A REPLY TO A PRINTED PAPER entitled the state of the Adventurers Case, in Answer to a Petition exhibited against them by the Inhabitants of the soak of Peterborow, which clearly demonstrates the said Answer to consist of nothing but falsities and untruths, fallacies and equivocations, calumniations and detractions.  
And for the better satisfaction of the Reader, there is herewithal printed the Petition itself, and the Exceptions to the Act for draining:  
Together with a Paper which the Undertakers( though falsely) style a Warrant for a tax.  
Printed in the year, 1650.   

To the supreme Authority of ENGLAND, Assembled in PARLIAMENT. The humble Petition of the Inhabitants of the soak of Peterborow, within the County of Northampton, containing about forty towns and Villages, whose names are hereunto subscribed.  
Humbly sheweth:  
THat your Petitioners understand, by an Act lately passed, That the Earl of Bedford and his participants,( who may be Judges and Parties for ought we know, not being name) as Undertakers, are to drain our fens in the soak of Peterborow, which contain about eight thousand Acres, and are to have above three thousand out of them, upon these grounds as we humbly conceive: First, that we desired to be drained by them; Secondly, that we are fully heard; Thirdly, that our grounds were hurtfully surrounded, and of little or no value. To the first we deny, that we ever gave our consents, but contrariwise, we always opposed it; and if any Petitions were presented to that purpose, we protest against them. To the second, we attended many moneths at the Committee, but never had one witness examined. To the third, your Petitioners can prove, that our grounds are not hurtfully surrounded( as is suggested) but generally worth ten, Twelve, and Twenty shillings an Acre; which is very well known to a principal Engineere lately employed by the said Adventurers, who for four hundred Acres would have secured all the residue from any hurtful surrounding, or over-flowing: the onely prejudice we receive, being by the neglect of scouring some ancient drains and Sewers by the said Earl in his Mannor of Thorney, and some new works contrary to Law erected at Whittlesey, and elsewhere, which hurtfully surrounds many thousand Acres of rich meadows; yet the said earl must have above a third part of our Fen for melioration. Your Petitioners humbly re-minde this Honourable House, that in primo Jacobi the undertaking Draining was thrown out of this House for a Monopoly: Also your Honors, in your Grand and first Remonstrance of the fifteenth of December, 1641. adjudged it an Injustice, Oppression, Violence, Project, and Grievance; and in more express words thus; large quantities of Commons and Severals have been taken away from the subject by the colour of the Statute of Improvement, and by abuse of the Commissions of Sewers, without their consents, and against it.  The humble desires of your Petitioners are; First, that they may enjoy the benefit of your Declaration, to maintain our Proprieties, according to the Great Charter, and Petition of Right, and that( according to the Statute of Improvement your Petitioners may be at liberty to make the best of their own or that your Honours would be pleased to consider of our Exceptions against the said Act, which we humbly tender herewith unto your Honours: 2. that in the mean time we may not be disquieted in our Possessions by the said Undertakers: And lastly, that we may reap the benefit of your former Order, That no Member of this Honourable House, or any other person that is an Undertaker, Sharer, Purchaser, near Alli●, Lender of money, or shall have collateral Security upon the Undertakers pretended shares of our Land, may bee Judges and Parties. And these things we are emboldened to crave of your Honors( although an Act of Parliament be passed against us) from your own words laid down in your excellent Declaration of November, 1642. where you declare, it is the peoples Rights, and your Duty, to receive Petitions, though against things established by Law. 
And your Petitioners shall pray, &c.   

Exceptions to the Act for draining of the great level, extending itself into the Counties of Northton. &c.  
1. WHeareas in the preamble of the Act, the great level is suggested to be such grounds, as by reason of the frequent overflowing, are of small and uncertain profit; and under that notion do include the fen in Peterborow soak.  
Except. We deny our Fen to be of that condition, being generally worth ten, twelve, and twenty shillings the Acre; And so they have erected their structure upon a false & unsound foundation, taking that for granted which is not.  
2. Another consideration for the passing this Act, is that the earl of Bedford in the 13th. year of King Charles, had ninety five thousand Acres decreed to him out of the said level, in recompense of his undertakings.  
Except. This decree was procured by bribing the King with 12000. Acres of the said Level, three thousand whereof was part of the Common of your Petitioners.  
3. It is further alleged that the said earl and his participants had made a good progress therein.  
Except. The onely progress they made, was to divide the said ninety five thousand Acres amongst themselves by lots and shares, as by the words of the said Act appears, for it was found by a Jury at huntingdon, 14. Carol. that the said earl and his Participants, had not meliorated the said fens.  
