannia in
Shropjhire, p. 45 3. alfo Daniel and Fabian, and Mill's Catalogue
oj Honour, and Sir Richard Baker's Hiftory, who do all call her
Bafe Daughter of King John; and no Author at all calls her
lawful Daughter, or reckoneth her among the Daughters of any

500 THE LEGITIMACY OF AMICIA [xii.
of his Wives : fome of them fay fhe was begot by King John on
Agatha de Ferrars.
To which I anfwer firft, that I believe it doth not yet certainly
appear, by any Deed, Record, or Contemporary Author, that
the faid Joane was a Baftard, and by confequence, there is no
abfolute proof that fhe was Illegitimate ; for the Author of the
Polycronicon is the firft of thofe Authors which Sir Peter doth
mention, or I have taken notice of, who doth call the faid Joane
a Baftard, and the faid Author of the Polycronicon (as Vojjius
tells us in his Book, de Hiftoricis Latinis, pag. 487.) dyed in the
[Page 96.] year 1363. which 96was 159 years after the faid Lhewellin mar
ried the faid Joane. But all thofe Records, Deeds, and ancient
Authors, which I have feen do call her Daughter onely, without
any Brand of Baftardy at all ; For this, fee the Copy of King
John's Precept to the Sheriff of Shropjhire, to make Livery of
the faid Lordfhip of Ellejmere.
Ex. Rot. Claujo de anno fexto Regis Johannis (in arce
Lond.) membrana 7.
RE X Vicecom. Salop. Salutem. Scias quod dedimus dileclo
filio noftro Lewellino manerium de Ellejmere, cum omnibus
pertinentiis Juis, in Maritagio filia noftr a, Et ideo, &c. Tefte, &c.
apud Wigorn. 23 Martii. So alfo.
Clauf. 2. H. 3. M. 1.
MAndatum eft Vic. War. quod plenam feifinam habere facial
Leolino Principi Norwall. de Villa de Budiford cum per
tinentiis fuis quam Dominus Johannes Rex pater Domini Henriei
Regis dedit ei in Maritagium cum Joluxnna forore Henriei Regis
uxore ipfous Leulini. Teft. * Comite apud Weftm. 10. Oil.
* Scilicet Willielmo Marefcallo Comite Pembrochise tunc Reflore Regis & Regni.

XII.] CLEARLY PROVED. 501
So alfo.
WEx Rotulo Chartarum de anno Jexto Regis Johannis, nu- [Page97.]
mero 32.
Charta Lewellini
Principis Wallia.
JOhannes Dei gratia, &c. Sciatis, nos dediffe, conceffiffe, & hac
Charta noftra confirmaffe, Lewellino Principi Northwallia, in
Maritagium cum Johanna filia noftra Caftrum de Ellejmara cum
omnibus pertinentiis Juis :
So alfo Matt. Paris, who was contemporary with the faid
Joane, p. 231. n. 52. calls her the Kings daughter, without the
addition of Baftard, or any thing tending thereto ; his words are
thefe, Quo faclo, venit alius nuncius ex parte filia ejujdem Regis
uxoris videlicet Leolini Regis Wallia, &c. Alfo in the Reign of
King Henry III. her Son David is by him (p. 537. 569. and in
many other places) ftiled Nepos Regis, and p. 695. called Nepos
Regis ex Sorore ; and p. 570. he is faid to be propinquus Regi
confanguinitate. 98 Alfo Knighton, col. 2417. n. 42. thus fayes of her, Rex Jo- [Page9s.]
hannes dedit filiam fuam Leolino Principi Wallia in uxorem, &
cum ea dedit caftellum & totum territorium de Ellejmere in confinio
Wallia. And the King himfelf in the aforefaid Record gives
her the title oi filia noftra.
Alfo in lib. Barlings (in which Book, befides what concerns
the Abby of Barlings in Lincolnjhire, there are certain Annals
(beginning An. 1050. and ending An. 1231.) fhe is called the faid
Kings daughter, without the addition of Baftard ; there being
thefe words onely in the faid Book in Sir John Cotton's Library,

502 THE LEGITIMACY OF AMICIA [xii.
which do concern the faid Joane, viz. Lewelinus difponfavit filiam
Regis I.
So alfo Vaughan in his Britijh Antiquities, (as he is cited by
Sir Peter Leicefter, in the firft of his two Books, pag. 28. & 29.)
gives us out of an old Manufcript thefe very words :
[Page 99.] 99 T Ewellinus Gervafoi filius Princeps Wallia, primb defponfavit
JL/ Tanglwyft, filiam Lhowarch Vychan de qua genuit Grif
fith dr Gwlades ddu, quondam uxorem Radulphi de Mortuo mari :
Poft mortem dicla Tanglwyft, idem Lewelynus dejponjavit J 6-
hannam, filiam Johannis Regis Anglia, de qua genuit David,
principem; & Guelliant uxorem Johannis Lacy Comitis Lincolnia,
& Angharad primo defponfatam Johanni de Brewis Domino de
Brechon ; poft cujus deceffum, dejponfata fuit Malgoni Vachan ap
Maelgon ap Rees, & ex eadem uxore genuit filiam qua maritata
eft Johanni Scotico, Comiti Ceftria, qui Juit nepos Ranulphi Co
mitis Ceftr ia ex parte Jororis Jua.
So that we fee in all thefe Records, Deeds and old Authors,
there is not one word tending to prove that the faid Joane was
an illegitimate Child.
Alfo our later Authors, as Vincent and others, who fay that
fhe was Illegitimate, do many of them fay, That King John was
divorced from his fecond Wife, as well for that fhe was barren,
[Page 100.] as within 100the degrees of Confanguinity ; which barrennefs, if it
could be made to appear, would certainly prove the faid Joane
to be a Baftard; And this opinion hath fo far prevailed in this
. laft Age, that whereas learned Mr. Cambden, as we may fee in
his Britannia in Latine printed at London 1607. p. 259. fpeaking
of the divorce of the faid Hawifia (whofe name he miftakes, and
calls Ifabel) doth only ufe thefe words, Mam repudiatam, Doftor
Philemon Holland in the Englifh Tranflation (unjuftly) renders

XII

] CLEARLY PROVED. 503

it thus, That King John did repudiate her upon pretences, as
well that fhe was barren, as that they were within the prohibited
degrees of Confanguinity. But our ancient Hiftorians fay no
thing of her being barren. For this fee Hoveden (who was living
all the time that Hawifia was Wife to King John) p. 803. n. 34.
in the year 1200. •
EOdem Anno faclum eft divortium inter Johannem Regem
Anglia & Hawijam uxorem Juam filiam Willielmi Comitis
Glouceftria per Heliam Burdegalenjem Archiepijcopum, & per Wil
lielmum Piclavenjem, & per Henricum Sanclonenjem Epijcopos :
erant enim affines in tertio 10* gradu conjanguinitatis. Facloitaque [pageioi.]
Divortio inter Johannem Regem Anglia, & uxorem Juam, ipje Rex
Anglia confilio Domini Jui Philippi Regis Francia duxit fibi in
uxorem Ifabel filiam Ailmari Comitis de Engolifmo, &c.
So alfo Matt. Paris (living in the time of the. faid Joane)
p. 200. n. 23. in the faid year 1200.
EOdem tempore celebrato Divortio inter Regem Anglorum &
uxorem Juam Hawijam Comitis G lover nia filiam ; eo quod
affines erant in tertio gradu conjanguinitatis ; Duxit idem Rex,
confilio Regis Francorum Ifabel filiam Comitis Engolijmi.
So alfo Mat. Weftminfter in that Edition printed at London,
1570. lib. 2. p. 76. n. 25.
ANno gratia. M. CC. Rex Johannes Ifabellam filiam Comitis
Engolijmi duxit in uxorem, & dominica proxima antejeftum
Janili Dyonifii conjecrata eft in Reginam ab Huberto Cantua-
rienfi Archiepijcopo, quia celebratum fuit divortium inter ipfum &
Hawifoam, Comitis Glovernia fili-l02am, eb quod contingebant Je [pageio2.]
in tertio conjanguinitatus gradu.

504 THE LEGITIMACY OF AMICIA [xii.
See alfo the words of Rad. de Diceto, (who lived in the time of
the faid King John) col. 706. n. 5. which words are thefe :
CElebratum eft divortium inter Johannem Regem Anglia &
filiam Comitis Gloceftria in Normannia, ab Epifcopis Lifo-
rienfi, Baiocenfi, Abrincenfo, & aliis Epifcopis qui interfuerant,
quam ipfe tempore patris permiffione Romana Ecclefia duxeratin
uxorem cum Comitatibus de Gloceftria, de Sumerfatum, de Devene-
fire, de Cornwaille, & aliis quamplurimis per Angliam honoribus.
Set ille Jublimioris thori Jpe raptatus, confilio pravorum earn
abegit, unde magnam Jummi Pontificis, fcilicet Innocentii tertii,
& totius curia Romana indignationem incurrit, prajumens temere
contra leges & canones diffolvere quod eorum Juerat aucloritate
colligatum. See alfo Lipfous in his Monita & exempla politica, printed at
[Page 103.] Amjlerdam 1630. p. 220. who there tells us, that fterilitas 103Jola
eft cauja divortii, quoties apud principes valuit, and then judge if
fhe had been barren, whether that would not have been alledged
as a caufe of King Johns putting her away, as well as his defire
of matching into a more fublime Family ; And (which is very
obfervable, all thofe Authors which Sir Peter Leicefter cites in
the faid 101 Page, or who I have met with, who do either fay
that King Johns faid Wife was barren, or do call the faid Joane
the Wife of the faid Lhewellin a Baftard, do not any one of them
(except Sir Richard Baker) know the true Chriftian Name of
the faid divorced Wife of the faid King John, but are either filent
therein, or elfe (which almoft all of them do) do call her IJabell
inftead of Hawifia ; and how are thofe perfons like to know
whether fhe had Iffue or not, feeing they did not fo much as
know her true Chriftian Name? Alfo Mr. Vincent in his cor-
reftions upon Brooke, pag. 204. cites a Deed of which Sir Peter
Leicefter in his Advertifement to the Reader, pag. 60. gives us
thefe words, and no more.

XII.] CLEARLY PROVED. 505
104 Charta 14. Hen. 3. membrana 5. [Page*™*.]
Pro Roberto de Audley.
Henricus Rex falutem. Infpeximus Chartam Richardi de
Landa in hac verba.
S Ciant prafentes & futuri, quod ego Richardus de Landa dedi
& concejfi & hac prajenti Charta mea confirmavi Roberto de
Audley & haredibus Juis in liberum maritagium cum Johanna
filia mea centum & tres folidatas & quatuor denaratas terra cum
Pertinentiis in Infula Scapeya. Hiis Teftibus, &c.
But Sir Peter Leicefter omits a great part of the faid Deed,
and amongft the reft thefe words, Sicut carta Regis Johannis
quam inde habeo rationabiliter Teftatur, which words do fhew
that King John gave thofe faid Lands to the faid Richard de
Landa.
105 Now though this Deed doth prove that Joane the Wife of [Page 105.]
Robert de Audley was by the Law of England, the Daughter of
Richard de Landa, yet Mr. Vincent in the faid 204 page of his
Correclions upon Brooke, (being that very page in which he cites
the faid Deed) tells us that this Joane, the Wife of Robert de
Audley, was really the Bafe Daughter of King John, begotten
on his Paramour Agatha the Daughter to William de Ferrars,
the fecond Earl Ferrars of that Chriftian Name, as he fays fhall
be more largely difcovered in the Life of King John ; which if
fo, the faid Agatha was then the Wife of the faid Richard de
Landa. And that Kings did fometime beget Children on the
Bodies of other Mens Wives, which yet were owned as the bafe
Children of the faid Kings is not without Precedent ; for (to
inftance in no more) you may find in Sir Richard Baker's Chro
nicle, printed at London, 1665. pag. 66. That King Henry the
Second, by his famous Concubine the Wife of Ralph Blewet, a
3T

506 THE LEGITIMACY OF AMICIA [xii.
Knight, had a Son named Morgan, who was Provoft of Beverley,
and being to be elefted Bifhop of Durham, went to Rome for
[Pageio6.] a ,06Difpenfation, becaufe being a Baftard, he was elfe unca-
pable : But the Pope refufing to grant it, unlefs he would pafs
as the Son of Blewet, he abfolutely anfwered, he would for no
caufe in the World deny his Father, and chofe rather to lofe the
Dignity of the Place, than of his Bloud, as being the Son, though
but the bafe Son of a King. But the faid Mr. Vincent miftakes
this Joane, Wife of Robert de Audley, to be the fame Joane who
was Wife of Lhewellin Prince of Wales ; for he fays that after
the death of Lhewellin, fhe was re-married to Robert de Audley,
which cannot be, becaufe as appears before, Lhewellin was Hus
band to his Wife Joane in the year 1 204. and as you may find in
the Welfh Hiftory, put out by Dr. Powell, pag. 293. The faid
Joane Daughter to King John, and Princefs of Wales, died in
the Spring, 1237. and was buried upon the Sea-fhoar, within the
Ifle of Anglejey, at Lhanvaes, as her pleafure was, where the
Prince did build a Houfe of Bare-Joot Fryers, over her Grave ;
But the faid Lhewellin, as you may fee in the faid Weljh Hiftory,
pag. 298. and in Sir Peter Leicefter's Hiftorical Antiquities, pag.
[Page 107.] 47. I07and in Matt. Paris, put out by Dr. Watts, pag. 525. died
tertio Idus Aprilis, Jcilicet die Jancli Guthlaci, Anno Chrifti, 1240.
fo that he outlived his faid Wife Joane three years ; and there
fore the faid Joane de Audley could not be that Joane who was
Wife of the faid Lhewellin, but muft of neceffity be another
Joane. And why might not other Writers miftake this Joane
Wife of Robert de Audley, to be the fame Joane who was Wife
of Lhewellin, as well as Mr. Vincent did ; and thereupon call
Joane the Wife of Lhewellin a Baftard. But though Mr. Vincent
t do here promife to difcover more fully in the Life of King John,
that Joane the Wife of Robert de Audley was the Daughter of
King John, by the faid Agatha de Ferrars, yet becaufe the faid
Mr. Vincent did not (that I can find) live to write the Life of the
faid King John, fo that I cannot learn what Arguments he would
have brought for the further difcovery of what he did undertake;

XII.] CLEARLY PROVED. 507
I will therefore for the prefent wave the fame, and not conclude
that fhe was Legitimate, although fhe might be fo, for any thing
that doth yet to the contrary appear.
108 Secondly, Sir Peter Leicefter objefts that Lhewellin gave [Page 108.]
with Hellen his Daughter unto John Scot, Earl of Chejler, the
Mannor of Budeford in Warwick/hire, and the Mannor of Sutte-
hel in Worcefterjhire, In libero Maritagio cum omnibus pertinentiis
ficut Dominus Johannes Rex ea illi dedit in libero Maritagio, and
therefore fays, that nothing can be more clear than that the Gift
of Budejord and Suttehel with the faid Joane Wife of Lhewellin,
was an exprefs Gift in Frank-Marriage. And for the proving of
this, he gives us this Agreement or Deed, which he fuppofeth to
be made about Anno Domini 1222. 6 H. 3.
HjEc eft conventio facia inter Dominum Ranulfum Comitem
Ceftria & Lincolnia, & Dominum Lhewellinum Principem
Northwallia; Quod Johannes de Scotid, nepos pradicli Comitis de
Jororejud primogenita, ducet in uxorem Helenam filiam ipfous Lhe-
wellini : ita quod diclus Lhewellinus dabit diclo Johanni in libero
Maritagio totum manerium de Budejord in Warewicd, & mane-
rium de Suttehele in 109 Comitatu Wigornia cum omnibus pertinen- [Page 109.]
His, ficut Do-minus Johannes rex ea illi dedit in libero maritagio :
Et totum manerium de Welneton in Comitatu Salopesburia cum
omnibus pertinentiis injrd villam & extra. Habendum diclo Jo
hanni, & haredibus fuis ex dicld Helend prov enientibus, ficut idem
Lhewellinus ea aliquo tempore melius & integrius tenuit. Et
preterea dabit eidem Johanni mille marcas Argenti, &c. Teftibus
Domino Reverendo Epifcopo de fanclo Afaph, Domino H. A bbate
Ceftria, Domino Hugone de Lajci Comite Ultonia, Phillippo de
Orreby tunc Jufticiario Ceftria, H. de Aldideley, Gualtero de Dai-
vill, Ricardo Fitton, Edrevet Liagham, Edmundo filio Righerit.
Coronon filio Edrevet, Helin Idhit, Magiftro Eftruit, Magiftro
Add, Davide Clerico Lhewellini, Magiftro H. &  Cleritis
Domini Comitis Ceftria & multis aliis.

