Mr. DARREL'S Reply to Sir JEREMY WHICHCOTT'S pretended Answer to Two Printed Questions alleged by Mr. DARREL, to be debated before the House of Peers.  
1. THE first Question being, whether Hampden Ashfeild were a Trustee for Mr. Darrel, or for Sir Thomas Ashfeild,( under whom Sir Jeremy Whichcott Claims) Mr. Darrel did Assert,( 1) That Sir Thomas Ashfeild, upon is Oath in the Court of Wards, Disclaimed all Interest in the Coal Farm; whereunto Sir Jeremy Whichcott Answereth,( 1) That Sir Thomas Ashfeild doth not Disclaim, but only saith, That he Claimeth nothing in the Coal Farm.( 2) That Sir Thomas Swears in the same Answer, That Hampden Asheild was Real Purchaser.( 3) That Sir Thomas Ashfeild did afterwards Swear in Chaucery, That Hampden Ashfeild was but a Trustee for Sir Thomas: To which Mr. Darrel replies,( 1) That he Humbly conceives it is one and the same thing, for a Man to Disclaim upon his Oath all Interest in the Coal Farm, or to Swear he Claims nothing in the said Coal Farm,; the Words Importing the same sense to every Mans apprehension, but to Sir Jeremy Whichcotts.( 2) That Sir Thomas Ashfeild's Oath in the Court of Wards, where he Swears positively against himself, that he Claims nothing in the Coal Farm, is of much more avail than his Answer in Chancery, where he endeavours( contrary to his former Oath) to Swear up a Title to Himself.( 3) That Mr. Darrel is not concerned to justify every ill Action of Sir Thomas Ashfeild; it being notorious to all Men, that Hampden Ashfeild could not be a Real Purchaser and Trustee of the same thing; but desires it may be taken Notice of, that Sir Thomas Ashfeild Disclaimed in the Court of Wards, when things were fresh in Memory, Witnesses alive, and Sir Thomas in a thriving Condition; but his Answer was put in, in Chancery many Ye●rs after, when his necessities had brought him into the Fleet, under the good Government of Sir Jeremy Whichcott.  
2. Mr. Darrells next proof being the Oath of Hampden Ashfeild, who Swears in Chancery, That he was a Trustee for Mr. Darrel. Sir Jeremy Whichcott replies, That Hampden Ashfeild being a Prisoner, and near starving, was tempted by Mr. Darrel with some Money, and the hopes of Liberty, to depose in such a manner as he did: Whereunto Mr. Darrel Replys,( 1) That Hampden Ashfeild did in several Answers in Chancery Swear the Trust to be for Mr. Darrel, some of which were filled in the Court long before Hampden Ashfeild was a Prisoner, or any ways likely to be one.( 2) How improbable is it, that Hampden Ashfeild being Sir Jeremy Whichcotts Prisoner, should be prevailed with to Forswear himself against the Interest of his Keeper.( 3) Mr. Darrel denys the Charge as an Impudent Calumny; the contrary being true, as appeared in Chancery by the Oaths of Captain Robert Bacon, and others, who deposed, That Hampden Ashfeild being upon his Death-bed, did very much desire he might not be prestred with Sir Thomas Ashfeilds Agents, who would have him go perjured to the Grave, in denying the Trust to be for Mr. Darrel, which he was resolved not to do. And for the Testimonies of Pitcher, Ellis, Buckley and Hancock, they were little regarded at the Hearing of the Cause, being persons of ill famed, known Emissaries of Sir Jeremy Whichcott, and encountered by the Convictive Evidence of persons of unquestioned reputation.  
3. Mr. Darrels next Assertion was, That Sir Thomas Ashfeild had frequently declared the Trust to be for Mr. Darrel: And Sir Jeremy Wichcotts Answer is, That he hath sworn the contrary: To which Mr. Darrel Replys, That Sir Jeremy Whichcott is very apt to forget what Sir Thomas Ashfeild did swear in the Court of Wards, when matters were fresh in Memory, and Sir Thomas Ashfeild at liberty, which is much more to be valued than what he swore when his Imprisonment, and other Necessities compelled him to be too obsequious to Sir Jeremy Whichcott. Not to add that the many Endeavours which Sir Thomas Ashfeild did use to surprise Mr. Darrel into a Release so soon as he came of Age, do but too plainly make it out what an Interest Mr. Darrel had in the Coal Farm.  
4. Mr Darrels Fourth Assertion was, That the Decree made in Chancery in 1660. doth establish the Trust to be for Mr. Darrel: To which Sir Jeremy Whichcott Answereth, There was no such Decree: And Mr. Darrel replieth, Let the Record be judge between them, and the Memories of all those Noble Lords, who had the patience to hear all the Decree red at the last Hearing of the Cause.  
5. Supporsing it to be Objected, That Two Verdicts had found the Trust against Mr. Darrel, Answered, That one of the Verdicts was set aside for indirect practices in procuring a Jury; and the other for Contradiction, finding that Hampden Ashfeild was a Real Purchaser as well as Sir Thomas Ashfeild: To which Sir Jeremy Whichcott saith,( 1) Neither of the Verdicts were set aside.( 2) It is no Contradiction: Whereunto Mr. Darrel Replys,( 1) That the Rules and Orders of the Court do plainly show, That the first Verdict was set aside for indirect practices, which were produced, and accordingly red, as the last Hearing of the Cause before the House of Peers; which makes Mr. Darrel a little wonder at the Memory of Sir Jeremy Whichcott, as well as at his Ingenuity for endeavouring so very unluckily to reconcile the flat contradiction of the second Verdict.  
The next Question being, How Mr. Darrel could make out any Claim to the New Patent granted to Sir Jeremy Whichcott.  
Mr. Darrel did insist, That Sir Jeremy Whichcott having made his Application to the King, as an old Tenant, and receiving a benefit from the Crown, as an old Tenant,( regard being then had by His Majesty, of the loss formerly sustained by the old Tenants) the advantage as to that fifth part ought to redound to Mr. Darrel, who sustained the loss in the War time, and for whom the said Sir Jeremy Whichcott was entrusted, it having being the constant practise in Chancery, That if a Trustee of a Church or college Lease will renew the same, with intention to apply it to his own advantage, yet the whole benefit thereof by the usage in Chancery, shall go to the person for whom he was entrusted; allowance being only made to the Trustee, for his expenses in renewing the same: To which Sir Jeremy Answers,( 1) That His Majesty in the new Grant had no Consideration of the old Tenant.( 2) That the Argument does not any ways Conclude from the usage of a Church or college Lease, to a Lease made by the Crown: To which Mr. Darrel Replys,( 1) That it is Evident by the proof red in the Cause, that Sir Jeremy Whichcott did make his Application to His Majesty as an old Tenant, and upon that score did obtain his share in the New Patent.( 2) Mr. Darrel doth conceive it is most plain, That( although the King is not any ways obliged to grant a Lease to an old Tenant) yet if His Majesty shall be pleased to extend so much Clemency to an old Tenant, upon the very account of his being an old Tenant; That in such Case the Cesty queen trust shall have the benefit of it, and not the Trustee; which is sufficiently warranted by the usual Course of Chancery, and is so applicable to Mr. Darrels Case, that Mr. Darrel cannot possibly conceive how his Coursel should be ashamed of the Argument, seeing it is sufficiently known, that none of Sir Jeremy Whichcotts council did ever give any tolerable Answer to it.