<!DOCTYPE ETS PUBLIC "-//UMDLPS//DTD EEBOPROOF 2.0//EN">
<ETS>
<TEMPHEAD>
<REVDESCR>
<CHANGE>
<DATE>2014-05-23</DATE>
<RESPSTMT>
<NAME>John Pas</NAME>
<RESP>MURP</RESP>
</RESPSTMT>
<ITEM>Proofed and reviewed as part of batch B130811.pdcc.</ITEM>
</CHANGE>
</REVDESCR>
</TEMPHEAD>
<EEBO>
<IDG S="marc" R="UM" ID="B21033">
<STC T="W">D264</STC>
<STC T="G">190.g.12[181]</STC>
<STC T="C">R229736</STC>
<BIBNO T="umi">99888416</BIBNO>
<VID>201754</VID>
</IDG><!-- alt.stc G190.g.12[181] --><!-- alt.stc Cr229736 -->
<TEXT LANG="eng">
<BODY>
<DIV1 TYPE="text">
<PB REF="1" MS="y">
<HEAD>Mr. DARREL'S Reply to Sir JEREMY WHICH|COTT'S pretended An&s;wer to Two Printed Que&s;tions alleadged by Mr. DARREL, to be debated before the Hou&s;e of Peers.</HEAD>
<P N="1">1. _THE fir&s;t Que&s;tion being, whether <HI>Hampden A&s;hfeild</HI> were a Tru&s;tee for Mr. <HI>Darrel,</HI> or for Sir <HI>Thomas A&s;hfeild,</HI> (under whom Sir <HI>Jeremy Whichcott</HI> Claims) Mr. <HI>Darrel</HI> did A&s;&s;ert, (1) That Sir <HI>Thomas A&s;hfeild,</HI> upon is Oath in the Court of <HI>Wards,</HI> Di&s;claimed all Intere&s;t in the <HI>Coal Farm;</HI> whereunto Sir <HI>Jeremy Whichcott</HI> An&s;wereth, (1) That Sir <HI>Thomas A&s;hfeild</HI> doth not Di&s;claim, but only &s;aith, That he Claimeth nothing in the <HI>Coal Farm.</HI> (2) That Sir <HI>Thomas</HI> Swears in the &s;ame An&s;wer, That <HI>Hampden A&s;heild</HI> was Real Purcha&s;er. (3) That Sir <HI>Thomas A&s;hfeild</HI> did afterwards Swear in <HI>Chaucery,</HI> That <HI>Hampden A&s;hfeild</HI> was but a Tru&s;tee for Sir <HI>Thomas:</HI> To which Mr. <HI>Darrel</HI> Replyes, (1) That he Humbly conceives it is one and the &s;ame thing, for a Man to Di&s;claim upon his Oath all Intere&s;t in the <HI>Coal Farm,</HI> or to Swear he Claims nothing in the &s;aid <HI>Coal Farm,;</HI> the Words Importing the &s;ame &s;en&s;e to every Mans apprehen&s;ion, but to Sir <HI>Jeremy Whichcotts.</HI> (2) That Sir <HI>Thomas A&s;hfeild's</HI> Oath in the Court of <HI>Wards,</HI> where he Swears po&s;itively again&s;t him&s;elf, that he Claims nothing in the <HI>Coal Farm,</HI> is of much more avail than his An&s;wer in <HI>Chancery,</HI> where he endeavours (contrary to his former Oath) to Swear up a Title to Him&s;elf. (3) That Mr. <HI>Darrel</HI> is not concerned to ju&s;ti&s;ie every ill Action of Sir <HI>Thomas A&s;hfeild;</HI> it being notorious to all Men, that <HI>Hampden A&s;hfeild</HI> could not be a Real Purcha&s;er and Tru&s;tee of the &s;ame thing; but de&s;ires it may be taken Notice of, that Sir <HI>Thomas A&s;hfeild</HI> Di&s;claimed in the Court of <HI>Wards,</HI> when things were fre&s;h in Memory, Witne&s;&s;es alive, and Sir <HI>Thomas</HI> in a thriving Condition; but his An&s;wer was put in, in <HI>Chancery</HI> many Ye<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 letter">rs after, when his nece&s;&s;ities had brought him into the <HI>Fleet,</HI> under the good Government of Sir <HI>Jeremy Whichcott.</HI></P>
