THe Reasons which you and I have alledged for and against Ami­cia, being now made publick, all Persons may easily judge, whether, (as you be­lieve) it was onely the zeal of my o­pinion touching her Legitimacy, which caused me to endeavor to incline the world to concur with me therein, or that what I said was supported with just Grounds and Reasons; and I doubt not but those of our County that are understanding Persons, will as easily discern from some of your omissions, (although I forbear pub­lickly to take notice of them) that it [Page 2]was something else besides your great love to Truth (pretended by your alledging the old Rule of Aristotle,) which occasioned you thus to asperse your deceased Grandmother. But however things are, you have no reason to suspect any animosities be­twixt us, I having in my first Book (as I hope I shall also do in this) en­deavoured to avoid all expressions, which I did conceive might be offen­sive, and I am confident you have no just cause to be angry with me, for endeavoring to defend a deceased Grandmother whom I suppose to be very much injur'd by you.

I know not how far your memory may fail you therein, but I am sure I have several times moved you (and particularly came once purposely to you to Tabley) to desire that you would be contented to deliver what you did conceit concerning Amicia, as an uncertainty onely, (as you had done that of Roger, Son of Hugh Cyve­liok) and did at all those times assure you that if you would so do, and with­al, express that some Judges and He­ralds [Page 3]were of a different judgement from you, that I would never trou­ble you or the Reader with any Lines of mine. And the reason why I de­sired you thus to do, was, because the Reader would certainly conclude Amicia to be a Bastard, though no reasons were alledged, if he saw one who was descended of her, to declare her illegitimate in Print, and did not know that some Learned Men were of a different opinion; but I could not possibly prevail with you herein. And although what you alledge be true, that there is no medium betwixt being a Bastard and Legitimate, but that a Man must absolutely be the one or the other, yet, as to the Writer of an History, the case may be different; for he may be certain, that some, concerning whom he writes, may be Legitimate, and o­thers may be Bastards, and according­ly he ought so to place them; but it is possible there may be some which he is uncertain, whether they be Ba­stards or not; and in that case the Hi­storian ought to express it doubtfully, and not to take upon him absolutely to determine the point upon uncertain grounds.

As to your saying in the fourth page of your Answer, in the Margent, that you apprehend not why I call Sir Ralph Mainwaring, Chief Justice of Chester, when in those Ages there was only one Judge at a time there.

My reason wherefore I so did, was because I found that Reginald Gray, who was Judge of Chester, had taken unto him as an Associate, Ralph Hegham, in the thirteenth year of King Edward the I as appears page 172. of your Historical Antiquities: as also, because I found in your said Book, before the time of Sir Ralph Mainwaring, two Deeds of Randle de Gernoniis, (which seem­ed to imply, that there had been some­times more Justices of Chester than one at a time,) the one of which as appears, page 128. was directed, Constabulario, Dapifero, Baronibus, JƲSTICIARIIS, &c. and the other, as you may see, page 160. was directed, Episcopo Ce­striae, Dapifero, Baronibus, JƲSTICIA­RIIS, &c. so that I hope, I am justi­fiable herein.

And though it was not usual till af­ter ages, to have two Justices of Che­ster [Page 5]at one time, and that I have not yet found, that in the time of Ralph Mainwaring, there was any Justice of Chester, but the said Ralph, yet it being possible for the reasons aforesaid, that there might be more than one at a time; I did therefore call the said Ralph, Chief Justice, to shew if there were then two, that he was the chief of them, because he acted as Justice of Chester alone, as will thus appear from a Roll of antient Charts, cal­led Doomesday, remaining in the Castle of Chester, amongst the Records there.

And whereas you pretend page 4 and 5. of your Answer, (which is the onely example which you bring to prove what you there alledge) that Geffrey de Dutton, who made the Origi­nal Deed of Nether-Tabley had this [Page 6]word Domino, sometimes prefixed to his Name, when he was a Witness, and yet was no Knight; and thence would inferre, that the word Domi­nus is no sure rule, to be always under­stood of a Knight. I shall before I give an answer unto what you say, transcribe the said Deed out of your Historical Antiquities, as I find it in the 355 page of your said Book.

Now this Geffrey de Dutton, being that person who did give Little-Tabley, (now called Nether-Tabley, and the prin­cipal Seat of your Family) unto Mar­garet his Daughter and Heir, who first was married to Robert de Denbigh, and afterwards to Sir Nicholas Leicester, and so brought Nether-Tabley unto the Leicesters; A Man would think that you should be very well acquainted with all the Deeds that the said Geffrey made, which are in your custody, and [Page 8]et I doubt not but to make it appear, that you have run into several very gross errors, concerning that Geffrey de Dutton, who made the said Deed; For first, page 4 and 5. of your An­swer, you tell us (which is but your own fancy) that the word Dominus was applied to the better sort of Gentle­men in those ages who were no Knights, and that in those elder Ages it was some­times prefixed, and oftner omitted even to the same Men; as Domino Galfrido de Dutton, who in the Original Chart of Nether-Tabley writes himself only—Ego Galfridus de Dutton dedi, &c. and several other Deeds you have seen of the same person (who you say was lineal Ancestor to Warburton of Arley) where­in you dare affirm among the Witnesses subscribed, he hath five times and more the word Dominus omitted, for once that we find it prefixed to his name; and you are very confident, was not in him, as many others also, to be construed any more then Master Geffrey Dutton, and that he was no Knight;

To answer which, I shall thus far agree with you, That I believe the said [Page 9] Geffrey Dutton (Son of Geffrey, Son of Adam) who made the said Deed of Little or Nether Tabley was no Knight, But I cannot imagine how it is 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 you fancy, that he was a Witness to his own Deeds, which is as gross a thing as I have known; But besides this, you run into another errour, and when you do indeed find the word dominus pre­fixed to the name of Geffrey de Dutton as a Witness to other Mens Deeds, you will needs have that Dominus Galfridus de Dutton to be him, who made the said Deed of Nether Tabley, whereas it was not he, but his Father, as I shall presently make very manifest; For it is clear that you have seen no deed made by any Geffrey de Dutton, in which the word dominus is used by the party himself, because, you tell us p. 5 & 6. (but erroneously also, as will anon ap­pear) that the word dominus is never used in old Deeds by the party himself, [Page 10]but where it is joyned with another word, as Ego Willielmus Manwaring Do­minus de Pever, Ego Robertus dominus Mo­aldiae; and also, p. 5. you onely speak of his Name being subscribed as a Wit­ness, so that all the Proof which you have of a Dominus Galfridus de Dutton is from his being called so by other per­sons in other Mens Deeds: Now, it appearing in your Historical Antiquities, page 250. that Hugh de Dutton, Son of Hugh, Son of Hodard, had a second Son named Adam de Dutton, (from whom you say the Warburtons of Arley are descended) and the said Adam de Dut­ton as appears in your said Book, page 384. having issue a Son owned by you to be Sir Geffrey Dutton, which Sir Gef­frey, as you confess, page 354 & 355. had issue Geffrey Dutton, who made the said Deed of Tabley, the said Sir Gef­frey Dutton the Father being then li­ving, and a Witness to the said Deed, you when you find a Dominus Galfri­dus de Dutton to be a Witness to any Deed, will not own it (as you ought to do) to be Sir Geffrey Dutton Son of Adam, who indeed was a Knight, but you will have it to be Geffrey Dutton [Page 11]the Grandson of Adam, who was no Knight; But though perhaps you may by such devises as these, impose upon some silly Readers, yet certainly no intelligent person will believe what you say concerning the same.

Also, I might here ask you, whether the word Dominus when it is prefixed to the name of a person, who is not a Clergyman, doth prove him certainly to be a Knight, or not? If it do, Why will not you call every Layman a Knight, that hath it so prefixed? and if it do not, Why do you in your Hi­storical Antiquities p. 330. & 332. own Sir Thomas Mainwaring of Warmin­cham, upon the like proof, to be a Knight? And Why (as appears in the 8 Page of your Answer to my Defence of Amicia) did you fully intend to have called Ralph Mainwaring, Roger Main­waring and William Mainwaring, all Knights, but that you know not by what fate it was forgotten? And, Why do you all along in your later Book ac­knowledge them to be Knights?

And whereas you say, p. 5 & 6. that, the word Dominus is never used in old Deeds, by the party himself, but when it is [Page 12]joyned with another word, as Ego Wil­lielmus Mainwaring Dominus de Pe­ver, Ego Robertus Dominus Moaldiae, but is only used when the party is subscri­bed as a witness; Though that be true for the most part, yet it doth not al­wayes hold, as will appear by two Deeds of Sir Thomas Mainwarings of Warmincham, which I have by me, seal­ed with two Barres in Green-wax, written about thus, S. Tome le Mayn­warig; which Deeds you have seen, and are as followeth;

And as to what you say, page 8. of your Answer, that as the word Sir, is in common discourse applicable to per­sons of quality from the highest to the low­est in its larger notion, so Dominus is applicable to any Knight or Gentleman, as if you should say, Domine quaeso, num hoc verum est quod dieo, neene?

I grant it to be true, but then as you observe, the word Sir, or the word Do­minus must onely so be taken in its larger notion, but that is so far from weakening what I say, that it doth confirm it; For though if I speak to one whose name is Peter, that is but a Gentleman, I may properly use the word Sir to him, yet I cannot proper­ly joyn the word Sir to his name, and call him Sir Peter, unless the said per­son be either a Baronet or a Knight, and that is the case in these old Deeds, where the word Dominus is prefixed to the names of the said Knights.

Also, if the word Dominus do only signify Master, (as you would have it) What is the reason, that in some Deeds it is only put before the names of some of the witnesses, and not before the names of others? although those other persons to whose names it is not put, many times are Lords of several Man­nors, and persons of very great Estate.

As to what you alledge, page 6. of your Arswer to my defence of Amicia, [Page 17]that in the 27 page of my said Defence, Radulfus de Meidnilwaring after his Daughter Bertrey was marriageable is there named without his Title of Domi­nus; You your self have answered that a little before, by confessing (though the word Domino is usually set to the name of such a person when he is na­med a witness) that the word Domi­nus is never used by the party himself, but where it is joyned with another word, as Ego Willielmus Mainwaring Dominus de Peover, Ego Rogerus Do­minus Moaldiae, which though for the most part it be very true, yet I have shewed that it doth not ever hold; But instead of observing that you had given a full answer to this objection of your own, you strangely fancy, that I would possibly say, that that Deed was made before the said Ralph was Justice of Chester; whereas in the 74 page of my said Book, I had told you, that the said Deed was so far from be­ing made before the said Ralph was Ju­stice of Chester, that it was made after he had parted with the said Office; And thus you became guilty of a dou­ble levity, first, in making an objecti­on, [Page 18]which you your self had answer­ed but in the preceding page, and then in framing an answer thereto for me, directly contrary to what I had formerly said.

