I Doubt not but the Judicious Reader hath long since obser­ved what strange kind of Ar­guments Sir Peter Leycester doth insist upon, both in these last, and in all other his former Books; For with all the confidence imaginable he several times affirms, that Mr. Glanvil says, That Lands might be given with any Woman in Liberum Maritagium: whereas he on­ly says, That they may be given cum qualibet muliere in Maritagium, as you may see in the 39, 40, and 41 pages of my Reply, where Mr. Glanvil's words are expresly set down.

He also says, That he hath proved Geva to be a Bastard, out of an Historian [Page 2]Contemporary, by which Ordericus Vita­lis is meant, and yet the said Ordericus hath said no such thing.

He also affirms, That the Common Law is now alter'd other ways than by Act of Parliament, without quoting any Author for what he says, although the Common Law hath always been the same, and as my Lord Coke upon Little­ton, fol. 115. b. says, Hath no Controu­ler in any part of it, but the High Court of Parliament; and if it be not abro­gated or alter'd by Parliament, it remains still. And whereas my Lord Coke doth also in the same Book, fol 21. b. tell us, That these words, in liberum maritagium, are such words of Art, and so necessari­ly required, as they cannot be expressed by words equipollent, or amounting to as much; He, for all this, brags of seve­ral Precedents where Lands were given in free Marriage with Bastards, and yet proves not that those necessary words in Liberum Maritagium, were used in the granting of any of those Lands, or that any of those persons with whom the said Lands were given were Ba­stards.

To conclude, he tells you, That Lhewellin Prince of North-Wales, was di­vorced from his Wife Joane the Daugh­ter of King John; and for this he can neither shew any Author or Record, but only doth dream of such a thing himself: and yet you must believe him in all these particulars, or else (as you may see in the first page of his Reply to my Answer to his Addenda) he will tell you, you do withstand the plainest truth of History and Reason produced.

He also hath a fine way of answering; For if he be pressed overmuch with any point of Law, he will tell you, of his own authority, that the Law in such par­ticulars hath been clearly alter'd, though he cannot tell how, or at what time it was so changed. If it be a Record that puts him too hard to it, then he con­ceives the Roll from whence the Deed is written, is mistaken in such and such words, and miswrit therein from the Ori­ginal Chart it self. And if out of any History, you tell him of any thing which he cannot answer, then he will not suf­fer the words to be read as they ought to be printed; but he will fancy such expressions as will best suit with his [Page 4]turn: and will also disparage the said History, although in those matters he had formerly said he did chiefly follow the same.

He doth also, to amuse those Readers that are of weak understanding, tell them of Circumquaques, of bits of Law, pieces of Law, brought in by the head and shoulders, fragments of Law, parcels of Law; and in his two last Books, tells me of my impertinencies, of my being impertinent, and of my speaking imper­tinently, (if one who sayes he hath counted, do not mistake himself) no less than Thirty times; with several other expressions, too ridiculous to re­peat here.

He also, to keep up his credit with the more simple sort of People, doth offer to join issue with me upon very ma­ny Points; and gives me some strange directions to follow: which done, he will then leave it to the World to judge, otherwise there will never be an end. Whereas I will refer it to all judicious persons, whether his Arguments in these two Books, be not the same which he used formerly? and whether they be not sufficiently answered by me in my other [Page 5]Books? which if so, the Controversie is already at an end.

Now for the manifestation of what I have here alledged, I shall desire the ju­dicious Reader, when Sir Peter Leycester speaks of what Mr. Glanvil hath said, to take notice what is written in the 32 page of my Defence of Amicia, and so on to the 43 page; as also what is writ­ten in the 39, 40, and 41 pages of my Reply.

When he says Geva is a Bastard, then I desire the Reader to peruse the 43, 44, and 45 pages of my said Defence of Ami­cia, and the 45, 46, 47, and 48 pages of my Reply.

When he says that the Gift to Geva was a Gift in frank marriage, or that the Town of Drayton Basset did pass to the Heirs of Geva by vertue of that Deed which Randle Earl of Chester made to her; see my Defence of Amicia, pag. 48, 49, and 50; and the 55, 56, 57, 58, and 59 pages of my Reply.

When he says that Joane the Wife of Lhewellin, was the same Joane which King John had by Agatha, then read the 3, 4, and 5 pages of my Answer to his Ad­denda.

When he says, that Ellesmere was given with the said Joane in Libero Marita­gio; see the 6 and 7 pages of my said Book.

When he says, King John had not three Daughters called Joane, or that Joane the Wife of Lhewellin, was the same Joane who was Wife to Robert de Au­deley; Read the 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, and 24 pages of the said Answer to his Addenda.

When he says, the said Joane was di­vorced from her Husband Lhewellin, (which no man ever said but he himself) then read the 17, 18, 19, and 20 pages of the Answer to his Addenda, where (be­sides other proofs against what he says) you will find that the Adustery of Joane, whil'st she was Wife of Lhewellin, was committed Anno Domini sequenti to that Marriage, which he fancies to be the Marriage of the said Joane Wife of Lhewellin to the said Robert de Audeley.

When he says, Joane the Wife of Lhewellin was a Bastard; then see the 21, and so on to the end of the 30 page of the said Book. And although he says, page 50. that what I say concern­ing Joane the Wife of Lhewellin, being [Page 7]King John's legitimate Daughter by his Wife Hawise, is so ridiculous, that an­other would be asham'd to own it: Yet I can shew under the hands of persons eminently knowing in these matters, what great satisfaction they have recei­ved in this particular, by what I have written concerning the same; also be­sides those proofs which I have former­ly brought, he doth acknowledge that Vaughan in his British Antiquities, pag. 29. doth call her the Daughter of King John: and in a Record concerning Budiford, mention'd by me hereafter in this Book, she is also called the Sister of King Hen­ry III, without the least blemish of Ba­stardy at all.

I might here very well make an end, but because some persons may be decei­ved with some of Sir Peter's Flourishes, I shall (passing by his angry and uncivil Language, with which he doth ever a­bound) endeavor to clear some things, by which he might otherways impose upon some silly men.

In the first of his two Books in his second page, he says, I had in the 55 pag. of my Reply to his Answer, said, those [Page 8]Reasons of mine (there mentioned) were unanswerable; whereas I said, they were not at all answered by him; and that the one of them was so far from being an­swered, that it was not understood by him, unless he only pretended not to understand it, because he perceived he could not give an answer to it; so that it seems, in his opi­nion, to doubt whether he can answer an Argument, is the same thing as to say, it is unanswerable.

In his fourth and fifth pages, he won­ders if I can english the words in Libero Conjugio, that I will not allow such a Gift to be a Gift in Frank Marriage; and yet he doth acknowledge, that a Gift in Connubio soluto ab omni servitio, is not a Gift in Free Marriage: whereas if construing might be the Rule in this Case, that might be made a Gift in Free Marriage as well as the other; for the word Connubium, as you may see in Gouldman's Dictionary, doth only signifie Lawful Wedlock or Marriage; and there­fore is a better word than his word Con­jugium, which signifies Ʋnlawful, as well as Lawful Conjunction: If construing might also take place in this Case, a Gift in Libero Conjugio, or a Gift in Libero [Page 9]Connubio, would be a Gift in Frank Mar­riage at this day, as well as formerly, and all other equipollent words would also amount unto such Gifts; whereas the Law, for the reason given by my Lord Coke, will, in this Case, allow of no such Gift, unless there be used both the word Liberum, and the word Maritagium.

He also in the said fourth page, doth again misrecite that Argument of mine, which he doth there mention; for he says, that my Lord Coke saith, that these words in Liberum Maritagium, are such words of Art, and so necessarily requi­red, as they cannot be understood by words equipollent; whereas my Lord Coke says, they cannot be expressed by words equipollent, or amounting to as much; so hard it is to get Sir Peter either to re­peat, or understand aright.

