An Answer to Sir Thomas Manwarings Books, &c.
IN the first place, I desire the learned and ingenious Reader to take notice of the very first words of Sir Thomas Manwaring's Admonition— [That you may know Hercul [...]s by his Foot:] whereby he would insinuate the blasting of my Credit and Reputation, even before he begins one word of his Book; and it is all one, as if he should have said in downright words, take heed of believing any thing which Sir Peter writes: For here I will shew you the Partiality, Omissions, Uncertainties, and Mistakes of the said Sir Peter, in those two Sheets of his Historical Antiquities, in which he writes of [Page 2]the Township of Over-Peever, which are so numerous, that little credit is to be given to any thing he writes elsewhere; for ex pede Hercules, and it is no matter what he writes of the Bastardy of Amicia, or any thing else: See here the scope of his design.
Had he given me notice of my Mistakes in private, it would have shewed more handsomly in him, and more acceptable to me; but he now publisheth to the World his own Malignancy, which will be a greater dishonour to himself than these pitiful exceptions can be a disparagement to me, for his Reputation is out of his reach, Cum tamen non mordeat, oblatrat.
But let us now take a view of these his pitiful exceptions which he would so unhandsomly charge upon me as Errours.
To the 1. Pag. 4.
Here he saith that in Pag. 330 of my Book, I call Ranulphus in Doomsday-Book [Page 3]the supposed Ancestor of the Manwarings: But Pag. 208. I call Odard the undoubted Ancestor of the Duttons: Now what reason I can have for that, except my Partiality, he cannot imagine.
My Answer.
Yes, Reason enough for it, though he cannot or will not imagine it:
For I have seen sundry Deeds of the first Age after the Norman-Conquest, namely made in the time of King Henry the first, wherein I find Hugh the Son of Odard so stiled, and Hugh Son of Hugh Son of Odard: See Pag. 264. of my Book, and Pag. 117. sub Anno iii 9. and also Pag. 250. whereas I should be glad to see any one Deed of that Age, mentioning or calling Richard Mesnilwarin Son of Ranulphus.
Again, the ancient Roll of the Barons of Halton which I have seen and transcribed in one of my Manuscripts, noted Lib. Cap. fol. 84, 85. (which Roll seemed to be written [Page 4]in a Character of 300 Years standing at the least,) saith thus— Ab ipso Hudardo venerunt omnes Duttomenses. See also Monasticon Anglicanum, Vol. 2. pag. 187. and also pag. 249. of my Book, but I never knew nor heard of any such ancient Roll or Record, wherein it is said— Ab ipso Ranulpho venerunt omnes Manwaringi.
Again, I have seen the ancient Sword, called at this day Hudards-Sword, and is yet in the possession of the Heirs of Dutton of Dutton, and for many Ages hath been passed as an Heir-Loom from Heir to Heir for many Generations; and I have seen some Wills of the Duttons, giving the same as an Heir-Loom to the Heir by that name of Hudards-Sword, which by tradition received hath been constantly preserved by the Heirs of that Family with great veneration, the like (I believe) cannot be shown by any Family of this County, or scarcely in England. See in my Book, pag. 250. I say not this to extenuate any Family, but [Page 5]to shew the Antiquity of this Family which hath been seated at Dutton even from the Conqueror's time to this present, and continued in the name of the Duttons, until in our days it devolved by a Daughter and Heir unto the Lord Gerard of Gerards-Bromley in Stafford-shire.
And therefore I might well call Odard the undoubted Ancestor of the Duttons, and by much surer proof than (I believe) can be produced to prove the Manwarings to be descended from Ranulphus aforesaid.
Neither do I look upon the Lands coming to either of the Families to be ne're so sure a proof as what I have mentioned above; for possibly Lands might descend by a Daughter and Heir, or by Purchase, and yet Richard Manwaring might not be Son of Ranulphus, as is certainly recorded of the Duttons from Odard.
Howbeit, I am so much satisfied with the Lands found in Possession of the Manwarings, in the very next Ages after William the Conqueror, that I suppose the same [Page 6] Ranulphus to be the Ancestor of the Manwarings, but I cannot say it is so certain as the other:
What reason now hath Sir Thomas to charge me with Partiality in the Case?
To the 2. Pag. 6.