And whereas you say, page 8. that you had rather give to any, especially to my Family, more then is due, then less; I could wish I had just cause to be of that opinion; For I am sure you have omitted in our Descent, not only Ra­nulfus, who is nominated in Doomes­day Book, but also Richard Mesnilwaren mentioned in your Historical Anti­quities, pag [...] [...] Roger de Menilgarin, and Note. That page. 117. of your Hi­storical Antiqui­ties, you have pla­ced Randle before William, contrary to what you have done Pa. 341. and contrary to Mo­nasticon Anglica­num. Par. 1. Pa. 985. William and Randle his Sons, spoken of by you page 341. Roger de Me­nilgarin or Mainwaring, named by you page 362. Sir Ralph Mainwaring and Sir Roger Mainwaring his Son, both taken notice of by you pa. 330. and this upon a pretence, that they were Lords of Warmincham, whereas I am confident you will not deny but that the Main­warings of Warmincham were also [Page 19]owners of Over-Peover or the most part thereof, until Sir Roger Mainwaring gave Peover to his younger Son Sir William Mainwaring, and it was not long after, that the Mainwarings of Peover became Heirs male to those Mainwarings of War­mincham, Sir Warine Mainwaring, Son of Sir Thomas, Son of the said Sir Roger, dy­ing without issue Male; Also I am sure you denyed to do us right in one other particular, when you did it in the like case for another Family, which had not so clear proof for it as mine had.

As for your new quarrel, (page 9 of your Answer) with the Herald, for gi­ving to Sir Randle Mainwaring my great Grandfather six Barrulets, as his most proper Coat, whereas you say, ever since the time of Sir Roger Mainwa­ring, aswell the Heirs of the right Line, as also the Mainwarings of Peover (after they became next Heirs Male) have con­stantly born the two barres, for some hun­dreds of years; I might reply and tell you, that the Mainwarings, of Peover have not constantly given, Argent, two Barres Gules, since they became Heirs Male to the Mainwarings of Warmin­cham, [Page 20]as appears by my Deeds; Nei­ther do I think that Mr. Cambden did look upon the Six Barrulets, as a Coat most peculiar to us; for, in his Britannia in his Description of the County of Chester, he names the two Barres as the Coat most proper to our Family, as appears by these words of his, when he writes of Astbury Church, viz. Haec enim perpulchra est, cujus porticus Occi­dentalis ipsam Ecclesiam, quae sane alta, sua altitudine adaequat, & pyramidem ad­junctam habet. In caemeterio duae jacent sepulchrales Militum effigies, in quorum scutis sunt duae directae areolae sive Barrae. Verum cum coloribus suis destituantur non facile quis dixerit fuerintne ex Brereto­nis, Mainwaringis, vel de Venables, quae clarissimae sunt in vicinia familiae, & ejusmodi Barras variantibus coloribus gentilitiis in clypeis gestant.

I rather think that my Great Grand­father having a Fancy to that Coat of Six Barrulets more than to that of the two Barres, because the most antient of our Deeds were sealed therewith, that Mr. Cambden gave him liberty to bear either the one or the other, which I [Page 21]see not but it might be done, being our Family had for several generations usually born the one, and the other had been born by our Ancestor, and had never been used by any other Fa­mily, and I am sure, though you be so captious with us, that you your self have of late years given a different Crest, from what had for a long time been born by your Predecessors, be­cause you found a more antient Crest in some of your Seals: And whereas you instance in the great Suit, betwixt Scroop and Grosvenour in the Marshals Court, under Richard the II. concern­ing the bearing of a Coat of Arms, where­to both challenged a right and propriety by usage, but no other way; You thence rightly infer, that usage makes a right in such cases; but when you say, that usage only makes a right; you are mista­ken therein, For (not to mention the case in hand, where a mans Ancestor hath born a Coat, which for sometime hath been laid aside, but never taken up by any other Family) a Man could then have no right to a Coat, which was given him by a King of Arms.

I am still of opinion, that you have branded several persons in your Book with Bastardy, without any proof thereof, but shall not yet concern my self for any (besides my own Ance­stor) except such as you give me just occasion to take notice of; And as for Geva and Richard Bacun's Mother, the first of them is not yet by you pro­ved to be a Bastard, and I shall cer­tainly hereafter make it appear, that the second was no Daughter of Hugh Cyveliok, so that Amicia is like to re­ceive no blow at all; And if they were both Bastards, it would be no preju­dice to Amicia, because I have in my former Book fully proved, that the gift to Geva was not a Gift in Free-Marriage, (as that to Amicia was) and you do not pretend at all, that any such gift was made to the Mother of Richard Bacun.

And whereas you tell me you believe that Geva and the wife of Bacun had ne­ver been spoken of, nor suspected, nor doubted of by me, had not the case of Amicia been concerned I can assure you [Page 23]I should have been of the same opinion concerning them, if you had never mentioned Amicia; but if you had not pretended from their Cases, to raise some Arguments against the said Amicia, I should never have troubled my self about them, and therefore I forbear to tell you of all mistakes, ex­cept such as the case in hand doth give me just occasion to observe. And whereas you say, page 12. that you think you shall make good what you have alledged, with as much certainty as the nature of the thing and times will admit. And also page 27. that Geva was certain­ly a Bastard, by as good proof us can possi­bly be expected in such a case; You do thereby implicitely confess, that you do not make those things appear with any certainty at all.

I have now done with what you have said concerning my Epistle, and shall now proceed to consider of your Answer to the Book it self; and because you do in several places, again say, what you have said heretofore, I hope the Reader will excuse me, if I be con­strained sometimes to repeat the same [Page 24]things, which I also have formerly said.

In the 14 and 15 pages, you do tell me that I said I would remind you of that which you had formerly been told, viz. Who those Heralds were that gave to Mainwaring of Peover the quartering of the Earl of Chester's Coat, in Queen Elisabeth's time, and withal do say, that I never told you, till long time after that part of your Book was written, which, perhaps may be true, because that part of your Book was written very long since, viz. in the year 1647. but I am sure I have often told you of them, and you have also often seen the Pedigree it self, under the hands of Mr. Cambden, and Mr. Sampson Erdeswick; the rest in that place is only the repeating of your former quarrel with them, for suffer­ing us to quarter the Earl of Chester's Coat, but if we can really prove, that we are of the Half Blood, whatever you conceive of it, I suppose all indif­ferent persons will think it but meet, that we should have the like liberty that all others have in the like case, in these last ages of ours.

What you say in the 16 and 17 pages, hath been some of it formerly said in your Historical Antiquities, and also in the 15 page of this your Answer, and there is nothing there that is new, but that you only alledge, that as to my note of Dukes and Earls to have been antiently Judges of Chester, I should have distin­guished the times, for that was not till the Reign of Richard the II. (who made Deputies to act in their stead) before which time there were no such great persons Judg­es there, nor from Henry the Sevenths time downwards; But what necessity there was for me particularly to di­stinguish the times in which those great Dukes and Earls were Judges of Che­ster, I do not know; For I only instan­ced in that to shew, that the place of Judge of Chester was antiently a place of great repute, and though it was some time after the death of John Scot, before any such great persons were made Judges of Chester, by the Kings of England, and that in all the times of the Earls of Chester, before that Earl­dom was united to the Crown, there could not be any Dukes or Earls made [Page 26]Judges there, because there were no such persons belonging to the then Earls, (except John Lacy Constable of Chester, who was not made Earl of Lincoln, as appears in your Historical Antiquities page 270. till the 23 of No­vember 1232. which was but four years and upwards before the death of John Scot the last of the said Earls) yet there were ever antiently persons of good quality that were Judges of Chester, and if it had not been always a place of great repute, the Kings of England would never have made such very great persons to have succeeded them therein.

As to what you alledge in the 18, 19, 20, and 21 pages of your Answer, I do not doubt (though you affirm it can never be proved) but that I have alrea­dy in my former Book, given most persons satisfaction, that Amicia was of the Half-Blood to Earl Randle, by a former wife of Earl Hugh; And where­as you object, that it is more rational to imagine, that Earl Hugh matching his only Daughter, which he had by a former Wife, would have married her to as considerable a person as was either pro­vided [Page 27]by himself, or his Son for his younger Children by a second venter; I do an­swer and say, That I am not certain whether Amicia was the only Daugh­ter that Earl Hugh had by his former Wife; because, I know some that pre­tend they can tell of some other Daughter or Daughters which the said Earl Hugh had by his said Wife; but I do confess, I have never seen just proof of any but her; but supposing her to be the only Child by his first Wife; I have in my former Book, pa. 23, 24, and 25. shewed that there is no strength in this Argument of yours; And I may here further add, that if you will search for examples, you may find very many, where the elder Sisters, sometimes, because swayed by their affections, and sometimes for other reasons, have not been married to so great persons as the young­er Sisters have been; neither can you tell what portions Earl Hugh gave to Amicia, or to any of his other Daughters: neither is there any necessity that the elder Sister, because by a former wife, must have as great a portion as a younger Sister by a [Page 28]latter Wife; because, many times per­sons are not able to give so great porti­ons in their younger days, as after­wards: and because, the Children of the living Wife are oftentimes better provided for, than those of the dead Wife; and of this, I could if I pleas­ed, instance in some that I know; and in case the Father dye, and leave one­ly issue Female by a first, and a Son and issue Female by a latter wife (as in this case) there is great likelihood (besides the advantage that the Sisters by the latter wife would have by being Heirs at Law to their Brother, he dy­ing without issue) that the Brother will naturally be more kind to those Sisters that are of the Whole-Blood, and about the same age, and bred up with him, than he will be to her that is but his Half-Sister, and much older then himself.

And whereas you say, pa. 18, and 19. that the expectation of Earl Randle Blun­devile's Sisters of the Whole Blood (which I conceive added to their fortunes, where­by they matched to so great persons) could not be much, being grounded upon great [Page 29]uncertainties, since it could not be fore­seen (when they married) that their Bro­ther should dye without issue, who after­wards married two wives successively, purposely to have issue of his own Body, to inherit his own Lands; I do think if you consider it, you cannot in good earnest believe, that the said Earl Ran­dle Blundevil's four Sisters were marri­ed before the said Earl married his first wife, whatever they were when he married his second wife; For, Ber­tred the Mother of Randle Blundevil be­ing aged but twenty four years when her Husband Earl Hugh died, as ap­pears, Rot. de Dominabus pueris, &c. in Scacc. penes remem. R. sub Tit. Linc. Rot. 1. and the said Randle, as appears in your Historical Antiquities, page 146. being married to Constance the Widow of Geffrey, fourth Son of King Henry the II. and Daughter and Heir of Conan Duke of little Brittain, and Earl of Richmond, in the year 1187. at which time the said Bertred was but about Thirty years old; Can any one think that all the five Chil­dren of the said Bertred were then mar­ried?