In the seventh page he also mistakes himself very much, when he tells you, that Lands given in Maritagium, Haben­dum sibi & Haeredibus suis libere & quiete ab omni servitio versus Capitalem Dominum de me & Haeredibus meis, was a good Grant in Free Marriage, by the very words of Glanvil in those ancient Ages, and was as good as in Liberum Marita­gium; [Page 10]if he means thereby, that Lands might be given in Free Marriage, by those words of Glanvil, in a Deed, with­out using the words in Liberum Marita­gium; for Mr. Glanvil doth there only tell us what Free Marriage is, and it is the same now that it was then; but Mr. Glanvil doth not there, or any where else say, that Lands may be given in Free Marriage by those, or any other equipollent words, without using the words in Liberum Maritagium; and un­less he says this, he says nothing for Sit Peter's purpose: And this may give an Answer to what he hath also said in his 14 and 54 pages of his first Book, and in the 26 and 27 pages of the latter of his two Books.

And whereas he doth often tell you in all his Books, that Mr. Glanvil says, that Lands may be given with any Wo­man in Liberum Maritagium; he as often tells you, that which Mr. Glanvil never said. Indeed Mr. Glanvil says, that Lands may be given cum qualibet Muliere, (with any Woman whatsoever) in Maritagium; but when he speaks of Gifts in Free Marriage, he says, they may be given cum aliqua Muliere, (with some [Page 11]Woman) and the Law, in this particu­lar, is still the same; for Lands may now be given in Maritagium, with any Woman whatsoever; but Lands can only be given in Free Marriage with some Women, viz. such as are of the Kindred of him who gives the Lands.

He also very much mistakes (and wil­fully I doubt) the Deed made in the time of King John, where he says, Saher de Quency Earl of Winchester, granted to Robert his Son and Heir, certain Man­nors ad dandum in Liberum Dotarium Hawisiae Sorori Comitis Cestriae, Ʋxori ejusdem Roberti, which Deed I shall here give you at large, as I find it in the 133 page of his Historical Antiquities. ‘SAherus de Quency Comes Wintoniae, omnibus Hominibus, & Amicis suis, praesentibus & futuris, salutem. Sciatis, me concessisse & dedisse & praesenti Chartâ meá confirmasse Roberto de Quency Fi­lio meo & Haeredi ad dandum in liberum Donarium Hawisiae Sorori Comitis Ces­triae, Ʋxori ejusdem Roberti, Bucehe­beiam, & Grantesset, & Bradeham, & Herdewich, cum omnibus earundem ter­rarum pertinentiis, pro centum Libratis [Page 12]terrae: Et si hae praedictae terrae non valeans per Annum centum Libras, Ego in aliis ter­ris meis de propriâ Haereditate meâ in An­glia, ei tantum perficiam, quòd plenari [...] habeat centum Libratas terrae per visum & considerationem legalium Militum homi­num videlicet, Comitis Cestriae, & meo­rum. Et praeterea Dedi eidem Roberto Feoda duorum Militum, scilicet, Feo­dum Matthei Turpin in Winterslawa it Wilteshire, pro servitio Feodi unius Mili­tis, ad dandum simul cùm terris nominati [...] praedictae Hawisiae Ʋxori suae in liberus Donarium. Testibus his, Comite Davide, Willielmo Comite de Ferrars, Philippo de Orreby, Roberto de Basingham, Ri­cardo de Lindescia, Willielmo de Grum­pington, Henrico de Braibroc, Williel­mo de Syelford, David Giffard, Willi­elmo Picot, Hugone & Thoma & Hen­rico Dispensariis, Waltero de Coven­trey, Waltero Daivilla, & multis aliis.’

And now as you may see in the 29 page of his second Book, he says, That in his Historical Antiquities, the word Donarium was there misprinted for the word Dotarium; whereas the word Do­tarium is not in the said Copy which he [Page 13]Cites, as a knowing Friend of mine doth inform me, who, at my request, did very lately and carefully examine the same in one of the Couchir Books in the Dutchy Office in Grayes-Inn; but the word is Donarium, which probably the Transcriber did mistake for Douarium, the u and n being anciently written a­like, and the v consonant not then used. But if the word had been Dotarium, it would not signifie Marriage, as he doth fancy, although Dos is Domesday Book be called Maritagium; for Dos is twofold, and that Dos which is Dotarium, is the same with. Douarium, which we in En­glish call Dower, and is not that Dos which sometimes is called Maritagium: For this see Glanvil, lib. 6. cap. 1. whose words are these, Dos duobus modis dici­tur, dos enim dicitur vulgaritèr, id quod aliquis liber homo dat sponsae suae ad ostium Ecclesiae tempore desponsationis suae, &c. And lib. 7. cap. 1. In alia enim acceptione, accipiter dos secundum leges Romanas (which three last words, with some others, he leaves out in the eighth page of the first of his two last Books) secundum quas proprie appellatur dos, id quod cum muliere datur viro, quod [Page 14]vulgariter dieitur Maritagium; Now that Dotarium, is that Dos which is Dower, and not that Dos which is called Maritagi­um, you may see in Sir Henry Spelman's Glossary Printed at London 1664. p. 174. whose words are these: ‘¶ De eo Dotis genere, quod uxori­bus constituunt Angli.’

¶ Doarium, Dodarium, Dotarium, Di­narium, Dotalitium.] Omnia recte inter­pretatur vernaculum nostrum Douer, non Latinum dos. Est enim propriè dos, illud quod maritus accipit cum uxore: haec verò id quod in remunerationen dotis, reportat uxor. And Sir Peter very well knows, that what is given in the aforesaid Deed, was only given as a Dower or Joynture, and not as a Gift in Free Marriage, as you may see in the 132 page of his Historical Antiquities, where he thus writes: ‘HAwise, fourth Daughter of Earl Hugh by Bertred, married Robert Quency Son and Heir of Saher de Quen­cy Earl of Winchester. She had the Earldom of Lincoln, to wit, the Castle and [Page 15]Honour of Bolingbroke, and all the Lands of Earl Randle in Lindsey and Holland in Lincolnshire, for which she gave 50 l. for relief. On Hawise was esta­ted for Note. Joynture, Bukby, Gran­tesset, Bradeham, and Herdwick, as ap­pears by this Deed in the Couchir Book of the Dutchy Office, Tom. 2. Honor sive Soca de Bolingbroke, num. 26. pag. 508.’

After which, he immediately doth verbatim recite the aforesaid Deed; let the Reader therefore judge of the in­tegrity of Sir Peter, who in his new Books pretends, that the aforesaid Lands were given in Free Marriage to the La­dy Hawise; and yet in his Historical An­tiquities, doth acknowledge that they were estated for Joynture only, as by his words before mentioned doth clearly appear.

And whereas he says, pag. 9. that it is not absolutely true which my Lord Coke doth say, viz. That at this day, the words in Liberum Maritagium, have no other words equipollent; for then a Deed in English granting Lands in Free Marri­age, or a Deed in French de terres en Frank Marriage would be void grants; for nei­ther [Page 16]of these have in strict terms the words in Liberum Maritagium, &c. wherefore certainly he understood it of a Grant in Latine: His arguing therein is very weak; for the English words in Free Marriage, and the French words en Frank Marriage, are the same words in Law, with the Latin words in Liberum Mari­tagium, though in different Languages; but the words in Libero Conjugio, though capable of the same construction in En­glish with the words in Libero Marita­gio, are but equipollent to them, and so the words, in Wedlock free from all Ser­vices, are but equipollent to the English words in Free Marriage; and the French words, en Nopsage acquite de Services, are but equipollent to the French words, En Frank Marriage.

Also by this Rule, a gift of Lands, by a Latin Deed in Libero Maritagio, would be void, because they are not in strict terms the words in Liberum Maritagi­um; so that the Reader may see what strange kind of Arguments Sir Peter doth use.

