Selected quad for the lemma: authority_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
authority_n	act_n	england_n	parliament_n	2,393	5	6.4363	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A25545	An Answer (to a printed paper dispersed by Sir John Maynard entituled, The humble petition of the owners and commoners of the towne of Isleham in the county of Cambridge, and to the exceptions thereto annexed against the Act for the dreyning of the great level of the fennes) whereby the honour and justice of the late Parliament is vindicated, the scandals and untruths in the said printed paper discovered, some vaine objections answered, and the truth of the proceedings in the work of dreyning (so much conducing to the honour and profit of the Common-wealth) held forth to all sober and uninteressed [sic] persons.	Maynard, John, Sir. Humble petition of the owners and commoners of the towne of Isleham in the county of Cambridge.	1653 (1653)	Wing A3338; ESTC R18361	13,125	14

many have not acted and some who have acted have put the Petitioners out of possession of 930. acres of their Fennes unheard whose names they know not charged those Commissioners to have adjudged Lands dreyned which were never drowned and those hurtfully surrounded which were bettered by overflowing and therefore conceive they have just cause to except against the said Commissioners There is no force in the first part of the Objection and if it were material yet unlesse it were specified which of the said Commissioners cannot act or which have not acted it is not possible to answer to it But to the other scandalous part of that exception it is answered First that the names of the Commissioners who made the several Adjudications appear upon record and their names with the Judgements are enrolled in Chancery and if the Petitioners have cause of complaint against them it were but just they should be heard to make their defence Secondly that the suggestion that the Judgement was without hearing hath no truth in it as may appear by what is formerly said Thirdly that the said Commissioners have given no such Judgement as is untruly suggested but they have proceeded justly according to the said Act and the Level being dreyned have so adjudged it and set out the 95000. acres as the said Act requires whereof 930. acres parcel of 3125. acres of Isleham Fennes are part but they did withal at the same Adjudication according to the said Act upon complaint of the inhabitants of Isleham referre to Commissioners by consent to examine whether a greater proportion were taken then by the said Act was intended and surely such as are in authority will be sensible of the honour of the Commissioners appointed by the said Act who were all named by the Parliament and have no benefit but much trouble by that service And for the Petitioners surmise that some should be disabled to Act not naming any if that should be true yet there being above fifty in all and of great Honour and integrity there would be no cause of any more Commissioners Howbeit to prevent all colour of complaint therein It hath pleased his Excellency the Lord General and Councel of State to name twenty four other Commissioners dwelling in and neere the said Level to heare and determine any complaint according to the said Act so as it may appeare that such as prosecute this Petition are of a restlesse spirit For that Exception of depriving the Petitioners of the benefit of Commissions of sewers according to the Statute of the twenty third yeare of Henry the eighth and that the scouring of the old dreynes would leave very little land in the said Level hurtfully surrounded And that there is a sufficient provision for dreyning made by the Stat. of the fourty third yeare of Q. Elizabeth most part of this is formerly answered yet finding these exceptions made double in their Petition and exceptions as if some great weight lay in them It is further answer'd First that the evidence of the thing is undeniable proof that the scouring the old dreynes would not recover the said Level from surrounding which had lien hundreds of years hurtfully surrounded and the maine question in the late Parliament was Whether the work were any way feazible Secondly that the said Act of Parliament exempts the country from charge of maintaining the work which lay upon them by the ordinary Commission of sewers upon the Statute of the twentythird year of H. 8. And lastly it was almost if not altogether impossible to know the certain number of all persons concerned in the said Level whereby to have gotten the major part of their hands and seals to our Indenture according to the Statute of the 43. Eliz. and yet admitting it had been possible it is no argument for the Petitioners to complain of a Parliament for making a subsequent Act of Parliament for publike good For the general Charge in the Exception mentioning First that the said Act is without the Petitioners consent Secondly against it 3. Unreasonable And fourthly unnecessary the two first of these suggestions are not nor ought to be of weight against an Act of Parliament wherein the consent of the whole Nation is involved and such pretences tend to the subversion of the Government of the Common-wealth for if Lawes may not be made without particular consents of private persons there is no hope that ever any Law shall be made for publike good the generality of men being for the most part covetous and self-seekers minding their own private before the publick concernments and if