And whereas you say, that it was I who informed you of the three eminent Judges, and four Heralds that were of opinion, that Amicia was Legitimate: If your meaning be, that I was the on­ly person who informed you thereof, I must impute it to the weakness of your memory, which fails you in this particular; For, you had many times seen our Pedigree, attested by Mr. Cambden and Mr. Sampson Erdeswick, who did allow her to be a Legitimate Daughter, and several years since, two other Heralds, who are yet living, at Chester did declare to you in my hear­ing, that she could not be a Bastard, and the one of them then named to you a Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, and a Lord Keeper of the Great Seal of England (both now deceased) who did concur with them therein, and you have also seen an opinion of a Third, Judge under his Hand, together, with Reasons for the same; and though you speak so slightly of the opinions of Judges and Heralds, in comparing them to Hands got to a Petition or Cer­tificate, and pretend it was without hear­ing [Page 31]the Reasons on the other side; I very well know (though it seems you have forgotten it) that that hand which was obtained, was procured, because you seemed to desire to know his o­pinion in the case; And I also know that those two Heralds, who at Che­ster did declare their judgements a­gainst you, did then hear all the rea­sons that you could then alledge.

As to what you say, pa. 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, and part of the 27, in all which you would willingly prove, that the Common-Law is now altered some other way than by Statute, you do but lose your labor, and can ne­ver prove the same; For, in that Maxime of the Law, where it is said, That whatsoever was at the Common-Law, and is not ousted or taken away by any Statute, remaineth still; the words ousted or taken away, must needs be ta­ken conjunctively, and must necessari­ly bear this sence, that the Common-Law still is the same in all points, as it was before, except where taken away by Statute; and if those words should be taken otherwise, then, the meaning [Page 32]would be this, that that part of the Common-Law which doth remain, doth remain, which would be a very strange Maxime; And whereas you hereto­fore urged some places, to prove, that the Common-Law is alter'd at this day from what it was in former ages, long after the time of King Henry the II. which you now also urge again in the 24 page of your latter Book; I must give you the same answer which I for­merly did, viz. That those places do not prove that the Common-Law at this day doth vary from what it was in former ages, in any particular, but onely that it was taken to be other­ways in those days, and that it was but just like some Cases in our Reports, which have at several times been ad­judged directly contrary to each other; but notwithstanding that, the Com­mon-Law was still the same; And that I might come as near you as I could; I did then acknowledge that though the Common-Law was ever the same, where not alter'd by Parliament: yet in former ages, they did in some parti­culars, take the Law to be otherways than they now do; And I did also ac­knowledge, [Page 33]that if you could prove, that they had done so formerly in this case of Frank-Marriage, that it would have taken off much of the strength of my Argument from the words in libe­ro Maritagio, because, that antient Deeds and Grants (according to what my Lord Coke on Littleton says, fol 8. b. at the bottom) are to be expound­ed as the Law was taken to be at the time of the Grant: Now these pla­ces which you alledge, do not prove a change of the Common-Law, in any particular, other than by Statute, but only that the Law was sometimes dif­ferently taken in one Age, from what it was in another Age; for in your 24 page, where you cite Coke upon Lit­tleton, fol. 34. Sect. 39. you do not there say, that my Lord Coke's words were, That the Law was different in Glanvile's time in the particular you there mention, from what it is now; but you say, that he saith that in an­tient times, as it appears by Glanvile, lib. 6. cap. 1. it was taken (that is, the Law was taken) that a Man could not have endowed his Wife, ad Ostium Eccle­siae, of more than a third part, but of less [Page 34]he might: but at this day the Law is ta­ken, (as Littleton holdeth, which is) That a Man may Endow his Wife ad Osti­um Ecclesiae of his whole Land, or of the half, or other less part, which is the ve­ry same thing that I said; And where you again cite Coke upon Littleton, fol. 8. a. towards the bottom, you bring him in, saying, that of antient time the Heir was permitted to have an action of Debt upon a Bond made to his Ancestor and his Heir, but the Law is not so at this day; but my Lord Coke doth not say as you do, viz. That the Law is not so at this day, but that the Law is not so holden at this day; so that he still a­voids the expression of the Law being changed. (otherways than by Statute) although it was differently holden in several Ages; And thus, as you may see Coke upon Littleton, fol. 21. b. in the Case of Piers de Saltmarsh and o­thers, it was judged in King Edward the Thirds time, and in King Edward the Fourths time, That a Man might give Land to his Son in Frankmarri­age, but in King Henry the Eighths time, it was holden otherways, the for­mer Books being not remembred; But [Page 35]notwithstanding, that this point was judged thus differently, the Law was still the same and all that can be said, is, that some of the judges did not judge right, according to the Com­mon-Law; and indeed if this Rule of yours was true, that because the Judg­es in one Age did take the Common-Law to be otherways, than it was ta­ken in former Ages, that therefore the Common-Law was changed: The Judges then could never do contrary to the Common-Law, For, when they had declared (though erroneously) that the Common-Law ought to be o­therways taken, than it was formerly, the Common-Law by your Rule, would be thereupon changed, and what they did, would ever be legal, The absurdity whereof every one may ea­sily discern.

What you say page 27, 28, 29, 30, and 31. to all those Reasons which I did give, to shew that whensoever the word Mulier is used in the case of Frankmarriage, it shall by common-intendment be understood of a Woman that is of the Kindred, will, (I believe) [Page 36]give no knowing person any satisfacti­on at all; for though you pretend your self to be very pleasant, when you say you have seldom known (nor you believe any other) any such question as this, Whether Hugh Cyveliok had a former Wife, to be proved by argument of Scripture, or nicety of Law, which is meerly a question of History, yet certain­ly the understanding Reader, will ea­sily perceive that this is but a shift, and will also discern, that I did not bring that place of Scripture to prove that Hugh Cyveliok had a former wife, but that I made use of it by way of an­swer, to take off what you had alledg­ed, and I do not at all doubt, but that Text will fully satisfy, that all expres­sions which seem Universal, are not al­ways to be expounded without any limitation at all; but as you would extend that expression of Glanvill too far, so you run to the other extream concerning this of Deuteronomy 14.26. and would restrain these words, or for whatsoever thy soul desireth, only to those things there mentioned, viz. Oxen, Sheep, Wine, and strong Drink, which would be a Tautologie, and several times [Page 37]in the same verse give them liberty to make use of Oxen, Sheep, Wine, or strong Drink, whereas undoubtedly the Jews at their said Feasts had also liberty to eat the Goat the Hart, Roe-Buck, Fallow Deer, Wild Goat, Pigarg, Wild Ox, the Chamois, as also all clean Fowls, Fishes, and other clean meats whatsoever, allowed them by their Law; and therefore this expres­sion being as universal as that of Glan­vill, and yet being to be expounded, so as to agree with the Laws of that Kingdom, why should not this seem­ing universal expression of Glanvill be so expounded, as to agree with the Laws of our Kingdom? And if so, sure what I say is to the point in hand.

Also, If this Text of Scripture should be restrained as you would have it, it would not contradict, but confirm what I said; For, what expression can seem more universal than this, viz. whatsoever thy soul desireth, and yet you confess it ought not to be understood without some limitation, and indeed, you restrain it more than I do.

And though it be true, that Bastards both were and yet are capable of recei­ving Lands after they have gained a name by reputation, yet they are not capable of having Lands passed with them in libero maritogio, though it be passed with them by the name of Daughter, without the addition of Bastard; and though you pretend that Amicia had gained a name by reputa­tion, yet you do not, nor cannot tell what it is, for certainly Amicia and Daughter are not any reputed names.

Neither do I put my argument about Glanvil's contradicting himself, as you put it, as will appear, pa. 34, and 35. of my former Book, so that you leave what I there say, wholly unanswered. Neither do I say, that the Lawyers of latter ages do expound the Law, that Lands cannot pass in Free-marriage with Bastards now, ergo, it was so ta­ken in Glanvil's time; but I have gi­ven you many reasons, why the Law was taken in the time of Glanvill, in the point of Free-Marriage, as it is ta­ken now; to which you give no other answer, but that you will leave it to wise Men to judge, who will take the [Page 39]paines to scan them, whether they be pertinent; And I do willingly appeal to all wise men, whether that be an An­swer to those Eight Reasons, for if it be I am much mistaken therein.

But what will you say, (though I did admit it to be so, because I would put the Case as hard as I could upon my self) if Glanvil by those words of his, Lib. 7. cap. 1. Quilibet liber homo quan­dam partem terrae suae cum filia sua, vel cum aliqua alia qualibet muliere dare po­test in Maritagium, sive habuerit haere­dem, sive non, velit haeres vel non, imo & eo contradicente did not say or mean that a man might give lands in Free-marriage with any woman whatsoever, but only that he might give lands with any wo­man in that kind of Marriage, which was not free; For, if you observe him well, he doth not there say, that any man what­soever can give Lands in liberum mari­tagium with any woman whatsoever, but only that it may be so given with a­ny woman in Maritagium; Now that Ma­ritagium is two-fold, Glanvil himself tells you, Lib. 7. cap. 18. where he sayes, Maritagium autem, aliud nomi­natur [Page 40]liberum, aliud servitio obnoxiums liberum dicitur Maritagium quando ali­quis liber homo aliquam partem terrae suae dat cum aliqua muliere alicui in Ma­ritagium ita quod ab omni servitio terra illa sit quieta, & a se & haeredibus suis, versus capitalem dominum acquietanda, & in hac quidem libertate, ita stabit terra illa usque ad tertium haeredem nec interim tenebuntur haeredes inde facere aliquod homagium, post tertium vero hae­redem, ad debitum servitium terra ipsa revertetur, & homagium inde capietur. Many of which words of Glanvil you may also find cited by my Lord Coke on Littleton, fol. 21. b. Now if you well observe it, Glanvil doth not there say that a man may give Lands in libe­rum Maritagium cum qualibet muliere, but only in Maritagium; But when he speaks of Free-marriage he useth the expression cum aliqua muliere, with some woman, viz. one of the Kindred so that without doubt he using the same expression with Mr. Bracton who was the next VVriter after him, he also understands it in the like manner, as the other did; But if Mr. Glanvill's ex­pressions ( Lib. 7. cap. 1.) had concerned [Page 41] Free-marriage, yet I have formerly shewed, that the word Mulier in that case, could only have been understood of a woman of the Kindred: Also my Lord Coke upon Littleton, fol. 21. b. when he hath told you that one of the four things incident to a Frank-marri­age is, that the VVoman or Man that is the cause of the Gift, be of the blood of the Donour, not long after on the Mar­gent of the same Page quotes Glanvil, lib. 7. cap. 1. (the place on which you build) which he would never have done, if that place had been contradi­ctory to his opinion, and certainly, if Glanvills words in that place are to be understood as you would have them, they do contradict what my Lord Coke there sayes, unless the Law in that point was taken after one manner in Glanvil's time, and after another manner in my Lord Coke's time, which if it had been so, my Lord Coke had been concerned to have taken notice thereof, having no otherway to reconcile it with what he had said.