In the 17 page, he tells me, that in the fourth and fifth pages of my Answer to his Addenda, I further prove, by comparing [Page 17]the age of Bertred, that Agatha could not be Daughter to the second William de Fer­rars by Agnes his Wife; whereas he is pitifully mistaken, for I did go about no such thing, but did in the 3, 4, and 5 pa­ges shew, that Joane, who was the wife of Lhewellyn, could not be the same Joane which King John had by the said Agatha, and that was all which I did there prove.

In the 18 and 19 pages he says, that though the Writ (meaning King John's Precept to the Sheriff of Shropshire, to make Livery of Ellesmere to Lhewellin after his Marriage with Joane the daugh­ter of King John) if you begin the year of our Lord the 25th day of March, was in the year 1204. yet it would fall out to be in the year 1205, if with ancient Hi­storians we begin the year on the first day of January; but it would be a pret­ty Trick, if from either of these reck­onings, he could make out what he said in the second page of his Addenda, viz. that the Marriage of the said Lhewellin with the said Joane, was in the year 1206.

In his 20 and 21 pages, he thinks he gives me no quarter; for he tells me, [Page 18]that I would distinguish between Maritagi­um, and liberum maritagium, and say, ma­ritagium is twofold, but I do not give the members of my distinction aright; for a good Logician (Sir Peter is the man meant without all doubt) would tell me, that the members of a good distinction must be opposite, and not as I distinguish, Maritagi­um est duplex, vel maritagium, vel libe­rum maritagium; The members are here coincident, for Liberum maritagium est maritagium: Glanvils distinction is good, Maritagium est vel liberum vel servitio obnoxium: so that Maritagium the genus comprehends the members, and both oppo­site one to another, as either free marriage, or not free marriage. This is Sir Peter's charge, and a very great one, as he be­lieves: But for answer hereunto, I doubt not but the Reader hath taken notice how in my Reply, p. 39. & 40. I did observe that Maritagium was twofold, and that it was distinguished into Ma­ritagium liberum, and Maritagium servitio obnoxium: so that when I did intend to take notice how it was distinguished, Sir Peter cannot but acknowledge that I did right; the only colour of Cavil that he hath, is, because I afterwards say, that [Page 19]whensoever any Lands are given in a Deed in maritagio only, it is always the same thing in Law, as if they were gi­ven in maritagium servitio obnoxium, and it is only his want of understanding that causeth him to blame me for what I so say, for that expression will not thwart with what I said before; this will ap­pear, because that maritagium servitio obnoxium, is the elder Brother to mari­tagium liberum; for when Lands are gi­ven in maritagio servitio obnoxio, such Gifts are agreeable to the Common Law of England; but when they are given in liberum maritagium, as you may see Coke upon Littleton, fol. 21. b. they create an estate of inheritance against the general Rule of the Law; and therefore though this younger Son be connived at, and tollerated, yet, as you may there see, the Law requireth that such Gifts be legally pursued, and that is the reason why such Gifts cannot be made to any but to those of the Blood, as also why the words in liberum maritagium, are such words of Art, and so necessarily required, as that they cannot be expressed by words equipollent, or amounting to as much: Now the Common Lawyers (as you [Page 20]may see Coke upon Littleton, fol. 189. a.) have a Rule, that Additio probat minori­tatem; and thereupon it is that my Lord Coke there tells you, that the younger Son giveth the difference; and pursu­ant to this Rule, when a Gift is made in maritagio, which is intended to be lia­ble to services, (that being the elder Brother) they use the word maritagio in the Deed, and no more; but when it is given in free Marriage, (which is the younger Brother) according as my Lord Coke tells you, the word liberum (which is the difference) is absolutely necessary: And herewith agrees the common practice; for I never saw in all my life, where Lands were given in ma­ritagio, liable to services, that the words in maritagio servitio obnoxio, were used in any of the said Deeds, but only the words in maritagio; and if they did in­tend that any other services should be done, over and above those services which the Law did create by the words in maritagio, then they did afterwards in the said Deeds, mention those other ser­vices, but else not.

Also the word Foedum, or Fee, is two-fold, viz. Foedum simplex, and Foedum [Page 21]tale, and yet in this Case, like unto the other, Fee-simple being the elder Brother to Fee-tayle, (all Inheritances being in Fee-simple before the Statute of West­minster 2. cap. 1. as Littleton tells you, lib. 1. cap. 2. sect. 13.) if it be said in any Book, that a Man is seized in Fee, without more saying, it shall be intend­ed in Fee-simple; for it shall not be intend­ed by this word (in Fee) that a man is seized in Fee-tayle, unless there be added to it this addition Fee-tayle, as you may see in Littleton, lib. 3. cap. 4. sect. 293. And according to this Rule, our Com­mon Lawyers do all of them constantly use the like expressions at this day; so that there is no more reason for him to tell me, that I do not distinguish aright in this Case of Maritagium, than there is to tell them, that they do not distinguish aright as to the word Foedum, the word Foedum being as much the Genus to Fee­simple and Fee-tayle, as the word Marita­gium is the Genus to Marriage liable to services, and to Frank Marriage.

But would any one think, if I had committed so great an Error herein, (as he would persuade the World I had done) that Sir Peter himself, within a [Page 22]very few lines, and in the same 21 page, should really be guilty of the like of­fence, which he did unjustly charge me withall; and yet you shall see that it is so, for both in his 21 page, and 55 page, he tells you, that Maritagio was often in those Ages, (viz. of Mr. Glanvil) un­derstood for libero maritagio, both by Historians and old Deeds; you shall therefore see how Sir Peter's own argu­ment in his 20 and 21 pages, may, muta­tis mutandis, be thus retorted upon him­self, viz. Here Sir Peter would distin­guish between Maritagium, and Marita­gium servitio obnoxium, and say, Marita­gium is twofold, but doth not give the Members of his Distinction aright; for a good Logician would tell Sir Peter, that the Members of a good Distinction must be opposite, and not as he doth here distinguish, Maritagium est duplex, vel maritagium, vel maritagium servitio ob­noxium; the Members are here coinci­dent, for Maritagium servitio obnoxium est maritagium: Glanvil's Distinction is good; Maritagium est vel liberum vel servitio obnoxium: so that Maritagium the Genus, comprehends the Members, and both opposite one to another, as, ei­ther [Page 23] free marriage, or not free marriage; let Sir Peter therefore answer this his own Argument as he thinks fit.

As to what he pretends in the 22, 23, and 24 pages, I did not say that the Gift of Ellesmere to Lhewellin, was but an Estate for Life, it being said in the Pre­cept, to make Livery to be an Estate in maritagio, (though not in libero mari­tagio) and to make Livery thereof would have been needless, if it had been a Gift in free marriage; Neither is Joane his Wife proved to be a Bastard, so that that Precedent is out of doors; but I did give some Reasons why that Prece­dent would have stood him in no stead, if she had been a Bastard, and that a Gift in free marriage; and could yet say more in that particular, if occasion did require: but that not being the Case, I will forbear to say any more concerning the same.