508 THE LEGITIMACY OF AMICIA [xii.
To which I anfwer, that as it is not certain that the faid Joane
was a Baftard, fo this Deed is only an Agreement, in the nature
of Articles betwixt Randle Earl of Chefter, and Lincolne on the
[Page no.] one part, and Lhewellin Prince oi North-Wales on 110the other
part ; concerning an intended Marriage betwixt the faid John
and Hellen, for they were not then married, as appears by the
faid Articles or Deed ; and the faid Lhewellin doth not thereby
give to the faid John Scot, Budeford and Sultehel, but only Co
venants that he will give them unto him, as appears by the word
Dabit, which is the future Tenfe ; and it is very likely that the
faid Budeford and Suttehel were given to the faid Lhewellin, in
Maritagio, without the word libero, as will be proved by thefe
Records. Claufi 2. H. 3. M. 1.
MAndatum eft Vic. War. quod plenam Jeifinam habere facial
Leolino Principi Norwall. de villa de Budeford cum per
tinentiis fuis quam Dominus Johannes rex pater Domini Henriei
Regis dedit ei in Maritagium cum Jolianna forore Henriei Regis
uxore ipfous Leulini. Teft. (*) Comite apud Weftm. 10. oclo.
[Pagem.] lu Rot. Pip. de ann. 2 H. 3. Warr. & Leic.
Willielmus de Cantilupo Philippus de Kinton pro eo reddit comp.
de exxviii /. ii s. bl. de firma de Warewick: & de quater viginti &
quinque libris xvi s. iiii d. bl. firma de Leicefterjhire.
 — Et Leuelino Principi Norwall: lxxvi s. in Budijord
in Maritagio cum Johanna uxore Jua, de dimidio anno per Breve
Regis.
m And as there are in thefe Records the words in Maritagio,
without the word libero, fo alfo there was livery made of the fame
Lands, which in a Gift in Frank-Marriage is needlefs to be done ;
(*) Scilicet Willielmo Marefcalh Comite Pembrochim tunc Reclore Regis &° Regni.

XII.] CLEARLY PROVED. 509
but be it how it will, there can be no Argument drawn from this
Deed or Agreement betwixt Earl Randle and Lhewellin ; for it
is very apparent, that he who did write the faid Deed or Agree
ment was a very ignorant Perfon, and did not at all underftand
what a Gift in Frank-Marriage was ; for if King John gave
Budejord and Suttehel to the faid Lhewellin with his Daughter
Joane, in Maritagio, without the word libero, then the faid
Lhewellin, 112 might give them to John Scot, with his Daughter [plgem]
Hellen, in whatfoever manner he did pleafe ; but if King John
gave the faid Mannors of Budejord and Suttehel to Lhewellin
with his Daughter Joane, in libero Maritagio, then the faid Lhe
wellin could not give away from his Son David (who out-liv'd
the faid Lhewellin) the faid Mannors of Budejord and Suttehel,
to John Scot, with his Daughter Hellen ; for though he who hath
Lands given to him in Marriage liable to Services, hath the In
heritance of the faid Lands, and may difpofe of them as he doth
pleafe ; yet he who hath lands given to him in Frank Marriage
hath not the inheritance of the faid lands, but hath only Cufto-
diam cum uxore, and therefore cannot difpofe of the fame ; and
yet this ignorant perfon, who did write the faid Agreement or
Deed, doth fuppofe that King John gave Budejord and Suttehel
in Frank-Marriage to Lhewellin, and that the faid • Lhewellin
might give them in Frank-Marriage to the faid John Scot.
Neither can it be objefted, that the Law hath been changed
in this Point, or otherways holden from what it is now ; 113for I [Pageu3.]
will fhew that the Law was the fame in this particular, and alfo
fo holden after the time of the faid Lhewellin, in the time of the
faid Lhewellin, and before the time of the faid Lhewellin, and
that I do thus prove ;
If you look in my Lord Coke upon Littleton, fol. 22. a. you will
find that the Husband in the time of King Edward III. was fo
far from having the inheritance of Lands given to him in Frank
Marriage, that if he and his Wife were divorced, the Woman

510 THE LEGITIMACY OF AMICIA [xii.
fhould enjoy the whole Land ; and for this he cites in the Mar
gent, 13 Edw. 3. tit. AJs. 19 Edw. 3. Afs. 83. with feveral other
proofs of the like nature ;
Alfo in the time of King Edward I. as you may fee in the
ancient Treatife called Fleta, (which was written in that Kings
time) the inheritance in thefe cafes of Frank Marriage was in
the Wife with whom the Land was given, and not in
* Note. the Husband, but it was * Secus otherways, when
Lands were given in Marriage pro Homagio & Jer-
[Pagen4.] vitio viri, as you may fee 1I4in the third Book and ii"1 Chapter,
de Donationibus in Maritagiis, where it is thus faid, Et quamvis
fiat mentio in donatione, quod terra data jit in Maritagium tali
viro, cum tali uxore, res data tamen eft liberum tenementum uxoris,
& non viri, cum non habeat nifi cuftodiam cum uxore, donee libe
rum tenementum fibi accrejeat, per legem Anglia: Se-
* Note, cus* fo pro homagio & Jervitio viri, & in Maritagium
facia fuerit donatio. And fo alfo the Law doth con
tinue until this day.
Alfo in the 9 H. 3. (which is but three years from that year
in which Sir Peter Leicefter doth fuppofe the faid Deed, or
Agreement, betwixt the faid Randle Earl of Chefter, and the
faid Lhewellin to be made) the inheritance of thofe Lands which
were given to a Man with a Woman in Frank Marriage, was in
the Wife, and not in the Husband ; for my Lord Coke on Little
ton, fol. 21. b. tells us, That if the King give Land to a Man
with a Woman of his Kindred in Frank Marriage, and the
Woman dyeth without Iffue, the Man in the Kings cafe fhall
[Pagen5.] not hold it for his life, becaufe the Woman 115was the caufe of
the gift, but otherways it is in the cafe of a common perfon,
and for this in the margent he cites 9 H. 3. Dower. 202. fo that
it feems, though a Man might be Tenant by the courtefie of
England of Lands given to him by a Subjeft in Frank Marriage
with his Wife, yet where the King did fo give the Lands, if the

XII.] CLEARLY PROVED.

5H

Woman after fhe had Iffue did dye, and her Iffue all dye before
her, the Husband in that cafe would not be Tenant by the cour-
tefie of England, or enjoy the Lands for his life, fo far was he
from then having the Inheritance of the faid Lands.
So alfo Braclon (who was the fecond that did write of our
Englifh Laws, and was living in the time of King Henry III.
and in the time of the faid Lhewellin) lib. 2. cap. 11. thus fayes :
Si autem fiat mentio quod terra data fit in Maritagium cum
uxore & eorum haredibus, communes haredes de corpore utriujque
admittantur, qui fi dejecerint, revertitur terra data, & alii remo-
tiores excluduntur: quia res data eft liberum tenementum uxoris,
& non viri, cum non habeat nifi n6cuftodiam cum uxore. Si [Pagene.]
autem fie terra detur in Maritagium viro cum uxore, & eorum
haredibus, pro homagio & Jervitio viri (quod fit aliquando) licet
detur in liberum Maritagium, qua Junt fibi bid invicem adver-
fantia fove repugnantia, tunc prejertur homagium, & erit acfo
fieret donatio tam viro quam uxori.
And that the Maritagium which Braclon here firft fpeaks of
was Maritagium Liberum, is very apparent, becaufe we fee here,
he immediately after fpeaks of Lands given in Marriage not free,
vis. of Lands given in Maritagium, pro homagio & Jervitio viri;
fo alfo Mr. Glanvil, who lived before the time of the faid Lhe
wellin, viz. in the time of King Henry II. and was the firft that
did write of our Englifh Laws, lib. 7. cap. 18. after he hath told
us what Free Marriage is, hath thefe words :
Cum quis itaque terr am aliquam cum uxore Jua in Maritagium
ceperit, fi ex eadem uxore fua haredem habuerit filium, vel filiam
clamantem & auditum infra quatuor parities, fi idem vir uxorem
fuam fupervixerit, Jive vixerit hares five non, illi in vita ll7Jua [Pagen7.]
remanet Maritagium Mud, poft mortem vero ipfous ad donatorem
vel ejus haredes eft reverfurum. Sin autem ex uxore fua nunquam

512 THE LEGITIMACY OF AMICIA [xii.
habuerit haredem, tuncftatim poft mortem uxoris ad donatorem vel
haredes ejus revertetur Maritagium. Et hac eft quadam caufa
quare de Maritagio tali non folet recipi homagium. Si enim fie
donata effet terra aliqua in Maritagium, vel alio modo, quod inde
reciperetur homagium, tunc nunquam de cetero ad donatorem, vel
ejus haredes licite poffil reverti ut fupradiclum eft.
So that Mr. Glanvil alfo here tells us, that the Husband hath
not the Inheritance of fuch Lands as are given to him in Frank
Marriage with his Wife, for where Lands are given in Marriage,
for which homage is not to be done, if the Husband have Iffue by
his Wife, whether that Iffue live or dye, the Husband fhall (by the
courtefie of England) hold thofe Lands for his life ; but if he
never have Iffue, then thofe Lands upon the death of the Wife
fhall revert to the Donor, or his Heirs, fo far was the Husband
from having the Inheritance thereof; but on the other hand we
[Pagen8.] fee, that 118Mr. Glanvil tells us, that if Land be given in fuch
Marriage, for which homage is done, that the Husband hath the
inheritance of the faid Lands, and may difpofe of them as he
doth pleafe, becaufe fuch Lands can never revert to the Donor
or his Heirs, as Lands given in Frank Marriage may do; fo that
hereby the grofs ignorance of him, that did write that Deed or
Agreement betwixt the faid Earl Randle, and the faid Lhewellin,
doth fufficiently appear, and there can be no Argument brought
from their covenanting to do a thing, which could not poffibly
be done.
And here becaufe Sir Peter Leicefter fayes, that the words in
Maritagio were oftentimes in old Deeds taken for the words in
f,ibero Maritagio, I think it convenient to prove, that whenfo
ever Lands are given by Deed, with thefe words in Maritagio,
without any other word joined therewith, that fuch Lands were
given in Marriage liable to fervices ; for although Maritagium
be twofold viz. Maritagium Liberum & Maritagium fervitio ob
noxium, as I have long fince in the 39 and 40 pages of my reply

XII.] CLEARLY PROVED.

513

to Sir Peter's 119anfwer to my Defence oi Amicia, proved both [Pageii9.]
out of Mr. Glanvil, and other Authors, yet when the word Mari
tagium is ufed alone in a Deed, and Lands are paffed by Deed
to a Man with a Woman in Maritagio, without either the word
Libero, or the words Servitio obnoxio, in this cafe the word Mari
tagium cannot be the Genus, and comprehend both Maritagium
Liberum, and Maritagium Servitio obnoxium; for it is impoffible
that a Man fhould at one and the fame time, hold the very fame
Lands of the fame perfon, in Frank Marriage, and in Marriage
liable to fervices ; the onely queftion therefore is, when a Man
gives Lands with any one in Maritagio onely, without either the
word libero, or the words Jervitio obnoxio, what conftruftion the
Law will make of fuch a Deed ; and whether it fhall be a Gift
in Frank Marriage, or a Gift in Marriage liable to fervices ?
Now that fuch a Deed fhall be conftrued in Law to be a gift
liable to fervices will thus appear ;
Firft, Becaufe if fuch a Deed be made with the words in Ma
ritagio only, and 120no other word be expreffed in the faid Deed [Page 120.]
to declare that it fhould be a Gift in Frank Marriage, it is im
poffible that thofe Lands fhould be held free from all fervices ;
For if, as my Lord Coke upon Littleton tells us, fol. 21 b. thefe
words in Liberum Maritagium are fuch words of art, and fo
neceffarily required (in a Gift in Frank Marriage) as they cannot
be exprefs'd by words equipollent, or amounting to as much ;
How can it be that Lands given in Maritagio, can be held
free from fervices, when there are nf> equipollent words, nor any
expreffion at all, to fhew that the Donor intended that the faid
Lands fhould be held free from fervices ?
Secondly, Becaufe Maritagium fervitio obnoxium, is the elder
Brother to Maritagium Liberum; For when Lands are given
in Maritagio fervitio obnoxio, fuch Gifts are agreeable to the
Common Law of England, but when they are given in Liberum
3U

514 THE LEGITIMACY OF AMICIA [XII.
Maritagium, as we may fee in Coke upon Littleton, fol. 21b. they
create an eftate of inheritance againft the general Rule of the
Law; and therefore though this younger Son be connived at,
[Page 121.] and 121 tolerated, yet, as we may there fee, the Law requireth
that fuch Gifts be legally purfued, and that is the reafon why
fuch Gifts cannot be made to any but thofe of the bloud, as alfo
why the words in Liberum Maritagium, are fuch words of Art,
and fo neceffarily required, as that they cannot be expreffed by
words equipollent, or amounting to as much.
Alfo our Common Lawyers have a Rule (as we may fee Coke
upon Littleton, fol. 189. a.) that Additio probat minoritatem ; and
thereupon it is that my Lord Coke there tells us, that the younger
Son giveth the difference ; and purfuant to this Rule, when a Gift
is made in Maritagio, which is intended to be liable to fervices,
(that being the elder Brother) they ufe the word Maritagio in
the Deed, and no more ; but when it is given in Free Marriage,
(which is the younger Brother) according as my Lord Coke tells
us, the word Liberum (which is the difference) is abfolutely
neceffary : and herewith agrees the common praftice ; For I
never faw in all my life, where Lands were given in Maritagio,
[Page 122.] liable to fervices, that the words in Maritagio fervitio 122 'obnoxio,
were ufed in any of the faid Deeds, but only the words in Mari
tagio ; and if they did intend that any other fervices fhould be
done, over and above thofe fervices which the Law did create
by the words in Maritagio, then, they did afterwards in the faid
Deeds mention thofe other fervices, but elfe not.
So alfo the word Foedum, or Fee is twofould, viz. Fcedum Jim-
flex, and Foedum tale, and yet in this cafe, like unto the other,
Fee-fimple being the elder Brother to Fee-tail, (all inheritances
being in Fee-fimple before the ftatute of Weftminfter 2. cap. 1. as
Littleton tells us, lib. 1. cap. 2.Jeil. 13.) if it be faid in any Booke,
that a man is feifed in Fee, without more faying, it fhall be in-

XII.] CLEARLY PROVED.

