TO the first. The Earl of Cleveland hath not a proper remedy in Chancery more than 20. years being past since many of the forfeitures, and admit the suggestion be true, it cannot be reasonable that the surplusage of Equity should abate the Remedy, and whether it is not better that a Cause of so great consequence as this, should be decided in a short time by one Bill in Parliament, than to continue some years in Chancery upon hundreds of Bills which must be, there being hundreds who have severall interests (and no decree can be made against any not parties to the Suite) let Reason decide. The answer to the latter part of this Reason is included in the Answer to the Third Reason.

To the Second and Sixth. The Second admits the Earls cause equitable, by acknowledging a power of redemption once in him, which if lost at all, it was by his constant, and faithful attending of the late King CHARLES the First, and his Majesty that now is, so that what is offered gives a disloyal badge to the Author of the Reasons plainly asserting, That serving King CHARLES the First, and his Majesty that now is, shall be so far from suppo [...]ting, as it shall destroy the Earls power of Redemption.

Then to say, This will go to all persons that were of the same side with the Earl, is as Irrationall as Factious, for the Equity of Redemption to all person; who served the KING, does not appear as the Earls does upon Record in the House of Lords, to which Records all persons might resort.

Then consider the absurd partiality couched in the pretended Reasons; by the Sixth it's urged, That because many Martiners are beyond Sea, who are concerned in the Settlements, therefore the Earl should not be releived; yet in the Second the Earl's service to the KING, which as hath been said, was the cause he lost his opportunity of Redeeming, is thought insufficient to preserve his Equity, the consequence whereof will be, That the meanest person who goes beyond Sea for his own private gain, shall be more regarded than a Loyal Peere, who to his present losse, hazzards his life to assist the KING; besides if he who hath Right to the Mannors of Stepney and Hackney must have no relief, till all the Tenants are in England, he shall never have any.

To the third. That the incumbrances upon the Mannors contracted by the Earl, began in 1631. viz. a Statute of 10000 l. July the 11 ^th 1631. to the Lady Weld for payment of 5000 l. with interest, and divers other great summes, as by the Schedule annexed to the Bill appears; So that of necessity the Bill must look back to take in the first incumbrance, else a clear Estate cannot be setled in the Trustees, to make a good sale.

The Earl desires not to avoid his own acts, but to secure the Purchasers: for finding that some acts of his were done after great Debts contracted, and Statutes and Judgements given for securities, and that Purchasers might lose their Purchase Money, (if the precedent incumbrances (as by Law they may and will) should be laid upon such purchased Estates, Not above three [...] [...]bran [...] before 164 [...] and in 1639 the times were unquiet.) desires by his Bill that such Purchasers may be satisfied their Purchase Money and Interest, as if their Money had been lent upon Mortgage. And if a Proviso be admitted, that the Bill shall not extend to such Purchases, then every Creditor, who hath a precedent incumbrance by Statute, Judgement, &c. will be debarred of his debt, which the Law gives him.

To the Fourth and Fifth. The legal possession in the whole Estate was in Sir Iohn Weld (till the pretended Act for Sale of Delinquents Lands) by vertue of a Statute of 10000 l. entred into 1631. which ought still to remain in him; yet he is contented to wave his legal possession, that all Creditors may be satisfied, therefore those who never had any legal possession have no just cause to complain.

To the Seventh. Either they came in by Drury-house, and so have no title legal nor equitable, and then the consequence of the Seventh Reason will be, that building upon anothers Ground, destroyes the Owners right; or else they claim under some forfeited mortgages and then the Chancery will not allow them for such building, judging it against Equity to clogge an Estate with such an incumbrance as will make it beyond the power of the Mortgageor to redeem, and the noise of being Purchasers and in possession, and of 100 Families undone if this Bill passes, is made only by those who are not Creditors but Purchasers, (as themselves confess by their own Petition) under the order of April, 1641. or by Drury-house title, which if set aside (as in all justice they ought,) all those Purchases are at a period. Others who are the true Creditors (yet purchased under Drury-house) petition that the Bill may passe, and would be glad to receive their Money accordingly, and others, viz. Coll. Smith and his adherents have swallowed an Estate worth above 200000 l. for 10000 l. principal Money.

To the eighth. For the Trustees to receive the Rents and therewith to pay Creditors as they are in priority till sales made, is but reason­able, and no more than the Law giveth to every Creditor, who hath the precedency of others, and by this Bill the Trustees may dis­pose upon stating the first Creditors debt, and not stay till all are examined preut by the seaventh reason is alledged.