What you say, pag. 32 & 33. is not at all to the purpose; For, you there tell us, that Bastard Sons, bastard [Page 42]Daughters, bastard Brothers, &c. in all Settlements and Conveyances of these last antient Ages, are termed Bastards, but you say that was never used in the Anti­ent Ages; But, this is only your bare saying, without any proof at all, so that your word herein will not pass, unless you had shewed us several antient Set­tlements and Conveyances, in which, bastard Sons, bastard Daughters, ba­stard Brothers, &c. are named with­out the word Bastard joyned to them, which I am confident you cannot do, unless when very great persons are na­med, who by reason of their greatness, are usually excepted in such cases as those; And indeed you do not only want proof to make good what you here say, but I have formerly brought proof of the contrary, from Sir Henry Spelman, who in his Glossary on the word Bastardus, sayes, Quoties enim agitur de honore vel commodo filiorum, appellatione siliorum non comprehendun­tur bastardi. And as to what you af­firm, that Bastards be of the blood both now and in former ages, though the Law will not allow them so, because they now are esteemed in the eye of the Law quasi [Page 43]nullius filius; For if A. have a Bastard Son or Daughter, which is really his, they must needs be of his blood: for no Law can extinguish Nature; though by com­mon Law they are not now esteemed so; There is no force in what you so say, Because, in this case Children are look­ed at, as they are in Law, and not as they are really, because, it cannot be known what they are really; And therefore if A. have a bastard child which is really his, yet it shall not in­herit, because it is in Law nullius fili­us; and on the other side, If A. have a Wife who doth play false with him, and hath a Child begotten of her bo­dy by another man, yet this Child shall inherit, because it is in Law the Child of A. And whereas you also ask the Question, What if you say that the reason why in the Deeds of those elder Ages, they were called Daughters, without any addition of Bastard, whereby the party owned them to be of their blood, was, that the Lands passed in libero ma­ritagio with such might descend to their heires? For our Lawyers now tell us, that Bastards are capable of receiving Lands, after they have gained a Name by reputa­tion; [Page 44]Why may not then Bastards, having gained the names of Daughters, receive a grant from their owned Fathers, either in Frank-marriage or otherwayes?

Your Question will be easily an­swered, because the consideration of the Gift in Free-marriage is the blood that is betwixt the Donour, and that Donee with whom the Land is given; But a Bastard is not de sanguine patris ( Dyer, Fol. 374. b.) and the calling of any person Daughter, who is not so in Law, will not make her of the blood, for if that would serve, a Man might call any other Woman his Daughter, that is not so, and then give Lands with her in Frank-marriage: Besides, to what purpose should such tricks as these be used, which will not hold, when though a Man cannot give Lands in Free-marriage with his Ba­stard Daughter, yet there are other wayes, whereby any Man that pleases and hath a disposing power, may settle Lands on a Bastard Daughter and her heires: Also, if Glanvills words did prove, as you would pretend they do, To what purpose should men in those [Page 45]ages, leave the word Bastard out of their Deeds of Free-marriage to their bastard Daughters, with design there­by to cause such lands to continue to them and their heirs, if such gifts might be made with any woman what­soever; so that you never observe how finely you have argued here, against your self.

VVhere you say, in the 34, 35, 36 and 37 Pages of your Book, that though you do not find Geva called a Bastard in express terms, yet you find it implyed in an Author contemporary (meaning Orde­ricus) by certain and sure consequence, which you believe can never be fully an­swered; and for the fortifying of which, you pretend to give some reasons; Give me leave (since you give the oc­casion) again to say, what I have for­merly said, viz. that though Orderi­cus, speaking of Hugh Lupus his death, doth add these words, Richardus au­tem pulcherrimus puer quem solum ex Ermentrude filia Hugonis de Clara­monte genuit. I am not yet satisfied, but that he might as well mean, that he was the only Son which Earl Hugh [Page 46]had by Ermentrude, as that he was the only child that he had by her; For there is no necessity to take the word solum adverbially, neither is it marked as an Adverb in Ordericus his Book, though it be so in yours, and yet in his Book, Adverbs are usually mark­ed; And though you alleadg that Or­dericus doth not say quem solum filium, as I interpret him, but indefinitly, quent solum ex Ermentrude genuit, and so, whether solum be understood adverbially, or whether it be taken for a Noun, no more can be made of it in English than thus, Richard a beautiful youth whom only Earl Hugh begot on Ermentrude, &c. and so, whether we English it, whom only he begot, or whom he only begot, it re­tains the same sense, and shews that no other person, either Son or Daughter, was begotten on Ermentrude by Earl Hugh. You must give me leave to dissent from you herein; For, I conceive this ex­pression of quem solum genuit, doth amount to as much as if he had said quem solum filium genuit, which if it do, then (notwithstanding the said expres­sion) Earl Hugh might possibly have a Daughter or Daughters by the said [Page 47] Ermentrude; For, to what Antecedent can the word quem so properly relate, as to the word puer? and if so, then quem solum puerum is as much as quem solum filium, and so doth not exclude him from having a Daughter or Daughters by the said Ermentrude; For, though the word puer be by some understood to signifie a Child of either Sex, as you also seem to take it in your Historical Antiquities, p. 113 & 114. (But misprinted 121 & 122.) Yet Mr. Gouldman in his Dictionary will tell you that it is a mistake, where on the word puer he thus writes, Nonnullis habetur communis generis, sed male, ex Ovidiano illo Carmine, de Iphide puella in puerum mutata;

And though you say, that Geva could not be by any former Wife, because Earl Hugh had never any other Wife; Yet that is more than either you or I know, for, there were many things done in those Ages which never came to our knowledges. And therefore I do not [Page 48]take upon me to tell, whether Geva was by a former Wife than Ermentrude, or whether she was by Ermentrude, or whether she was a Bastard, But I say, she might be any of the three, for any thing that you have yet proved, and so long as it is uncertain what she was, you can bring no considerable Argu­ment from her against Amicia; And if you could prove her a Bastard, it would signifie nothing, because the Deed made to her, is not a gift in Frank-marriage (as hath formerly and will hereafter appear.)

And whereas you ask, p. 36. Being I expound the words of Ordericus to be, that Earl Hugh had no other Son, What advantage it is to my purpose, unless Ge­va was that Daughter, and was legitimate? I answer, That possibly Geva might be that Daughter, or possibly Geva might be by a former Wife, and that Daughter which Earl Hugh had by Ermentrude, might die before Earl Ri­chard, so that nothing of certainty can be gathered from such Arguments as these.

As to what you say, p. 38, 39, 40 & 41. that I am not to argue upon possibi­lities, [Page 49]and because it might possibly be so, to say, that the Earldome of Chester was antiently entayled on the heires Males; I Answer, That I do not positively aver any such thing, But let the case be how it will, and whethersoever Geva or Randle de Meschines was the heir ge­neral to Richard Earl of Chester, it seems to me that the said Earldome, did not come by descent, to the heir general, whoever that was; For, it clearly ap­pears that Geva had it not, and Randle de Meschines had it not by descent; For, if what James York in his Ʋnion of Honour, p. 105. sayes, be true, Randle de Meschines was made Earl by Grant of King Henry the First; and Ordericus p. 876. tells us, that he restored to the said King Henry, all the Land which he had by his Wife the Widow of Roger de Romara, for the Earldom of Chester; which was more than was needful for him to do, if he had a good title there­to by descent.

And whereas you ask me, Why may I think that the King (though he gave it to Randle) did not give the honour and lands unto him, as in whom was the great­est [Page 50]right to have it? and do say, that to this I give no answer at all. I may well tell you, that I could not give an Answer, until you did ask the Question, and you never asked the Question in your former Book; But the Answer which I shall now give to this Question, is, That I suppose, Kings in such cases do that, which to them seems most just, but yet Kings in these cases, as well as in others, are of different Judgments from one another very many times, and indeed the very same Princes will be sometimes of one mind, and sometimes of another mind, concerning the same thing; And thus we see, when Randle Blundevile Earl of Chester dyed, which was in the year 1232. King Henry the Third did suf­fer the four Sisters of the said Earl Randle, who were of the whole blood, to inherit that estate, and the said Earl­dome went to John Scot son of David Earl of Huntingdon in right of Maud his Mother, the eldest of the said four Sisters; But when the said John Scot dyed, which was in the year 1237, the said King Henry the Third would not suffer the said Earldome of Chester to [Page 51]come to any of the Sons of any of the Sisters of the said John Scot, though he had before permitted it to come to the Son of the eldest Sister of the said Randle Blundevile.

And whereas you say, that if Geva had been but of the half-blood, she woul'd by all probability have busled hard for so great an Estate in those Ages, before she had lost it. I do wonder very much at what you say, Because, any Cosen that is of the whole blood (how many de­grees soever the distance is) will in­herit at Law, before a Brother or Si­ster that is but of the half-blood; And whereas you say, I am come to an excel­lent way of arguing, by ifs, and ands, and possibilities, by which means Answers may be made to any thing even to eternity. I do not offer from those kinds of Argu­ments or Answers, to determine any thing certainly, but only make use of them to shew the uncertainty of seve­ral things which you urge; But, you pretend certainties from such kind of Arguments, and particularly in this case of Amicia: For, all the reasons which you alleadg against her would not [Page 52]prove her to be a Bastard, if those Ar­guments that are brought on her be­half were all laid aside.

In your Answer to my Defence of A­micia, p. 42 & 43. you again cavil with me, without any just cause, and say, that the case that I did there put, comes as near to the case of Geva, as an Apple to an Oyster, But whether it be so as you say, let the Reader judge. In your Historical Antiquities, p. 136. (which words of yours are also in the 10 & 11 pages of my Defence of Amicia) you have these words, viz. And howbeit ma­ny Earldomes have descended to the heires Males, and not to the heires general, yet in this case were no heires Male, but two Females, an Aunt legitimate, who had it, and a Sister not legitimate, and shew me a precedent whereever the heires of an Aunt inherited before the heires of a Sister, both legally born and no heires-male left, un­less in case of forfeiture by Treason, or some other great cause to hinder the same. From these words of yours, I did not offer to raise any cavil, by telling you, that though honours or lands may be given to any persons whatsoever, by [Page 53]those who have power to dispose of the same, that yet they cannot properly be said to descend to any but to the next heires, and therefore in point of de­scent, it is impossible that any one that is further off, should be preferred be­fore another that is nearer; Neither did I tell you, how you did name an Aunt legitimate, in stead of the Son of an Aunt legitimate that had it; But I supposing (as I think any other would have done from these words of yours) that your meaning was, that Randle de Meschines must needs have more right to succeed in that Earldom of Chester than Geva had, because, the said Ran­dle did enjoy the same, and that you thought it to be very clear, that when­soever there were no heirs-Male left, if the honour went to any of the Kin­dred, the King did alwayes prefer that person who was next of blood to it, except in case of Treason, or the like, and did thereupon desire me to shew you a precedent to the contrary, if I so could, and you instancing in the Earl­dome, and not in the Lands, I did there­upon shew you where one that was a Baron by Writ, dyed without heir Male, [Page 54]leaving two Sisters only, and the Ba­ronry came to the Husband of the younger Sister, and not to the Hus­band of the elder Sister, it being the pleasure of the King to call Sir Hunt Bourcher, who had Marryed the younger Sister, to the Parliament, and not to call Sir Thomas Nevil, who had Marryed the elder Sister; And if this be not a like case to that of Geva and Earl Randle (if Geva was legitimate) I am still very much mistaken; And whereas you now demand of me, If Geva was legitimate, Why the Lands of Richard Earl of Chester did not come to her, whatever the Earldom did: Though I cannot give you the certain reason, because the thing was done so long since, yet I can shew you several possibilities why they might not; For, either it might be the will and plea­sure of the then King, that Randle de Meschines should have the Estate as well as Earldome, and that Geva should have recompence made her some other way, (as the Sisters of John Scot Earl of Chester in the like case af­terwards had) or perhaps she might be of the half-blood to Earl Richard, [Page 55]and Randle de Meschines be heir at Law before her, or perhaps the said Ear I Ri­chard having a greater kindness for the said Earl Randle than he had for Geva, (there being sometimes great unkind­nesses betwixt Brothers and Sisters) might give his Estate to the said Randle de Meschines.

