write no more touching Amicia I will assure you I received no encouragement thereby for I do not take you to be so great a Bug-bear as you suppose your self to be And if I had relyed upon your promise I had been much mistaken but I did very well know what you meant to do for besides what I heard from others the same day my Reply was finished you did write a Letter to me wherein was your pretended new precedent of Budeford and Suttehal and before any part of my last Book was printed I received notice from your servant by your command that you would print some precedents as Addenda to your former Book but it seems that resolution as also another as I was informed of writing an Answer in a third persons name were both laid aside and what you did came out as Addenda to your later Book But how in so doing you were just to your word I cannot imagine for what you did write till the end of the 7. Page did all concern Amicia and by the same reason you did write now you may write alwayes and say you do so as Addenda only to your said second Book In your 9 Page you again tell me That I begin my Reply with an untruth because I say that those of our County who are understanding persons will easily discerne from some of your Omissions that it was something else besides your great love to truth which occasioned you to Asperse your deceased Grandmother and you tell me I might have done well to have shewed To which I answer that I will not reflect upon persons in print but if any one desire privately to know what those Omissions were if I cannot give full satisfaction of your gross partiality let me bear the blame And I know no reason since you pretended it was your great love to truth which did occasion you to Write against Amicia but that I might in general termes let the World know it was something else which moved you so to do and I will appeale to the Reader whether I did not avoid all offensive expressions in what I said In your 10. Page you are also over-captious For I having found in your Historical Antiquities two Deeds made by Randle de Gernoniis father to Hugh Cyveliok in the time of which Hugh Raph Mainwaring was Justice of Chester and those two Deeds being directed Justiciariis although I know of none who can tell the name of any more then one of them I did therefore lest there should be two Justices in the time of the said Raph in my first Book call him Chiefe Justice because he acted alone but did withal in my second Book acknowledge that I had not found that there was then any other Justice in the time of the said Raph and for this you tell me I should have been more ingenious and do say I do very well know that there was no other Judge of Chester at that time which being a Negative it is impossible for me to know Also as you may see in Monasticon Anglicanum Part 3. p. 97 226. and in your Hist Ant. p. 130. 131. there was in the time of the said Earl Hugh sometimes two Justices of Chester and sometimes but one So that there possibly might be another Justice of Chester when the said Raph was Judge there And whereas you give a glance at my vain-glory by pretending you are loath to say it was so I desire to know how I could possibly be vain-glorious therein since it was full as honourable for the said Raph to be sole Justice of Chester as to be Chiefe Justice in case there were two In your 11 and 12 Pages you deny that you said that Geffrey Dutton was witness to his own Deed or Deeds but to the Deeds of others and say it was my gross mistake in saying so But if any persons read the 4 and 5 Pages of your Answer to my first Book they may easily see that you apply the words Domino Galfrido de Dutton in that Deed of Tabley to that Jeffrey de Dutton who made the said Deed and they will also find you saying That in several other Deeds of the same person meaning still the same Geffrey you dare affirm among the witnesses subscribed he hath five times and more the word Dominus omitted for once that we find it prefixed to his name Let the Readers therefore if they can find out how you could imagine his name to be at any time amongst his own Witnesses if you did not take him to be a Witness to his own Deeds You also in the same Pages of your Addenda say That if he had been a Knight he would have called himself by his Title Ego Galfridus de Dutton Miles or Ego Dominus Galfridus de Dutton dedi c. But this is directly contrary to what you did write at the bottom of the 5. Page of your second Book and it is well known that in very antient times every one who was a Knight did not alwayes give himself the Title of Miles or Dominus in his own Deeds neither had he alwayes the same Title given to him by others which if occasion required I could make to appear You also tell me that when I say That Dominus Galfridus de Dutton witness to the other Geffrey Duttons Deed of Nether-Tabley was his Father it was my gross mistake For it was Geffrey Dutton of Chedle And you also