AN ANSWER TO Sir Thomas Manwaring's BOOK Intituled An Admonition to the READER of Sir Peter Leicester's Books WRITTEN By the same Sir Peter Leicester Printed in the Year 1677. An Answer to Sir Thomas Manwarings Books c. IN the first place I desire the learned and ingenious Reader to take notice of the very first words of Sir Thomas Manwaring's Admonition That you may know Herculâ—s by his Foot whereby he would insinuate the blasting of my Credit and Reputation even before he begins one word of his Book and it is all one as if he should have said in downright words take heed of believing any thing which Sir Peter writes For here I will shew you the Partiality Omissions Uncertainties and Mistakes of the said Sir Peter in those two Sheets of his Historical Antiquities in which he writes of the Township of Over-Peever which are so numerous that little credit is to be given to any thing he writes elsewhere for ex pede Hercules and it is no matter what he writes of the Bastardy of Amicia or any thing else See here the scope of his design Had he given me notice of my Mistakes in private it would have shewed more handsomly in him and more acceptable to me but he now publisheth to the World his own Malignancy which will be a greater dishonour to himself than these pitiful exceptions can be a disparagement to me for his Reputation is out of his reach Cum tamen non mordeat oblatrat But let us now take a view of these his pitiful exceptions which he would so unhandsomly charge upon me as Errours To the 1. Pag. 4. Here he saith that in Pag. 330 of my Book I call Ranulphus in Doomsday-Book the supposed Ancestor of the Manwarings But Pag. 208. I call Odard the undoubted Ancestor of the Duttons Now what reason I can have for that except my Partiality he cannot imagine My Answer Yes Reason enough for it though he cannot or will not imagine it For I have seen sundry Deeds of the first Age after the Norman-Conquest namely made in the time of King Henry the first wherein I find Hugh the Son of Odard so stiled and Hugh Son of Hugh Son of Odard See Pag. 264. of my Book and Pag. 117. sub Anno iii 9. and also Pag. 250. whereas I should be glad to see any one Deed of that Age mentioning or calling Richard Mesnilwarin Son of Ranulphus Again the ancient Roll of the Barons of Halton which I have seen and transcribed in one of my Manuscripts noted Lib. Cap. fol. 84 85. which Roll seemed to be written in a Character of 300 Years standing at the least saith thus Ab ipso Hudardo venerunt omnes Duttomenses See also Monasticon Anglicanum Vol. 2. pag. 187. and also pag. 249. of my Book but I never knew nor heard of any such ancient Roll or Record wherein it is said Ab ipso Ranulpho venerunt omnes Manwaringi Again I have seen the ancient Sword called at this day Hudards-Sword and is yet in the possession of the Heirs of Dutton of Dutton and for many Ages hath been passed as an Heir-Loom from Heir to Heir for many Generations and I have seen some Wills of the Duttons giving the same as an Heir-Loom to the Heir by that name of Hudards-Sword which by tradition received hath been constantly preserved by the Heirs of that Family with great veneration the like I believe cannot be shown by any Family of this County or scarcely in England See in my Book pag. 250. I say not this to extenuate any Family but to shew the Antiquity of this Family which hath been seated at Dutton even from the Conqueror's time to this present and continued in the name of the Duttons until in our days it devolved by a Daughter and Heir unto the Lord Gerard of Gerards-Bromley in Stafford-shire And therefore I might well call Odard the undoubted Ancestor of the Duttons and by much surer proof than I believe can be produced to prove the Manwarings to be descended from Ranulphus aforesaid Neither do I look upon the Lands coming to either of the Families to be ne're so sure a proof as what I have mentioned above for possibly Lands might descend by a Daughter and Heir or by Purchase and yet Richard Manwaring might not be Son of Ranulphus as is certainly recorded of the Duttons from Odard Howbeit I am so much satisfied with the Lands found in Possession of the Manwarings in the very next Ages after William the Conqueror that I suppose the same Ranulphus to be the Ancestor of the Manwarings but I cannot say it is so certain as the other What reason now hath Sir Thomas to charge me with Partiality in the Case To the 2. Pag. 6. Here he saith that in the same 330 Pag. I tell him of two Places or Hamlets in Over-Peever anciently called Cepmundewich the other Fodon whereas there were seven such places there which he reckoneth up Answer But Sir Thomas mistakes himself therein for neither Radbroke nor the other four there mentioned by him were called Hamlets as Cepmundewich and Fodon were See Pag. 331. of my Book for although there might be some parcels of Land in Over-Peever so called either Fields or Tenements yet were those parcels never called Hamlets in any Deed that I ever saw as yet Now Hamlets are as it were a Ville within a Ville and are places more conspicuous and usually containing a greater quantity of Land than a private Place