THe Catholike credite of your great lear­ning, (which might haue beene a clubbe to daunt the courage of vnlettered He­raulds, and cause them to retire the fielde, from encountring with you) hath beene the drumme that hath summoned me out, not as a champion, but as a defendant (by my oth and profession) for the triall of the truth, and defence of the vnspotted honour of Armes, and auncient Nobilitie. The sacred bodie of my sweete and natiue Countrie Britan­nia, I embrace. The phrases of your scholler-like language, I esteeme as gorgeous ornaments vpon a Matrone that is na­turallie beautifull: the reliques of industrious Leyland, toge­ther with his farre-fetched and deare bought Antiquities, I admire: almost I had saide adore, but for religion sake. Onlie the disgrace of auncient Herauldie: (wherwith England hath much flourished in former age,) the empeachment of manie [Page 2] illustrious families, the misreport of many honorable discents, and the daungerous errors auouched by your lowd-sounding pen, I must repeale and reuerse with a writ of Quo warranto, least in time, the countenance of your world-wondred and selfe-conceited knowledge, cause naked truth to be helde in scorne of others, as it is in captiuitie by your selfe. My hum­ble requestis, that the honourable beholders of our combat blush not, nor the scholasticall Readers bite the lippe, to see an English Herauld encounter with an antique Hercules. Let not the fore-running breath of deepe renowmed science blow vp the weight of long experience: you may enioy the reputation of Artes, but in Armes and Herauldie we except a­gainst your skill. And because I intend onely a freedome of truth in matter of mine own profession, you shal vnderstand, that I wil not intermeddle with any other the commendable discoueries of Antiquitie, (beeing without the lists and com­passe of mine exception) but onelie where the auncient pe­degrees of honourable families are either clipped, or strange feathers imped into their traines: there am I bold to note the defects, and to declare the excesse that may make a wor­thie progenie seeme some monstrous ofspring, if the truth bee not vnfolded. What cause I haue to vndertake this charge, may appeare by these fewe erronious slippes (gathe­red out of manie) in your Britannia. In the detection where­of, I haue not followed your Methode, a long by the Ri­uers side, from shire to shire, and towne to towne (for that were a iourney too tedious, and out of my way) but I haue fastened first vppon that noble Ferrarian line, whose present issue, so glorious at this time, seemeth to commaund a re­dresse of that iniurious obscuritie, wherewith your superfici­all skill, or rather ignorance, hath somewhat eclipsed the for­mer excellencie thereof.

First therefore, I am prest to encounter you at the castle of Tutburie, in the honour of whose founders, I am to spend my first breath and valour: to the ende I may reuiue the race of [Page 3] them which you haue ouerthrowne, by falsifying and extin­guishing foure discents in seuen. If you demaund how? I an­swere, in making Robert Earle Ferrars, grand-childe of Hen­rie Lord Ferrars the Norman, to bee that Robert which did forfait all his landes to king Henrie the third: when in truth, it was the said Roberts great great grand-child. And therefore, to build vp againe this honourable discent and succession of the Earles Ferrars, (which you haue ruinated) I will first begin with Henry Lord Ferrars the Norman, vnto whom (by the booke of Domesday) William the Conquerour gaue manie large possessions in the counties of Stafford, Leicester, Bed­ford, Glocester, Oxford, Bucking and Barkshire. He had issue Robert Earle Ferrars, who founded the Abbay of Muriuall, in king Henrie the first his time, and died the 19. of king Ste­phen: whose eldest sonne William Earle Ferrars, and Lord of Tutburie being slaine in his lodging in Lumbards streete in London, without issue, Robert his second son succeeded, and was Earle Ferrars Lord of Tutburie and Oucam. He kept the towne of Leicester for king Henrie the second against the yong king, and had issue William Earle Ferrars, and first earle of Derbie, who maried Margaret, daughter and heire of Wil­liam Peuerell Lord of Nottingham, and died the 12. of Hen­rie the thirde, leauing issue William the second Earle Ferrars and Derbie his sonne: who tooke to wife Agnes, the third si­ster, and coheire of Ranulph Earle of Chester and Lincolne: and died 1242. vnto whome succeeded the thirde William Earle Ferrars, and Derbie, who maried Margaret daughter and coheire of Roger Quincy earle of Winchester. On whom he be got Robert Earle Ferrars, and Derbie, who in the fiftie yeare of king Henrie the third, was taken prisoner at the bat­tell of Chesterfield, and imprisoned in the castle of Chipen­ham: where he for the obtaining of his liberty made assurance before Iohn Chishall then Lord Chancelor of England, of all his lands (except Chartley and Bolbroke) to Lorde Henrie sonne of the king of Romanes, William Valence Earle of [Page 4] Penbroke, Iohn earle Warren & Surry, William Beauchamp earle of Warwicke, Roger Somery, Thomas Clare, R. Walle­ron, Roger Clifford, Hamon le Strange, Bartholomew de Sudley, & Robert Bruse, Barons, his suerties, for the paiment of 50000. poundes on a day, at one entire paiment, to Lord Edmond the Kings sonne. Which day & paiment being bro­ken, and not performed, the said Lord Edmond, by the sur­render of the sureties aforesaid, tooke possession of those his lands, and enioyed the same during his life: and after left them to his heires, the same being then valued at two thousand pounds by the yeare. And this is that Robert, whom you verie vntruly haue set downe to be grand-child to Henrie Lorde Ferrars that liued in the time of the Norman conquest, he be­ing the seuenth in line all discent from him: (as by your owne words in the title of Derby. pag. 430. it may appeare) where you confesse William to be the father, & William the grand­father of this Robert, that forfeited his lands in king Henrie the third his time. Now, to let you knowe the inconuenience arising hereby: It is the concealment and losse of three most notable inheritrices, that were married vnto three of these Ferrarian Earles. The first was the daughter and sole heire of William Peuerell, Lord of Nottingham (whose sonne was ho­noured with the title of earle of Notingham.) The second was the sister, and coheire of Ranulph Earle of Chester and Lin­colne, who inriched this familie with the Castle and honour of Chartley. The third being the daughter and coheire of Ro­ger Quincy Earle of Winchester, who brought with her the honor and barony of Grooby. Of which fruitfull mariages, if you make a fained nullitie, or deuorce, you intercept those noble plants, from whence sprung sundry the most famous branches of our nobilitie, florishing in this our declining age.

WHere you affirme in this place, Ranulph Earle of Chester to haue builded the Castle of Chartley, which after came to be the possession of Robert earle Ferrars and Derby, by marying Agnes the daughter of the foresaide Ranulph: and that there did discend of the said Robert & Ag­nes seuen barons in direct line successiuely: hereto I answere, that Ranulph Earle of Chester builded indeed the castle of Chartley, in the fourth yeare of king Henry the third, & died An. 1236. But that he was father to the said Agnes, I vtterlie denie: affirming him to die without any issue at all. And for proofe hereof, I appeale to your self, in perfect remembrance, testifying the same against your selfe, in the title of Earles of Chester, Pag. 471. And for the foresaid Robert Earle Ferrars, he neuer maried any such woman. So that by this your not vn­derstanding, you haue obscured and made vnperfect that no­ble line of the Earle Ferrars. Nay you haue done them a farre greater wrong, for hereby haue you (contrarie to all law and reason) made the said Agnes to be daughter to her owne bro­ther, and the said Robert to be husband vnto her that was his grandfathers wife. By which vntrue wresting, you haue thrust out of their places, not only two of the greatest Earles of their time, but also the coheire of Quincy, who (as before I saide) brought into that family the barony of Grooby. Therfore that you may reforme this your error, I will here set you down the truth of this discent, prooued by good authoritie, beginning first with William Earle Ferrars and Derby, grandfather of the said Earle Robert, who maried the forenamed Agnes, the third sister, and coheire of the forenamed Ranulph Earle of Chester and Lincolne, (and not his daughter, as you haue written.) This saide William died in the 27. yeare of king Henrie the thirde, and left issue William Earle Ferrars, [Page 6] and Derbie, his sonne, Lord of Chartley, who maryed with Margaret Ladye of Grooby, daughter and coheire of Roger Quincy Earle of Winchester, on whome he begot Robert Earle Ferrars and Derby, and after died in the 38. yeare of king Henry the third. Which Robert was he that you would haue to mary Agnes the daughter of Ranulph Earle of Che­ster, who was in trueth his grandmother. But for your further satisfaction, vnderstand, that the said Robert maryed to his wife the daughter of the Lord Basset, and was taken prisoner soone after by King Henry the third, in the Barrons warres, and forced to paye at one entyre payment for his ransome, & deliuery, to Lord Edmond the Kings sonne, the summe of fiftie thousand poundes: for the assurance of which payment he bound ouer all his landes: as before in the title of Tutbury I haue set downe. He died in the seuenth yeare of king Ed­ward the first, 1278. leauing issue by his said wife, Iohn Lord Ferrars of Chartley, auncester to the Earle of Essex now li­uing.

IN making Reignald Earle of Cornewall to dye without is­sue, you offer great iniurie to diuers worshipfull families, depriuing them of their Auncestor from whome they are dis­cended. For the said Reignald had issue three daughters, his heires: one maryed to Baldwin Riduerse Earle of Deuon, of whome discended the honorable families of Courtneys: and an other to Valitort, of whose issue many remaine at this pre­sent.

ALthough your rash, and ouer hastie penne, haue seemed vnto you so priuileged, as that thereby you durst aduen­ture the preiudice of many honorable persons in their dis­cents and ensignes of honor (as you haue done) yet me thinkes that her Maiesties sacred name might iustly haue ly­mited your writings within such boundes of loyall duetie, as that your hand should haue trembled to endite, or your hart once to admitte the publishing any vntrueth, whereby her honor might in any part be eclipsed. Heere you say, that Iames Butler Earle of Wiltshire had a grand-childe (by his namelesse sonne) which was mother vnto Thomas Bullen Earle of Wiltshire, graund-father to the Queenes most ex­cellent Maiestie that now is: in which you greatly wrong her, she being not discended of the said Iames, but of Thomas Butler Earle of Ormond his brother. And the better to mani­fest the same, the said Iames was atteinted by Acte of Parlia­ment, for high treason, & suffered for the same at New-castle, in the first yeare of king Edward the fourth, without any issue of his body at all to beget such a grand-child, as you say, was the mother to Sir Thomas Bullen. Which being true (as it can­not be denyed) I admire that a man of your learning, and professing such skill in Heraldy, would so vnaduisedly pub­lish in print, to the view of the whole worlde, so great an vn­trueth, you hauing neither proofe, nor warrant for the same. And not contented herewith, after, for maintenance and co­lour of these your errors, you further affirme, that the said Sir [Page 8] Thomas Bullen was created Earle of Wiltshire in right of Margaret his mother, graund-childe (as you say) of the said Iames. In which so saying, you shewe your selfe very igno­rant in the discents of dignities. And for answere hereunto: First I say, that Margaret the mother of Sir Thomas Bullen was second daughter and coheire of Thomas Butler Earle of Ormond, brother of Iames Earle of Wiltshire, and not the saide Iames his grand-childe: and so in that poynt, haue you falsified this discent. Secondly, where you would haue this dignitie of Wiltshire to discend to Thomas Bullen in right of his mother, that doe I also denye: and for proofe thereof say, that the said Iames, being both the first and last Earle of Wiltshire of that surname, did by his attainture forfaite the same to king Edward the fourth: by reason whereof, the said honor reuerted to the crowne, and there remained vntill king Henry the eight, of his meere grace and great fauour, did be­stowe the same vpon Sir Thomas Bullen, grandfather to our most gracious soueraigne lady Queene Elizabeth. And thus was Sir Thomas Bullen aduaunced to this dignitie, and not as in any right discended to him from Iames Butler Earle of Wiltshire, from whome he did not discend.

