Lord Bath then joined the Duke of Bedford’s opposition, after first reflecting on that Duke himself, who he said had entered his complaint both ways, that the Bill had not been brought in soon enough, and had been brought in too late. That for himself, he could not but think the proposal of examining the claims first very material. Should he, would any man, purchase an estate, before he had examined the nature and validity of the incumbrances? That on the first face of the account, he could descry false claims and misprision. On one little estate of thirty pounds a year he observed a mortgage of four thousand pounds. Who, he asked, had been in possession of these 16,000_l._ per annum since they had been forfeited? If the Government, where is the receipt? who accounts for it? If the creditors, why is not so much struck off from their claims? What must England say, if Scotland pays nothing towards four million of taxes? What must she say, when the weight of these taxes has been increased by Rebellions raised in Scotland? But who is it, must he ask, who takes upon them to remit taxes? Kings had been driven out for arrogating a dispensing power! where will these partialities end? He concluded with proposing a Bill to be enacted for punishing any frauds relative to forfeitures. The Chancellor replied, that the Bill had been prepared as soon as possible, and had been brought in soon after Christmas. That the time for sale would lapse, and the estates fall to the mortgagees, if the Bill should now be postponed. That the mortgages, though real, could not extend beyond the value of the estates, which, he said, was a case frequent enough in Chancery.