4. Whereas it is also suggested that by reason of some interruptions, the intended benefit of the Common-wealth hath been prevented and delayed.  
Except. The interruption they received were onely their own fears to proceed, because their undertakings were illegal, and their proceedings no just which never were beneficial, but destructive to the Common-wealth, as hath been declared by this present Parliament.  
5. Another inducement to pass the Act, is that the said earl and his Participants are content to proceed in the said work, and hold it out as business proper for the care of a Parliament.  
except. Wee conceive the Undertaken, many of them being persons disaffected, are so contented to the end they might render the Parliament distatefull to the people, and by consequence ruin them, by countenancing that which they had formerly adjudged, and demonstrated as a grievance in the case of Sir Robert Barkeham, captain Hall, and Mr. Walrond; and so might do that by policy, which they could not do by power.  
6. By the Act the Undertakers may leave 15000. Acres, for beds and receptacles for Water, besides Meres, pools, and Channels.  
Except. Under this pretence, they may( to drain the earl of Bedfords Lands, which are next adjoining, and really hurtfully surrounded) make all our Common a receptacle for water.  
7. Many of the Commissioners are such which the Undertakers know will not attend, others are Undertakers, sharers, or creditors directly or colaterally, and the Participants( not being name) may bee Commissioners for ought wee know, and these Commissioners have absolute and unlimited power by view, or otherwise as to them shall seem meet without Juries( the life of the Law, and the peoples just freedom) to judge our grounds Drained, and put us out of possession; and in case wee bee grieved by their judgement, yet wee have no remedy but by appealing to themselves; and that in the Temple Hall in London, or whither they will adjourn whereby the remedy is worse then the disease.  
8. Our Lands were heretofore unjustly decreed to the said earl, by colour of a Commission of Sewers, yet upon this ground the Undertakers must have the same proportion again, whether wee receive benefit or no; and we have no liberty by this act to seek redress, till first wee be put out of possession, and then the Commissioners have only power for three yeares to give satisfaction, afterwards we be remediless.  
9. Except. Any five Commissioners may put us out of possession, but wee cannot be restored without fix, by the ancient Commissioners of Sewers, there ought to be seven times fix, by reason there were seven Levels.  
10. Ex. In case any restitution bee made to any person or owner, it must be taken from another; the Undertakers must still keep their shares, which is to engage the Counties in Feuds and differences.  
11. Except. By the said Act, the River of Welland is not to be intermeddled withall, which will be very prejudicial to your Petitioners, for wee find by constant experience, that in case wee bee not supplied out of that River, our Grounds is of that condition, that our Cattle perish for want of water.  
12. Except. The Commissioners by the Act have power at discretion to make our Lands which they conceive improved, though not within the pretended level, to bee contributory to the Undertakers, so that no man knows whether his Estate be free or no.  
13. Except. By the 43. of Elizabeth, commonly called the Statute of Improvement; it is enacted and provided that an Undertaker ought to have the mayor part of the owners and commoners consents, which the Undertakers well knew, and therefore they suggested to the Parliament, that your Petitioners did desire them to undertake it; and upon this ground when the said Undertakers heretofore preferred a Bill for draining the said level; the Parliament Ordered that all the Counties concerned should have notice, that so they might object what they could against the said Bill, and accordingly the said Counties did attend and objected against it; and thereupon that Bill went no further.  
Therefore wee humbly pray, that you will bee pleased by way of provisional Act, or otherwise, that( wee not consenting) the Act may be repealed.   

VALENTINE PARKER, WILLIAM MANNING, edmond BRAGDY.  
To Peterborow:  
WHereas it is apparent that the Undertakers will take a large portion of the Commons, unless some speedy course be taken for prevention thereof; Wee taking it into serious consideration, have thought fit that a considerable sum of money may be raised by a voluntary contribution in every town, which wee have indifferently computed according to the Note sent to you, and we desire you, whose Names are above written to afford your assistance in promoting of the business in your township, and to meet us at the next Sessions, that the country may know what is done therein.  
Dated the 18. day of april, 1650. 

Francis Quarles.  
John Cleypole  
William Leafield.    
Peterborow, 12 l. 00. 00.   

The Answer to the Petition with a Reply thereunto.  