Here he saith, that in the same 330 Pag. I tell him of two Places or Hamlets in Over-Peever anciently called Cepmundewich, the other Fodon, whereas there were seven such places there, which he reckoneth up.
Answer.
But Sir Thomas mistakes himself therein, for neither Radbroke, nor the other four there mentioned by him, were called Hamlets, as Cepmundewich and Fodon were: See Pag. 331. of my Book, for although there might be some parcels of Land in Over-Peever, so called, either Fields or Tenements, yet were [Page 7]those parcels never called Hamlets in any Deed that I ever saw as yet: Now Hamlets are as it were a Ville within a Ville, and are places more conspicuous, and usually containing a greater quantity of Land than a private Place, Field, or Tenement, gaining certain names as those did, and other Places also might do; nor was it fit for me to take notice of all such inconspicuous places in my Book, though I did take notice of the Hamlets; for that were to make my work endless, and to stuff it with trifles: But I did take notice of Radbroke, because it was a Freehold at this day, and now not belonging to Manwaring, which made me the rather to mention the same; and though it be locus cognitus in Over-Peever at this day, yet no Hamlet at all.
To the. 3. Pag. 7.
Here he tell us, that I have left out in the Pedegree of the Manwarings, (Pag. 331.) Ranulphus mentioned [Page 8]in Doomsday-Book, Richard Mesnilwarin, Roger de Mesnilgarin, or Mainwaring, and William and Randle his Sons, Roger de Menilgarin or Mainwaring, Sir Ralph Manwaring, Sir Roger Manwaring his Son.
Answer.
But if he had viewed well Pag. 330. of my Book, he might have found the last Roger Manwaring, and Ralph Manwaring his Father sometime Judg of Chester, to have been there, but that either of them were Knights, it doth not certainly appear to me, as in my lesser Book I have formerly given my reasons; and for the descents here mentioned before, Ralph Manwaring, I think he himself will have much ado to put them into right order as they ought to be; I am sure I cannot; and though they were Lords of Over-Peever, or the greatest part thereof, yet certainly none of them lived at Over-Peever, till William [Page 9]Manwaring had Over-Peever given him by Roger Manwaring of Warmincham his Father in the raign of Henry the third, and so seated himself here in Bucklow-Hundred, where his Heirs have ever since continued to this day.
However, my design was only to show who held every paritcular Town in Bucklow-Hundred from the time of William the Conqueror to this day, or so far forth as I could discover, together with the Pedegrees of the better sort of Families seated within that Hundred, or so many of them as my leasure would permit me to go through, the other Hundreds being out of my intended task; and this he takes notice of himself, Pag. 8. so that having shewed how the Manwarings of Peever first branched out from the Manwarings of Warmincham, it was only suitable to my design to bring down that descent to this day. The like I have done of the Savages of Clifton, and of the Brookes of Norton.
Yet I cannot but take notice how he calls the first William Manwaring of Over-Peever, and the first of the Manwarings who seated himself there, by the title of Sir William Manwaring; whereas it is most certain that he was no Knight, nor can any Deed be produced wherein he was ever subscribed as a Witness, with the word Domino prefixed, as Domino Guillielmo Manwaring de Peever, if Sir Thomas would but survey his own Deeds with an impartial eye:
For if he finds any William subscribed Domino Guillielmo Manwaring in that Age, it is to be understood of Sir William Manwaring Parson of Wernith, who was contemporary with the other William Manwaring of Peever, and such Deed or Deeds I my self have seen: See Pag. 330. of my Book, and my Answer to the defence of Amicia Pag. 7, 8. also my first Reply, Pag. 73. and my Addenda, Pag. 16, 17.
But the first Knight of the Family of the Manwarings of Over-Peever, [Page 11]was Sir John Manwaring of Peever, living in the time of King Henry the sixth, and died about 20. Edw. 4.
So that hitherto I have committed no errour at all in these things he chargeth upon me.
To the 4. Pag. 8.
In this I confess I may be mistaken, in saying that Holt was the second Husband of Margery Praers, since he finds John Honford was her Husband 46, 47. and 50. Edw. 3. for then Honford must needs be her second Husband, and Holt the first, which by long pawsing on his own Deeds, he might the better discover.
To the 5. Pag. 8, 9.
