Selected quad for the lemma: lord_n

Word A Word B Word C Word D Occurrence Frequency Band MI MI Band Prominent
lord_n bill_n house_n pass_v 12,480 5 7.4741 4 false
View all documents for the selected quad

Text snippets containing the quad

ID Title Author Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) STC Words Pages
A25641 Answers to the reasons against passing the Earl of Clevelands bill as to the mannors of Stepney and Hackney in the county of Middlesex 1664 (1664) Wing A3471; ESTC R34209 2,432 1

There is 1 snippet containing the selected quad. | View lemmatised text

Answers to the Reasons against passing the Earl of CLEVELANDS Bill as to the Mannors of Stepney and Hackney in the County of Middlesex 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 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 A Reply to the Answers to the Arguments c. TO the two first Answers That the Lord Bannings debt and the Lady Homes debt and the money if any deposited for discharging precedent incumbrances shall be satisfied and other debts which will never be payed unlesse this Bill passes will be truly discharged To that concerning the Earl of Manchester under whom Mr. George Montague claimes the Earl of Cleveland is contented that Mr. Montague shall not only receive the Principal and Interest deposited by the Earl of Manchester but also all moneys expended by the Earl of Manchester or himself in building or otherwise improving the Estate The Earl of Clevelands defires are that this Case being of great consequence to many of his ancient and principal Creditors and Sureties who Petition the House of Commons that this Bill may pass may be committed and the equity of it examined by such persons as the House shall appoint and that he may not be forejudged in this business but that this Bill which after long debate passed the House of Lords may in the House of Commons receive a candid audience the endeavours to prevent the same arguing more of Interest and Animosity than of Justice or Equity that being the most just sentence which passes after the fairest hearing Not above three 〈…〉 〈…〉 bran●●● before 164● and in 1639 the times were unquiet