TO that part where you affirme, George Lord Cantelup of Abergaueny to haue issue a daughter and heire mary­ed vnto the Baron Zouch: I answere, that the said George had no daughter at all, but dyed without issue: as by his of­fice taken after his death, in the first yeare of king Edward the [Page 9] first, it doth plainely appeare: and therefore haue you great­ly erred, in making him to haue issue a daughter.

IT seemeth vnto me very strange, that you will affirme Torbay to be the Seate and habitation of the honorable fa­milie of Briwers, in the time of king Richard the second, when as you are not able to proue any of that surname to liue in al­most an hundreth and fiftie yeares before: for William Briw­er, the last of that progeny, dyed without issue, in the begin­ning of the raigne of king Iohn, leauing his fiue sisters his heires, of whome are discended many of our Nobilitie now liuing.

HAccombe was neuer the Mansion or possession of Fitz-Stephens: but alwayes the seate and inheritance of the familie of Haccombs, and did continewe in that surname vn­till their heire generall was maryed to Archdeacon. And for proofe that these were two seuerall families: Haccombes bare for their Armes, argent three Bends sables: Fitz-Ste­phens was an other familie, alwayes seated at Norton in the countie of Deuon, and neuer at Haccombe, and did beare for their Armes, gules an Eagle displayed golde. But because I see you are at a stand, I will heere helpe you with an excuse, [Page 10] giuing you to vnderstand, that about the reigne of king Ed­ward the second, there was one Stephen de Haccombe, who dwelling at Haccombe, had a sonne named Waren (which happily might be called Waren filius Stephani de Haccombe) And so I thinke, that worshipfull familie of Carewes will con­fesse: to whose iudgement I referre my selfe in this point, and you to be corrected: as also to say whither Nicholas Baron Carewe did euer marye with Iane, the daughter and sole heyre of Peter Courtney. Which Peter (by my bookes) as yet had neuer other father then your selfe.

IN this place haue you committed a dangerous error, to the hazard of disinheriting many honorable families, by publishing in print, that Henry Holland duke of Exceter, had issue one sole daughter and heire, maryed to the familie of Neuills: when as it is manifest, that after his depriuation by Act of Parliament, the first of Edw. the fourth, he was found drowned in the sea, the 12. yeare of the said kings reigne, without any issue: and therefore, no such daughter of his could be maryed to Neuil (as you affirme.) And that you may the better knowe the said Henry Holland, as also his coate of armes, I wish you to see his tumbe, where he lyeth buryed in the South-side of Saint Peters Church at Westminster, which you haue heretofore auouched to be the tumbe of Iohn of Eltham Earle of Cornewall. But if you will take good viewe thereof, you shall finde him that lyeth thereon, to weare on [Page 11] his head a Dukes crowne (no fit ornament for Iohn of El­tham, being but an Earle) and to beare in his shielde the armes of England within a border of Fraunce. The which shielde and armes to be the said Henry Hollands, it doth ap­peare by diuers his deedes yet extant, with their seales af­fixed to the same.

HEre you make William Lord Bonuile, that maryed the daughter and heire of the Lord Harington, to dye with­out issue male, leauing one sole daughter maryed to Graye Marquis Dorcet, when as in trueth the said William had issue a sonne, that succeeded him in his dignitie, and no daughter at all. And if you would knowe his name, I answere Wil­liam, who caryed both the title of Lord Bonuile and Haring­ton, and had to wife Katherine, daughter to Richard Neuill Earle of Salisburie, by whome he had issue Cecilie his daugh­ter and sole heire, maryed to Thomas Gray Marquis Dorcet. Which Cecilie you would haue to be sister to her father, and daughter to her grandfather: by which mistaking the fa­ther for the sonne, and the sonne for the father, you haue obscured, and made vnperfect this discent of the Lord Bon­uills, of whome many honorable families at this day are dis­cended.

HEre doe you wrong this discent of the Earles of Deuon­shire, making Baldwin Ryuers to be the first Earle of Deuonshire, and Lord of Twyfferton and Plympton, in king Henry the first his time: when as it is very manifest, that Ri­chard Ryuers, father of this Baldwin was the same person vn­to whome king Henry the first gaue Twifferton, Plimpton, and the yle of Wight, with the Earledome of Deuonshire, and not to Baldwin his sonne (whome you name:) as is very well prooued by the booke of Brightley and Forde, where those of that familie doe lye buryed, as also by your owne Testimonie against your selfe, in the tittle of Iles, in your booke, Pag. 710. Secondly, to your affirmation, that Baldwin the third Earle of Deuon did change his Auncestors Escucheon gules a griffon gold, vnto a shield golde a Lyon azure: I answere, it is a fault in a meane person to be founde vntrue in his reportes, much more in you to publish in print such an vntrueth as this: for you can not euer prooue the said shielde gules with the griffon golde to haue bene borne or vsed by any of the said familie: or any other Armes at all of theirs can you shewe, vntill that Baldwin the third did vse for his Armes the foresaid Lyon azure vpon golde. Thirdly, because in the beginnning of this succession of Earles of Deuon you abridged vs of the first, now to make amendes for the same, and to fill vp the number againe, you doe here name for an Earle of Deuon, William de Fortibus, who ne­uer as yet attayned vnto that dignitie. And therefore, no [Page 13] reason why you should thus adde or substracte, to, or from noble persons dignities at your pleasure. But here per­aduenture yee will say, Isabel the wife of the aforenamed William de Fortibus, did in her widowhood write her selfe Countesse of Albermale, and Deuon, and Lady of the Ile: which if I graunt vnto, that she did, it was in respect that she was the onely heire then left aliue of that honorable familie: and yet will not that make a necessitie, that her husband must be Earle of Deuon.

YOur errors here committted are these: first, you make William de Curcy, that was Sewer to K. Henry the first, to haue issue a sonne named William: which is vntrue, for that he dyed without issue, and left Robert de Curcy his bro­ther his heire. Secōdly, you say, the said Williā de Curcy had a grand-childe by his sonne William, called Auice, maryed to Warrin Fitz-Gerald, who had issue a daughter and heire ma­ryed to Baldwin Earle of Deuon. In which you are also de­ceiued: For, the first William (as I saide before) had not a­ny issue at all, and therefore no such grand-childe. And where you affirme the said Warin Fitz-Gerald to haue issue by Auice his wife but one onely daughter: it is manifest that he had issue a sonne named Warin Fitz-Gerald, who had is­sue the third Warin Fitz-Gerald. But for your better instru­ction herein, and to correct this your errour, I will set you downe the truth of this discēt, as followeth: Robert de Curcy, [Page 14] a great Baron and Councellour vnto William Rufus, had issue two sonnes, William and Robert. William the eldest sonne dying without issue, Robert his brother succeded him in his dignitie, and was a witnesse to the Charter of king Ste­phen, of landes that hee gaue to the Abbay of Westminster, by the name of Robert de Curcy the kings Sewer. After whose death, Robert de Curcy his eldest sonne, Sewer to king Henry the second, being slaine in Ireland without anie issue, William the seconde sonne succeeded, and was a witnesse to the Charter of king Henrie the second, of landes and liberties that he gaue to Saint Peters at Westminster. He had issue Iohn de Curcy gouernour of Vlster in Ireland, in the time of king Iohn, who hauing no issue, left his rich pa­trimonie to Alice (or Auice) his sister, then the wife of Wa­rin Fitz-Gerald: which Warin was a witnesse to the Charter of king Iohn, of his submission to the Pope, 1212. Hee had issue by his said wife, the second Warin Fitz-Gerald, Lord of Harewood, father to the third Warin.

IF the making of Gentlemen heretofore hath beene great­ly misliked by her Maiestie in the kinges of Armes, much more displeasing (I thinke) it will be to her, that you being no Officer of Armes, should erect, make, and put downe Earles and Barons at your pleasure, publishing in print falslie their admittance or depriuation: as in this place you haue done, making Giles Dawbeney to be created Earle of Bridgewa­ter by King Henrie the seuenth, when as the said King ne­uer aduaunced him nor any other to that dignitie, neither was the said Giles euer anie Earle during his life. And there­fore [Page 15] here haue you no great cause to boast of your skill in Heraldie. But, to pleasure you, I will bring you to the marke whereat your vnaduised penne hath roued, which is to Hen­rie Dawbeney, whome king Henrie the eight on the 21. day of Iulie, in the 30. yeare of his reigne, did at his Mannor of Ocking create Earle of Bridgewater: which Henry was both the first and last that euer caried that title of dignitie, and died without issue. All which I hope you will confesse to bee true, and acknowledge your fault.

YOur fault cōmitted here, is far greater then that before in the title of Bridgewater: for in that you added a suppo­sed earle that neuer was: & frō this discent of Hungerford you haue subtracted a Baron that was, in making Robert Lord Hungerford, who maried the daughter and heire of the Lord Mollins, to be son of Walter lord Hungerford (that was Trea­sorer to King Henrie the sixt) and father to Thomas which was slaine at Salisburie. In which you are greatly deceiued: for that Robert, who (you say) maried the daughter of Lorde Mollins, was grand-childe to Walter, and sonne to Robert Lord Hungerford and Margaret the daughter and heire of William Lord Botreaux. By which your errour you haue not onely thrust quite out of this discent, Robert the true sonne [Page 16] of the foresaide Walter, but his wife also the heire of the Lord Botreaux: to the great preiudice of the now Earle of Hun­tingdon, who is heire generall both to the said Lord Robert, and Margaret his wife. And for your better satisfaction, that there were two Roberts, the father and sonne, betwixt Wal­ter that was Treasorer to king Henrie the sixt, and Thomas that was slaine at Salisburie, looke into the Parliament hol­den at Westminster, in the 29. yeare of king Henrie the sixt, and there shall you find both the said Roberts, the father by the name of Robert Lord Hungerford the elder, and the son by the name of Robert Lord Mollins.

VVHat your meaning is, by so often falsifying the pe­tigrees and discents of the Nobilitie, I know not: but wish there were some good order taken in time for re­formation of the same, least these and other like vntruths bee receiued generally for infallible verities, to the disparage­ment of noble families, as well in their fame, as right of inhe­ritance. And especially would I desire, your selfe being fa­mous for learning (which you acknowledge) through all the prouinces of Christendom, to recant such erroneous fallacies: that the worlde may perceiue in your great learning, a spirit of singlenesse, not obstinately resting in the loue of your self­cōceited opinion, but willingly subscribing to the cleare shi­ning truth: which truth hath vncharged the noble succession of honorable houses, from the mist of your ignorant coniec­tures, by the meanes of vs contemned Heraulds. And now to [Page 17] manifest your errour committed in this succession of Earles of Bath, I affirme you haue thereunto added an Earle, who neuer had other father then your selfe. If you demaunde his name, I answere Iohn, whom you make to bee sonne to Iohn the first Earle of Bathe, and grandfather to William that now liueth. But that you may the better amend this your rash and vnaduised writing, I will set you downe the truth of this discent, beginning with Iohn Bourchier Lord Fitz-Warrin, whom king H. 8. on the 9. day of Iulie, 1536. created Earle of Bathe. He had issue Iohn Lord Fitz-Warin, that died before his father at Hengraue in Suffolke. 1560. leauing issue Wil­liam nowe Earle of Bath: to whose honourable iudgement I submit my self, to say whether he had any such grandfather.

