An admonition to the reader of Sir Peter Leicester's books. Written by Sir T. M.

An Admonition to the Reader of Sir Peter Leicester's Books.

Courteous Reader,

THat you may know Her∣cules by his Foot, and not, with some few per∣sons, confidently believe every thing which Sir Pe∣ter Leicester doth write, I here give you an account of the Par∣tiality, 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 Peover. And I cannot but wonder that they are so numerous, considering he always had liberty to peruse any Deeds or Copies of Records which I had in my custody; and that I also was

ever willing to give him any other as∣sistance concerning my Family, which did lie in my power.

First, in his 330 page, he calls Ranul∣phus (who, as he confesseth, in the Con∣queror's time held this Township of Peover, or the greatest part thereof) the supposed Ancestor of the Main∣warings, as he also usually doth in other Townships where he hath occasion to name the said Randle; and yet, as you may see, page 208. he calls Odard the undoubted Ancestor of the Duttons. Now what reason he can have to call Odard the undoubted Ancestor of the Duttons, and Ranulphus but the suppo∣sed Ancestor of the Mainwarings, (ex∣cept his partiality) I cannot imagine: For, first, the Sirname of Mainwaring was a fixed name, whereas the Sirname of Dutton was taken from that place; and if another Family had bought it of the Posterity of Odard within few Ge∣nerations after the Conquest, they pos∣sibly might have stiled themselves after that place, that being the manner of those Ages, as Sir Peter tells us in his 250 page; and accordingly he not onely gives us examples there of three Branches

of the Duttons, viz. Warburton, Chedill, and Ashley, who did all call themselves after the Places where they lived, but he gives us many other like instances in many other places of his said Book. Secondly, Sir Peter doth not add the Sirname of de Dutton in his said 250 page, to the said Odard, or Hugh Son of the said Odard, but onely to Hugh de Dutton, Son of Hugh, who was the Third of that Family. Whereas the Sir∣name of Mesnilwaren, or Mainwaring, was used, as you may see in the 111 page of the said Book, in King William Rufus his days, by Richard Mesnil∣waren, which (except the said Ranul∣phus) is the first Mainwaring that we do find. Thirdly, the principal reason (as I conceive) why Sir Peter says, Odard was the undoubted Ancestor of the Duttons, is, because the Duttons en∣joyed those Lands, which the said Odard held in the Conqueror's time, which were, if I mistake not, part of Dutton, which the said Odard held of the Earl of Chester; and Aston, and part of We∣ston, and part of Halton, which the said Odard held under William Fitz-Nigel, Baron of Halton. But as the afore∣said

Lands of the aforesaid Odard were enjoyed by the Duttons; so the Lands of the said Ranulphus in Blaken, Weni∣tone, Tatton, Pever, Warford, Little-Pever, Cepmundewiche, Ollerton, Sene∣lestune, Cocheshalle, Hoiloch, Tadetune, (which is the same with Warmincham) Norwardine, Sundreland, and Bageley in Cheshire, and the Lordship of Waburne in Norfolk, (being all the Lands which the said Ranulphus held in the Conque∣ror's time) were certainly enjoyed by the Mainwarings. But this I say not to take off any thing from the Family of Duttons, (for I am fully satisfied that Odard was their Ancestor) but to shew the Partiality of Sir Peter, in doubting of Ranulphus more than of the said Odard.

2. He tells us in his said 330 page, That by antient Deeds there were antiently two Places or Hamlets in Over-Peover, one called Cepmundewich, the other Fo∣don; whereas there were Seven such Places there, viz. Cepmundewich, Fodon, Hongrill, Hethalis, Brydenbrugge, Twy∣ford, and Radbroc. And it is very strange, how Sir Peter could omit the last of these, seeing in the very same page he speaks of Radbrook-house in Over-Peover;

and mentions a Deed by which William Mainwaring, then Lord of Over-Peover, gave illam terram quae vocatur Radbroc integram, unto Thomas Mainwaring his younger Son.

