Selected quad for the lemma: lord_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
lord_n	chancellor_n	earl_n	sir_n	18,623	5	6.3520	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A26185	A true account of the unreasonableness of Mr. Fitton's pretences against the Earl of Macclesfield	Atwood, William, d. 1705?	1685 (1685)	Wing A4183A; ESTC R28316	7,944	9

A true Account of the Vnreasonableness of Mr. Fitton 's Pretences against the Earl of Macclesfield ALexander Fitton Son to William Fitton of Ireland petitions the Right Honourable the Lords Spiritual and Temporal assembled in this present Parliament to set aside a Decree of the Lord Chancellor Clarendon made Novemb 27. 1662 grounded upon Sir Edward Fitton 's Devise by Will to the present Earl of Macclesfield whereby the possession of the Estate of Sir Edward Uncle to the said Earl and remote Kinsman to the Petitioner with all the Evidences concerning the same were decreed to the said Earl a certain Deed Poll set up by Fitton and condemned in a Trial at the King's Bench-Bar upon a feigned Issue to be vacated and the Estate to be established to the said Earl from all farther Pretences of Fitton or other the Defendents or any claiming under him or them unless he or they made out a Title upon that Deed which was the only Pretence within twelve months and the said Fitton was to pay the whole Costs After this Fitton gives notice of a Trial but would not proceed and when the twelve months were almost expired and he was under a necessity of trying then or not at all he prayed farther time but was justly denied it being 't was manifestly for vexatious Delay And upon Trial at the Grand Sessions of Chester being the proper County the Verdict going against him the Decree was made Absolute Having acquiest under this for above one and twenty Years excepting only that he questioned the Witnesses to the Will for Perjury of which they were acquitted by Verdict he brings his Bill of Review before the present Lord Keeper who at first required his paiment of the Costs before he would put the Earl to answer till Fitton swore his absolute inability to pay them Upon the Earl's Plea and Demurrer Fitton 's Bill was dismist after this Fitton petitioned for a Re-hearing which was granted him but he did not prosecute it The Suggestions upon which his Petition is grounded with their Answers are these 1. That he had been many Years in possession of the Estate Whereas he had not been in possession above four Years and those in the Times of the Usurpation while the now Earl was in Exile with his late Majesty During which time the said Earl refusing any Composition though 't was offered him received not any benefit of that or of his paternal Estate And before he was driven out for his Loyalty he was by virtue of the said Will in possession of all Sir Edward's Estate not in Jointure or Mortgage and received the Rents of the same immediatly upon the Death of Sir Edward's Mother Grandmother to the now Earl excepting only one part of Gosworth which was so infested with the Enemy's Troops that the Earl could not come at it 2. That the Earl claimed under a Will of Sir Edward's The Petitioner under a Settlement with Power of Revocation and a Deed Poll releasing that Power both antecedent to the Will And that though he had contested the Will he was not admitted to any Trial upon it wherein he says He had manifest Wrong and Injustice Whereas it appears upon his own Answer that he never contested it but wholly relied upon his Deed Poll and says Whether a Will or no Will is not material And no Man can imagine that when he had a good Title by a Settlement prior to the Will he would incur the Crime and Hazard of contriving the Deed Poll unless he had believed that there was such a Will Nor was Fitton straightned as he complains from trying the Merits of the Cause upon the Will for the second Trial was in Ejectment and as Fitton had a very good Title upon the first Settlement till the Will were proved 't is evident that the Will could not but come in question and in Fact was fully proved 3. Fitton will have it that the Earl being Plantiff in Chancery it lay upon him to prove his Will which he did in that Court but was not to be put to do it elsewhere unless Fitton had contested it 4. To discredit the said Earl Fitton affirms that the said Earl had a Verdict against the Deed Poll upon the Evidence of one Granger a notorious Cheat whereby he would insinuate as if there were no other Evidence against it which is not only a reflection upon two Juries who disbelieved it but even two Judgments of the House of Lords one of which censured Fitton and his Accomplices for their contrivance to cast their practices with Granger upon the Earl The other condemned the Libel to be burnt by the common Hangman and nothing but the Earl's Clemency at Fitton 's request upon his Knee after a Jury was impanelled stopped the said Earl from having him tried upon an Information of Forgery Besides not to mention all the Circumstances which evinced the Forgery which surely one need not after the Deed has been cancelled by order of the High Court of Chancery upon two solemn Trials there were these Particulars extreamly pregnant I may say demonstrative against it That he neither in Marriage Treaties nor Trials before with others concerning the Estate ever produced such Deed. Nor did his own Father know of it till the Suit with the now Earl and the supposed Witnesses to it declared a little before they swore that they knew nothing of any such Deed and when they were cross examined upon the Trial they could give no account of Time or Place or any one Circumstance in relation to the Execution of it Nay one of them Richard Davenport at Chester after the Verdict was over it having been proved at the Trial what Reward had been promised him by one Berwick another supposed Witness before the whole Jury and several other Gentlemen begg'd the Earl's Pardon for swearing falsly that he was a Witness to the Execution of the Deed and desired the Earl not to prosecute him Whereas Fitton affirm'd openly in Chancery that he never knew Granger nor was in his company yet the contrary was fully proved on the Trial at the King's Bench Bar by several Witnesses And the Jury declared that they had sufficient Evidence of the Forgery without Consideration of Granger and in truth there was an Evidence in the nature of the thing for the Settlement to the advantage of Fitton with power of Revocation was made in the Life-time of Sir Edward's second Lady and in that Settlement was no Provision for any Child or Children beyond the Heirs of his Body which could be but one at a time There was indeed a Limitation before that to the Fittons to such Person or Persons Estate or Estates as he should limit or appoint by Will or Deed. Fitton pretends to a Release of all this Power by his Deed-Poll of April 1642 when Sir Edward was newly married to a young Lady himself in his full Strength and Expectation of