IN this title of Berkley, you make Morice the sonne of Ro­bert Fitz-Harding to be sonne to his owne wife, and the said Robert to marrie his sonnes wife: which vnnaturall ma­riages, though well liked of by your selfe, yet neuer knowne nor allowed of by any others. And where you af­firme Robert Fitz-Harding to marrie the onely daughter and heire of the Lord Berkeley: therein will you faile of your proofe: for Roger Lord Berkeley of Dursley (whome you meane) had issue a sonne, of whom are discended manie li­uing at this present. But, that you may both knowe and con­fesse yout fault, I will set you downe againe the true discent hereof, with my authoritie for the same: beginning first with [Page 18] Harding the Dane, who (by the Booke of Domesday) in the 20. yeare of William the Conquerour, helde of Brictric, in morgage, the Mannor of Witenhort, in the Countie of Glocester. He had issue Robert Fitz-Harding, who foun­ded the Abbay of Saint Augustines, and the hospitall of Saint Iohns in Bristow, 1135. and maried one Eua: by whom he had issue Morice Fitz-Robert, who tooke to wife Alice the daughter of Roger Berkley Lord of Dursley: as doth appeare by the said Rogers deede, made in the sixt yeare of the reigne of King Stephen, where hee giueth vnto the saide Morice Fitz-Robert, in franke mariage, with Alice his daughter, the Mannor of Slimbridge, in the Countie of Glocester. And this I hope will bee sufficient to make a deuorce of this your forenamed vnlawfull and vnnaturall mariage.

THe more plainlie to decipher your errours in this title of Salisburie, I will first beginne with Edwarde d'Eu­reux, whom I finde to liue in the 21. yeare of King Wil­liam the Conquerour, and to bee a witnesse to the said kings Charter touching the foundation of the Abbay of Selbie, by the name of Edward Earle of Salisburie. Which proueth, that Patrike his grand-childe was not then the first Earle of Salis­burie, of that familie (as you affirme.) Secondly, where you hold for a certaintie, that Walter the sonne of Edward afore­said (before his monasticall profession) left issue to succeede him, Patrike his sonne. To that I answere, that Sybill his wife, after the death of the said Walter her husband, took vpon her the habit of a Nunne, and hauing continued in that estate but one moneth, & perceiuing her selfe to be with child, forsooke that order again, and afterwards was deliuered of a son, which was named Patrike, who was after steward to Maude the Em­presse: by whose meanes king Henry the second, in the 28. yeare of his reigne, confirmed vnto the said Patrike the earle­dom of Salisburie. Thirdly, concerning your affirmation, that William sonne of the said Patrike had but one only daughter named Ella, maried to William Longa-Spatha, who in her right was Earle of Salisbury, and did beare her Armes. To this I say, you do hereby greatly preiudice the honorable familie of Howards: for, the said William had not onely two sonnes, but also two daughters (as appeareth by the booke of Ber­mondsey in Southwarke) viz. Patrike, William, Mabell, and Ella. Mabell was maried to Nigell Lord Mowbray, of whom all the Howards, with many others are discended: Ella was maried vnto William Longa-Spatha, base sonne to Henrie the second, who afterward by the speciall fauour of King Ri­chard the first, in the 9. yeare of his reigne, was made Earle of Salisburie: and not in right of his wife (as you would haue [Page 20] it.) And where you say, the said William Longa-Spatha and Ella had issue William, who succeeded his father in that dignitie, and left issue the third William, which lost that Earledome through displea­sure of King Henrie the third. I answere, that I maruaile howe you can inuent two so great vntruths, as, first to affirme these two last Williams to be Earles of Salisburie, when neither of them both were euer Earles, either of that or anie other place. And that the saide William did vse or beare the Armes of his wife, I take it, you haue no other proofe for the same then your owne bare imagination: which with you is verie great. Lastly, where you affirme Henrie Lacie to bee Earle of Salisburie, in right of his wife, the daugh­ter and heire of the last William Longa-Spatha: I say that neither hee the saide Henrie, nor any other of his Surname were euer at anie time honoured with that title or Earle­dome. And nowe, to manifest the mariage of the Lorde Nigell de Mowbray with Mabell daughter of William Fitz-Patrike, I will set you downe for proofe, the said Nigels deed, which is as followeth.

VVHom you vnderstand by the terme of our Heralds, I knowe not: my selfe being one of her Maiesties Heralds, do approue for truth that Seer de Quincy was Earle of Winchester, and did vse in his shield for his Armes, a Fesse, and a Labell of 13. points, and not of 5. (as you misreport to haue seene in his seales. And, to proue my assertion true, I haue diuerse deedes with the Seales of the saide Quin­cies in my custody, made aswell in the reigne of king Richard the first, as in the times of king Iohn, and Henry the third. As for Hugh Spencer, he was made Earle of Winchester, & high Treasurer of England in the 15. yeare of King Edwarde the second, and in the 19. yeare of the said kings reigne hee was executed at Bristow by Queene Isabell: so that the dignitie ceased in himselfe, and not in his sonne (as you affirme) who neuer had, or was possessed of that dignitie. Lastly, where you say, that King Edward the fourth did giue to Lewes of Bruges the Earledome of Winchester, with the Armes of Quincies: I answere, you haue not onelie misreported the same: but also shewed your selfe to be very ignorant in mat­ters of Armes, for those Armes giuen by Edward the fourth to Lewes of Bruges, were neither the armes of Quincies, nor any thing at all resembling the same. And for proofe hereof, I pray you let vs a little compare them both togither: first the armes giuē by K. Ed. 4. to the said Lewes were, Azur ten mas­cles gold: the armes of Quincies were, Gules 7. masclesgold: Bruges did beare in his armes a canton Gules charged with a Lion passant gardant of the second: Quincy had neither Can­ton nor Lion in his Armes. So that here is neither colour nor [Page 22] charge, to induce a man of any iudgement or knowledge, to thinke or say, that this gift of Edward the fourth was the Armes of Quincy. And for better proofe hereof, I will here insert the wordes of king Edwardes graunt, concerning the gift of the said Armes.

VVOuld any man of learning or iudgement thus haue enterprised to publish in print, to the viewe of the whole world, those thinges he is vtterly ignorant of, but your selfe? And that you are meerely ignorant in matter of Armorie, I thinke there needeth no further proofe then your owne writing, touching the Armes of Bygot Earle of Norfolke, Longa-spatha Earle of Salisburie, Quincie, and Lewis of Bruges, both Earles of Winchester, all in this booke mentioned: as also this of Arundell, touching which, well am I assured, that vntill you adde sable for a colour to the fielde of this coate, and an other Swallowe to make vp the true number of 6. this is vnperfect Armory, and no ensigne or armes pertaining to the familie of Arundels, (as you say it is) nor any coate of Armes at all.

THe great trouble, and late suite in the Starre-chamber, for setting downe in Pedigree a forged heire generall of Anthony Lord Grey of Ruthin, to the great danger of of disinheriting an honorable person now liuing, might be a warning both to you, & others, how they cōmit the like fault hereafter. Which notwithstanding, I see it is not regarded, for that not long since I haue seene a petigree made by your selfe, more faultie then that before spoken of: which to let passe, I will come to answere this title of Wallingford. Here you affirme, Robert d' Oyley to haue issue a daughter and heire named Maude, maryed to Miles Crispine: by which imagined heire, you wrong most of the honorable families of this Realme now liuing, discended of the said d'Oylye. And to redresse this, I will heere set you downe the true dis­cent of the said Robert d'Oylye: in which it shal appeare, no such daughter euer to haue bene (as you affirme.) First by the booke of Domesday it is set downe, that William the Conqueror did giue vnto Robert d'Oylye these landes fol­lowing: Watelinton, Garinges, Bernecester, Hochenorton, Chedelinton, Eton, and Braiton, with many other goodly possessions in the countie of Oxford. Likewise in the booke of Osney I finde, that in the time of the Norman conquest, there liued two brothers of the familie of d'Oyleys, Robert, and Nigell: and that Robert dyed without issue, leauing Ro­bert (his nephew by his brother Nigel) to succeede him in his [Page 24] possessions. Also by diuers euidences in my custodie, it is ma­nifest, that the foresaid Robert the nephew, founded the Abbey of Osney in the time of king Henry the first, and had issue Henry d' Oyley Constable to king Henry the second: to whome succeeded the second Henry d' Oylye his sonne, that was likewise Constable to king Richard the first, and died without issue, leauing Margaret his sister and coheire, ma­ryed to Henry Newborough Earle of Warwicke: of whome that great and honorable familie of Beauchamps Earles of Warwicke did discend. So that hereby you may see the true line of heires males continued from the first Robert, in William the Conquerors time, vnto Richard the first, very apparantly prooued: to the ouerthrow and auoyding of your feigned heire generall. Whereby also you may take a caueat, to alter & recall in againe your late coyned pettigree, being of the same stampe. For proofe, read these deedes following.

IN this discent of Hungerford, you haue made the grand­childe to be sonne to his grandfather. If you desire to know how: I answere, in making Robert Earle Hungerford to bee sonne to Walter Lorde Hungerford, Treasorer to King Henry the sixt, (who was in deede his grand-childe.) In which doing, you haue not onely bereaued the said Walter of his lawfull sonne: but also Robert Earle Hungerford, both of his father, and mother. And to manifest, that there was a Robert betweene Walter which was Treasorer to king Hen­ry the sixt, and Robert called Earle Hungerford, I will first here inserte the discent with the seuerall marryages, be­ginning at the said Walter Lord Hungerford, who maryed the daughter and heire of Peuerell, and had issue Robert, that tooke to wife Margaret the daughter and heire of Wil­liam Lord Botreaux: by whome he had issue the second Ro­bert Earle Hungerford, which in the life of his grandfather Walter, and Robert his father, marryed the daughter and heire of the Lord Mollens, and in her right was summoned to the Parliament: Anno 25. of Henry the sixt, by the name of Robert Lord Mollens. And after the death of the forenamed Walter, the said two Roberts were both at one time of the Parliament, Anno 29. of Henry the sixt, the father by the name of Robert Lord Hungerforde senior, and the sonne by the Name of Robert Hungerforde [Page 26] Lord Mollens Iunior. Which I take to be so strong a proofe, as vpon the sight hereof, you will recant and subscribe to the same.

VVHat an vngodly course is this you take, to depriue noble men both of their honor and honestie, fra­ming to some vnnaturall mariages, falsifying the discentes of other, and making legitimate heires, illegitimate? which a­buses, by reason of my oath taken at my creation, I may not let passe, without telling you thereof. Vnderstand therefore, that where you affirme William Beauchamp Lord Saint A­mond (who maryed Elizabeth grand-childe to Gerald Bray­brooke) to haue issue one onely sonne, and he a Bastard: therein doe you greatly both wrong and scandalize him, for he had in lawfull matrimonie by his said wife, Richard Beau­champ Lord Saint Amond, his legitimate sonne that succee­ded him in the dignitie of Saint Amond, and maryed Anne the daughter of Sir Walter Wrotesley knight. And there­fore, very vntruely haue you charged the said William, to haue had any such Bastard.

[Page 27]HEre would you impeache the credite of that worthie Officer of Armes Robert Glouer, in making him the Authour of your imagined dreames, he hauing vnder his owne hand in the Petigree of the honorable Lord Windsor, both denyed, that William de Windsor was sonne to Other, keeper of the Castle of Windsor: as also, that the Earle of Kildare, and Desmond were discended from the said Wil­liam. By which your vntrue misse-alledging the said So­mersets workes, to serue your turne, you shewe your selfe very vngratefull towardes him, out of whose bookes, (in the custodie of the late Lorde Treasorer) you gathered the flow­ers wherewithall you haue made your vnperfect garland, which you in your last edition so much haue boasted of. But here would I not, that you, or any other should misconceaue my meaning, that I thinke or iudge Somerset Herald hath written or set downe in his said bookes any of these vntruthes: but rather, that you, not rightly vnderstanding them, nor able to discerne the true vse of his trauels, haue thorough igno­rance committed these your errors, in affirming William de Windsor to be sonne to Other, and auncester to the Earles of Kildare and Desmond in Ireland: of which two pointes you cannot prooue any one: for the originall auncester of these before spoken of, was Walter the sonne of Other, and not William sonne of Other: for Walter had two sonnes, William, of whome are discended the Lordes of Windsor: and Gerald, who was auncester to the Geraldines Earles of Kildare and Desmond. And where you make William de Windsor to be sonne of Other: therein are you also deceiued, for the same William you speake of, was sonne of Walter, and grand-childe to Other: as doth appeare by the Charter of king Henry the second here following,

ALthough I omit here to tell you, that the first William Earle Warren was made Earle of Surrey by William Conquerour, and not by VVilliam Rufus: yet will I (by your patience) put you in minde of an other error by you here cō ­mitted, of more importance, which is: if you remember, in the title of the Earles of Norffolke, Pag. 370. You there haue made Roger By got Earle of Norffolke to be husband vnto Maude the eldest daughter and coheire of VVilliam Marshal Earle of Penbrooke: and now in this place, you make the said Maude to be the widowe of Hugh Bygot, father of the foresaid Roger: which I take to be incest, for the sonne to marry his owne mother. And therefore, least all their modest posteritie might blushe at such an incestuous Oedipus, as your [Page 29] poeticall fansie hath brought vpon the stage, I would wishe you to correct this your tragicall fable.