515

tended in Fee-fimple; For it fhall not be intended by thefe words
(in Fee) that a Man is feifed in Fee-tail, unlefs there be added to
it this addition Fee-tail as we may fee in Littleton, lib. 3. cap. 4.
feft. 293. and according to this Rule, our Common Lawyers do
all of them conftantly ufe the like expreffions at this day.
123 So alfo in Blazoning Coats of Armes, and particularly to [Page*^.]
inftance in my own ; Becaufe the plain Barre is the elder Bro
ther to all other Barres, it 'fhall not be faid, that I bear Argent
two plain Barres Gules, but only that I beare Argent two Barres
Gules, and yet the word Fcedum is as much the Genus to Fee-
fimple and Fee-tail, and the word Barre as much the Genus to a
plain Barre, a Barre engrailed, a Barre Nebule, and all other
forts of Barres, as the word Maritagium is the Genus to Mari
tagium Liberum, and Maritagium Jervitio obnoxium. And as
the words in Fcedo alone without the word Jimplici joined with
them, fhall fignifie in Foe-fimple ; and as the word Barre alone
fhall in Blazoning be underftood to be a plain Barre and not any
other fort of Barre whatfoever, fo the words in Maritagio in a
Deed, if no other word be joined therewith, fhall in Law be con-
ftrued to be in Marriage liable to fervices.
And this doth fhew that Sir Peter Leicefter was miftaken,
when in the 20 and 21 pages of the firft of his two Books, he
charged me with faying, that Maritagium 12ieft duplex, vel Ma- [Page 124.]
ritagium, vel liberum Maritagium ; For I never faid or thought
any fuch thing, but when I did divide Maritagium, I did divide
it into Maritagium liberum, and Maritagium Jervitio obnoxium,
as you may fee in the 39 and 40 pages of my Reply ; and I have
here made it to appear, that when Lands are given in Maritagio,
without any other word added thereto, they are then given in
Marriage liable to fervices ; but the faying fo doth not diftinguifh
Maritagium, into Maritagium, and Maritagium liberum, as Sir
Peter did thereupon fay that I did.

516 THE LEGITIMACY OF AMICIA [xii.
3. Thirdly, Sir Peter Leicefter in his Advertifement to the
Reader, gives us this Record, in thefe following words.
[Page 125.] 125Ex Rotulo Chartarum de anno fexto Regis Johannis, nu-
mero 32.
Charta Lewelini
Principis Wallia.

J'

Ohannes Dei gratia, &c. Sciatis, nos dediffe, concejfijfe, & hac
Charta noftra confirmaffe, Lewelino Principi Northwallia, in
Maritagium cum Johanna filia noftra Caftrum de Ellejmara cum
omnibus pertinentiis Juis : Tenendum ei & haredibus fuis qui de eo
& pradicla filia noftra exierint, de nobis & haredibus noftris in
liberum Maritagium, falvis Conventionibus inter nos & ipfum de
terra & eodem Maritagio Jatlis : Et nos & haredes noftri pra-
ditlum caftrum cum pertinentiis Juis ei, & pradiilis haredibus Juis,
Warrantizabimus contra omnes qui in eo jus clamare voluerint:
Quare volumus, Sec. quod pradiclus Lewelinus & pradicli haredes
fui habeant & teneanl pradiilum caftrum de Ellejmara cum omni
bus pertinentiis Juis, bene & in pace, libere & quiete, integre, in bojco
& piano, in pratis & pafcuis, in viis & femitis, in aquis & molen-
[Pagei26.] dinis, in Stagnis l26& vivariis, in moris & marcifcis, & Pifcariis,
& in omnibus aliis locis & rebus, cum omnibus libertatibus & liberis
Confuetudinibus ad Mud Caftrum pertinentibus, ficut pradiclum eft.
Teftibus Domino He7irico Cantuarienfo Archiepijcopo, G. filio P.
Comite Effexia Willielmo Comite Sarum, Johanne de Curfy :
Datum per manum H. de Wellen. Archidiaconi Wellenfis d apud
Dovorum, 16 die Aprilis, anno, &c. 6.
Convenit cum Recordo, Gulielmus
Ryley Deputatus Algar. May
Militis, Februario, 1674.

XII.] CLEARLY PROVED.

517

By which Record Sir Peter Leicefter fayes it plainly appears,
that this Grant to Lewellin with Joane Daughter of King John,
was a Grant in liberum Maritagium (in exprefs words) of the
Caftle oi Ellejmere in Shropjhire, dated the 16 day of April, in
the fixth year of the Reign of King John, which faileth in the
year after the Incarnation of Chrift, 1204.
1. To which I anfwer, Firft, That it doth not plainly appear,
as hath before been fhewed, that the faid Joane, Wife of Lhe
wellin, was a Baftard ; and in this ve-127ry Record, (as fhe is in [Pag=i27.]
all the reft) fhe is called the Kings Daughter, without the leaft
blemifh of Baftardy at all.
2. Secondly, It is manifeft by a Record herein before by me
mentioned, that Livery was made of Ellefmere unto Lhewellin
by the Sheriff of Shropjhire, about the 6th year of King John ;
and as Livery doth not need to be made upon a legal gift in
Frank Marriage, fo on the other hand my Lord Coke on Little
ton, fol. 21. b. tells us, that if Lands be given in Frank Marriage
with one that is not of the blood of the Donor ; yet an Eftate
for life will pafs, if Livery be made ; and we may find both by
the Welfh Hiftory put out by Dr. Powell, pag. 306. and Matt.
Paris put out by Dr. Watts, pag. 625, & 626. that the next year
after the death of the faid Lhewellin, the faid Ellejmere was in
the hands of King Henry the III. and it appears by good Re
cord, that it was afterwards committed by him to the truft of
Hamon le Strange; fo that fuch a Grant, and fuch an enjoyment
as this was, might have been, if the faid Joane had been certainly
a Baftard, and therefore cannot have any relation to 128this Cafe [Page «8.]
of Amicia at all. And whereas Sir Peter hath heretofore ob-
jefted, that if this had been but an Eftate for life, it would have
reverted to the King upon the death of Joane, who dyed four
years before her Husband Lhewellin, in that he is clearly mif
taken, becaufe the Grant and Livery were both of them made

518 THE LEGITIMACY OF AMICIA [xii.
to Lhewellin himfelf ; And whereas he alfo would have it, that
Ellejmere did not of right belong to King Henry the III. and
thereupon in the firft of his two Books, taking notice of the Ar
ticles betwixt King Henry the III. and David Prince of North
Wales, doth ask this queftion, What needed this Covenant from
David of Ellejmere, if it were the right of King Henry before that
Agreement made ? Sir Peter if he had fo pleafed, might eafily
have difcerned that there was the fame Covenant and Grant
from the faid David, concerning fome Lands of Roger de Monte-
alto Steward of Chefter, and of fome other Barons, &c. of the
right and title to which lands there could be no doubt.
3. But Thirdly, What difputes foever might have arifen about
[Page 129.] this Grant, 129if it had been made by a common perfon, becaufe
the granting part thereof is in Maritagium, without any other
word, but the Tenendum is in liberum Maritagium ; yet there
being a difference betwixt the Kings cafe, and the cafe of a
common perfon, this Grant was certainly a void grant, and by
confequence is of no force or weight at all as to the matter in
hand ; for as we may read in the cafe of Tenures put out by
Baron Barry, and Printed at Dublin 1637. pag. 48. in the Grants
of a common perfon, the Rule of Law is, that the Grant fhall
be taken moft ftrongly againft the Grantor ; But in the King's
Grants the Rule is, that they fhall be taken moft beneficially for
the King, and moft ftrongly againft the Patentees. Alfo in the
fame 48. page, there is another itule, that the Grant of the King
fhall not be extended to pafs any thing contrary to the intent of
the King expreffed in his Grant ; and if the Grant cannot take
effeft, according to his intent expreffed in his Grant, the Grant
^is void. And accordingly in the 49. and 50 pages there are thefe
[Page 130.] cafes put, where the Grants would have been "Ogood in the Cafes
of common perfons, but not in the Cafe of the. King.
In the Lord Lovell's Cafe, 18 H. 8. B. Pat. 104. The King ex
certa Jcientia, & mero motu, grants Lands to one and his Heirs-

XII.] CLEARLY PROVED.

519

males ; If a common perfon had made fuch a Grant, the Law
would fay, that the word Males were void, and the Fee fimple
fhould pafs ; But will the Law make fuch conftruftion in the
Kings Grant ? No ; There the Grant fhall be void, for, he was
deceived in his Grant, in that it cannot take effeft according to
his intent expreffed in his Letters Patents. 29 Eliz. in the Ex
chequer, the Cafe was, King Hen. 7. was feized of two Mannors,
fcilicet de Ryton & Condor ; He Grants ex certa fcientia & mero
motu totum Mud Manerium de Ryton & Condor; Adjudged that
the Grant was void.
The like Cafe was refolved, 39. Eliz. where the Queen was
feized of the Mannors of Milborne, and Saperton in the County
of Lincoln, and the Queen grants ex certa fcientia & mero motu
totum Mud Manerium de Milborne cum Saperton in 131com. Line. [Page 131.]
and it was held, that neither of the Mannors did pafs ; and yet
if a common perfon had made fuch Grants, the Grantee in both
the faid Cafes fhould have had both the faid Mannors.
By which faid Rules and Cafes it alfo appears, that this Grant
of Elefmer &c. to Lhewellin was a void Grant, and by confe
quence of no force at all ; For that the King was deceived in his
Grant, when he made the tenendum in liberum Maritagium, is .
very plain, as well becaufe the King grants the faid Caftle and
Lands in Maritagium only, (which by Law implies Marriage
liable to fervices) as alfo, becaufe it appears by thofe words in
the Grant, Salvis conventionibus inter nos & ipfum de
* terra & eodem maritagio faclis, that the King in- * Note.
tended to have money paid, or fervice done to him,
for the faid Caftle and Lands, and by confequence they were
not to be held in liberum Maritagium.
So that all the objections againft my firft Argument, though
fo very numerous, are fully anfwered, and wholly removed out
of the way, and by neceffary l32confequence it appears, that [Page 132.]
Amicia was Hugh Ceviliok's legitimate Child.

52O THE LEGITIMACY OF AMICIA [xii.
Againft my fecond Argument, Sir Peter Leicefter in the 52
page of his Anfwer to my defence oi Amicia, doth objeft, That
although Sir Ralph Mainwaring was witnefs to very many Deeds
of the then Earls of Chefter, and was alfo much converfant with
them, as appears by thofe many circumftances which I have
therein taken notice of; yet this was occafioned by his place,
he being Judge, and that Philip de Orreby, whoVas Judge of
Chefter next after the faid Ralph, was alfo a witnefs to the like
Multitudes of Charters or more.
To which I anfwer, that although Phillip de Orreby was Juftice
of Chefter above twenty years, yet I beleive it cannot be proved
that the faid Phillip was witnefs to near fo many Charters of the
Earls of Chefter, as the faid Ralph was ; And which fhews that
the familiarity betwixt the faid Earls, and the faid Ralph, was
not upon that account which Sir Peter fpeaks of, we find as
[Page i33.] before appears that the Jaid Ralph, was a witnefs to 133Hugh
Civiliok's Deeds of confirmation to the Priory of Calc in Darby-
Jhire< and was with Randle Blundevil at Coventry, and a witnefs
to his Charter to the Burgeffes there, which could not be occa
fioned, by his being Judge.
And as to my third Argument Sir Peter Leicefter gives this
only Anfwer, as we may fee in the 5 3 page of his Anfwer to my
defence of Amicia, that indeed Precedents are fcant ; but fome
there be : what do you think of Ranulpho de Aftbury nepote Co
mitis Ceftria ; who is put the laft of all the Witneffes in the
Deed, as you may fee in the Addenda of my Book ? Certainly
he was but an ordinary Gentleman, nor Knight, nor Lord : But
v,ou will fay, I cannot prove him a Baftard ; yet I fhould be
glad to find out his Extraftion, if he were not : 'tis a fhrewd
prefumption. So that Sir Peter doth in effeft confefs, that he hath no fuch
Precedent at all, and indeed this precedent will fail him for two
reafons.

