Selected quad for the lemma: truth_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
truth_n	affirm_v	certain_a	great_a	188	4	2.0716	3	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

any particular person is in it self a great scandal to all the Members of the late Parliament and it is affirmed and a certain truth that there were but foure Members of the late Parliament who claimed to be Adventurers and foure are no great number amongst some hundreds of Parliament men and yet those foure were excluded by Order of Parliament to have any Vote at the debate of the businesse and all their Adventure-Lands together but 3050. Acres which was of so little value and concernment to some of them as they lost their land for not paying taxes And of those foure also when the said Act passed there was but one single person of them namely the said Mr. Trenchard who sate in the house at passing of the said Act and surely the said Sir Iohn Maynard who was a Member of the late Parliament and present at most of the debates touching the said dreyning cannot but feare some condigne punishment to overtake him thus to traduce and scandalize the Supream Powers and Government And to the last part of the Charge that the Petitioners were not heard It is answered and ready to be made good to every mans satisfaction that the Committee of the late Parli in consideration of the said Act before they proceeded therein sent letters to the several Sheriffes of the Counties of Norfolk Suffolk Lincolne Northampton Huntington and Cambridge and also to the town of Lynne and to the Committee of the respective Counties and of the Isle of Elie to give notice to the Inhabitants and that such as desired to be heard should attend the Committee and notice was accordingly given and many of the Countrey came in and were heard what they could say and particularly the said Sir Iohn Maynard and these three things were chiefly in debate before the said Committee 1. Whether the said Level were hurtfully surrounded 2. Whether the work was feasible And 3. Whether it were beneficial to the Common-wealth And after Witnesses examined at the said Committee and above fourty hearings before them in the space of almost three years and satisfaction given therein and many amendments made and provisions inserted to the advantage of the Countrey brought in by the Councel for the Countrey the said Act passed And thus farre in Answer to the said paper called the Petition Here followeth an Answer to the Exceptions against the Act printed with the said Paper FIrst Some matters of fact suggested in those Exceptions to be contained in the said Act of Parliament are either maliciously or through wilful ignorance mistaken for whereas it is suggested that by the said Act Thorney-Abbey is excepted from the dreyning and yet it is part of the said Level and hurtfully surrounded It is answered that Thorney-Abbey is not excepted by the said Act but contrariwise in recompence of the dra●●ing of the surrounded ground of Thorney there are 4000 acres taken out and adjudged to the undertakers as part of the 95000 acres appointed by the Act of Parliament for the recompence of dreyning Secondly That whereas there are several exceptions grounded upon the title of the Act upon pretence of fallacies and equivocations in the word Level and great Level It is answered that there is no force in those Exceptions for the said Act of Parliament doth appoint no grounds to be dreyned but the Moores Marishes fenny and low-surrounded grounds within the bounds of the said Level and though there may be a little Reed grounds part of the said surrounded Level not considerable in reference to the making so many thousand Acres improveable for the Common-wealth the same ought not to hinder so publick a work And for such part of the said Level where sedge is only to be had it is apparent and every mans reason will conclude that it cannot but be of greater concernment to the Common-wealth to improve it for Meddow-pasture or Arrable and for Osyers and other plants of that nature they will be very much increased To the Exceptions of the Preamble of the said Act which recites that the said surrounded grounds have been of small and uncertain profit but if dreyned may be improved and to the suggestion in the Exceptions of the profit made before the dreyning It s evident that the stock of Cattel of all sorts kept by the Commoners generally in the Fens now are more then doubled to what they were before the first undertaking of dreyning by the late Earle of Bedford and many thousand Acres of the said Fennes sowne already with Wheat Rie Barley Beanes Oates Cole-seed Rape-feed Hemp and Flax the latter whereof though by the printed Paper stiled trash and trumpery yet to such as know the concernments of this Common-wealth are if not of absolute necessity yet certainly of great and high advantage to this Nation And the Customes at the Port of Lynne for such of the said Commodities as were thence transported for the yeare ending in June 1653. came to about 1300 li. besides what was used at home and the advantage to the Common-wealth by setting many thousands of poor people on work To the Exception mentioned to be the third touching the particular bounds of the Level wherein the Petitioners referre to their first Exception It is answered in the former Answer to that particular wherby it will appear the grosse mistake of the Petitioners as conceiving that the bounds of the said Level to be dreyned by the said Act did comprehend all the grounds within those bounds whereas it is only the Moores Marishes Fenny and low grounds within those bounds and no other which appeares by the plain words of the said Act To the Objection that the consideration moving the passing the said Act was that the Earle of Bedford had 95000 acres decreed to him in the thirteenth year of King Charles which decree was procured by bribing the King with 12000. acres and that the consent of the Lords and Commons was not had thereunto according to the Statute of the fourty third year of Queen Elizabeth It is answered First that the Petitioners wilfully omit the first and maine consideration in reference to the now E. of Bedford which was that Francis late Earle of Bedford a man known to be of a publick spirit did undertake the said dreining which undertaking was in the year 1630. seven yeares before the said decree and not a businesse sought by him but a work whereinto he was drawn after two years consideration and solicitation of many worthy persons Lords and Owners of the said Fennes and after many attempts and former undertakings by others which proved fruitlesse And there were no lesse then fourty seven Commissioners all Land-owners within the said Level who made it their suite in behalf of themselves and the Country to undertake the same and offered him 95000 acres for recompence of the dreyning which was as little if not a lesse proportion of ground then any other would accept for to do the said work and the whole businesse was

