An ansvver to Sir Thomas Manwaring's book, intituled, - An admonition to the reader of Sir Peter Leicester's books. Written by the same Sir Peter Leicester

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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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, 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, 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 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 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 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 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 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 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, 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 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, 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, 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 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 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 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) 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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. FINIS.