The CASE of SIMON CLARK Son and Heir of Peter Clark deceased and now Heir apparent of the Family of Sr. Simon Clark, against whom a ' Bill is brought into the ' Parliament by Sr. John Clark and Fuller Skipwith to deprive him of all estate settled upon him by Sr. Simon Clark Baronet his Grandfather.  
SIR SIMON CLARK Baronet, had three Sons (viz.) Sir John Clark his Elder, Peter the second, and Woodchurch Clark the third, and upon the Marriage of his son Sir John with Anne his first wife did in the 11. year of K. Charles 1635. agree to settle all his lands near about the value of 1500 l. (viz.)  
The Manor and Rectory of Salford with the appurtenan●●… 〈…〉 at least ●00 l. per annum to the use of Sr. John for life the remainder to Anne his wife for life for present maintenance and Jointure with divers contingent Remainders to 1, 2, 3, 4. and to the tenth son and to the heir males of the body of each son successively.  
The Manor of Bidford and Broom to the use of Sr. Simon for life the Remainder to Sr. John for life with the contingent remainders to the 1, 2, 3. son unto the tenth.  
And his Manor and Lands of and in Newbald and Easnall to the use of himself for life the Remainder to the Lady Clark then the wife of Sir Simon for life for her Jointure. The Remainder to Sr. John his son for life, with like contingent Remainders to the 1, 2, 3. sons and to the tenth son.  
And to preserve the said contingent Remainders from being destroyed by Sr. John, and that Sr. Simon might have it in his power to preserve his said Lands in his name and blood and to go with the Honour after the said contingent Remainders (agreed to be limited) should be spent: The immediate Remainder was to be in Sr. Simon Clark and his heirs. But by some mistake or artifice in the Marriage Conveyance dated on or about the 28. of May in the 11. year of King Charles. The next immediate remainders to the said conting … 〈…〉 … dear were to the heirs males of Sr. John, and after to the heirs of Sr. Simon, whereby the whole intention of the said Marriage agreement might be defeated by Sr. John.  
Whereupon there was soon after a suit in the Court of Requests by Sr. Simon against Sr. John and the trusties to have the estate settled according to the said Marriage Agreement, and in that suit the said deed of the 11. of King Cha●les was produced and thereupon a second settlement was made according to the said first Marriage Agreement by fine and deed dated the 23. of March in the 14. year of King Charles whereby the immediate Remainder to the said contingent Remainders in all the said Manors & premises are limited to the heirs of Sr. Simon.  
In the said deed of the 23. of March 1638. it is recited that whereas divers suits and differences have been between the said Sr. Simon and John Clerk for and concerning the settling the said Manors, Lands, Tenements and hereditaments afterwards therein mentioned in the name and blood of the said Simon and John Clark. That for the ending and appeasing of all and every of the said suits and differences, and for a perfect reconciliation betwixt the said Simon and John Clark, and in con … 〈…〉 a certain sum of money in hand paid to the said John Clark, the said settlement was had and made.  
That Sr. Simon Clark perceiving that Sr. John Clark had not nor was not like to have any Children, by deed dated the 15. of August 1651. conveyed his reversion or remainder of the said Manor of Bidford Broom and Salford, and the Rectory of Salford by the said settlement of the 14. year of K. Charles unto Sir William Craven and Edward Carew Esq and their heirs to the use of James Pits and H Big●ton to their heirs during the life of the said Sim. Clark son of Peter and heir apparent of Sir John (in respect the said Simon was born out of the King's Dominions, but now naturalised) and after the death of the said Simon to the use of the 1, 2, and 3. sons unto the 10. of the said Simon in Tail, and afterwards to the said Woodchurch Clark with the like contingent Remainder, the Remainder in fee to Sr. Simon, and thereby also conveyed the reversion or Remainder of all his other lands by the said settlement of the 14. year of K. Charles, unto the said Woodchurch Clark for his life with like contingent Remainders to his 1, 2, and 3. son with Remainder over to the said Simon as in the other lands and afterward to the said Sr. Simon in Fee.  
That Sr. Simon dye● 〈…〉 ●651. nothing having been moved against him after the said settlement of the 14. year of K. Charles in thirteen years during his life. But about 3. years after the death of Sr. Simon a Bill was exhibited by Sir John Clark and Fullwar Skipwith as an intender purchaser for 6000 l. and the Lady Clark relict of Sir Simon & in the names of divers as creditors of Sr. J. Clark and others against the said Simon Clark the son of Peter deceased an infant and without friends and Woodchurch Clark and his son Simon with divers other defendants pretending thereby that there was a trust upon the said settlement of the 14. year of K. Charles; for Sr. Simon to pay 5000 l. debts of Sr. John Clark in consideration of the said reversion or Remainder limited thereby unto the heirs of Sr. Simon and that the said estatesly mitted by the said deed of the 15. of August 1651. aught to be subject thereunto and therefore would have the lands decreed to be sold to Fullwar Skipwith to pay the debts of Sr. John Clark and all parties interested to be bound thereby. That one Jones a stranger and not related to Simon Clark the son of Peter was named a Guardian for the said Simon the son of Peter Clark by the Contrivance of the said Sr. John; Fullwar Skipwith and the Lady Clark to make such Answer as best serve … 〈…〉 … poses, and thereupon witnesses have been examined and publication past many years since no care at all being taken for Simon Clark or he knowing thereof till since the commitment of the Bill of Sir John Clark and Fullwar Skipwith in Parliament.  
That the said Cause is still depending in Chancery and unheard and the Bill brought into Parliament, by Sir John Clark and Fullwar Skipwith is for the same matters upon which there is proper relief in Chancery against the said settlement if the proof is sufficient to invade the same, and therefore not proper for the Parliament.  
That Sr. John Clark having improvidently brought himself into debt, and having no Children the Lady Clark second wife and relict of Sr. Simon and not mother to any of his Children and Fullwar Skipwith who was first the Servant to Sr. Simon Clark and hath since married the Niece of the Lady Clark, and pretendeth with the Lady Clarks money to purchase combine together to work upon the necessity of Sr. john and for some inconsiderable sums of money to gain the whole estate of Sr. Simon Clark & leave only the title of a BARONET to descend unto Simon Clark the next heir apparent of the Family and not a foot of Land therewith, and seek … 〈…〉 destroy a Family by Act of Parliament, which the established Law would preserve in spite of fraud and improvidence, and that most unaturally and undutifully by a Wife, Son, and Servants of Sir Simon by defaming him dead which cannot speak for himself, and wounding his memory they are most obliged to defend. If such settlements so well made for the continuance of Lands in the Name and Family of Ancestors after so many years peaceable enjoyment be shaken, no man will ever be able to secure his Estate: and Honours will descent without Revenues to suppport them.   

Anno Dom. 1661.