say that there were four Geffrey Duttons two of Budworth Father and Son and two of Chedle Father and Son much contemporary and for the proving of those two of Budworth those of Chedle being not there named you send me to your Book of Antiquities Page 226. there to be informed of what you say you see I do not know But if I did not know of those two Geffrey Duttons how could I tell you in the 10. Page of my Reply that Adam de Dutton had issue Sir Jeffrey who had issue Geffrey who made the said Deed of Tabley or How could I say that Geffrey the Father was a Witness to that Deed and How doth it yet appear that the Dominus Galfridus de Dutton who was Witness to the said Deed of Tabley was Geffrey Dutton of Chedle and not the other Sir Geffrey Dutton of Budworth For though the year 1238 be the last time you say you met with him yet as appears in your Hist Antiq. p. 216. you have not seen the Deeds of Sir George Warburton who is his heir-male therefore the said Geffrey might very well live on to be a Witness to that Deed. But whether the said Sir Geffrey of Budworth the Father was then living or not one of the Geffrey Duttons of Chedle was also a Knight as appears in your Hist Ant. p. 206. though you conceal it in your Addenda because you would have the Reader to believe there was no Sir Geffrey Dutton living when that Deed of Tabley was made which will as
AN ANSWER TO Sir PETER LEICESTER'S Addenda OR Some things to be Added in his ANSWER to S ir THOMAS MAINWARINGS BOOK WRITTEN By the said Sir Thomas Mainwarings LONDON Printed for Samuel Lowndes over against Exeter-House in the Strand 1673 4. TO Sir Peter Leicester Baronet SIR I Received your Addenda to the Answer to my former Book on Monday the 12th of January last in writing of which whether you are just to your word or not let the whole World Judge As for that which you say in the first Page thereof I think it was not worth your adding to what you had formerly written unless you could make it to appear that those persons whom you call judicious men be such whose opinions are like to be of equal weight with those Judges and Heralds who are against you which I believe will be very hard for you to do And if you could we should therein be but upon equal termes When you tell me in your 2 Page that you do give me two or three precedents more besides that of Geva to prove that Lands in those elder ages did pass in libero maritagio I cannot but smile to see that you still say that the gift to Geva was such a Precedent considering how in my Defence of Amicia Page 43 44. and so on to the middle of the 50 Page as also in my Reply to your Answer p. 23. and p. 45 46. and so on to the 60. Page I have made it to appear that it is very uncertain that the said Geva was a Bastard but most certain that the Gift to Geva was not a Gift in Frank-marriage And now I shall come to your pretended new precedents which you mention Page 2. and so on to the end of the 6 Page of your Addenda and in my Answer thereto I shall make it very clear that they are not such precedents as you take them to be but are gross mistakes of yours you erring in no less then these five particulars following First in conceiving that Joane wife of the said Lhewellin and daughter to King John was that base daughter named Joane which King John had by Agatha daughter to the second William de Ferrars Earl of Derby Secondly in saying that the said Lhewellin did marry Joane daughter of King John in the year 1206. Thirdly in alledging that King John gave Ellesmere in libero maritagio with his said daughter Joane Fourthly in pretending that the Mannor of Budeford in Warwickshire and the Mannor of Suttehall in Worcestershire were given by King John to the said Lhewellin with any daughter of the said King John And lastly in saying that that Joane who was wife to Robert de Andeley was the same Joane who was wife to the said Lhewellin And first you erre in saying that Joane who was the wife of the said Lhewellin was the same Joane which King John had by the said Agatha For as you may see in your Historical Antiquities p. 132. compared with Vincent p. 204. which is the place you bring for proof of what you say the said Agatha was daughter to William Ferrars Earl of Derby by his wife Agnes the third sister and coheir of Randle Blundevil Earl of Chester and Lincolne which Agnes was daughter of Hugh Cyveliok Earl of Chester by his wife Bertred Now the said Hugh Cyveliok dying as appears in your Hist Ant. p. 134. in the year 1181. and the said Bertred his wife as is proved Rot. de Dominabus pueris c. in Scacc. penes Remem R. sub Tit. Linc. Rot. 1. being but Twenty four years of age when her said husband dyed it will from thence appear that Joane daughter of the said Agatha could not possibly be the wife of the said Lhewellin For if we suppose that Randle Blundevil was younger then his third sister Agnes which I am confident you do not believe and that the said Bertred