In his 24 page, and so on to the 42, (besides some mistakes of his, which, because they are not material to the point, I will not here take notice of) he spends a great deal of time in proving, that Hellen the Wife of John Scot, was the Daughter of Lhewellin, by his Wife [Page 24] Joane Daughter of King John; whereas he did clearly prove the same, in his 28 and 29 pages, in very few words: and the same doth also appear by a Record hereafter mentioned, which very lately came to my knowledge; but yet for all that, this Precedent will do him no good, as well because the said Joane is not proved to be a Bastard, as also be­cause Budeford and Suttehale were not given to the said Lhewellin in libero ma­ritagio, as will anon appear; Sir Peter doth indeed tell us, that those Mannon were given in libero maritagio to the said Lhewellin, but the Deed lately belong­ing to Somerfield Oldfeld Esq doth prove no such thing, but doth only prove that the said Lhewellin did mistake himself, and think that they were given him in free marriage, when they were not so given; I therefore believing Sir Peter, that those Mannors were given in free marriage to Lhewellin, when they were not; and perceiving Lhewellin to say that King John had given them to him, but not telling with whom, and know­ing (as appears in the 13, 14, 15, and 16 pages of my Answer to his Addenda) if they were given to him in frank mar­riage [Page 25]with his Wife Joane the Daughter of the said King, that the said Lhewellin had not power to dispose of them from his Son David, (who was his right Heir) could not find out any other way to re­concile every thing in this particular, but by supposing that Lhewellin had a former Wife who was a Kinswoman to King John, with whom those Lands were given, and by whom he had his Daugh­ter Hellen: And what I said was by way of consequence, for I relied only upon my fourth Argument, as appears in the said 13 page, and brought the other three but as concurrent; And what I there believed might very well have been true, for Sir Peter proves that Lhewellin had a former Wife; and if his words had been true in saying that those Mannors were given to the said Lhewel­lin with the said Joane in libero marita­gio, my words must necessarily have been true also; for I was only mistaken in Hellens Mother, by building upon that unsound foundation which Sir Peter did there lay.

But mark what work Sir Peter doth make of it, now he hath proved Hellen to be Lhewellin's Daughter by his said [Page 26]Wife Joane; for he in his 37 page grants all my Quotations, (I would I had cause to say the like by him) and also grants what by those Lawyers is said in the 14 and 15 pages of my Answer to his Adden­da, which is a certain sign he doth not understand what they do say; for by what is there said, it appears, that if a Man have Land given him in free mar­riage with a Wife, he hath only custodi­am cum uxore, and hath not so much as an Estate for his own life, until he be Te­nant by the courtesie of England, and by consequence he cannot dispose of those Lands to any person whatsoever from the next Heir; And this ignorance of his runs him upon his mistake in the 36 and 37 pages of his latter Book, wherein he says, that a man would have but custodiam cum uxore, although the Wife were not of the blood of the Donor: whereas you may see in the 14 and 15 pages of my Answer to his Addenda, that though when Lands be given with a Woman to a Man in frank marriage, it is liberum tenementum uxoris, & non viri, cum non habeat nisi custodiam cum uxore, yet it is (secus) otherways, when the Land is given in marriage, pro homagio [Page 27]& servitio viri, and one reason of this difference betwixt Land given in mar­riage, for which no service is to be done, and Land given in marriage, for which Homage is to be done, is because in the one Case, the Land may revert to the Donor, but in the other Case, the Land can never revert, as you may find in Glanvil, lib. 7. cap. 18. who, after he hath told you what free marriage is, hath these words: Cum quis itaque ter­ram aliquam cum uxore sua in maritagium ceperit, si ex eadem uxore sua haeredem ha­buerit filium, vel filiam clamantem & au­ditum infra quatuor parietes si idem vir uxorem suam supervixerit, sive vixerit hae­res sive non, illi in vita sua remanet ma­ritagium illud, post mortem vero ipsius ad donatorem vel ejus haeredes est reversurum. Sin autem ex uxore sua nunquam habuerit haeredem, tunc statim post mortem uxoris ad donatorem vel haeredes ejus revertetur maritagium. Et haec est quaedam causa quare de maritagio tali non solet recipi ho­magium. Si enim sic donata esset terra aliqua in maritagium vel alio modo quod inde reciperetur homagium tune nunquam de cetero ad donatorem vel ejus haeredes li­cite possit reverti ut supradictum est. Sir [Page 28] Peter therefore must either confess that Lhewellin had no power to dispose of those Lands in such manner as he did, and then that Precedent will be of no more force, (if the said Joane had been a Bastard) than a Precedent would be of a Man who now should give Lands is libero maritagio, to one who is not of the blood, or else he must acknowledge that those Lands were given to Lhewel­lin but in maritagio, and so he being li­able to do homage for them, might dis­pose of them as he did please; And that they were given to him but in ma­ritagio, will appear, as well by the ma­king of Livery of them (which is need­less in a Gift in frank marriage) as also by these following Records.

But the Deed to John Scot Earl of Chester, might be either in libero marita­gio, according to the agreement of Lhe­wellin with Randle Earl of Chester, or else it might be in maritagio only, as it was given to the said Lhewellin; so that be that Deed how it will, it will work nothing in the Case.

In his 57, 58, and 59 pages, he seems much displeased with what I tell him in the 33 page of my Answer to his Ad­denda, concerning his partiality, and doth in some respects strain my words further then he should; But though I will not say any thing at this time con­cerning [Page 30]this particular, for some reasons I have formerly told him of, yet if he doth please to speak of it to me at any time, when any judicious person is pre­sent, I think I can make good what I said, and that he will not be excused by that contradiction of his, when he says, page 58 and 59, that Admit he were partial never so much, in what I charge him with, yet he hopes what he hath written, I find it impartial to all, so far as he goes, or doth know.

In his 60 and 61 pages, he tells me, that I go to excuse an Error of mine, in calling Ralph Maniwaring Chief Justice of Chester, because I found in his Histo­rical Antiquities, page 160, and also in other places, there were in the time of Hugh Cyveliok, sometimes two Justices of Chester, and sometimes but one; But I did not absolutly say, there were two Justices living both together in the time of the said Ralph; I only did insinuate, as you may see, in the 5 page of my Reply, and the 34 page of my Answer to his Addenda, that it was possible there might be more than one at a time, be­cause when Earl Hugh was living I found some Deeds, directed Justiciariis, and [Page 31]I am sure the reasons which he gives to the contrary in the 61 page of the first of his last two Books are very strange ones; for he says that it is there to be understood of the Judges, &c. succes­sively or with their Deputies under them; Now how can any Deed be directed to any Justice and his Successor, before he hath a successor? or to their Deputies under them, if what he says in the same page be true, that then they executed their places themselves, no power being given to them in those ages to make or constitute a Deputy (by Commission) at pleasure, as we have now, and in these latter ages hath been usually done? Neither doth he mend it afterwards, for he says, possibly upon an emergent occasion, the Antient Earls might constitute another Judge for the present in the absence of the other, to execute the place for a time, and so change them as oft as was thought good: Now if this conceit of his be true, that another Judge was constituted for a time, only in the ab­sence of the former, were there not then two Justices at one time? so that here are three very weak Answers given thereto; But I shall now make it further appear, that there was sometimes a Chief [Page 32]Justice of Chester in those elder Ages, which I will thus prove.

That the word Justitia (which then is of the Masculine Gender according to that Rule, Mascula nomina in a dicuntur multa virorum) was sometimes in those elder Ages used for the Judge or Justice of Chester, I believe he cannot deny, be­cause in his Historical Antiquities, page 144, I find a Deed thus directed; Ra­nulphus Comes Cestriae, Constabulario suo, & Dapifero, Justitice, & Vicecomiti Ba­ronibus & Ballivis suis, salutem. I also in the 143 page of the said Book, find this Deed following: ‘RAnulphus Dux Britanniae, & Comes Cestriae & Richmondiae, Omnibus tam praesentibus quam futuris qui Chartam istam viderint & audierint, Salutem. Sci­atis quod ego dedi & concessi Andreae Fi­lio Mabiliae, & Haeredibus suis, ut sint libe­ri & quieti de me & meis Haeredibus de Teloneo per totam terram meam, & in aqua, & in terra, & in Civitate Cestriae, & extra, & a Brevibus portandis, & a Prisonibus capiendis & custodienis, & a Namis capiendis, & a Vigiliis faciendis nocte vel die, & a caeteris hujusmodi con­suetudinibus [Page 33]& exactionibus, nec de quere­lâ aliquâ in Civitate Cestriae, vel extra, re­spondeant in praesentiâ meâ, Note. vel summi Justitiae mei: Et super forisfacturam meam x Librarum prohi­beo, ne aliquis eos de supradictis libertati­bus impediat vel inquietet, sed eas libere & quiete teneant, Reddendo mihi & Haeredi­bus meis annuatim vi Denarios ad Festum Sancti Michaelis. Hiis Testibus, Bertre Comitissa Cestriae, Radulfo de Meinewa­rin, Radulfo Seneschallo, Hugone de Boidele, & Alano fratre ejus, Roaldo, Roberto Cam. Roberto Saraceno, Ra­nulfo Dubeldai, Nicolao filio Roberti, Thoma fratre suo, Willielmo Marmiun, Ricardo Poibel, Rogero Clerico, & mul­tis aliis. Apud Cestriam.’

