Historical antiquities, in two books the first treating in general of Great-Brettain and Ireland : the second containing particular remarks concerning Cheshire / faithfully collected out of authentick histories, old deeds, records, and evidences, by Sir Peter Leycester, Baronet ; whereunto is annexed a transcript of Doomsday-book, so far as it concerneth Cheshire, taken out of the original record.

The Reasons that Amice was a Bastard.

I. IF Hugh Cyveliok had no other Wife but Bertred, then Amice must certainly be a Bastard; for she was not a Daughter by Bertred, as is granted on all sides.

But Hugh Cyveliok never had any other Wife but Bertred; Ergo Amice was a Ba∣stard.

Now the Minor is to be proved by the Affirmer, Oportet affirmantem probare: for as yet I never saw the least proof thereof, either by Deed, Record, or any ancient Histo∣rian, nor yet any inducement of good Reason to incline my belief of it: And till this be done, it is unreasonable to impose it upon any Man's Belief, by supposing that he had another Wife: for Suppositions are no proof at all. It is not enough to suppose Amice might be by a former Wife, but it must be clearly proved, or strongly inferred from solid Reason, that it is so, and that Hugh had a former Wife.

Neither is it a sufficient Answer hereunto to say, That it is unreasonable to conclude all Children Bastards, whose Mothers cannot be proved; God forbid. But in this Case we find a Wife certainly Recorded, and a Son and four Daughters (who were af∣terwards Coheirs, and carried away all Earl Hugh's Lands) clearly proved by Records and ancient Historians. And also Earl Hugh is certainly known to have had many Bastards, both Sons and Daughters; which gives occasion of strong suspicion, that Amice was a Bastard, she being neither Recorded by any Historian, nor ever had or claimed any Land as a Coheir; and therefore here is a necessity of proving a former Wife, which for my part I believe firmly Earl Hugh never had.

II. Whatsoever is given in Frank-Marriage, is given as a Portion: now the Re∣lease of the Service of one Knights Fee in Frank-Marriage, seems not a competent Portion for a legitimate Daughter of the Earl of Chester, especially for the eldest Daughter: for so she must be, being of the first Venter, which always is more worthy than the second, if she were at all legitimate; and we find the other Daughters Mar∣ried to four of the greatest Earls in England: all which is a strong presumption that Amice was a Bastard, and no legitimate Daughter.

To this it may be answered, That possibly Earl Hugh might give Amice a great Por∣tion in Money, though she had no Lands. And I say possibly too, he might give her no Mo∣ney, or at least nothing considerable; which great Portion in Money, when it shall appear to be true, may take off the strength of this Argument or second Reason, till then it must be very pressing.

III. The ancient Historians of our Nation, as Polychronicon, writ by the Monk of Chester, Henry Knighton, the Monk of Leycester, and others; also Stowe and Cambden have Recorded the lawful Daughters and Coheirs of Earl Hugh, and so the Record of 18 Hen. 3. And had Amice been a legitimate Daughter, it is likely that these Histo∣rians would not all have omitted her; but of her there is Altum silentium among all the Historians and Records which I have yet seen; though indeed I look upon this onely as a probable, not as a sure evincing Argument.

These were the Reasons which inclined my Opinion to place Amice in that Order as I have done: But since there are some Learned Men of another Opinion, I must leave every Person to the dictate of his own Reason.