Ans. 1 THey style it the Petition of the Soak of Peterborough, consisting of 47. Parishes and Hamblets; Whereas the Soak of Peterborough consists of seven Parishes which hath several Endships or Villages, and the town of Peterborough hath near as many people in it as all the rest, and the greatest interest in the Common; and yet the Petitioners could get neither hands to the Petition, nor money upon the Warrants made by three Justices of Peace at the Sessions for Collecting a tax, they set at the Sessions, for opposing an Act of this present Parliament. They were likewise refused at Eye, Wainsford, and Thornhaugh, and other places; and yet 'tis styled the Petition of the soak of Peterborough.  
Reply. As was the foundation, so is the structure; for as the Prophet Isaiah hath it in another case, They have made lies their refuge, and under falsehood have they hide themselves. For first, this clause is nothing but a congeries or heap of falsehoods.  
1. The soak of Peterborough hath fourteen Parishes, most of which have two or three, some four or five Towns and Villages belonging to them; and some one of these Parishes have near as many people as the Town of Peterborough; and many single towns have more Land belonging to them, and so more people that have right of Common, then the Town of Peterborough, the Common belonging to their Land. And those who were best affencted there, did either subscribe the Petition, or contribute to the promoting it: And for those that refused there, and also at Thornhaugh, Wainsford, and Eye, the reason is apparent. The mannor of Peterborough is lately purchased by the Lord chief Justice, St. John, and two of the other Towns, are the Earl of Bedfords, and great part of the third; yet there they would have subscribed and contributed, but that they were threatened by the bailiff to the said Earl, that they should be turned out of their houses. And yet all these Towns also did contribute to the preferring a former Petition to this Parliament against this undertaking.  
2. The Paper itself, they call a Warrant, being herewithal printed, will clearly evidence the detracting Spirit of the Answerer, it having neither the face nor resembleance of a Warrant. Nor was there any tax set by the Justices at the Sessions, or at any other time. Onely at a public meeting( long before the Sessions) at the desire of many Gentlemen Free-holders and Commoners; some Papers were subscribed and directed to several persons, for a voluntary contribution towards promoting their Petition to the Parliament( which is all the opposition they made to the Act) which Papers were also subscribed as Commoners, but refused as Justices.  
3. Although above twenty for one of the persons interested in the Common, having either subscribed or contributed to the prosecuting the Petition; and most of the Gentlemen of quality in the soak, having attended the Parliament at presenting thereof; It might very well be styled the Petition of the soak, yet it was onely entitled, The Petition of such Inhabitants whose names were thereunto subscribed, and not( as falsely is alleged) The Petition of the soak.  
And because the undertakers great pretence is, that they had a Petition from the Soak for draining; It will be material to express the names of some of the principal gentlemen of quality, that either presented, subscribed, or contributed towards the promoting the said Petition against this undertaking, ( viz) The Lord Fitz-William, Humphrey Orme signior Esq The Heirs of Sir Thomas Brown, Thomas Dove Esq Francis Quarles signior Esq John Cleypoole signior Esq Edward Palmer Esquire, William Stydolfe Esq Jo●n Teigh Esq Hum●h ey Orme Jun. Esq Christopher Thursby Esq Francis Quarles Jun. Esquire, John Cleypoole Jun. Esq William Leafeild Esq Matthew Robinson Esq John Flatcher Esq John Wilsby Esquire, with all the rest of the Gentlemen Free-holders and Commoners in the soak,( Except some few in the Towns above mentioned and for the reasons aforesaid.) And which of these deserves the Title of the Petition of the Country? is left to any indifferent Reader( especially them that know that Country) to judge, there not being two Gentlemen of like quality, to any of these, that appear for the draining.  
Ans. 2. For the manner of procuring it. First, The Petition was set on foot by Sir John Maynard, who sent into the Country for stirring up the people against the Act. The two Quarles's , Justices of the Peace,( who were protected all the War by the Govenours of Beaver and Newark; and in recompense thereof, they protected my Lord Lexingtons Estate in the Parliaments quarters) being first engaged they drew in Leafeild and Mr. Cleypoole, two other Justices of Peace. These Justices making use of their Authority, as Justices; procure some others by transacting it at the Sessions, and other public places, as at a hundred Court Leet for the whole soak; where both the Quarles's( George Quarles being Steward there) incited and stirred up the people to an opposition. And so at a Horse race, where my Lord of Exeter was solicited to engage against it, but refused: And yet the better to countenance it in all their meetings, used his name; The Petition being b ought up, Sir John Maynards advice is taken in it, and the whole management of this affair is governed by his advice, who in the Kings time was the greatest promoter of draining that could be for the King.  