<P N="2">2. Mr. <HI>Darrells</HI> next proof being the Oath of <HI>Hampden A&s;hfeild,</HI> who Swears in <HI>Chancery,</HI> That he was a Tru&s;tee for Mr. <HI>Darrel.</HI> Sir <HI>Jeremy Whichcott</HI> Replyes, That <HI>Hampden A&s;hfeild</HI> being a Pri&s;oner, and near &s;tarving, was tempted by Mr. <HI>Darrel</HI> with &s;ome Money, and the hopes of Liberty, to depo&s;e in &s;uch a manner as he did: Whereunto Mr. <HI>Darrel</HI> Replys, (1) That <HI>Hampden A&s;hfeild</HI> did in &s;everal An&s;wers in <HI>Chancery</HI> Swear the Tru&s;t to be for Mr. <HI>Darrel,</HI> &s;ome of which were Fi|led in the Court long before <HI>Hampden A&s;hfeild</HI> was a Pri&s;oner, or any ways likely to be one. (2) How improbable is it, that <HI>Hampden A&s;hfeild</HI> being Sir <HI>Jeremy Whichcotts</HI> Pri&s;oner, &s;hould be prevailed with to For&s;wear him&s;elf again&s;t the Inter &s;t of his Keeper. (3) Mr. <HI>Darrel</HI> denys the Charge as an Impudent Calumny; the contrary being true, as appeared in <HI>Chancery</HI> by the Oaths of Captain <HI>Robert Bacon,</HI> and others, who depo&s;ed, That <HI>Hampden A&s;hfeild</HI> being upon his Death-bed, did very much de&s;ire he might not be pre&s;tred with Sir <HI>Thomas A&s;hfeilds</HI> Agents, who would have him go perjured to the Grave, in de|nying the Tru&s;t to be for Mr. <HI>Darrel,</HI> which he was re&s;olved not to do. And for the Te&s;timonies of <HI>Pitcher, Ellis, Buckley</HI> and <HI>Hancock,</HI> they were little regarded at the Hearing of the Cau&s;e, being per&s;ons of ill Fame, known Emi&s;&s;aries of Sir <HI>Je|remy Whichcott,</HI> and encounter'd by the Convictive Evidence of per&s;ons of unque&s;tioned reputation.</P>
<P N="3">3. Mr. <HI>Darrels</HI> next A&s;&s;ertion was, That Sir <HI>Thomas A&s;hfeild</HI> had frequently declared the Tru&s;t to be for Mr. <HI>Darrel:</HI> And Sir <HI>Jeremy Wichcotts</HI> An&s;wer is, That he hath &s;worn the contrary: To which Mr. <HI>Darrel</HI> Replys, That Sir <HI>Jeremy Which|cott</HI> is very apt to forget what Sir <HI>Thomas A&s;hfeild</HI> did &s;wear in the Court of <HI>Wards,</HI> when matters were fre&s;h in Memory, and Sir <HI>Thomas A&s;hfeild</HI> at liberty, which is much more to be valued than what he &s;wore when his Impri&s;onment, and other Nece&s;&s;ities compelled him to be too ob&s;equious to Sir <HI>Jeremy Whichcott.</HI> Not to add that the many Endeavours which Sir <HI>Thomas A&s;hfeild</HI> did u&s;e to &s;urpri&s;e Mr. <HI>Darrel</HI> into a Relea&s;e &s;o &s;oon as he came of Age, do but too plainly make it out what an Intere&s;t Mr. <HI>Darrel</HI> had in the <HI>Coal Farm.</HI></P>
<P N="4">4. Mr <HI>Darrels</HI> Fourth A&s;&s;ertion was, That the Decree made in <HI>Chancery</HI> in 1660. doth e&s;tabli&s;h the Tru&s;t to be for Mr. <HI>Darrel:</HI> To which Sir <HI>Jeremy Whichcott</HI> An&s;wereth, There was no &s;uch Decree: And Mr. <HI>Darrel</HI> Replyeth, Let the Record be Judg between them, and the Memories of all tho&s;e Noble Lords, who had the patience to hear all the Decree read at the la&s;t Hearing of the Cau&s;e.</P>
