A REPLY TO Sr. Thomas Manwaring's ANSWER TO MY TWO BOOKS Written by Sr. Peter Leycester Baronet Anno Domini 1675. The Second REPLY Together with the Case of Amicia truly Stated LONDON Printed in the Year 1676. THE PREFACE TO THE READER I Received on the 13th of April 1675. a very strange kind of Book from Sir Thomas Manwaring then delivered unto me by his Servant wherein I expected a Book of Arguing to the point of the Controversie between us But behold a book of Railing catching as his usual manner is at every small impertinent thing That I may the sooner come to the Book it self I shall observe only out of his Epistle this one thing How he minceth the Truth in telling the Reader that my Servant did by my Command signifie unto him in a Letter that I would write again and this before Sir Thomas had Printed one word of his Reply So that if he find me thus Stumbling at the first it is well if he do not take me oft Tripping before I come to my Journeys end Whereunto I say that he deals not clearly in his words and declareth not the whole Truth For it is true that I did command my Servant to write unto him but what did I command him to write Was it barely that I would then write again No but to let him know that I had then found some new Precedents which I conceived would clear the point between us and came to my knowledge since I had published my Answer of which I thought good to give him timely notice that I would add them to my Answer already Printed which were omitted therein and this before his Reply was Printed as Sir Thomas here confesseth This was rather an amendment of my former book then writing again de novo for as yet he had published no book against it but this part of the Truth he conceals and if my Servant writ otherwise than to this effect I utterly disown it to be written by my command But before I could get my Addenda Printed he Published a Reply to my Answer wherein were so many Crimes charged upon me that I was forced to a Vindication of my self which I did then put into my Addenda yet not so fully as I might have done See my Addenda p. 8. and also p. 27. And whatsoever I have also written more then what I first intended and declared I have been forced thereunto in my own defence And so I will now briefly come to his Book and hope to shew clearly who Trips most in the Journey he or I and wherein I do Trip it shall be readily confest I think mine will not be found many nor material to the main point but I believe his will be found Fundamental Errors And I could wish that Sir Thomas would as freely confess his Trips as I shall confess mine then the whole business would soon be at an end And herein I shall endeavour all along to avoyd all abloquies wherewith he adoundeth as much as I can for Calumnies and Slanders will find no place among Wise and Good Men and are ever inconsistent with those excellent Christian Graces of Humility and meekness Mobberly May the 18th 1675. A Second Reply Pag. 1. Of his Answer to my two Books HEre he saith that I affirm several times that Glanvil saith that Lands may be given with any Woman in liberum maritagium whereas he saith only they may be given cum quâlibet muliere in maritagium My Reply I did and do yet affirm it and have proved it too see pag. 54. of my former Reply which yet he hath not answered nor do I believe that he can rationally answer my Argument there For though Glanvil hath not these very words Lands may be given with any Woman in liberum maritagium yet he saith it by Consequence drawn clearly out of his words lib. 7. cap. 18. which is the same in effect Nor doth Sir Thomas repeat Glanvil's words aright and yet he is ready upon all occasions to tax me with the like the words of Glanvil lib. 7. cap. 1. are quilibet liber homo terram habens quandam partem terrae sua cùm filiâ suâ vel cum aliquâ aliâ qualibet muliere potest dare in maritagium c. not barely cùm qualibet muliere Pag. 2. Of his Answer to my two Books Here he saith I tell him that I have proved Geva to be a Bastard out of an Historian Contemporary by which Ordericus Vitalis is meant and yet Ordericus saith no such thing My Reply 'T is true I said so and have proved it too See my Answer to his Defence of Amicia pag. 34 35. for though he hath not these very words Geva is a Bastard yet by sure Consequence it follows out of the words of Ordericus that she was a Bastard which is all to one effect and here is another trip of a fallacy in Sir Thomas Pag. 2. Of his Answer to my two Books 1. Here he also saith that I affirm the Common Law is now altered otherwise than by Act of Parliament without quoting any Author 2. And also that I brag of several Precedents where Lands were given in free Marriage with Bastards and yet I prove not these necessary words of liberum maritagium as the Lord Cook calls them were used in any of those