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

or storme should come or any water coming through any quick-sand under a bank not by humane reason charge or industry to be foreseen or prevented any work should faile and that they repaire it in convenient time the late Parliament did and all reasonable men will conceive that they have performed their undertaking and without that provision no rational man would have ingaged in the said work To the Exception that there is a liberty of leaving 15000 acres for beds receptacles for waters whereby the drowned land of Thorney and Whittlesey might be dreyned and dry land drowned It is answered First that there was a necessity for such a provision and 15000. Acres was but a small proportion to be alloted in so great a Level as above 300000 acres But secondly that this exception appears to be vaine and malicious the Petitioners not so much as affirming now the work is done that there hath been any such fraudulent and indirect use made of that provision and as it is a vaine pretence that beds and receptacles for waters should be made upon dry lands which is the higher ground so it would have been very imprudent in the undertakers to drowne dry ground in regard the said Act gives relief to any that by dreyning in one part should be drowned in another To that exception in the Act that the ordinary course of Commissioners as to this Level is altered It is answered First that there are above 50 Commissioners of Sewers appointed by name in the said Act for the said Levell besides the Judges of the Courts at Westminster for the time being all named by the late Parliament and such as by the view of their names will appear to be persons of great worth and understanding And secondly by the said Act the Commissioners for the Great Seale who appointed Commisssioners of Sewers upon all Commissions have power to nominate others in their roomes And lastly there was great necessity to take care in this particular for whereas upon other Commissions of Sewers all the Lands within the danger of surrounding are liable to contribute to the charge of maintaining the works by this Act the 95000. Acres designed to the undertakers are onely made liable to the charge and the maintaining the work and the residue of the Level being above 200000. Acres freed from it so that the Land-owners within the said Levell who were not to be contributary to the charge were justly excluded from being Commissioners of Sewers To that Exception which suggests that upon the Petitioners complaint to the Committee named in the said Act Iuly 6. 1653. they found no redress and to that other Exception which suggests that in the adjudication no care was taken to provide that Lands which should receive no benefit by the dreyning might not be made contributary and to another Exception that the said Commissioners adjudged the grounds dreyned without hearing the Petitioners it is answered first that the Commissioners appointed by the said Act sitting in the Temple Hall the said sixth of Iuly 1653. upon complaint made by Sir Iohn Maynard in the name of himself and other Inhabitants of Isleham did give him a full hearing and did offer him that if he would make it appear that there were any ground unequally and unduly taken out of Isleham they would give relief or if he could not prove it there and could prove it in the Countrey they would award a Commission into the Countrey to indifferent Commissioners there to examine the same but the said Sir Iohn Maynard then and there declared that he would Petition the Parliament so that this part of the suggestion is altogether untrue and scandalous and for the care taken in the Adjudication It is answered and ready to be proved that the Commissioners appointed by the said Act for adjudging the same after they had received sufficient information that one part of the said Level was dreyned according to the said Act would not proceed to adjudge the same until they had sent out Summons to all the parishes in that part of the Level concerned to give notice of their intended Sessions and then after made a personal view and after that had Oath made of due notice of their summons and then heard all Complaints and did receive all their Witnesses on all parts and did upon all Complaints which they found just give relief according to the said Act and did observe the same course upon their latter adjudication of the residue of the said Level and notice of the said Commissioners Session was timely given and the Commissioners did at their several Sessions make several Orders for relief in all cases where they found the Complaints just And that this suggestion may appear to bear no colour of truth It will appear by the order made upon the last adjudication at Elie upon a Petition then exhibited in the name of the Inhabitants of Isleham who suggested that too great a proportion was taken out of their Commons that the Commissioners did then by the consents of the then Petitioners and of the Undertakers referre the examination of the truth of the fact to Commissioners named by the then Petitioners and Undertakers and a day was appointed for hearing Witnesses on both sides but the then Petitioners finding that they were not able to make good the truth of their Petition did wave any further proceedings upon their Petition To the Exception which gives power to the Commissioners to make lands improved though not within the said Level to be contributory to the Undertakers It is answered that the reading of that clause in the said Act will satisfie any uninteressed person for whereas it was pretended that in the setting out of the 95000 Acres some were drawn to contribute to the same and receive no benefit by the dreyning and others would receive benefit by the said dreyning who did not contribute thereunto the Act doth provide to relieve the former and also that such Lands as shall be better in quality or condition by reason of the said dreyning or be thereby secured from overflowing and inundations shall contribute proportionable to the benefit which the Owners and occupiers of such Lands shall receive thereby as may appear by the words of the said Act which no reasonable man can opposse and yet the undertakers hitherto have made no benefit of that clause in the said Act whereby the troublesome disposition of such as prosecute the said Petition and complaint may appear by this causelesse exception The Exception to the said Act for repealing the two Laws of sewers viz. 19. Iac. et 14. Car. because they were illegal and therefore in themselves null is vain and frivolous for if it be admitted that they were illegal and null whereof many learned men did doubt it is far from a fault to declare them so by an Act of Parliament For the Exception to the Comissioners named in the said Act in regard as is suggested that some of them cannot Act