William Leigh of Baggiley was no Knight 33. Edw. 3. when he married Joan Manwaring, for he was then very young and under age, and therefore no errour in what I there have said: Howbeit he was afterwards a Knight, [Page 12]which I did take notice of in his due place.
To the 6. Pag. 9.
He that tricked out the Seal for me, saw as well as my self, that the Seal was three Bars, and not two Bars, to the best of our Judgments; but William Manwaring the younger, did in his Seal use only two Bars 17. Richard 2. when the Heirs Males of the Manwarings of of Warmincham failed, and also left out the Lyon in chief, as I have there truly observed.
To the 7. Pag. 9.
I must needs omit John and Margery Brother and Sister to the said Helen, which I then knew nothing of, and possibly other things may be hereafter discovered, which ought not to be imputed as an errour to me when I writ my Book, but so far as I writ, was true.
Besides, It was not my design to collect all the Children of the younger Sons: Now these were the Children of a younger Son. It was only my task to collect the Wives and Children of the right Heirs of each Family in Bucklow-Hundred.
To the 8. Pag. 9.
He saith here, that he finds William (Son of Roger Manwaring) living 14. of Edw. 3. and how long after, he believes no Man can certainly tell.
Now I said he died about 12, or 13. of Edw. 3. which expression of mine shews only a guess, without an exact certainty; a very poor exception to be put in Print.
To the 9. Pag. 9, 10.
Here he saith, that I said William Manwaring the younger divided the Lands of Baddiley between John Manwaring his Half-Brother, and [Page 14] John de Honford; but (saith he) William gave the Demain of Baddiley solely to his Half-Brother, and divided the remainder of the Lands of Baddiley:
Why then he divided the Lands of Baddiley.
To the 10. Pag. 10.
Here he saith, that all the Manwarings that he can find, have either given for their Crest an Ass-Head on a Torce, and haltered, or else an Ass-Head erased, or else an Ass-Head unhaltered, and within a Coronet.
Answer.
So that he makes here no certain Crest at all to his Family: A very worthy exception: But they have given the Ass-Head someway, and it is certain, that William Manwaring the younger in his Seal, 17. of Rich. 2. did then give the Ass-Head couped, which his Heirs have, or should have continued.
To the 11. Pag. 11.
Here he saith, that the said William Manwaring did not by any Will dispose, but of a part of his Estate, namely of the Lands which came by his Mother, nor did he by any Will settle the Lands which he had as Heir to his Father.
Answer.
Indeed I neither said he setled the Lands of the one nor the other, but only that he setled his Estate, which if it were either of his Mothers Lands, or Fathers Lands, I have said truth; nor is it any matter whether of the one or of the other, to my purpose.
To the 12. Pag. 11.
Here he saith, that he cannot understand how the dying of Sir John Warren 10. of Rich. 2. doth prove that John Manwaring married [Page 16]his Widow about 13. of Richard the second.
Answer.
But it is probable to be abou [...] that time, for it may well be imagined, that it must be some competent time after Sir John Warren's death, nor can any Man expect punctual proof of every thing in the [...] cases; and if Sir Thomas cannot mend it, it may stand, till bette [...] proof appear.
To the 13. Pag. 11.
Here he saith, that I have observed that the said John Manwaring wa [...] Sheriff of Chess-shire 4, 5, and 6, o [...] Henry 4. but have omitted 7, o [...] Henry 4.
Answer.
Certainly, this is a childish exception, as most of the other be [...] Is it possible that any Man that ever [Page 17]did write, or shall write hereafter of matters of this kind, should comprehend every particular? and this is not worthy the labour of mending, and is well enough without it.
To the 14. Pag. 12.
Here he saith, that Pag. 333. I say John Manwaring died 11. of Henry 4.1410. whereas he was certainly dead in the Year 1409.
This is also a pitiful exception: why doth he not now produce authority for the exact time of his death?
To the 15. Pag. 12.
Here he saith, that Pag. 334. I said Margery survived her Husband Randle Manwaring, whereas she was certainly dead in the Year 1449, and died several Years before her Husband.
Answer.
But this mistake I rectified in Print long since, at the end of my said Book, among the Errata, and also at the end of my Answer to the defence of Amicia, so soon as I knew the certainty of it, and therefore ought not to be charged upon me.
To the 16. Pag. 12.