was begotten with Child at thirteen yeares of age and came so nimbly with her children as to have her first daughter when she was fourteen years old her second daughter when she was fifteen years old and her third daughter Agnes when she the said Bertred was sixteen years old then the said Agnes would be eight years of age in the said year 1181. If we also suppose the said Agatha to be the eldest of the six children of the said William Ferrars and Agnes though she might be the youngest and that she the said Agnes had the said Agatha when she the said Agnes was but fourteen years old then she the said Agatha would be born in the year 1187. If we also suppose that the said Agatha had her daughter Joane when she the said Agatha was but fourteen years old then the said Joane would be born in the year 1021. and yet by all this strange way of reckoning Joane the daughter of Agatha would have been but about three years of age when the said Lhewellin was married which as anon will appear was in the year 1204. So that this Joane daughter of Agatha was so far from being wife to the said Lhewellin that there is no likelihood that she was born at the time of the said Lhewellins marriage But the said Lhewellin was 28 years of age in the year 1204 For Sylvester Giraldus Cambrensis in his Itiner Cambr. printed at London 1585. p. 64. and 203. tells us that in the year 1188 at which time the said Silvester was living the said Lhewellin was 12 years old Secondly you run in to another erro in alledging that the said Lhewellin did marry his wife Joan in the year 1206. whereas he was her Husband in the year 1204. in the 6 year of King John as will appear by your own Authors Stow and Speed and by several others as also by this Copy of King John's Precept to the Sheriff of Shropshire to make Livery of the said Lordship of Ellesmere Ex Rot. Clauso de anno Sexto Regis Johannis in arce Lond. membrana 7. Rex Vicecom Salop. Salutem Scias quod dedimus dilecto filio nostro Lewellino manerium de Ellesmere cum omnibus pertinentiis suis in maritagio filiae nostrae Et ideo c. Teste c apud Wigorn. 23. Martii Thirdly You are guilty of a third error in pretending that King John did give the Lordship of Ellesmere in libero maritagio with his Daughter Joan for your own Authors as well as the aforesaid Record do only say that it was given in Maritagio so that your arguing that Ellesmere was given in maritagio and therefore was given in libero maritagio is very irrational For I have shewed in the 39 and 40 pages of my Reply to your Answer that maritagium is twofold and that Lands may be given in maritagio to one that is not of the Blood but as I have often proved Lands cannot be given in free-marriage but with one that is of the whole Blood neither can they be so given unless the word liberum
Sorore and p. 570. he is said to be propinquus Regi consanguinitate Also Knighton col 2417. n. 42. thus says of her Rex Johannes dedit filiam suam Leolino Principi Walliae in uxorem cum ea dedit castellum totum territorium de Ellesmere in confinio Walliae And the King himself in the aforesaid Record gives her the title of filiae nostrae Also in Lib. Barlings in which Book besides what concernes the Abby of Barlings in Lincolnshire there are certain Annals beginning An. 1050. and ending An. 1231. she is called the said Kings daughter without the Addition of Bastard For as I am informed by a judicious person who at my request did lately search the said Book in Sir Iohn Cottons Library these words Lewelinus disponsavit filiam Regis I. are the only words fol. 22. b. which concern the said matter And yet you in the 2d Page of your Addenda do say That the said Joane Lib. Barlings Fol. 22. b. is acknowledged and called base daughter of K. John I hope therefore the Reader will take heed how farr he gives credit to what you say Neither have I as yet found any Author who lived in that Age with her who hath said that she was a Bastard Indeed our later Authors as Vincent and others who say that she was illegitimate do many of them say That King Iohn was divorced from his second wife as well for that she was barren as within the degrees of consanguinity which barrenness if it could be made to appear would certainly prove the said Ioane to be a Bastard And this opinion hath so far prevailed in this last age that whereas learned Mr. Cambden as you may see in his Britannia in Latine printed at London 1607. p. 259. speaking of the Divorce of the said Hawisia whose name he mistakes and calls Isabel doth only use these words illam repudiatam Doctor Philemon Holland in the English Translation unjustly renders it thus That King John did repudiate her upon pretences as well that she was barren as that they were within the prohibited degrees of consanguinity But our antient Historians say nothing of her being Barren For this see Hoveden who was living all the time that Hawisia was wife to K. John p. 803. n. 34. in the