A REPLY TO Sr. Thomas Manwaring's ANSWER TO MY TWO BOOKS Written by Sr. Peter Leycester Baronet Anno Domini 1675. The Second REPLY Together with the Case of Amicia truly Stated LONDON Printed in the Year 1676. THE PREFACE TO THE READER I Received on the 13th of April 1675. a very strange kind of Book from Sir Thomas Manwaring then delivered unto me by his Servant wherein I expected a Book of Arguing to the point of the Controversie between us But behold a book of Railing catching as his usual manner is at every small impertinent thing That I may the sooner come to the Book it self I shall observe only out of his Epistle this one thing How he minceth the Truth in telling the Reader that my Servant did by my Command signifie unto him in a Letter that I would write again and this before Sir Thomas had Printed one word of his Reply So that if he find me thus Stumbling at the first it is well if he do not take me oft Tripping before I come to my Journeys end Whereunto I say that he deals not clearly in his words and declareth not the whole Truth For it is true that I did command my Servant to write unto him but what did I command him to write Was it barely that I would then write again No but to let him know that I had then found some new Precedents which I conceived would clear the point between us and came to my knowledge since I had published my Answer of which I thought good to give him timely notice that I would add them to my Answer already Printed which were omitted therein and this before his Reply was Printed as Sir Thomas here confesseth This was rather an amendment of my former book then writing again de novo for as yet he had published no book against it but this part of the Truth he conceals and if my Servant writ otherwise than to this effect I utterly disown it to be written by my command But before I could get my Addenda Printed he Published a Reply to my Answer wherein were so many Crimes charged upon me that I was forced to a Vindication of my self which I did then put into my Addenda yet not so fully as I might have done See my Addenda p. 8. and also p. 27. And whatsoever I have also written more then what I first intended and declared I have been forced thereunto in my own defence And so I will now briefly come to his Book and hope to shew clearly who Trips most in the Journey he or I and wherein I do Trip it shall be readily confest I think mine will not be found many nor material to the main point but I believe his will be found Fundamental Errors And I could wish that Sir Thomas would as freely confess his Trips as I shall confess mine then the whole business would soon be at an end And herein I shall endeavour all along to avoyd all abloquies wherewith he adoundeth as much as I can for Calumnies and Slanders will find no place among Wise and Good Men and are ever inconsistent with those excellent Christian Graces of Humility and meekness Mobberly May the 18th 1675. A Second Reply Pag. 1. Of his Answer to my two Books HEre he saith that I affirm several times that Glanvil saith that Lands may be given with any Woman in liberum maritagium whereas he saith only they may be given cum quâlibet muliere in maritagium My Reply I did and do yet affirm it and have proved it too see pag. 54. of my former Reply which yet he hath not answered nor do I believe that he can rationally answer my Argument there For though Glanvil hath not these very words Lands may be given with any Woman in liberum maritagium yet he saith it by Consequence drawn clearly out of his words lib. 7. cap. 18. which is the same in effect Nor doth Sir Thomas repeat Glanvil's words aright and yet he is ready upon all occasions to tax me with the like the words of Glanvil lib. 7. cap. 1. are quilibet liber homo terram habens quandam partem terrae sua cùm filiâ suâ vel cum aliquâ aliâ qualibet muliere potest dare in maritagium c. not barely cùm qualibet muliere Pag. 2. Of his Answer to my two Books Here he saith I tell him that I have proved Geva to be a Bastard out of an Historian Contemporary by which Ordericus Vitalis is meant and yet Ordericus saith no such thing My Reply 'T is true I said so and have proved it too See my Answer to his Defence of Amicia pag. 34 35. for though he hath not these very words Geva is a Bastard yet by sure Consequence it follows out of the words of Ordericus that she was a Bastard which is all to one effect and here is another trip of a fallacy in Sir Thomas Pag. 2. Of his Answer to my two Books 1. Here he also saith that I affirm the Common Law is now altered otherwise than by Act of Parliament without quoting any Author 2. And also that I brag of several Precedents where Lands were given in free Marriage with Bastards and yet I prove not these necessary words of liberum maritagium as the Lord Cook calls them were used in any of those grants or that any of those Persons with whom such Lands were given were Bastards My Reply Here is another Trip of Sir Thomas for I have quoted the Lord Cook himself in several Cases for it See my Answer to his Defence of Amicia pag. 23 24 25 26. and yet he is not ashamed to say here I quoted no Author for it And I could yet