Here he saith, that I said Sir John Manwaring died about the very end of Edw. 4. his Raign, but he was dead for certain the 14. of April. 20. of Edw. 4.
Answer.
Had I but said towards the latter end of Edw. 4. I had not much erred, and I could not put down the exact time till I knew it: Now Edw. 4. raigned but 22 Years in all.
To the 17. Pag. 12, 13.
Here he saith, that I omitted Agnes Daughter of John Manwaring of Peever Esquire, and Wife of Sir Robert Nedham.
Answer.
Indeed at first I made some doubt of the truth hereof, because I found in my Lord Kilmorey's Pedegree, under the Herald's Seal, that the said Sir Robert Nedham married Maud Daughter of Sir John Savage: But as soon as I found out the truth, I rectified that omission in Print, at the end of my Answer to the defence of Amicia, Pag. 87, as will appear by the said Book, Printed 1673, and did also blot out that Match with Savage in my own Book, in the Pedegree of that Family, pag. 233. and yet he imputes it now again, as if I had not mended the same, which is unjustly charged here.
To the 18. Pag. 13.
Here he saith, that Katharine Manwaring married William Newton probably 1522, and I had said it was 1521, so that there was no certainty of what I there said.
Answer.
I say it is as probable they were married 1521, as 1522, and can absolute certainties be always found out in matters of this nature in every particular? therefore let it stand, till he proves it to be an errour.
To the 19. Pag. 14.
Here he saith, that Pag. 335, I say Sir John Manwaring was Sheriff of Flint-shire 6. of Henry 8. but I take no notice that he was Sheriff there 23 and 24 of Henry 7, and also 1 and 2 of Henry 8.
Answer.
What if I did not? It is true what I have said, and well enough without it: for (as I said before) it is not possible that I should comprehend every particular, nor any Man else; and shall my Credit of writing Truth be impeached by him for this, because I cannot know every thing? therefore I have committed no errour herein.
To the 20. Pag. 14.
In the same Pag. 335, I say Sir John Manwaring died 8. of Henry 8. 1515. and no part of 8. Henry 8. falls in Anno 1515.
Answer.
What of all this? It perhaps were better placed to be Anno 1516, or 1517. let him find out the absolute time, and I will mend it.
To the 21. Pag. 14.
Here he saith, that Pag. 335. I say Sir Randle Manwaring after the death of his first Wife, married Elizabeth Daughter of Sir Ralph Leicester of Toft 6. of Edw. 6. 1551, but (saith he) I cannot prove they were married till the Year 1552.
Answer.
Therefore let it stand donec probetur in contrarium, it may yet be so for ought I know.
To the 22. Pag. 14.
Here he saith, that Pag. 336. I say Philip Manwaring Esquire was the fifth Son of Sir John Manwaring, but he was the seventh Son born, and not the fifth, as appears by the Monument of the said Sir John in Over-Peever Church, wherein the Monument of the said Philip is also.
Answer.
It may be so, but they all died young, and Philip became Heir: If it be an errour, it is but a small one, and not material.
To the 23. Pag. 15.
Here he confesseth what I say to be truth, that the Herald in the raign of Queen Elizabeth made for Sir Randle Manwaring's Coat, Barry of twelve pieces, Argent and Gules: See Guillims Heraldry, Pag. 373. but (saith he) the Manwarings since then have again given two Bars only; and the Coat which the said Sir Randle did then usually bear, was six Barrulets; and that I knew the ancient Coat to be six Barrulets Pag. 330. and not Barry of twelve pieces.
Answer.
It is true, that I said the ancient [Page 24]Deed of Roger Manwaring made in the raign of King Henry the third, was sealed with an Escocheon of six Barrulets, Pag. 330. but that Coat devised for the said Sir Randle, Guillim the Herald calls it Barry of twelve pieces: I know not the criticism in these terms of Heraldry, the Heralds themselves are the best Judges herein, and whether we call it the one, or the other, it is not a Pin matter; nor have I committed any errour at all, for I there vouched Guillim for it.
To the 24. Pag. 15.
Here he saith, that I say the said Sir Randle Manwaring the elder, built the Hall of Over-Peever anew, 1586. but (saith he) part of the said House was built 1585, and another part was built 1586.
Answer.
Is not here a worshipful exception? It is more proper to ascribe [Page 25]the time when it was built to the finishing of it, than when it was begun, for it was not all built till it was finished.