grants or that any of those Persons with whom such Lands were given were Bastards My Reply Here is another Trip of Sir Thomas for I have quoted the Lord Cook himself in several Cases for it See my Answer to his Defence of Amicia pag. 23 24 25 26. and yet he is not ashamed to say here I quoted no Author for it And I could yet produce a number of Cases more wherein the Law is altered without any Act of Parliament if it were necessary 2. To the Second I produced those ancient precedents to show that those words in liberum maritagium were not anciently so necessary in grants of free Marriage as the Lord Cook would now have them to be and then Sir Thomas saith that I have not proved any of those Persons with whom such Lands were given in free Marriage were Bastards Sit liber judex as to that of Geva See also my former Reply pag. 38. where Joan Princess of Wales is clearly proved to be a Bastard by the Testimony of most of our Historians but none saying she was a lawful Daughter and that she had Lands given her in free Marriage by King John her Father See my Advertisement to the Reader at the end of my two said Books also my Addenda pag. 3 4. and my former Reply pag. 25. Pag. 3. Of his Answer to my two Books Here he saith I tell him Lewellyn Prince of north-North-Wales was Divorced from his Wife Joan for which I can neither shew Author nor Record My Reply I do not positively affirm it the words in my former Reply pag. 44. are these if she were Re-married to Audley anno 14.
dat cum aliquâ muliere alicui in maritagium ità quod ab omni Servitio terra illa sit quieta à se haeredibus suis versus capitalem Dominum acquietanda And Bracton expresly lib. 2. cap. 7. Quoniam terra data Bastado in maritagium sicut aliis vel Bastardo per se in se tacitam habet Conditionem vel expressam de reversione c. See also Sir Thomas Manwaring's Law-Cases mistaken pag. 10 11. So that Lands might be given in Free-Marriage to any man with any woman whomsoever without any exception and if with any woman whomsoever then certainly with a Bastard and Bracton more expresly that Lands might then be given to a Bastard in Marriage neither are Bastards any where disallowed by the Law either in Glanvil or Bracton for having Lands given in Free-marriage 2. That the Law was so taken in the time of King John and upwards appeareth by sundry Precedents of those elder Ages whereby Lands were given in Free-marriage with Bastards See one in my Book of Antiquities pag. 112. wherein Randle Earl of Chester Sir-named de Gernouns gave unto Geva Ridel Daughter of Earl Hugh that was Hugh Lupus Drayton in Free-marriage with the Appurtenances even as Earl Hugh gave the same unto her in Free-marrige This Deed was made about the end of Hen. I. or King Stephen And that Geva was a Bastard Ordericus an Historian of good Credit and Contemporary with Geva plainly shews for lib. 4. Ecclesiasticae Historia pag. 522. He tells us that Hugh Lupus had many Bastard-Sons Bastard-Daughters yet nameth none of them in particular è Pellicibus plurimam Sobolem utriusque sexûs genuit quae diversis infortunijs absorpta penè tota periit Exmentrudem filiam Hugonis de Claromonte Beluacensi uxorem duxit ex quâ Ricardum Cestrensis comitatûs haeredem genuit qui jnvenis liberisque Carens naufragio periit So that having given an account of his Wife and his Son by her who dyed young and without Children he would certainly have given an Account of his other Children by his Wife if he had had any other by her but â—o put it out of all doubt he tells us afterwards lib. 10. Eccles Hist pag. 787. Ricardus Pulcherrimus puer quem solum ex Ermentrude filiâ Hugonis de Claromonte genuit Consulatum Cestriae Scilicet tenuit so that Earl Hugh only begot Richard on Ermentrude his Wife then by sure consequence out of his words it must needs follow that Geva was was one of the Earl's Bastards she being no Child by Ermentrude his Wife which is clearly proved without a point of Law and cannot by any point of Law be taken off Again if Geva had been a Lawful Daughter by Ermentrude then she would have been sole Heir to her Brother Richard and ought to have had the Earldom of Chester which she never had nor ever claimed See this more fully in my Answer to the Defence of Amicia pag. 35. to pag. 40. and if and shall run to the old Subtersuge and say she might be his Daughter by a former Wife let him prove it and take it and she could be no Daughter by a latter Wife because Ermentrudo survived Earl Hugh her Husband See my Historical Antiquities pag. 114. Other two Precedents we have of Lands granted in Free-marriage with Joan Bastard-Daughter of King John 1. One wherein King John granted to Lewellyn Prince of north-North-wales in Marriage with Joan his Daughter the Castel of Ellesmere in Shropshire Tenendum ei haeredibus suis qui de eo praedictâ filiâ nostrâ exierint de nobis haeredibus nostris in liberum maritagium Salvis conventionibus inter nos ipsum de terrâ eodem maritagio factis c. Dated Anno Sexto Johannis Regis 1204. See the Deed at large in the Advertisement to the Reader at the end of my book stiled Sir Thomas Manwaring's Law-Cases mistaken pag. 53. transcribed from the Record in the Tower of London 2. Another see in my book of Antiquities pag. 152. wherein it is Covenanted that John the Scot Nephew of Randle Earl of Chester and Lincoln by his eldest Sister shall Marry Helen Daughter of Lewellyn Prince of north-North-wales and that the said Lewellyn shall give to the said John in Free-Marriage all the Mannor of Budford in Warwick-shire and the Mannor of Suttehele in Worcester shire cum omnibus Pertinentiis sicut Dominus Johannes Rex ea illi dedit in libero maritagio c. This Deed was made about 6. Hen. 3. Anno Christi 1222. Now that the said Joan was a Bastard-Daughter of King John take these several Authorities Vincent upon Brook pag. 204. Speeds History p. 518. Stow's Annalls Augmented by Howes pag. 167 168. Polychronicon Translated into English by Trevisa lib. 7. cap. 33. Cambdens Brittannia in Shropshire pag. 453. also Daniel and Fabian and Milles Catalogue of Honour and Sir Richard Baker's History who do all call her base Daughter of King John and no Author at all calls her Lawful Daughter or reckoneth her among the Daughters by any of his Wives some of them say she was begot by King John on Agatha de Ferrars And therefore these Deeds and Charters which concerned so great Persons whom we cannot suppose to be without Learned Councel about them are clear Precedents showing how the Law was then taken and were good Deeds conveying the Lands with Bastards in Free-marriage in those Ages which Lands were quietly enjoyed accordingly and nothing can be said against them Many other Precedents of like nature in those ancient Ages might without doubt upon diligent search and enquiry be found out For as much then as it appears by the words of Glanvil that Lands might then be given with any Woman whomsoever in Free-marriage and no Bastards then excepted or disallowed by the Law either in Glanvil or Bracton and that clear Precedents of those elder Ages do prove and show that Lands did then usually pass in Free-marriage as well with Bastards as Lawful Daughters and that all Deeds by the rule of Law are to be construed and understood according to the time when they were made How can a Deed of Services given in libero maritagio in the Reign of Henry the Second with one justly suspected to be a Bastard be a sure Argument or any Argument at all to prove her Legitimate Wherefore it is very evident that in those elder Ages as the Law was then taken in the Reign of King John and upwards Lands lawfully might usually did pass in libero maritagio with Bastards as well as with no Bastards howbeit at this day our Law will not permit the same FINIS ERRATA PAge 7 line 16 〈◊〉 deseased for diseased p. 8 l. 12 you for he p 14 l. 10 Index for Judex p. 14 l. 19. The to be expunged p. 15 l. 9 Doterium for Dotarium p. 30 l. 1 Cupitalis for Capitaâ—is p. 48. last line man for men p. 40 l. 22 23. this this expunge the one of them p. 58 l. 19 20. man man expunge the one of them p. 42 mispaged for 59 p. 76. in the margent Seaccarium for Seaccarium
deny a truth I would I could say as much of Sir Thomas indeed it is much that this very word should be mis-printed above other words in Matthew Paris I believe neither Sir Thomas nor any other scarcely upon such an accidental business could have suspected it to be so having lighted upon the place by chance else I should have made a stricter enquiry but it had reason to put him upon an enquiry Yet where he saith pag. 59. that I dealt deceitfully herein and that I did it purposely This is another Trip of Sir Thomas for had I then known it to be mis-printed I would never have urged it at least without a Note upon it However the mis-printing of Hugh Earl of Chester for Randle in the Welsh History pag. 197. holds firm for ever and Sir Thomas confesseth it mis-printed in this his Answer pag. 52. very probably in the latter Copies the letter R standing for a word in the Original book might be mis-written ♄ in the Copy which was supposed to be Hugh or else for certain the Original was mistaken But for all this Sir Thomas is so far from an ingenious Confession herein that he will justifie his absurd errour of computing Earl Hugh to be 41. years old when he married Bertred this he grounds upon the Errata at the end of Doctor Powels Notes on the Welsh-History aforesaid where it is said we must read pag. 197. line 16. Hugh Son to the Earl of Chester Which amendment is certainly as far from the truth as that already Printed and it is very questionable whether the said Earl Hugh ever