produce a number of Cases more wherein the Law is altered without any Act of Parliament if it were necessary 2. To the Second I produced those ancient precedents to show that those words in liberum maritagium were not anciently so necessary in grants of free Marriage as the Lord Cook would now have them to be and then Sir Thomas saith that I have not proved any of those Persons with whom such Lands were given in free Marriage were Bastards Sit liber judex as to that of Geva See also my former Reply pag. 38. where Joan Princess of Wales is clearly proved to be a Bastard by the Testimony of most of our Historians but none saying she was a lawful Daughter and that she had Lands given her in free Marriage by King John her Father See my Advertisement to the Reader at the end of my two said Books also my Addenda pag. 3 4. and my former Reply pag. 25. Pag. 3. Of his Answer to my two Books Here he saith I tell him Lewellyn Prince of North-Wales was Divorced from his Wife Joan for which I can neither shew Author nor Record My Reply I do not positively affirm it the words in my former Reply pag. 44. are these if she were Re-married to Audley anno 14.
other Judges in those Ages Surely it was Anciently used for any of our Judges Glanvil mentioning the form of Original Writs hath it thus quod sit coram me vel Justitiis meis So also Hoveden and other of our ancient Historians used Capitalis Justitia Angliae for the chief Justice of England But Bracton compiling a Book of the body of our Law in Latin under King Henry the third he changed the word Justitiis into Justiciariis and setteth down the writs accordingly coram Justiciariis nostris Since which time in all Writs and Commissions upon Record they have been stiled Justitiarij Lamberds Eirenarcha lib. 1. cap. 1. And then for his profound Observation that Justitia is here of the Masculine Gender according to the Rule Mascula nomina in a dicuntur multa virorum Yet he hath left out three or four of the next words following which might fitly have been added to that book of his Ut scriba assecla scurra rabula But now for the words of the Deed It is certain that here Earl Randle calls the Judge of Chester my chef Justice and the words of the Deed before-mentioned I conceive runs thus in English That the said Andrew and his Heirs should not Answer concerning any Suit or Complaint entered in the City of Chester or without either in my presence or in the presence of my chief Justice And it is a rare precedent without a Parallel I believe in this kind that the Earl here calleth him my chief Justice undoubtedly for some reason here intended and but accidentally neither possibly in distinction from the Judges of his inferiour Courts for certainly they were never called chief Justices of Chester in those Ages by common appellation as at this day they be called neither then were there more Judges of Chester than one at a time nor doth this example prove it otherwise nor is the Judge here stiled Chief Justice of Chester only the Earl here calls him my Chief Justice speaking as it were in his own person nor will this at all excuse the errour and vain glory of Sir Thomas speaking so of Rafe Manwaring and calling him as at this day we call the Senior Judge of Chester it was a Trip it overslipt him but he will seldom acknowledge any errour Again This Deed was made between the year 1188. and 1200. for all that while Randle Earl of Chester assumed the Title of Duke of Little-Brittain in France which Title we see he had given to him in this Deed But it cannot be firmly collected that Ralf Manwaring was Judge of Chester at that very time when this Deed was made for he is there subscribed by the name of Ralf Manwaring only not stiled Radulfo Manwaring Justiciario Cestriae there as he is in many other Deeds and as he and all others were usually stiled while they were Judges and what Sir Thomas would stretch to have it so out of my Historical Antiquities it will not certainly follow out of my Notes that Ralf Manwaring was Judge of Chester all that time from 1188. till Philip Orreby was Judge there nor especially all the time while Randle was Duke of Brittain and therefore Sir Thomas cannot certainly conclude as he doth pag. 34. that Rafe Manwaring was Judge at that very time when that Deed was made Pag. 35. to pag. 41. are things not worthy my taking notice of nor pertinent to the main point and have all formerly in my other books been Answered by me over and over again and therefore I shall here pass them by although if I would cavil as Sir Thomas doth at every pidling thing I could find many errors therein Pag. 43. Of his Answer to my two Books Here he saith he is very confident Sir Peter cannot prove that persons who were under age did then use to joyn with their Mothers and to give away their Lands of Inheritance 2. And then after a long harangue and writing down of Mr. Selden's words which I had before cited he saith pag. 45. which is all the Answer he gives to my Precedent that is material that Earl Richard confirmed the Hyde of Land which Droco de Andeleia had given to Abbington-Church and a little after addeth what is this to the Case of Hugh