Those Arguments of mine which you mention p. 44. and are pretended to be Answered by you, pag. 45, 46 & 47. remain yet in their greatest strength, and are not at all answered by you, nay, the one of them is so farr from being answered, that it is not un­derstood by you, unless you only pre­tend not to understand it, because, you perceive you cannot give an answer to it, and I rather think that to be the truth of the case, Because you have not recited my Argument as I did express it; For you recite it thus; Because Coke upon Littleton, fo. 21. b. tells us that these words in liberum Maritaginm are words of Art, and so are necessarily required: and there you break off ab­ruptly; Whereas I told you that the Deed which you alleadged to be made [Page 56]to Geva would not at all concern Ami­cia, if Geva was a bastard, because it was no gift in Frank-marriage, as that gift to Amicia was; And for a proof thereof I told you, that my Lord Coke upon Littleton in the place abovesaid did tell you, that these words in libe­rum maritagium are such words of Art, and so necessarily required (in these kind of gifts) as they cannot be expressed by words equipollent, or amounting to as much; And he also there gave you the reason, which was, that these words in liberum Maritagium did create an Estate of Inheritance, against the general Rule of the Law, and therefore the Law required, that it should be legally pursued; And to explain this, he also said, that if a man give Lands to another with his Daughter, in connubio soluto ab omni servitio, &c. yet there passeth in this case but an Estate for life; For although those words be the same in sense, as the words in libero maritagio be, yet being not the very same words, they do not create an Estate of Inheri­tance; But you contrary to all this, would not believe my Lord Coke, if he should have said that the words in libe­ro [Page 57]conjugio did make but an Estate for life, (which he hath indeed by conse­quence said) But you will have the words liberum conjugium to create an Estate of Inheritance, as well as the words liberum maritagium (which no man before you ever said) Whereas no words that are equipollent, or amount­ing to as much can do it, it being im­possible to make an Estate in Free-mar­riage, if there be wanting either the word liberum, or the word Maritagi­um.

Also, as the words in libero conjugio can make but an Estate for life, so it is also clear, that in your Deed of Earl Randle to Ceva, there was no more in­tended than an Estate for life, it run­ning all along in the singular number Et teneat bene & in pace. &c. ut melius & liberius tenuit, And it is likely the Deed of Earl Hugh did run after the same manner, by that expression sicuti Comes Hughes ei in libero conjugio dedit, But I believe the Bassets did afterwards enjoy the said lands, though how, or by ver­tue of what Deed, I am not able to de­clare; For, in Monasticon Anglica­num, [Page 58]Part 1. p. 439, and in your Histori­cal Antiquities, p. 113. (but misprinted 121.) I find Geffrey Ridell and Ralph Basset called the heires of the said Geva; Now if those persons were the heires of her body, and the aforesaid Deed a Gift in Frank-marriage, Why did not Earl Randle confirm or grant those lands to her heires, as well as to her, And if they were not the heirs of her body, she could not be a bastard, For, as my Lord Coke on Littleton, fol. 3. b. tells you, A Bastard can have no heir but of his own body.

And whereas I brought another Ar­gument to prove that this Gift of Ge­va could not be a Gift in Frank-marri­age, Because my Lord Coke says, that one of the things incident to a Frank­marriage is, that the Donees shall hold freely of the Donour till the fourth de­gree be past, which cannot be in Ge­va's case, Because there was no Do­nees, but one Donee only, and the Estate could not continue until the Fourth degree was past, because it was onely for Geva's life; You tell me that my Lord Coke upon Littleton, fol. 21. b. ci­teth [Page 59]Peter Saltmarch's Case, and Fitz-Herbert de natura brevium, fol. 172. that lands may be given by a Man to his Son in Free-marriage, and why not to his Daughter alone in Free-marriage? But I pray you, How can there be a Gift in Free-marriage, if there be no Marriage at all? and, How can there be a Mar­riage, if the Man or Woman be alone? But you misunderstand this place (as you do many others) For, my Lord Coke, if you observe him well, doth not there say, that such a Gift can be made with a Man alone, or with a Woman alone, But there tells you, that a gift in free-marriage may be either to a Man with a woman, or as some have held, to a Woman with a Man, and for proof there­of, cites Peter Saltmarsh his case, and Fitz-Herbert; And this is no more than what I said in the 49 Page of my former Book, where I also shewed you how Bracton did therewith accord; But there is none of them that saith as you do, That land may be given in Frank­marriage to a Man without a Woman, or to a VVoman without a Man.

In your 48 & 49 Pages, you would willingly perswade the Reader that [Page 60] Earl Randle de Gernoniis Father to Earl Hugh Cyveliok was Marryed by Robert Earl of Gloucester unto Maude his Daughter, thereby to draw him to the part of Queen Maude his Sister, about the very year 1139. before which time we find no mention in our antient Historians of Randle's acting against King Stephen, but in that very year we do, and then by some of them stiled Son-in-law to the Earl of Gloucester. But I pray you, VVhy is it not full as likely, that before that time, Randle de Gernoniis was Marryed to the Daughter of the said Earl of Gloucester, and thereby was the more easily drawn to that party, to which he stood so near related, as that, that match should be made purposely to draw him to that party? And how could you hear much of that Earl Randle's actings against King Stephen, before the year 1139? seeing Gervasius a Benedictine Monke of Canterbury (who lived in the Reign of King John) tells us, in his Chronicles or Annalls, col. 1345. l. 60. that it was in the year 1138, when Robert Earl of Gloucester did begin to quarrel with the said King Stephen.

And whereas you yet seem unsatis­fied that Earl Hugh was of such an age as probably to have had another Wife before Bertred, and do now say, p. 49. if we reckon by utmost possibilities, that Earl Hugh could not possibly be above six­teen or seventeen years older than Ber­tred; I do very much wonder thereat, seeing I have formerly from the Argu­ment which you used to prove it to be otherwayes, made it manifest, that he might possibly be several years above double her age, and that so clearly, that I am confident, no man besides your self, will offer to deny the same; For I then told you that whether the Marriage of Robert Earl of Gloucester with Mabill Daughter and heir of Ro­bert Fitz-Hamon was according to Sel­den in the year 1109. or according to Stow in the year 1110. the said Mabill might have Maude her second Daugh­ter in the year 1112, which Maude if she was Marryed to Earl Randle de Gernoniis in the year 1128, when she was sixteen years of age, might have her Son Hugh Cyvelick in the year 1129. which if true, the said Earl Hugh was [Page 62]fifty two years old at his death, For he died in the year 1181, and if so, then he was four years above twice the age of Bertred, For she was but Twenty four years old when the said Earl Hugh died, as appears, Rot. de Dominabus pue­ris, &c. in Scacc. penes Remem. R. sub Tit. Linc. Rot. 1. And it is certain, that the said Earl Hugh was Earl of Chester about four years before his VVife Bertred was born, besides what age he was of, when his Father died, and his Daughter A­micia was Married in his life time, and none knows how many years before his death. And if the Marriage of the said Robert Earl of Gloucester with the said Mabill was in the year 1109. then he might possibly be Five years above double the age of his VVife Bertred; And this is the more likely to be true, Because, though Mr. Selden be a later VVriter, than Mr. Stow is, yet Mr. Sel­den cites one that lived long before Mr. Stow, as will appear by the old English Rithmical Story, attributed to one Robert of Glocester, and recited in the 647. Page of Mr. Seldens Titles of Ho­nour.

In your Answer, pag. 50, 51, 52 & 53. you endeavor to weaken the Third and Fourth reasons which were brought as concurrent proof on the be­half of Amicia, by saying, that Hugh Cyveliok 's Wife was a witness to her Husbands Deed, which a Wife cannot now be, she being not capable to be a Wit­ness, either for or against her Husband, whereby you would insinuate a change of the Law in that particular from what it was formerly, and you also say, that if Hugh Cyveliok had had a former Wife, sure Raph Mainwaring would have called his Daughter after her, and not after the then Countess; And you there make nothing of Roger Main­waring's calling Randle Earl of Chester and Lincoln his Uncle in a Deed, nor of Henry de Audley's being a Witness to the Deeds of Randle Earl of Chester and Lincoln, and of Robert de Ferrars, (which later you say is far fetcht) nor of Raph Mainwarings and Roger Main­warings being Witnesses to so many Deeds of those that were Earles of Chester in their times.

But to these things, I say, that the Law is still the same as it was former­ly, in the particular by you here men­tioned; For, both antiently and at this day also, I know nothing that hinders, but that the Wife may sub­scribe as a Witness to a Deed which her Husband doth make, and though she neither antiently could, nor yet can be a witness for or against her Husband, yet there is this use of it, that if the Wife survive her Hus­band, and it come to be controverted amongst other parties, whether such a Deed was Sealed by him, or not, she in the time of her VVidowhood, may be a good VVitness for the pro­ving of the same.

And as to the calling of Sir Raph Mainwarings Daughter by the name of Bertred after the present Countess, and not after the name of Hugh Cyvelioks first VVife; That is no wonder at all, it being more ordinary to call Daugh­ters after their Godmothers Names, than after the names of their own Grandmothers, and especially when the Godmothers are of great quality; Now the said Amicia's Daughter being [Page 65]called Bertred (which is a very unusu­al name) it is more than probable, (ac­cording to what you expressed to me under your hand in April 1664.) that Bertred the Countess was Godmother to the said Bertred Mainwaring, And if so, it is very unlikely that Amicia was illegitimate; For VVives are seldome Godmothers to their Husbands Ba­stards, or to the Children of such Ba­stards.

Also, Sir Raph Mainwaring and Sir Roger Mainwaring and Henry de Aud­ley the Sou-in-law of the said Sir Raph Mainwaring being so often VVitnesses to the Deeds of the Earls of Chester, and to the Deeds of their very near Relations, doth certainly shew there was then a very great and constant in­timacy betwixt the said Families.