lived to be 40. years old for he dyed Anno Domini 1181. and suppose we that he was eight years old when his Father dyed Scilicet 1153. which I believe is as much as by reasonable account any indifferent person can well judge him so to be yet would Earl Hugh be but 36. years old when he dyed Anno scilicet 1181. and if he were twelve years old at the death of his Father which I am confident can never be proved by good Authority yet would Earl Hugh be but 40. years old when he dyed See what a shift Sir Thomas would now make but to suppose Earl Hugh to have a former Wife which certainly he never had but it appears now by a Record that he dyed about the Age of 32. Again Sir Thomas saith pag. 51. that I go about to disparage Doctor Powel all I can and that I will not suffer the Wesh History to be read as it should have been Printed as also pag. 52. that I will now disparage the said History although in my Historical Antiquities touching the Kings of Wales I did chiefly follow the same This is another unkind reflection Sit liber Judex See page ioii supra pag. 94. of my former Reply my words are these As I believe it that is the Welsh-History to be true in many things so it hath also some gross mistakes nor is it at all proved by good Authority or exactly composed through out nor shall you therein from the beginning find all the Wives Children and Bastards of the Ancient Kings and Princes of Wales clearly Recorded and so are Doctor Powels Notes thereon full of Errors and especially in his absurd Pedegree of the Earls of Chester and in several other things Here is nothing but what every knowing man who doth seriously peruse the same will acknowledg to be true and some mistakes may be and are in the writings of very Learned men and yet no great disparagement neither and I do confess also that I followed the Welsh-History in the Princes of Wales for I had no better nor other to follow Pag. 60. Of his Answer to my two Books Having now concluded his Answer to my former Book he tells us that in my Latine Epistle to the Judges which he supposeth to be mine though I vouchsafe not to set mine name thereto I said he was the first Instigator of this Controversie but whether that be so or â—o he refers the Reader to his Epistle before his Defence of Amicia and to the second and third pages of his Reply My Reply But what Sir Thomas saith there was not the first time of this Controversie between us For he saith in that Epistle that if I would have delivered what I did conceit about Amicia as an uncertainty only then I knew he would have rested satisfied with the judgment of those many knowing persons who dissented from me in opinion therein But this was a little before my Historical Antiquities were Printed nay he came to Tabley †About 1672. also purposely to desire me hearing then that my Book was about to be Printed that I would put Amicia under the Title of the doubtful Issue of Earl Hugh when I told him that I thought it not sit to put down in my book any such third title of doubtful Issue for she must certainly be either lawful or unlawful which method I had observed in the rest I told him also that it was not at all doubtful unto me for in my judgment she was certainly a Bastard And then he said if I did place her under the unlawful Issue of Earl Hugh he would write against it which afterwards he did and I believe it had been as good to have let it alone But before this †1664 Also 1672. we had long entercourse some years before by Papers between us upon this Controversie which Papers I have yet by me and which when my book was in Printing he desired I would not print any of them without his consent and I promised I would not and I kept my word with him and had it not been for those passages betwixt us I had not said near so much of it in my book as I did and so much for this See my Answer to the Defence of Amicia pag. 3. Pag. 60. Of his Answer to my two Books He tells us also in the same page that I do not put the question of Law aright but the point must be otherwaies proved then by such a frivolous question as mine is My Reply I am sure I know not how to put it clearer to the point videlicet whether Lands in those Ages might not by the ancient Law be given in free-marriage with Bastards for Sir Thomas saith the Deed of Services in frank-marriage with Amice proves she was no Bastard because saith he the Law will not allow such a grant with a Bastard I say though at this day the Law will not allow it yet it would then allow such a grant in the Age when Amicia lived as the Law as then taken must not now the question be whether the Law in those Ages would so allow it or no And yet it is no sure Argument to prove Amice no Bastard though the Law should not then allow such a grant as to argue thus Amice had Lands given with her in libero maritagio ergo Amice