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
that which Mr. Glanvil never said Indeed Mr. Glanvil says that Lands may be given cum qualibet Muliere with any Woman whatsoever in Maritagium but when he speaks of Gifts in Free Marriage he says they may be given cum aliqua Muliere with some Woman and the Law in this particular is still the same for Lands may now be given in Maritagium with any Woman whatsoever but Lands can only be given in Free Marriage with some Women viz. such as are of the Kindred of him who gives the Lands He also very much mistakes and wilfully I doubt the Deed made in the time of King John where he says Saher de Quency Earl of Winchester granted to Robert his Son and Heir certain Mannors ad dandum in Liberum Dotarium Hawisiae Sorori Comitis Cestriae Vxori ejusdem Roberti which Deed I shall here give you at large as I find it in the 133 page of his Historical Antiquities SAherus de Quency Comes Wintoniae omnibus Hominibus Amicis suis praesentibus futuris salutem Sciatis me concessisse dedisse praesenti Chartâ meá confirmasse Roberto de Quency Filio meo Haeredi ad dandum in liberum Donarium Hawisiae Sorori Comitis Cestriae Vxori ejusdem Roberti Bucehebeiam Grantesset Bradeham Herdewich cum omnibus earundem terrarum pertinentiis pro centum Libratis terrae Et si hae praedictae terrae non valeans per Annum centum Libras Ego in aliis terris meis de propriâ Haereditate meâ in Anglia ei tantum perficiam quòd plenari◠habeat centum Libratas terrae per visum considerationem legalium Militum hominum videlicet Comitis Cestriae meorum Et praeterea Dedi eidem Roberto Feoda duorum Militum scilicet Feodum Matthei Turpin in Winterslawa it Wilteshire pro servitio Feodi unius Militis ad dandum simul cùm terris nominati◠praedictae HawisiaeVxori suae in liberus Donarium Testibus his Comite Davide Willielmo Comite de Ferrars Philippo de Orreby Roberto de Basingham Ricardo de Lindescia Willielmo de Grumpington Henrico de Braibroc Willielmo de Syelford David Giffard Willielmo Picot Hugone Thoma Henrico Dispensariis Waltero de Coventrey Waltero Daivilla multis aliis And now as you may see in the 29 page of his second Book he says That in his Historical Antiquities the word Donarium was there misprinted for the word Dotarium whereas the word Dotarium is not in the said Copy which he Cites as a knowing Friend of mine doth inform me who at my request did very lately and carefully examine the same in one of the Couchir Books in the Dutchy Office in Grayes-Inn but the word is Donarium which probably the Transcriber did mistake for Douarium the u and n being anciently written alike and the v consonant not then used But if the word had been Dotarium it would not signifie Marriage as he doth fancy although Dos is Domesday Book be called Maritagium for Dos is twofold and that Dos which is Dotarium is the same with Douarium which we in English call Dower and is not that Dos which sometimes is called Maritagium For this see Glanvil lib. 6. cap. 1. whose words are these Dos duobus modis dicitur dos enim dicitur vulgaritèr id quod aliquis liber homo dat sponsae suae ad ostium Ecclesiae tempore desponsationis suae c. And lib. 7. cap. 1. In alia enim acceptione accipiter dos secundum leges Romanas which three last words with some others he leaves out in the eighth page of the first of his two last Books secundum quas proprie appellatur dos id quod cum muliere datur viro quod vulgariter dieitur Maritagium Now that Dotarium is that Dos which is Dower and not that Dos which is called Maritagium you may see in Sir Henry Spelman's Glossary Printed at London 1664. p. 174. whose words are these ¶ De eo Dotis genere quod uxoribus constituunt Angli ¶ Doarium Dodarium Dotarium Dinarium Dotalitium Omnia recte interpretatur vernaculum nostrum Douer non Latinum dos Est enim propriè dos illud quod maritus accipit cum uxore haec verò id quod in remunerationen dotis reportat uxor And Sir Peter very well knows that what is given in the aforesaid Deed was only given as a Dower or Joynture and not as a Gift in Free Marriage as you may see in the 132 page of his Historical Antiquities where he thus writes HAwise fourth Daughter of Earl Hugh by Bertred married Robert Quency Son and Heir of Saher de Quency Earl of Winchester She had the Earldom of Lincoln to wit the Castle and Honour of Bolingbroke and all the Lands of Earl Randle in Lindsey and Holland in Lincolnshire for which she gave 50 l. for relief On Hawise was estated for * Note Joynture Bukby Grantesset Bradeham and Herdwick as appears by this Deed in the Couchir Book of the Dutchy Office Tom. 2. Honor sive Soca de Bolingbroke num 26. pag. 