very many Points and gives me some strange directions to follow which done he will then leave it to the World to judge otherwise there will never be an end Whereas I will refer it to all judicious persons whether his Arguments in these two Books be not the same which he used formerly and whether they be not sufficiently answered by me in my other Books which if so the Controversie is already at an end Now for the manifestation of what I have here alledged I shall desire the judicious Reader when Sir Peter Leycester speaks of what Mr. Glanvil hath said to take notice what is written in the 32 page of my Defence of Amicia and so on to the 43 page as also what is written in the 39 40 and 41 pages of my Reply When he says Geva is a Bastard then I desire the Reader to peruse the 43 44 and 45 pages of my said Defence of Amicia and the 45 46 47 and 48 pages of my Reply When he says that the Gift to Geva was a Gift in frank marriage or that the Town of Drayton Basset did pass to the Heirs of Geva by vertue of that Deed which Randle Earl of Chester made to her see my Defence of Amicia pag. 48 49 and 50 and the 55 56 57 58 and 59 pages of my Reply When he says that Joane the Wife of Lhewellin was the same Joane which King John had by Agatha then read the 3 4 and 5 pages of my Answer to his Addenda When he says that Ellesmere was given with the said Joane in Libero Maritagio see the 6 and 7 pages of my said Book When he says King John had not three Daughters called Joane or that Joane the Wife of Lhewellin was the same Joane who was Wife to Robert de Audeley Read the 16 17 18 19 20 22 23 and 24 pages of the said Answer to his Addenda When he says the said Joane was divorced from her Husband Lhewellin which no man ever said but he himself then read the 17 18 19 and 20 pages of the Answer to his Addenda where besides other proofs against what he says you will find that the Adustery of Joane whil'st she was Wife of Lhewellin was committed Anno Domini sequenti to that Marriage which he fancies to be the Marriage of the said Joane Wife of Lhewellin to the said Robert de Audeley When he says Joane the Wife of Lhewellin was a Bastard then see the 21 and so on to the end of the 30 page of the said Book And although he says page 50. that what I say concerning Joane the Wife of Lhewellin being King John's legitimate Daughter by his Wife Hawise is so ridiculous that another would be asham'd to own it Yet I can shew under the hands of persons eminently knowing in these matters what great satisfaction they have received in this particular by what I have written concerning the same also besides those proofs which I have formerly brought he doth acknowledge that Vaughan in his British Antiquities pag. 29. doth call her the Daughter of King John and in a Record concerning Budiford mention'd by me hereafter in this Book she is also called the Sister of King Henry III without the least blemish of Bastardy at all I might here very well make an end but because some persons may be deceived with some of Sir Peter's Flourishes I shall passing by his angry and uncivil Language with which he doth ever abound endeavor to clear some things by which he might otherways impose upon some silly men In the first of his two Books in his second page he says I had in the 55 pag. of my Reply to his Answer said those Reasons of mine there mentioned were unanswerable whereas I said they were not at all answered by him and that the one of them was so far from being answered that it was not understood by him unless he only pretended not to understand it because he perceived he could not give an answer to it so that it seems in his opinion to doubt whether he can answer an Argument is the same thing as to say it is unanswerable In his fourth and fifth pages he wonders if I can english the words in Libero Conjugio that I will not allow such a Gift to be a Gift in Frank Marriage and yet he doth acknowledge that a Gift in Connubio soluto ab omni servitio is not a Gift in Free Marriage whereas if construing might be the Rule in this Case that might be made a Gift in Free Marriage as well as the other for the word Connubium as you may see in Gouldman's Dictionary doth only signifie Lawful Wedlock or Marriage and therefore is a better word than his word Conjugium which signifies Vnlawful as well as Lawful Conjunction If construing might also take place in this Case a Gift in Libero Conjugio or a Gift in Libero Connubio would be a Gift in Frank Marriage at this day as well as formerly