Field or Tenement gaining certain names as those did and other Places also might do nor was it fit for me to take notice of all such inconspicuous places in my Book though I did take notice of the Hamlets for that were to make my work endless and to stuff it with trifles But I did take notice of Radbroke because it was a Freehold at this day and now not belonging to Manwaring which made me the rather to mention the same and though it be locus cognitus in Over-Peever at this day yet no Hamlet at all To the. 3. Pag. 7. Here he tell us that I have left out in the Pedegree of the Manwarings Pag. 331. Ranulphus mentioned in Doomsday-Book Richard Mesnilwarin Roger de Mesnilgarin or Mainwaring and William and Randle his Sons Roger de Menilgarin or Mainwaring Sir Ralph Manwaring Sir Roger Manwaring his Son Answer But if he had viewed well Pag. 330. of my Book he might have found the last Roger Manwaring and Ralph Manwaring his Father sometime Judg of Chester to have been there but that either of them were Knights it doth not certainly appear to me as in my lesser Book I have formerly given my reasons and for the descents here mentioned before Ralph Manwaring I think he himself will have much ado to put them into right order as they ought to be I am sure I cannot and though they were Lords of Over-Peever or the greatest part thereof yet certainly none of them lived
at Over-Peever till William Manwaring had Over-Peever given him by Roger Manwaring of Warmincham his Father in the raign of Henry the third and so seated himself here in Bucklow-Hundred where his Heirs have ever since continued to this day However my design was only to show who held every paritcular Town in Bucklow-Hundred from the time of William the Conqueror to this day or so far forth as I could discover together with the Pedegrees of the better sort of Families seated within that Hundred or so many of them as my leasure would permit me to go through the other Hundreds being out of my intended task and this he takes notice of himself Pag. 8. so that having shewed how the Manwarings of Peever first branched out from the Manwarings of Warmincham it was only suitable to my design to bring down that descent to this day The like I have done of the Savages of Clifton and of the Brookes of Norton Yet I cannot but take notice how he calls the first William Manwaring of Over-Peever and the first of the Manwarings who seated himself there by the title of Sir William Manwaring whereas it is most certain that he was no Knight nor can any Deed be produced wherein he was ever subscribed as a Witness with the word Domino prefixed as Domino Guillielmo Manwaring de Peever if Sir Thomas would but survey his own Deeds with an impartial eye For if he finds any William subscribed Domino Guillielmo Manwaring in that Age it is to be understood of Sir William Manwaring Parson of Wernith who was contemporary with the other William Manwaring of Peever and such Deed or Deeds I my self have seen See Pag. 330. of my Book and my Answer to the defence of Amicia Pag. 7 8. also my first Reply Pag. 73. and my Addenda Pag. 16 17. But the first Knight of the Family of the Manwarings of Over-Peever was Sir John Manwaring of Peever living in the time of King Henry the sixth and died about 20. Edw. 4. So that hitherto I have committed no errour at all in these things he chargeth upon me To the 4. Pag. 8. In this I confess I may be mistaken in saying that Holt was the second Husband of Margery Praers since he finds John Honford was her Husband 46 47. and 50. Edw. 3. for then Honford must needs be her second Husband and Holt the first which by long pawsing on his own Deeds he might the better discover To the 5. Pag. 8 9. William Leigh of Baggiley was no Knight 33. Edw. 3. when he married Joan Manwaring for he was then very young and under age and therefore no errour in what I there have said Howbeit he was afterwards a Knight which I did take notice of in his due place To the 6. Pag. 9. He that tricked out the Seal for me saw as well as my self that the Seal was three Bars and not two Bars to the best of our Judgments but William Manwaring the younger did in his Seal use only two Bars 17. Richard 2. when the Heirs Males of the Manwarings of of Warmincham failed and also left out the Lyon in chief as I have there truly observed To the 7. Pag. 9. I must needs omit John and Margery Brother and Sister to the said Helen which I then knew nothing of and possibly other things may be hereafter discovered which ought not to be imputed as an errour to me when I writ my Book but so far as I writ was true Besides It was not my design to collect all the Children of the younger Sons Now these were the Children of a younger Son It was only my task to collect the Wives and Children of the right Heirs of each Family in Bucklow-Hundred To the 8. Pag. 9. He saith here that he finds William Son of Roger Manwaring living 14. of Edw. 3. and how long after he believes no Man can certainly tell Now I said he died about 12 or 13. of Edw. 3. which expression of mine shews only a guess without an exact certainty a very poor exception to be put in Print To the 9. Pag. 9 