year 1200. Eodem Anno factum est divortium inter Johannem regem Angliae et Hawisam uxorem ejus filiam Willielmi comitis Gloucestrriae per Heliam Burdegalensem Archiepiscopum per Willielmum Pictavensem per Henricum Sanctonensem episcopos erant enim affines in tertio gradu consanguinitatis Facto itaque Divortio inter Johannem regent Angliae uxorent suam ipse Rex Angliae consilio domini sui Philippi regis Franciae duxit sibi in uxorem Isabel filiam Ailmari comitis de Engolismo c. So also Mat. Paris living in the time of the said Ioane p. 200. n. 23. in the said year 1200. Eodem tempore celebrato Divortio inter Regem Anglorum uxoorem suam Hawisam comitis Gloverniae filiam eo quod affines erant in tertio gradu consanguinitis Duxit idem Rex consilio Regis Francorum Isabel filiam comitis Engolismi So also Mat. Westminster in that Edition printed at London 1570. lib. 2. p. 76. n. 25. Anno gratiae M. CC. Rex Johannes Isabellam filiam comitis Engolismi duxit in uxorem Dominica proxima ante festum sancti Dyonisii consecrata est in reginam ab Huberto Cantuariensi Archiepiscopo quia celebratum fuit divortium inter ipsum Hawisiam comitis Gloverniae filiam eo quod contingebant se in tertio consanguinitatis gradu Now certainly these antient Authors must needs in this point be credited before those that lived so long after them and especially since all those that I have met with who say she was barren or do call her a Bastard do not one of them know her true Christian-name but are either silent therein or else which the most of them do do call her Isabel instead of Hawisia See also the words of Rad. de Diceto who lived in the time of the said King Iohn col 706. n. 5. which words are these Celebratum est divortium inter Johannem regem Angliae filiam comitis Glocestriae in Normannia ab episcopis Lisoriensi Baiocensi Abrincensi aliis episcopis qui interfuerant quam ipse tempore patris permissione Romanae ecclesiae duxerat in uxorem cum Comitatibus de Glocestria de Sumersatum de Devenesire de Cornwaille et aliis quamplurimis per Angliam honoribus Set ille sublimioris thori spe raptatus consilio pravorum cam abegit unde magnam summi Pontificis scilicet Innocentii tertii et totius curiae Romanae indignationem incurrit praesumens temere contra leges et canones dissolvere quod eorum fuerat auctoritate colligatum And now let any man judge if she had been barren whether that would not have been alleadged as a cause of King Iohns putting her away as well as his desire of matching into a more sublime family So that I see no reason to conclude the said Ioane to be a Bastard until it be proved that she was so by some Record Deed or good Author who lived in that Age and especially since the said Hawisia's daughter if she had one might very well be old enough in the year 1204. to be married to the said Lhewellin Prince of North-Wales But it is not material to the case in hand whether the said Ioane was a Bastard or not Because all the Gifts you mention in your Addenda were either not gifts in free-marriage or else were not given to the said Lhewellin with the said Ioane As to what you say in your 7 Page I did in my former Book give you several Reasons why the words of Glanvil did not prove what you supposed they did and in the 38 and 39 Pages of my Reply did tell you how you had left them unanswered and did also there nform you that Mr. Glanvil did not say That Lands might be given with any woman in liberum maritagium but only in maritagium and yet after all this you have the confidence again to father upon Mr. Glanvil what he never either meant or said In your 8. Page you say I have charged you with many absolute untruths and gross absurdities and in stead of modest and clear Answers to the very point or hinge of the controversie did burst out into extravagant expressions in things upon the By which gives you occasion to imagine that I think my cause declining But those and several other of your expressions seeming to proceed more from passion then reason I shall at present pass them by and do not doubt but I shall be able to clear my self from any thing which you have or can particularly charge me withal And whereas you pretend that my confidence did arise because you are tied up by your Promise to
