ON VVednesday the sixth of May, 1661. two Bills were read in the House of Com­mons, concerning setling the Govern­ment of the Great Level, called Bedford Level. It is called Great, in respect it contains 365000. Acres of ground, and Bedford Level, because Francis Earl of Bedford (being a person of the most eminent quality, and interest amongst the first Undertakets) gave title to it: And it is called Levell, because the whole ground lies so flat, that the eye can­not judge where the ground rises or falls, being chiefly known by observation of the stop, or vent of water, the best judge of Levels.

Now to drain this Level from the source of waters which falls from the adjacent Hills, or contained in its own spungy nature, Francis Earl of Bedford was the first (though there were some attempters before) whose name, quality, and ability, both for understan­ding and purse, gave life, vigour, and reputation to the Work.

13. Jan. 6 Car. 1.To him by a law made at Lynne, by persons of the chiefest rank; a power was given to act, and to take as­sistants, and for his charge and pains, he was to have 95000. Acres out of the 365000.

27 Feb. 7 Car. 1.The year following, his Lordship took to his Patti­cipants 13. persons more, men of undeniable integrity and ability, and those 14. did interchangeably seale Deeds to each other, binding themselves mutually to advance and go through the work; and this Deed is called the fourteenih part Deed, and it is the foundation of the first Title and Bill.

For the more effectual management and performance of the work, Charls the first of blessed memory, granted to them Letters Patents, 13. Mar. 10 Ca [...]. 1. and established them into a Cor­poration, consisting also of those 14. persons, save that Matrevers, Sandys junior, Crane and St. John came in upon Assignations or otherwise, from Heath, Russel, Be­vill, and Burwell; and of these fourteen, one Governor, two Bayliffs, and 110. Commoners were constituted. And in the same Patent, the King engageth himself to confirm the Corporation at the next ensuing Parliament. The Corporation being thus fixt, they proceeded so suc­cessfully, that within less than three years the work was compleated;13 Jan. 12 Car. 1. 12 Oct. 13 Car. 1. and by a Law made at Peterborough, the Levell was adjudged to be effectually drained, and by a Law made at St. Ives, in 26. Schedules annexed to that Law, the 95000. Acres was set out, and afterwards thus divided, viz. 12000. to the King for his consent, and 80000. Acres was divided into 20. Lots, so as every Lot contained 4000. Acres; so there remained only 3000. Acres undisposed of for contingencies.

Now as to the 20. Lots I sh [...]ll give you a Scheam, [Page 5] by which you shall see how they also fell upon fourteen persons, the other six being but partners to the four­teen.

• 1. Francis Earl of Bed­ford.
• 2. Oliver Earl of Bulling­brook.
• 3. Edward Lord Gorges.
• 4. Sir Robert Heath, Knight.
• 5. Sir Miles Sandys, Kt. and Baronet.
• 6. Sir VVilliam Russel, Knight.
• 7. Sir Robert Bevil, Kt. of the Bath.
• 8. Sir Thomas Tiringham, Knight.
• 9 Sir Philibert Vernat, Knight.
• 10. VVilliam Samms, Dr. of Law.
• 11. Anthony Hamond, Esquire.
• 12. Samuel Spalding, Gent.
• 13. Andrews Burwel, Gent
• 14. Sir Robert Lovet, Kt.

• I. Francis Earl of Bedford, Governor, deceased.
• I. Sir Miles Sandys, Knight and Baronet, Deputy Governor, deceased.
• Sir Thomas Tirin­gham. Bay­liffs decea­sed.
• Sir Miles Sandys, junior. Bay­liffs decea­sed.
• Oliver E. of Bulling­brook, deceased. X. Com­mo­ners.
• Henry Lord [...] Ma­trevers, deceased. X. Com­mo­ners.
• Edward L. Gorge deceased. X. Com­mo­ners.
• Sir Francis Crane, deceased. X. Com­mo­ners.
• Sir Robert Lovet, deceased. X. Com­mo­ners.
• VVilliam Sams, de­ceased. X. Com­mo­ners.
• Oliver St. John, dead in Law. X. Com­mo­ners.
• Anth. Hamond sur­viving X. Com­mo­ners.
• Sam. Spalding sur­viving X. Com­mo­ners.