10. Here he saith that I said William Manwaring the younger divided the Lands of Baddiley between John Manwaring his Half-Brother and John de Honford but saith he William gave the Demain of Baddiley solely to his Half-Brother and divided the remainder of the Lands of Baddiley Why then he divided the Lands of Baddiley To the 10. Pag. 10. Here he saith that all the Manwarings that he can find have either given for their Crest an Ass-Head on a Torce and haltered or else an Ass-Head erased or else an Ass-Head unhaltered and within a Coronet Answer So that he makes here no certain Crest at all to his Family A very worthy exception But they have given the Ass-Head someway and it is certain that William Manwaring the younger in his Seal 17. of Rich. 2. did then give the Ass-Head couped which his Heirs have or should have continued To the 11. Pag. 11. Here he saith that the said William Manwaring did not by any Will dispose but of a part of his Estate namely of the Lands which came by his Mother nor did he by any Will settle the Lands which he had as Heir to his Father Answer Indeed I neither said he setled the Lands of the one nor the other but only that he setled his Estate which if it were either of his Mothers Lands or Fathers Lands I have said truth nor is it any matter whether of the one or of the other to my purpose To the 12. Pag. 11. Here he saith that he cannot understand how the dying of Sir John Warren 10. of Rich. 2. doth prove that John Manwaring married his Widow about 13. of Richard the second Answer But it is probable to be abouâ— that time for it may well be imagined that it must be some competent time after Sir John Warren's death nor can any Man expect punctual proof of every thing in theâ—â— cases and if Sir Thomas cannot mend it it may stand till betteâ— proof appear To the 13. Pag. 11. Here he saith that I have observed that the said John Manwaring waâ— Sheriff of Chess-shire 4 5 and 6 oâ— Henry 4. but have omitted 7 oâ— Henry 4. Answer Certainly this is a childish exception as most of the other be 〈◊〉 Is it possible that any Man that ever did write or shall write hereafter of matters of this kind should comprehend every particular and this is not worthy the labour of mending and is well enough without it To the 14. Pag. 12. Here he saith that Pag. 333. I say John Manwaring died 11. of Henry 4.1410 whereas he was certainly dead in the Year 1409. This is also a pitiful exception why doth he not now produce authority for the exact time of his death To the 15. Pag. 12. Here he saith that Pag. 334. I said Margery survived her Husband Randle Manwaring whereas she was certainly dead in the
place of Sir Robert Brierwood's being made either Serjeant at Law or Judg of the Kings-Bench for though it would have been fuller to have put them in here yet it is no errour without it And I had before as Sir Thomas here confesseth among the Recorders of Chestâ—r Pag. 187 there taken notice both of his being Serjeant at Law and being made Judg of the Common-Pleas howbeit Sir Thomas saith it should have been Judg of the Kings-Bench be it so I had it but by common fame Then as to Judg Nedham I called him Justitiarius de Banco Pag. 334. which he supposeth I do there erroneously take for a Judg of the Kings-Bench yet doth he not find me any where so expounding it so that he will suppose I have committed an errour before there be one To the 28. Pag. 18. Here he saith that Pag. 336. I say Philip Manwaring Esquire married Helen Daughter of Edward Minshul of Stoke 20 Jacob. 1622. whereas they were married 1617 15 Jacob. Answer This I believe is the most material mistake now charged upon me and I have now rectified the same nor do I well remember now how it came about To the 29. Pag. 18. Here he saith that Pag. 337. I say that the Stable and Dove-house at Over-Peever were built by Mrs. Helen Manwaring 1654 whereas the Stable was built 1653 and finished within the Year 1654 and the said Dove-house was not built till the Year 1656. Answer This is another Childish exception to put in Print neither is the first of these any errour at all To the 30 but misprinted 29. Pag. 18. Here he saith that Pag. 336. I say Margaret Wise of Henry Birkenhed died at Chester 25 of July 1661 but she died on Saturday the 20 of July 1661. Possibly I might miswrite the number 25 for 20 or it might be mistaken by the Printer Thus have I taken a view of all his trivial exceptions particularly and I believe such ridiculous things were never before published in Print by any wise Man and most of them rather Cavils than real Errours all which he ranketh under these four general Heads Partiality Omissions Uncertainties and Mistakes 1. As to Partiality I thank God I dare aver with a clear Conscience that I had not the least intendment of Partiality towards any in a word if there be any thing like Partiality in my Book it is towards his Family and whatsoever he chargeth me with in this respect it is altogether unjust 2. As to Omissions No moderate Man who shall seriously weigh all circumstances of this nature can judg it equal to impute such as errours it is sufficient that those things be true which I do mention