XII.] CLEARLY PROVED. 52 1
Firft Becaufe Sir Peter doth as good 134as confefs, that he [Page 134.]
cannot prove him to be a Baftard, (and he might perhaps be a
younger Brother or fon of a younger Brother, and fo not necef
farily a Knight or a Lord.)
And Secondly ; Becaufe he doth not call himfelf the Earl's
Nephew, but is called fo by others ; and that is fo far from con-
tradifting, that it doth confirm what I faid in my former Book.
And whereas Sir Peter Leicefter fays, he fhould be glad to find
out the Extraftion of the faid Randle de Aftbury, if he were not
a Baftard. Though it be perhaps impoffible now to tell him his
Extraftion certainly, becaufe he lived fo long fince, and we only
find him mentioned as a witnefs in one Deed, yet I doubt not
but to fatisfie the Reader, that he and his Father and Mother
might all be legitimate ; For, (not to fay that he might be a fon
of fome other Daughter of the faid Hugh Civiliock by his former
wife) he might poffibly be the Son of Roger, Son of Hugh Civi
liock ; and I know no reafon why the faid Roger fhould by Sir
Peter be fufpefted to be a Baftard, for he only I35finds him (as [Page 135.]
appears by his Hiftorical Antiquities, pag. 134.) mentioned as a
witnefs to a Deed of his Brother Randle's, to the Abby of St.
Werburge: So that he conceives him to be a Baftard, becaufe
neither he, nor any Iffue Male of his, fucceeded in the Earldom
of Chejler, after the death of Randle Blundevil; whereas the faid
Roger might be lawful, and be Father to this Randle de Aftbury,
and yet both he and the faid Randle de Aftbury might dye before
the* faid Randle de Blundevil; For he lived very long, and was
Earl of Chefter above 50 years : fo that this third Argument of
mine is not anfwered at all.
And whereas I have in my 4th Argument, fhewed out of Sir
Henry Spelman's Gloffary on the word Baftardus, how the faid
Sir Henry quotes Couftum. du Normand. Artie. 77. in Annot.
thus : Quoties enim agitur de honore vel commodo filiorum, appel-
3X

522 THE LEGITIMACY OF AMICIA [XII.
latione filiorum non comprehenduntur Baftardi: And have from
thence argued, that Amice would not have been ftiled filia, as
fhe is in the faid Deed,. unlefs fhe had been a legitimate Child ;
[PageI36.] Sir Peter in the 6 f page of his Anfwer to my 136 Defence of
Amicia, doth objeft againft this in thefe very words.
And what you add out of Spelman, is little to the purpofe ;
that in Cafes of Honour and Profit, diftinftion was then made ;
that by the Appellation of Sons, Baftards are not comprehended
by the Cuftoms of Normandy : What then ? this fuppofeth that
in other Cafes, and formerly by the Appellation of Sons, Baftards
were comprehended : This makes direftly againft you, and you
know what Spelman faith in the very words next following 
That the ancient Northern people admitted Baftards to fucceed
in their Inheritance ; and that William the Conqueror was not
afhamed of that, title, who began his Letter to Alan, Earl of
Little Britain, (as he did many others) Ego Willielmus cogno-
mento Baftardus. But what is all this to the anfwering of the
Argument, or proving Hugh Cyveliok to have had a former
Wife ? only you would have the words in libero Maritagio, to
prove Amice abfolutely legitimate: this is all the Anfwer you
give to the Point ; and this will not do it, as is before proved,
whither I have referred the ingenious Reader.
[Page i37.] 137To which I anfwer, Firft, that though Sir Peter Leicefter
doth here fay, that this (which I here cite) fuppofeth that in
other Cafes, and formerly by the Appellation of Sons, Baftards
were comprehended : And that this makes direftly againft me ;
yet he is very much deceived in fo faying : For if in other Cafes
by the Appellation of Sons, Baftards were comprehended, but
were not comprehended by that Appellation in Cafes of Profit ;
it will from hence appear that Amicia was legitimate, becaufe
fhe was called Filia in a Cafe, that did concern her Profit, and
by confequence her Father muft have a former Wife. And
whereas he tells us, out of the next words of Spelman, viz. that

XII.] CLEARLY PROVED. 523
the ancient Northern People admitted Baftards to fucceed in
their Inheritance ; and that William the Conqueror was not
afhamed of that Title, who began his Letter to Alan, Earl of
Little Britain, as he did many others, Ego Willielmus cogno-
mento Baftardus.
I do not know how Sir Peter can apply thofe expreffions to
the Cafe in hand, and if he could, they would make againft
138him ; For, when Baftard Children were fo much efteemed, as [Page 138.]
to be admitted to fucceed in the inheritance, then certainly ille
gitimate Daughters were very near of equal repute with thofe
that were legitimate. And by this Rule, why fhould not Amicia',
if fhe was a Baftard, be fo called, as well as Paganus was ? (who
as Sir Peter fays, was the fon of Hugh Civiliok) or why fhould
Hugh Civiliok himfelfe, be more afhamed to call her fo, than
William the Conqueror was to ftile himfelf a Baftard.
But thefe Cafes of Princes differ much from thofe of Subjefts ;
For Sir Richard Baker in his Chronicle printed at London, 1665.
page 22. in the Life and Reign of King William the Conquerour,
tells us, that in thofe days it was not unfrequent, for Princes to
confer their Principalities after their own deceafes, upon whom
they pleafed, counting it as lawful to appoint fucceffors after
them, as fubftitutes under them ; And he alfo obferves how in
our time, and Kingdom, the Duke of Northumberland prevailed
with King Edward the fixth, to exclude his two Sifters, Mary
and Elizabeth, and to appoint the Lady Jane Grey, Daughter
of 139the Duke of Suffolk, to fucceed him: fo that Precedents [Page 139.1
brought from Princes, will in this Cafe be of no force at all.
And whereas I have fhewed in my 5th Argument, that al
though the Conftable of Chejhire (who had that Office in Fee)
was by Charter to go next to the Earl of Chefter; And the
Dapifer, Senefchal or Steward of Chefhire, (who alfo had that
Office in Fee, was to go next to the faid Conftable, that yet the
faid Ralph Mainwaring, notwithftanding the faid Charters, is

524 THE LEGITIMACY OF AMICIA [xii.
not only named as a Witnefs before the faid Conftable, Senefchal,
and other Barons, in thofe Deeds which I have there mentioned,
but that alfo the Earl of Chefter himfelf in his Charter, (contrary
to all other Precedents in the times of other Juftices which I
have feen) doth name the Juftice of Chejler before both the
Conftable of Chejhire, and Steward oi Chejhire. And that I did
fuppofe, that the reafon why the faid Ralph had that great
refpeft, was, becaufe he had married a lawful Child of the faid
Earl, it being too great to have been fhewed him, if he had only
[Page 140.] married one who 140was a Baftard ; and that it will be very diffi
cult to give any other reafon thereof : Sir Peter Leicefter in the
) '7th page of his Anfwer to my Defence of Amicia, doth only
give this Anfwer in thefe very words.
To this I fay, it will not be difficult at all to give a reafon,
and much more eafie, than to give a reafon, why Amice fhould
be no Baftard, becaufe Sir Rauje Manwaring is fometime fub
fcribed before the Barons of Chejhire. The reafon I give is this,
that anciently in thofe Ages, the Juftice was put fometimes before
the Barons, and fometimes after ; and fometimes after the Con
ftable, and Dapifer, and before the reft of the Barons, as it hapned :
For proof, fee the Deed in my Book, making the Baron oi Halton,
the prime Baron, pag. 160. where the Juftice comes after all the
Barons ; alfo in the Deed of Earl Randle to his Barons, pag. 162.
where the Juftice comes next after the Conftable and Dapifer,
and before the other Barons ; fee alfo in my Book, pag. 130, 131.
two Deeds made by Hugh Cyveliok : In the one, the Juftice is
put after the Conftable and Dapifer : In the other, the Juftice is
[Page 141.] put before them; many other like exam-141 pies may be produced
elfewhere : I will appeal herein to Mr. Dugdale, or to any An
tiquary in England ; and confidering the great uncertainty of
tubfcription of Witneffes in old Deeds, fometimes putting one
before another, in one Deed, and again putting the fame perfon
after the other in another Deed ; fometimes putting Domino
prefixed before the names of fome perfons in one Deed, and
omitting the word Domino before the names of the fame perfons

XI1-] CLEARLY PROVED.

525

in another Deed, whereof I have fpoken,/^. 5, 6. in the begin
ning of this Book. I fay, had you well confidered or obferved
thefe things, it was not worth your labor to have added thofe
three or four leafs in the clofe of your Book.
To which I reply, That what Sir Peter fayes in the 77, 78, and
79 pages of his faid Anfwer, is fo far from anfwering that Argu
ment of mine, which is contained between the 69, and 75 pages
of my firft Book, that that which Sir Peter pretends to be an
Anfwer, (if rightly underftood) is the very Argument which I
there frame againft him ; For, though what he fayes, pag. 78. be
true, that 142fometimes the Juftice is put after the Conftable and [Page 142.]
Dapifer, and fometimes before the Conftable and Dapifer, yet all
the Juftices of Chefter, except Sir Ralph Mainwaring, are named
in the Charts of the Earls of Chefter, after the Conftable and
Dapifer, and are alfo named after the Conftable and Dapifer,
when they were witneffes to any Deeds ; But it is only in the
time of the faid Sir Ralph Manwairing, when the Juftice is
named before the Conftable and Dapifer in the Charts of the
faid Earls, and it is only he who is named as a Witnefs, and that ¦
frequently before the Conftable and Dapifer as I have proved by
feveral Deeds, which I then mentioned both out of Sir Peters
former Book, and elfewhere, and doth alfo further appear, by
another Deed in his Hiftorical Antiquities, pag. 205. where the
faid Sir Ralph Mainwaring is alfo named as a witnefs before the
then Dapifer, Ralph de Montealto ; and this refpeft was fhewed
to the faid Sir Ralph Mainwaring, although, as we may fee in his
faid Book, pag. 160. & 161. that the Conftable by Charter was to
go next the Earl, and had his Office in Fee, and that the Steward
143was to go next after the Conftable, and had his Office alfo in [Pagei43.]
Fee. But when Phillip Orreby, who did fucceed the faid Sir Ralph
Manwairing, was Juftice of Chejler, then, according to the old
ufual way, as appears in the 162. page of Sir Peters firft Book,

526 THE LEGITIMACY OF AMICIA [xii.
the Conftable and Dapifer were again named in the Earls Chart
before the Juftice of Chejler, and alfo as we may fee at the bot
tom of the 144 page and top of the 145 page oi his faid Book,
the faid Conftable was named as a Witnefs before Phillip de
Orreby, though then Juftice of Chefter ; and I beleive Sir Peter
cannot fhew any Chart of any of the Earls of Chefter, in which
any other Juftice of Chefter had the like preeminence ; neither
do I think he can fhew any Deeds, in which any other Juftice is
named as a witnefs before the Conftable or Dapifer ; and if any
fuch fingle Precedent can perchance be found, I am confident
it will prove to be a Deed wherein the faid Philip de Orreby is
named as a witnefs, and was occafioned by the fimplicity of the
Clark, who did write the faid Deed, who finding Sir Ralph
[Page 144.] Mainwa-X^ring Juftice of Chefter (the immediate Predeceffor of
the faid Philip de Orreby) to be written as a witnefs before the
Conftable and Dapijer, might thereupon think that Philip de Or
reby fhould alfo be fo placed, though it was not allowed to the
faid Philip.
And although Sir Peter truly objefts, p. 78. how great the un
certainty of fubfcription of witneffes was in old Deeds, fometimes
putting one before another in one Deed, and after putting the
fame perfon after the other in another Deed ; yet, that will be
nothing in this Cafe, for Sir Peter himfelf confeffes, pag. 160. &
161. of his Hiftorical Antiquities ; notwithftanding the uncer
tainty of fubfcription of Witneffes, that after certain Offices were
annexed to certain Barons, that the matter was without contro
verfie (as to the Conftable and Dapijer) and that the Conftable oi
Chejhire in Fee carried it clear by his Office, which was annexed
tp his Barony, and that the Steward was the next after him.
And therefore this Preeminence being thus given to the faid
[Page 145.] Sir Ralph, and to 145him only; and he alfo, fo far as I have
found, being ever named before all the other Barons of Chejhire,
after he had married the faid Amicia, as well when he had parted

XI1-] CLEARLY PROVED. 527
with his Office of Juftice, as before ; I think I may ftill fay, it
will be difficult to give a reafon thereof, if he did not marry a
lawful Daughter of the aforefaid Earl.
6. Sixthly, My laft Argument to prove Amicia lawful, was
raifed, from the vaft difproportion of years, that was betwixt
Hugh Cyveliok, and his Wife Bertred, it not being at all pro
bable, that fo great a perfon as Earl Hugh was, fhould continue
unmarried, without having a former Wife until the faid Bertred
became marriageable. And this I formerly proved by three
reafons. Firft, By fhewing how Earl Hugh did join with his Mother
Matilda, in giving by Deed Stivinghale, and other things, to
Walter Durdent Bifhop of Chefter, and his Succeffors, to which
Deed Euftace the Conftable was a Witnefs, and I having there
proved out of Sir Peter Leicefter's Hiftorical Antiquities, that the
faid Eu-li6ftace was flain in the year 1 157. (in which year the [Page 146.]
faid Bertred was born) it would from thence follow, that if that
Deed was fealed immediately before the faid Euftace was flain,
yet the faid Hugh muft) needs be at the leaft 21 years older than
his Wife Bertred. I
Secondly, I have fhewed out of Caradocus Lhancaruenfis
(whom I have proved to be an Author of good credit, and to
be living at that time) that the faid Hugh in the year 1142.
fortified his Caftle of Cymaron and wan Melyenith to himfelf;
and if the faid Hugh was but 12 years of age at that time, yet
he would be about 41 years old when he married the faid Bertred.
And Thirdly, I have mentioned a Deed which is in Sir Peter
Leicefter's Hiftorical Antiquities, which the faid Hugh when he
was Earl, made to the Nuns of Bolington, in which is this ex
preffion, Sicut fuit tempore Henriei Regis ; by which it appears,
that the faid Deed was made in the time of King Steven : For

528 THE LEGITIMACY OF AMICIA [xii.
the faid Hugh, as Sir Peter Leicefter tells us, came to be Earl in
[Page 147.] the year 1153. 18. of King 14? Steven, and dyed Anno Domini
1 181. 27 H. 2. But in the time of King Henry the fecond, it
could not be made ; for then Earl Hugh would have faid, Sicut
fuit tempore Henriei primi, or elfe he would have ufed fome other
words to diftinguifh King Henry the firft, from the then King
Henry the fecond. And if it was made in the time of King
Steven, he dying in the year 1154. which was three years before
the faid Bertred was born, if the faid Deed was made imme
diately before King Steven dyed, yet Earl Hugh would be at
leaft 24 years older than Bertred his Wife.
Againft every of thefe three reafons, Sir Peter Leicefter doth
objeft, and as to the firft he tells us, how Richard Earl of Chefter
joined with his Motxiex^Ermentrude in the Grant of Wadmundef-
ley, Anno Domini 1 io-oTwhea^he was fcarce twelve years old,
and fo would have the Cafe oiSikimghale, to be like that of
Wadmundeftey, and therefore will fuppcJfe Earl Hugh, when he
made the Deed of Stivinghale to be ther^but about 12 years old
alfo, becaufe his Mother then joined with him. But in my An-
[Pagei48.] fwer to Sir Pe-li8ter's two Books, pag. 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, & 46. I
have fhewed out of the Book of Abington, that that
* Note. Deed of Wadmundeftey waT"Sealed with the *Seal of
the Earls Mother ©-n-ly, and not with the Earls Seal
at all, and that it was taken notice of as a ftrange Cafe, and
other very material differences, I have there obferved befides, to
which, for brevity fake; I fhall refer the Reader at this time.
And wherea^4ie hath objefted againft my fecond reafon, that
Caradopm^fhancaruan is not to be believed, becaufe he fays
Y^aQ Ste-ijen took Geffrey Mandevyle Prifoner at St. Albans in
the year 1 142. whereas Matt. Paris in that Edition put out by
Dr. Wats, pag. 79. fays it was William Mandevyle ; if you look
in Henry of Huntington, who lived in the time of the faid King
'Steven, pag. 393. lin. 15. And in the Hiftory of Simeon Dunel-