well serve my turn for if Sir Geffrey of Budworth was then dead then the Domino Galfrido de Dutton is in that Deed to be applied to Sir Geffrey Dutton of Chedle And whilst they were both living whensoever you sind Domino Galfrido de Dutton among the witnesses it is certainly to be applied to one of the Knights and when you find Galfrido without Domino it is as certainly meant of some Geffry Dutton that was no Knight And whereas you object p. 13. That Sir Geffrey Dutton of Budworth must needs be dead or else Geffrey the Son could not have passed away those Lands That doth not follow for I have known more then once not only Sons in the life-times of their Fathers but also Grandchildren who have been possessed of Lands in their grandfathers time And whereas you say that Margaret was daughter but not Daughter and heir of Geffrey Dutton I cannot tell how that will appear without the sight of Sir George Warburtons Deeds Because Sir Peter Dutton might be son to a Geffrey Dutton and yet be Brother and heir-mal to Geffrey the Father of Margaret But be it how it will she having the Mannors of Nether-Tabley Wethale and Hield it can be no gross one if it be any mistake at all In your 14 Page you would willingly heal an expression in your former Book by confessing it was too short but to make amends for this you now overdoe it and because you would make us believe that you formely meant as you now pretend you say that a little after you did speak of Knights who usually stiled themselves thus Ego Dominus A. B. dedi c. or Ego Dominus A. B. Miles dedi c. But whoever can find those words in your Answer can find out that which I am not able to do In your 16 17 and 18 Pages you keep a great stir about the word domino when it is prefixed to any names in subscriptions and though you were willing in your last Book to call Sir Raph Mainwaring Sir Roger Mainwaring Sir Thomas Mainwaring and Sir William Mainwaring all of them Knights yet now you are dissatisfied concerning all but Sir Thomas Mainwaring to whose name in a Fine you find the word Milite added and you would willingly insinuate that the Dominus Willielmus Mainwaring was he who was Parson of Wernith though without any cause as appears by the Deed wherein he is named And you ask me whether I have any Deed of Raph Mainwaring Judge of Chester with the word Milite added which you well know that I have not it being much that I have those Deeds of his which I have being he was Judge of Chester so long since viz. in the time of Richard the First But I pray you Why is not the word Domino when prefixed to the name of a Witness who was not a Clergy-man good proof that he was a Knight especially since some who are likely to be the most skilful in those matters are of opinion that it is And why if it be not good proof were you lately more complemental then you are now and did break your old Rule of Amicus Socrates Amicus Plato c. in calling Raph Roger and William Mainwaring Knights Or Why do not you prove the word domino prefixed to some persons name before he was made a Knight Or to one who was no Clergy-man and but an Esquire at the time of his death Or Why doth not the word domino prefixed to each of the names of the aforesaid Raph Roger and William Mainwaring prove them to be Knights as well as it doth prove one of the Geffrey Duttons of Budworth and one of the Geffrey Duttons of Chedle to be Knights For you confess Page 13. of your Addenda that you do not remember any of them writing Ego Dominus Galfridus Dutton dedi c. And Why did not you answer the Question which I asked of you in the 16. Page of my Reply viz. If the word Dominus do only signifie Master as you would have it What is the reason that in some Deeds it is only put before the names of some of the witnesses and not before the names of others although those other persons to whose names it is not put many times are Lords of several Mannors and persons of very great Estate And What is the reason that you do not call all the four Geffrey Duttons Knights as well as two of them seeing in the 13 p. you say You have if you mistake not seen them all sometimes subscribed with Domino prefixed but not any of them writing himself Ego Dominus c. Or How comes it to pass that neither of the two Knights did ever write so if what you say in your 11th Page be true Sure the Reader will easily perceive what strange work you yet make with these Geffreys and their Deeds In your 18th Page you also say That I fasten upon you another untruth where I tell you that you have seen the opinion of a Judge under his hand with Reasons for the same touching Amicia But whether this be an untruth or not let what you formerly sent me under your own hand determine where you name the Judge and also take notice that his reasons were given under his hand Let me therefore advise you for the future to be more cautious what you write And whereas you also say That your memory is not so bad but you could remember something of it or his name Let the Reader look in your Hist Ant. p. 135. l. 3. and p. 136. l. 43. or see your words in the 5 p. l. 15. and 12. p. l. 5. printed with my Defence of Amicia and he will there find that you did know the Reasons of the said Judge And whereas you pretend It was impossible for you to have alleadged to the two Heralds the tenth part of what you could have done in so short a space I shall leave that to them they being both yet living as also whether they have found any thing in your former Books concerning Amicia which they have not heard from you before And as for your Lawyer of very good note and good Antiquary you do well in concealing his Name But certainly he was very unkind that would not furnish you with some Precedents to make good what he said What you say in the 20th Page and so on to the middle of the 23 Page shews clearly that you are resolved not to be convinced For when at the first I proved out of Monast Angl. Part 2. p. 267. that Richard Bacuns Mother could not be Hugh Cyveliok's daughter because it was Randle de Gernoniis not Randle Blundevil whom the said Richard called Unckle in regard there was a William Archbishop of York and one whose Name began with an R. which was then Bishop of Chester both living in the time of the said Randle de Gernoniis but that there was no William Archbishop of York during all the