it rested in their will would never part with any of their private Estates for publike uses nor suffer any thing they enjoy to be employed for publike services which all Parliaments prefer before any private concernment whatsoever And to the pretence of the unreasonablenesse of the said Act being a general Exception abundantly answered by denying it and by referring to the Act it selfe and to the clear Answers formerly given to every particular Exception wherein any pretence of unreasonablenesse is surmized and whether the work was unnecessary or not besides the Authority and Judgement of the late Parliament which doth and ought to answer and silence that pretence let all reasonable and uninteressed persons judge whether it were not a work necessary for the Parliament to redeem and recover above 300000 Acres of surrounded grounds within this Island and make them good Arrable land Meddow and Pasture by improvement whereof this Common-wealth may not only be supplied with cordage linnen and other necessaries but many hundred thousand pounds raised yearly within this Common-wealth by Corne Oyle Hemp Flax and other Commodities thousands of poor set on work and the rage and violence of the waters which threatned ruine and destruction to many adjacent parts be stopped and prevented The length of this Answer is necessarily occasioned by the many untrue and groundless surmises in the Petition and Exceptions and to manifest the integrity of the Vndertakers and justice of proceedings through all this chargable and hazardous work Originally undertaken by Francis late Earle of Bedford at the Countries sollicitation for publick good That the profit was not considerable to the charge and hazard nor will it yet answer the vast summs of money expended by the said Vndertakers and some of them being ruined in their Estates by reason thereof Most of the present Vndertakers became engaged in the perfecting the said work upon the Authority and Credit of the said Act of Parliament and have expended near 300000 li. upon that security and the charges for repairs yearly are estimated to be 10000 li the works for the dreyning are such as are not elsewhere to be seen in England scarce in the Christian world worthy the care and countenance of a Parliament the Act it self just honourable and necessary and sufficient provision thereby for just complaints and only the Vndertakers therein the great sufferers and losers and will appear guilty of ●●other fa●l● sav● indiscretion to hazard their Estates for the good of the publick And whereas Sir Iohn Maynard hath been pleased to commend Reede and Sedge to the Common-wealth as rich Commodities to be taken care of and hath stiled those produced by the labour and cost of the Undertakers upon the improvement to be trash and trumpery yet such as they are and the advantages this yeare arising by them out of a small part of the Fennes coming lately to hand is hereby offered to the consideration of prudent persons There was 28000 Acres of the aforesaid Fenn-ground sowen with Cole-seed Wheat Barley Oates and Flax.   li sh d. 1. EVery Acre for Hassocking burning the Hassocks Plowing burning the Sword and sowing with Cole-seed cost one pound which came into the hands of such as would work whether poor or rich 28000. 00. 00 2. Every Acre of Seed Wheat Barley or Oates that were sowen being near 10000 Acres cost in Seed 8s per Acre which came to the hands of the Countrey 4000. 00. 00 3. The small division Dykes since the Adjudication came clear to the poor Labourers 3000. 00. 00 4. Expended for Timber Carpenters Bricklayers and other Labourers in building houses above 10000. 00. 00 5. The reaping threshing and carriage of Cole-seed to be fit for the Boats to poor Labourers at 3 li. per Last 25000. 00. 00 6. The reaping threshing and carriage of Wheat Rie Oates Barley and Flax to Labourers 5000. 00. 00 7. The carriage of farre above 5000 of Cole-seed and above 1000 of Wheat and other Commodities to the Watermen of Lyn and Wisbeach 2700. 00. 00 8. The transportation by water of Materials for houses to Watermen and other works 300. 00. 00 9. The chambering of 3000. Last at the least in Lyn and thereabouts at 4d the Last per week for 13. weeks 650. 00. 00 10. At Lyn to Meeters and Porters at 12d per Last 150. 00. 00 11. 100 Last of Seed Wheat and other graine to London and other parts by shipping 10000. 00. 00 12. There is this present year in order for the next yeare expended to Workmen and Labourers in hassocking plaining burning sowing and of Cropps 30000. 00. 00 13. The State in Custome Excise 〈…〉 Impost for Cole-seed Oyle and otherwise 5000. 00. 00 By which besides the great charge of dreyning this yeare it appears there is expended To the Labourers Workmen and others 95000 li. 00 00 In Lyn Chambers Porters and Watermen 3600 00 00 The shipping 10000 00 00 The State 5000 00 00 These are the Advantages which have accrued to the State the Countrey and th● 〈◊〉 this yeare by a small quantitie of about 28000 Acres beside the intrinsecal value of the Commodities themselves produced by this Charge to the Common-wealth not here set down 113600 li. 00 s. 00 d. And if above 100000 livre. advantage ariseth by so small a quantity under so many discouragements a good Common-wealths-man will easily judge what annual profit and benefit will redound to this Nation by the improvement of the whole London Printed for Richard Baddeley within the middle-Temple-gate 1653. See the 〈…〉 der Par●●●ment ●●Feb. 16●● See the 〈…〉 der of 1646.