And though you pretend that Sir Raph Mainwaring was very conversant with the Earle, because he was Judge, and therefore came so often to be a VVitness, and say, that we may find the like number of Charters or more, to which Philip Orreby Judge of Chester was witness in like nature; I conceive that you are deceived therein, although [Page 66] Philip Orreby was Judge of Chester per­haps longer than Sir Raph Mainwa­ring was; For I do believe that I can make it to appear by what Deeds I have, and what Deeds I have seen of others, that Sir Raph Maeinwaring and his Son Sir Roger Mainwaring were wit­nesses to more Deeds of Hugh Cyvelioks and Randle Blundevil than any other persons of any one Family were; Add hereunto (which I have in my former Book mentioned) that Sir Roger Mainwa­ring in a Deed of his own calls Randle Earl of Chester and Lincoln his Ʋncle, and how I did there observe, that though the VVriters of Histories, did sometimes give to Bastards, the name of Cosen, Brother, Uncle, Son, and Daughter, I did believe you could hardly find any one that you could cer­tainly prove to be a Bastard, or the Son of a Bastard, that did presume in a Deed to call so great a person as the Earl of Chester was, his Brother or Un­cle, unless he came to be a very great Person himself; And this is so true, that in the 53 Page you are forced to con­fess that such Precedents are scant, but yet you think you have found one, [Page 76]viz. Randle de Estbury, or Astbury, who in a Deed mentioned in the Addenda of your Historical Antiquities is called, the Earl of Chester 's Nephew, and is put the last of all the witnesses, and was certainly but an ordinary Gentleman, nor Knight nor Lord. But this Precedent will fail you, for two Reasons, First, Be­cause you do as good as confess that you cannot prove him to be a Bastard, (and he might perhaps be a younger Brother, or Son of a younger Brother, and so not necessarily a Knight or a Lord) And Secondly. Because he doth not call himself the Earles Nephew, but is called so by others, and that is so far from contradicting, that it doth confirm what I said in my former Book; Also if you observe it, there were no VVitnesses to the said Deed, besides the said Randle de Astbury, except David de Malpas (whom I conceive was Ba­ron of Malpas) and William his Son.

And whereas you say, you should be glad to find out the Extraction of the said Randle de Astbury, if he were not a Ba­stard. Though it be perhaps impossi­ble now to tell you his Extraction cer­tainly, because he lived so long since, [Page 68]and we only find him mentioned as a witness in one Ded, Yet I doubt not but to satisfie the Reader, that he and his Father and Mother might all be Le­gitimate, For, (not to say, that he might be a Son of some other Daugh­ter of the said Hugh Cyveliok by his for­mer VVife) he might possibly be the Son of Roger, Son of Hugh Cyveliok; And I know no great reason why the said Roger should by you be suspected to be a bastard, For, you only find him (as appears by your Historical Antiqui­ties, p. 134. and in my First Book, p. 1.) mentioned as a Witness to a Deed of his Brother Randle 's, to the Abbey of Saint VVerburge: So that you conceive him to be a bastard, Because neither he, nor any issue-Male of his, succeeded in the Earldome of Chester after the death of Randle Blundevil, VVhereas the said Roger might be lawful, and be Father to this Randle de Astbury, and yet both he and the said Randle de Ast­bury might dye before the said Randle de Blundevil, For he lived very long, and was Earl of Chester above Fifty years; Also it is very strange, if Amicia was a Bastard, and the Father or [Page 69]Mother of the said Randle de Astbury was also a Bastard, that those Ba­stards could find none to call their Children after, but the then Countess, and the then Earl, For the Daughter of Amicia was called Bertred after Randle Blundevill's Mother, and Randle de Astbury was of the same Name with the said Earl; But admitting that the said Roger was a Bastard, Why might not Randle de Astbury however be his Son? and then, What necessity (of what you say in your Addenda) of either finding out another Base Son, or another Base Daughter of the said Hugh Cyveliok; But you have been ve­ry willing to charge him with many Bastards both Sons and Daughters, al­though I find no great Reason to sus­pect that he had any at all unless Pa­ganus de Milton, and it is possible in that case, you having neither the Deed, nor a Copy of the Deed by you, that you might take Hugh Cyveliok for Hugh Lupus, as well as in another Deed (as will anon appear) you did take Randle Blundevil for Randle de Gernoniis.

I am still of the same opinion that I was formerly of, viz. That Richard Bacuns Mother was not a Base Daugh­ter of Hugh Gyveliok, nor any Daugh­ter of his at all, but that she was daughter to Randle Meschines, and Si­ster to Randle de Gernoniis; And I think those reasons which I have gi­ven in my former Book do fully prove the same. And albeit you tell me in the 54, 55, and 56 pages of your latter Book, that truly I am deceived in it, yet I do not doubt but to satisfy all the world, that it is you (and not I) that are deceived therein; And whereas you say, it is true (as I observe) that there was no such Archbishop of York called Will. nor Bishop of Chester, whose Christian name began with R. both living at one time, either in the time of Randle de Blundevill or Randle de Gernoniis. I answer, I did make no such observa­tion at all, but the contrary, For, I shewed you that in the time of Randle de Gernoniis; William, Sisters Son to King Stephen, was Archbishop of York, for a time, viz. about 1142 or 1143. (though he was afterwards ousted of it [Page 71]again till 1152. or 1153.) and Roger Clinton was Bishop of Coventry and Litchfield, (which then was the same with the Bishop of Chester) from the year 1128, until the year 1148 or 1149. And I then also told you, that there was no William, Archbishop of York at anytime during the life of Randle Blun­devill, nor any man Bishop of Chester, whose Christian name began with R. except Richard Peche, who died about the time that Hugh Cyveliok died, viz. in 1182 (though some say, in 1181. and some in 1183.) at which time Ran­dle Blundevill could not be of age to Seal any kind of Deed, because Bertred the said Randle's Mother, was then but about Twenty five years old; and this Argument you perceive to be so strong against you in this point, that you have no way to avoid it, but by giving a strange answer to it, which is, that you do conceive the Roll from whence the Deed in Monasticon (Par. 2. Pa. 267.) is written, is mistaken in Will, and R. and miswrit therein from the Original Chart it self; Which liberty if a Man might take, he might answer any thing in the world; and your reason [Page 72]for so saying is, Because Richard Bacun in his said Deed doth say, that he had pro­cured the warranty of Randle Earl of Chester his Ʋncle, for the ratifying of that Grant; and the very next Deed fol­lowing in the Roll, and transcribed in the Monasticon, is the Deed of Randle Earl of Chester, with Confirmation and War­ranty accordingly, whereunto Roger La­cy, Constable of Cheshire is a witness, who only lived in the time of Randle Blundevill, and no other Earl of Che­ster, as I may see cleerly proved among the Barons of Halton in your Book, nor is there any other Deed of Confirmation and Warranty to be found by any Earl, save this; wherefore (you say) certainly it must be Randle Blundevil whom Ri­chard Bacun calleth Ʋncle in his own Deed of the Foundation of the said Prio­ry. And you also say, the Bishop of Che­ster ( being also Bishop of Litchfield and Coventry at that time) he was not then subject to the jurisdiction of York but Canterbury; and you also say, That there was no Archbishop of York called Will. nor Bishop of Chester, whose Chri­stian name began with R. both living at one time, either in the time of Randle [Page 73]Blundevill or Randle de Gernoniis, that you can find.

To which I answer, That it is not to be doubted, but that Richard Bacun did obtain the Warranty and Confir­mation of that Randle Earl of Chester, who was his Uncle, and then living; neither is it to be doubted, but that the Deed, to which Roger Constable of Cheshire was a witness, was the Deed of Randle Blundevil, I having proved it to be so, in the 56 page of my former Book, because Roger Constable of Cheshire was living in the time of no other Randle but Randle Blundevil, so that you did not need to send me to see that clearly proved among the Barons of Halton in your Book; but the Deed of Confirmation of that Earl who was Uncle of Richard Bacun, is not in the Monasticon, but was proba­bly lost, as many other antient Deeds were: and that Deed of Randle Blun­devill, which is there, is but another Deed of Confirmation, according to the mode of those times, when, it was usual to obtain such, from several Princes, several Generations one after [Page 74]another; and for proof hereof, I did desire you to read Monasticon Angli­canum, Par. 2 Pa. 24, and 25. where you might find King Henry the I. re­citing and confirming what had been given to the Priory of Huntendune, and pa. 27. how King Henry the III. did the like, and yet there was a greater space betwixt King Henry the I. and King Henry the III. than there was be­twixt Randle de Gernoniis and Randle de Blundevil; and very many others of the like nature, may be found, by those who will take the pains to make search in the several Monasticons.

Also, it is very strange, that you should fancy that the Roll, where the said Deed in Monasticon was written, should be mistaken both in Will. and R. especially since the word Will. was the first word in the said Deed; neither is it a badge of any mistake in the said Deed, because the Archbishop of York is named in it, though the Bishop of Chester (being at that time the same with the Bishop of Coventry and Litch­field) was not then subject to the Ju­risdiction of York, but Canterbury; For, [Page 75]the Archbishop of York was not named upon that account, but, because some of the places mentioned in the said Deed, were within the Province and Diocesse of York, as particularly Ro­sington was, it being within the West­riding of Yorkshire; but I suppose your principal reason why you suspect the Roll was mistaken is, because you say, there was no such Archbishop of York, cal­led Will. nor Bishop of Chester, whose Christian name began with R. both living at one time, either in the time of Randle Blundevill or Randle de Gernoniis, that you can find. Which saying of yours seems very strange to me, but I believe all your doubt is about the Will. that was Archbishop of York, because Dr. Heylin (a late Writer) in his Catalogue of Bishops doth not men­tion the said Williams being chosen Archbishop immediately upon the death of Thurstan; for I am consi­dent that you are well satisfied that Roger Clinton was Bishop of Chester (as appears by the Third Part of the Mo­nasticon, page 218. as also by Bishop Godwin, Jsaackson, Doctor Heylin, Sime­on Dunelmensis, Matt. Paris, and many [Page 76]other antient Authors) from about 1128. until about the year 1148. or 1149. which fell out to be in the time of Randle de Gernoniis, for he was Earl, (as appears in your Book) from about the year 1128, till about the year 1153. And I doubt not but to make it as clear, that a William was Archbishop of York in the time of the said Randle de Gernoniis and Roger Clinton, and though the said William was after­wards ousted, yet whilst he enjoyed that Archbishoprick, he was, and would in Deeds, and otherways, be owned as Archbishop of York;

Now that a William was Archbishop of York, in the time of the said Earl and the said Bishop, I have already shewed you in my former Book, out of Isaackson's Chronology, and shall thus make it further to appear;

If you look into Bishop Godwin's Catalogue of the Bishops of England, printed at London 1615, page 581. in the life of Heny Murdack, Archbishop of York, you may find him saying thus.