time of Randle Blundevil nor any man Bishop of Chester whose name began with R after the said Randle Blundevil could be old enough to seal a Deed as also because Bacuns witnesses were contemporary with Randle de Gernoniis You in the 54 and 55 Pages of your Answer do not only say that you conceive the Roll from whence the Deed in Monasticon was written is mistaken in Will and R. which was a strange Answer but you also say There was no such Archbishop of York called William nor Bishop of Chester whose Christian name began with R. both living at one time either in the time of Randle Blundevil or Randle de Gernoniis that you can find But when you perceived that I had clearly proved by several Authors that a William was Archbishop of York and that Roger Clinton was Bishop of Chester in the time of Randle de Gernoniis so that you could no longer deny the same You now in your Addenda would willingly avoid the Argument because the said William upon his first Election had not the Pall which all that know any thing will easily perceive to be a very weak Answer For he was consecrated Archbishop and had possession of the Archbishoprick till after the deaths of Pope Innocent the Second Pope Celestine the Second and Pope Lucius the Second And if he was reputed Archbishop he would be called so as well in Deeds as otherwayes And it is no wonder since he was looked upon by many to be the right Archbishop and to be wrongfully suspended by Pope Engenius as you may see in my Reply Page 77. and so on to the 87. Page if some persons do name him according to the time of Election and others according to the time of his Restauration which doth reconcile those different placings which you mention in your 22 p. And whereas you again object That Chester was then within the Province of Canterbury not York I answered that in my last Book where I told you that the Archbishop was not named upon that accompt but because some of the places mentioned in the said Deed were within the Province and Diocess of York as particularly Rosington was it being within the Westriding of York shire And if that Deed was not directed to an Archbishop of York How came the word Eboracensi there But if you had foreseen I would have asked you this question I doubt not but you would have said That the word Eboracensi was miswrit as well as the word VVill and the letter R. In your 23 24 and 25 Pages you are disingenious and do not recite my Argument aright For you pretend it only to lie in this That Hugh VVac and Richard Pincerna two of the Witnesses to Bacuns Deeds were also Witnesses to a Deed made Anno 1152. which falls in the latter end of the life of Randle de Gernoniis whereas vvhoever vvill read the 88 and 89 Pages of my Reply vvill find that I named five Witnesses of Richard Bacuns viz. Hugh Wac Richard Pineerna VVilliam Colevile Thurstan Benaster and VVilliam the Chaplain and also did instance in five Deeds to vvhich Randle de Gernoniis vvas a party to each of vvhich one tvvo or three of the said Bacuns said witnesses were also witnesses and if you please you may also find a sixth Deed in Monast Angl. Part 1. p. 987. b. and a seventh Deed in Monast Angl. Part 2. p. 260. b. That which you did alleadg concerning two Deeds made at a great distance is nothing like this Case Neither is there any weight in William Bacun's being a witness to a single Deed of Randle Blundevils for he might be a young Man when he was witness to Richard Bacuns Deed and living to be old might be a witness to one of Randle Blundevils Deeds But it is probable he was Son Grandson or other Kinsman of the other VVilliam Bacun But you deal a little fallaciously with your Reader when you say it was but Twenty nine years betwixt the death of Randle de Gernoniis and the time that Randle Blundevil was Earl For though that be true yet it would be a longer time before Randle Blundevil could be old enough to seal a Deed for his Mother was but Twenty four years old when he came to be Earl VVhat you object p. 26 and 27 concerning the deed of VVarranty of Randle de Gernoniis or concerning Richard Bacuns being contemporary with Randle Blundevil is sufficiently answered For VVhy might not the said Deed of Warranty be lost as well as many thousands of