• [Page 6]Francis Earl of Bedford 3. 9. 11. 14. 20.
• Sir Philibert Vernat. 1.
• This mark * shews the Lots wherein they were sharers with o­thers.
  Sir Miles Sandys junior. 2.
• Sir Miles Sandys, senior. 10. 13.
• John Tiringham. 4. 6.
• Robert Henley. 5. 6. 13. 17.
• Edward Lord Gorges. 6. 15. 17.
• Sir Robert Bevil. 7.
• VVilliam Sams. 8.
• Oliver Earl of Bullingbrook. 9.
• Anthony Hamond. 12.
• Sir Francis Crane. 16.
• Henry Lord Matrevers. 18. 13.
• John Latch. 19.

• Arthur Ingram. 6.
• Arthur Amesley. 6.
• John Marsham. 12.
• Samuel Spalding. 13.
• Oliver St. John. 17.
• Robert Castle. 17.

And this is the Title of Francis Earl of Bedford, and the manner of proceeding, and setling it; but lest you should run into any error, it is fit you should know also, that for some reasons of State, not to be enquired in­to, His late Majesty by a Law made at Huntington, 18. J [...]l [...]. 14 Car. 1. (the yeat after the said Patent) became the Underta­ker, and he was to have not only the 95000. Acres, but 57000. Acres more, and the first Undertakers to be allowed 40000. Acres Tax-free, in recompence of their former charges, & industry. But in respect his now Maje­sty is pleased to content himself with the 12000. acres formerly assigned to his late Majesty (according to St. Ives Law) and not at this present to interpose himself; I shall not intermedle with his late Majesties Underta­king, till his now Majesties pleasure be further known: But I conceive that ought to be desired, before an Act can pass to exclude his Majesty, there being many ma­ny material Arguments both for and against it. But admitting his Majesty doth wave that trouble, or the imploying of new Instruments under him, to prevent any dissatisfaction to the adjacent Counties, or preju­dice to the Participants of Francis Earl of Bedford: then this Narrative will run clear, that the said Francis and his Participants have the right title, but being hindered for some time by his late Majesty, and after by the commotions of the people, then by the succeeding wars, by sequestrations, and their inevitable absence, or death, they were disabled in purse, or person, or durst not attend its preservation. So that the King being Martyrd, and Francis Earl of Bedford formerly dead, and so many of his Participants (as conceive they had a right to neer a moity of the 83000. Acres) made un­capable, [Page 8] or having not a conscience to act with them. I say William now Earl of Bedford (needing no other title but his own, as heir to his Father) did (by insnare­ment (judging charitably of those that had but few months before shred the Kingdom into a Commonwealth) suffer his name to be used, in a pretended Act of Par­liament, dated 29. of May, 1649. Wherein were con­stituted such subtile Laws, and such Commissioners and Judges of the Level, as had endeavoured to level all but themselves; for in the first place, they sold the Kings 12000. Acres, and then above 30000. Acres of the Participants of the said Earls Father, (being all loy­all subjects) and upon these two titles (as I said) two Bills were presented to the House to be enacted.

The title of the Participants claiming under Francis Earl of Bedford, was ushered in with a Petition, and read in the House before the other Bill, and therefore I shall first set down the Petition in the very words, and the substance of that Bill, before I proceed to the Bill of those who claim by the Act of 1649.

The Petition was from Sir William Playters Knight, (Trustee for the Earl of Arundel) Sir John Hewet Ba­ronet, Sir William Teringham Knight of the Bath, Col. Sam. Sandys, Col. Robert Philips, Col. William Dodson, and others claiming under the Original Adventurers of the great Level called Bedford Level.

Shewing,

That whereas there hath been, and is a difference between the Adventurers under the right Honourable Francis Earl of Bedf [...]rd, and the Intruders under the right Honourable William Earl of Bedford, the said Adventurers under Francis, claiming their rights by vertue of a fourteenth [Page 9] part Deed, and several other Laws of Sewers, Letters Pa­tents, and orders of Councel, made in their behalf; and the said Intruders, claiming under William, by colour on­ly of a Law, made by the pretended Parliament in 1649. and by such unjust disseisin, and intrusions.

They pray, That an Act herewith tendered, in behalf of the Petitioners may be read, &c.