XIL] CLEARLY PROVED. c2g
menfis, (who alfo, lived in the time of the faid King Steven, and
whofe Hiftory was continued for about 25 years, by John Prior
of Hagulfted ox Hexam) Col. 273. lin. iS. And in Roger Hoveden
(who lived in the times of King Henry the II. ™ King Richard [Pagei49.]
the I. and King John) in his Annals printed at Francjurt, 1601.
pag. 488. 1. 41. And in Gulielmus Nubrigenfis, who lived in the
times of King Richard the I. and King John, lib. 1. cap. 1 1. And
in Ralph de Diceto, who was Dean of Pauls in King John's time,
in his Abbrev. Chronic. Col. 508. 1. 32. And in Gervafius a Bene-
diftine Monk of Canterbury, (who lived in the time of King John)
Col. 1360. lin. 7. And in John Bromton 's Chronicon, which ends
with the death of King Richard the I. Col. 1033. lin. 1. you
will there find, that according to what Caradocus Lhancaruenfis
fays, his name was Geffrey, and not William Mandevyle. And
if Sir Peter had but lookt in Mat. Paris on the other fide of
the leaf, pag. 80. /. 20. he would have found Mat. Paris alfo
calling him Geffrey Mandevyle, fo that the calling of him Wil
liam in the former leaf, was either a flip of the Printer, or
of Mat. Paris's Pen. Neither is that fecond Objeftion which
Sir Peter makes againft this fecond reafon, of any force : For
whereas it is mifprinted, Hugh Earl of Chefter, inftead of Hugh
Son to the Earl of Chefter, as appears by the amendment of
the Errata, at the end of 150the faid Book, Sir Peter Leicefter [Pagei3o.]
of his own Authority, without naming any Author to juftifie
what he fays, tells us, that it fhould have been printed Randle
Earl of Chefter, and not Hugh Son to the Earl of Chefter ; but
I will appeal to the Reader, who is moft like to know, how it
was in Caradocus Lhancaruenfis 's Welfh Manufcript, whether Sir
Peter, who never faw it, or Dr. Powel, who tranflated the fame
into Englifh out of Welfh. And whereas Sir Peter Leicefter in
the 39 and 40 pages of his fecond Reply, objefts againft my third
reafon, and fays, that in the faid Deed to the Nuns of Bolington,
the not adding the words of Henriei Regis nunc, fhews clearly it
is meant oi Hen. I. In that he fays very true, for the words ficut
fuit tempore Regis Henriei, do certainly relate to King Henry
3 Y

530 THE LEGITIMACY OF AMICIA [xii.
the firft's time, becaufe when this Deed was made, there had
been no other King Henry ; but it fhews clearly, that this Deed
was made in King Steven's time ; for if it had been made in
King Henry the fecond's time, it would have faid, ficut Juit tem
pore Regis Henriei primi, or elfe it would have ufed fome other
expreffion, to diftinguifh King Henry the I. from King Henry
[Page 151.] the II. ,51the then King. And if that Deed was made in King
Steven's time, then my faid Argument is ftill in force ; for King
Steven dyed three years before Bertred was born. And I think
I may fecurely fay, it will be hard for any one to fhew me the
like expreffion to that oi ficut Juit tempore Henriei Regis, in any
Deed, that he can make appear was made by a Subjeft in the
time of King Henry the II. or any other later King Henry, or in
the time of any other King in the like Cafe.
But befides thefe Objeftions againft my faid three reafons, Sir
Peter Leicefter knowing very well, (according to what he did
once acknowledge in the 49 page of his Anfwer to my Defence
oi Amicia) that if there was any great number of years betwixt
the age of Hugh Cyveliok, and his Wife Bertred, a man might
then reafonably fuppofe, that the faid Earl had a former Wife,
doth labor very much to prove, there was no great difference of
age betwixt them, and to that purpofe he gives us this Record.
[Page 152] 152 Scaccarium apud Weftminfter.
In Rotulo de Dominabus Pueris, & Puellis, de anno 3 1 Hen. 2.
in Cuftodia Rememoratoris Regis exiftente, continetur (in
ter alia) ut Jequitur, &c.
• Com. Lincoln.
Baltefiawe Wapentak.
~\/YAtilda Comitiffa Ceftria eft de donatione Domini Regis: &
1 VI fuit filia Roberti Comitis Gloceftria filii Regis Henriei
primi, & eft L annorum, & amplius : Hujus Villa recepit Comi-

53i

[Page 153.]

XI1*] CLEARLY PROVED.
lijfa his VIII. annis: Ipfa tenet Wadinton in dote dejeodo Comitis
Ceftria: & firma eft XXII. libr. per annum: dicla villa valet
per annum XL. lib. cum hoc inftauramento, Jcilicet, II. Carucis,
IIII. Vaccis, I. Tauro, IIII. Juibus, I. verre, D. ovibus, qua ibi
Junt  &c.
153 Com. Lincoln.
» Jeretre Wapentak.
Bertrea Comitiffa, filia Comitis de Evereous, uxor Hugonis Co
mitis Ceftria, eft de donatione Domini Regis; & eft xxix. annorum
Terra quam Comitiffa habet, xl. lib. * Maritagium ;
& defeclusfunt ultra mare, ideo nefciunt Juratores M^Lg]lm&-
quid valeant. Dominus Rex pracepit, quod ipfa Dos gus funt
haberet xl. libratas terra Domini fui in Beltesford,
Hemmingly, & Duninton : licet non habuit nifi xxxv. libratas, &
x. folidatas. Quia (ut dicunt) dicla terra non poteft plus valere
cum Inftauramento quod Comitiffa ibi recepit ; Jcilicet, v. Carucis,
cccxli. ovibus, x. Juibus, i. verre. Sedji in Duninton apponerentur
cc. oves, & x.fues, & i. verris, tunc valeret.
And from this Record, Sir Peter Leicefter tells us, that it clearly
appears that the faid Matilda or Maude was born, anno, 1135.
and was aged fifty years, anno Domini, 1185. 31 Hen. 2. and that
154therefore Earl Hugh could not be born till the year 1150. at [Pageis4.i
fooneft, and fo could be but about fix (or feven) years older than
his Wife Bertred ; and hereupon he fays that he hath laid this
Argument afleep for ever, which was brought from their great
difference in age.
To which I anfwer, that this Argument is fo far from proving
clearly what Sir Peter Leicefter doth fuppofe it to prove, that it
is of no force at all ; for I fhall yet make it manifeft to all, that
Hugh Cyveliok was very many years elder than his Wife Bertred,
and that Matilda her felf was alfo of a far greater age than Sir

532

THE LEGITIMACY OF AMICIA [xii.

Peter Leicefter from this Record doth fuppofe her to be ; and
therefore befides thofe three Reafons which I have formerly
given, I fhall alfo give thefe feveral Reafons to make good what
I do here fay :
And firft, I defire the Reader to obferve, that though this
Record tell us, that the age of Bertred was twenty nine years,
in the 31 year of King Henry the Second, yet it doth not fay
[Page 155] that Matilda 155was aged fifty years at that time, but that fhe
was then aged fifty years and more, which it might fay, and fay
true, if the faid Matilda had been ninety years of age at that
time. And Secondly, I fhall appeal to thofe who are verfed in
thefe matters, whether it be any ftrange thing to find a perfon
faid to be aged thirty years and more, or forty years and more,
when they are really aged many years more, than that number
of years which is particularly mentioned, and efpecially when
the weaker Sex is concerned, and the age of the Party not ma
terial to the Cafe in hand.
Thirdly, I defire the Reader to obferve, how this new Argu
ment of Sir Peter's doth clafh with what he hath faid before ;
for in the 89 page of his firft Reply, he fuppofeth Earl Hugh
either to be born in the year 1145. or in the year 1143. The
firft of which reckonings if Matilda was born in the year 1135.
makes him to be born when his Mother was but ten years old,
and the fecond reckoning makes him to be born, when his Mother
was but 8 years old, fo little did Sir Peter confider what he hath
jjprmerly faid.
[Page 156.] 156 Fourthly, What likelihood can there be, that Matilda was
born in the year, 1135. fince we find that fhe and her Son Earl
Hugh fealed the Deed of Stivinghale in the life-time of Euftace
the Conftable, who, as appears before, was flain in the year, 1 157.

XII.] CLEARLY PROVED.

533

whereas by that reckoning Matilda her felf could not have been
one and twenty years of age, when flie and her Son fealed that
Deed of Stivinghale, unlefs that Deed was fealed but about a
year before the death of the faid Euftace ; for from the year
1 135. in which Sir Peter fuppofeth Matilda to be born to the
year 1157. in which Euftace was flain, is but two and twenty
years. Fifthly, It is not likely that Matilda was fo young as Sir Peter
did conceive her to be, becaufe as you may fee in Mr. Selden's
Titles of Honor, printed at London, 163 1. pag. 647. out of an old
Rithmical Story attributed to one Robert of Gloucefter, the Father
and Mother of the faid Matilda were married in the year, 1109.
The Verfes concerning the faid Marriage are many, but the words
157 as to the time of the Marriage are thefe : [Page 157.]
<13)i0 toag (Cut) \z\xz fjtmDjrti peer attD in tf)e mtfj peer rt$)t
&tm tfjat tire 3louerD toass m t)i0 mo&er a Ijfgfjt
Now if the faid Matilda was born in the year, 1135. fhe then
was not born till fix and twenty years after the Marriage of her
Father and Mother, which though poffible, is yet very impro
bable fo to be ; indeed Stow in his Annals printed at London,
163 1. pag. 137. 50. b. makes this Marriage in the year 11 10. but
he there miftakes the Chriftian Name of the Wife of the faid
Robert Earl of Gloucefter, and calls her Maude inftead of Mabel ;
and for that reafon, as alfo becaufe the Author of the faid
Rithmical Story was firft in time, he ought to be credited in
this Point before Mr. Stow ; however it could make but one
year difference in time.
Sixthly, If the faid Maude, according to Sir Peter's fancy, was
not bom till the year, 1135. then, as Sir Peter himfelf *>58con- [Pagers.]
feffeth in his Peroratio, pag. 78. Earl Hugh could not be ima
gined to be born till the year, 1150. at fooneft; and if he was

534 THE LEGITIMACY OF AMICIA [xii.
not born till the faid year, 1150. he then would have been but
one and thirty years of age, when he died ; for as you may fee
in Six Peter's Hiftorical Antiquities, pag. 134. he died in the year
1 181. Now what likelihood is there that this Earl Hugh fhould
be but one and thirty years of age when he died, feeing he had
his Daughter Amicia married in his life-time to Ralph Mainwa
ring, and none knows how many years before the death of the
faid Earl.
Seventhly. Speed in his Hiftory of Great Brittain, printed
1632. pag. 473. a. Daniel in his Collection ofthe Hiftory of Eng
land, pag. 62. Polydore Virgil in his Hiftor. Anglic, put out by
Thyfius, and printed at Leyden, 165 1. pag. 264. Matt. Paris, put
out by Dr. Wats, and printed at London, 1640. p. 78. Henry
Huntington who lived in King Stephen's time printed at Frank
furt, 1 60 1. pag. 390. Roger Hoveden (who was, as Vojfius fays,
Inter Domefticos Regis Henriei Jecundi) in the fame Edition at
[Pagei59-] Frankjurt, p. 485. 159 John Prior oi Hagulftad, or Hexham, who
lived in Henry the Second's time, col. 269. John Brompton, col.
1030, (which two laft were printed at London, 1652,) and Guliel-
mus Neubrigenfos, who lived in King Richard the Firft, and King
John's time, in that Edition printed at Heidelberg, 1587. p. 363.
and Ordericus Vitalis, who lived in King Stephen's time, lib. 13.
Eccles. Hift. pag. 92 1 . and the Author of the Treatife called Chro
nica Normannia, p. 978. do fome of them in the year, 1141. and
fome of them fooner, (but occafionally onely) take notice of that
relation of Father in Law, and Son in Law that was betwixt
Robert Earl of Gloucefter, and Randle Earl of Chejler, and Sir
Peter himfelf, as we may fee in his Hiftorical Antiquities, p. 121.
anjl in his Anfwer to the Dejence oj Amicia, p. 48 and 49. doth
acknowledge that fome Authors do fpeak of that Relation, in the
year 11 39. Now the faid Randle Earl of Chefter, as Sir Peter
fays in his Hiftorical Antiquities, was a Gallant Man at Arms,
and took King Stephen prifoner in the year 1 141. and he alfo was
in the Field, and in very great danger in the year 1136. as we

XII.] CLEARLY PROVED.