3. In the Pedigree of the Main∣warings (page 331) he leaves out Ranul∣phus, who is nominated in Doomsday-Book, Richard de Mesnilwarin, mentio∣ned in his Hist. Antiq. (page 111.) Roger de Mesnilgarin, or Mainwaring, and Wil∣liam and Randal his Sons, spoken of by him (page 341.) Roger de Menilgarin, or Mainwaring, named by him, (page 362.) Sir Ralph Mainwaring, and Sir Ro∣ger Mainwaring his Son, both taken no∣tice of by him, (page 330.) and this up∣on a pretence, that they were Lords of Warmincham: Whereas I am confident he will not deny, but that the Main∣warings of Warmincham were also Owners of Over-Peover, or the most part thereof, until Sir Roger Mainwaring gave Peover to his younger Son Sir Wil∣liam Mainwaring; presently after which time, the Line of the Mainwarings of Warmincham failing, the Mainwarings of Peover became Heirs male to those Mainwarings of Warmincham, Sir Warine

Mainwaring, Son of Sir Thomas Main∣waring, Son of the said Sir Roger, dying without Issue Male. And though he may pretend, that he did not mention those Mainwarings of Warmincham, who also were Owners of Peover, because they (as he supposeth) then lived at Warmin∣cham, in another Hundred; yet in his said Book he gives an account of the Descents of some, who had Estates in Bucklow Hundred, though he then looks upon them as living in other Hundreds.

4. He tells us (page 332) that Margery Praers, one of the Coheirs of William Praers of Baddeley, (and Sister to Joan the other Coheir, who was Wife to Wil∣liam Mainwaring) married John Hon∣ford of Honford, and afterwards that she married Hugh Holt, 33 Edw. 3. but had no Issue by Holt, and that she had Issue by John Honford a Son named John Honford, who was a Bastard: But he is mistaken in saying that Holt was her se∣cond Husband; for Margery had her Bastard John Honford, before she had any Husband, and she was Wife to Hugh Holt, 33 Edw. 3. and she was Wife to John Honford 46, 47, and 50 of Edw. 3.

5. In the 332 page, he takes no notice, that William Leigh of Baggeleigh, who

married Joan, the Daughter of William Mainwaring of Peover, in the 33 of Edw. 3. was a Knight; and yet, as you may see in his 217 page, he knew the said William to be a Knight.

6. He says in his said 332 page, That William Mainwaring the Elder, who lived 33 Edw. 3. sealed with three Bars, with a Lion passant in Chief; whereas the Coat of Arms was Argent, two Bars Gules, on a Chief of the Second, a Lion passant, gardant Or; and so it is cut in his own Book, page 331.

7. He takes notice (page 332.) that William, younger Son of William, Son of William Mainwaring, had a Daughter named Ellen, who was married to Adam Glasebroke: But he omits John and Mar∣gery, Brother and Sister to the said Ellen.

8. He says (page 332.) that William Son of Roger Mainwaring died about 12 or 13 of Edw. 3. whereas I find him Par∣ty to a Deed made on the Eve of S. John Baptist, 14 Edw. 3. and how long he lived after, I believe no man can tell.

9. He says (page 332.) that William Mainwaring, Son of William Mainwaring and Joan Praers, did divide the Lands of Baddeley between John Mainwaring

his Half-brother, and John Honford; whereas he gave several thousand Acres of Land, which came by his Mother, and of the which the Demesn of Baddeley was part, solely to his said Brother John, and onely divided the remainder of the said Lands; and the Will which directs that Division, doth also direct the disposal of the other Lands.

10. He takes notice (page 333.) that William Mainwaring's Seal, 17 Rich. 2. had the Impression of his Coat and Crest, to wit, in an Escocheon, two Bars onely; and corner-ways, on the Dexter Angle, on an Helmet, an Ass-head cooped, &c. which (he says) his Heirs have ever since continued, to wit, Argent two Bars Gules; the Crest, An Ass-head cooped, proper: And tells you, that the said Wil∣liam died 1399, 22 Rich. 2. Whereas all the Mainwarings that I can find, who have lived since the said William, have either given the Ass-head on a Torce and Halter'd, or else the Ass-head Erased, or else the Ass-head unhalter'd, and within a Crown.

11. He says (page 333.) that William Mainwaring (the Husband of Katherine Belgrave and Clementia Cotton) setled his

Estate, upon his departure out of Eng∣land towards Guien, 17 R. 2. 1393. and afterwards made his Will, 1394. Where∣as the said settlement made 17 R. 2. was also a Will, and was but of part of the Estate which he had by his Mother; and besides that and the other Will, dated 1394. he made a third Will, 1399, by which last Will he gave directions to his Feoffees how to dispose of all his Mo∣thers Lands; but he disposed not of those Lands he had as Heir to his Father, by any of the said Wills.

12. He says (page 333.) that John Mainwaring of Over-Peover, married Margaret, the Widow of Sir John War∣ren of Poynton in Cheshire, and Daugh∣ter and Heir of Sir John Stafford of Wig∣ham, about 13 Rich. 2. For Sir John War∣ren died the Tenth of Rich. 2. But how Sir John Warren's dying in the Tenth of Rich. 2. doth prove, that the said John Mainwaring married his Widow, about the Thirteenth of Rich. 2. I confess I do not understand.

13. He says (page 333.) that John Mainwaring was made Sheriff of Cheshire, 4 Hen. 4. and continued Sheriff 5 H. 4. and 6 H. 4. but he omits his being Sheriff 7 H. 4.

14. He says, (page 333.) that John Mainwaring died 11 H. 4. 1410. where∣as he was certainly dead in the year 1409.

15. He says (page 334.) that Margery survived her Husband Randle Main∣waring, and erected a Stone-Chappel on the South-side of Over-Peover Church, with the two Monuments therein for her self and her Husband, 1456. Whereas the said Margery was certainly dead in the year 1449. and died several years before her said Husband, as you may see in the 75, 76, 77, and 78 pages of my Defence of Amicia, printed in the year 1673.

16. He says (page 334.) that Sir John Mainwaring of Over-Peover died about the very end of Edw. 4. Reign; but the said King Edward died in the Twenty third year of his Reign, and the said Sir John Mainwaring was certainly dead on the 14 day of April, in the Twentieth year of the said Kings Reign, as appears by a Precept to the Escheator of Cheshire, bearing the said date.

17. He omits in the 335 page, Agnes the Daughter of John Mainwaring of Peover, Esq and Wife of Sir Robert

Nedham Knight; and this, although he had been informed of a two-fold un∣doubted proof thereof, as you may see in the 79 and 80 pages of my Defence of Amicia, before mentioned.

18. He positively says (page 335) that Katherine the Daughter of Sir John Mainwaring, was married to William, Son of Humphrey Newton of Pownall, 13 H. 8. 1521. But the Deeds concerning those Lands which she was to have in Joyn∣ture (at which time she was certainly unmarried) were dated the first and se∣cond of March, in 13 H. 8. which was in the year 1521. according to the ac∣count of the Church of England, but in the year 1522. according to the Ju∣lian account. Now the Dominical Let∣ter being that year E. and the Golden Number 3. the second of March would be Shrove-Sunday, and Easter-day on the twentieth of April; and Lent being a time not usual for Marriage, and espe∣cially in the time of King Henry the Eighth, in all probability the Marriage was not till after Easter; and if so, it was not until the year 1522. However there is no certainty of what Sir Peter there says.

19. He also (in the said 335 page) tells us, how Sir John Mainwaring was She∣riff of Flintshire. 6 H. 8. 1514. but takes no notice of his being Sheriff there in the 23 and 24 years of King Hen. 7. and 1 Hen. 8. and 2 Hen. 8. and probably ever from then till the end of 6 Hen. 8.

20. He says (page 335.) that Sir John Mainwaring died 8 H. 8. 1515. Whereas no part of the eighth year of King Hen. 8. was in any part of the year 1515. nei∣ther did the said Sir John die in the eighth year of the said King.

21. He says (page 335.) that Sir Ran∣dle Mainwaring, after the death of his first Wife, married Elizabeth, the Daugh∣ter of Sir Ralph Leicester of Toft, 6 Edw. 6. 1551. but he cannot prove that they were married until the year 1552.

22. He says (page 336.) that Philip Mainwaring of Over-Peover, Esq fifth Son of Sir John Mainwaring, and Bro∣ther and next Heir-male to Sir Randle, married Anne, Daughter of Sir Raufe Leicester of Toft; and tells us from his Monument the time of the said Philip's death. But though the rest of them died young, yet Philip was born the seventh, and not the fifth Son of the said Sir John,

as appears by the Monument of the said Sir John, which is in the same Chappel that the Monument of the said Philip is in.

23. He says (in the same page) that the Herald in the Reign of Queen Eli∣zabeth, made for the Coat of the said Sir Randle the elder, Barry of twelve pieces, Argent and Gules. But the Coat which the said Sir Randle did then usu∣ally bear, was, Argent six Barulets Gules, which the said Sir Randle did give, be∣cause the most antient of the Deeds of the Mainwarings were sealed with six Barulets; but the Mainwarings since then have again given two Bars onely, according to what they had done of a long time before, the two Bars having been also used to Deeds without date: Also in the 330 page, you may read, that Sir Peter knew the antient Coat to be six Barulets, and not to be Barry of twelve pieces Argent and Gules.