And now let any person judge whe­ther those words in praesentia mea, vel Summi Justitiae mei, do not clearly prove, that there was a Chief Justice of Chester in those elder Ages; for that Deed was made in the time of the said Ralph Mainwaring, he being a witness to the same. And as I have proved in the fifth page of my Reply, that if there were then two Justices, the said Ralph was the [Page 34]Chief; so it will also easily appear, that the said Deed was made, when the said Ralph was Judge; for you may find in Sir Peter's Historical Antiquities, pag. 143, & 144. that Randle Earl of Chester did first write himself Duke of Britain in the year 1187, and did relinquish that Title in the year 1200. And you may see in the 172 page of the said Book, that Philip de Orreby (who immediately suc­ceeded the said Ralph) was not made Judge till about the year 1209.

In the 62 and 63 pages, he thinks that he hath at last found out a fine device to cure what he formerly said; for where­as I told him (page 9. of my Reply) that I could not imagine how it was possible that the said Geffrey de Dutton, to that, or any other Deeds of his own, could have his name either with the word Domino, or without, either five times for once, or at all, amongst the Witnesses subscribed, unless he did fancy that he was a Witness to his own Deeds: He now pretends, that when he said he had seen several other Deeds of the same person, he meant and understood, several other Deeds touching the same person: for the word (of) is used many times for concerning, as, of or [Page 35]concerning the same person, &c. which An­swer of his doth not at all make the matter better than it was before; for, as Men do not use to be Witnesses to their own Deeds, so they did not use (and especially in those ages when the Deeds were so short) to be Witnesses to Deeds which concerned themselves; And though he may possibly shew me a Deed made concerning a Geffrey de Dutton, to which a Geffrey de Dutton was a Witness, because there were several Geffreys de Dutton living at that time; yet he must excuse me, if I do not believe that he can shew me either several Deeds, or any one Deed in that age which doth concern a Geffrey de Dutton, to which that Geffrey de Dutton was a Witness, who was the Party concerned.

In his 64 page he says, what he said in his Addenda, p. 11. is not contrary to what he did write in the bottom of the fifth page of his Answer to the Defence of Amicia. Let the Reader therefore see how Sir Peter says in the 11 page of his Addenda, that, Geffrey Dutton was no Knight; For otherways he would have cal­led himself by his Title, as, Ego Galfridus [Page 36]de Dutton Miles, or Ego Note. Do­minus Galfridus de Dutton de­di, &c. which few Men will omit in their own Deeds, if they have really the honour of Knighthood. And let him also observe, how at the bottom of the fifth page of his said Answer, speaking of the word Domino, he says, that word is never used in old Deeds by the party himself, but where it is Note.joined with an­other word, as, Ego Willielmus Manwa­ring Dominus de Peover; and then let him judge whether those expressions be contrary to each other, or not.

In his 65 page he says, that I would fain palliate another gross mistake, in making Geffrey de Dutton the Father, to live on to be a Witness to the Deed of Geffrey de Dutton to his Daughter Mar­garet of the Mannor of Nether Tabley; but if the Reader please to see the 36, 37, 38, and 39 pages of my Answer to his Addenda, it will there appear to be very uncertain, whether it was any mi­stake at all: And he himself after he hath said all he can, doth confess in the 67 page of the first of his said two Books, that his Deeds do but probably [Page 37]demonstrate, that Geffrey Dutton the Fa­ther was dead before; see therefore what a stir he keeps about nothing, for it is not material whether this be a mi­stake or not. And whereas he pretends page 68, that it is petitio principii to say, that the word Dominus doth always shew, that the person to whose name it is applied, was a Knight, or Clergyman; yet I have shewed that it is usually ap­plied to such persons, which is the only proof that can be had in this Case; and it lies upon him to prove, if he will con­tradict me therein, that it was so appli­ed to some one, who was neither Knight nor Clergyman; for of the higher No­bility I do not speak, to which kind of persons the word Dominus, either as it signifies Lord or Sir, might sometimes be applied: And though he says that those very worthy persons Mr. Wood and Mr. Blunt, are of opinion that the word Do­mino was sometimes also prefixed in those elder ages to the names of persons of better sort and quality, though no Knights, as well as to Knights and Cler­gymen, contrary to the opinion of some other skilful men, (as learned persons do sometimes differ from each other;) [Page 38]yet he doth not instance in any one ex­ample to make good what he says, and it will be a very hard matter so to do; for the proving that the word Dominus hath been prefixed to a persons name, and sometimes afterwards omitted, will not be sufficient, because I can prove that some who were certainly Knights, have been afterwards named without having the word Dominus prefixed, or the word Miles added to their names.

In the 39 page of my Answer to his Addenda, I told him of some words, which he pretended to have written, which I could not find in his Book; and for this in the 69 page of the first of his two Books, he says I would bespatter him with a falsity therein, although in the 70 page, he confesses those words were not in his Answer expresly, &c. and that it was a negligent error; and yet for all this, in the 64 and 65 pages of the first of his new Books, he pre­tends that the words Ego Dominus A. B. dedi, &c. (which were some of the words I could not find in his said Book) were spoken of before, in the 7th page of his Book there mentioned, so that he commits the same Error again.

In the 68 page, he again takes notice how I had formerly said, that Margaret was the Daughter and Heir of Geffrey Dutton, whereas he says she was his Daughter, but not Heir, and this he calls a gross mistake of mine; but a gross mi­stake it cannot be, because the said Mar­garet and her Heirs did enjoy several Mannors which were her Fathers, and because it is not material to the point in hand, whether she was or was not his Daughter and Heir. And whereas he is displeased at me for saying, if it was any mistake at all, he must thank himself for that; for since he did so untruly quote the Book of Barlings, and so many other places, he must excuse me, if I dare not rely too much upon his bare word.

In his 67 page, he doth confess he calls one, Sir Geffrey Dutton of Chedil in his Book: but he calls him not Sir Gef­frey Dutton of Chedil Knight, as I al­ledge; whereas I cannot imagine what he should be but Sir Geffrey Dutton of Chedil Knight, being he was no Clergy­man, unless he would have him to be Sir Geffrey Dutton Esq or Sir Geffrey Dutton Gentleman. And though he pretends, [Page 40]page 73. that Esquires were none in those ages, I shall refer the Reader for that to Mr. Selden's Titles of Honour, pag. 830, 831, &c. Though I confess the word Esquire doth not often occur as a legal Addition, till after the Statute of Ad­ditions made in the first year of King Henry V.

From the end of the 73 page, to the end of the 84, instead of producing an Example where the word Dominus was applied to the name of a Layman, who was but an Esquire or Gentleman, (which was the thing which he ought to have done) he vainly spends his time in acquainting you with some Notes of his, in Manuscript, never yet printed, on the several Notions of the word Dominus, and the English word Sir; but as he hath there omitted some things to which those words were used to be applied, so he went too far, when in his 77 and 79 pages, he applied to the Lady Hawise de Quency the word Domi­nus, and the word Sir.