535

may fee in the Hiftory written by Simeon ™° Dunelmenfos, and [Pagex60.]
continued by John Prior of Hagulftad, col. 259. What likelihood
therefore is there that he fhould be Husband to the faid Maude
in the year 1 1 39. which Sir Peter confeffeth he was, if fhe was not
born till the year 1135. efpecially confidering that none of the
faid Authors (that I can find) do tell us the time of their Mar
riage, or take any notice that fhe was a Child : Nay Mr. Daniel
is fo far from that, that he fays the Earl of Chefter left his Brother
and Wife within the faid Caftle, to defend it, but the Earl of
Chefter's name is there mifprinted, inftead of Randle, he being
called Ralph.
Eighthly, Sir Peter Leicefter in his Hiftorical Antiquities, p.
131 and 132. gives us this Deed following in thefe very words ;
ROberto Dei gratia Lincolnienfi Epijcopo, & Capitulo Jancla
Ecclefia Lincolnia, totiq; Clero illius Prajulatus, Hugo
comes Ceftria Salutem. Necnon & Conftabulario, & Dapijero, &
Baronibus, & Miniftris, & Famulis, & Hominibus Juis omnibus,
tam Cleris, quam Laicis, ^xJalutem Jimiliter, vos Jcire volo, me [Page 161.]
concejfijfe & confirmaffe Jancli-monialibus de Grene felt Mam ter ram
quam Willielmus filius Otuherieis iu Elemojynam perpetuam dedit;
quam vero pater meus Comes Ranulphus eis conceffit Carta Jua
confirmatam : E a propter volo & pracipio, quod prajata Janclimo-
niales terram Mam perenniter bene & quiete, & libere habeant &
poffideant ; Teftibus Matilda Comitiffa Matre mea, Simone filio
Willielmi, Rogero Capellano, Ricard Capellano & aliis multis ;
Apud Beltesford valete.
Now this Deed being made by Earl Hugh without his Mother
Matilda joining with him (fhe being only Witnefs to the faid
Deed) and it being fealed only with the Earls Seal (which faid
Seal Sir Peter doth there defcribe) it will not I fuppofe be deny'd
but that the faid Earl was then at age when he fealed the faid
Deed ; now there being at the time of the making of the faid

536 THE LEGITIMACY OF AMICIA [xii.
Deed a Robert Bifhop of Lincolne living, and there being no
Robert who was Bifhop of Lincolne during any of the time that
the faid Hugh was Earl, except Robert de Chifney, furnamed by
[Page 162.] fome de Querceto, by others 162 Chefneto (which as Bifhop Godwin
fays was all one, the one being drawn from the French, the other
Latin, both fignifying a Grove of Oaks) it will thereupon follow
that this Deed was made whilft the faid Robert de Chifney was
alive ; now Gulielmus Nubrigenfis printed at Heidelberg, 1 5 87.
pag. 398. and Matt. Weftminfter printed at London, 1570. part 2.
pag. 48. and feveral others tells us, that this Robert de Chifney
died in the year 1 167. and Bifhop Godwin, in that Edition printed
at London, 161 5. pag. 293. tells us the very day, and fays it was
January 8. 11 67. And John Brompton, col. 1059. fay*3 h was in
the 14 of Hen. 2. which agrees right with Bifhop Godwin, if he
reckon according to the Church oj Engiands Account ; Now if
the faid Matilda had been born in the year 1 135. according to
Sir Peter's fancy, fhe would have been but about 32 years of age
in the year 1167. If therefore that Deed had been made at
the very time of the death of the faid Bifhop (which there is
no reafon to believe it was) yet the faid Hugh being then at
age, if his Mother had been born in the year, 1135. fhe muft
[Page 163.] have had her Son Hugh when 163fhe her felf was but about
eleven years old, which is unreafonable to imagine, and therefore
we may fafely conclude fhe was born many years before.
Ninthly, If you look into the firft Part of Sir William Dug
dale's Baronage oj England, pag. 40. we fhall find him fpeaking
of a Record (of which I have now a Copy) which fhews, that in
10 Hen. 2. Hugh Cyveliok was one of thofe Temporal Lords who
caine to an accord with the King for their ancient Liberties.
Now the tenth year of King Henry the Second falling out part
of it in the year 1163. and part of it in the year 1164. (in which
latter year the faid Record is dated) the faid Matilda, if fhe had
been born in the year 1 135. would have been then but about Nine
and twenty years old ; and who can imagine that any man fhould

XII*J CLEARLY PROVED. 537
have been employed or mentioned in fo great a Concern, whofe
Mother was then no more than Nine and twenty years of age.
Tenthly, If we look in that Treatife which is called Gefta
Stephani Regis, pag. 952. which Treatife was written by a Con
temporary, though an unknown m* Author, and is bound up [Pagei64
with Ordericus Vitalis in that Edition printed at Paris, 1619.
Although the faid Treatife be imperfeft, and have two 'leaves
wanting in that very place, yet we may there find enough to
fhew that the faid Matilda (who was the only Wife of the faid
Earl Randle) muft need be born long before the year 1135.
for as appears there, a little before the befieging of Lincolne
Caftle (which Siege as appears by other Authors, as alfo by
Sir Peter Leicefter in his Hiftorical Antiquities, pag. 121 & 122.
was in the year 1141.) the faid Earl of. Chefter was in Lincolne
Caftle with his Wife and Sons ; and how could the faid Earl
at that time have Sons, if Matilda, who was his only Wife was
then but fix years of age ; The words of the faid Treatife are
thefe:
PLurimo itaque evoluto tempore, cum nee comes Jolito devotius
Regi pareret, cumque in Lincolnenfi *cum uxore
& filiis commorans caftello, civibus & affinibus dira * Note.
injungere, eives Regi priv atim & occulte nunciis defti-
nalis, ut ad Comitem cum fu- 16sorum fuffragiis obfidendum quam [page 165.]
feftinus adeffet, cum multa Jupplicatione Japiiis mandarunt. Rex
autem repente & improvife adveniens, d civibus Jujceptus, caftellum
evacuatum pene invenit ; exceptis uxore &• jratre Comitis, pauclsq;
eorum fuffraganeis, quos idem Rege civitatem fubeunte ibi relin-
quens, vix a caftello folus effugit. Rege itaq; conftanter & animqje
caftellum objidente, quique includebantur baliftis, & aliis diverfo
ftudii machinis gravijfime infeflante, Comes Ceftria, mandatis
Roberto Comite Glaornia, fed & Milone, & omnibus, qui fe in
Regem armarant ; fed & Walenfium gravi Jecum & intolerabili
conducla multitudine, und omnes conjpiratione, imb ' & concordi
3Z

538 THE LEGITIMACY OF AMICIA [xii.
animo ad Regem expugnandum pariter convenerunt. Erat autem
feftivus Purificationis dies, &.
So that you here fee that the fame Comes or Earl, who is faid
to be then in Lincoln Caftle, cum uxore & • filiis, is the fame Earl,
that fled out of the Caftle, and left there his Wife and Brother,
and came again with feveral men out of Chejhire and Wales, and
that the faid Earl who did fo was the Earl of Chefter, we may
[Page 166.] 166find in moft Hiftorians, and alfo in Sir Peter Leicefter's Hifto
rical Antiquities, pag. 122. fo that hence alfo it is very clear that
Matilda was not born in the year 11 35. for fhe could not be
Mother of feveral Children when fhe was but about fix years of
age. Eleventhly, William Malmesbury in that Edition printed at
Frankfurt, 1601. in the fecond Book of that which he calls his
Hiftoria Novella, pag. 186. in the year, 1142. thus writes, Rex
Stephanus ante Natale a Lindocolina provincia pacifice abcejferat,
Comitemq; Ceftrenfem, & ejus fratrem honoribus auxe-
* Note. rat. Is Comes filiam Comitis Gloceftrenjis *jamdudum
a tempore Regis Henriei duxerat. Now this Author as
to his Teftimony is beyond all exception, for he lived in the time
of the faid Earl of Chefter and Maude, and cannot be fuppofed
to be ignorant when their Marriage was ; for he was well known
to Robert Earl of Glocefter, Father of the faid Maud, and dedi
cated *his faid Book called Hiftoria Novella, as alfo his Book de
Geftis Regum Anglorum, to the faid Earl ; and as his words
[Page 167.] cannot poffibly be otherwife conftrued than 167fo, as to make
the faid Marriage to be at the leaft in the year, 11 3 5. (King
Henry the Firft dying the fecond of December in that year) fo no
one can imagine but that the faid Maud was born long before
that^year, there being no probability that Randle Earl of Chefter,
who was fo brave a Man, fhould marry a new born Child ; but
there is no doubt but that the meaning of thofe words are, that

XIL] CLEARLY PROVED. 539
the faid Randle married the faid Maude fome years before the
death of King Henry the Firft, and confequently before the time
that Sir Peter doth fuppofe the faid Maude to be born ; for as
Mr. Gouldman tells us in his Diftionary, the Letter A, prima
Jignificatione connotat terminum loci unde aliquid movetur, ut
redeo a villa, &c. hine ad alia transfertur, ut notet caufam agen-
tem, unde Jit motus, &¦ tempus, unde proceditur, & declaratur per
cum; ut, aparvo te novi, h. e. cum parvus effes. And accordingly
we fay in the Englifh Tongue, / knew Juch a one jrom a Child,
(that is) / knew him when he was a Child, fo that the aforefaid
expreffion of William of Malmesbury, doth not exclude, but
include fome of the time of King Henry the I.
168Twelfthly, Gulielmus Gemiticenfis, who lived in the times of [pag= .esj
William the Conqueror, William Rufus, King Henry the I. and
fome part of King Steven, and confequently was living when the
faid Matilda was married, will give us very good fatisfaftion in
the point in hand ; this Willielmus Gemiticenfis, as you may fee
in Vqffous's Book, de Hiftoricis Latinis, and in Willielmus Gemi-
ticenfis's own Books, did write fix Books de Geftis Normannorum,
and dedicate them to William the Conqueror, and did afterwards
add a 7th Book, in which he did write fome little of William Ru
fus, but* more largely of King Henry the I. whofe death (which
hapned Decemb. 2. 1135.) he declares, but writes of nothing later
than the year 1 137. and in that year he only fpeaks of the death
of fome great perfons, and fome few inconfiderable things. Now
it cannot (as I think) be probably fuppofed, that this Gulielmus
Gemiticenfis could be lefs than 30 years of age, when he had
finifhed his firft fix Books de geftis Normannorum, and dedi
cated them to William the Conqueror : And if that hapned in
the laft year of the faid King Wil-169 Ham, the faid Wilhelmus [pagei69.]
Gemiticenfis would be 30 years of age in the year 1087. (for in
that year William the Conqueror dyed) and by this compu
tation the faid Gulielm. Gemit. would be 80 years of age, when

54°

THE LEGITIMACY OF AMICIA [XII.

he finifhed his laft Book in the year 1137. which is the utmoft
time that we find him to write. Now the faid Wilhelmus Gemi
ticenfis, in that Edition put out by Mr. Cambden, and printed at
Frankfurt, 1603. in his laft Book, and 38 Chapter, in that very
Chapter where he tells us of the death of King Henry the I. and
how King Stephen fucceeded him, (which things hapned in the
year 1 135.) doth thus write :
Mortuo autem R'anulpho (this was the firft Earl Randle oi
Chefter) fucceffit ei item Ranulphus filius ejus, vir in rebus bellicis
ftrenuus. Hujus autem Ranulphi Jororem duxit Richardus filius
Gijleberti, ex qua Jujcepit tres filios, Ipfe denique Richardus peremp-
tus eft a Walenfobus ut prafixum eft, Praditlus autem Ranulphus
Conies accepit uxorem Mathildem filiam Roberti Comitis
* Note. Gloceftria, ex qua genuit duos filios * Hugonem & Ri-
chardum.
[Page 170.] 170Now how can it be imagined, that this old Wilhelmus Gemi
ticenfis, who did write but to 1137, fhould in the fame Chapter
that he tells us of the death of King Henry the I. (which hapned
in the year 1135.) tell us oi Hugh and Richard, the two Sons of
the faid Matilda, if the faid Matilda was not born till the year
"35- And thefe words of Wilhelmus Gemiticenfis, befides what
they prove themfelves, do alfo ftrongly confirm what Caradocus
Lancaruenfis (the before mentioned contemporary Author) had
formerly faid ; For if the faid Hugh, the elder of thofe Sons,
was five years old in that year, that the faid Gulielmus Gemi-
tiqenfos doth mention the faid Hugh and his younger Brother
Richard, the faid Hugh would then be as old as I fuppofe him
to be, in that year in which the faid Caradocus fays that the faid
Hugh fortified his Caftle of Cymaron, and wan Melyenith to him
felf.

XII.]

CLEARLY PROVED.

541

So that there is no doubt at all, but that Hugh Cyvelioc himfelf
was feveral 171 years older, than Sir Peter Leicefter doth fuppofe [Pagei7i.]
Matilda the Mother of the faid Hugh Cyvelioc to be, and by con
fequence there muft be a vaft difference betwixt the age of the
faid Hugh, and the faid Bertred, who was fecond Wife to the
faid Hugh.
Baddeley,
May 22.
1x677.

FINIS

INDEX

ABINGTON, book of, 342 ; extracts
from, 243, 267, 310.
Acton, Ad. de, 104.
 , Richard, 425.
Adderley parish church, monuments in, 47.
Aldith., Gg: de, 20, 450.
Alditelegh ; see Audley.
Aliquis, meaning of, 117, 481, 484, 497.
Allen, Edward, of Rosthome, 90, 91.
AUington, captain, xxviii.
Alured, Roger fitz, gift in frank marriage
by, lix, Ixxiv.
Amicia, xlii, lxi, lxv, lxxii, Ixxiii, 7, 9 ; her
marriage deed, 7 ; arguments for her
bastardy, 8, 15-16, 35, 78-88, 371-373 I
for her legitimacy, 10-15, 36-44! IIO_
1 12, 464-468 ; analysis of the contro
versy, xxxvii-xlviii ; greatness of her
descendants, lxxvii-lxxxi, 447.
Andeleia, Droco de, 312, 342.
Arms, coats of, 55 5 quarterings, 57—58 ;
blazonings, 515 ; see Mainwaring, arms
of.
Ashley, Duttons of, 382.
 , fiamnet, 46.
 , John, 46.
Ashmole, Elias, xxix ; his Order of the
Garter, 463.
Ashton juxta Kelsall, 18, 462.
Asperse, meaning of, 142.
Astbury, Randle de, 76, 130, 520.
Aston, 382, 424.
 , Ricardus de, 100.
Atiscros, hundred of, 94.
Audley pedigree, lxxix.
— — , Henry de, xliii, xliv, lxxvi, 32,
33, 44, 75, 129, 452, 457, 492, 507 ;
marriage deed to, 20, 450.
 , James, 33, 452.
¦  , Robert de, 155, 170, 177, '78, 181,
221, 264, 282, 329, 505, 506.
Auskitilli, Willielmus fiL, 311.