Reply. Themselves being guilty of procuring indirect Petitions, they would fain fix it also upon others, and blast them in their reputation, as Sir John Maynard, the Quarles's, Mr. Cleypoole, and Mr. Leafeild.  
But 1. whereas 'tis suggested, that Sir John Maynard set the Petition on foot, 'tis well known that this undertaking was opposed, & a petition formerly presented from the soak against it, before Sir John Maynard was known by any of them, to be any whit concerned. And that Sir John Maynard sent into that country to stir up the people against the Act, hath as little truth in it, as all their former Allegations, and that in particular, that Sir John Maynard promoted the undertaking in the Kings time. For 'tis notoriously known, that Sir John Maynard preferred at New-market a Remonstrance in behalf of the Country against the Earl of Bedfords undertakings, and another at huntingdon against the Kings.  
2. That the Quarles's were first engaged, and drew in Mr. Cleypoole, and Mr. Leafeild, is a mere suggestion and groundless allegation. For 'tis well known in the Country, that the Quarles's are no further concerned then as to the Common, equally to all the rest; Whereas Mr. Cleypoole, and Mr. Leafeild( in case the work proceed) are in danger to be surrounded in their houses, fields, and several Grounds.  
And whereas 'tis falsely and scandelously alleged, that the Quarles's were protected all the War by the Govenours of Beaver and Newark, and that in recompense thereof, they protected my Lord Lexingtons Estate in the Parliaments Quarters: They could wish the Allegation had been true, as to the protection of themselves. For although the Parliament have declared it no crime to be protected, or to pay contribution being under the power of the Enemy( as they were;) yet the Quarles's were so far from being protected, that for their adhering to the Parliament, both their persons and goods have been seized. They have refused contribution when taxed by the Enemy, and upon all approaches of the Kings party, they were fain to fly for sanctuary to the Paliaments Garrisons, or otherwhere, to obscure and hid themselves as some of the Adventurers themselves know.  
And for protecting the Lord Lexingtons Estate in the Parliaments Quarters, 'tis a mere calumny and detraction of the Answerer; but because he and his party have been often biting at the same ston, it will be necessary to make clear what( is presumed) they aimed at. The Daughters of the Lady Lexington, Heires to Sir Thomas brown, Infants and Wards, had an Estate, to part whereof, one of the Quarles's was Tenant. And although it was usually termed the Estate of the Lord Lexington; yet because in right it appeared to the Committee( at Northton to be the Estate of the said infants,( for which a Rent was paid to the State) it was not sequestered; and upon the same ground when some other Estate in London belonging to the said Infants, was sequestered as the Lord Lexingtons, it was afterwards discharged by the Parliament.  
3. That the people were stirred to opposition,( otherwise then by Petition, which the Parliament have declared to be the right of the people) is a manifest untruth. But 'tis acknowledged that the business was transacted at the houndred Court, it being the proper place for that purpose, for 'tis the chief business of that Court to order and regulate what concerns the said Fen. There all Officers for the Fen are elected. There all presentments are made for Draynes and Banks, and what ever hath reference to the Fen; and for that reason several Justices of Peace, and the best Free-holders of the soak, have always frequented and been present at that Court.  
How far the Earl of Exeter assented or disagreed, will appear in its proper time. But the said Earl being at London, and a quiet and peaceable discharge by the Commoners, being represented unto him by the undertakers, under the notion of an exorbitant riot; nay, no less then treason, neither the said Earl, nor any sober man had reason to avow it.  
Ans. III. For the matter of the Petition.  
1. They mention the grounds upon which the Parliament past the Act( not one whereof are mentioned in the Act) and conclude them to be all false.  
1. They say they never desired to be Drained by the undertakers, nor gave any consent thereto but opposed it.  
2. They were not fully heard, nor their witnesses examined.  
3. That their grounds are not hurtfully surrounded, their Land being generally worth, 10. s. 12. s. and 20. s. per Acre: all the hurt they receive by the water, is for want of scouring draynes in Thorney, and from a new work made at Whitlesea, from this and two opinions, one, 1 Jac. that adjudges undertaking draining a monopoly; and the Declaration of Decemb. 1641. that calls it an oppression and project, they pray they may not be concluded in the Act.  
