THE RESPONDENTS ANSWER TO A Printed PAPER, Called, The Duchess of ALBEMARL, and Mr. MONK's CASE Against the Said RESPONDENTS.  

Appel.  
Ralph, Earl of Montague,  
Elizabeth, Duchess of Albemarl, his Wife,  
And Mr. Monk,   

Resp.  
John Earl of bath, and others.   
SINCE the Respondents printed their Case, there is a Paper come abroad, Entitled, The Case of the Duchess of Albemarle and Mr. Monk, against the Earl of bath, and others Respondents, wherein the Author declares, the general Question to be, Whether the Deed of 1681, or the Will of July 87, in Eqnity ought to be construed to be the true Settlement of the Duke's Estate.  
And then complains, the Decretal Order only declares, That the Court saw no Cause in Equity, to relieve the Appellants, at which the Author is greatly offended; and saith, The Court ought to have given a Reason why they saw no cause to relieve. This is certainly an Original; for no one before did ever expect a Reason why another could not see a thing that did not appear.  
But in the next place he arreigns the Lord Keeper and Judges for taking it to be a Good Deed; Whereas, saith he, only the Fact was tried, and the Verdict ought to be no farther Evidence, than that the Duke executed the Deed. If the Deed was found by Verdict, to be well executed, as the Au- Author admits, wherein was the Iniquity of the Court to take it to be a good Deed. But rather why doth the Author, after he admits it to be the Duke's Deed, stuff the rest of the Paper with so many Libellous Matters; as though the Deed had never been Executed. The Plain Reason of it is; Because the Author hopes to amuse some by bold Reflections, although nothing to the Point, which he himself makes to be a Question in Equity the Law being agreed by himself, to be against the Appellants, his Points, of Surprise, Concealment, and Resulting Trust, remain only Points in Equity; so that the Libellous part being determined at Law, where the Respondents had many other Witnesses than those in Chancery, they need not here Answer what they there confuted out of any respect to their Cause. Nevertheless, not to suffer such scurrilous Reflections to remain unanswered: They say, that they cannot but wonder to see the Author again to mention the Rasure in the Date of the Deed, as though there was some very ill Practice therein, whereas the Date is not Material, so as it was Sealed at any time, either before, or after, and it is not to be supposed that any one shuuld do an ill thing for no End, but the Rasure is plain and visible, and not done with Art, to deceive, but always owned, and fully proud to be before the Scaling.  

I. The Writer swears it done by him ten years before, and that he never saw it under Seal, until he saw it at the Examiner's Office, at his Examination in this Cause.  
II. Mr. Croft's, who read the same at the first opening, doth swear, The Room being dark, he by mistake read it 82; but at the same time corrected himself: And it was then handed about, and agreed to be 81. And it stands now as it was then. 
Answers to the Rasure in the Date of the Deed of 81.   
III. Mr. Aleman, one of the Witnesses, went beyond Sea in September 81, and had a Pass from the Secretary of State, which he produced of that Date, and positively swears it was before he went.  
IU. All the Witnesses swear it was in Albemarle's House, which was sold before 82.  
V. Sir Thomas Stringer took an Abstract thereof before the Duke went to Jamaica, where it is plainly mentioned to bear Date, as now it appears in July, 1681.   
The next thing quarrelled at is, that the Earl by his Answer saith, he knew not who writ the Deed, and what wonder is it, if a Person that had been concerned in such variety, and multiplicity of Business, as the Earl was, should not after so great a length of time as ten years, call to mind who it was that did a particular thing.  
The next Reproach that is therein repeated, doth rather show the Malice than Discretion of the Author, for he cannot but remember that the Seal-Cutter swears that Mr. Bull the Earl of Bathe's Secretary helped him him to many Customers, and that it is about 28 years since he cut two Seals, one for the Earl of bath, and this of the Duke of Albemarl's, for which the Earl of bath paid him; and this they would have to be a Seal prepared only for the Sealing of this Deed, and kept by the Earl for such purpose; but it was proved.  