In his 86 page, and so on, to almost the end of the 89, he would fain per­suade the Reader, that Hugh Cyveliol was not One and twenty years of age [Page 41]when he joined with his Mother Maude in giving Stivinghale to Walter Durdent Bishop of Chester, and his Successors, to which Deed Eustace the Constable was a Witness, and tells you of a Precedent in his Book of Antiquities, pag. 114. & 115. where you may find Richard Earl of Chester joining with Ermentrude his Mother in the Grant of Wudemun­deslai to the Abby and Church of Abing­ton in Barkshire, Anno 6. Henrici 1. An­no Domini 1106. whiles he was scarce 12 years old, whereof the Book of Abington immediately before the Deed, saith thus, fol. 47. Ipse Comes benefactum extulit, & suo descripto roboravit: quod descriptum Sigillo quidem matris Signari constitit: nondum enim militari Baltheo cinctus, ma­terno Sigillo literae quaelibet ab eo directae includebantur, hac de re; quod eò annotatur, Comitissae potiùs quam Comitis Sigillo sig­natur. But he doth not give you the Deed in either of his two little Books, therefore I think fit to Transcribe it here, for the satisfaction of those who have not seen the same, as I find it in his Historical Antiquities, pag. 114. but mis­printed 122. [Page 42] ‘RIcardus Cestrensis Comes, & Ermen­trudis Comitisia mater ejus, Nigello de Oilii, & Rogero filio Radulfi, & omni­bus Baronibus de Oxenford Scira, Salutem & Amicitiam. Sciatis quia pro amore Dei & anima Patris mei, & remission nostrorum Peceatorum, Concedimus hidam illum, quam Droco de Andeleia dedit Ee­clesiae Abbendonensi, quae est in loco qui dici­tur Wudemundeslai: Nos eidem Ecslesia concedimus & auctorizamus perpetuò ha­bendam, solidam & quietam ab omni no­stro servitio: Et Rogerus filius Radulsi & Successores ejus sint quieti in nostro servi­tio, quantum ad illam hidam pertinet: Et defendimus, ut nullo modo Rogerus, vel alius per eum, inquietet habitantes in terra illa: Hoo autem fecimus & testimonio no­strorum Baronum; scilicet Willielmi filii Nigelli, & Hugonis filii Normanni, & Ri­cardi Balaste, & Willielmi filii Auskitilli, & Ricardi filii Nigelli, & Domini Goisfri­di Capellani & aliorum. Hoc actum est in sexto Anno Regni Henrici Regis, in mense Mail, in die Pentecostes.’

And to make the Reader believe that Hugh Cyveliok was not of age when he [Page 43]sealed the said Deed of Stivinghale, he tells you pag. 86. of his first Book, and pag. 30. of his latter Book, that what Earl Richard then did, was according to the Law and Customs of those elder A­ges, and that Earls and great Lords in those former Ages did often join with their Mothers (who had the Tuition of them) in Deeds and Charters whiles they were very young, and before they attained the age of One and Twenty years; whereas I am confident Sir Peter cannot prove, that persons who were under age, did then use to join with their Mothers, and so give away their Lands of Inheritance; for Mr. Selden in his Titles of Honour, pag. 785. at the bottom, and pag. 786. (the place which Sir Peter cites) tells us, that this of the Earl of Chester, (viz. Earl Richard) is only a Note of a Monk after the Entry of the Charter of Confir­mation, and no part of the Body of the Charter; And in regard that he sees no other Testimony of ancient time to second it with the like, he should think that the Monk was either grosly deceived in his reason of Nondum enim Militari Balteo cinctus est, or else that he meant only that the Earl was a Child within age, and that [Page 44]by reason of his Minority, Wardship, and the Tuition of his Mother (who joineth with him in the Charter) her Seal was on­ly used to it, as also to his Letters; Also a little after, in the same page, Mr. Selden thus says, Now the Law being that whoso­ever was Knighted, though before the age of One and Twenty, was of full age in regard of any Wardship, or any other Tuition (as presently is further shewed) and the use being that such great Lords were Knighted often, before they were of that age, and so had their full age supplied; and that perhaps also, while they were in ward, they used only their Guardians Seals, lest the authority of a Seal of their own, before they had discreti­on to use it, might have done them prejudice, in point ofNote.honour at least, if not in matter of profit. It is likely enough, that the Monk here took the phrase of being not Knighted, to serve for being not of full age; So that the ha­ving of a Seal was not peculiar to this Or­der of Knighthood, but to such only (of what condition soever) as were of full age: Al­so Sir Peter doth not in either of his two new Books give you the Charter of this Earl Richard and his Mother, but only tells you of it in general terms; for he [Page 45]cannot but see that it is not a selling or giving away any Land of Inheritance, but is only (according to Mr. Selden) a confirming of that Hyde of Land which Droco de Andeleia had given to Abington Church; And Mr. Selden a lit­tle after in the next page says, though the wardship of the Body be ended (in the case of Knighting after the death of the Tenant by receiving the Order of Knight­hood) yetNote.the Land continues to the Lords, until the full age of the Heir, as if he had not received the Order. What then is this to the Case of Hugh Cyveliok, who did pass away Stivinghale to the Bishop of Chester, and his Successors for ever? And without doubt the said Land was given immediately after the death of Earl Randle, Father to the said Hugh; for he dying Excommunicate, his friends in that age, would be very impatient un­til he was absolved; and it cannot be imagined that Maude did join with her son Hugh, because he was under age; for that he could not be, because he here passed away Lands for ever, as also be­cause he was old enough to take Melye­nith Castle in the year 1142; and if he was then but 12 years of age, he would [Page 46]be 23 years old in the year 1153, about which year his Father Earl Randle dy­ed; his Mother therefore certainly had Stivinghale (which is not in Stafford­shire, as Sir Peter in his 86 page suppo­seth, but is a Member of Coventry, as you may see in Mr. Dugdale's Antiquities of Warwickshire, pag. 88, 128, 129. and in Sir Peter's Historical Antiquities, pag. 129.) as part of her Joynture, and thereupon joined with her Son; And indeed it had been a great shame to her, if her Son Hugh had been such a tender Infant as Sir Peter doth suppose him to be, to make him part with those Lands, upon that occasion (if it could have been so done) and she to part with no­thing at all.

But though I doubt not but what is here said, will give full satisfaction to all judicious persons, yet I think fit to ac­quaint the Reader that I have a Pedigres by me, of the Barons de monte alto, drawn not long since by Sir Peter himself, and written all with his own hand, in which he makes the first Robert de Monte alto, Steward of Cheshire (who, he says, lived in the time of King Steven) to have is­sue (besides other Sons who were youn­ger) [Page 47]two Sons, Ralph and Robert, who were afterwards successively Stewards of Cheshire, all which is certainly true.

He also in his Historical Antiquities, pag. 131, doth give you this Deed of Earl Hugh, in which his Mother doth not join with him, which I think fit in this place to Transcribe. ‘HUgo Comes Cestriae, Constabulario suo, Dapifero, omnibus Baronibus suis, omnibus Hominibus suis, Francis & Anglicis, tam futuris quam praesentibus, Salutem. Concedo Sanctimonialibus de Bolintona Stagnum meum de Dunintona firmum terrae meae sicut fuit tempore Hen­rici Regis, in perpetuam Elemosynam pro anima mea, & Patris mei, & meorum An­tecessorum: Et praecipio omnibus Homini­bus meis, quod habeant meam firmam pa­cem, ita quod nullus inde praedictis Sancti­monialibus injuriam vel contumeliam fa­ciat. Teste Roberto Dapifero de Monte alto, Filippo de Kima, Simone Filio Os­berti, Willielmo Patric, Radulfo Filio Warneri, Rogero de Maletot, Johanne Priore de Trentham, Orm ejus Canonico, Rogero Monacho de Hambi, Willielmo Clerico Comitis qui Chartam scripsit apud Beltesford, & multis aliis.’