508. After which he immediately doth verbatim recite the aforesaid Deed let the Reader therefore judge of the integrity of Sir Peter who in his new Books pretends that the aforesaid Lands were given in Free Marriage to the Lady Hawise and yet in his Historical Antiquities doth acknowledge that they were estated for Joynture only as by his words before mentioned doth clearly appear And whereas he says pag. 9. that it is not absolutely true which my Lord Coke doth say viz. That at this day the words in Liberum Maritagium have no other words equipollent for then a Deed in English granting Lands in Free Marriage or a Deed in French de terres en Frank Marriage would be void grants for neither of these have in strict terms the words in Liberum Maritagium c. wherefore certainly he understood it of a Grant in Latine His arguing therein is very weak for the English words in Free Marriage and the French words en Frank Marriage are the same words in Law with the Latin words in Liberum Maritagium though in different Languages but the words in Libero Conjugio though capable of the same construction in English with the words in Libero Maritagio are but equipollent to them and so the words in Wedlock free from all Services are but equipollent to the English words in Free Marriage and the French words en Nopsage acquite de Services are but equipollent to the French words En Frank Marriage Also by this Rule a gift of Lands by a Latin Deed in Libero Maritagio would be void because they are not in strict terms the words in Liberum Maritagium so that the Reader may see what strange kind of Arguments Sir Peter doth use In the 17 page he tells me that in the fourth and fifth pages of my Answer to his Addenda I further prove by comparing the age of Bertred that
Agatha could not be Daughter to the second William de Ferrars by Agnes his Wife whereas he is pitifully mistaken for I did go about no such thing but did in the 3 4 and 5 pages shew that Joane who was the wife of Lhewellyn could not be the same Joane which King John had by the said Agatha and that was all which I did there prove In the 18 and 19 pages he says that though the Writ meaning King John's Precept to the Sheriff of Shropshire to make Livery of Ellesmere to Lhewellin after his Marriage with Joane the daughter of King John if you begin the year of our Lord the 25th day of March was in the year 1204. yet it would fall out to be in the year 1205 if with ancient Historians we begin the year on the first day of January but it would be a pretty Trick if from either of these reckonings he could make out what he said in the second page of his Addenda viz. that the Marriage of the said Lhewellin with the said Joane was in the year 1206. In his 20 and 21 pages he thinks he gives me no quarter for he tells me that I would distinguish between Maritagium and liberum maritagium and say maritagium is twofold but I do not give the members of my distinction aright for a good Logician Sir Peter is the man meant without all doubt would tell me that the members of a good distinction must be opposite and not as I distinguish Maritagium est duplex vel maritagium vel liberum maritagium The members are here coincident for Liberum maritagium est maritagium Glanvils distinction is good Maritagium est vel liberum vel servitio obnoxium so that Maritagium the genus comprehends the members and both opposite one to another as either free marriage or not free marriage This is Sir Peter's charge and a very great one as he believes But for answer hereunto I doubt not but the Reader hath taken notice how in my Reply p. 39. 40. I did observe that Maritagium was twofold and that it was distinguished into Maritagium liberum and Maritagium servitio obnoxium so that when I did intend to take notice how it was distinguished Sir Peter cannot but acknowledge that I did right the only colour of Cavil that he hath is because I afterwards say that whensoever any Lands are given in a Deed in maritagio only it is always the same thing in Law as if they were given in maritagium servitio obnoxium and it is only his want of understanding that causeth him to blame me for what I so say for that expression will not thwart with what I said before this will appear because that maritagium servitio obnoxium is the elder Brother to maritagium liberum for when Lands are given in maritagio servitio obnoxio such Gifts are agreeable to the Common Law of England but when they are given in liberum maritagium as you may see Coke upon Littleton fol. 21. b. they create an estate of inheritance against the general Rule of the Law and therefore though this younger Son be connived at and