To the 25. Pag. 16.
Here he saith, that Pag. 336. I call Sir Philip Manwaring Secretary of Ireland to the Earl of Stafford, 1638. whereas the said Sir Philip was his Majesties Secretary of State there.
Answer.
Here I confess my words were not well ordered, for I intended no more there, than that he was Secretary of Ireland in the time of the Earl of Stafford, then Lord Lieutenant there, 1638. But I have corrected this in my Notes at the side of my own Book long before, without any admonition from Sir Thomas.
To the 26. Pag. 16.
Here he saith, that I say the said Sir Philip Manwaring died the second of August 1661, at London, but (saith he) he died at Westminster, in Sir Philip Warwick's House, which is in or near to St. James's Park.
Answer.
Is not here a ridiculous exception for a wise Man to make? Do not we always say in the Country—such a Man died at London; whether he died at Westminster, or in any of the Suburbs, according to our common use of speaking, it is no matter for taking notice at whose House.
To the 27. Pag. 16, 17.
Here he saith, that I take no notice that Sir Robert Brierwood was made Serjeant at Law 1640, nor [Page 27]that he was made one of the Judges of the Kings-Bench 1643. and further saith, that Pag. 187, I say the said Sir Robert was made Judg of the Common-Pleas 1643. whereas he was never made Judg of the Court of the Common-Pleas, but of the Kings-Bench: And also, that Pag. 334. I say Sir John Nedham was Justitiarius de Banco, whereby he supposeth I did there erroneously take Justitiarius de Banco to be a Judg of the Kings-Bench.
Answer.
For the first, It was not necessary nor material, to take notice in that place of Sir Robert Brierwood's being made either Serjeant at Law, or Judg of the Kings-Bench; for though it would have been fuller to have put them in here, yet it is no errour without it: And I had before (as Sir Thomas here confesseth) among the Recorders of Chest [...]r, Pag. 187, there taken notice both of his being Serjeant at Law, [Page 28]and being made Judg of the Common-Pleas; howbeit Sir Thomas saith, it should have been Judg of the Kings-Bench; be it so, I had it but by common fame.
Then as to Judg Nedham, I called him Justitiarius de Banco, Pag. 334. which he supposeth I do there erroneously take for a Judg of the Kings-Bench, yet doth he not find me any where so expounding it, so that he will suppose I have committed an errour, before there be one.
To the 28. Pag. 18.
Here he saith, that Pag. 336. I say Philip Manwaring Esquire married Helen Daughter of Edward Minshul of Stoke 20 Jacob. 1622. whereas they were married 1617, 15 Jacob.
Answer.
This (I believe) is the most material mistake now charged upon [Page 29]me, and I have now rectified the same, nor do I well remember now how it came about.
To the 29. Pag. 18.
Here he saith, that Pag. 337. I say that the Stable and Dove-house at Over-Peever were built by Mrs. Helen Manwaring 1654, whereas the Stable was built 1653, and finished within the Year 1654, and the said Dove-house was not built till the Year 1656.
Answer.
This is another Childish exception to put in Print, neither is the first of these any errour at all.
To the 30, but misprinted 29. Pag. 18.
Here he saith, that Pag. 336. I say Margaret Wise of Henry Birkenhed died at Chester 25 of July 1661, but she died on Saturday the 20 of July 1661.
Possibly I might miswrite the number 25 for 20, or it might be mistaken by the Printer.
Thus have I taken a view of all his trivial exceptions particularly, and I believe such ridiculous things were never before published in Print by any wise Man, and most of them rather Cavils than real Errours, all which he ranketh under these four general Heads, Partiality, Omissions, Uncertainties, and Mistakes.
1. As to Partiality. I thank God I dare aver with a clear Conscience that I had not the least intendment of Partiality towards any; in a word, if there be any thing like Partiality in my Book, it is towards his Family, and whatsoever he chargeth me with in this respect, it is altogether unjust.