Now that Robert de Montealto Stew ard of Cheshire, who was Witness to this Deed, was the first Robert de Montealto, will be manifest, because the second Ro­bert came not to be Steward of Cheshire during the life of Earl Hugh, as appean by the said Pedigree, as also in Sir Peter's Book of Historical Antiquities, pag. 143. and in the 33 page of this Book, where you find Ralph the Steward, elder Bro­ther to the second Robert, outliving Earl Hugh, and being a Witness to a Deed of Randle Son to the said Hugh; it will therefore necessarily follow, if this Deed of Earl Hugh was made immedi­ately before the death of that Robert de Montealto, who was a Witness thereto, that the said Earl Hugh was a great deal elder than his Wife Bertred; for though the said Robert did live something lon­ger than Sir Peter doth take notice of, yet I think it cannot be proved that he was living any considerable time after the said Eustace, and I know no reason why we should conclude that Eustace was slain immediately after he was a Witness to the other Deed, or that this Robert dyed presently after he was a Witness to this Deed; nay, I think it [Page 49]will appear, that the aforesaid Deed to the Nuns of Bolinton, was certainly made some years before the said Robert dyed, viz. in the time of King Stephen; for if it had been made when Henry the Second was King, Earl Hugh would not have said sicut fuit tempore Henrici Regis, (as he there doth) but he would have said, sicut fuit tempore Henrici primi, or else he would have used some other words to distinguish King Henry the first from the then King. Now King Stephen dying in the year 1154. and Bertred being not born till the year 1157. it will from this Deed be very clear, that if Earl Hugh had sealed the said Deed immediately before King Stephen dyed, yet Earl Hugh would be at the least 24 years older than Bertred his Wife.

And whereas he pretends that he shews, (pag. 93.) that Earl Hugh could neither be so old as I would now suppose him, nor yet that he was born Anno 1142. I answer thereto, that any man who can but count 20. (viz. how long it is from the year 1109. to the year 1129. or from the year 1110. to the year 1130.) if he looks on my Defence of Amicia, pag. 51. and my Reply, pag. 61, 62. may find that [Page 50] Hugh Cyvelick might be older than I say▪ But I doubt Sir Peter is no good Arith­metician, as well because of what he say here, as also because he says in his Histo­rical Antiquities, pag. 137. (which words you may also find before my Defence of Amicia, pag. 14.) that he was eight years older than his Wife, when he was married; whereas he is not now much above six years older, for as you may see in his Historical Antiquities, pag. 361. he was born the third of March, 1613. and his Lady was baptized the 23 day of May, 1620. And I believe Sir Peter will ac­knowledge he reckons his own birth, not according to the Julian, but accord­ing to the account of the Church of England; and if he should say other­ways, he might be easily confuted: for as you may find in the said 361 page, he had a sister named Margaret, who was born September 29, 1612. and buried at Great Budworth, Octob. 12, 1612. so that Sir Peter could not be born the third day of March, 1613. according to the Julian account; for then his birth would have been but a little above five months af­ter his said sister was born.

And whereas in the 49, 50, 51, 52 pa­ges of my Answer to his Addenda, I have proved out of the Welsh History written by Caradocus Llanearuan, that Hugh Cyve­liok in all probability had another Wife before Bertred, because he could be no less than 41 years of age when he mar­ried her, (although we suppose that he married her so soon as she was 14 years old) Sir Peter to avoid this proof, doth endeavour all he can to disparage Dr. Powell who did put out the said History, and writ Notes thereon; but he was not so contemptible a person as Sir Peter would make him, for Mr. Wood in his History and Antiquities of Oxford, lib. 2. pag. 319. doth call the said Doctor, Re­rum Antiquarum rimatorem industrium, atque Historiarum Britannicarum peritissi­mum: and Sir Peter doth also very well know that it is not the Doctor, but Ca­radocus Llancaruan which I do cite; he al­so will not suffer the said Book to be read as it should have been printed, but would have it read according as he doth please; which liberty if he may take, he hath very ill fortune, if he cannot keep it from saying any thing contrary to his own mind; then he will read it, not as it [Page 52]ought to have been printed, but as it is misprinted, and thinks he shews a great deal of skill, in proving that it cannot be true as it is misprinted, which every one will confess as well as himself. And last­ly, although in his Historical Antiquitles in the Fifth Chapter, concerning the Kings of Wales, and Princes of Wales, in which Chapter he did quote Ingulphus, Orderiews, Cambden, Matthew Paris, and others, and did tell you there in his 44 page, that in these Welsh matters, he did chiefly follow the Welsh History put out by Dr. Powell, 1584. yet now he will also disparage the said History all that he can.

But that he may seem to have some reason for what he says, he will tell you, that in that very place where Caradocus speaks of taking Melyenith, he also says, that at that time King Steven took Gef­frey Mandevile Prisoner at St. Albons, whereas Mat: Paris sub anno 1142. says, it was William Mandevile who was there taken, and therefore he will not have Caradocus to be believed in other things; but this which Sir Peter here says will be of no force, first, because though Mat: Paris be a very good Author, yet Cara­docus [Page 53](if there was nothing else in the Case) ought to be believed before the said Mat: Paris, because the said Carado­cus was living when the said Hugh did win Melyenith, and when the said Geffrey de Mandevile was taken Prisoner, where­as the said Mat: Paris lived a long time afterwards, for he dyed in the year 1259. which was 117 years after that time; secondly, because what Carodocus says concerning the said Geffrey in his said 197 page, is very true, whose words are these: ‘AT that time, (viz. 1142.) King Ste­ven took Geffrey Mandevile Priso­ner at St. Albon, where the Earl of Arun­del was like to be drowned by default of his Horse; The Earl Mandevile gave to the King for his liberty, the Tower of Lon­don, with the Castles of Walden and Plassey, who afterward lived by spoil of Abbeys, and was slain in a skirmish against the King.’

Now that Caradocus doth not mistake herein, will thus appear, If you look in Henry of Huntington, (who lived in the time of the said King Stephen) pag. 393. line 15. you may thus read: [Page 54] ‘EOdem anno cepit Rex Gaufridum de Magnavilla in Curia sua apud san­ctum Albanum magis secundum retributio­nem nequitiae consulis, quam secundum j [...] gentium, magis ex necessitate quam ex ho­nestate; Nisi enim hoc egisset, perfidia con­sulis illius regno privatus fuisset; Igitur ut Rex eum liberaret, reddidit ei Turrim Lon­doniae & Castellum de Waledene & illud de Plaisseiz, possessionibus igitur caren [...] consul praedictus invasit Abbatiam Ram [...] ­siensem & Monachis expulsis raptores im­misit, & Ecclesiam Dei speluncam fecit la­tronum.’

Also if you peruse the History of Simeon Dunelmensis (who lived in the time of the said King Steven, and whose History was continued for about 25 years by John Prior of Hagulsted) col. 273. line 15. you may thus read: Gal­fridus enim de Magnavilla ejectis Mona­chis Monasterio de Ramesbi abusus est vice Castri.

Also Roger Hoveden (who lived in the times of King Henry 2. R. 1. and King John, in his Annals printed at Franfurt, 1601. pag. 488. l. 41.) thus says: [Page 55] ‘ANno autem ipso consul Gaufridus de Mandevilla Regem validissime vex­avit, & in omnibus valde gloriosus efful­sit; Mense autem Augusti miraculum justi­cia sua dignum virtus divina monstravit; Duos namque qui monachis evulsis Ecclesi­as Dei converterant in Castella, similiter peecantes simili poena mulctavit; Rober­tus namque Marmiun vir bellicosus hoc in Ecclesia de Coventree perversus exegerat; Porro Gaufridus ut diximus in Ecclesia Ramesiensi scelus idem patraverat.’