Cyvelios who did pass away Stivinghale to the Bishop of Chester and his Successors for ever My Reply I say it is the very self-same Case one as the other for Earl Richard and Earl Hugh do both joyn with their respective Mothers both under Age but now forsooth the difference he would put is this that the one confirms another man's grant the other grants away certain Lands for ever I would fain know if a grant of Lands for ever by one under Age and joyning with his Mother be invalid why a confirmation of Lands by one under age also and joyning with his Mother would not be invalid likewise but this confirmation of Lands for ever held firm and the Lands continued to the Church of Abbington accordingly So we see how he doubts not but what is there said will give all men satisfaction without rendring any Reason at all of the difference in those two Cases And I am very confident Earl Hugh could not be twelve years old when he joyned with his Mother in the Grant of Stivinghale and if the grant were made about the year 1156. to wit about two or three years after his Fathers death I rather think that Earl Hugh was not above eight years old when he joyned in that Grant But certainly Sir Thomas is far wide when he saith pag. 45. that Earl Hugh was old enough to take Melyeneth-Castle anno 1142. or that he was 23. years old Anno. 1153. in which year his Father dyed most absurd and without any ground at all But since I writ this second Reply I have received a sure Record that proves Earl Hugh could not be above three or four years old at the death of his Father Anno 1153. and will lay asleep for ever all those false suppositions of Earl Hugh's Age whereof see more in my Peroratio ad Lectorem at the end of this my second Reply Pag. 46. Of his Answer to my two Books Here he tells the Reader that I gave him a Pedegree of the Barons de Monte alto In which I make the first Robert de Monte alto who I said lived in King Stephen's time to have Issue two Sons Rafe and Robert who were afterwards successively Stewards of Cheshire all which saith he is certainly true I could wish he would as ingeniously confess all other truths alledged by me and then he writeth out a Deed of Hugh Cyvelioc Earl of Chester out of my Historical Antiquities whereunto Robertus Dapifer de Monte-alto was a Witness 1. And then pag. 48. he saith this must needs be the first Robert de Monte-alto and if this Deed of Earl Hugh was made immediately before the death of this Robert then Earl Hugh was a great deal
add for my self that in my Answer to his Defence of Amicia I think no man can shew me any one uncivil expression in the whole book but afterwards when he had in his following books taxed me unjustly in many things and carped at every thing in mine Pertinent or Impertinent I confess I was more severe in my expressions in my latter books but he led the way what I have said was but in vindication of my self for my Reputation is as dear to me as his can be to him and though my expressions sometimes may seem tart yet not so opprobrious neither as he makes them had he kept close to the point and avoided his Calumnies and Cavils and confest his Errors more ingeniously throughout I should neither have had occasion to retort nor have Answered to them And what I have written above my first intention he hath forced me thereunto But now he will appear no more in Print against me if what I shall write hereafter be no more to the purpose than what I have said in those two last books Whereunto I say that for certain there is so much already said to the purpose in them as is not yet solidly and substantially answered by him and herein I submit my self to all Ingenious Readers Mobberley May 28 1675. PERORATIO AD LECTOREM SInce I writ this Second Reply I am credibly informed that Sir Thomas did write to some of his Friends about May or June Anno Domini 1675. to this or the like effect I hope now the Contest between Sir Peter and me will be at end for Mr. Dugdale in his Baronage of England page 41. hath delivered his Opinion on my side and Sir Peter having appealed to the Judges Mr. Dugdale thereupon did move them in the Case and they upon mature debate determined that Amicia was no Bastard I have seen his last Sheet which I have Answered but shall not yet Print it 1. This Letter was shewed up and down Chester purposely to delude the easie multitude for since he cannot demonstrate or support the legitimacy of Amitia either by good Reason or Authority Sir Thomas used this secret practice to gain a belief of his Cause as supported by Opinions whereas in truth there is no such thing as a mature debate by our Reverend Judges in the Case of Amicia for as yet the Case in Law is not agreed upon by both sides how then can there be a mature debate or determination of the Controversie for Sir Thomas faith in his Answer to my two books pag. 61. that the point must be otherwise proved than by such a frivolous question as mine is and a little before pag. 60. he saith that in the Epistle Dedicatory wherein I appeal to the Judges I do not put the question aright whereas there can be no other point of Law to be resolved as to the Controversie in