Children and at the same time W. Fitton to whom the Estate was first limited was known by Sir Edward to be in the Irish Rebellion and the Estate if Sir Edward died must needs have been forfeited and by that pretended Deed Sir Edward would not only have deprived himself of Power to provide for such Children as he might well expect to have but even from raising such Monies as might be necessary to carry on his then Maiesties Service for which he was engaged to the utmost or for any other occasions and no Man could believe this of a Man so prudent as all agreed Sir Edward to be 5. He suggests that the Possession and Deeds were decreed against him before the Cause determined whereas it was not till after solemn Trial at the Bar and the second Trial was wholly in his favour and he had all the Deeds to use at the second Trial Nor can he complain that his Deed-Poll was sent down with a mark of Infamy upon it after the first Verdict or that before that his Deed-Poll was called a pretended Deed in the order for the first Trial since several Circumstances that appeared in Chancery were strong against it 6. That his Inheritance was absolutely concluded upon a single Trial whereas 't is apparent that there were two solemn ones nor was the right of Inheritance touch'd but only the Person bound 7. But then he would give Laws and Limits of his own to the power of the Chancery and says that it ought only to have set aside a Lease of 99 Years upon the Estate so that it might not hinder the Trial of the Right of Inheritance that this was a Trust properly within its power but that the Right of Inheritance was not And the Councel before a Committe of Lords being convinced of the falshood of his other Suggestions seemed in their Reply to put all their Stress upon this as a thing not answered as if their Opinion of the Power of that Court contrary to the Judgment of the Lord Chancellor Clarendon and the now Lord Keeper deserved an Answer But they might have considered that the Chancery did not nor ever does take away any Man 's Right of Inheritance but quiets the Possession and gives the other Incidents to them that have the Right either admitted or proved upon Trial according to the matter in Issue But then the Petition says that no more than setting aside that Lease was pray'd by the Bill whereas it as well sets forth the Will in haec verba and the Earls Title by it complains of Fitton 's setting up Pretences and having Deeds concerning the Estate of which and of all Conspiracies it desires a discovery and prays Relief upon the whole And was it unreasonable or out of the Power of the Chancery as a proper Relief in this Case to give the mean Profits tho not particularly required in the Bill but moved for by Counsel being confessed by the Answer and to establish the Possession against one who would counterfeit a Title to a Man's Estate Shall he afterwards be admitted to contest that Title which is not to be impeached but by a forged Deed If indeed he had urged that the Will was forged or that there was no Will then no Incident to the Right of Inheritance claimed by that would have been given in Chancery till the Will had been tried at Common Law but in this Case the Trial of the Deed was the Trial of the Right of Inheritance which being over the Lease in trust was to be assigned to attend the Inheritance and could not have been duly assigned before But whereas Mr. Fitton thinks it hard that he should not now be suffered to try the Will as if he could manifestly disprove it and he has possest some with the Be●●e● that Granger who was his Creature and Accomplice had an hand in the Will 'T is requisite to give some account of the Proof that there has been to it formerly and the stronger that Proof is the clearer is the Argument that it ought not now to be questioned For surely it is not enough to say Pray let me be admitted to sue for his Estate tho I have been never so vexatious before because he can easily make out a good Title The Proofs to the Will may be divided into three Heads 1. Sir Edward's Declarations of his Intention to settle his Estate upon the Now Earl of Macclesfield 2. The positive Proofs to the Will 3. Several Circumstances subsequent which evince that Sir Edward had made a Will and that they who proved the Will swore true 1. The first was proved at large directly and expresly by Henry Manwaring of Canningham in Cheshire Esquire who married one of Sir Edward's Co-heirs and could not be supposed to swear falsly so much against his Interest Richard Sneyd of Egmond in the County of Stafford Esquire Brother to Sir Edward's second Lady Vrïan Leigh of St. Giles Cripple-gate Esquire Francis Hollinshead of Leek in the said County of Stafford Gent. and Leonard Watson Yeoman who had been Bailiff to Sir Edward's Mother And there was full Proof that Sir Edward who was a zealous Asserter of his King 's Right and the Church of England as by Law established was extremely displeased with Fitton being informed as the truth was that he was on the side of the Irish Rebels as he was after he came into England actually in Arms against the King under the Command of Col. Bradshaw and Sir Edward frequently declared his resolution to give the Earl his Estate being his Sister's Son for his signal Service to his then Majesty 2. That Sir Edward made his Will as aforesaid was proved by Dr. Smallwood who was his Chaplain at the making of his Will both domestick and belonging to his Regiment and afterwards Chaplain in Ordinary to his late Majesty and Dean of Litchfield a Person of known Worth and Integrity who swore that he was present and a Witness to the sealing publishing and delivery of the last Will and Testament of the said Sir Edward Dated August 16. 1643. That it was executed at Bristol he being of sound Memory and Understanding and was his Voluntary Act and according to his declared Intention That the other three Persons whose Names were subscribed were present That Sir Edward delivered it to his Custody with solemn Charge to be true to his Trust And in discharge of the said Trust he delivered it to the now Earl since his return to England with his late Majesty But that the Earl knew of the Will within two days after the making of it was proved by Richard Sneyd aforesaid The aforesaid Francis Hollinshead another Witness whose Name was subscribed to the said Will swore as ●ully to the execution of it as Dr. Smallwood did And Edmond Ashenhurst of the Old Park in Staffordshire Gent. proved the Name of William Ashenhurst his Nephew another Witness whose Name was subscribed and who was a Chyrurgion to Sir