VVHere you say, that Thomas Beauford, after the attainder of Thomas Holland, was aduaunced to the dignitie of Duke of Surrey, and dyed Anno 1410. (as VValsingham saith.) To the first I answere, the said Thomas Beauford was neuer dignified with the title of Duke of Sur­rey, by K. Henry the fourth, or any other king. And to proue the same, I finde, that the saide king, in the 13. yeare of his reigne, did create the said Thomas Earle of Dorset: in which dignitie he continued vntill the fourth yeare of king Henry the fift: in which yeare he sate in Parliament by that name of dignitie, and after was made Duke of Exceter. And therefore herein haue you failed. And to the second, concer­ning the time of Thomas Beaufordes death: it maketh me much to muse, how the said Duke should dye, Anno 1410, and being deceased, how he should start vp out of his graue, and make personall appearance at the high courte of Parlia­ment holden at VVestminster 1425. fifteene yeares after, ex­cept you can shewe some strange Metamorphosis, or prooue that dead men being summoned, did take their places in that Parliament: which cannot be without some Negroman­cie, or strange worke beyond nature.

FIrst, in making Botreaux and Boterell to be all one family, and name, you do much erre: they being seuerall, and not one: as may be proued by William Botreaux Sherif of Corn­wall, who liued in the ninth yeare of king Iohn, and bare for his Armes (as you fay) three Todes Sable: and William Bote­rell, that liued in the fift yeare of king Edward the first, (and was summoned amongst other Barons, for the leuying of an armie against Llewellin Prince of Wales) did beare for his Armes, checkie gold and Gules a cheueron Azur. By which two great differences, both of the name, and Armes, it doth euidently appeare, that they were not one, but two seuerall families. Secondly, in affirming that William Botreaux maried Alice the daughter of Richard Corbet, sister to her that was Paramour to king Henrie the first, and mother to Reignald Earle of Cornwall, you are also greatly deceiued: for the mother of the said Reignald, was daughter and co­heire of Robert Corbet, and not of Richard: as by the gift of king Henrie the first, to the saide Robert his Concubines fa­ther, of the borough of Alencester, in the Countie of War­wicke, it is manifested. But I need not striue much against you for this point, seeing I may oppose your owne narration, pag. 438. of your booke, against your selfe: and therefore I leaue [Page 31] you to quarell with your owne memorie, not doubting, but you can take it best, to bee controller to your selfe. Thirdly, your Arithmeticall pen, can as well multiplie, for a neede, as detract when it list, hauing as quicke a slight to make Barons, as the heathens had to make gods, which were something in name, but manie times nothing in nature: for here you make eleuen Barons of the familie of Botreaux, one to succeede the other, after the first William. Whereas you are able to proue but foure. And to make your computation aright, you must begin first with William Botreaux, who began his Ba­ronie, at a Parliament holden at Westminster the first day of May, in the 24. yeare of king Edward the third: which Wil­liam had issue William, that was the second Baron: who be­gat William the third, father of William the fourth, and last Baron of that familie. Of which second, and third Barons, you haue made the father to marry his sonnes wife, and the sonne to marry his own mother. To which most vnnatural matches I wonder how you could euer giue your consent, you being the onely parent of seuen of those eleuen Barons, who had all their conceptions and births in the wombe of your pregnant braine. Lastly, I denie that any of the saide Williams, Lordes Botreaux, did marie with anie Katherine that was coheire to Katherin Twenge, as you vntruly haue set downe.

THis Castle tooke not the title of honour of the Eagle, of Gilbert who tooke part against King Henrie the second (as you say:) for King William the Conquerour gaue to Ste­phen Earle of Blois and Charters, with Ella his daughter, the [Page 32] Earledome of the Eagle in Normandie, and the Castle and honour of Pemsey in Suffex. Which foresaid honours the said Stephen enioyed, and afterward gaue the same to Henrie of Bloys his sonne: who enioied the same, vntil he resigned them vnto Richard his sonne, and became Abbot of Glastenburie, and after Bishop of Winchester. This Richard being Earle of the Eagle, and Lord of Pemsey, liued in King Stephens time, and was a witnesse to the couenants of peace betwixt him and Henrie Duke of Normandie, by the name of Richard Earle of the Eagle. He gaue his said Earledome, and honour of Pemsey, to William Earle of Morton his Cosen germane, sonne to King Stephen. Which gift, with the said titles of ho­nour, King Henrie the second did confirme: but not long af­ter▪ he constrained the said William to surrender vnto him a­gaine, aswel those honours, as also all other lands that he had, both in Normandie, and in England, vpon condition, that the said king should re-assure vnto him al those lands which king Stephen his father was possessed of, at the death of king Hen­rie the first. And how truly you affirme, the honour of Pem­sey to haue belonged to any Earle Morton before the reigne of King Stephen (William sonne to king Stephen being the first Earle Morton which enioyed the same) it is thought as vnworthie of credit, as that before, where you alledge, Pem­sey castle to haue taken his first honour from Gilbert Lord of the Eagle, in the reigne of King Henrie the second when it is trulie proued, to bee an honour at such time as William the Conquerour gaue the same in marriage with his daughter.

IN this succession of Albeneys, Earles of Sussex, you haue taken great paines, making fiue of that surname, to haue beene Earles both of Sussex and Arundell: when as you can prooue but foure in all to haue beene Earles of that familie, and but two of them Earles of Sussex, viz. William, whom king Henrie the second made the first Earle of Sussex, and Hugh his sonne, who died without issue, in the 27. yeare of king Henrie the third: for that VVilliam whom you call the fourth Earle of Arundell, I deeme as yet neuer borne. And the first VVilliam, which married Queene Aelidise, the wi­dow of King Henrie the first, who you say was both earle of Sussex and Arundell, I make great doubt of, thinking you not able to make proofe he was Earle of either. For sure I am, that his owne deed doth shew the contrarie, that he was onelie Earle of Chichester, and not of Arundell and Sussex: which to manifest I haue here set downe his deed, as followeth.

THis discent of Godfrey Earle of Aniou, and Brionie, is forreine, and bredde beyond the Seas in Normandie, from whence you haue had little intelligence: & therfore not so much to be condemned, for mistaking the right father of the saide Godfrey, making him the sonne of William the second duke of Normandy, when as he was sonne to Richard the first Duke of Normandie. Which fault (notwithstanding) I woulde wish you to amende in your next edition: and also to take away from this Richard (his grandchilde) the title of Earle, vntill such time as you haue a better commission for making of Earles. And for your warrant to doe this, you shall haue both the booke of Domesday, and diuerse charters of William the Conqueror, wherein the said Richard was a witnesse by the name onely of Richard Fitz-Gilbert, without any other title of honor.

TO reconcile your contradictions, in these two titles of Leedes Castle, and Folkestone, I thinke it a verie harde matter: for in the first you say, That Hamon Creuecueur (who marryed the daughter and heire of the Baron of Folkestone (had issue Hamon, that succeeded him: which Hamon had issue Ro­bert, who dying without issue, gaue his patrimonie to king Edwarde the first. And after, in the title of Folkestone you affirme the contrarie: saying, That the same Hamon had issue a daughter that carried Folkestone, by her marriage, to Iohn of Sandwich. By which thus still ouermuch busying your selfe in matters passing your skill, it maketh you so forgetfull, that oftentimes you are faine to vtter matters incoherent, and much contradictorie. Wherefore vnderstande, that Hamon Creuecueur, (who you say married the daughter and heire of the Baron of Folkestone) had issue Hamon, who succeeded his father: and he had issue Robert, (which died without issue) and foure daughters: Eleonor married to Bertram Criell, Agnes to Iohn of Sandwich, Isolde to Nicholas Lenham, and Isabell to Henrie Hawt. Of which foure daughters you haue left out the first, and two last, naming but onely the second, married to Iohn of Sandwich: who was not the daughter of the first Hamon (as you affirme) but of the second, whom you haue casscered out of this discent. And whereas, in the title of Leedes castle, you say, that the last Robert Creuecueur, dying without issue, gaue his patrimonie to K. Edward the first. Be­fore [Page 36] I answer there unto, I first demaund of you, how that may be? When your selfe, in the title of Folkstone, haue set downe the said Roberts sister to carie Folkestone by her marriage to Iohn of Sandwich: which was a part of the said Roberts patri­mony. And for direct proofe, that the said Robert did not giue his patrimony to king Edward the first (as you haue said:) it appeareth by an inquisition taken after the death of the saide Robert, in the thirtieth yeare of King Edward the first, that his foresaide foure sisters were his heires, and that Eleonore the eldest had for her part of her brothers inheritance, the Man­nor of Estwell in Kent, and Agnes the second sister had Folkestone: the other two had other landes that descended to the said Robert from his auncestors, which I take to be his patrimonie.

IF this be true, that Hubert de Burgo Earle of Kent dyed without issue (as you here report hee did) then doth the now Lord de La-ware wrong, to quarter the said Huberts Coate of Armes, pretending thereby to bee his heire. But whether the said honourable person doth wrong therein, or you wrong him in so saying? Let vs examine this matter a little better. First it doth appeare in a summons of the Nobi­litie of this realme, for the leuying of an army against Llewel­lin Prince of Wales, in the fift yeare of king Edward the first, that Iohn de Burgo, Baron of Lammale, grandchilde to Hu­bert by his sonne Iohn, was by the name of Iohn, sonne of Iohn de Burgo, called thereunto. Also by an inquisition taken after the death of the said Iohn, in the same kings reign, it was found, that Deruergulda the wife of of Robert Fitz-Walter Lord of Woodham, and Hawise the wife of Robert Greylie of Manchester, were the daughters and heires of the said Iohn de Burgo, and that the foresaide Hawise did holde [Page 37] of the inheritance of Hubert de Burgo her great grandfather, the Mannor of Werkerley in Northamptonshire, and the Mannor of Portland in Essex. Which discent being thus farre prooued to Greyley, I doubt not but you will confesse, that Ioan the onelie daughter of the saide Robert Lord Greyley was married to Iohn Lord de La-ware. Which done, I hope you will yeeld your selfe to haue erred herein, and acknow­ledge the said noble person now to be right heire, and that the said Hubert died not without issue, as you very daunge­rously haue affirmed he did.