hand but this Whether Lands in those elder Ages might and did Lawfully pass with Bastards in libero maritagio or no That they might and did so pass I have before in my other Books clearly proved as well by the very words of Glanvil himself and the Law then no where disallowing the same as also by three sure Precedents of those Ages But because Sir Thomas takes this upon trust from Mr. Dugdale I shall here in publick unmask that Letter more fully to the undeceiving of all men 2. As to the Opinion of Mr. Dugdale it is true he hath delivered his opinion for the Legitimacy of Amicia in his Book of the Baronage of England newly Published Tom. 1. pag. 41. And it is no more than what Sir Thomas formerly told us in his books That he was of that judgment before he published his said book of the Baronage What then many very wife and knowing men have declared their Opinions with me that she was a Bastard both Divines and Lawyers and other grave and understanding men but I shall examine these things more particularly 3. And in the first place I shall always desire to be understood without the least detraction from the honour and due praise of Mr. Dugdale of whom I have ever had a good esteem as a most diligent and indefatigable searcher of the Records and Antiquities of our Nation Sed Bernardus non videt omnia nor should I now have mentioned him at all for his opinion herein but that Sir Thomas Manwaring brings him here upon the Stage Only we may by the way take notice that some years agoe Mr. Dugdale did draw up Sir Thomas Manwaring's Pedegree wherein he puts Amicia the Wife of Rafe Manwaring without her due distinction as I conceive of a Bastard and is therefore the more concerned to stickle for Sir Thomas in this Contest between us So that formerly he consulted some Lawyers for their Opinions in this Case of History for whether Bastard or no Bastard hath nothing of Law in the Case or whether Hugh Cyvelioc Earl of Chester had any former or other Wife besides Bertra these are questions to be resolved by History Records and Reason but Mr. Dugdale would now support his opinion with a point of Law and therefore moved some Lawyers for their opinions but how the Case was stated no body but himself knows nor what the point of Law was wherein they delivered their opinions and methinks it argued some doubt within his own breast that she was a Bastard otherwayes why should he consult any Lawyers in the case and in truth let the Law be what it will she was certainly a Bastard which to my poor reason is as plain as the Sun when it shines but it seems he was satisfied with the Opinions of those Lawyers that she was Legitimate because saith he it is a known Maxime in the Lavv that nothing can be given in Frank-marriage to a Bastard but this Maxime is to be understood vvith a due distinction of the times and ages othervvise it will fail but I shall anon speak more of this and of his moving the Judges in the Case wherein I should be glad to see vvhat Case he put and the resolutions of our Reverend Judges thereon under their hands in the mean time I shall go on with Mr. Dugdale's Opinion whereon Sir Thomas so much depends 4 In his said Book of the Baronage of England pag. 34. b. he calls Robert and Ottiwel two Illegitimate Sons of Hugh Sirnamed Lupus Earl of Chester wherein he is to be commended for speaking out for so they were without all doubt Hovvbeit I find not any Author hitherto vvho have Written of our ancient Earles of Chester Commemorating either these or any other at all as Bastards to any of our ancient Earls of Chester neither Brooks in his Catalogue of Nobility nor Vincent in his Gorrections of Brook nor Milles in his Catalogue of Honour nor Fern in his Lacyes-Nobility nor Powel in his Notes on the Welsh-History pag. 294. nor yet Mr. Dugdale himself in his Warwick-shire till here in his late
versus Capitalem Dominum de me haeredibus meis c. was a good grant in free Marriage by the words of Glanvil in those Ages and as good as in liberum maritagium Why so because Glanvil doth not there or any where else say that Lands may be given in free Marriage by those or any other equipollent words without using the words in liberum maritagium and unless he saith this he saith nothing for Sir Peter's purpose My Reply For this see pag. 54. of my former Reply where I have proved it out of Glanvils words by sure consequence which Sir Thomas hath not yet answered Sit Liber Index Glanvil lib. 7. cap. 18. 