2. As to Omissions. No moderate Man who shall seriously weigh all circumstances of this nature, can judg it equal to impute such as errours; it is sufficient, that those things be true which I do mention, [Page 31]and so far as I did then know; for letany Man but consider, what multitude of particulars or things may be hereafter discovered in future Ages, which yet are in obscurity and appear not, especially in matters of this nature; nay, how many things could I my self now add to my Book, relating to England, Scotland and Ireland, and other things in this County, and Hundred (which I have collected since) in case it might receive a second Edition, which in this first were unknown unto me, and other things not well digested or considered by me, and God knows whether I may live to see a second Impression of it, or no; if I should, how many other things might yet be afterwards further discovered: Collections and Corrections would still be further necessary, a thing incident to all Books, especially of this kind; nor is it possible for a mortal Man to comprehend every particular, for still there will be a deficiency, [Page 32]though he take all the care imaginable: But these omissions charged upon me by Sir Thomas in his Admonition, (besides the unhandsomness of it,) are so inconsiderable, as they be not worthy an amendment most of them.
3. As to Uncertainties. Some things will still be in the dark for want of exact proof in remote Ages, either for punctual time or circumstances; neither are probable conjectures to be totally rejected herein, though the absolute certainty be not exactly known, and such may stand without any imputation of errour, till the contrary do appear by good proof.
4. Lastly, as to Mistakes. Humanum est Errare, Wilful mistakes are unworthy, but mistakes through ignorance are more pardonable, especially small mistakes and inconsiderable; but these now charged upon me, would have been more handsomly done by a private admonition than a publick, and in Print [Page 33]too, and in such a malignant manner also.
And as to all the Omissions, Uncertainties, and Mistakes before mentioned, they are so immaterial, that if my Book should receive a second Impression, an indifferent Person would not think it necessary to amend above three or four of them, besides those already acknowledged and amended in Print by me before his Admonition published; for though many of them may be observed by Sir Thomas for his private use, yet are neither worthy nor fit for a publick view, as to my design, and well enough without amendment.
Pag. 19. of his Admonition.
Here he reminds the Reader of his former words, Pag. 63, of his Answer to my two Books, which he repeateth here, namely, — That since it did appear that I was resolved to have [Page 34]the last word, although I had nothing new to say; if what I did after that time write, did prove no more to the purpose than what I had said in my two Books aforesaid, he would not appear in Print against me any more, but would chuse to vindicate his Grandmother and himself by word of mouth, whensoever he should have opportunity so to do.
Answer.
Hereby he would now have the Reader to believe, that what I have writ lately in my second Reply, is nothing more to the purpose than what I had said in my two Books, otherwise he would again have appeared in Print against me, for he had left himself that Starting-hole; but now he would chuse to vindicate his Grandmother and himself, by word of mouth, whensoever he had an opportunity; so that he would now insinuate, that though he had promised to appear no more [Page 35]in Print against me concerning Amicia, yet he might no [...] appear against me in Print by a scandalous Admonition.
Pag. 19. of his Admonition.
Here he saith in the same Page, that since that time (that is, since he appeared publickly in Print against me: he might have done well to have excepted this Admonition) I have put out at once no less than three Books concerning the same Subject, that is, concerning the Bastardy of Amicia.
Answer.
Now these three Books are but one Book digested into three parts, and printed all at one time, which he so formally calls a second Reply, Peroratie ad Lectorem, and the case of Amicia truly stated, for the nature of the things required there to be handled apart, which (saith he) [Page 36]was certainly a great deal of lost labour, if my former Books had made the case so clear, as I all along pretended they did.
But not so neither, for though the case might be clear enough before, yet I believe it is now made more clear, by removing those mists which Sir Thomas had endeavoured to cast upon the Truth.
Pag. 20. of his Admonition.
Here Sir Thomas saith, that in all the Books I have written upon this occasion, the same things are said over and over again, as he believes the like cannot be found elsewhere; so that it would be pleasant if some Person who hath little else to do, would take an account how many times I have repeated the same things.
Answer.
Whereunto I say, that the like [Page 37]may be found even in his own Books, whosoever will take pains to read them over; and what if the same things be sometimes repeated? these must needs fall as oft as occasion is offered.
But now in the same twentieth Page he saith, —Though he intends speedily to write an Answer to that part of the Record which is mentioned in the 76 and 77 Pages of my Peroratio, yet he doth not design it at present for the publick Press, but he will show both it, and his answer to my former Advertisement, unto all knowing Persons who desire to see the same, and he doth not doubt but to give them full satisfaction of my mistakes concerncerning both those Records, that they do not prove those things which I conceit they do.