YOur often and suspitious obiections, whereby you call in question the credit of her Maiesties Heraulds (as though you iudged them scarce worthy to be belieued) doth proceed (as I suppose) from a malignant humour in you, rather then from any grounds or sufficient reasons that might moue you thereto. But I trust, those of discretion will sooner giue credit vnto them, in matters that they shall auerre by good warran­tise, and authoritie, then to you, who ground your contra­dicting arguments vpon heare sayes, and opiniatiue imagina­tions. And where you charge the Heraulds, to haue made Anthonie Fitz-Herbert, (that was Lorde chiefe Iustice of England) to bee discended from that familie of Herberts, which married the sister of William Earle of Hereford: I say, they haue done therein like honest and learned Officers of Armes: and those that haue, or shall deriue the saide An­thonie, or anie of that familie of Fitz-Herberts, from anie [Page 38] other originall, then that aforesaid, they haue and shall erre from the trueth,

YOur Barons of Winterborne must be turned out of the plurall into the singular number: and where you make them Barons in the reigne of king Edward the first, therein are you much deceaued: for Thomas Bradston the first and last Baron of that surname, began his dignitie at a Parlement holden at Westminster, in the 21. yeare of king Edward the third, and dyed aboute the 34. yeare of the said kings reigne, leauing issue a daughter and heire marryed to Poole, who had issue a daughter and heire marryed to Ingeldesthorpe, which likewise had a daughter and heire marryed to Neuill Marquis Montacute: who hauing diuers daughters his heires, one of them was marryed to Browne, [...], and an other to Stoner, of whome the Lord Wentworth is discended. So, that hereby it may appeare, that the Vicount Montacute, and the Lord Wentworth, are discended from Bradston, by these foresaid three seuerall families, whereof you haue left out Poole the first of them, without which the other cannot discend from Bradstone. And thus haue you through ignorance obscured, and made vnperfect this hono­rable discent, to the preiudice of many worthie families dis­cended of the same.

[Page 39]YOu thinke by your perswasions, to make men beleeue you haue seene that which God knoweth you were ne­uer neare by many a mile: otherwise (I take it) you would not doe as heere you haue done, making Edmond Bruges father of the now Lord Chandos, to be the first Baron of his surname, and that hee was created into that dignitie by Queene Elizabeth: Because (say you) he was discended of the auncient familie of Chandos. So that here is both a cause lay de downe, & a time, for a colour and shadowe to this your vntrue imaginatiō: to the no small preiudice of that honorable house. But, to manifest these your delusions, and to restore againe this honorable person to his right: knowe you for certaintie, that Iohn Bruges, the grandfather of the now Lord Chandos, was the first Baron, and not Edmond his father, (as you very vniustly haue written.) And for proofe here of, I affirme, that the said Iohn, was created Baron Chandos by Queene Mary, at her manner of Saint Iames, the eight day of Aprill, in the first yeare of her reigne, 1553. as by his letters patents, bea­ring date the same day and yeare aboue said, it may appeare. Which being true, I would now gladly knowe heere of you, how you can make good, that Edmond Bruges was the first Baron, and had his creation by Queene Elizabeth.

YOu heere charge the Heraldes with thrusting vpon you one Earle that you cannot finde, nor thinke as yet euer to haue bene borne. And sure, I suppose this was but a flou­rish of your flowing stile, whereby you loue to girde at He­raldes. Yet, graunt they did obtrude some such Earle, you are euen with them: for you force on them here two Earles of Glocester which neuer attained vnto that dignitie, vidz, Pe­ter de Gaueston, and Hugh de Spencer. Wherefore, the bet­ter to satisfie you, and those that haue written Peter Gaue­ston to be Earle of Glocester, and to haue succeeded Raphe Mont-Hermerye. I affirme, that the said Raphe Mont-Her­merye sate in Parliament in the 27. yeare of king Edward the first, as Earle of Glocester, and continued in all Parliaments by that name, vntill the last yeare of the said kings reigne, when yong Gilbert de Clare his wiues sonne came of age: [Page 41] who the next yeare after (being the first yeare of K. Edward the second) was placed in Parliament by the name of Gilbert de Clare Earle of Glocester. He continued in that dignitie, vntill he was slaine at Sterling in Scotland, in the sixt yeare of the same kings reigne, which was a yeare after the said Pe­ter Gaueston was beheaded by the Earle of Warwicke. Which I hope is sufficient proofe against the said Peter. And touching Hugh de Spencer, that he was euer Earle of Glocester, I vtterly deny the same: and therefore now it stan­deth you vpon, being in the affirmitiue, to proue it: other­wise neither I, nor any other are bound to beleeue you. Last­ly, where you haue made Sibill to be the onely daughter and heire of Robert Fitz-Hamon, and wife to Robert Earle of Glocester, called the Consull. I deny, not onely that the one had euer any such daughter named Sibill, but also that the o­ther euer marryed any such wife. And for proofe hereof, I will desire no other then your owne Author, the booke of Tewkesbury, which you haue so greatly wronged.

TO this your scoffing sporte, that you make your selfe, vpon the credite of Herauldes: I answere, that there is great reason, (and so I hope all men will acknow­ledge) that her Maiesties Heraulds, inuested officers of Armes (who at their creations and admittances into their of­fices, are solemnly sworne to be true in all their reportes, and haue their imploiments in the greatest affaires betweene Princes) should be beleeued, in matters of their owne pro­fession, before others not of like experience. And touching this Roger: whome you haue brought vpon the Stage, by [Page 42] the name and title of Earle of Hertford: I saie, it resteth in you to make proofe of your affirmation, the Herauldes being quite against you: whome you notwithstanding so iniuri­ously traduce, and yet produce as Authors of your owne fan­tastique assertions. And for your better direction herein, I will here inserte the saide Rogers deede, by which it is very manifest that he was Earle of Clare, and not of Hertford.

THat there was one Richard Fitz-Gilbert, in the time of William the Conqueror, which held Haresfield of the king, it is manifest by the booke of Domesday: but, that he was euer Earle of Clare, and that Haresfield was his patrimo­nie, I vtterly deny. And for proofe hereof, I say, that he be­ing the first of his name that euer came into this realme, and that possessed any landes here, could haue no possessions left vnto him by his Auncestors, which might be said to be his patrimonie. And where you nominate the said Richard to be Earle of Clare: that are you not able to proue, for in diuers Charters of William the Conqueror, and William Rufus, the said Richard is a witnesse, by the name of Richard Fitz-Gil­bert Dapifer: as also in the booke of Domesday, by the name of Richard, sonne of Earle Gilbert. And this doe you your owne selfe confesse against your selfe, in the title of Clare, in your booke, Pag. 350.

HEre haue you made Gilbert the grandfather of Robert Fitz-Richard, to be Earle of Clare: which Gilbert ne­uer arriued in England, till your penne conducted him hither: but was slaine in Normandie by Raphe Waceio, Anno 1033. Which was 33. yeares before the Norman Conquest: And Richard his sonne was the first of that familie that came into England with William the Conqueror, who had issue Gil­bert, and this Robert: to which Robert, king Henry the first gaue the Towne of Dunmowe, by the name of Robert Fitz-Richard his Sewer. As witnesseth your Author of Dunmowe, whome you alledge, though very vnfaithfully: for had you alleadged the same truely, and put downe what king Henry he was, which gaue to the said Robert Dunmowe (as your Author doth) you should then haue disclosed your owne er­ror, and saued me a labour.

YOur historicall reportes are very changeable: for in the title of Haresfield, Pag. 312. you tell vs that Richard was [Page 44] Earle of Clare in William the Conquerors time: and now here, you affirme that Gilbert his sonne was the first Earle of Clare, of that familie. And againe, in the title of Dunmowe, there haue you set downe this Robert the third sonne of Earle Richard, truely, to be the sonne of the first Richard that came into this land with William the Conqueror: but here will you haue him to be great grand-child to the same Ri­chard. Which by no meanes, the now Earle of Sussex will consent vnto, because thereby he shall loose two of his great­test auncestors, with their wiues, they being the daughters and heires of Saint-Lyce Earle of Northampton, and the Lord Lucy: which were both marryed, the one to the said Robert, and the other to Walter his sonne: as more plainely doth appeare by the true discent here following. Richard sonne of Gilbert Earle of Angy in Normandye, was Lorde of Tunbridge and Clare in England, by the gift of William the Conqueror, and had issue Gilbert Earle of Clare, Roger that dyed without issue, 1173. and Robert who was Sewer to king Henry the first, and Lord of Dunmow, by the said kings gift. He maryed Matilda de Sainct-Lice lady of Brad­ham, and had issue Walter, Lord and Baron of Woodham, that had to wife Matilde the daughter and coheire of Richard Lucy, Lord chiefe Iustice of England in Henry the seconds time. Of which Walter, the honorable familie of Fitz-wal­ters tooke first their surname. He dyed 1198. leauing the se­cond Robert his sonne to succeede him: who dyed in the 19. yeare of king Henry the third. So that, by this your mistaking, you would cut off the first Robert and Walter his sonne, ma­king the second Robert to be the first that came from the maine line of the familie of Clares. And for proofe hereof, I wish you to examine Gemiticensis, who will affirme the same, to be true that I haue here said.

[Page 45]THe dignitie and Earledome of the Magnauills, whilest they were honored with the title of Earles, was Essex, and not Walden. Well that familie might be Lordes and owners thereof, but that neuer the head of their honour, and Earledome. Wherefore, if your Author so write, hee did it rather like a nouice, then an Herauld: and your discre­tion may be suspected, in that you played not rather your parte, to teach him to speake more Herauld-lyke, then to bring in his absurd tearmes for a testimonie, amongst Earle­domes and Honors.

YOur vndiscreete wordes vsed in this place, may make those noble personages deceased to be called in que­stion for that which nature abhorreth: but it were better your penne should prooue a false witnesse, then so heynous a mat­ter true. Shall we surmise (as you write in this page) that Humfrey de Bohun, sonne of Henry, did marrye his owne mother. Assuredly we might seeme in so dooing, not one­ly ouer-credulous, but also irreligious. Yet you say here, Humfrey Bohun marryed the sister and heire of William Magnauill Earle of Essex (who dyed without issue 1227.) Which by no meanes we may beleeue, because the match [Page 46] were against nature, if it be true, that Henry Bohun mar­ryed with that sister and heire of William Magnauill afore­said: which is so vndoubted a trueth, that voluntarily it drops out of your owne penne. Pag. 479. of your booke, in the title of the Earles of Hereford. Besides that, it is most euident, that the saide Henrie, in the right of his wife aboue mencioned, was the first Earle of Essex of that familie: as appeareth by a Charter of king Henrie the thirde, in the 25. yeare of his reigne, concerning lands that he gaue to the Abbay of West­minster: whereunto the said Henrie was a witnesse, by the name of Henrie de Bohun Earle of Hereford and Essex, and Constable of England. And further, to manifest that it was not Humfrey the sonne of this Henrie that married with Matilda, Know you, that she died 1236. in the one and twen­tie yeare of king Henrie the third, which was during the life of the said Henry her husband, and foure years before he was a witnesse to the kings Charter aforesaide.

VVHat is it that you will not vndertake to write, and publish of a meane person? when you verie vn­iustly haue wrōged that honorable familie of De-la-Pooles, reporting Michael De-la-Poole, the first Earle of that name, to haue beene aduaunced by Richard the second, from a Merchant of Hull, (Pag. 549.) to the dignitie of Earle of Suf­folke, he being a knight of the noble order of the Garter: by the Satutes whereof, none can bee elected vnlesse hee be borne gentle three discents, both of father and mother. Al­so [Page 47] it doth appeare by an inquisition taken the 9. of Edwarde the third, that sir William De-la-Poole knight Banneret, fa­ther of this Michael, was sonne and heire of sir William De-la-Poole knight. All which testimonies might haue satisfied you, or any other reasonable person, both to haue thought and written more reuerentlie of him. But not herewith contented, you after depriue him the saide Michaell, both of his sonne, and eldest grandchild, which succeeded him in the said dignitie, the one after the other, by the names of Mi­chaell the second, and Michaell the thirde: placing in their rowmes, as immediate successor, and son to the foresaid first Michaell, William De-la-Poole duke of Suffolke, his second grandchilde. In both which points howe much you haue er­red (to the great preiudice of the honourable Lord viscount Monta-cute, the Lord Cobham, and the Baron Wentworth, with manie other now liuing, descended of the same honou­rable familie) the true discent here following, will explaine.

