Another committee was named to criticise the Bill, the chief doubt being as to the sufficiency of the vesting clause. Those who thought themselves aggrieved by the decisions under the first Act were determined to leave nothing to chance. The third reading was taken on November 29, and the House then proceeded to formulate its objections in the shape of a petition to the Lord Lieutenant.[45] [Sidenote: Two hard cases.] The most important question raised by the Commons' petition concerned the interpretation of words in the first clause, which vested in the King all lands 'seized or sequestered by reason of the late horrid rebellion which began on October 23, 1641.' Some lawyers held that it was necessary to prove in each case separately that the owner of land on that fatal day had been actually engaged in rebellion, a doctrine which shook the title of all the men in possession. There was also some doubt whether the new proprietors would hold their land in fee or as tenants for life, but the Irish judges had decided in the former sense. The Lord Lieutenant, first orally and then in writing, answered, promising that doubts should be decided in a manner agreeable to the parliamentary majority and to the intention of those who had passed the Bill, which could only be amended by a subsidiary Act. Any attempt at fresh legislation was dangerous where so many discontented persons were involved, and the rock was avoided by asking the opinion of the English judges on the first point. Ten of them, including Sir Orlando Bridgeman and Rainsford, the late commissioner of claims, held that the disposal of land within the meaning of the Act would of itself be good evidence that it was vested in the King, and that the burden of proof lay upon the party whose former property had been seized or sequestered. As to Fitzgerald and Magill, whose lands had never been seized but who were treated as if they had been, the House of Commons were of opinion that they were innocent--nothing having been proved or even stated against them. Counsel for the Knight of Kerry said their client was 'of English extraction, never attainted, a matter rare in an Irish pedigree, but constantly loyal.' In these hard cases Ormonde promised to do his best, and this was something more than a common official answer since clause 159 provided that doubtful points might be decided by an order in council having the force of law.'[46] [Sidenote: Violent opposition to the Bill;] [Sidenote: but it passes without a division.]