other Deeds are And that Richard Bacun was contemporary with Randle de Gernoniis I have abundantly proved And though in your 27 Page you would have Bacuns Mother to be Hugh Cyvelioks daughter yet in the 25 Page you confess that it is probable she was a Bastard of Randle de Meschines but finding that to contradict what you afterwards said you have since the Printing thereof blotted it out of those Books which you have disposed of in these parts And although I do not see but that Bacuns Mother might be a lawful daughter of the said Randle de Meschines yet I will not further engage in her defence but pass by that and the course language which you repeat at the latter end of your Book I have now done with your Addenda but since you have so abounded in that particular I hope you will give me leave to add a word or two to what I have formerly said I have heretofore proved that the aforesaid Bertred was but Twenty four years of age in the year 1181 when her Husband died by which it appears that she was born in the year 1157. I do also find in the Third Part of Mr. Dugdales Monasticon Anglicanum p. 226. that Hugh Cyveliok and his Mother Maude did give Stivinghale with a Mill next the Park and some other Grounds to VValter Durdent Bishop of Chester and his successors to which Deed Eustace the Constable was witness Now the said Earl Hugh being not in a capacity to seal a Deed until he was One and twenty years of age and the said Eustace being slain as appears by your Hist Ant. p. 266. in a Battel against the VVelsh in the said year 1157. If the said Deed was made immediately before the said Eustace was slain the said Hugh must needs be at the least One and twenty years older then his Wife Bertred But it is very likely that Deed was made some years before viz. immediately upon the death of Randle de Gernoniis For the said Randle died Excommunicate and Stivinghale and those other Lands were given for his Absolution and the health of his Soul But besides what is here proved if you look at the latter end of the VVelsh History put out by Dr. Powel 1584 immediately before the Table you will see that the 16 line of the 197 page of the said VVelsh History is misprinted and that in the said Page it should have been Printed thus About the same time Hugh son to the Earl of Chester sprtified his Castell of Cymaron and wan Melienyth to himself And you may also there find that the time when the said Hugh wan Mclienith was in the year 1142. Now that this Welsh History is of good credit I hope you will not deny For in the 44 Page of your Historical Antiquities you acknowledge that in these Welsh matters you chiefly follow the same And Dr. Powel in his Epistle as also in his Notes on the said History p. 206. tells us That Caradocus Lhanearuan is reputed and taken of all learned men to be the Author of what is therein written until the year 1156. And as you may find in Vossius his Book de Historicis Latinis p. 389. and in Isaacksons Chronologie p. 323. the said Caradocus was living when the said Hugh wan Melienith The only Question therefore is Of what age the said Hugh then was And because that is uncertain and that I am willing to reckon so as may be most advantageous to you I will suppose him to be then but Twelve years old which is the same age that Silvester Giraldus p. 203. sayes Prince Lhewellin ap Jorweth was of when he began to infest his Unckles and is indeed as young as I have observed any to appear in such Martial Affaires Now if we should believe that Hugh Cyveliok did Marry the said Berired so soon as she was fourteen years of age then the said Marriage would happen in the year 1171. at which time if Hugh Cyveliok was born in the year 1130 and was but 12 years old when he was Melienith in the year 1142 yet he would be 41 years of Age when he Married the said Bertred It cannot therefore be imagined that so great a person should continue unmarryed till he was above Fourty yeares old or that he should Marry to his first Wife one so much different from him in yeares But when he had Marryed a former Wife who dyed leaving him only a daughter or daughters it is no wonder if in his age he Marryed a young Lady to the intent he might have Issue-male to succeed him in so great an Estate I hope therefore though you told me in the 49 Page of your Reply That you can gather no such quantity of years in respect of Hugh Cyvelioks age reasonably to suppose him to have had a former Wife that these proofes will shew that there were very many years betwixt them and that thereupon you will be so reasonable as to believe he had a Wife before he Marryed Bertred And if he had a former Wife there would be no cause to suspect Amicia to be illegitimate if your pretended Precedents had been such as you did untruly suppose them to be with which I will conclude what I have now to say when I have subscribed my self Your Affectionate Cosin and Servant Thomas Mainwaring Baddeley Feb. 13. 1673 4.