King Stephen had a kinsman named William, 1142. Stephen 8. ( that was Son unto Emma his Sister, by Earl Herbert) a Man no less noble in Mind and Vertue, then Stock and Lineage. He being Treasurer of York. was now elected unto the Archbishoprick, and having obtained Consecration also, sent to Rome for his Pall. His speed there was not so good as he looked for; by some Adversaries many ex­ceptions were taken against him, whereby it came to pass, not only his Suit was put off, and stayed for that time, but also Process awarded to ad­monish him to come thither in Person to answer the accusations laid against him. At his coming to Rome, he found his Adversaries many and Mighty. And among the rest it is remembred, that St. Bernard, then living, was very earnest against him. Eugenius the Pope, had been brought up in the Abbey of Clareual under St. Bernard, together with Henry Murdac, whom Williams adversaries had set up to be a Suiter for his Archbishoprick. The Pope being thus carried away with the per­swasion [Page 78]of his old Acquaintance, and some shew of matter, was content to deprive William, and to place Henry Murdac in his room, whom he caused to be Consecrated presently, and sent him home into England with his Pall. King Stephen hearing this Newes, was much grieved with the disgrace of his Nephew, which all Men judged unde­served. Therefore He stood upon Termes with the new Arch-bishop, and required him to Swear unto Him fealty in some extraordinary manner; and when he denyed, easily took occasion of displeasure against him. The Townsmen of York that loved Wil­liam exceedingly for his Gentleness and Vertuous behaviour amongst them; hearing how the King was affected; re­fused to receive Murdac into their Ci­ty. For this resistance he suspended them: which notwithstanding, Eustach the King's Son, commanded Service to be said as at all other times was accu­stomed. By means hereof, as also by reason that the King's Officers were very terrible and heavy enemies unto all that had laboured for the Depri­vation of William: Seditions and Tu­mults [Page 79]were daily raised in the City, amongst which a certain Archdea­con, a Friend of the Archbishop, was slain. Two or three years these stirs continued, till at last, the Kings wrath (by means) being ap­peased, York-men were content to re­ceive their Archbishop peaceably. He governed very austerely the space of ten years, dyed Octob. 14. 1153. at Sherborne, and was buryed in his Ca­thedral Church. And when Bishop Godwin hath thus said, he presently af­ter tells you, how the said William (there called Saint William) after the death of Henry Murdac was again re­stored to the said Archbishoprick.

Also, if you look in John Brompton's Chronicon, col. 1028. l. 63. in the life of King Stephen, you may find him thus saying;

See also the said Brompton to the same purpose, Col. 1041. l. 10.

Also Roger Hoveden who lived in the time of King Henry the Second, King Richard the First, and King John; in the First Part of his Annalls, Printed [Page 81]at Frankfort 1601. Page 490. l. 51. writes thus of the Restitution of the said William, eodem anno obiit Henri­cus Eboracensis Archiepiscopus, quo de­functo, Willielmus Archiepiscopus, quem Papa Eugenius suspenderat, Romam pro­fectus est, & invenit gratiam apud Ana­stasium Papam, & redditus est ei Ar­chiepiscopatus Eboracensis. And I think it is not to be doubted, though I have not yet found the place, but that the said Hoveden doth speak of his being chosen after the death of Thurstan, be­cause Isaakson in his Chronology, cites Hoveden for what he there sayes, but he names not the Pages.

Also, Thomas Stubbs (a Domini­can) writing of the Archbishops of York, col. 1721. l. 15. thus sayes,

And there he also after speaks of the Restauration of the said William to the said Archbishoprick: so that it seems by this Author that the said William held the said Archbisho­prick upon his first election, till after the deaths of Pope Innocent the Se­cond, Pope Celestine the Second, and Pope Lucius the Second, viz. till about the year 1146. but was then ousted by Pope Eugenius, and restored again by Pope Anastasius, after the death of Henry Murdac about the year 1153.

Also Gulielmus Neubricensis, who li­ved in the Raignes of King Richard the First, and King John, page 368. l. 10. thus writes,

So also Gervasius a Benedictine Monk of Canterbury, who lived in the time of King John, Col. 1357. l. 52. in the year 1142. thus sayes,

Also, Radulsus de Diceto, who was Dean of Pauls, and lived in the time of [Page 85]King John, Col. 508. l. 11. thus writes, Thurstino Eboracensi archiepiscopo suc ces­sit Willielmus.

Also, Matt. Paris (who lived in the time of King Henry the Third) in his Greater History put out by Doctor Watts, Page 78. sayes thus in the year 1139. Tune defuncto Turstano Eboracensi Ar­chiepiscopo, Willielmus ejusdem Ecclesiae Thesaurarius successit.

Also, Simeon Dunelmensis, a Bene­dictine Monk, who lived in the Raign of King Stephen, and in the time of the said William, Col. 79. l. 39. speaking of the Archbishops of York, thus sayes; Post Oswaldum isti sibi ordine successe­runt, Aldulfus, Vulstanus, Eelfricus, Kinsius, Aldredus, Thomas Girardus, Thomas, Turstinus, Willielmus, Hen­ricus, Rogerus; There placing the aforesaid William before Henry Mur­dac.

And John Prior of Hagulstald, in his Continuation of the History of the said Simeon, Col. 268. l. 41. thus writes; Anno M.C. xlii. Post mortem Turstini archiepiscopi clerici Eboracen­ses secundum desideria cordis sui varia [Page 86]& vaga sententia circumacti fuerant to­to anno super electione facienda. Ele­gerant autem persuadente legato Henri­co Wintoniae nepotem Regis Stephani Henricum de Coilli. Qui quia praefuit abbatiae Kadomensi, noluit dominus apo­stolicus eum praefici archiepiscopatui nisi renunciaret priori honori. Mense Janua­rio iterum de electione tractantes, in per­sonam Willielmi Thesaurarii plurimi con­senserunt. And presently after, l. 60. further sayes, Perductum itaque electum ad Lincolniam rex libenter suscepit, & in terris & possessionibus Eboracensibus confirmavit.

Now though a lesser number of Au­thors might have served to prove that there was a William Archbishop of York, living in the time both of Randle de Gernoniis and Roger Clinton, yet I thought fit to cite all these, to let the world see that it was nothing else, which made you that you could not find it to be so, but because you would not find it to be so; For, I know, you have most (if not all) of the said Au­thors, and if you would have made search, you might easily have found what is here said.

But besides what is here alleadged, if you had but observed those Deeds of Richard Bacun and Randle Blundevil which are mentioned Monasticon An­glicanum, Part 2. Page 267 & 268. and the Deeds of Randle de Gernoniis that are in your own Historical Antiquities, you would easily have known that the said Richard Bacun did live in the time of the said Randle de Gernoniis; For to the said Deed of Richard Bacun, Hugo Wac, Willielmus Constabularius de Donington, Thurstanus Banastre, Wil­lielmus Bacoun, Robertus Bacoun, Willi­elmus de Colevile, Richardus Pincerna, Willielmus de Binulle, Galfridus Dispen­sarius, Willielmus Capellanus, and Jo­hannes Capellanus are Witnesses: and to the said Deed of Randle Blundevil, Ro­gerus Constabularius Cestriae, Rogerus de Montealto Seneschallus Cestriae, Simon de Kyma, Thomas Dispensarius, Simon de Thochet, Willielmus de Hardreshulle, Hugo de Nevilla, Henricus de Longo Campo, Philippus de Horreby, Sampson Prior de Trentham, and Thomas Clericus are wit­nesses.

Now as it would appear probable [Page 88](if there were nothing else in the case) that this Deed of Richard Bacun was not made in the time of Randle Blun­devil, because there is not any one person a witness to the said Deed of Richard Bacun, who was a wit­ness to the said Deed of Randle Blundevil (or to any other Deed of his, that I can find) So it certainly appears from your Historical Antiquities, that those who were witnesses to Richard Bacuns said Deed, did live in the time of Earl Randle de Gernoniis, and not in the time of Randle Blundevil; For, as you may there see, Page 126 & 127. in the Deed made by Henry Duke of Nor­mandy, to the said Randle de Gernoniis, the aforesaid Hugh Wac, and Richard Pincerna were then witnesses on the behalf of the said Randle, also Page 128. to one Deed of the said Randle, the said William Colevile was a witness, and to another of the said Randle's Deeds the said Willielmus Capellanus and Ri­chardus Pincerna were witnesses, and Page 160 & 161. to another Deed of the said Randle de Gernoniis the said Thurstan Banaster, Richard Pincerna, and William the Chaplain were witnesses; [Page 89]and so also the said Richard Pincerna, Thurstanus Banaster, and Willielmus Ca­pellanus were witnesses to another Deed of the said Randle de Gernoniis concerning Neither-Whitley, mentioned by you, Page 387. Though you there run upon a mistake, and say that Ran­dle Blundevil made that Deed, which cannot be, Because those witnesses (as appears before) did live in the time of Randle de Gernoniis, and not in the time of the said Randle Blundevil, they be­ing no witnesses at any time to any Deed of Randle Blundevils that I can find, although he was Earl of Chester above fifty years, so that nothing can possibly be more clear than this is.

As to the word aspersed which you fault me for using, I do not apprehend that it signifies a malicious seeking to throw dirt in anothers face unjustly; For, to asperse, properly signifies but to besprinkle, with which, malice will seldom rest satisfied: and I will do you this right, to declare that I believe it is not malice, but a desire to divulge your supposed new Discovery, which occasioned you thus to do.

That way of Arguing which you use in the 57 Page is very odd; For, Because you suppose the Respondent will deny your Minor, you would have him give over answering, and turn Opponent, and so endeavour to dis­prove what you ought to prove; But what you say, Page 58. that you have proved Amicia to be a Bastard, un­less Hugh Cyveliok had a former Wife, and also Page 59. that if he had no other Wife but Bertred, and she no Daughter to Bertred, then certainly if she be a Daughter and so called, she must needs be a Bastard, is undoubtedly true; For Amicia must needs be a bastard, un­less she was legitimate.

You grant in your 59 Page, That my proving Amicia to be called a daughter so long since, she ought to be presumed legitimate, till the con­trary appear; But why therefore do not you presume her so to be? And though you pretend there are many strong reasons to the contrary, yet I have shewed the invalidity of them all, and therefore what I have formerly [Page 91]said stands good, and is to the point, viz. That the proving that she was not by Bertred, does not prove that she was a bastard, but onely proves that she was either a bastard, or by a for­mer wife.

And as to what you alleadg, Page 60. that, though the Law allowes not this in pleadings, what hinders but Bastardy may be proved by History or Argumentation af­ter the parties death? As, supppose in a Register-Book you find such a Bastard Christened one hundred yeares ago, may not you justly call that person a bastard, whom you find so Registred? I do an­swer and say, That even in that case, though it be good proof, that there was then a Bastard of that name, yet if in any Deed (or otherwayes) in the same Age you find one of that name, you are not to be too positive that that Man was that Bastard, because, there might be more persons than one of the same Name, whose Fathers might also be of the same Name each with other; and though these mistakes might easi­ly be cleared by the party concerned whilst he was alive, yet it may be dif­ficult [Page 92]sometimes to do it after he is dead: And that is (as I suppose) one reason why the Law gives no liberty to prove Bastardy against any Man af­ter his death. But the cases of the children of John of Gaunt by Katherine Swynford are not like to this case, For you certainly know that they were born Bastards, but afterwards legiti­mated; and I think, after their legiti­mation, they might have had the same remedies against any that did call them Bastards, that persons lawfully born might have.