tollerated yet as you may there see the Law requireth that such Gifts be legally pursued and that is the reason why such Gifts cannot be made to any but to those of the Blood as also why the words in liberum maritagium are such words of Art and so necessarily required as that they cannot be expressed by words equipollent or amounting to as much Now the Common Lawyers as you may see Coke upon Littleton fol. 189. a. have a Rule that Additio probat minoritatem and thereupon it is that my Lord Coke there tells you that the younger Son giveth the difference and pursuant to this Rule when a Gift is made in maritagio which is intended to be liable to services that being the elder Brother they use the word maritagio in the Deed and no more but when it is given in free Marriage which is the younger Brother according as my Lord Coke tells you the word liberum which is the difference is absolutely necessary And herewith agrees the common practice for I never saw in all my life where Lands were given in maritagio liable to services that the words in maritagio servitio obnoxio were used in any of the said Deeds but only the words in maritagio and if they did intend that any other services should be done over and above those services which the Law did create by the words in maritagio then they did afterwards in the said Deeds mention those other services but else not Also the word Foedum or Fee is two-fold viz. Foedum simplex and Foedum tale and yet in this Case like unto the other Fee-simple being the elder Brother to Fee-tayle all Inheritances being in Fee-simple before the Statute of Westminster 2. cap. 1. as Littleton tells you lib. 1. cap. 2. sect 13. if it be said in any Book that a Man is seized in Fee without more saying it shall be intended in Fee-simple for it shall not be intended by this word in Fee that a man is seized in Fee-tayle unless there be added to it this addition Fee-tayle as you may see in Littleton lib. 3. cap. 4. sect 293. And according to this Rule our Common Lawyers do all of them constantly use the like expressions at this day so that there is no more reason for him to tell me that I do not distinguish aright in this Case of Maritagium than there is to tell them that they do not distinguish aright as to the word Foedum the word Foedum being as much the Genus to Fee-simple and Fee-tayle as the word Maritagium is the Genus to Marriage liable to services and to Frank Marriage But would any one think if I had committed so great an Error herein as he would persuade the World I had done that Sir Peter himself within a very few lines and in the same 21 page should really be guilty of the like offence which he did unjustly charge me withall and yet you shall see that it is so for both in his 21 page and 55 page he tells you that Maritagio was often in those Ages viz. of Mr. Glanvil understood for libero maritagio both by Historians and old Deeds you shall therefore see how Sir Peter's own argument in his 20 and 21 pages may mutatis mutandis be thus retorted upon himself viz. Here Sir Peter would distinguish between Maritagium and Maritagium servitio obnoxium and say Maritagium is twofold but doth not give the Members of his Distinction aright for a good Logician would tell Sir Peter that the Members of a good Distinction must be opposite and not as he doth here distinguish Maritagium est duplex vel maritagium vel maritagium servitio obnoxium the Members are here coincident for Maritagium servitio obnoxium est maritagium Glanvil's Distinction is good Maritagium est vel liberum vel
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
Castellum fecerat dum contra hostes decertaret inter praedones suos ante ipsum Monasterium solus peremptus est excommunicatus morte depascitur sempiterna * Noto Eodem vero tempore Gaufridus Consul de Mandavilla qui idem scelus patraverat in Monasterio * Note Ramesiensi ante ipsam Ecclesiam inter Consortes suorum acies a pedite quodam vilissimo solus sagitta percussus occubuit interfectus c. So that the Reader may plainly see how deceitfully Sir Peter doth here deal for finding him in Mat Paris called William de Mandevile on one side of the Leaf through either the slip of Mat Paris 's Pen or the Printer's negligence he acquaints the Reader with that but never tells him how he is on the other side of the Leaf called Geffrey de Mandevile And that this was purposely done may easily appear because if Mat Paris had called him William on both sides of the Leaf yet Caradocus who was then living having called him Geffrey Sir Peter should have consulted other Authors to have seen which of them two had been in the right but these ancient