Reply. That not one of the grounds of the Petition, are mentioned in the Act is clearly otherwise; It is in the very frontispiece of the Act, and the foundation upon which all the structure is erected, ( viz.) That the said level by reason of frequent overflowings is of small and uncertain profit; which words do necessary imply a hurtful surrounding: For the other grounds, the Petitioners are not positive in them, but with submission, and that they had good reason to conceive that the Act was passed upon those grounds and informations will appear. 1. For that the adventurers and their Agents, did frequently heretofore affirm( what they have also now imprinted) that the Petitioners did consent, and that they were fully heard. 2. For that the Parliament upon the Ordinance, did give order that all the Counties interested should have notice and be heard, whereupon no doubt they did conceive upon the passing of the Act; that they were all fully heard.  
Ans. To answer the particulars of this Petition, it will be necessary to set down the state of draining, and the proceedings thereupon, which will sufficiently evidence the falseness, boldness, and unreasonablen●sse of this Petition.  
Reply. The Answer to the particular of this Petition is so full of prevarication, and equivocation, that the discovery thereof, will sufficiently evidence the falseness and boldness of the said Answer, and unreasonableness of the said undertaking.  
Ans. At a Commission of Sewers held 6 Car. at Lin. every County in the Level, Petitioned Francis late Earl of Bedford, to undertake the work of draining, and offered him 95000 Acres for his recompense; and the Commission of Sewers which were 47 in number( all land-owners) made it their svit, in behalf of themselves and the Country, requested thereunto by the Grand-Juries; upon this and many former Petitions made unto him for that purpose, he then made a centract, and not one man opposed it.  
Reply. 1. Here the answerer already begins to prevaricate, and calls the Petition of a part( and that Inconsiderable) the Petition of the County. For in the soak of Peterborough▪( and so 'tis presumed it was done in other Counties) the adventurers by their Agents, got a Petition of their own contriving, subscribed by some of the Earl of Bedfords tenants, and some few other persons interested with them: Whereas twenty times as many, and divers of them having ten times as much interest as any of the subscribers, never consented but always opposed it; and yet this is styled by them, the Petition of the County.  
2. For the Commission of Sewers held at Lin. 'tis notoriously known at whose instance it was sued out; and how the Commissioners acted; Many of them being Judges and parties drive on the design of undertaking, and when any would not comply, the Commissions were presently renewed, and such left out; As the Lord North, Sir Roger North, Sir dudley North, and others: And in case the Grand-Juries had desired any undertaking, it little or no whit concerned them, being most uplanders, especially in the County of Northampton, there being but one hundred( which is the Soak) in that County concerned, which Soak hath also particular jurisdiction, and Grand-Juries of their own, who protest against any such request.  
3. They say the Earl made a contract, but allege not with whom; 'Tis clear that it was not with the mayor part of the Commoners and owners( as it ought) according to the Statute of 43 of Eliz. chap. 11. But perhaps the Commissioners might make a contract with themselves, and some others; for a pretence, under colour of a tax imposed, and not paid accordingly. And how legal such imposition and contract was, the Petitioners desire onely that they may be at liberty to determine by the Law. But the adventurers know well enough the illegallity of those proceedings. And therefore have sheltered themselves with an Act of Parliament; and yet those proceedings also are the grounds of their Act.  
Ans. The Earl and his participants expended 120000. l. in it, and brought it to great perfection within six years, and then was outed by the late King, who took not onely the 95000. Acres but 57000 more.  
Reply. The work was brought to such perfection, only that according to the words of the Act, They divided the lands amongst themselves by lots and shares, & for securing their own part( which was all the best ground in Peterborough Fen:) they made all the remainder there, in a worse condition then before their undertaking, and by a Jury at huntingdon, it was found that the Earl had not meliorated the said level, and therefore was justly outed: And what proportion soever was allotted to the King at huntingdon, it never was taken by him, as was unjustly done by the said Earl and his participants, who assigned to the King( by colour of their Lin. Law) what was taken by him out of burrow Common.  
Ans. About Decemb. 1641. a Bill was brought in for confirmation of Lin. Law, and was committed, but by the death of the Earl of Bedford, and the War coming on, the prosecution thereof was laid down, but afterwards revived again by several Petitions, amongst which was one from divers Inhabitants of the soak of Peterborough, whereupon an Ordinance was brought in and committed.  