Surely I can have no mistake concerning them, if the Record be truly writ by me, which my Friend hath twice examined, nor do I conceit they prove any thing but what [Page 38]is plain to every rational Man; and it appears by other proof, that Robert Earl of Glocester was not above ten Years old when he was married, and those can be no very knowing Persons who shall be so captivated in their reason by him as to receive full satisfaction concerning my mistakes therein.
For if Sir Thomas shall not aver against a Record (as sometime he hath done against an original Deed) his cavils cannot smother the truth, nor defend what he here saith when it shall come publickly to be scanned.
Pag. 21. of his Admonition.
S [...]eaking here of his Letter mentioned by me in my Peroratio ad Lectorem, he saith it is possible he might write to a Kinsman of his and mine, that Mr Dugdal [...] had delivered his opinion in Print on his side, as also what he had received from a very good hand concerning several of [Page 39]our Judges, but he knows nothing of his Letter being left with Throp the Stationer in Chester, and he is sure he did not write that Mr. Dugdale moved the Judges in the case, for he was not then in London when that Meeting was, nor knew of it till that Meeting was past, and it was occasioned by my Appeal to them.
Answer.
Do but see now his equivocation. It is possible he might write that Mr. Dugdale hath delivered his opinion in Print: why doth he not speak downright, and say, that he did so write concerning Mr. Dugdale's opinion? when it is most certain that he did so write to that Kinsman, and several others, and though he says he knows nothing of the Letter being left with Throp the Stationer, yet it is most certain that Throp had it, and shewed it to others; why doth he not say [Page 40]what it is that he had received from that very good hand concerning the Judges? and then he saith, the meeting of the Judges was occasioned by my Appeal to them: I'le swear, that neither I, nor any from me, by my knowledg or procurement, did move any of them to that Meeting: and on the other hand, I believe they would not have had any such Meeting if no Body had moved them to it; and I would fain know what question was moved to them, and by whom.
Pag. 22. of his Admonition.
Here he saith, that the question (as I alledge) whether Bastard or no Bastard hath nothing of any Law in the case, and that it is more proper for the Judges to judg only upon the point of Law: Now (saith he) how they can judg of the point of Law if there be nothing of any Law in the case, may perhaps be very difficult for any but Sir Peter to tell.
Answer.
Thus the Reader may see his old way of catching at words, though he knows my meaning well enough: I do still affirm, that whether Amicia be a Bastard or no, hath nothing properly of any Law in the case, but it is meerly a question of History, and cannot be proved but by History, Records and Reason; and because our reverend Judges have not leasure to search up all the Histories and Records touching the same, it is not fit to be put to them for their opinions, unless also all the Records and Histories, together with all the reasons alledged on both sides were produced before them: But because Sir Thomas and others would prove it by a point of Law (though very improperly) formerly discussed between us in our Books, and which I alledge will not reach the present case, nor hath he any probable argument [Page 42]out of any History, Record, or Evidence to prove her legitimate: I say it is more proper for the Judges to judge on that point of Law in difference between us, than whether Amicia be a Bastard or no, or whether Hugh Cyvelioc had a former Wife or no, which hath no Law in the case.
Pag. 23. of his Admonition.
Here lastly he tells us, he expects I will write several Books against what he hath here published about my mistakes concerning his Family, which if I do, he will not go about publickly to answer any of them; but if any one will come to him, he will show proof of all the Uncertainties, Omissions, and Mistakes which he hath charged me withall.
Answer.
Whereunto I say that I shall [Page 43]write no more concerning this Admonition than this Answer here published, unless he shall also publish more scandalous things against me.
Only I observe he will not, or rather cannot show any proofs for my partiality, for that is left out here among the other general Heads mentioned, and it had been better to have left that out before, for I dare appeal to God and his own Conscience, that he verily believes that I intended nothing of partiality to any Family, nor especially any malignancy to his, and therefore more unhandsomly done to charge it upon me before, and most unjust.
And what he saith of showing proofs of all the Uncertainties, Omissions, and Mistakes here charged upon me unto any one that shall come unto him, I believe he will have very few to resort unto him [Page 44]on that account, only, unless they were more weighty: and concerning, which I refer my self to my Answer here above written.
Mobberley, Sept. the 20. 1676.