and all other equipollent words would also amount unto such Gifts whereas the Law for the reason given by my Lord Coke will in this Case allow of no such Gift unless there be used both the word Liberum and the word Maritagium He also in the said fourth page doth again misrecite that Argument of mine which he doth there mention for he says that my Lord Coke saith that these words in Liberum Maritagium are such words of Art and so necessarily required as they cannot be understood by words equipollent whereas my Lord Coke says they cannot be expressed by words equipollent or amounting to as much so hard it is to get Sir Peter either to repeat or understand aright In the seventh page he also mistakes himself very much when he tells you that Lands given in Maritagium Habendum sibi Haeredibus suis libere quiete ab omni servitio versus Capitalem Dominum de me Haeredibus meis was a good Grant in Free Marriage by the very words of Glanvil in those ancient Ages and was as good as in Liberum Maritagium if he means thereby that Lands might be given in Free Marriage by those words of Glanvil in a Deed without using the words in Liberum Maritagium for Mr. Glanvil doth there only tell us what Free Marriage is and it is the same now that it was then but Mr. Glanvil doth not there or any where else say that Lands may be given in Free Marriage by those or any other equipollent words without using the words in Liberum Maritagium and unless he says this he says nothing for Sit Peter's purpose And this may give an Answer to what he hath also said in his 14 and 54 pages of his first Book and in the 26 and 27 pages of the latter of his two Books And whereas he doth often tell you in all his Books that Mr. Glanvil says that Lands may be given with any Woman in Liberum Maritagium he as often tells you
AN ANSWER TO Two Books The first being stiled A REPLY TO Sir Thomas Mainwaring's Book ENTITULED AN ANSWER TO Sir Peter Leicester's Addenda The other stiled Sir Thomas Mainwaring's LAW-CASES MISTAKEN Written by the said Sir T. M. LONDON Printed for Sam Lowndes over against Exeter House in the Strand M. DC.I.XXV TO THE READER Courteous Reader VPon Saturday the 12th of December last I received from Sir Peter Leycester a Book or Books thus called viz. Two Books The first being stiled A Reply to Sir Thomas Mainwaring's Book Entituled An Answer to Sir Peter Leycester's Addenda The other stiled Sir Thomas Mainwaring's Law-cases Mistaken And although the one of these was dated the 14th day of April 1674. And the other the first day of May following yet they came not out in Print till Michaelmas Term in the same year When I had perused the said Books I found the latter to be the same in effect with the former and scarce met with any thing in either which he had not had in some of his Books before and had been formerly answered so that it was much more difficult to find out any new Matter than to give an Answer to the same I believe the Reader when he remembers how Sir Peter in his Answer to my Defence of Amicia did declare That he had taken leave for ever of this Trivial Controversie will very much wonder to find him in Print twice since then upon the same Subject But for that he supposeth he hath a good Excuse For he tells us in his Epistle to the Reader before the first of his two Books That although his resolution then was viz. when he writ his Answer to my Defence of Amicia 1673. to have writ no more about it especially if I had let him alone yet now contrary to his former intention he is necessitated thereunto in his own defence for the removal of those unjust obloquies which are since cast upon him Whereas his Servant Mr. Thomas Jackson in a Letter writen as he says by the Command of his Master did signifie to me that his Master would write again and this before I had printed one word of my Reply so that if we find him thus stumbling at the first it is well if we do not take him oft tripping before he comes to his journies end And for his writing again this second time he hath an excellent Reason For he says pag. 16. I have published another Book since and have therein taxed him already for not being just to his word so that he cannot now incur a greater Censure from me herein though he alter his former resolution and intention and write in his own defence so long as he shall henceforth judge it necessary so that he is resolved to give me just cause to censure him if he had not done so before He also endeavors to apply to me that saying of the angry Man in