Reply. A Bill was brought in, but so unreasonable, that it was opposed by all the several Counties, and particularly by the soak of Peterborough; and thereupon 'tis most probable( the Parliament at that time having remonstrated against undertaking without consent of parties interested) the prosecution of it was laid down. What Petitions were presented for the reviving of it out of the Country, were doubtless procured by the same Art, and indirectly, as was one from an inconsiderable party of the Soak of Peterborough; For the undertakers having erected a sluice and some new works near Whittlesea, which hurtfully surrounded all the meadows, being many thousand Acres from Peterborough to Wansford and upwards. The Agents for the adventurers contrived a Petition under colour of pulling down the sluice, and cunningly inserted some thing that tended to draining: Whereupon the Tenants to the said Earl and some others that desired to be rid of their grievance( the sluice) subscribed the Petition, but are ready to avow that their intent was onely to pull up that sluice and not to drayne; and the Agent who procured hands to the said Petition, hath lately acknowledged, that he was fain to butter it over with the sluice, and how mean a party the subscribers were, will appear by the opposers as formerly is declared.  
Ans. The Committee( where none were to have voice that had any interest in the undertaking, but yet all owners in the Country were) before they proceeded, sent Letters by the chairman to the several Sheriffs of the Counties of norfolk, &c. to give notice to the Inhabitants, that an Ordinance was referred to the Committee for draining the Fens; and that such as desired to be beard, should attend the Committee: and in these letters, copies of the Ordinance were enclosed, and accordingly notice was given.  
Reply. 'Tis true, the Parliament( who intinded the business should be carried impartially) did order that no undertaker should be of the Committee: but notwithstanding many undertakers, sharers, and parties interested with them did fit, and vote, and adjurne, and manage all the business on the behalf of the undertakers, and some of them were then challenged in that respect by the Countries.  
Ans. Thereupon many of the Country came in and objected not so much to the dra●ning, as to the miscarriage of it in former times: And in particular, some of the Inhabitants of the Soak of Peterborough, for whom one of the great promoters of this Petition, George Quarles was of council, who with divers other council were heard all they could say, and so was Sir John Maynard himself, and witnesses examined on all parts, and particularly some of the Inhabitants of the soak of Peterborough, by whom it was proved, that Burrow Common, mentioned in the Petition, where my Lord of Bedford first began his draining, was not worth six pence the Acre, but by his draining made worth ten shillings: and many amendments were made in the Ordinance at their desire, and the several clauses now in the Act, for the benefit of the Country, were brought in by the council of the Country, and assented unto.  
Reply. The Countries did come in, and both by Petitions and their council did oppose this undertaking; and( as their several conditions were) some objected to the draining itself, others to the miscarriage, not onely in former times, but by the present undertakers: And 'tis utterly denied that the Inhabitants of the soak, by themselves or council did desire being in, or assent unto any amendments in the Ordinance, or clauses now in the Act: And that witnesses were examined on all parts is a grand untruth. The undertakers examined to the full on their parts, but not above three or four( and those onely on the part of the Isle of Eley) were examined on behalf of all the six Counties, that some Inhabitants of the soak were examined, or any at all in behalf of the soak is otherwise; There was onely one which was a Tenant to the Earl of Bedford, and he was not examined for, but against the soak; and yet he was more ingenuous then the answerer, to affirm so gross an untruth, as that Burrow Common was not worth six pence the Acre before the undertaking, for he well knew the contrary: all that he affirmed was, that he conceived Burrow Fen improved by the Earls undertaking, or words to that effect; And yet that will clearly appear otherwise if rightly understood.  
'Tis true, that part the undertakers took for themselves, they imbanked and kept out the water, and so improved, but left all the Common a recepticle and bed for the water, and so made that worse then heretofore.  
Ans. Before the Committee these things were in question amongst others. 1. What title the Earl of Bedford had to this work. 2. Whether the level was hurtfully surrounded. 3. Whether the work was seasible. 4. Whether it were beneficial; and witnesses examined to all these points, That there were near fifty hearings in the space of almost three years, and all sides heard, &c.( which appears at large in the Chaire-mans book) and upon the report thereof the Act passed.  
Reply. That the Earls title was questioned is true; the Countries all opposed it, and were and are ready to try the validity of it with him at Law( in case they may be permitted;) but the undertakers well knew the weakness thereof, and therefore waved that point, and fell upon the others which were collateral, and best made way for their Act: And for the benefit of the work, their proofs went onely to particular men, who had imbanked and ploughed; but this benefit cannot redound to the Petitioners( being Commoners:) They cannot plow nor sow, but must onely eat their Commons with their Cattle: That witnesses were examined to all these points on the parts of the undertakers may be true; but that all sides were heard,( otherwise then aforesaid) is utterly false, neither can any such thing( if truly taken) appear in the Chaire-mans book.  