24. He also says (in that same page) that Sir Randle Mainwaring the elder, built the Hall of Over-Peover a new, 1586. the Fabrick being now of Brick; but one part of the said House was built 1585. and another part was built 1586.

25. He says (page 336.) that Sir Phi∣lip Mainwaring, youngest Son of Sir Randle Mainwaring the elder, of Peover, Knight, was Secretary of Ireland to the Earl of Strafford, 1638. Whereas the said Sir Philip was his Majesty's Secretary of State there.

26. He says (page 336.) that Sir Philip Mainwaring died, 2⁰ die Augusti, 1661. at London; But he died at Westminster, at Sir Philip Warwick's House, which is in or near to St. James's Park.

27. He also says (in the same page) that Anne, third Daughter of Sir Randle Mainwairing, of Peover, the younger, (which Anne was Cousin-Germain to the said Sir Peter) married Robert Brierwood of Chester, Counsellor at Law, after, Sir Robert Brierwood, Knighted 1643. and Judge of three Shires in Wales: But he takes no notice that he was made Ser∣geant at Law 1640. nor that he was made one of the Judges of the Kings Bench 1643. Indeed amongst the Recor∣ders of Chester, (page 187.) he tells us, that the said Sir Robert was made Judge of the Common-Pleas, and Knighted at Oxford 1643. But the said Sir Robert was never any Judge of the Court of Com∣mon-Pleas,

but the King did constitute him, unum Justiciariorum ad placita co∣ram Rege, in the year 1643. that is, he then made him one of the Judges of the King's Bench, or Ʋpper Bench: But it seems Sir Peter did not know the mean∣ing of the aforesaid words. He also (in the 334 page) says, That Sir John Ned∣ham, who married Margaret, the Daugh∣ter of Randle Mainwaring, was Justicia∣rius de Banco, and Judge of Chester, 1 Edw. 4. that is, he was then one of the Judges of the Court of Common-Pleas, and Judge of Chester; for he was Justi∣ciarius de Banco, in the year 1457. 35 Hen. 6. and he was Judge of Chester 1 Edw. 4. But as Sir Peter did mistake Justiciarius ad placita coram Rege, to be a Judge of the Common-Pleas; so I sup∣pose he did there erroneously take Ju∣sticiarius de Banco to be a Judge of the King's Bench, or else I believe he would have told us, that the said John Need∣ham was afterwards made a Judge of the King's Bench; for he had a Patent to be one of the Judges of that Court 1472. 11 Edw. 4. as you may see in the Chro∣nica Series, at the end of Mr. Dugdale's Origines Juridiciales, printed in the year 1666.

28. He says (page 336.) That Philip Mainwaring Esq Son and Heir of Sir Randle the younger, married Ellen, Daughter of Edward Mynshul of Stoke, Esq 20 Jac. 1622. But the said Philip and Ellen were married 1617. and their eldest Son Randle was born the 25 of July, 1619. and their second Son Philip was born the 25 of May, 1621.

29. He says (page 337.) that Mrs. Ellen Mainwaring built a stately Stable and Dove-house at Peover, in the year 1654. But the said Stable was built in the year 1653. and finished within 1654. and the said Dove-house was not built till the year 1656.

29. He says (page 336.) That Marga∣ret Daughter of Sir Randle Mainwair∣ing the younger, and Wife of Henry Birkenhead, died at Chester 25 July 1661. but she died on Saturday the 20 of July, 1661. and was buried at Back∣ford on Tuesday the 23 day of the said moneth.

I also think good (having this opportu∣nity) to remind the Reader, how in the 63 page of my Answer to Sir Peter's two Books, I did declare, That since it did appear, that he was resolved to have

the last word, although he had nothing new to say, that if what he did after that time write, did prove no more to the purpose, than what he had said in his said two Books, that I would not ap∣pear in Print against him any more, but would chuse to vindicate my Grand∣mother and my self by word of mouth, whensoever I should have an opportu∣nity so to do. And for this reason, when Sir Peter did, within a few days after, print his Advertisement to the Reader, because it did contain little, but a mi∣stake of his, of a Record concerning Lhewellin Prince of North-Wales, I did thereupon forbear to publish that An∣swer which I did write to the same. Since that time, Sir Peter hath put out at once no less than three Books con∣cerning the same Subject, viz. His Se∣cond Reply, his Peroratio ad Lectorem, and a Third, which he calls, The Case of Amicia truly stated; which certainly was a great deal of lost labour, if his for∣mer Books had made the Case so clear, as he all along hath pretended they did.

