Selected quad for the lemma: lord_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A91662
|
A reply to Sir William Killigrews dispersed papers by the owners and commoners in Lincolnshire.
|
|
1655
(1655)
|
Wing R1062; Thomason 669.f.19[64]; ESTC R212236
|
3,326
|
1
|
A Reply to Sir William Killigrews 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 Drainings these sixty yeers 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 ingaged and that our Lands must discharge those debts and ingagements and who are interessed in other Undertakings But to avoid calumniation we will hold our babbles persons of quality are seldom tatlers To invite and incourage 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 noâ— can we imagine that ever any thing will come from thence to cause them to beg at other mens doors To the second Sir William knows the poor need no invitations it was they onely who were found guilty and punished for pulling down their houses c. as appears by several Indictments when Sir Williams 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 then those committed by the pooâ— people Had Sir Williams 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 onely and condemn us if we oppose it When Sir Williams 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 Fenne It is he that would defraud the State by inviting them to own what was condemned in the King and so metamorphize a dear-bought 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 Witnesse the â—â—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 recompenced or not What our petitions or repetitions signifie we must leave to the judgement of the Readers who will soberly determine who is most clamourous He faith it is but som few men that oppose him We will joyn 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 jealousie 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 foul-mouthed 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 perswaded 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 cattel without any account making taking our Land against our consents and commanding Commissioners by the Kings Letters deserves little applause and expresseth less equity Produce the consent gained of the greatest part of the eminentest Lords Owners and Commoners otherwaies then by force and we will acquiesâ— As for the improvement made we shall submit to the view of indifferent honest Gentlemen who may judge by the soyle turned up what was the former condition of the Fens Sir William argues much for Recompence we can easily prove a good retompence he hath received for our parts Micah 2. 1 2 3 4 5 shews what recompence 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 then any estate Sir William ever had If we be unable to satisfie his pretended estate he is far more unable to answer for our bloud 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 Could 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 untill they were commanded by the Kings letters Again those Gentlemen were not actors in that which was the root of the evill 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 privie to the design being commanded by the Kings 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 proceedings 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 Eaâ— If Sir William c. have any legal right we will willingly joyn with him in fair Trial at Law or Equity