settled and agreed by a Law of Sewers at Lyn in Norfolk in the said year 1630. by fourty seven Comissioners upon their oaths and was a chief and prime motive for the said Act of Parliament In the second place it is denied that any bribe of 12000. acres was given to the late King for the said Decree of the thirteenth year of the said late King nor can it be apprehended that any such thing shold be in regard the said decree of the thirteenth yeare of the said King did onely set out the 95000. acres after the work adjudged done which by the Law of Sewers made at Lin in the said year 1630. was decreed to be set out It is true that by the said Law of Sewers made at Lynne which was near seven years before the said dreyning that the late King was to have 12000. Acres parcell of the said 95000. Acres but for what consideration or upon what agreement the present undertakers are ignorant of nor is it materiall to them they engaging their estates in the said work of dreyning upon the strength and security of the said Act of Parliament which gave them as well the said 12000. acres as the residue of the 95000 acres and without which they had never engaged in the said work or adventured any further summe of money therein And to the last part of this Exception it is answered that it carries no weight in it for that if the said work of dreyning had been pursuant to the Statute of the 43. year of Queene Elizabeth it would not have needed any new Act of Parliament And it is very clear that as the Parliament in the 43. year of the late Queene had power to make one Law for dreyning so the late Parliament might and all succeeding Parliaments may make other Lawes likewise for dreyning and improving lands for publike advantage And in truth in a work of so great concernment and vaste circuit of grounds and wherein so many persons were concerned as Lords and Commoners It was almost if not altogether impossible to know who were the major part or to have the consent of the major part Sir Iohn Maynard acknowledging many thousand persons to be therein concerned And upon this ground it was necessary to obtaine the said Act of Parliament before they should further engage in the said work and if this be a materiall exception then the before mentioned Statutes for dreyning made in the time of Queene Elizabeth and King Iames are liable to the like exception and by consequence this and all succeeding Parliaments disabled to make any Law for improving any waste or surrounded grounds to the benefit of the Common-wealth To the Exception that the Earle of Bedford and his Participants made no progresse in the work but only to divide the 95000 Acres by shares and lots and that it was found by a Jury at Huntington 14 Car. that the said Earle and his Participants had not meliorated the Fennes It is answered first that there was above 100000. livre. disbursed by the said late Earle of Bedford and Participants by advice of the best Artists that were to be gotten after his undertaking of the said work in the yeare 1630. and before the Decree or setting out or dividing the same in the thirteenth yeare of the late King And Secondly that the proceedings at Huntington in the fourteenth of the late King urged by the Petitioners wherein Sir Iohn Maynard an old Courtier was not a little active and busie to advance the late Kings interest and the Decree thereupon was undue and illegal and in order to a project then in hand to deprive the late Earle of Bedford and all his then Participants of the said whole 95000 Acres after all the expence of money and to give the said whole 95000 Acres and 57000 Acres more from the Countrey to the late King to become the Undertaker which proceedings were condemned by the Parliament And the Petitioners themselves in the latter part of their exceptions confesse that the Decree of Sewers at Huntington was illegal and therefote null And these very Commissioners of Sewers at Huntington though of the late Kings choice and most of his servants were so much convinced of the right of the said late Earle of Bedford and his participants that in their Decree they did acknowledg that divers great Sluces Rivers Dreins Cuts and other works had been made and erected by the said Earle and his Participants at his and their great charges within the said Level which did much conduce to the dreyning of some part of the said Level and which would be of good use to the further dreyning imbanking and recovering of the said Fennes and that the said late Earle and his then Participants were worthy of 40000. Acres for their recompence in regard of their charge then expended And if it be considered now that those unrighteous Commissioners adjudged 40000 Acres was but a moderate recompence for above 100000 li. then expended and that all the addition of recompence by the late Act is but 55000 Acres more for which the present Undertakers have expended above 200000 livre. since the said Act It will appear that the now Undertakers are great sufferers and losers by the said undertaking and those who maligne the undertaking would be loth to reimburse the money expended with damages and take the land dreyned now all the hazard is past subject to the charge of future maintaining the works To the Pretence that there was no interruption to the work but feares that the undertaking was declared against in the beginning of the late Parliament in December 1641 The same is formerly answered that Declaration being against Improvements by the late King Queen and Lords of Wastes without Law and not concerning this dreyning which was then under consideration of a Committee of Parliament but their feares were that some tumultuous and busie narrow-hearted men who savour nothing of publick concernment which is crosse to their private humour might give interruption to the work if not setled by Act of Parliament and thereupon did resolve not to engage their Estates further in it but by the Authority and countenance of Parliament To the exception which saves to the Undertakers breaches by inevitable accidents which are in convenient time to be repaired and made good It is answered That in reason no further provision can be made for the Countrey in that particular then is by the said Act in regard provision is made for the dreining and imbanking and making the same Winter-ground in such manner as the rivers which did overflow the same or any of them should not overflow the grounds within the said Level which thing is already done and works made which have not onely been adjudged to be sufficient but have by experience proved so and their own concernment as to their 95000. acres is a sufficient obligation upon them to preserve the same But if by some inevitable passage of providence any extraordinary flood