<P N="5">5. Suppor&s;ing it to be Objected, That Two Verdicts had found the Tru&s;t again&s;t Mr. <HI>Darrel,</HI> An&s;wered, That one of the Verdicts was &s;et a&s;ide for indirect practi&s;es in procuring a Jury; and the other for Contradiction, finding that <HI>Hampden A&s;h|feild</HI> was a Real Purcha&s;er as well as Sir <HI>Thomas A&s;hfeild:</HI> To which Sir <HI>Jeremy Whichcott</HI> &s;aith, (1) Neither of the Verdicts were &s;et a&s;ide. (2) It is no Contradiction: Whereunto Mr. <HI>Darrel</HI> Replys, (1) That the Rules and Orders of the Court do plainly &s;hew, That the fir&s;t Verdict was &s;et a&s;ide for indirect practi&s;es, which were produced, and accordingly read, as the la&s;t Hearing of the Cau&s;e before the Hou&s;e of Peers; which makes Mr. <HI>Darrel</HI> a little wonder at the Memory of Sir <HI>Jeremy Which|cott,</HI> as well as at his Ingenuity for endeavouring &s;o very unluckily to reconcile the flat contradiction of the &s;econd Verdict.</P>
<P>The next Que&s;tion being, How Mr. <HI>Darrel</HI> could make out any Claim to the New Patent granted to Sir <HI>Jeremy Whichcott.</HI></P>
<P>Mr. <HI>Darrel</HI> did in&s;i&s;t, That Sir <HI>Jeremy Whichcott</HI> having made his Application to the King, as an old Tenant, and re|ceiving a benefit from the Crown, as an old Tenant, (regard being then had by His Maje&s;ty, of the lo&s;s formerly &s;u&s;tain|ed by the old Tenants) the advantage as to that fifth part ought to redound to Mr. <HI>Darrel,</HI> who &s;u&s;tained the lo&s;s in the War time, and for whom the &s;aid Sir <HI>Jeremy Whichcott</HI> was intru&s;ted, it having being the con&s;tant practi&s;e in <HI>Chancery,</HI> That if a Tru&s;tee of a Church or Colledge Lea&s;e will renew the &s;ame, with intention to apply it to his own advantage, yet the whole benefit thereof by the u&s;age in <HI>Chancery,</HI> &s;hall go to the per&s;on for whom he was intru&s;ted; allowance being only made to the Tru&s;tee, for his Expences in renewing the &s;ame: To which Sir <HI>Jeremy</HI> An&s;wers, (1) That His Maje&s;ty in the new Grant had no Con&s;ideration of the old Tenant. (2) That the Argument does not any ways Conclude from the u&s;age of a Church or Colledge Lea&s;e, to a Lea&s;e made by the Crown: To which Mr. <HI>Darrel</HI> Replys, (1) That it is Evident by the proof read in the Cau&s;e, that Sir <HI>Jeremy Whichcott</HI> did make his Application to His Maje&s;ty as an old Tenant, and upon that &s;core did obtain his &s;hare in the New Patent. (2) Mr. <HI>Darrel</HI> doth conceive it is mo&s;t plain, That (although the King is not any ways obliged to grant a Lea&s;e to an old Tenant) yet if His Maje&s;ty &s;hall be plea&s;ed to extend &s;o much Clemency to an old Tenant, upon the very account of his being an old Tenant; That in &s;uch Ca&s;e the <HI>Cesty que trust</HI> &s;hall have the be|nefit of it, and not the Tru&s;tee; which is &s;ufficiently warranted by the u&s;ual Cour&s;e of <HI>Chancery,</HI> and is &s;o applicable to Mr. <HI>Darrels</HI> Ca&s;e, that <HI>Mr. Darrel</HI> cannot po&s;&s;ibly conceive how his Cour&s;el &s;hould be a&s;hamed of the Argument, &s;eeing it is &s;uffi|ciently known, that none of Sir <HI>Jeremy Whichcotts</HI> Councel did ever give any tollerable An&s;wer to it.</P>
</DIV1>
</BODY>
</TEXT>
</EEBO>
</ETS>