and so far as I did then know for letany Man but consider what multitude of particulars or things may be hereafter discovered in future Ages which yet are in obscurity and appear not especially in matters of this nature nay how many things could I my self now add to my Book relating to England Scotland and Ireland and other things in this County and Hundred which I have collected since in case it might receive a second Edition which in this first were unknown unto me and other things not well digested or considered by me and God knows whether I may live to see a second Impression of it or no if I should how many other things might yet be afterwards further discovered Collections and Corrections would still be further necessary a thing incident to all Books especially of this kind nor is it possible for a mortal Man to comprehend every particular for still there will be a deficiency though he take all the care imaginable But these omissions charged upon me by Sir Thomas in his Admonition besides the unhandsomness of it are so inconsiderable as they be not worthy an amendment most of them 3. As to Uncertainties Some things will still be in the dark for want of exact proof in remote Ages either for punctual time or circumstances neither are probable conjectures to be totally rejected herein though the absolute certainty be not exactly known and such may stand without any imputation of errour till the contrary do appear by good proof 4. Lastly as to Mistakes Humanum est Errare Wilful mistakes are unworthy but mistakes through ignorance are more pardonable especially small mistakes and inconsiderable but these now charged upon me would have been more handsomly done by a private admonition than a publick and in Print too and in such a malignant manner also And as to all the Omissions Uncertainties and Mistakes before mentioned they are so immaterial that if my Book should receive a second Impression an indifferent Person would not think it necessary to amend above three or four of them besides those already acknowledged and amended in Print by me before his Admonition published for though many of them may be observed by Sir Thomas for his private use yet are neither worthy nor fit for a publick view as to my design and well enough without amendment Pag. 19. of his Admonition Here he reminds the Reader of his former words Pag. 63 of his Answer to my two Books which he repeateth here namely That since it did appear that I was resolved to have the last word although I had nothing new to say if what I did after that time write did prove no more to the purpose than what I had said in my two Books aforesaid he would not appear in Print against me any more but would chuse to vindicate his Grandmother and himself by word of mouth whensoever he should have opportunity so to do Answer Hereby he would now have the Reader to believe that what I have writ lately in my second Reply is nothing more to the purpose than what I had said in my two Books otherwise he would again have appeared in Print against me for he had left himself that Starting-hole but now he would chuse to vindicate his Grandmother and himself by word of mouth whensoever he had an opportunity so that he would now insinuate that though he had promised to appear no more in Print against me concerning Amicia yet he might noâ— appear against me in Print by a scandalous Admonition Pag. 19. of his Admonition Here he saith in the same Page that since that time that is since he appeared publickly in Print against me he might have done well to have excepted this Admonition I have put out at once no less than three Books concerning the same Subject that is concerning the Bastardy of Amicia Answer Now these three Books are but one Book digested into three parts and printed all at one time which he so formally calls a second Reply Peroratie ad Lectorem and the case of Amicia truly stated for the nature of the things required there to be handled apart which saith he was certainly a great deal of lost labour if my former Books had made the case so clear as I all along pretended they did But not
so neither for though the case might be clear enough before yet I believe it is now made more clear by removing those mists which Sir Thomas had endeavoured to cast upon the Truth Pag. 20. of his Admonition Here Sir Thomas saith that in all the Books I have written upon this occasion the same things are said over and over again as he believes the like cannot be found elsewhere so that it would be pleasant if some Person who hath little else to do would take an account how many times I have repeated the same things Answer Whereunto I say that the like may be found even in his own Books whosoever will take pains to read them over and what if the same things be sometimes repeated these must needs fall as oft as occasion is offered But now in the same twentieth Page he saith Though he intends speedily to write an Answer to that part of the Record which is mentioned in the 76 and 77 Pages of my Peroratio yet he doth not design it at present for the publick Press but he will show both it and his answer to my former Advertisement unto all