Michael De-la-Poole, Lord Wingfield, Earle of Suffolke, and knight of the noble order of the Garter, sonne and heire of Sir William De-la-Poole knight Banneret, and of Kathe­rine his wife, sister of sir Iohn Norwich knight, had issue Mi­chaell De-la-Poole, the second Earle of Suffolke, who died at Haresflew, 1415. leauing issue two sonnes, Michaell De-la-Poole Earle of Suffolk, that died at the battell of Agincourt, in the 3. yeare of Henry the fift, without issue, & William De-la-Poole Marques, and afterward Duke of Suffolke, who was beheaded on the seas. 26. of king Henrie the sixt: whom you make sonne to his grandfather Michaell the first of that name. And for the better satisfying of the world, that this Michaell De-la-Poole the first Earle of Suffolke, of that familie, was not basely descended, nor a marchant of Hull (as you and o­thers after you haue written) I haue hereto added a deede of the said Michaels before he was Earle, which doth proue his father, mother, brother, sister, and children.

[Page 48]MIchael De-la-poole, dominus Wingfield, &c. I Michael De-la-PooleI. Hayward saith M. De-la-poole was a marchants son of London. Lord Wingfield, doe confirme certaine landes to the re­ligious house of Saintcleare, neare vnto Kingstone vpon Hull, the which lands were before giuen by sir William De-la-Pole knight my fa­ther, to pray for the good estate of king Richard, and for Michaell De-la-poole, Iohn, Thomas, William, Richard, and Margaret my children, and for sir Edmond De-la-Poole knight, my Brother, and Margaret Ne­uill my sister, and for the soules of sir William De-la-Poole my father, and Katherin my mother, &c. Witnesses Alexander Archbishop of York, Henrie Percie Earle of Northumberland, Thomas Sutton, Robert de Hilton, and Walter Fawconbridge, knights, with manie others. Dated at Hull the first of March, the seuenth yeare of the reigne of King Richard the second.

NOw comming to speake of the Barons of Rhia, let mee, by your patience, put you in minde of a late conference had before the now right honourable Earle marshall of Eng­land, concerning the true coates of the two families of By­got Earle of Norfolke, and Marshall Earle of Penbroke. Ma­ster Garter hauing before that time set downe and quartered in diuerse noble personages atchieuements, for Marshals coate, quarterly gold and vert a Lion passant Gules (a coate latelie deuised:) and for Bygots coate, perpale golde and vert a Lion rampant Gules: neither of them both being in truth their right coates. My selfe being commaunded to say what I knew touching these matters, shewed, for Marshals coate, one faire deed with a seale of Armes thereto, of Iohn Mar­shall father of William Marshall Earle of Penbroke, and An­selme, that was father to Iohn Marshall Baron of Rhia: on which seale was written, Iohn Marshall, and in his shield [Page 49] or escucheon, a bend fuzulie. Also I shewed a transcript of an other deed of the said Iohn, in which was written: Iohn, sonne of Iohn the Kinges Marshall, with the same Armes, of a bend fuzulie, testified vnder the hand of an Officer of armes, long before that time deceased. Lastly, I shewed an old roll of Armes, wrought in colorus, in Henrie the thirds time: where­in was the same coate, viz. Gules a bende fuzulie golde, and ouer the heade thereof written the name of Marshall. All which proofes notwithstanding, your selfe being there then present, verie stedfastlie denied the same to bee the coate of Marshall Earle of Penbroke, affirming that bend fuzulie to be the peculiar coate of Marshall Baron of Rhia: who was (as you then said) of no consanguinitie to Marshall Earle of Pen­broke. For further maintaining of which your speach, you then shewed two newe petegrees, lately contriued and made by your consent, declaring the saide two Marshals to bee se­uerall families, and not one. Since which time (perusing well your Britannia (fol. 360,) I finde the same there auouched by yourselfe for truth, which at that time you so confidently de­nied before the said Earle Marshall: viz. That Iohn Marshall Baron of Rhia, was nephew to William Marshall Earle of Penbroke by his brother: which is quite contrarie to your speeches before vsed. By this your information of these Mar­shals to be seuerall families (without which you had no co­lour to maintaine your errour: for that the Barons of Rhia alwayes vsed for their coate of Armes the said bend fuzulie) the right coate of Marshall, is like now to bee neglected, and the Lion in the parted field vsed in stead thereof, the same be­ing the peculiar coate borne by Marshall and Bygot, when they were Marshals of Englnd, and not belonging to anie one priuate name: as by many other good proofes it may ap­peare. And because I would not haue any heareafter to stand doubtfull which of vs both are to be beleeued touching these two Marshals to bee discended of one parent. I will here set downe the record that doth warrant the same. Which being [Page 50] proued, I trust you will shew vs some reason, why the yonger brother did beare the bend fuzulie, if not discended to him from his father. That done, I will then shew you proofe, howe and when, both the elder Marshall, and Bygot did beare the Lion on the parted field, which you missed to find in Master Somersets Notes, and Master Leylands twelue bookes lent you by master Iohn Stow: in whose custodie I haue seene di­uerse of them being most excellent and rare works, touching the description of this Countrey, written not vpon here-say and reportes, but vpon his eye-sight and long trauell from towne to towne, and place to place, vpon the Kings charge and Commission, which Bookes I wish might bee published in the right Authours name.

IF your wordes here had beene but coniecturall, or gathe­red by reports, as in many other places they are, you should haue lesse discredited your selfe, then by affirming you had seene that, which in truth you did neuer see: for where you say: We thinke that the Bygots builded this Castle, because wee haue there seene Lions saliant in the same forme engrauen in stone as the Bygots vsed in their seales before they obtained the honour and office of Marshall: certaine it is, that on the said Castle there are no Lions saliant, nor any such Ensigne or token as the Bygots did beare in seale or shield, or any Armes at all. And, for that you did of late, (as before) vpon conference had before the now Earle Marshall of England, affirme the saide Lious saliant vpon the Castle walles of Norwich, to bee the true Armes of the Bygots, before they came to bee Marshals of England, my selfe hauing seene diuerse deedes of the said Bygots to prooue the contrarie, the Seales whereof were, Shieldes charged onelie with a plaine Crosse, (which coate you then auouched to be the Armes of Vlster) whervpon, I for my better satisfaction therein, did ride to Norwich for to search the truth of your speach: and going into the said castle, I founde ouer the first gate, two great stones fixed, of some yarde square, and vppon each of them a Lyon pas­sant cowardie, their tayles turning vnder their bellies, and comming ouer their backes, but in no Shielde or Escu­cheon. And seeking more diligentlie all other places a­bout the saide Castle, I did finde ouer the hall doore, other two like stones, with a Lyon also vppon each of them, but contrarie to the former, for these were passant, regar­dants with their tayles ouer their backes, and the endes in their mouthes: yet neither in Shielde, nor Escucheon. And therefore no such coate armour is there vppon the [Page 52] Castell of Norwich, as you sayde you had seene, that the Bygots did vse in their Shieldes and Seales. In conside­ration of this my great paines, and iourney, I desire but that you will from hencefoorth make a difference betweene the Antique fictions of a caruers braine, and the right ensignes of our auncient Nobilitie: which you say, Were in King Hen­rie the thirds time but euerie mans owne inuentions, they being long time before, the honorable rewardes and tokens of valorous persons.

YOur bare imagination cōcerning the gift of Wormegay, by William Earle Warren, to his yonger brother, is no­thing probable: for Reignald de Warren had the same by marriage with the daughter & heire of William de Worme­gay, & not by any gift of his brother. And where you affirme, the said Reignald had a grandchild by his sonne William, na­med Nicholea married to Bardolph, I say he neuer had anie such grandchild, but two others, called Beatrix, and Isabell: which Beatrix was married to Bardolph: as by the testimonie of seuerall deedes here following it may appeare.

THe errors herein are these: first you say, that Hugh Bygot was Earle of Norfolke, and had the third pennie of that Coun­tie (as appeareth by his Charter of creation, giuen him by king H. the first. For answere I say: you haue not seene, nor can proue any such Charter as you here auouch: neither was he the said Hugh, or any of that familie Earle before the first yeare of king Stephen, who then made him Earle of Norfolke: be­cause he being present at the death of king Henrie the first, [Page 54] testifie before the Archbishop of Canterburie and other the Barons of this realme, that hee heard king Henry vpon his death bed say, his will was, that his Nephew Stephen, and not Maude his daughter, should succeede him in his king­dome of England.

Secondly, where you reckon a confused succession of these Earles: saying, That from the first Hugh in Henry the first time, succeeded in direct line from father to sonne, Hugh that tooke parte against king Henry the second, &c. To this I an­swere, that you were in a Labyrinth, not able to finde out what issue there was betwixt the first and second Hugh. And to vnfolde this your error: I affirme, that the first Hugh, and those that you say succeeded betweene from father to sonne, to that Hugh, whome you name the second, were all but one person: for he that was Steward to king Henry the first, and was after made Earle of Norffolke by king Stephen, was the same person that liued in the time of king Henry the second, and that tooke part with the yong king against his father.

Thirdly, where you affirme, that the last Earle Roger sur­rendred all his honors, and almost all his inheritance vn­to king Edward the second, it seemeth a matter vnto me very vnlike, that the said Roger dying in the life of king Ed­ward the first, could in the reigne of king Edward the second make any such surrender. But here haue you done very wise­ly, in leauing out the cause of the kings displeasure against the said Roger: for therein would you haue disclosed your owne error. But, because I would not haue you ignorant of the same, king Edward the first in the fifteenth or sixteenth yeare of his reigne, required this Roger Bygot Eerle of Norf­folke, Gilbert de Clare Earle of Glocester, and Humfrey de Bohun then Earle of Hereford, to goe with him into France: whose request these three noble persons refused, whereupon, at the said kings returne againe into England, he forced Gil­bert de Clare, and Humfrey de Bohun the yonger sonne of the soresaid Humfrey, to marrye with two of his daughters, [Page 55] without either land or money, and the said Roger Bygot (to appease the kings indignation) did make ouer vnto him most part of his landes, with the office of Marshall of Eng­land. And this was done by king Edward the first, and not by Edward the second, as you haue here set downe.

THe Earledome of Cambridge vtterly decayed not with Richard of Conesborough, yonger sonne of Edmond of Langley Earle of Cambridge, and Duke of Yorke (who was executed in the third yeare of Henry the fift, (as you say) but was after reuiued againe in Richard his sonne, whome king Henry the sixt, in the fourth yeare of his reigne created Earle of Cambridge, and after Duke of Yorke, Regent of Fraunce, and protectour of England.

