THE CASE OF SIR RICHARD TEMPLE About the Breach of Privilledge, upon the REPORT.  
IT appears by the Order of the House, referred to the Committee of Privilledges, that both Mr. Palms, and Sr. Richard were equally Complainants against each other, for a Breach of Privilledge; supposed to be committed by their respective Agents, Servants, or Tenants; which was to be decided against either of them, according as the Possession should fall out to be, at the meeting of this Parliament. Nevertheless at the Hearing, Sr. Richard's Bailiff and Attorney, (viz.) Thorpe and Gallaway, because they were named in his Complaint, were rejected: And Mr. Blackall, Mr. Palms' Bailiff, who with Twenty Men, made a forcible Entry and Riot, on Sr. Richard's Possession; of which number all the rest of his Witnesses were, (tho' equally complained of) admitted.  
It was agreed by Mr. Palms' Council, that Sr. Richard had a Mortgage of Inheritance upon the Estate, which was ready to be produced; and both by Council and Witnesses. That he was in quiet Possession from November 1686. till the Death of Mrs. Danby in June last; and had received three half Years Rend before her Death, and all that was insisted upon, of any change or interruption of that Possession, until the Disturbance on the Fourteenth day of March last; was a pretended Attornment by some of the Tenants, to Mr. Palms' Agent, in July and August following: But the manner of that Attornment was not other ways proved, but by a Paper given in, all Written by one hand, Purporting no more than a promise of paying their Rent to Mr. Palms; but not expressing that there was any actual Possession given upon the Ground, nor have they in the least proved, that any of the Tenants (except Peter Hood) was in Possession of the Middle Field, or any part thereof, which was the only Place in question, after their taking off the Cropp, until the day of the Disturbance; being the Fourteenth of March last, when they entered with Twenty Men and Seven Plows, to Blow it forcibly.  
Sr. Richard Temple, hath clearly proved, that none of the Tenants mentioned, to have Attorned to Mr. Palms, or Rent any part of those Lands in Dispute ever since Lady Day 1688. (except Peter Hood, aforesaid) who took a new Bargain of Lands; laid out by a new allotment, under a new Rent; the four Fields being reduced into three, and that the Old Tenants were discharged at Martlemas 1687, to leave at Lady Day 16●8. when their Leases ended, and did accordingly quietly leave all the Meadow, Pasture, and Fallow Field; and only had leave to take off their Cropp; afterwards according to the Custom of the place, paying for the Outstands thereof, and that the new Tenants to whom it was let, quietly enjoyed their Bargains, till the Disturbance which happened the Fourteenth of March 1688.  
Take Notice that in their Reply, they have declined to maintain the Possession to all the rest, but as to Peter Hood; and that if the Attornment were good by him, being both an Old Tenant, and a new one, yet as to the other five Tenants, there was a clear forcible Entry, and Breach of Privilledge committed by Mr. Palms' Agent, upon Sr. Richard.  
In the next place, Sr. Richard Temple doth insist, that the pretended Attornment of the Old Tenants, whose Estates were determined, was absolutely Void, and could not change the Possession; and likewise, that the pretended Attornment of Peter Hood was Void, for that Mr. Palms having no Estate in Law; but an Equity of Redemption, after a Mortgage of Inheritance, is not capable of taking any by Attornment, or acquiring any Possession thereby.  
Lastly, The disturbance given to Peter Hood, was because, that, that Field was to have lain Fallow by the new Agreement, which was to the Damage of the Tenants, nor was there more done, than only to hinder his Ploughing there, nor was his Possession disturbed in that, nor any of the rest, he Enjoying it quietly to this day.