the Comedy which he mentions in his said Epistle but yet he is conscious I will say as much of him and his Reply and thereupon submits it to the Reader in which I shall willingly close with him and especially if it be a Reader who is well acquainted with his temper and mine But it is high time to leave the Epistle and to proceed to give an Answer to his said Books AN ANSWER TO Sir Peter Leycester's TWO BOOKS c. I Doubt not but the Judicious Reader hath long since observed what strange kind of Arguments Sir Peter Leycester doth insist upon both in these last and in all other his former Books For with all the confidence imaginable he several times affirms that Mr. Glanvil says That Lands might be given with any Woman in Liberum Maritagium whereas he only says That they may be given cum qualibet muliere in Maritagium as you may see in the 39 40 and 41 pages of my Reply where Mr. Glanvil's words are expresly set down He also says That he hath proved Geva to be a Bastard out of an Historian Contemporary by which Ordericus Vitalis is meant and yet the said Ordericus hath said no such thing He also affirms That the Common Law is now alter'd other ways than by Act of Parliament without quoting any Author for what he says although the Common Law hath always been the same and as my Lord Coke upon Littleton fol. 115. b. says Hath no Controuler in any part of it but the High Court of Parliament and if it be not abrogated or alter'd by Parliament it remains still And whereas my Lord Coke doth also in the same Book fol 21. b. tell us That these words in liberum maritagium are such words of Art and so necessarily required as they cannot be expressed by words equipollent or amounting to as much He for all this brags of several Precedents where Lands were given in free Marriage with Bastards and yet proves not that those necessary words in Liberum Maritagium were used in the granting of any of those Lands or that any of those persons with whom the said Lands were given were Bastards To conclude he tells you That Lhewellin Prince of North-Wales was divorced from his Wife Joane the Daughter of King John and for this he can neither shew any Author or Record but only doth dream of such a thing himself and yet you must believe him in all these particulars or else as you may see in the first page of his Reply to my Answer to his Addenda he will tell you you do withstand the plainest truth of History and Reason produced He also hath a fine way of answering For if he be pressed overmuch with any point of Law he will tell you of his own authority that the Law in such particulars hath been clearly alter'd though he cannot tell how or at what time it was so changed If it be a Record that puts him too hard to it then he conceives the Roll from whence the Deed is written is mistaken in such and such words and miswrit therein from the Original Chart it self And if out of any History you tell him of any thing which he cannot answer then he will not suffer the words to be read as they ought to be printed but he will fancy such expressions as will best suit with his turn and will also disparage the said History although in those matters he had formerly said he did chiefly follow the same He doth also to amuse those Readers that are of weak understanding tell them of Circumquaques of bits of Law pieces of Law brought in by the head and shoulders fragments of Law parcels of Law and in his two last Books tells me of my impertinencies of my being impertinent and of my speaking impertinently if one who sayes he hath counted do not mistake himself no less than Thirty times with several other expressions too ridiculous to repeat here He also to keep up his credit with the more simple sort of People doth offer to join issue with me upon
by these following Records Claus 2. H. 3. M. 1. MAndatum est Vic Warr quod plenam seisinam habere faciat Leolino Principi Norwall de Villa de Budiford cum pertinentiis suis quam Dominus Johannes Rex Pater Domini Henrici Regis dedit ei in Maritagium cum Johanna Sorore Henrici Regis uxore ipsius Leulini Test * Scilicet Williesmo Marescallo Comite Pembrochis tune Rectore Regis Regni Comite apud Westm 10. Oct. Rot. Pip. de ann 2 H. 3. Warr. Leic. WIllielmus de Cantilupo Philippus de Kinton pro eo reddit comp de cxxviii li. ii s. bl de firma de Warewick de quater viginti quinque libris xvi s. iiii d. bl de firma de Leicestreshire Et Leuelino Principi Norwall lxxvi s. in Budiford in maritagio cum Johanna uxore sua de dimidio anno per Breve Regis