Ans. The Act being past, the Earl and his participants the last Summer and this, have raised and expended 50000. l. which with the 120000. l. principal, and interest formerly expended thereupon makes near 300000.  
Reply. What moneys the Earl and his participants expended was in their own wrong: nor is it any great difficulty to raise and expend great sums of money, when the estates of the Petitioners and other Countries must be first sold for the raising it.  
Ans. This being the true state of the business as it appeared before the Committee, the contrary to what the Petitioners affirm appears to be true; as that, 1. They were fully heard, and witnesses examined. 2. That they were hurtfully surrounded.  
Reply. The business is generally mistated by the Answerer: that onely being alleged which tends to his own purpose; but it consisting most in matter of fact, the Petitioners desire onely that liberty, and they doubt not clearly to prove what they allege, and to make appear the contrary what the undertakers affirm to be true; as that, 1. They were not fully heard, they never having one witness examined. 2. They never consented but always opposed the said undertaking. 3. That they are not hurtfully surrounded.  
Ans. The Petitioners equivocate with the Parliament, and say Burrow Common is not hurtfully surrounded, that is true; for the works made by the undertakers drain them, and till that was done they never stirred, but before the undertaking it was a Quagmire, useful for nothing but fishing and fowling, as appears by the Statutes of 32 H. 8. 13. & 43 Eliz. 11.  
Reply. In case any works had been made by the undertakers which drayne Burrow Common, it is no more then the Earl of Bedford of right ought to do, his Mannor of Thorney lying next adjoining, and the neglect of his drain being the greatest prejudice to Burrow Fen: But( in case the undertakers durst abide a legal trial) it would easily be made appear, that Burrow Fen was in as good a condition before the undertaking as since( for ought that's done by the undertakers:) But the Petitioners themselves of late years have by voluntary contributions, and by letting out part of their Common, raised several sums of money, and have thereby repaired their banks, and scoured their drains, to the good improvement of their said Common.  
And for those two Statutes, they make little for their advantage, if rightly taken; Tis well known that Statutes look to the generality; and the level( as tis called) consists of near 400000 Acres, whereof Peterborough Fen is an inconsiderable part, and as one of those Statutes terms it, and the Answer itself; But a borderer. And in case Burrow Fen was within the meaning of those Statutes, yet how absurd a conclusion doth the Answerer draw from thence ( viz.) Burrow Common was hurtfully surrounded, 32 H. 8. and therefore it is so now. It might be then drowned, and now good ground, as really it is.  
Ans. That the draining drowns many thousand Acres of rich meadows is untrue; It must in reason ease the meadows because the out-fell is deeper, and the floods go to the Sea by a nearer cut, and if any damage hath been of late done to the meadows by floods, it is by a bank made at Orton, a mile above Peterborough, whereby the meadows above that bank are worse, but those below are bettered.  
Reply. To evince the falsehood of this particular, experience is the strongest and surest evidence; and they below that damme at Orton find by sad experience, that they are much drowned as those above, and that by the undertakers works.  
Ans. The undertakers works are so far from drowning any other grounds that they secure all Holland and Marshland, and takes from them the charge and danger, so that nothing but malice could object that the undertakers drowned their grounds to drain these.  
Reply. Had the Answerer but mere natural logic, he could never have drawn this conclusion from such premises, ( viz.) That the Undertakers secure Holland, therefore they drown no other ground, they may secure one place, and yet drown another as they do. And that their works do so and will do more, is demonstrable in reason; for although there were a nearer cut and greater outfall then before, yet the water which in floods useth to expatiate many miles, all over Whittlesea and Thorney Lordships, even to the Coasts of Halland, being to be contracted within banks, must needs rise much higher, and continue longer, which hath evidently appeared these late yeares, since the unbanking onely on the South side the River Neve; how much more will it be when 'tis unbanked on the North side also.  
Ans. For the Judgement in Parliament, 1 Jacob. There is no such thing.  
Reply. 'Tis well known that Sir Miles Sands a great adverturer at this time, did in 1 Jacob▪ promote this business of draining, which being then well understood, and opposed by Sir Edward cook, King James also made a speech against it, and so it was rejected.  