BEfore I enter to open your errors in this succession of the Earles of Huntingdon, I would entreate you, of this number of eleuen Earles, to put out fiue of them at the least. And because you shall take them right, I will first nominate vnto you those which ought to stand, beginning with Wal­the of Earle of Northumberland, vnto whome William the Conqueror gaue in mariage with Iudith his neece the Earle­domes of Huntingdon, & Northampton. This Walthe of had issue Maude, who was giuen in marriage vnto Dauid, brother to Alexander king of Scots: which Dauid was after a wit­nesse to the Charter of king Henry the first, touching landes and liberties that the said king gaue vnto the Cittie of Lon­don, by the name of Dauid Earle of Huntingdon. After the death of Dauid, the foresaid Maude was marryed againe to Simon Sant-lize a Norman gentleman, who had with her the Earledome of Northampton. Dauid before named, had issue Henry, who in the life of his father was Earle of Hun­tingdon, and dyed in the 18. yeare of king Stephen, leauing issue three sonnes, Malcolme, William, and Dauid. Mal­colme being king of Scottes, rebelled against king Henry the second: for which cause, the king seised into his handes the Earledome of Huntingdon. After the said Malcolmes death, William his brother succeeded him in the kingdome of Scotland. He likewise rebelled against his Lorde king Henry the second, and being taken prisoner, was caryed in­to Normandie, Anno 1174. Where he compounded to pay for his raunsome ten thowsand markes, and to release all his title and interest of the Earledomes, both of Huntingdon, and Northumberland. After which, king Henry gaue the Earle­dome of Huntingdon to Dauid, the third sonne of Dauid Earle of Huntingdon before mentioned. Which Dauid was a witnesse to the Charter of king Richard the first, of landes [Page 57] that he gaue to the Abbey of Peterborough, Anno 1189. by the name of Dauid Earle of Huntingdon. He dyed in the se­cond yeare of king Henry the third, and left issue Iohn his sonne, surnamed Scotte, who succeeded him: which dyed without issue in the 22. yeare of king Henry the third. Thus haue I rightly set downe the succession of the Earles of Hun­tingdon, vnto Iohn surnamed Scotte: which vnlesse you can by good authorities disproue (as I assure my selfe you can­not) I hope you will not onely confesse your error: but will abate in your next impression those fiue, which in deede were neuer Earles of Huntingdon: vidz. Syward who was but Earle of Northumberland: then the three Simons Sant-lizes, that were Earles of Northampton onely, and lastly, William king of Scottes.

BY ayming at successions without sure grounde, you still misse the marke whereat you doe shoote: as here, when you say, That the daughters and heires of the grand-childe of A­lane Baron Zouch were marryed to the families of Holland: Who long time continued in the name and title of Barons: you be­ing not able to proue but one of those daughters marryed to Holland, and he no Baron, nor any of his posteritie, other then of your making. And where you say, That the said Hol­lands [Page 58] inheritance discended to the families of the Louells and Saint Mawres, I answere: Well may you dreame of such a succes­sion, but neuer can you produce any testimony for the same. For, had you knowne the trueth hereof, you would haue said, that both Holland & Saint-Mawre maried the two daughters and coheires of Zouch: and not haue made Saint-Mawre to discend from Holland, when there was neuer any such matter.

BY this may all men euidently see your malicious and disdainefull humour against her Maiesties Herauldes of Armes, in that you cannot be contented in many other places of your booke, to make doubt and question of their reportes and dooings, whether the same may be credi­ted, yea or no: but heere most iniuriously and falsely, you charge them to haue brought forth for Earles of Warwicke, Guare, Morindus, Guy the bel-ringer, and many others of that rancke, of which, though Rouse of Warwicke, and others haue written of Guy, yet are not you able to iustifie, that the Herauldes were Authors of any such suspected Chieftaines. And in that you make your worship mery (with The fruitefull wittes of our Herauldes: supposed by you, To haue bin brought a bed with those imagined Earles all at one birth.) I wonder that so cunning a midwife should make vs the reputed fathers of those which we neuer wrapped vp within the sheets or leaues of our Recordes. But such a midwife, such a nursse are you, as haue not onely changed other mens children in the cradle and sophisticated the reportes of worthie Authors: but al­so most vngratefully haue charged the parents, and first collectors of many sounde notes (helpefull to your credite [Page 59] and labours) as the inuentors of your misreportes, whereby you haue not onely falsified in your booke, many things con­cerning the discents of noble families, imagining of your owne braine, diuers nobles to haue bene, that neuer were, & extinguishing the memoriall of others that were: But also most vntruely haue made her Maiesties Herauldes the Au­thors of feigned stories, and legends of lyes, when beside concealement of many fauours receaued from the Heraulds, you cease not to carpe at them, from whose workes you haue borrowed the substance of your Herauldy, and the groundes of your skill in discents, therefore owe them good wordes at the least, for your owne credite, least they should call for their lent feathers againe, and leaue you naked of your Ar­morie, as Esops crowe.

HEre will we not stand to examine the trueth of your Saxon Earles: but receaue them as mattter indifferent to fill vp a roome in your booke. And touching these other Earles of Leicester: I say, your wittes haue misconceiued and brought forth Rainulph Earle of Chester, Almarike Earle Mountfort, Simon his sonne, William of Bauare, and others, which as yet were neuer Earles of Leicester, with whose vn­timely byrth, you were so payned (as it seemeth) that you quite forget foure other Earles that were rightly inuested, and succeeded in that dignity vidz. Thomas & Henry, grand-chil­dren to king Henry the third by his sonne Edmond: After Henry, succeeded the second Henry his sonne: And after him his grand-childe by his daughter Blanch (called Henry of Bullingbrooke) who was after king of England by the name of Henry the fourth. And therefore I would intreate you to leaue out in your next and fift edition, your first foure Earles here mentioned: in which doing, you should [Page 61] make roome for the other foure, whome very iniuriously you haue thrust out of their right place of succession.

TRuely I must needes confesse that her Maiesties Herault hath deceaued you, and contrary to your expectation, hath answered some of your vntruthes: but that the Heraults doe affirme Hugh Grentemaisnill to be Earle of Hinckley I vtterly denye the same. And now comparing your speaches here, with those before in the title of Earles of Leicester, I finde them very variable, and your selfe forgetfull to contra­dicte your selfe: in so little a distance: for in that before, you make erroneously Hugh Grantemaisnill to haue had but one onely daughter and heire named Parnell, that was maryed to Robert Earle of Leycester, and here you acknowledge that he had a second daughter named Alice, marryed to Roger By got ancester to the Earles of Norfolke: By disanulling of which Alice, you endanger the succession and inheritance of most of the Nobilitie of this Realme, which are from her discended. But vnderstand that I doe not produce this your assertion as erronious in this place: but rather to confirme your opinion here as true, that your owne wordes before disagreeing from this trueth, may not receaue any credite when they shall be read. Pag. 404. of your booke.

YOu haue so long vsed this trade of patching and peecing of Petegrees with vntimelie issue and vnnaturall marri­ages, as many now well experienced doe condemne you of palpable ignorance, I wish you therefore some other practise more fitting your skill, and lesse preiudiciall to the common wealth, for here (as in many other noble families) you haue confused and falsified this petigree of Lacies, making Hen­rie Lacie Lord of Pomfret to haue issue but one only daugh­ter, and sole heire named Albrede, when as hee had a sonne named Robert that succeded him, and no daughter at all. Af­ter you auouch that daughter Albrede, to bee wife to Robert de Luzurs (a man as yet vnborne) and to haue issue by him a daughter and sole heire, married to Richard Fitz-Eustace Constable of Chester. To which I answere, that the same Al­brede, who (you say) married Robert de Luzurs was the wi­dow of Henrie Lacie, and not his daughter. And that daugh­ter and sole heire you affirme to be wife to Richard Fitz-Eu­stace, was the onelie heire of Eudo de Luzurs by Albrede the relict of Henrie Lacie, and not of Robert de Luzurs. And for proofe that Henrie Lacie did marrie with Albrede, and had issue Robert Lacie, that died 1193. as also that the said Al­brede after the death of Henrie Lacie, married for her second husband, Eudo de Luzurs, and had issue one sole daughter & heire named Albrede, wife to Richard Fitz-Eustace, Con­stable of Chester, I set you downe these foure deeds folowing.

[Page 64]HEre are you to be commended, in reforming your own errour: for in the title of the Barons of Botreaux, page of your Booke 229. You there haue set downe Richarde Corbet to be father to the concubine of king Henry the first. And here you say that Robert Corbet was her father, which is true indeede, and the other false: but as you haue here in this place amended one errour, so haue you likewise com­mitted an other, in auouching Peter Fitz-Herbert, to be the saide Robert Corbets grandchilde, when as the said Robert (in your sence) had neither sonne graundchild, nor great grandchilde, which was called by the name of Peter Fitz-Herbert. And therefore, I maruaile, from whence you haue these fabulous fragments.

TO this may I answere as to manie others: That you write you knowe not what, otherwise you would not here so vntruly haue affirmed Hugh Handlo, to be sonne of Iohn Handlo, and Maude Burnell his wife: they neuer hauing any such sonne, nor you any other proofe then your owne imagination for the same: And for approbation hereof, it appeareth by diuerse offices, in the time of king Edward the third, that Iohn Handlo, in right of Maude Burnell his wife was seased of the Mannors of Holgat, and Acton Burnell, for terme of his life, the Remainder to Nicholas Handlo, alias Burnell, sonne and heire of the said Iohn by Maude his wife. And therefore no such Hugh, as you auouch to be sonne of Iohn Handlo: but had you said, that Hugh had bene grand­childe of Iohn, and sonne of Nicholas, then had you in this point saued your owne credit, and me a labour,

YOur errors committed in this Title of Harewood Ca­stell, are worthie some censure: For, first you say, that Harewood Castell came from the Curcyes to Waryn Fitz-Gerald, and that his daughter Margaret caryed the same by marriage to Bauldwyn Ryuers; Wherein, you are greatlie deceaued: For Waryn Fitz-Gerald, which first possessed Harewood Castell, by marrying the sister & heire of Curcy, had issue a sonne, and no daughter: which sonne, had issue an other sonne and two daughters; and so your discent verie vntrue in that poynt. Secondly, you affirme that af­ter the death of the said Margaret, Harewood Castell did discend by inheritance, to G. Lisley. To that I answere; Had you knowne the trueth of this discent, you would haue set downe both the time, and how the said G. Lisley was the said Margarets heire, whether by lineall, or collaterall dis­cent: but that being a matter too intricate for you to per­forme, in steede thereof you were forced to leaue for his name a bare letter G. and his right of inheritance, for the readers of your Booke, to finde in nubibus. And although for some speciall cause, I do forbeare heere to lay open this honorable progenie of Lisles, yet by the way will I tell you, that there was neuer anie one of that familie, whose name began with a G. that possessed Harewood as an in­heritance [Page 66] discended to him (from the foresaid Margaret;) nor that wanting heires male, his issue carried the same by marriage to the familie of Aldborough, as you verie vndis­creetly haue heere set downe: for all those Lysleys that were owners of Harewood, were called by the name of Iohn. Thirdly, that the sister and heire of Robert Lysley, trans­ported this inheritance by marriage, to William de Aldbo­rough, I vtterly deny the same; and for proofe say, that Eli­zabeth the wife of Sir William Aldborough was sister and heire of Iohn Lisley, in the time of king Edward the thirde, and not of Robert. And lastly, whereas without any pro­babilitie, you affirme, that the foresaid Sir William Albo­rough had issue by his wife one onely daughter and heire, married to Sir William Ryther. I answere, that in saying he had but one onelie daughter, you wrong diuers Worship­full families now liuing, that are discended of Elizabeth an other daughter and coheire of the said Sir William Aldbo­rough, and his wife; who was first married to Sir Bryan Stapleton, and after to Sir Richard Redman, as by an inqui­sition taken after the death of the said Sir William Aldbo­rough and Elizabeth his wife, in the. 12. yeere of king Richard the second, it doth appeare.

FIrst, in your assertion, that (Gilbert the Earle, sonne and heire to Walter de Gaunt) had but one onely daughter: It is manifestly to be prooued that he had two sonnes, and a daughter; both which sonnes had issue. Secondly, I say that neither the daughter of Gilbert came to the inheri­tance, nor any such vncle Robert succeeded her in that dig­nitie: the right thereof euer remayning in her brothers, who with their issue, succeeded in the dignitie. Thirdly, that the foresaid Robert was not father to the third Gilbert (as you report) whom Lewis the Frenchman made Earle of Lincolne, but great vncle (if any such Robert were euer at all:) and the better to manifest the same, I haue heere set you downe the rrueth of this discent, as ensueth.