BACOUN, Robert, 141. .
 , William, 141, 164, 193.
Bacun, Richard, 7, 15, 17, 34, 38, 56, 77,
108, 132, 191, 193; Witnesses to a deed
of, 141, 163-165.
Backford, 389.
Baddeley, 401, 430.
Bageley, co. Chester, 382, 424.
Baker's Chronicle, 505, 523.
Balaste, Richard, 311.
Baleus' De Scriptoribus Britannia, 458.
Ballad on the controversy, Ixxxvii-lxxxviii.
Baltislawe wapentak, 363, 530.
Banastre, Thurstan, 141, 193.
Barba, William, 9.
Barlings abbey, book of, 154, 182, 501.
Barnshaw, co. Chester, 238.
Barry's Tenures, 518.
Basingham, Robert de, 495.
Basset family, 72, 126, 206, 260, 492.
Bastards, how esteemed, 9, 14, 28, 34,
352, 353, 470, 505-506, 522-
Bastardy, difficult to disprove, 143, 467 ;
law respecting, 10, 12, 21, 22, 30, 65,
66, 79, 82, 116-119, 143-144, 153-156,
162, 211, 224, 254, 255, 256-258, 281,
351, 362, 374, 451, 483.
Battaile abbey, table at, 424.
Beard, John, 425.
Beauchamp, Stephen de, 468.
Bekering., Peter de, 42, 455.
Belgrave, Katherine, 385.
Bellocampo, Roger de, 1 1.
Beltesford, 313, 460, 531.
Berdeney, Hugh de, 103.
Bernard, saint, 136.
 , William, 103, 104.
Bertherton,* 99.
Berthorton, Randle de, 103.
Bertred, countess of Chester, wife sf Hugh
Cyveliok, xliii, xiv, lxifi, lxx, 13, 14, 32,
34,38,41, 74, in, 127, 133, 170, 194

544

INDEX.

306, 314, 344, 363, 452, 457, 469, 527,
531 ; wrongly called Beatrix, lxiii, 8 ;
see Cyveliok, Hugh.
Bettesford church, 9.
Bexeckne, Robert de, 103.
Binulle, William de, 141.
Bird's Magazin of Honor, 30, 70.
Birkenhead, Henry, 389, 409, 440.
Biveleg., 21, 450.
Blackstone's Commentaries, xlix.
Blaken, 382, 424.
Blakenhal, 18, 462.
Blewet, Ralph, 505.
Blount's Laifi Dictionary, 1.
Blundevil, Randle, earl of Chester and
Lincoln, xlvi, 14, 19, 33, 34, 35, 38,
4°, 44, 77, "I, 122, 170, i74, 457, 464;
duke of Little Brittain, 340, 341 ; deed
by, 507.
Blundo, William, 11.
Boidele, Alan de, deed by, xiv, 42, 454.
 , Hugh de, 306.
 , William de, 42, 454.
Bolingbroke, 496.
Bohngton nunnery, xlvii, 314, 345, 527,
529 ; deed of gift to, lxxi, 313, 460.
Booth, sir George, xxxi.
Bourcher, sir Hunt, 124.
 , Mr., 89.
Bower, Michaiah, 90.
Bracton, liv, 24, 27, 117, 207'; quotations
from, 24, 26, 176, 257, 261, 264, 274,
374, 482, 483, 484, 511.
Bradham manor, 204, 494, 496.
Braibroc, Henry de, 495.
Braus or Brews, William de, 155, 178.
Breant, Fouk de, 330.
Brereton family, of Ashley, 89.
 , sir Randle, of Malpas, 435.
Brierwood, sir Robert, 388, 408, 438.
Brompton's Chronicon, xlvii, 180, 529,
534; extracts from, 137, 319, 472.
Brooke, Richard, 91.
 , Thomas, 91.
 's Graunde Abridgment, li.
Bruerio, Hamo de, deed to, 103.
Bruse, John de, 174, 213.
B^denbrugge, 383.
Buckby manor, 204, 494, 496.
Budeford manor, co. Warwick, 154, 170,
214, 220, 262, 337, 339; deeds relating
to, 303r 304, 5°7, 508.
Budworth, sir Geffrey of, 242.
Bulkeley, Richaftl, 45, 46.
 , William de, 46.

Burland, co. Chester, 441.
Burwys, Robert de, 104.
CALC priory, co. Derby, xliv, 452,
520.
Camden, William, xii, Ixviii, 17, 57, 86,
112, 147, 148; his Britannia, 40, 174,
182; extracts from, xxiv, xxv, 471-472,
490 ; Remains, 57.
Cantilupo, William de, 508.
Cartwright, Geffrey, 91.
Cawdray, Bened. de, 21, 451.
Cepmundewich, 382, 383, 424, 426.
 , Thomas de, 426.
Chalder,*Henry de, II.
Chan. Pet., 20, 450.
Chedle, 46, 382.
Chester, earldom of, 121-122, 456, 489 ;
earls of, see Blundevil, Cyveliok, Ger-
noniis, Lupus, Meschines, Scot ; jus
ticeship and other great offices of, xxiii,
xxiv, 19, 43, 58, 99, 109, 148-150, 157,
186, 230, 304-306, 341, 457, 462, 463,
464, 523-526 ; bishop of, Ixxxv, 76,
132, subject to Canterbury, 77, 192;
Robert fitz Nigel, abbot of, xliii, lxxiv.
Chisney, Robert de, bishop of Lincoln,
lxii, 536.
Cholmondeley, Francis, t)i.
 , Richard, 435.
Chorion, Peter, 90.
Chronica Nbrmannice, 534.
Clare, Bevoys de, 423.
 , Richard de, earl of Clare, 164.
Claremonte, Hugh de, 11, 28.
Clinton, Roger, bishop of Lichfield, 35,
132, 135, 192-
Coke's Institutes on Littleton, 1, li, liv,
27, 28, 71, 72, 117, 125, 126, 272, 275;
quotations from, lii, 61, 62, 114, 176,
485-
Cokishall or Cogishull, 18, 103, 104, 382,
424, 462.
Colevile, William de, 141, 193.
Comberbach, Hugh de, 104.
Common- Law, 10, 474-477; see Glanvil
and Coke.
Condor manor, 519.
Constable, sir William, 423.
Cotton, Clementia, 385.
Coventrey, Walter de, 495.
Cowell's Lam Dictionary, 1.
Crane, rev. Samuel, xi.
Cromwell, Raufe lord, 70, 71.
Cursy, John de, 280, 516.

INDEX.

545

Cymaron castle, xlvi, xlvii, lxx, 458, 527.
Cyveliok, Hugh, earl of Chester, 3, 8, 13,
32, 33, 35, 38, 44, 59, 74, 82, 83, 84,
85, 170, 244, 314, 347, 348, 361, 372,
45i, 453, 457, 459, 527-528, 532, .536 ;
deeds by him, 449, 460, 535 ; base issue,
7, 8; death, 9, 13; rhyming chronicle
respecting, lx ; sword, lxi-lxii ; biogra
phical notice of, lxx-lxxxiii ; his son
Roger, 3, 98; extract from pedigree,
xxxii ; see Bertred and Matilda.
DAIVILL, Walter de, 495, 507.
Damieta, capture of, 174, 216.
Daniel's Collection, 534, 535..
David prince of N. Wales, 518.
Dee, David earl of, xlvii.
Delves, sir Henry, xxxi.
Denbigh, Robert de, 100.
Descent, law of, 122, 123, 146.
Deulacres abbey, xliii, xliv, lxxvi, 33, 452 ;
charter to, 20-21, 450-451.
Deuteronomy, argument from, 23, 64, 115.
Dewes, sir Simon, 9, 11.
Diceto, Ralph de, 529 ; quotations from,
139, 183, 3i8, 504
Doccliston, 42, 454.
Doderidge, sir John, 30.
Dole castle, Britany, lxxii.
Dominus, as a prefix, 4, 52-54, 100-105,
158, 159, 160, 189-190, 232, 235-242,
283-284, 308-309.
Donington, William constable of, 141.
Dos, dotarium, meaning of, 295-296, 494,
495, 496-
Drayton-Basset, 72, 206, 258, 259, 291,
360, 374, 493-
Dubeldai, Randle, 306.
Dugdale, WiUiam, 87, 358, 360, 366,
390, 414 ; Antiquities of Warwickshire,
¦x-x 452 ; Baronage of England, lxviii,
41', 276, 282, 357, 358, 359, 366, 464,
536; Monasticon Anglicanum, 134, 104,
194; Origines Juridiciales, 389, 438.
Dunelmensis, Simeon, 135, 140, 162, 317,
528, 535-
Duninton, 313, 460, S31-
Duram, Hiigh de, 103.
Durdent, Walter, bishop of Chester, 310,
Dutton5family, 102, 381-382, 396-397,
4.19—421, 424.
_; Geffrey de, 53, 99, "», I02, "57-
159, 186-188, 233-234, 307-309*
 _ Odard or Hudard de, 4, 381, 382,

396, 419, 420, 424 ; his sword, 396,
423-
Dutton, sir Peter, 159.
 . Thomas de, 100, 158.
EDREVET, Coronon fil., 507.
Egerton, sir Philip, 427.
Ellesmere, castle and lordship of, 154,
170, 172, 181, 212, 261, 291, 297, 339;
deeds respecting, 171, 279, 500, 516.
Engolisme, earl of, 180, 499.
Erdeswick, Sampson, herald, 17, 109,
112.
Erdeswyks, Thom. de, 463.
Ermentrude, countess of Chester, wife of
Hugh Lupus, n, 28, 67, 120, 243.
Estbury, Randle de ; see Astbury,
Estruit, magister, 507.
Evereux, Simon count of, lxiii, lxxii.
FABIAN'S Chronicle, 174.
Fagun., 20.
Falaise, treaty at, Ixxiii.
Fee or Foedum, 299-300, 514-515.
Feme's Lacy's Nobility, 8.
Ferrars family, 39, 221, 468.
 , Robert de, xliv, 33, 129.
 , William de, earl of Derby, 154, 170,
209, 221, 297, 336, 505.
 , William earl of, 295, 495.
Fitton, Richard, 507.
Fitz-Haimon, Robert, 13, 32, 128.
Fitz-Herbert's Graund Abridgment, . liv,
272 ; quotation from, 25 ; De Natura
Brevium, 126.
Fitz-Nigel, William, baron of Halton,
382.
Fitz-Piers, William, earl of Essex, 39.
Fleta, 31 ; quotations from, Iiii, 26, 36,,
175-176, 273-274, 467, 510.
Fodon, 383, 425-
Fouleshurst, Richard de, 463.
Frank-marriage, law of, xii, xlvi-bx, lxxiv,
10, 16, 21, 24, 25, 27, 31, 36, 39, 72,
82, 83, 113-114, 125-126, 172, I75r
202-207, 210, 254, 255, 256-277, 293-
294, 297-299, 302-303, 338, 451, 469,
470-471, 479, 48i, 485, 491-492, 493,
497, 508-515, 518-519 J* 1^ of S^s in>
lvii-lix.
GEKELL, Gilbert, 21, 451. ...
Gemiticensis.Wilhelmus, xlvm, 539,
540.
Qerard, lord, 397-
4A

546

INDEX.

Gernoniis, Randle de, earl of Chester,
xlviii, 13, 32, 34, 35, 43, 127, 245, 455,
458, 534
Gervasius' Chronicles, 127, 529 ; quota
tions from, 139, 318.
Gesta Stephani Regis, quotation from,
537-538.
Geva, daughter of Hugh Lupus and wife
of Geffrey Ridell, Ixxxii-iii, 8, 11, 14,
17, 31, 56, 119, 126, 202, 258-260, 360,
374, 477, 491 ; her bastardy argued,
11-12, 68-77; disputed, 28, 291, 360,
485-493-
Giffard, David, 495.
Gifford, Walter,' earl of Buckingham, xliv,
39-
Giraldus Cambrensis, 171, 195, 459.
Glanvile, xlviii, lv, lvi, 24, 25, 63, 64, 113,
116, 156, 184, 262, 267, 291, 333;
quotations from, 12, 23, 117, 176, 203,
227, 256, 271, 303, 327, 374, 478, 479,
480, 497, 5"-
Glasebroke, Adam, 384.
Glocester, Robert earl of, 13, 14, 32, 34,
453-
Godwin's Catalogue of Bishops, 135.
Goostree, 42, 454.
Gospatrick, earl of Northumberland, 39.
Goulborn, William de, 42, 455.
Gouldman's Dictionary, 293 ; quotations
from, 120, 481, 487, 539.
Grantesset manor, 204, 494, 496.
Gray, Reginald, judge of Chester, 98.
Grelly, Aubertus, 422.
Grenefelt nunnery, • grant to, xlviii, lxxii,
„ 535-
Grentemaisnil, Robert de, 164.
Gropenhale, Robert parson of, 42, 455,
Grumpington, William de, 495.
Guillim's Heraldry, 5, 436.
HAGULSTED or Hexham, John
prior of, 317, 529, 534, 535;
quotation from, 140.
Hale, 46.
 , lord chief justice, Iiii.
Hal|on, 424; barons of, xiv, lxvi-lxvii,
43, 382, 420, 422, 455.
Hambi, Roger monk of, 313, 460.
Hamelyn, William, 463.
Hamlet, definition of a, 398, 425-426.
Hardreshulle, William de, 141.
Hardwick, 204, 494, 496.
Hauthoner, servitium de, 100.
Hegham, Ralph, 98.

Hellen, daughter of prince Lhewellyn,
175, 219, 220, 268, 301, 507.
Hemmingly, 531.
Henault, John of, earl of Cambridge, xliv,
39-
Henbury, co. Chester, xlvi, 18, 147, 462,
470.
Henry of Huntingdon, 534 ; quotation
from, 317.
Hethalis, 383.
Hexham ; see Hagulsted.
Heylin's Catalogue of Bishops, 135.
Hield, 189.
Hoiloch, 382, 424.
Holland, Dj*. Philemon, 182.
Holme juxta Davenport, 46.
Holmes-Chapel, memorial window at, 47.
Holt, Hugh, 384, 400, 428.
Holyoke's (Dr. Thomas) Dictionary, 481.
Honford, John, of Honford, 383, 384,
400, 401, 428, 441.
Hongrill, 383.
Ho veden's (Roger) Annals, 180, 529, 534;
quotations from, 137, 182-183, 317, 5°3-
Hughes' Grand Abridgment, 1, 39, 471.
Hunt, Henry, 91.
Huntendune priory, 35, 134.
T DHIT, Helin, 507.
X Inheritance, law of; see Bastardy.
Ipher, William de, earl of Kent, 39.
Isaackson's Chronology, 135, 138, 458.
TACKSON, Thomas, 288, 325.
O Jacob's Law Dictionary, 1.
Jeretre wapentak, 363, 531.
Joane, wife of Lhewellyn. prince of N.
Wales, lxxxiii-iv, 154-155, 170-174,
177-179, 181-184, 218, 219, 220, 221,
224, 226, 262, 264, 279, 291, 292, 297,
329, 336, 375, 497-5o6, 509, 5x7 ; her
grave, 222, 506.
John, king of England, his wives, 180-
181, 498-499, 502-503, 504; charter
to Lewellyn, 279-280.
Justiciarius, term introduced by Bracton,
340-341.
KILMOREY pedigree, 404.
Kima or Kyma, Philip de, 313,
460.
 , Simon de, 141.
Kingesleigh, Randle de, 99.
— -, Richard de, 20 43, 99, 450, 454.
Kinton, Philip de, 508.