The Bill attending the said Petition, doth state the said Earl Francis his title, according as is before ex­pressed; and the prayer of that Bill consists of four parts: but before I proceed to those, give me leave to use their language, with the reasons in calling the Par­ticipants under Earl Francis (Petitioners) and those un­der Earl William (Intruders.) For in calling them In­truders, the Petitioners say, that they do not in the least intend by that word to prejudice the honour of Earl William, or to lessen his interest in the Fennes, they mean so long as his Lordship, or any of his Participants, do make or derive their title from Francis, and his Par­ticipants: and not from Forfeitures upon that pretend­ed Act of 1649. And the Petitioners do think his Lordship so ingenuous, noble, and loyal as not to sup­port that title: nor do the Petitioners aim to take away from any man the least Acre that was bona fide past to them by the said Earl Francis, or his Participants, or such as justly claim under him or them before or since the twenty ninth of May, 1649. So that the Petiti­oners mean by Intruders, only those that purchased the Petitioners lands upon the title only of that pretended Act for non payment of Taxes; so illegally, unwarrant­ably, (and they say also) unnecessarily imposed. For whereas all Deeds, before 1649. went in these words, [Page 10] viz. Whereas Francis, &c. did by a fourteenth part Deed, &c. the Intruders have no other preamble, than the reci­tal of the said pretended Act, no [...] title, nor Covenant to defend them, so as none are injured but themselvs, and seeing Caveat Emptor is a maxime in Law (the Petiti­oners say) why should not the Intruders make restituti­on cum omnibus emolumentis? I confesse the Intruders reply plausibly, Give us our Tax-money we are out of, and take your Lands: But the Petitioners adde to that old maxime, That the business of Tax, is not only an unjust imposition, but a subject for cheating: for, first, when the 80000. Acres were divided into 20. Lots, each Lot did consist of three sorts of grounds, Bad, In­different, and Good.

Now whilest each Lot stood entire in possession of those who first undertook them, it was equal; but be­ing subdivided, to several persons, it was unequal that that land should pay a Noble per Acre, which was not worth 9. d. and that not above a Noble, which was worth above a pound. Then as to the opportunity of cheating, it was obvious to every one, that if some few of them that ruled the waters did confederate, it were easie to let in water upon good grounds, to make them worse; and keep them upon bad, from being better, till the Taxes made them weary of them; and (the Petitioners say) this will be evidenced in case of one of the Intruders, who bought as many Fennes at 2. s, 6. d. per acre (the sum not amounting to above two or three hundred pound) as within a short time was sold for 3. 4. and 5. l. per acre; so as about 30000. l. was made of them. By this Act of Taxes, Col. Sam. Sandys is deceived of above 7000. Acres (which was conveyed [Page 11] to Trustees for the Indemnifying him against great debts, wherein he stood engaged with Sir Miles San­dys) and the Earl of Arundel lost his shares (by em­ploying one to pay the Taxes, which suffered them to be forfeited, that there might be an opportunity to purchase them.) Something might be added in Crane and Hoblyns Case to the same effect, but I am loath to trouble you with more of these sad Truths, and only wish that the Intruders may not hold Machiavils maxim, That things which are unjustly gotten, must be unjustly maintained, hoping the Intruders will prove better principled.

So that I conceive Sir, there will be no great diffe­rence in the Title, presuming that the right Honorable William Earl of Bedford will own his Fathers Partici­pants, rather than those which came in by a Title so dangerous to be supported; as we may read in a Book of that eminent Lawyer Sir Orlando Bridgeman, in his proceedings against the Traytors at Newgate, who in several places intimates it as Treason to act by Acts made by an usurped power, which perhaps is pardon­ed, if not prosecuted.

Now as to the Prayers of the Bill; the Petitioners in their first Prayer, fix upon the very number of per­sons, viz. fourteen to be of this Corporation in this Bill, according to the original Institution of it, both by Deed, Patent, and Allotments. And these fourteen to continue for one year, (being persons of the greatest, and rightest interest under Francis Earl of Bedford, and less guilty of intrusion:) and then these to make election of others according as the said Patent di­rects.