I. That Duke George used this as his Seal, by many Instruments produced at the Trial, that had been kept by the Parties from the time they received them from his Hand.  
II. Marthew Look Esq the old Duke's Secretary swore, That he kept the same Seal many Years in the Old Duke's Time, and delivered it to his Son, the last Duke, after his death.  
III. That there were many Instruments also produced at the Trial made by Duke Christopher under the same Seal.   
And surely after such Proof to renew this Reflection, is very malicious.  
The Author quarrels with the Unlawyer-like Pening of the Deed of 81. But by whom was it done? was it not by Sr. Thomas Stringer, the Duke's Council? And if good in Law, shall his Informalities make it void in Equity? That surely they will not agree; for then what would become of their Will of 87. Their own great Oracle had his Blunders.  
How comes it to pass (unless to show the Duke was not in earnest) That by that Will, 

I. The Remainder of all the Estate is limited to the Regecide Issue, whom the Duke made it his great Concern to exclude from Inheriting what came from the Crown.  
II. How comes is that the Duke, after he had given his Heir at Law 5000 l. absolutely by the Will of 75, gives it by this only upon Condition, That she Release her Right to 500 l. per Ann. her paternal Estate, and to Pudridg the Capital Seat, where the Duke had laid out 16000 l. in Building. This could not be in Earnest.  
III. How comes he to enjoin Mr. Monk to make that his Habitation, could he think his Uncle's Daughter would so easily give up what she had by Settlement from her Father, Duke George's elder Brother? That is no more to be imagined than that the Duke really intended it.    
In Answer to this the Appellants will say, Although Mrs. Pride's Father to keep the Estate in his Name, settled those Lands, from his own Daughter, on his Brother Duke George in tail Male, with the remainder to his Daughter; yet the Dukes might have suffered a Recovery, and then the Devise to Mr. Monk would have been good: And however they out of Honour would not do so ungrateful a thing. Yet in regard they could have done it if they pleased, that now in favour of the Devise his Intent appearing thereby, Equity shall supply both the Recovery in this Case, and the Revocation in the other. But God forbid such dangerous Doctrine should take place.  
The rest of the Paper declining to contend the Reality of the Deed, and labouring only to persuade, that in Equity Mr. Monk without Kindred or Merit, aught to have Preference to the Duke of Albemarl's Estate, and not the Respondents: The Respondents forbear to answer the same, but refer to their Printed Case, and doubt not but every impartial Reader will agree, that if they have the best Title at Law, they ought not in Justice or Equity to be further disquietd.  
But the Author having in the beginning of these Suits, raised and spread those scandalous Reports, doth now even against his own Conviction (the Appellants acquiessing in the Verdict, and not denying the Deed, but only insisting on Equity) maliciously revive the same.  
And the Respondents hope, That as they have been vindicated against that foul Imputation of Forgery, by a Verdict at Law; and of that of Surprise, and Concealment, by a Decree in Chancery; after full deliberation, they shall now be dismissed by this Noble House, and repared against the Author of that Paper, for his Confessed, Wilful and Malicious Scandals.  
THE Respondents at the Trial Examined the several Witnesses following, which are not Examined in Chancery, viz. 

The Earl of Maclesfield.  
Th' Lord Carterett.  
Sr. Caesar Cranmer.  
Sir Peter Prideaux.  
Sr. John Moslesworth.  
Sr. Thomas Higgins.  
Pullein, Esq  
Doctor Nixon, a Prebend of Canterbury.  
Mr. Sergeant Bonithon.    
THE following Witnesses were Examined at the Trial, to several Points, whereunto they had not been Examined in Chancery, viz. 

Matthew Lock, Esq  
William Shaw, Esq  
Mr. Heblethwayte, Sr. William Jones ' s Chief Clerk.  
Mr. Chapman, Sr. Tho. Stringer' s Clerk.  
Andrew Barry, Esq  
Mr. Thompson, the Scrivener.  
Mr. East, the Seal-cutter.  
Mr. Errington.    
SEveral other matterial Witnesses which were in Court to have been Examined, but were not, by reason the Court were satisfied without them, viz. 

The Honourable Francis Roberts, Esq  
Sr. Thomas Ogle.  
Major Francis Kelly.   And many others.