Ans. For that Remonstrance in Decemb. 1641. It appears to be ment of improvement, made by the King as Lord of divers manours upon great wasts. And that this work of draining was not intended in this Declaration is clear, because at that time the Earl of Bebfords draining was countenanced by the Parliament, and a Bill committed for establishing it.  
reply. Sure the Answerer cannot be so ignorant, as he seems to be, for that this draining was intended by the Parliament, is evident by the words of their Remonstrance ( viz.) Large quantities of Commons, and severals have been taken away from the subject, by abuse of the Commissions of Sewers, without their consents and against it. And till the Answerer can produce some presidents of Commissions of Sewers issued out for improving Vp-Lands; 'tis hoped he will give others leave to think that this draining was intended in the said Remonstrance. Besides, that very clause was inserted in the said Remonstrance, upon the Petition of lincolnshire Gentlemen, against the Earl of Lindfeyes undertaking, which stood upon the same bottom with this of the Earl of Bedfords.  
Ans. They say, It's a monopilie against Magna Charta, and the Petition of Right. Whereas Parliaments have always been of another mind, as appears by the Statute, 23. of Eliz. 13 The Stat. of Jac. Chap. 8. Which encourge draining, and give the undertakers half, and more. And the Earl of Bedford hath but the fourth part. And so 4 Jac. 13. &c. 43. Eliz. 11. are excellent Statutes for encouragement of undertaking drowned Grounds.  
Reply. Here the Answerer still prosecutes his trade of Juggling, and( to delude the people, and asperse the Petitioners) confounds legal and illegal draining, and affirms( though falsely) that the Petitioners call all draining a Monopily, and project, which is otherwise; For the Petitioners onely( according to the Declaration of Parliament) term that a monopilie, which is by abuse of the Commissions of Sewers, and against consent of parties interested, as this undertaking was. And had these Undertakers proceeded, as the Undertakers by the three first mentioned Statutes( which was according to to the Statue 43. Eliz.) by contract with the parties interested, they had not been opposed by the Petitioners. And whereas 'tis affirmed that the Earl had but a fourth part. There was taken from the Petitioners by colour of the Commission of Sewers, above a third part, and that of the best Ground in their Common. And by the Act the Undertakers are to have the same proportion again.  
Ans. The Scope of all is, that the Parliament should maintain their own Act. That the Petition may be cast out of the House, and the promoters left to the Law, for the reasons before insisted upon; And further, for that the Petitioners stirred not till a year after the Act passed, and those works done in particular which should secure them.  
2. It would be mischievous to the Common-wealth, to give any countenance to this Petition; for by the same reason the Act for the Engagement, taking away Kingship &c. may be Petitioned against. And 'tis not doubted but that Sir John Maynard waits for some colour of a ground, to set on foot some practise against those laws.  
3. For that the Petition complains of nothing, but what the Act hath made full provision in. And in all cases of difference the Commissioners are to judge. And the Petitioners have not so much as made any address to the Commissioners, but conclude them all parties interested, and so appeal from them.  
reply. That the Petitioners never stirred till a year after the Act, is clearly otherwise.  
1. The Petitioners did oppose this undertaking, and brought in their Exceptions against the Bill exhibited by the said Earl 1641. Also they opposed the Ordinance brought in for passing this Act( as the Answerer himself confesseth) three yeares before the Act passed. But the Answerer hath so used himself to falsify, that he will contradict what himself before affirmed, if it make for his advantage.  
2. It would be very mischievous to the Common-Wealth, if the subjects thereof should be deprived of the liberty of Petitioning against things established by Law, so that it be done with sobriety and submission to the present Government( as this Petition was.) And this present Parliament have declared it the people Right to prefer, and their Duties to receive such Petitions. And it is a great boldness in the Answerer, to term that a mischief which the Parliament have declared to be the peoples Right. But they who for their own interest,( in opposition to the Parliament) did endeavour with fire and sword to establish Kingship, nay, tyranny, can for their own advantage wheel about, and lay that imputation upon others, who always have adhered to the Parliament,( as Sir John Maynard and others) having well learnt that machiavellian Rule. Charge home( though never so false) some things will stick.  
3. There is some seeming provision made by the Act, but the Commissioners have no power to apply it, till first the Petitioners be put out of possession, which is one of the Petitioners greatest grievance. And to what end should the Petitioners address themselves to the Commissioners, when they have no power to give redress. And that some of the Commissioners are parties interested, the Undertakers themselves well know, and have lately acknowledged. But that the Petitionets do conclude them, all parties is one of the Answerers false recitals, The Petitioners onely desiring that no parties interested may be Judges and Parties.  
FINIS.