But the Deed to John Scot Earl of Chester might be either in libero maritagio according to the agreement of Lhewellin with Randle Earl of Chester or else it might be in maritagio only as it was given to the said Lhewellin so that be that Deed how it will it will work nothing in the Case In his 57 58 and 59 pages he seems much displeased with what I tell him in the 33 page of my Answer to his Addenda concerning his partiality and doth in some respects strain my words further then he should But though I will not say any thing at this time concerning this particular for some reasons I have formerly told him of yet if he doth please to speak of it to me at any time when any judicious person is present I think I can make good what I said and that he will not be excused by that contradiction of his when he says page 58 and 59 that Admit he were partial never so much in what I charge him with yet he hopes what he hath written I find it impartial to all so far as he goes or doth know In his 60 and 61 pages he tells me that I go to excuse an Error of mine in calling Ralph Maniwaring Chief Justice of Chester because I found in his Historical Antiquities page 160 and also in other places there were in the time of Hugh Cyveliok sometimes two Justices of Chester and sometimes but one But I did not absolutly say there were two Justices living both together in the time of the said Ralph I only did insinuate as you may see in the 5 page of my Reply and the 34 page of my Answer to his Addenda that it was possible there might be more than one at a time because when Earl Hugh was living I found some Deeds directed Justiciariis and I am sure the reasons which he gives to the contrary in the 61 page of the first of his last two Books are very strange ones for he says that it is there to be understood of the Judges c. successively or with their Deputies under them Now how can any Deed be directed to any Justice and his Successor before he hath a successor or to their Deputies under them if what he says in the same page be true that then they executed their places themselves no power being given to them in those ages to make or constitute a Deputy by Commission at pleasure as we have now and in these latter ages hath been usually done Neither doth he mend it afterwards for he says possibly upon an emergent occasion the Antient Earls might constitute another Judge for the present in the absence of the other to execute the place for a time and so change them as oft as was thought good Now if this conceit of his be true that another Judge was constituted for a time only in the absence of the former were there not then two Justices at one time so that here are three very weak Answers given thereto But I shall now make it further appear that there was sometimes a Chief Justice of Chester in those elder Ages which I will thus prove That the word Justitia which then is of the Masculine Gender according to that Rule Mascula nomina in a dicuntur multa virorum was sometimes in those elder Ages used for the Judge or Justice of Chester I believe he cannot deny because in his Historical Antiquities page 144 I find a Deed thus directed Ranulphus Comes Cestriae Constabulario suo Dapifero Justitice Vicecomiti Baronibus Ballivis suis salutem I also in the 143 page of the said Book find this Deed following RAnulphus Dux Britanniae Comes Cestriae Richmondiae Omnibus tam praesentibus quam futuris qui Chartam istam viderint audierint Salutem Sciatis quod ego dedi concessi Andreae Filio Mabiliae Haeredibus suis ut sint liberi quieti de me meis Haeredibus de Teloneo per totam terram meam in aqua in terra in Civitate Cestriae extra a Brevibus portandis a Prisonibus capiendis custodienis a Namis capiendis a Vigiliis faciendis nocte vel die a caeteris hujusmodi consuetudinibus exactionibus nec de querelâ aliquâ in Civitate Cestriae vel extra respondeant in praesentiâ meâ * Note vel summi Justitiae mei Et super forisfacturam meam x Librarum prohibeo ne aliquis eos de supradictis libertatibus impediat vel inquietet sed eas libere quiete teneant Reddendo mihi Haeredibus meis annuatim vi Denarios ad Festum Sancti Michaelis Hiis Testibus Bertre Comitissa Cestriae Radulfo de Meinewarin Radulfo Seneschallo Hugone de Boidele Alano fratre ejus Roaldo Roberto Cam. Roberto Saraceno Ranulfo Dubeldai Nicolao filio Roberti Thoma fratre suo Willielmo Marmiun Ricardo Poibel Rogero Clerico multis aliis Apud Cestriam And now let any person judge whether those words in praesentia mea vel