knowing Persons who desire to see the same and he doth not doubt but to give them full satisfaction of my mistakes concerncerning both those Records that they do not prove those things which I conceit they do Surely I can have no mistake concerning them if the Record be truly writ by me which my Friend hath twice examined nor do I conceit they prove any thing but what is plain to every rational Man and it appears by other proof that Robert Earl of Glocester was not above ten Years old when he was married and those can be no very knowing Persons who shall be so captivated in their reason by him as to receive full satisfaction concerning my mistakes therein For if Sir Thomas shall not aver against a Record as sometime he hath done against an original Deed his cavils cannot smother the truth nor defend what he here saith when it shall come publickly to be scanned Pag. 21. of his Admonition Sâ—eaking here of his Letter mentioned by me in my Peroratio ad Lectorem he saith it is possible he might write to a Kinsman of his and mine that Mr Dugdalâ— had delivered his opinion in Print on his side as also what he had received from a very good hand concerning several of our Judges but he knows nothing of his Letter being left with Throp the Stationer in Chester and he is sure he did not write that Mr. Dugdale moved the Judges in the case for he was not then in London when that Meeting was nor knew of it till that Meeting was past and it was occasioned by my Appeal to them Answer Do but see now his equivocation It is possible he might write that Mr. Dugdale hath delivered his opinion in Print why doth he not speak downright and say that he did so write concerning Mr. Dugdale's opinion when it is most certain that he did so write to that Kinsman and several others and though he says he knows nothing of the Letter being left with Throp the Stationer yet it is most certain that Throp had it and shewed it to others why doth he not say what it is that he had received from that very good hand concerning the Judges and then he saith the meeting of the Judges was occasioned by my Appeal to them I 'le swear that neither I nor any from me by my knowledg or procurement did move any of them to that Meeting and on the other hand I believe they would not have had any such Meeting if no Body had moved them to it and I would fain know what question was moved to them and by whom Pag. 22. of his Admonition Here he saith that the question as I alledge whether Bastard or no Bastard hath nothing of any Law in the case and that it is more proper for the Judges to judg only upon the point of Law Now saith he how they can judg of the point of Law if there be nothing of any Law in the case may perhaps be very difficult for any but Sir Peter to tell Answer Thus the Reader may see his old way of catching at words though he knows my meaning well enough I do still affirm that whether Amicia be a Bastard or no hath nothing properly of any Law in the case but it is meerly a question of History and cannot be proved but by History Records and Reason and because our reverend Judges have not leasure to search up all the Histories and Records touching the same it is not fit to be put to them for their opinions unless also all the Records and Histories together with all the reasons alledged on both sides were produced before them But because Sir Thomas and others would prove it by a point of Law though very improperly formerly discussed between us in our Books and which I alledge will not reach the present case nor hath he any probable argument out of any History Record or Evidence to prove her legitimate I say it is more proper for the Judges to judge on that point of Law in difference between us than whether Amicia be a Bastard or no or whether Hugh Cyvelioc had a former Wife or no which hath no Law in the case Pag. 23. of his Admonition Here lastly he tells us he expects I will write several Books against what he hath here published about my mistakes concerning his Family which if I do he will not go about publickly to answer any of them but if any one will come to him he will show proof of all the Uncertainties Omissions and Mistakes which he hath charged me withall Answer Whereunto I say that I shall write no more concerning this Admonition than this Answer here published unless he shall also publish more scandalous things against me Only I observe he will not or rather cannot show any proofs for my partiality for that is left out here among the other general Heads mentioned and it had been better to have left that out before for I dare appeal to God and his own Conscience that he verily believes that I intended nothing of partiality to any Family nor especially any malignancy to his and therefore more unhandsomly done to charge it upon me before and most unjust And what he saith of showing proofs of all the Uncertainties Omissions and Mistakes here charged upon me unto any one that shall come unto him I believe he will have very few to resort unto him on that account only unless they were more weighty and concerning which I refer my self to my Answer here above written Mobberley Sept. the 20. 1676. FINIS