INDEX.

547

Knighton, monk of Leicester, xii, 154,
174, 217; quotations from, 178, 181,
215, 216, 501.
LACY, John, constable of Chester,
109, 464.
 , Roger, constable of Chester, 77,
133-
Lasci, Hugh de, earl of Ulton, 507.
Landa, Richard de, 330; charter by,
282, 505.
Lauton, William chaplain of, 21, 451.
Law's ( The) Resolutions of Womens Rights,
25, 272 ; extract from, 1.
Lee, Randle de, 20, 450.
Leicester, sir Nicholas, 100.
 , sir Raufe, of Toft, 387, 405, 434.
 's Historical Antiquities, quotation
from, 123.
Legh, William, of Baggiley, 216, 384,
400, 428.
Lent, custom of, 386.
Leycester, sir Peter, account of, xi-xxii ;
his portrait, xx, xxi.
Lhewellin ap Jorwerth, prince of N.
Wales, 153, 154, 155, 170-184, 213,
214, 217, 220, 225, 301-304, 330, 497,
506; charter to, 279-280, 516; deed
of agreement, 507.
Liagham, Edrevet, 507.
Limam (infra) 454.
Lindescia, Richard de, 495.
Lipsius' Monita et Exempla Politica, 504.
Little Britain, Alan earl of, 9, 81.
Livet, Roger de, 20, 450.
Lhanvaes in Anglesey, 222, 506.
Llancaruan's (Caradoc) Welsh Hist. , xlvi,
315, 320, 527, 528, 540 ; notice of the
author, 458-459 ; see Powell's Welsh
History.
Longo Campo, Henry de, 141.
Lovell's (lord) case, 518.
Lupus, Hugh, earl of Chester, 8, 29, 68,
359, 375, 487-
Lymme, Hugh de, 100.
Lyson's History of Cheshire, Ixix.
Lysours, Aubrey, 422.
MAINWARING family, xxviii, xxix,
xxxi, 4, 106, 381-389, 398-407,
426-428; arms," 5, 7-8, 17-18, 54-55,
106-107, 109, 384-385, 387, 400, 401,
406, 429, 430, 435-436; antiquity, 5,
382, 396, 424; pedigree by Leicester,
229.

Mainwaring, Bertred, 33, 75, 452.
 , Henry, of Kermincham, 41, 454.
 , sir John, 46, 400, 431, 432, 434.
 , sir Philip, 388, 407, 435, 437.
 , Philip, xviii, xxii; Chas. I.'s letter
to, xxv ; will, xxvi, xxvii.
 , sir Ralph, justice of Chester, xlii,
xliii, Ixxiv, lxxv, 4, 7, 9, 10, 18, 19,
43, 85, 87, 98, 105, 129, 146, 148,
306, 372, 452, 456, 462, 520, 524;
deed to, 19-20 ; deeds by, 20-21 ;
witness to deeds, 42, 450, 454, 455.
 , sir Randle, 5, 8, 45, 46, 106, 434,
435-
 , Robert de, 20, 43, 450, 454.
 , sir Roger, xliii, xliv, 4, 5, 14, 18,
33, 37, 75, 81, 106, 129, 452, 453,
468.
 , sir Thomas, account of, xxii-xxxvi ;
portrait, xxxvi; 4, 5, 18, 102, 103, 104,
160, 428.
 , sir Warine, 5, 18, 106, 428.
 , Wido, 37, 468.
 , sir William, 4/5, 6, 18, 20, 21, 37,
46, 106, 429, 430, 441, 450, 468.
Malebiss., Hugh, 20, 450.
Maletot, Roger de, 313, 460.
Malmesbury, William of, quotation from,
538.
Malpas, David de, 131.
Maminot, Walchelin, 468.
Mandevyle, Geffrey, 245, 316, 528.
Marmiun, William, 306.
Marriage ; see Frank-marriage.
Marriages, no record of, lxii-lxiii.
Masey, Hamon de, 42, 54, 233, 454, 455.
Matilda or Maud, wife of Randle de Ger-
noniis earl of Chester, xlvii, 32, 363,
530, 523, 533, 535—541.
Maunt, Ralph de, earl of 'Hereford, 39,
469.
Mautrevers, Joan wife of John, deed by,
463-
Maynard, serjeant, anecdote of, xxxv.
Melyenith castle, xlvi, lxx, 245, 312, 343,
458, 527-
Menylgaring ; see Mainwaring.
Merbury, Hugh de, 104.
 , John de, 103, 104.
Meschines, Randle de, earl of Chester,
12, 29, 35, 69, 472, 489.
Middlewich, 46.
Milborne manor, 519.
Mildestvic hundred, 4.
Milles' Catalogue of Honour, 214.

548

INDEX.

Milton, Paganus dominus de, 7, 132.
Minors, deeds and charters by, 254, 255,
267, 3", 343, 478, 528.
Moald, sir Robert de, xiv, 42, 43, 313,
314, 344, 455, 460 ; deed by, 454.
 , Ralph de, 148, 525.
 , Roger de, 141.
 , pedigree ofthe barons of, 313, 460.
Moberley, Patrick de, 43, 454.
Mohun, Reginold de, earl of Somerset,
469.
Monte- Alto, barons de, ; see Moald.
Mountford, Simon de, earl of Leicester,
173, 180.
Morchar, earl of Northumberland, 39.
Moriana (Savoy), earl of, 180, 498.
Mortimer, sir Raph, 174, 213.
Moston, Richard de, 21, 451.
Motlawe, John de, 21, 451.
Mowbray, Robert, earl of Northumber
land, 39.
Murdac, Henry, 136, 138, 139, 162.
Mynshul, Edward, of Stoke, 389, 409.
NEDHAM family, burial place and
monuments, 47, 92.
 , sir Robert, 47, 90, 386, 404.
 , sir John, 388, 408, 438.
Neubrigensis, Gulielmus, 529, 534 ;
quotations from, 139, 318.
Nevill, Hugh de, 141.
 , sir Thomas, 124.
Nevile pedigree, lxxx.
Newton, near Middlewich, 46.
,  , Humphrey, of Pownall, 386.
 , William, 386, 404, 433.
Nigel, William son of, 311.
Norman, Hugh son of, 311.
Northerden, 18, 462.
Norwardine, 382, 424.
OCCLESTON, 46.
 , John, 91.
 , William, 90.
Of, meaning of the word, 231.
Oldfeld, Somerfield, 301, 337.
Ollmrton, 382, 424.
Odericus Vitalis, 12, 119, 121,486; quota
tions from, 1 1, 28, 67, 120, 328, 361, 534.
Ormerod's History of Cheshire, extract
from, lxix.
Orreby, Philip de, justice of Chester, xliii,
20, 42, 44, 75, 130, 141, 149, 295, 306,
342, 450, 454, 457, 495, 507, 520, 525.
 , Tho. de, 20, 450.

Otuheri, Will. fiL, 535- .
Owen, David ap, 173.
PANT., Norm., 20, 450.
Parentage ./»•>* kindred, 484.
Paris, Matthew, 135, 140, 178, 180, 212,
347, 529, 534 5 quotations from, 155,
183, 319, 5oi, 503-
Patric, William, 313, 460.
Paulum, Brito, 43, 454.
Peche, Richard, bishop of Chester, 34, 132.
Peover, 18, 21, 424, 427, 451.
 -, little, 382, 424.
 , over, 4, 381, 382-383, 399 ; church,
385, 406; hall, 387, 407, 436-437;
stable and dove house, xxix, xxx, 389,
409, 440.
 , William de, 21.
Periis, Rob. de, 20, 450.
Pexhull, 18, 462.
Pichmere, 18, 20, 450, 462.
Picot, William, 495.
Picot', Rob' son of, 454.
Pigot., Gilib. son of, 450.
Pincerna, Richard, 141, 163, 193.
Pitseus' De Illustribus Anglice Scriptoribus,
458.
Plumley, co. Chester, 37, 468.
Polbel, Richard, 306.
Polychronicon, xii, 154, 179, 224.
Powel's Welsh History, 8, 155, 174, 179,
194-195, 214, 245.246, 331-332, 349,
458.
Praers, Margery, 383, 400, 428.
 -, Ran' de, 43, 454.
 , William, of Baddeley, 383, 441, 463.
Precedence of dignitaries ; see Chester,
justiceship.
Pryden, William, 441.
Ptell', Joh. de, 20, 450.
Puer, gender of, 487.
QUELOC, Thomas de, 103.
Quency, Saher de, earl of Win
chester, and Robert his son, 204, 261,
296, 334, 496 ; deed by, 266, 294, 494.
RADBROCK, 383, 425.
Ravenseroft, Thomas, of Bretton,
31, 454-
Rawlinson's English Topographer, lxix.
Records, precise importance of, 441-442.
Ridell, Geffrey ; see Geva.
Ridford, Frumb. de, 20, 450.
Righerit., Edmund son of, 507.

INDEX.

549

Ripanis, Baldwin de, earl of Devonshire,
39-
Rode, 1 8, 462.
Rodest., Ric. de, 20, 450.
Romara, Roger de, 121, 489.
 , William de, earl of Lincoln, 39.
Rosington, co. York, 134, 192.
Roucester, priory, co. Stafford, 17, 34.
Rudyngges in Wylaston, 463.
Runcome, 422.
Ryley, William, 516.
Ryton manor, 519.
ST. Mary, Jo' de, 43.
Sais, Robert and William de, 11.
Saltmarsh, Piers de, 114, 126, 476.
Saperton manor, co. Lincoln, 519.
Saracen, Robert, 306.
Savage, sir John, 404, 433.
Scaliger controversy, vi-ix.
Scot, John the, earl of Chester, 8, 122,
I54j 158, 173, 174. 176, 214, 215, 217,
371,464, 490.
Scrope and Grosvenor case, v, vi.
Selden's Titles of Honour, 128, 243, 267 ;
quotation from, 311-312.
Senellestune, 18, 20, 382, 424, 450, 462.
Shaw, Thomas, 91.
Shaw-house in Millington, 91.
Sheppy isle, 264, 282.
Sir, as a prefix, 240-241.
Smalwood, 18, 20, 450, 462.
Speed's History, 154, 174, 534.
Spelman's Glossary, 143 ; quotations from,
36-37, 81, 118, 144, 425-426, 453, 496,
521-522.
Stafford, sir John, of Wigham, 385.
 , Ralph baron of, 463, 464.
Stanlaw abbey, 44, 456.
Stanthorne, little, 46.
Starkye, Richard, 103, 104.
Statute De Donis Conditumalibus, lii.
Stephen, king, 135-136, 246.
Stivinghale, grant of, xlvi, lxxi, 194, 244,
246, 268, 310, 342, 457, 527, 528, 533.
Stow's Annals, xii., 154, 174.
Strange, Hamon le, 172, 517.
Stubbs' (Thomas) Archbishops of York,
quotation from, 138.
Sulinni., Alured. de, 20, 450.
Sundreland, 382, 424.
Surtm', Peers de, 43, 454.
Suttehall manor, co. Worcester, 154, 170,
214, 220, 263, 337, 507, 508.
Syelford, William de, 495.

TABLEY, sir Peter Leycester's house
at, xix ; sir Thomas Mainwaring's
visit to, 350.
 , nether, 189 ; deed of, 99, 157, 233.
 , over, 4, 238.
Tadetune the same as Warmincham, 4,
382, 424.
Tatton, 18, 382, 424, 462.
Thomasius' Dictionary, 481.
Throp, stationer, 365, 390, 414.
Thuschet, Simon de, 20, 42, 141, 450, 454.
Timperley manor, 46.
Toft, Hugh, 93.
 , Roger de, 100.
Trentham priory, lxvii, 9 ; John prior,
313, 460 ; Sampson prior, 141.
Tresgor, Alexander de, 11.
Trussel, sir William, of Cublesdon, 18,
428, 462.
Turpin, Matthew, 495.
Twamlow, Lidulf de, 20, 43, 450, 454.
Twyford, 383, 425.
ULSTER, Hugh earl of, xliii.
Ulton, Hugh earl of, 20, 450.
VAUGHAN'S British Antiquities,
214 ; quotation from, 502.
Venables, Alex, de, charter to, 463.
 , George, of Agden, 90.
 , Hugh, baron of Kinderton, 45.
 , Robert, 94.
 , William de, 42, 454, 455.
Verdun, Bertram de, xliii.
Vernon, Gwarin de, 42, 54, 454.
 , Ric. de, 20, 42, 450, 454.
 , Warin de, 42, 455.
 , William, letter from, xxxiii, xxxiv.
Vincent's Corrections of Brook, 154, 174,
177-178, 283, 329, 423, 464, 504.
Virgil's (Polydore) Histor. Anglic, 534.
Vossius' De Historicis Latinis, 179, 458.
Vychan, Llowarch, lord of Anglesey, 214.
WABURNE, co. Norfolk, 18, 382,
424, 462.
Wac', Hugh, 141, 163, 193.
Wadinton, 531.
Waleton, William de, 100.
Warburton, 382.
 of Arley family, 53, 101, 102, 158.
 , R. E. Egerton, lix.
 , sir George, 188, 233.
 , sir Peter, xvii.
Wardship, Ixii.

55o

INDEX.

Warford, 382, 424.
 , great, 18, 462.
 .little, 18, 462.
Warmincham, 4, 5, 18, 382, 424, 462.
Warner, Ralph son of, 313.
Warren, sir John, of Poynton, 385, 402.
Warwick, sir Philip, 388, 407.
Wellensis, H. de, 280, 516.
Welneton manor, 507.
Weloc, Hugh de, 21, 451.
Wenitone, 382, 424.
Werburge, (St.), abbey of, 37, 468, 521 ;
charter to, 42, 454.
Wereford, Nicholas de, 21, 451.
Westminster, Mat. , quotations from, 1 83,
503-
Weston, 382, 424.
 , William, 91.
Wetenhale, John de, 463.
Wethale manor, 189.
Whatcroft, 46.

Whelock, 18, 462.
Whitley, nether, 142.
 , Roger, of Peel, xxxv.
Wilkinson, John, 91.
Willaston, 18, 462, 463.
Willorfghby family, 90.
Winnington, 18, 462.
Winterslaw, co. Wilts., 495.
Witnesses, uncertainty of subscription of,
88.
Woodfen, Richard, of Sutton, 91.
Wood's Athena, lxviii.
Wudmraideslei, 243, 267, 528.
Wynninton, Robert de, 103.

Y

70RK, archbishops of; Thurstan,
135. I63; William, 34, 76, 132,
162-163, 191, account of, lxxxv, 135-137.
— 's (James) Union of Honour, 29, 70,
121,174,489.

Printed by Charles Simms and Co., Manchester,

SfeBH