Summi Justitiae mei do not clearly prove that there was a Chief Justice of Chester in those elder Ages for that Deed was made in the time of the said Ralph Mainwaring he being a witness to the same And as I have proved in the fifth page of my Reply that if there were then two Justices the said Ralph was the Chief so it will also easily appear that the said Deed was made when the said Ralph was Judge for you may find in Sir Peter's Historical Antiquities pag. 143 144. that Randle Earl of Chester did first write himself Duke of Britain in the year 1187 and did relinquish that Title in the year 1200. And you may see in the 172 page of the said Book that Philip de Orreby who immediately succeeded the said Ralph was not made Judge till about the year 1209. In the 62 and 63 pages he thinks that he hath at last found out a fine device to cure what he formerly said for whereas I told him page 9. of my
Reply that I could not imagine how it was possible that the said Geffrey de Dutton to that or any other Deeds of his own could have his name either with the word Domino or without either five times for once or at all amongst the Witnesses subscribed unless he did fancy that he was a Witness to his own Deeds He now pretends that when he said he had seen several other Deeds of the same person he meant and understood several other Deeds touching the same person for the word of is used many times for concerning as of or concerning the same person c. which Answer of his doth not at all make the matter better than it was before for as Men do not use to be Witnesses to their own Deeds so they did not use and especially in those ages when the Deeds were so short to be Witnesses to Deeds which concerned themselves And though he may possibly shew me a Deed made concerning a Geffrey de Dutton to which a Geffrey de Dutton was a Witness because there were several Geffreys de Dutton living at that time yet he must excuse me if I do not believe that he can shew me either several Deeds or any one Deed in that age which doth concern a Geffrey de Dutton to which that Geffrey de Dutton was a Witness who was the Party concerned In his 64 page he says what he said in his Addenda p. 11. is not contrary to what he did write in the bottom of the fifth page of his Answer to the Defence of Amicia Let the Reader therefore see how Sir Peter says in the 11 page of his Addenda that Geffrey Dutton was no Knight For otherways he would have called himself by his Title as Ego Galfridus de Dutton Miles or Ego * Note Dominus Galfridus de Dutton dedi c. which few Men will omit in their own Deeds if they have really the honour of Knighthood And let him also observe how at the bottom of the fifth page of his said Answer speaking of the word Domino he says that word is never used in old Deeds by the party himself but where it is * Note joined with another word as Ego Willielmus Manwaring Dominus de Peover and then let him judge whether those expressions be contrary to each other or not In his 65 page he says that I would fain palliate another gross mistake in making Geffrey de Dutton the Father to live on to be a Witness to the Deed of Geffrey de Dutton to his Daughter Margaret of the Mannor of Nether Tabley but if the Reader please to see the 36 37 38 and 39 pages of my Answer to his Addenda it will there appear to be very uncertain whether it was any mistake at all And he himself after he hath said all he can doth confess in the 67 page of the first of his said two Books that his Deeds do but probably demonstrate that Geffrey Dutton the Father was dead before see therefore what a stir he keeps about nothing for it is not material whether this be a mistake or not And whereas he pretends page 68 that it is petitio principii to say that the word Dominus doth always shew that the person to whose name it is applied was a Knight or Clergyman yet I have shewed that it is usually applied to such persons which is the only proof that can be had in this Case and it lies upon him to prove if he will contradict me therein that it was so applied to some one who was neither Knight nor Clergyman for of the higher Nobility I do not speak to which kind of persons the word Dominus either as it signifies Lord or Sir might sometimes be applied And though he says that those very worthy persons Mr. Wood and Mr. Blunt are of opinion that the word Domino was sometimes also prefixed in those elder ages to the names of persons of better sort and quality though no Knights as well as to Knights and Clergymen