WAlter de Gaunt, sonne of Gilbert de Gaunt, that founded the House of Gauntes in the citie of Bristow in William Conquerours time, had issue Gilbert, (made Eare of Lincolne by king Stephen) Walter, Henrie, Bawld­wyn, Gonora, and Agnes. The said Earle Gilbert, maried Hawise, daughter of the first William Romare Earle of Lincolne, and had issue Gilbert, the second Earle of Lin­colne, disinherited by Henrie the second, Bawldwyn Lord of Borne, and Alice wife to Simon Sanctolice Earle of Northampton. Gilbert the seconde had issue the thirde Gilbert, whom Lewis the Frenchman made Earle of Lin­colne, and that died sanz issue in Henrie the thirdes time. Bawldwyn second sonne of the first Earle Gilbert, was by the gift of his father Lord of Borne, and Deeping: he foun­ded the Abbay of Borne. 1140. in the honour of Henrie the second his Maister, and died the 4. of May. 1156. leauing Emme his onely daughter and heire, maried to Hugh Lord [Page 68] Wake of Lydell, of whom the noble families of Wakes des­cended. And now to returne againe to Walter de Gaunt Lord of Folkingham, seconde sonne to the first Walter, (whom you name Robert) he had issue Gilbert de Gaunt, father to the second Gilbert: whose sonne, Gilbert the third, was the first Baron of Folkingham; and was by that name in a Parliament holden at Worcester. 49. of Henrie the thirde. This Gilbert had great liuinges geuen vnto him by Gilbert the last Earle of Lincolne his kinsman: He died, leauing issue Gilbert de Gaunt his sonne, (who was Baron of Folkingham. 24. E. 1. Nichola wife to Pe­ter Malolakue, and Margaret wife to William Kyrdeston. Thus by my long and laborious iourney, in the ende, I haue brought these honorable Families descended of the Lord Wake, to their right and auncient Auncestor Gilbert de Gaunt, the first Earle of Lincolne; whom you would haue obscured, by making him to die without heires male, he hauing issue two sonnes, as before in this place I haue men­tioned.

[Page 69]FIrst, where you affirme Symon de Sanctolice to haue been Earle of Lincolne in right of Alice his vvife, daughter of Gilbert de Gaunt Earle of Lincolne: I denie that there was euer any of the Sanctolices Earles of Lincolne; as by their seuerall deedes extant is to be prooued, wherein they write themselues onely Earles of Northampton, and not of Lin­colne. Secondly, you say, that Ranulph of Chester the second, maried Lucy the mother of William Romara Earle of Lincolne, and begot on her Ranulph, who succeeded his father in the Earle­dome of Chester, and obtayned of Henrie the third the Earldome of Lincolne. In which saying, you haue brought your selfe into a laborinth of errours: for, if you meane (by second) the second Earle of Chester, his name was Richard, and not Ranulph. If by that word (second) you meane the se­cond of that name; the second Ranulph maried not Lucy, but Alice, the daughter of Robert Earle of Glocester, and had issue by her Hugh▪ Againe, if you confesse that you mi­stooke the thirde Earle for the second, and so meant Ra­nulph the first to haue been the same that married Lucy, Mother to William Romara, and begot on her the second Ranulph, whom king Henrie the third made Earle of Lin­colne: that is impossible to be true, that the second Ra­nulph should be made Earle of Lincolne by king Henrie the third, he being dead almost an hundred yeeres before the said king came vnto the Crowne. But to helpe you out of this perplexitie, and that your selfe, and others may be warned for falling into the like errour hereafter, I will set you downe what I finde by Recorde and Euidences touching the same; which is, that Ranulph the first of that name, and thirde Earle of Chester, had issue the second Ra­nulph & fourth Earle of Chester (halfe brother to William de Romara) who married Alice daughter to Robert Earle of Glocester, otherwise called the Consull; and had issue Hugh the fift Earle of Chester, father of Ranulph the sixt, [Page 70] and last Earle of Chester of that familie: vnto whom Hen­rie the thirde gaue the Earledome of Lincolne. And for proofe that it was this last Ranulph, to whom king Henrie the thirde gaue the Earledome of Lincolne, and not Ra­nulph his grand-father, (who you say, was brother to Wil­liam Romara) peruse these two Deedes following.

[Page 71]FRom Lincolne to Couentrie is a long and wearisomeLordes of Couentrie. Iourney (especially) when the traueller is ignorant of the way, and wanteth a guide; as heere (it seemeth) you did, when you past from the one to the other: and setting downe the successions of the Earles of Lincolne, and Lords of Couentrie; where, in the first you haue made Luce (daughter of Algar the Saxon) to be wife to Ranulph the second Earle of Chester: and after in the other (not farre distant) to be wife to Ranulph the first Earle of Chester; the one being the father, and the other his sonne: But how lawfull a thing it is for the father to marrie his sonnes wife, or the sonne his owne mother (as your wordes in these two places import) I referre my selfe to the iudgement of the indifferent readers.

[Page 72]THis is quite Camme from your wordes before in the tytle of Earles of Deuon. Pag. 144. for there you affirme Bauldwyn Ryduers to be made the first Earle of Deuon­shire, by king Henrie the first: And now in this place, you make Richard father of the said Bauldwyn, to be first Earle of Deuon in the same kinges time: which Richard must needes be vnderstood to be that Richard which was father to Bauldwyn, whom you say, was driuen from the Isle of Wight in king Stephens time, as in mine answere before to the Earles of Deuon more at large it doth appeare. Thus your wordes in one place, being meerly repugnant to those in an other, what credite may any geue to your writinges?

WHat thankes you looke for, I know not: but well as­sured I am in this place, as in many others, you haue deserued none: for few or none of the Noble Families, with whom you haue had to deale with, or to write off, but that you haue iniured them in some one poynt or other. And now that we are come to speake of the last Peter Bruse Baron of Skelton, who dyed. 14. Kalendes of Octo­ber, 1273. I pray you let vs examine a little that honora­ble the Lord Lumley his discent; whom (in your owne con­ceipt) you haue made much beholding vnto you, for adding to him one Auncestor (such as I dare boldly say) neither he, [Page 73] nor any other as yet euer knew or heard of; I meane Wal­ter Twenge, who (you say) married Lucy the sister and coheire of Peter Bruse Baron of Skelton, & was Auncestor to the now Baron of Lumley. But that you may the better reforme this, with many other your faultes, I will for your better instruction, manifest vnto you the name, & true hus­band of the said Luce: which was, Marmaduke Twenge, a noble Baron in king Edward the first his time: who died in the Kalendes of March. 1284. and was buried by his said wife Lucia in the Church of Gwisborne, founded by Ro­bert Bruse the Norman, his wiues Auncestor. 1129.

THat Danby was the possession of Walter Twenge, and that from his successors it came to the Latymers, who were after Barons of Danby, I answere (as before in the title of Skelton). That there was neuer anie such Walter yet borne; and then no such successors of his could carrie the same to the Latymers, as you verie vntruly haue heere set downe: for proofe hereof, I referre me to the iudge­ment of the honorable Lord Lumley himselfe; who hath this discent most exactly set downe by that worthy and late Officer of Armes, Sommerset Herault. And to the other, That Ralph Neuell Earle of Westmerland, did purchase the said inheritance and honour, of Iohn Lord Latymer of Danby, for his younger sonne George: I graunt for true, that he purcha­sed the Landes, but not the dignitie: for Iohn Neuill that solde the said landes, had no fee simple in the dignitie to sell but onely an estate for tearme of life: therefore can you [Page 74] not rightly say that Ralph Neuill Earle of Westmerland, did purchase the dignitie which George his sonne enioyed. But more agreeable to the trueth had it been, if you had said, that George sonne of Ralph Neuill in regarde that he had the Landes whereof the dignitie of Latymer was erec­ted, obtained the honour by the Kinges free gyft and fa­uour, otherwise that title and dignitie had been extinct: for seldome shall you finde, that the Kinges of this Realme did euer create or inuest any into a Baronie, which tooke the name of dignitie from an others peculiar place of inhe­ritance or possession.

I Doe much pittie you, that in such high sayles of learning, you should haue so little ballace of discretion: You haue a great facilitie, and a rare gift in the creating and making of Barons with the dash of your penne: But it argueth how shallow you are in the true definition of a Baron, in that you will publish in print that the familie of Cornwalles were Barons of Burford; you being not able euer to make proofe of any one of them, to haue had that dignitie. Not­withstanding, diuers of that surname haue been Knightes: of which number, king Henrie the sixt did erect Sir Iohn Cornwall to be a Baron, and Peere of this Realme, by the name and title of Lord Fanhope: which Iohn, was both the first and last Baron of that familie; and therefore it standeth now with your credite, to make proofe of these your Barons of Burford: which, I thinke, wilbe too hard and difficult a matter for you to doe.

IS it possible? or, do you thinke to perswade any senscible man to beleeue, that this late borne Britannia was of your owne collection? (you as it seemeth, not vnderstanding the same.) No, assure yourselfe: for who knoweth not, that the contentes thereof are neither taught, nor learned amongst children in Schooles, and your selfe neuer employed els where to attaine the knowledge thereof. Many learned, thinke it more fitter you had waded within the compasse of your owne profession and knowledge, in which your errours would not so apparently haue been descried, as heere they are. In this Title of Earles of Worcester, you make Walleron to be the first Earle of Worcester: and that his issue did depart this Realme to their auncient patrimonie in Nor­mandie: By which, if it were true, then were there none of that progenie to be looked for heere in this Realme of England (to the great preiudice of many honorable Fami­lies descended of the said Walleron.) But to reforme this your errour, I wish you to vnderstande that the foresaid Walleron, had issue Robert Earle of Millent, Worcester, and Lord of Ponttadomara: which Robert did remaine heere in England, and maried an English woman named Mauld, Lady of Estrumenister, Moreys, and Rydlestone; And by her had issue Henrie, Peter, Mabell, and Mary: the two sonnes, and the youngest daughter, dying without issue; Mabell the eldest daughter, was married to William de Vernon, alias Ryduers▪ Earle of Deuonshire; and had issue Bauldwyn Earle of Deuonshire, and Mary, first mar­ried [Page 76] vnto Sir Robert Courteney, by whom she had issue: (of whom all the Courteneys are descended:) After she married Peter de Prouz, a noble Gentleman of Deuon: to which Peter, the said Robert Earle of Millent and Wor­cester, did by his deede giue in franke marriage with the said Marie his grand-child, the third part of all his Land in England; and vnto Bauldwin his gran-child (by his daugh­ter Mabell) all his Land in Normandie, with the Mannors of Estrumenister, Moreyes, and Riddleston in England. So that heere you are not onely found to faile in your af­firmation, that there was not any Earle of Worcester be­tweene the said Walleron in King Stephens time, and Thomas Percy, who had that dignitie of Richard the se­cond: But also, in saying his issue returned to their auncient Patrimonie in Normandie; when it is manifest that his sole heire continued here, and left issue: of whom are dis­cended many of our noble Families at this present.

AS you did begin at the first, so haue you in your Booke continued vnto the ende, making to some Nobles vn­naturall mariages, and to others vnlawfull issue. In this place, you haue made the sonne to be brother to his owne father, by affirming William Meschines Lord of Gillesland, to be brother to Ranulph Earle of Carlell. And to prooue that the saide William was sonne of Ranulph Earle of Carlell, and not his brother, I will first for the better vnder­standing of the reader hereof, set downe a briefe of the said Williams discent, beginning at Hugh Lupus his vncle, the first Earle of Chester, whose sister Margaret was mar­ried to Ranulph Earle of Carlell, and by him had issue two sonnes, Ranulph the first of that name, and thirde Earle [Page 77] of Chester; and William Mischines Lord of Gilleslande: and that this is true which heere I haue incerted, reade this Deede following: which done, I trust you will not onely recant your errour, but also acknowledge from whence you haue receaued the trueth hereof.