Whereas I tell you out of Sir Henry Spelman, that in cases of honor and profit (by the customes of Normandy) appella­tione filiorum non comprehenduntur ba­stardi; You answer and say; that in other cases, and formerly by the appellation of sons, bastards were comprehended, and that this makes directly against me; But how this makes against me, in what cases soever bastards were formerly compre­hended by the appellation of Sons and Daughters, if they were not compre­hended in cases of honour and profit, I cannot tell, feeing that Amicia is cal­led [Page 93]a Daughter, and that in a case of so great profit, that you will needs have it to be her whole Portion.

And whereas you mention the next words of Spelman, viz. that the anci­ent Northern people admitted bastards to succeed in their inheritance; and that William the Conquerour was not ashamed of that title, who began his Letter to Alan Earl of Little-Britaine as he did many others, Ego Willielmus cognomen­to Bastardus.

I do not know how you can apply those expressions to the case in hand, and if you could, they would make against you; For, when Bastard chil­dren were so much esteemed, as to be admitted to succeed in the inheritance, then certainly illegitimate Daughters would have great Portions as well as those that were legitimate, And why should not Amicia, if she was a Bastard, be so called, as well as Paganus was? (who, as you say, was the Son of Hugh Cyveliok) Or why should Hugh Cyve­liok himself, be more ashamed to call her so, than William the Conqueror was to stile himself a Bastard:

What else you have said, Page 61, 62 & 63. hath been said over and over again by you, and hath formerly received a full Answer.

In the 64 & 65 Pages you recite and endeavour to fortifie an Argument of mine, which I brought not as a good Argument, but compared it to one of yours, to shew the invalidity thereof; neither did I at all doubt, but that Wil­liam, Randle and Wydo (Sons of the aforesaid Roger Mainwaring) were all legitimate, it being good proof there­of, that in so antient a Record, they are all three called Sons of the said Ro­ger; But I shewed you by the Rule by which you went viz. that none should be believed lawfull, unless we could directly and in terminis prove their Fa­thers to be married, that the said Willi­am, Randle, and Wido, and most per­sons that lived in the First and Second Centuries might be concluded to be Bastards; And though you tell me, that I here argue well (which must needs be, because this Argument of mine is so like to yours) and that you would say to [Page 95]my Minor, that Roger had a Wife though we yet know not who she was; and that this appears certainly, because the Lands descended from heir to heir, and that you tell me, how you would frame your affirmative part more formally; Yet in stead of trying whether you could in terminis prove (which by this your Rule you ought to do) whether Wil­liam who was the eldest of the three Sons of the said Roger, was his lawful Son, or but a bastard, you beg what you should prove, and take it for granted that he was the Son and Heir, and say, that if the Son and Heir of Ro­ger succeeded by descent in his Fathers Inheritance, then Roger had a Wise; whereas if William was the Son and Heir of Roger, the said Roger his Fa­ther must needs have a Wife, whether­soever William succeeded in the Inhe­ritance by descent, or was disinheri­ted; For, none but a lawful Son, can be a Son and Heir; and the same que­stion you beg, when you pretend ( p. 65.) to prove the sequel of your Major. For in that Argument you say, Ergo, if the Son and Heir of Roger succeeded by descent in the Inheri­tance, [Page 96]then Roger must needs have a Wife, and nothing appears here of a [...]al settlement; But besides you begging of the Question, the only reason which you bring to prove the said William did succeed by descent (and by consequence that his Father was Marryed) is, betause, nothing appears here of a special settlement; But this is not a proving certainly and in terminis that the said Roger had a Wife, for though no special settlement doth appear yet, if we must be tyed to this your way of proving, William might possibly be a Bastard, and might come in by special settlement, though the said settlement be now lost; So that this retorted Argument is but weakly answered.

What you say, Page 66, 67, 68 & 69, is but what you have formerly said and I have abundantly answered, and your alleadging that Amicia be­ing of the first venter, is therefore more worthy than those of the second, is sufficiently confuted by those words of mine, which you repeat in your 70 Page; For though it be true that if a [Page 97]Man die, and leave only Daughters, which are by several Wives, that those of the first venter, shall be more wor­thy than those of the second, yet if a Brother dye (as in this case) and have no issue of his own, nor any Bro­ther, but only leave Sisters, which were by two several venters, if that Brother was of the second venter, (as Randle Blundevile was) then those Si­sters that were of the second venter, shall be preferred before those of the first, Because, those were of the whole blood to their Brother, whereas the Sisters by the first venter were but of the half blood.

What you alleadge, Page 71, 72 & 73, doth not prove that Earl Hugh's Grant, was a Release of the Service of one Knights-Fee; But that, and all the rest in those Pages (as you truly say) being nothing to the argument in hand, I will not trouble my self or the Reader therewith: Only let me ob­seve, that there is no probability at all, but that Sir Raph Mainwaring had a farr greater Portion with his VVife than those Services; For, the having [Page 98]the service of three Knights-Fees, do­ing the service of two Knights-fees, was in effect the having the service but of one Knights-Fee, and as I told you in my former Book, was not a Portion suitable to the Estate of a very mean Gentleman; so that it was certainly a free-gift of the said Earl, after the said Marriage was past and consum­mated; And that Grant to him is so far from proving, that he had no greater Portion, that you your self, when you are told, 'tis like he had a great deal more, do confess ( Page 71.) it may be so, What then? And if it be so, that he had a greater Portion, and it doth not appear how much that Portion was, you can raise no Argu­ment from thence, so that this your second Reason is very invalid.

Also it is very probable that the Lordship of Henbury in Cheshire might be part of the Portion of the said Amicia; For as appears in your Histo­rical Antiquities, Page 107. Henbury was one of those Towns which Hugh Lu­pus held in Demaine, And I do not find that any Mainwaring was possessed thereof, before Sir Raph Mainwaring, [Page 99]who was Husband to the said Amicia neither have I ever yet seen or heard of any Record or Deed which shews how Henbury first came to the Mainwa­rings.

And whereas you tell me, ( Page 74, when you speak of your Third and last Reason) that I might have done well to have answered your first Reason better; I shall appeale to the Reader, whether your Third Reason, which you your self confess not to be evincing, be not as strong as your first, and upon the matter the same with it; as also, whether I have not given both your first and third Rea­sons a very full answer, in the 62, 63, 66 & 67 Pages of my former Book, and therefore it will not be taken off with­out better reason given by you, then your bare denying it to be a substan­tial Answer; So that all your three Reasons against Amicia, are of no weight at all.

Also, what I have there said will give full satisfaction to the Question you did please to ask, viz. Whether I [Page 100]find that the Historians have left out any of Earl Hughes legitimate Children, except this whom I suppose to be legiti­mate? For, those Historians only ta­king upon them to Record who were heires to Randle Blundevil; If Hugh Cyveliok had had never so many Daugh­ters by his former Wife, they would ne­ver have taken notice of any of them.

And whereas you observe, Page 75. How I say, that Mr. Cambden hath mentioned Amicia, though not among the Coheires, yet without the brand of a Bastard, and do reply, that I know well that he is but of late standing, and not an Historian contemporary with A­micia, and that you and I do also menti­on her. It is very strange that you should thus say, whereas the only rea­son why I did speak of Mr. Cambden, was, because, you had said, That he was one of those Historians who had taken no notice of the said Amicia, and I onely named him to shew you your mistake therein.

The rest which you say in the 75 & 76 Pages, is but what you have [Page 101]formerly said, and hath received an answer before.

In your 77, 78 & 79 Pages, you are also so far from answering that Argument of mine, which is con­tained between the 69 & 75 Pages of my former Book, that that which you pretend to be an Answer (if rightly understood) is the very Ar­gument which I there frame against you; For, though what you say, Page 78. be true, that sometimes the Justice is put after the Constable and Dapifer, and sometimes before the Constable and Dapifer, yet all the Ju­stices of Chester, except Sir Ralph Mainwaring, are named in the Charts of the Earles of Chester, af­ter the Constable and Dapifer, and are also named after the Constable and Dapifer, when they were witnesses to any Deeds; But it is only in the time of the said Sir Ralph Mainwaring, when the Justice is named before the Constable and Dapifer, in the Charts of the said Earles, and it is only he who is named as a witness, and that frequently before the Constable and [Page 102] Dapifer, as I have proved by seve­ral Deeds, which I then mention­ed both out of your former Book, and elsewhere, and doth also fur­ther appear by another Deed in your Historical Antiquities, Page 205. where the said Sir Ralph Mainwaring is also named as a Witness before the then Dapifer, Ralph de Montealto; And this respect was shewed to the said Sir Ralph Mainwaring, although, as you may see in your said Book, Page 160 & 161. that the Constable by Charter was to go next the Earl, and had his office in Fee, and that the Steward was to go next af­ter the Constable, and had his Office also in Fee; But when Philip Or­reby, who did succeed the said Sir Ralph Mainwaring, was Justice of Chester, then, according to the old usual way, as appeares in the 162. Page of your First Book, the Con­stable and Dapifer were again named in the Earles Chart before the Ju­stice of Chester, and also as you may see at the bottom of the 144 Page, and the top of the 145 Page of your said Book, the said Constable was [Page 103]named as a Witness before Philip de Orreby, though then Justice of Chester; And I believe you cannot shew any Chart of any of the Earles of Chester, in which any other Justice of Chester had the like preeminence; neither do I think you can shew any Deeds in which any other Justice is named as a Witness before the Constable or Dapifer, and if any such single pre­cedent can perchance be found, I am confident it will prove to be a Deed wherein the said Philip de Orreby is named as a Witness, and was occa­sioned by the simplicity of the Clark, who did write the said Deed, who finding Sir Ralph Mainwaring Justice of Chester (the immediate Predeces­sor of the said Philip de Orreby) to be written as a Witness before the Constable and Dapifer, might there­upon think that Philip de Orreby should also be so placed; But it appeares by the aforesaid proofes, and by several other Deeds, that it was not allowed to the said Philip; And although you truly object, in the 78 Page, How great the uncertainty of subscription of [Page 104]Witnesses was in old Deeds, sometimes putting one before another in one Deed, and after putting the same person after the other in another Deed; yet, that will be nothing in this case; for, you your self confess, Page 160 & 161. of your Historical Antiquities; notwithstand­ing the uncertainty of subscription of Witnesses, that after certain Offices were annexed to certain Barons, that the mat­ter was without controversie (as to the Constable and Dapifer) and that the Con­stable of Cheshire in Fee carried it clear by his Office, which was annexed to his Barony, and that the Steward was the next after him; And therefore this preeminence being thus given to the said Sir Ralph, and to him onely; and he also, so farr as I have found, being ever named before all the other Ba­rons of Cheshire, after he had Married the said Amicia, as well when he had parted with his Office of Justice, as before; I think I may still say, it will be difficult to give a Reason thereof, if he did not Marry a lawful daugh­ter of the aforesaid Earl.

I have now done, but cannot con­curr with you, that the Honour of our Grandmother (the Mother of A­micia) is a trivial thing; However, I am glad to Read, That you take your leave for ever of this Controversie, because I hope all occasion of future Contest will be thereby taken away betwixt You and Him who is,