contrary to the opinion of some other skilful men as learned persons do sometimes differ from each other yet he doth not instance in any one example to make good what he says and it will be a very hard matter so to do for the proving that the word Dominus hath been prefixed to a persons name and sometimes afterwards omitted will not be sufficient because I can prove that some who were certainly Knights have been afterwards named without having the word Dominus prefixed or the word Miles added to their names In the 39 page of my Answer to his Addenda I told him of some words which he pretended to have written which I could not find in his Book and for this in the 69 page of the first of his two Books he says I would bespatter him with a falsity therein although in the 70 page he confesses those words were not in his Answer expresly c. and that it was a negligent error and yet for all this in the 64 and 65 pages of the first of his new Books he pretends that the words Ego Dominus A. B. dedi c. which were some of the words I could not find in his said Book were spoken of before in the 7th page of his Book there mentioned so that he commits the same Error again In the 68 page he again takes notice how I had formerly said that Margaret was the Daughter and Heir of Geffrey Dutton whereas he says she was his Daughter but not Heir and this he calls a gross mistake of mine but a gross mistake it cannot be because the said Margaret and her Heirs did enjoy several Mannors which were her Fathers and because it is not material to the point in hand whether she was or was not his Daughter and Heir And whereas he is displeased at me for saying if it was any mistake at all he must thank himself for that for since he did so untruly quote the Book of Barlings and so many other places he must excuse me if I dare not rely too much upon his bare word In his 67 page he doth confess he calls one Sir Geffrey Dutton of Chedil in his Book but he calls him not Sir Geffrey Dutton of Chedil Knight as I alledge whereas I cannot imagine what he should be but Sir Geffrey Dutton of Chedil Knight being he was no Clergy-man unless he would have him to be Sir Geffrey Dutton Esq or Sir Geffrey Dutton Gentleman And though he pretends page 73. that Esquires were none in those ages I shall refer the Reader for that to Mr. Selden's Titles of Honour pag. 830 831 c. Though I confess the word Esquire doth not often occur as a legal Addition till after the Statute of Additions made in the first year of King Henry V. From the end of the 73 page to the end of the 84 instead of producing an Example where the word Dominus was applied to the name of a
supposeth but is a Member of Coventry as you may see in Mr. Dugdale's Antiquities of Warwickshire pag. 88 128 129. and in Sir Peter's Historical Antiquities pag. 129. as part of her Joynture and thereupon joined with her Son And indeed it had been a great shame to her if her Son Hugh had been such a tender Infant as Sir Peter doth suppose him to be to make him part with those Lands upon that occasion if it could have been so done and she to part with nothing at all But though I doubt not but what is here said will give full satisfaction to all judicious persons yet I think fit to acquaint the Reader that I have a Pedigres by me of the Barons de monte alto drawn not long since by Sir Peter himself and written all with his own hand in which he makes the first Robert de Monte alto Steward of Cheshire who he says lived in the time of King Steven to have issue besides other Sons who were younger two Sons Ralph and Robert who were afterwards successively Stewards of Cheshire all which is certainly true He also in his Historical Antiquities pag. 131 doth give you this Deed of Earl Hugh in which his Mother doth not join with him which I think fit in this place to Transcribe HUgo Comes Cestriae Constabulario suo Dapifero omnibus Baronibus suis omnibus Hominibus suis Francis Anglicis tam futuris quam praesentibus Salutem Concedo Sanctimonialibus de Bolintona Stagnum meum de Dunintona firmum terrae meae sicut fuit tempore Henrici Regis in perpetuam Elemosynam pro anima mea Patris mei meorum Antecessorum Et praecipio omnibus Hominibus meis quod habeant meam firmam pacem ita quod nullus inde praedictis Sanctimonialibus injuriam vel contumeliam faciat Teste Roberto Dapifero de Monte alto Filippo de Kima Simone Filio Osberti Willielmo Patric Radulfo Filio Warneri Rogero de Maletot Johanne Priore de Trentham Orm ejus Canonico Rogero Monacho de