A Reply to Sir William killigrew's dispersed Papers, by the Owners and Commoners in Lincolnshire.  
TO the first. We are civilly sensible of the Parliaments affairs, as appeared by the manner of our petitioning: We conceive there cannot be a time found to settle the Fens in the Earl of Lindsey, who petitions not for them, nor in Sir William Killigrew, who hath nor produced to the Committee any Deed or Conveyance, whereby to derive a Title to himself. We may complain of unhappiness, who have been delayed and interrupted in our Draining these sixty years by Court Undertakers: We cannot be called obstructors of a Bill, that petitions for one: If it was good manners for us to print what we hear and are credibly informed, we could tell to whom Sir Thomas Dawes is indebted, and to whom Sir William Killigrew is engaged; and that our Lands must discharge those debts and engagements; and who are interessed in other Undertake. But to avoid calumniation, we will hold our babbles; persons of quality are seldom tatlers. To invite and encourage people in a good cause, is noble, honest, and commendable: humbly to petition, cannot be called clamour by a tongue well guided. We cannot learn of any Votes that passed against us, neither can we believe it, nor that any of this Parliament is against us, who was so much for them; nor that the Fens can be lost, if kept out of the hands of Parliament-destroyers. We shall never be so uncivil or unnatural, as to leave our wives and children at the Parliaments door: no● can we imagine that ever any thing will come from thence to cause them to beg at other men's doors.  
To the second. Sir William knows the poor need no invitations; it was they only who were found guilty, and punished for pulling down their houses, etc. as appears by several Indictments, when Sir William's friends and sharers was by Court power made high Sheriff and Justices of the peace, and Parliament men put out: The riots committed by Sir William, Agents and parties, was far more notorious, as appears by record, than those committed by the poo● people. Had Sir William's charity sooner appeared, it might have been better for him and us. He argues Leveller-like, to gain the poor by telling them that is theirs they have no propriety in; for all Lawyers will tell him, right of Common belongs to the Lands and Houses of men, and not to their persons; and such poor as have Land or Cottage, hath as good right of Commons, as he that hath a hundred acres. We are as willing our Common should be stinted and enjoyed in common, if so thought fit, as any poor man can desire it; practise that only, and condemn us if we oppose it. When Sir William's power prevailed, it is well known how the poor was oppressed; so that his charity and arguments are but self ends. He saith the rich men of Boston eat up the Common with great stocks, and so he saith of the rest of the Towns, which great stock those Fens ever maintained before Sir William knew the Country, and is an argument the Fens are not at all hurtfully surrounded grounds, and needs draining, since they bear such great stocks. He saith the Commoners would defraud the State of eight thousand acres in the eight hundred Fen: It is he that would defraud the State, by inviting them to own what was condemned in the King; and so metamorphize a dearbought Commonwealth into a Kingdom again. He knows the King, when Court-power ruled, having no Title, could never out the Commoners, though he perplexed them with long and tedious suits in the Court of Exchequer, where he was cast; and the Commoners possessions never interupted.  
To the third. 
Witness the ●●une Remonstrance, pag. 7.  We say, it is great discretion in Sir William not to reply to books, he is so unable to answer. But we much value, that after a cause so fully heard in Parliament, as to be remonstrated a grievance, it should now be a question, whether the grievers should be recompensed or not. What our petitions or repetitions signify, we must leave to the judgement of the Readers, who will soberly determine who is most clamourous. He faith it is but some few men that oppose him: We will join issue with him there, if he can either of persons or hands procure four in ten, of rightful Owners and Commoners, we will cease in opposing him. Sir William much insisteth upon the Act or Bill that is ordered by the House to be brought in by Jo: Gooding Esq a Member thereof, as if it was either made by or with his and his sharers privity; for he saith the delay of it will starve them (it is better starving ten then ten thousand.) But we cannot but imagine he abuseth that worthy Member, in fomenting cause of jealousy, being well assured the House ordered no compliance more with them then us. Sure we are, we have had no insight or privity at all to the Bill, and why they should we wonder. It is strange that one who hath received so much mercy, should be still so foulmouthed, as to call humble Petitioners riotters and abettors. He falsely accuseth us for riotters, we having recovered our Estates by trial at Law, and yet invites us to be so, in excepting against many rich men, being trusted to represent the grievances of thousands; as if it was fit to trouble the Parliament with multitudes. But as before, if Sir William can procure the greater number, we will be silent. We know none in England that opposeth drainings, neither do we believe any in England think us such fools or mad men, that we need Guardians for our Estates. We are persuaded few of the Nation knows how we have been abused by Court Undertakers: if they did, they would wonder such Propriety-destroyers should go unpunished.  
To the fourth. We are sorry to hear Sir William glory in oppression, our imprisonments, fining, selling our , without any account making, taking our Land against our consents, and commanding Commissioners by the King's Letters, deserves little applause, and expresseth less equity. Produce the consent gained of the greatest part of the eminentest Lords, Owners, and Commoners, otherways then by force, and we will acquies●. As for the improvement made, we shall submit to the view of indifferent honest Gentlemen, who may judge by the soil turned up, what was the former condition of the Fens. Sir William argues much for Recompense (we can easily prove a good retompence he hath received) for our parts, 
Micah 2. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, shows what recompense such deserve.  we have more cause to expect it, many of the Commoners having lost their lives and estates in the Parliaments service, by the violence of Sir William and his participants, which blood was of greater value than any estate Sir William ever had. If we be unable to satisfy his pretended estate, he is far more unable to answer for our blood and estates, he and his paticipants in the late war so lavishly shed & spoiled. In the pardon of his violence done to the five Members, and his hostility to the Parliament, he hath received more theu ever we did for our lives and estates we lost and hazarded. What Bedford Act is, concerns not us, their convenience and inconveniences may not be the same with ours. It is high presumption for such an offendor as Sir William hath been, to say its vain to petition a Parliament. Can his birds prevail there as they did at Court, he would anticipate the justice thereof, and divide betwixt them and the people; the which we hope providence (that in our extremity raised us up a parliament) will prevent. In a late paper Sir William boasteth of 78 Commissioners that did act for him. It's well known how unwilling they were to act, until they were commanded by the King's letters. Again, those Gentlemen were not actors in that which was the root of the evil; for the view of what grounds was hurtfully surrounded betwixt Broune and Kime Eae, was taken only by Undertakers and Sharers, viz. the Earl of Lindsey, the Lord Willoughby his son, Sir Edward Heron, Sir John Brooks, William Langton, and Robert Long Esq these being for themselves, were tempted with that sin of covetousness (yet unreformed) and certified that all was hurtfully surrounded; the other Gentlemen not privy to the design, being commanded by the King's Letters to proceed accordingly; and did, until they understood the evil of that design, and then they endeavoured to oppose it. But when the Undertakers perceived their dislike of the proceed, they put out of Commission of Sewers those Gentlemen, of which number Sir William Armin and Mr. Lister were two; and neither of them viewed the Fens now in question. We wonder Sir William Killigrew should so unworthily charge Sir William Armin, that worthy deceased Member, as a Viewer, who cleared his innocency of that act before the Committee of the Fens. Though what he said, and what Sir Anthony Irby testified before the Committee, what Fens he and others meaut, when they writ to the King for an Undertaker, be left out of the depositions, yet many worthy Members and Gentlemen standing by remembers it. Sir Anthony Irby being still living, we desire he may against, if occasion requires it, declare himself; he formerly testified, that it was not meant the Fens between Bourne and Kime Ea●. If Sir William, etc. have any legal right, we will willingly join with him in fair Trial at Law or Equity.