In all those Books which Sir Peter hath written upon this occasion, the

same things are said over and over again, so very often, as I believe the like will not be found elsewhere; so that it would be pleasant, if some person, who hath little else to do, would take an ac∣count how many times he hath repeated the same things. Since he did declare in his first Reply, that he had taken his leave for ever of this Controversie; he hath printed no less than seven several things, and four of them since I did ap∣pear publickly against him; and in the end of his Peroratio ad Lectorem, he says he hath done, if I have done, which is as much as to say, That so long as I print any thing concerning Amicia, he will never have done: For this cause, though I intend speedily to write an Answer to that part of the Record, which is men∣tioned in the 76 page, and the first part of the 77 page in his said Peroratio, yet I do not design it at present for the pub∣lick Press; however, I shall willingly shew both it, and my Answer to his Ad∣vertisement to the Reader, to all know∣ing persons, who shall come to me, and desire to see the same; and I do not doubt but to give them full satisfaction

of Sir Peter's mistakes, concerning both those Records, and that they do not prove those things which he doth con∣ceit they do.

As for that Letter of mine, which Sir Peter doth speak of in the 63, 80, 82, and 84 pages in his Peroratio ad Lecto∣rem, it is possible I might write to a Kinsman of his and mine, to acquaint him how Mr. Dugdale had delivered his Opinion in Print on my side; as also what I had received from a very good hand, concerning several of our Judges; but I know nothing at all of my Letter being left with Mr. Throp, the Stationer in Chester, to be divulged and made known to every man in Town. And I am sure I did not write, that Mr. Dug∣dale had moved the Judges in the case; for Mr. Dugdale was not in London when that Meeting was, neither did he or I know of it, till that Meeting was past, and it was occasion'd by Sir Peter's Appeal to them: But though he once thought the Judges of this Land fit per∣sons to determine this Controversie, yet he now says in the 81 page in his Pe∣roratio ad Lectorem, That this Question

hath nothing of any Law in the case, and therefore unfit to be put to our Reverend Judges for their Opinions, unless all the Records and Histories touching the same, together with the Reasons alledged on both sides, were produced before them: It is more proper for them to judge onely upon the point of Law. Now how they can judge upon the point of Law, if there be nothing of any Law in the case, may be perhaps very difficult for any but Sir Peter to tell.

He also in the 66 and 67 pages of his said Book, says, That Mr. Dugdale, some years ago, did draw up my Pedigree, wherein he put Amicia without the di∣stinction of a Bastard, and is therefore the more concern'd to stickle for me, in this contest: But though he deal not well with me, in charging me unjustly with many things in his former, and also in these his last Books, (which those that are Learned will easily discover) yet Mr. Dugdale is a person of that know∣ledge and integrity, that I believe he cannot perswade any one man, that Mr. Dugdale doth stickle for me herein upon that account. And Sir Peter himself very

well knows, that long before that Pedi∣gree of mine was drawn, Mr. Dugdale was of the same judgment concerning Amicia, of which he is now.

I do also expect, that Sir Peter will write several Books against what I have here published, about his Mistakes con∣cerning my Family; which if he do, I shall not go about publickly to answer any of them, because I know I should then undertake a work which would never have an end: But if any one will come to me, I will shew proof of all the Uncertainties, Omissions, and Mistakes, which I have charged Sir Peter withall, and they are not any of them to be im∣puted to the Printers negligence; for Sir Peter rectifies some Omissions and Errors in his Historical Antiquities, at the end of his Answer to my Defence of Ami∣cia, and tells the Reader, That those Amendments will set him streight, together with the Correction of the Errata's of Printing, committed by the great negli∣gence of the Printer, which are now men∣tioned and rectified by a distinct page, at the end of the said Book. And there are none of those which I charge him with,

mentioned in either of the said places, except that about the Chappel at Peover, which he said Margery, the Wife of Randle Mainwaring, did erect; and that about Agnes Mainwaring, Wife of Sir Robert Nedham; both which he did not rectifie, until I told him of those Errors, in the latter end of the first Book, which I did write.

Baddeley, August 4. 1676.

T. M.

FINIS.