Hambi Willielmo Clerico Comitis qui Chartam scripsit apud Beltesford multis aliis Now that Robert de Montealto Stew ard of Cheshire who was Witness to this Deed was the first Robert de Montealto will be manifest because the second Robert came not to be Steward of Cheshire during the life of Earl Hugh as appean by the said Pedigree as also in Sir Peter's Book of Historical Antiquities pag. 143. and in the 33 page of this Book where you find Ralph the Steward elder Brother to the second Robert outliving Earl Hugh and being a Witness to a Deed of Randle Son to the said Hugh it will therefore necessarily follow if this Deed of Earl Hugh was made immediately before the death of that Robert de Montealto who was a Witness thereto that the said Earl Hugh was a great deal elder than his Wife Bertred for though the said Robert did live something longer than Sir Peter doth take notice of yet I think it cannot be proved that he was living any considerable time after the said Eustace and I know no reason why we should conclude that Eustace was slain immediately after he was a Witness to the other Deed or that this Robert dyed presently after he was a Witness to this Deed nay I think it will appear that the aforesaid Deed to the Nuns of Bolinton was certainly made some years before the said Robert dyed viz. in the time of King Stephen for if it had been made when Henry the Second was King Earl Hugh would not have said sicut fuit tempore Henrici Regis as he there doth but he would have said sicut fuit tempore Henrici primi or else he would have used some other words to distinguish King Henry the first from the then King Now King Stephen dying in the year 1154. and Bertred being not born till the year 1157. it will from this Deed be very clear that if Earl Hugh had sealed the said Deed immediately before King Stephen dyed yet Earl Hugh would be at the least 24 years older than Bertred his Wife And whereas he pretends that he shews pag. 93. that Earl Hugh could neither be so old as I would now suppose him nor yet that he was born Anno 1142. I answer thereto that any man who can but count 20. viz. how long it is from the year 1109. to the year 1129. or from the year 1110. to the year 1130. if he looks on my Defence of Amicia pag. 51. and my Reply pag. 61 62. may find that Hugh Cyvelick might be older than I say But I doubt Sir Peter is no good Arithmetician as well because of what he say here as also because he says in his Historical Antiquities pag. 137. which words you may also find before my Defence of Amicia pag. 14. that he was eight years older than his Wife when he was married whereas he is not now much above six years older for as you may see in his Historical Antiquities pag. 361. he was born the third of March 1613. and his Lady was baptized the 23 day of May 1620. And I believe Sir Peter will acknowledge he reckons his own birth not according to the Julian but according to the account of the Church of England and if he should say otherways he might be easily confuted for as you may find in the said 361 page he had a sister named Margaret who was born September 29 1612. and buried at Great Budworth Octob. 12 1612. so that Sir Peter could not be born the third day of March 1613. according to the Julian account for then his birth would have been but a little above five months after his said sister was born And whereas in the 49 50 51 52 pages of my Answer to his Addenda I have proved out of the Welsh History written by Caradocus Llanearuan that Hugh Cyveliok in all probability had another Wife before Bertred because he could be no less than 41 years of age when he married her although we suppose that he married her so soon as she was 14 years old Sir Peter to avoid this proof doth endeavour all he can to disparage Dr. Powell who did put out the said History and writ Notes thereon but he was not so contemptible a person as Sir Peter would make him for Mr. Wood in his History and Antiquities of Oxford lib. 2. pag. 319. doth call the said Doctor Rerum Antiquarum rimatorem industrium atque Historiarum Britannicarum peritissimum and Sir Peter doth also very well know that it is not the Doctor but Caradocus Llancaruan which I do cite he also will not suffer the said Book to be read as it should have been printed but would have it read according as he doth please which liberty if he may take he hath very ill fortune if he cannot keep it from saying any thing contrary to his own mind then he will read it not as it ought to have been printed but