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
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
Year 1449 and died several Years before her Husband Answer But this mistake I rectified in Print long since at the end of my said Book among the Errata and also at the end of my Answer to the defence of Amicia so soon as I knew the certainty of it and therefore ought not to be charged upon me To the 16. Pag. 12. Here he saith that I said Sir John Manwaring died about the very end of Edw. 4. his Raign but he was dead for certain the 14. of April 20. of Edw. 4. Answer Had I but said towards the latter end of Edw. 4. I had not much erred and I could not put down the exact time till I knew it Now Edw. 4. raigned but 22 Years in all To the 17. Pag. 12 13. Here he saith that I omitted Agnes Daughter of John Manwaring of Peever Esquire and Wife of Sir Robert Nedham Answer Indeed at first I made some doubt of the truth hereof because I found in my Lord Kilmorey's Pedegree under the Herald's Seal that the said Sir Robert Nedham married Maud Daughter of Sir John Savage But as soon as I found out the truth I rectified that omission in Print at the end of my Answer to the defence of Amicia Pag. 87 as will appear by the said Book Printed 1673 and did also blot out that Match with Savage in my own Book in the Pedegree of that Family pag. 233. and yet he imputes it now again as if I had not mended the same which is unjustly charged here To the 18. Pag. 13. Here he saith that Katharine Manwaring married William Newton probably 1522 and I had said it was 1521 so that there was no certainty of what I there said Answer I say it is as probable they were married 1521 as 1522 and can absolute certainties be always found out in matters of this nature in every particular therefore let it stand till he proves it to be an errour To the 19. Pag. 14. Here he saith that Pag. 335 I say Sir John Manwaring was Sheriff of Flint-shire 6. of Henry 8. but I take no notice that he was Sheriff there 23 and 24 of Henry 7 and also 1 and 2 of Henry 8. Answer What if I did not It is true what I have said and well enough without it for as I said before it is not possible that I should comprehend every particular nor any Man else and shall my Credit of writing Truth be impeached by him for this because I cannot know every thing therefore I have committed no errour herein To the 20. Pag. 14. In the same Pag. 335 I say Sir John Manwaring died 8. of Henry 8. 1515. and no part of 8. Henry 8. falls in Anno 1515. Answer What of all this It perhaps were better placed to be Anno 1516 or 1517. let him find out the absolute time and I will mend it To the 21. Pag. 14. Here he saith that Pag. 335. I say Sir Randle Manwaring after the death of his first Wife married Elizabeth Daughter of Sir Ralph Leicester of Toft 6. of Edw. 6. 1551 but saith he I cannot prove they were married till the Year 1552. Answer Therefore let it stand donec probetur in contrarium it may yet be so for ought I know To the 22. Pag. 14. Here he saith that Pag. 336. I say Philip Manwaring Esquire was the fifth Son of Sir John Manwaring but he was the seventh Son born and not the fifth as appears by the Monument of the said Sir John in Over-Peever Church wherein the Monument of the said Philip is also Answer It may be so but they all died young and Philip became Heir If it be an errour it is but a small one and not material To the 23. Pag. 15. Here he confesseth what I say to be truth that the Herald in the raign of Queen Elizabeth made for Sir Randle Manwaring's Coat Barry of twelve pieces Argent and Gules See Guillims Heraldry Pag. 373. but saith he the Manwarings since then have again given two Bars only and the Coat which the said Sir Randle did then usually bear was six Barrulets and that I knew the ancient Coat to be six Barrulets Pag. 330. and not Barry of twelve pieces Answer It is true that I said the ancient Deed of Roger Manwaring made in the raign of King Henry the third was sealed with an Escocheon of six Barrulets Pag. 330. but that Coat devised for the said Sir Randle Guillim the Herald calls it Barry of twelve pieces I know not the criticism in these terms of Heraldry the Heralds themselves are the best Judges herein and whether we call it the one or the other it is not a Pin matter nor have I committed any errour at all for I there vouched Guillim for it To the 24. Pag. 15. Here he saith that I say the said Sir Randle Manwaring the elder built the Hall of Over-Peever anew 1586. but saith he part of the said House was built 1585 and another part was built 1586. Answer Is not here a worshipful exception It is more proper to ascribe the time when it was built to the finishing of it than when it was begun for it was not all built till it was finished To the 25. Pag. 16. Here he saith that Pag. 336. I call Sir Philip Manwaring Secretary of Ireland to the Earl of Stafford 1638. whereas the said Sir Philip was his Majesties Secretary of State there Answer Here I confess my words were not well ordered for I intended no more there than that he was Secretary of Ireland in the time of the Earl of Stafford then Lord Lieutenant there 1638. But I have corrected this in my Notes at the side of my own Book long before without any admonition from Sir Thomas To the 26. Pag. 16. Here he saith that I say the said Sir Philip Manwaring died the second of August 1661 at London but saith he he died at Westminster in Sir Philip Warwick's House which is in or near to St. James's Park Answer Is not here a ridiculous exception for a wise Man to make Do not we always say in the Country such a Man died at London whether he died at Westminster or in any of the Suburbs according to our common use of speaking it is no matter for taking notice at whose House To the 27. Pag. 16 17. Here he saith that I take no notice that Sir Robert Brierwood was made Serjeant at Law 1640 nor that he was made one of the Judges of the Kings-Bench 1643. and further saith that Pag. 187 I say the said Sir Robert was made Judg of the Common-Pleas 1643. whereas he was never made Judg of the Court of the Common-Pleas but of the Kings-Bench And also that Pag. 334. I say Sir John Nedham was Justitiarius de Banco whereby he supposeth I did there erroneously take Justitiarius de Banco to be a Judg of the Kings-Bench Answer For the first It was not necessary nor material to take notice in that
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