Authors being against him it was a good way to let them alone I shall therefore leave it to the Reader to judge whether Caradocus Llancaruan be not to be believed concerning Hugh Cyveliok's taking of Melyenith being the same was taken when he was living as also whether it doth not certainly appear by that proof that Hugh Cyvelioâ— was at the least 41 years old when he married Bertred and by consequence in all probability imaginable had a former Wife for which reason if the other proofs were laid aside there is no just cause to suspect Amicia to be illegitimate and with this I will conclude my Answer to his former Book In the Latin Epistle to the Judges which I suppose to be Sir Peter's though he doth not vouchsafe to set his name thereto he said I was the first Instigator of this Controversie but whether that be so or not let the Reader judge by what I have said in my Epistle before my Defence of Amicia and in the second and third pages of my Reply Also in the same Epistle when he doth appeal to the Judges he doth not put the question Whether the Law was different in the time of Glanvil in this point of free marriage from what it is now But he proposeth this Question Whether or no in the time of Glanvil by our ancient Law it was lawful for any Man to give Land in free marriage with his Bastard Daughter although the Law being now changed the Law doth not at this day permit a Gift in frank marriage with a Bastard Daughter By which he proves himself to be very like the Gentleman he speaks of in the 14 pages of both his Books who would needs dispute about a Cross and the question must be Whether the Cross was a Cross or no Cross For if the Law be now clearly and certainly changed in this particular point of frank marriage from what it was in the days of Glanvil as he in his Question absolutely says it is it is then as certain that Lands might have been given in free marriage to those not of the blood in the time of Glanvil as it is certain that a Cross is a Cross but this Point must be otherwayes proved than by such a frivolous question as this is He also in the same Epistle tells those Reverend Judges how highly he prefers Divinity before other Studies but if he had been so conversant therein as he would have them to believe it seems strange to me that he hath not better learnt his duty to his deceased Grandmother for we are bound to honour all our Parents whether mediate or immediate and whether they be living or dead And I believe he will not find any Precedent in Scripture where any one did divulge the shame of any person out of whose loyns he did descend except that of wicked Ham which pattern is in some respects exceeded by Sir Peter for Ham did really find his Father naked and when the other Sons of Noah had coâ—â—ered their Father with a Garment he did not offer to reveal his Fathers nakedness again and again As for his second Book which he directs to all the Judges of England it so falls out that there is nothing therein but what is in his former Books and is already answer'd though if there had I should not have presumed to have given any Answer thereto because those learned persons know well enough what the Law was and is in all particulars and cannot receive any information therein either from Sir Peter or me or be deceived by his misrecitals in his said Books However I cannot but observe how slightly he speaks of the Lord Coke in his 48 page and also how he hath such light expressions in his Book directed to the Judges as I believe were never used before by any person of discretion to such Reverend and Learned Men. No wonder therefore if he speak coursely of me and tell me of so many Impertinencies but whether I be guilty of them or of those untruths or of that opprobrious language which he doth charge me with let the indifferent Reader be Judge And whereas it doth appear that he is resolved to have the last word although he have nothing new to say and that his Writing again be contrary both to his duty to his deceased Grandmother and to his promise in Print I do therefore declare If what Sir Peter writes hereafter be no more to the purpose than that is which he hath said in his two last Books that I will not appear in Print against him any more but will choose to vindicate my Grandmother and my self by word of mouth whensoever I shall have any opportunity so to do only let me now acquaint the judicious Reader that some other Judges have declared their opinion concerning the Legitimacy of Amicia besides those three who formerly did so and who were spoken of by Sir Peter in the 49 page of the latter of his last Books Baddeley Febr. 15. 1674 5. T. M. FINIS