Richard Pearl Gent. Plaintiff; Sir William Powel alias Hinson Baronet, Dame Mary his Wife, & al. Defendants.  
ANswers to the Objections that may be probably made, against the admitting the Plaintiffs Bill in Parliament.  
Ob. 1. The Plaintiff if he had any good Title, Would have sought for Remedy long since, it being above 9 years since the Idiot John Pearl, his elder Brother, died.  
Res. 1. Sir John Bridges, under whom the Defendants Claim, had by his deserting the King, and complying with the late usurped Powers, made himself so powerful an Interest in Herefordshire, and elsewhere, that the Plaintiff had enough to do to preserve his person, having always adhered to the King's Interest, much less to contest then with so powerful a man, yet hath always made his Claim.  
2. Since His Majesty's happy Restauration, the Plaintiff Richard Pearl hath always endeavoured the finding out the Records of the Ideory, which he was still in hopes to do, the Clerk of the Lunatic Office, and some of the Defendants, having often confessed the having them in their custody; but he believes did and doth conceal them, in hopes of a Composition, which hath been often offered to the Plaintiff.  
Ob. 2. Sir John Bridges paid a valuable Consideration for the Estate. Res. 1. He gave but 40 l. per annum to the Idiot during his life, who had the sole Estate in him: And what he gave to others, was in his own wrong, and for the furthering his design.  
2. The Estate is really worth 420 l. per annum; the Grandfather had no other Estate, yet was pricked for Sheriff of the County.  
Ob. 3. The Defendants have gotten a Common Recovery, and though from an Idiot, (yet being one of the Common Assurances of the Nation) ought not to be avoided.  
Res. Fines and Recoveries obtained by Design, Fraud, Force, Covin, and Deceit, are not reckoned the Common Assurances of the Nation, and therefore not favoured by the Common Law. Vide Fermors Case at large, Co. 3 Rep. so. 77. where it is adjudged by six Justices, Litt. cap. Remitter 151. quod alias bonum & justumest, si per vim vel fraudem petatur malum & injustum est.  
And there is a late Case in point between Leveston and Powel in both Houses, where a Fine was damned because it was obtained by Force, Fraud, and Covin.  
This Case is accompanied with more Deceit, etc. than the Case cited, or any of the Cases cited in our Books: For, 

1. Sir John to get the Idiot into his custody, Petitions his Majesty's Attorney in the year 44. for a Commission de Ideota inquirendo; and doth not inform him, that the Idiot was and ought to be a Ward; so to carry on his design, he first begins to deceive his Majesty.  
2. Francis Rinardes', Tho. Tomkins Esquires, & al. Petition his Majesty's Attorney, informing him of his Ward, and thereupon obtain a Supersedeas to the said Commission, and a new Commission de diem clausit extremum, for finding the King's Ward; both which the said Sir John Bridges did suppress in the executing thereof, and by force did take them away, and executed his own Commission, and did find the said John an Idiot in due form of Law.  
3. So by colour of having the custody of the Idiot, did by force take possession of his Estate, in right of the Idiot as he then pretended; and having gotten the possession, he complies with the Parliament, and then falsifies the Trust committed to him in the preservation of the Idiot. Vide Stat. Praerogativae Regis. Ita quod nullatenus per eosdem fatuos alienentur, nec quod corum haeredes exhaeredentur.  
4. For having by such Force, Covin, Fraud, and Deceit, gotten the Idiot into his sole possession, procures him to suffer a Recovery; and that by Attorney, and makes his Menial Servants his Commissioners.    
So that where Design, Force, Fraud, and Covin, are the supporters of an Assurance, be it Fine, Common Recovery, or otherwise, the Law will not call it one of the Common Assurances of the Nation. Vide the Preamble of the Statute of 4 Hen. 7. cap. 24.41. Ass. Pla. 28.44. E. 3.25.12. Eliz. 295. Dier.  
Ob. 4. There hath been several other Fines and Assurances passed of the Estate, since that Recovery.  
Res. 1. Those that Claim under an Estate got by Covin, shall be in the same plight as those that got the Estate by Covin. 39 E. 3. Br. Remitter 47. Littlet. 678.  
2. And if any be, 'tis by one of the Defendants to the other, who are parties or privies to the first Recovery.