REMARKS UPON Mr. PALMES' ANSWER TO SIR RICHARD TEMPLE'S CASE  
1st. MR. Palms having agreed with Sr. Richard Temple's Case, that the Point in Question, referred to the Committee, was; in whom the Possession remained at the meeting of the Parliament, of the place where the Breach of Privilledge complained of, by both Parties was done: To prove it to be in him, he alleges, that all the Lands in Question, were the Lands of Mrs. Danby, who Died without Issue; but takes no Notice that she had Mortgaged the Inheritance thereof to Sr. Richard Temple, and given him Possession in 1686, according to the Deed of Mortgage; and that Sr. Richard had received three half Years Rend before Mrs. Danbys Death: And was in the peaceable Possession till the 14th. of March last. And as to Mr. Palms' pretended Attornment, it was not of all the Tenants; but only of one in six, that had any Interest in the Land in Question.  
2dly. As to the Delivery of any Leases of Ejectment, tho' it was alleged at the Committee, yet no such thing was proved: For in truth what Ejectments were delivered, were for part of the Jointure Lands, which sell lately; and not the Lands now in Question: So that Mr. Palms hath no Colour for his Pretences, that Sr. Richard was out of Possession.  
3dly. Whether the 21 Persons that came with 7 Teems Forceably to enter upon, and Plough the Middle Field, or those three complained of, that endeavoured only to defend the Possession, and hinder their Ploughs, were the Ryoters and Breakers of Privileges, is Submitted to every Man's Judgement.  
4thly. As to the false Suggestion, that the Attornment of the Tenants to Sr. Richard Temple was to avoid Creditors; he appeals to the Committee, whither any such thing was to avoid Creditors; he appeals to the Committee, whither any such thing was proved, or so much as mentioned there, but the Mortgage admitted to be good.  
5thly. And as to the Specious Offers, pretended by him to be made to Sr. Richard Temple 'tis to be observed, that in Cases of Riots and Forceable Entries, there is no Privilege of Parliament; all the Parties on both sides being bound over to Answer it, there was no need of Waver of Privilege, or troubling the House about it; and if the designed to obtain any Compliances by those Methods, surely he was in a very Improper and Unreasonable Way.  
But he knowing the Equity of Redemption, was given from him to another; therefore he tries all ways to compass the Possession and Incumberances, to defeat him and the Creditors and Legatees, which Sr. Richard neither in Honour, nor in Justice can comply with.  
That the last Note is both false and frivilouse, since the Attornment was pursuant to the Deed, and the Agreements therein; and the former Mortgage assigned, was in the same manner; but the Possession as well as the Attornment, and the Receipt of the Rents being proved; Sr. Richard's Attornment was never questioned, nor indeed material: But Mr. Palme's Pretence for the Possession, was only the Attornment of one of the six Tenants; and Mr. Palms having no Estate in Law, only an Equity of Redemption, could not be good or effectual to our Sr. Richard of his Possession.