And a little before in the said page, he also tells how the said Geffrey was ta­ken Prisoner at St. Albon, and delivered the Tower of London, and the Castles of Wallinden and Plasseis to the then King.

Also Gulielmus Nubrigensis (who lived in the times of R. 1. and King John) thus writes, lib. 1. cap. xi.

And afterwards in the same Chapter he speaks how the King did wrest from the said Geffrey the Tower of London, with his two other Castles, and also what the said Geffrey did to the Mona­stery of Ramesey.

Also Raph de Diceto, who was Dean of Pauls in King John's time, in his Abbrev: Chronic: col. 508. line 32. thus says:

Also Gervasius a Benedictine Monk of Canterbury (who lived in the time of King John, col. 1360. line 7.) thus writes: M CX LIIII. [Page 57] ‘REx Stephanus cepit Comitem Gaufri­dum de Mandavilla in Curia sua apud sanctum Albanum, magis ex necessi­tate, quam ex honestate, Nisi enim hoc fe­cisset, ut a pluribus dicebatur, perfidia Co­mitis regno privandus esset. Captus itaque Comes nulla potuit occasione liberari, nisi sua Castella resignans Regiae pareret volun­tati. Reddidit ergo Turrim Londoniae & Castellum de Waldene & illud de Ples­siz & liberatus est. Comes igitur muniti­onibus carens, & a Militari crudelitate se cohibere non valens; invasit abbatiam de Rameseia, & de Ecclesia Dei non [...]ritus Justitiam, speluncam fecit Latronum.’

Also John Brompton col. 1033. l. 1. ‘EOdem anno Comes Galfridus de Man­davilla a Rege captus pro restitutio­ne turris Londoniensis & Castelli de Walde postea liberatur, qui possessionibus carens, cum adhuc magnam haberet fami­liam confestim abbathiam Sancti Benedi­cti de Rameseye invasit & Monachis ex­pulsis raptores immisit, & sanctum Mona­sterium speluncam fecit latronum.’

But I shall, after all this, shew you what Mat: Paris himself says in that E­dition put out by Dr. Wats, pag. 79. which is the same place which Sir Peter doth cite, whose words are these: ‘EOdem tempore Rex Stephanus cepit Willielmum de Mandevilla apud Sanctum Albanum unde reddidit Regi Turrim Londoniarum cum Castellis de Waldene & de Plessiz antequam a vincu­lis solveretur. Qui carens possessionibus paternis, invasit abbatiam Ramefiensem, atque Monachis expulsis raptores immisit.’

But on the other side of the Leaf, viz. pag. 80. l. 17. in the year 1143. he thus says: ‘EOdem anno Robertus Marmimi vit bellicosus qui Monachos Coventren­ses a suo Monasterio expulerat, & de Eccle­sia illa Castellum fecerat, dum contra ho­stes decertaret, inter praedones suos, ante ipsum Monasterium, solus peremptus est, & excommunicatus morte depascitur sempi­terna. Noto. Eodem vero tempore Gaufridus Consul de Mandavil­la qui idem scelus patraverat in Monaste­rio [Page 59] Note. Ramesiensi ante ipsam Ecclesi­am inter Consortes suorum acies, a pedite quodam vilissimo solus sagitta per­cussus, occubuit interfectus, &c. So that the Reader may plainly see, how deceit­fully Sir Peter doth here deal; for find­ing him in Mat: Paris called William de Mandevile on one side of the Leaf, (through either the slip of Mat: Paris's Pen, or the Printer's negligence) he ac­quaints the Reader with that, but never tells him how he is on the other side of the Leaf called Geffrey de Mandevile. And that this was purposely done, may easi­ly appear, because if Mat: Paris had cal­led him William on both sides of the Leaf, yet Caradocus, who was then liv­ing, having called him Geffrey, Sir Peter should have consulted other Authors, to have seen which of them two had been in the right; but these ancient Authors being against him, it was a good way to let them alone.’

I shall therefore leave it to the Reader to judge, whether Caradocus Llancaruan be not to be believed concerning Hugh Cyveliok's taking of Melyenith, being the same was taken when he was living; as also whether it doth not certainly ap­pear [Page 60]by that proof, that Hugh Cyvelio [...] was at the least 41 years old when he married Bertred, and by consequence in all probability imaginable had a for­mer Wife, for which reason, (if the o­ther proofs were laid aside) there is no just cause to suspect Amicia to be illegi­timate, and with this I will conclude my Answer to his former Book.

In the Latin Epistle to the Judges, (which I suppose to be Sir Peter's, though he doth not vouchsafe to set his name thereto) he said I was the first Instiga­tor of this Controversie; but whether that be so or not, let the Reader judge by what I have said in my Epistle before my Defence of Amicia, and in the second and third pages of my Reply. Also in the same Epistle, when he doth appeal to the Judges, he doth not put the que­stion, Whether the Law was different in the time of Glanvil in this point of free marriage from what it is now? But he proposeth this Question, Whether or no in the time of Glanvil, by our ancient Law, it was lawful for any Man to give Land in free marriage with his Bastard Daughter, although the Law being now changed, the Law doth not at this day [Page 61]permit a Gift in frank marriage with a Bastard Daughter? By which he proves himself to be very like the Gentleman he speaks of in the 14 pages of both his Books, who would needs dispute about a Cross, and the question must be — Whether the Cross was a Cross or no Cross? For if the Law be now clearly and cer­tainly changed in this particular point of frank marriage, from what it was in the days of Glanvil (as he in his Que­stion absolutely says it is) it is then as certain, that Lands might have been gi­ven in free marriage to those not of the blood in the time of Glanvil, as it is cer­tain, that a Cross is a Cross; (but this Point must be otherwayes proved than by such a frivolous question as this is.)

He also in the same Epistle, tells those Reverend Judges, how highly he pre­fers Divinity before other Studies; but if he had been so conversant therein, as he would have them to believe, it seems strange to me, that he hath not better learnt his duty to his deceased Grand­mother; for we are bound to honour all our Parents, whether mediate or im­mediate; and whether they be living, or dead: And I believe he will not find [Page 62]any Precedent in Scripture, where any one did divulge the shame of any per­son, out of whose loyns he did descend except that of wicked Ham, which pat­tern is in some respects exceeded by Sir Peter; for Ham did really find his Fa­ther naked: and when the other Sons of Noah had co [...]ered their Father with a Garment, he did not offer to reveal his Fathers nakedness again and again.

As for his second Book, which he di­rects to all the Judges of England, it so falls out, that there is nothing therein, but what is in his former Books, and is already answer'd; though if there had, I should not have presumed to have gi­ven any Answer thereto; because those learned persons know well enough what the Law was, and is in all particu­lars, and cannot receive any information therein, either from Sir Peter, or me, or be deceived by his misrecitals in his said Books; However, I cannot but ob­serve how slightly he speaks of the Lord Coke in his 48 page, and also how he hath such light expressions in his Book directed to the Judges, as I believe were never used before by any person of dis­cretion, to such Reverend and Learned Men. No wonder therefore, if he speak [Page 63]coursely of me, and tell me of so many Impertinencies; but whether I be guilty of them, or of those untruths, or of that opprobrious language, which he doth charge me with, let the indifferent Rea­der be Judge. And whereas it doth ap­pear, that he is resolved to have the last word, although he have nothing new to say; and that his Writing again be con­trary both to his duty to his deceased Grandmother, and to his promise in Print: I do therefore declare, If what Sir Peter writes hereafter be no more to the purpose, than that is which he hath said in his two (last) Books, that I will not appear in Print against him any more, but will choose to vindicate my Grandmother and my self by word of mouth, whensoever I shall have any op­portunity so to do; only let me now ac­quaint the judicious Reader, that some other Judges have declared their opi­nion concerning the Legitimacy of Ami­cia, besides those three who formerly did so, and who were spoken of by Sir Peter, in the 49 page of the latter of his last Books.