'T is true those very words here mentioned by Sir Thomas are not in Glanvil but Lands granted in maritagium free from all Service c. saith Glanvil was a grant in free Marriage and by sure consequence implyed there out of Glanvil to be the words answerable to the words in liberum maritagium which makes clearly for Sir Peter's purpose against Sir Thomas for such a grant saith Glanvil was a grant in free Marriage without telling us that the words in liberum maritagium must be necessarily used at all So that Sir Thomas mistakes himself here very much and not I. Pag. 12 13. Of his Answer to my two Books Here he writeth down Saher de Quencyes Deed out of my Historical Antiquities In which Deed saith he pag. 13. if Donarium were there mis-written for Doterium it would not here signifie Marriage but Dower and he thinks also that the Transcriber probably did mistake Donarium for Dovarium the n and u being anciently written alike but he saith also he got a friend carefully to examine the same in one of the Couchir-books in the Dutchy Office in Grays-Inn and the word is there Donarium without any mistake at all My Reply It is true I did intrepret in liberum Donarium in that Deed as meant of a Jointure in my Historical Antiquities pag. 132. but upon better consideration I conceived it might be more properly interpreted here and understood for free-marriage in my former Reply pag. 7 8. and in my Book stiled Sir Thomas Manwarings Law-Cases Mistaken pag. 29. for finding Dos sometimes anciently taken for Marriage and finding the word liberum added here unto it I did conjecture it might have been miswritten in my Copy in liberum Donarium for in liberum Dotarium and so all one as to have said in liberum maritagium and the rather for that we find very rarely the word in liberum donarium so applyed nor do we usually say Lands are given in free Joynture but in free Marriage But now it being in the Couchir-book in liberum Donarium without mistake as Sir Thomas tells us he got a Friend to examine it it must needs be here interpreted for a free gift for Saher de Quency Earl of Winchester grants to Robert de Quency his Son and Heir four Mannours ad dandum in liberum Donarium Hawisiae Sorori Comitis Cestriae uxori ejusdem Roberti This was soon after the Marriage for she was now the Wife of Robert and these Lands were given for a free gift to Hawise his Wife which is all one as to have said for a free gift in Marriage to Hawise and a free gift in Marriage is all one as a gift in Free-marriage add hereunto that those four Mannors given in liberum donarium as aforesaid accrewed to the Heires of Hawise to wit to John Lacy Earl of Lincoln in right of Margaret his Wife Daughter and Heir of the said Robert Quency Hawise which by Law ought to descend upon the Heirs of Hawise being given in free marriage Whereunto also Roger de Quency who succeeded Earl of Winchester upon the death of the aforesaid Robert de Quency his Elder Brother without Issue Male released all his Right unto the Heirs of the said Margaret See my Historical Antiquities pag. 271. whereas had those Lands been given to Hawise in Dower or Joynture only she could but have enjoyed them for her self and not to her Heirs But whether is the more proper interpretation thereof in this place let Learned men judge I will not contend about it Yet whereas pag. 15. Sir Thomas would have the Reader to judge of my Integrity because I did formerly interpret the words aforesaid to be understood of a Joynture and now upon more serious deliberation conceive the same to be meant for a gift in free-marriage or a free gift in marriage having the word liberum joyned with it I say it is hard to censure my integrity for it for that is well known to all the County where we both do live I shall make no comparisons for those are odious and savor of arrogancy Again Sir Thomas hath committed another Trip pag. 10. where he expoundeth Mr. Glanvils words when he speaketh of gifts in frank-marriage cum aliquâ muliere to be meant with some woman which words he misinterpreteth altogether for it is there meant with any Woman not with some Woman He hath the same errour in his Reply to my Answer pag. 40 Pag. 16 17. Of his Answer to my two Books Here he saith I tell him how he proves by comparing the Age of Bertred that Agatha could not be the Daughter of the Second William de Ferrare wherein saith he I am pittifully mistaken for he did goe about no such thing but he did shew pag. 3 4 5. that Joane Wife of Lewellyn could not be the same Joan which King John had by Agatha My Reply O pretty Subterfuge hath he any proof at all here that Joan Wife of Lewellyn was not the same Joan which King John had by Agatha but all his proof there bottomed on the Age of Bertred which could not allow Agatha to be the Daughter of the Second William de Ferrars by Bertred's Daughter so as to suppose Agatha to be old enough to have Issue that Joan by King John and that Joan to be old enough to be Wife of Lewellyn Anno. 1204. which is a false ground taken from Vincent but Speed saith Agatha was Daughter of Robert de Ferrars and I agree Vincent to be mistaken therein Let me see him prove the Princess of Wales to be no Daughter of Agatha by King John what he saith here is nothing to the purpose See my former Reply p. 18. Pag. 22. Of his Answer to my two Books Here after a long Oration nothing at all material he tells us would any man think Sir Peter himself within a very few lines would be guilty of the like offence which I unjustly charged him withal and a little after Sir Peter would distinguish between maritagium and maritagium Servitio obnoxium and say maritagium is two-fold but doth not give the members of his distinction aright My Reply Here are two great Trips more of Sir Thomas for I did neither charge him unjustly with that distinction which any man may read in his book nor am