Now the old Governors, Bayliffs and Commoners ha­ving been as they are named in the former Scheame,

• The Governor.
• I. William Earl of Bedford, as claiming under Earl Francis.
• The Deputy Governor.
• I. Samuel Sandys, Esq; claiming under Sir Miles Sandys.
• The two Bayliffs.
• II.
  • Sir William Tirringham Knight of the Bath, claim­ing under Sir Thomas and John Tirringham.
  • Sir John Hewet Baronet, claiming under Sir Robert Bevil.
• The ten Commoners.
• X.
  • Anthony St. John son to the said E. of Bullingbrook.
  • Sir William Playters Kt. and Baronet, Trustee for the Lord Matrevers late Earl of Arundel.
  • Arthur E. of Anglesey, claiming under the L. Gorge.
  • Hoblyn, Esq; claiming under Sir Richard Crane by Coheirship.
  • Col. Iohn Russel son to Francis late E. of Bedford.
  • Iohn L. Culpepper, claiming under Francis Earl of Bedford.
  • Rob. Phillips Esq; claiming under the heirs of Gorge.
  • Col. VVill. Dodson claiming under Sir Miles Sandys.
  • (Oliver St. Iohn being disabled from acting,)
  • Anth. Hamond Esq; The two only legal survivors of the former Corporation.
  • In all 14.
    Sam. Spalding Gent. The two only legal survivors of the former Corporation.

But if the number be thought insufficient to carry on the work, the Petitioners will assent to an addition, so as they be not Intruders, or if the persons mentioned in the Petitioners Bill be not better and more rightfully qualified, than any others that the Earl William shall name, it will be submitted to the Parliament to judge of each others exceptions.

The second Prayer of the Petitioners Bill is, that 12000. acres may be restored to the King, which it seems the Intruders have done; and the Petitioners do protest that it was an Act of Iustice, and hope they will proceed in the same Iustice, in restoring theirs without further trouble, or noyse; and if they would also give his Majesty the 20000. l. for which they sold his land, and the mean profits of the Petitioners lands to the Petitioners, their Justice therein would be the more renowned.

The third Prayer is to avoid all Titles made by the Intruders upon the pretended Act. of 1649. and that quiet possession may be given to the Petitioners, especi­ally since the Petitioners were so kind, as not to op­pose an Act in the last Parliament, whereby the Intru­ders (to their great gains) were not to be disturbed in their possession till the 29. of May 1661. a day when not only his Majesty made his happy entrance into his Dominions, viz. 29. May 1660. but every loyal sub­ject may expect like free entrance into theirs; and the rather, because the very self same day that the Intru­ders obtained their Act, viz. May 1649. the very same day eleven years after, the last Act of the Intruders for continuing possession doth expire, viz. 29. May 1661. which was obtained by their own desires; so that they [Page 14] have the less reason to be any longer injurious upon a­ny pretence whatsoever. But the Intruders say further, that the Petitioners had no possession by S. Ives Law; so that they did not dispossesse the Petitioners of that, which they were not possest of. To which the Petiti­oners answer,17 Car. 1. that by a Law for the allotments in Ire­land the very words of the Statute are, That the Allot­ments shall be judged as in actual possession of those to whom they were allotted, for a Title is as safe in gross, as in retail: And the Petitioners affirm, that by vertue of the participancy, under Francis Earl of Bedford, they did buy, fell, chop, change, sell and let their Lots, or part of them, without any dispute, til they were thrown out by the Intruders by colour of the pretended Act of 1649.

The last part of the Prayer of the Petitioners Bill is to take care of the Country, wherein the Petitioners say, they are not ashamed to expose their accounts to the censure of such as the Parliament shall think fit to o­verlook their actions; and that there may be redress to such as justly complain, they do therein take care for the Countries interest.

And now I have done with the title and desires of the Petitioners Bill, I shall proceed to the Intruders Bill, but upon perusal of it, I find it is but the very same with the Bill of 29. May 1649. which is to be bought at Mr. Husbands a Stationer in Fleetstreet, wherein you will find very little matter added, but several material sentences omitted in that Act, viz. In pag. 570. it is said, That the said William Earl of Bedford, &c. shall hold the same against the King, his Heirs and Successors, or any claiming by, from, or under him.

And in pag. 574. They cheerfully take away all ad­vantages which his Majesty, his heirs or Successors may challenge by reason of any former Laws made in behalf of him and his heirs, viz. 19 Jac. and 14 Car. 1. too long here to transcribe. So that if they inserted these Clau­ses against his Majesty, &c. how could his loyal Sub­jects, the Petitioners, whom they had also discarded, or any other concerned, expect any right, till the Act it self of 1649. and those Intruders be also laid aside.

In short, the Petitioners Bill is to revive the old Go­vernment, to purge it of all Intruders, to restore the King his rights, and to do Justice to the Countries: But the Intr [...]ders Bill is full of Laws, before the Go­vernment be agreed on, or such Justice performed as is requisite.

I thought to have concluded, but perusing a printed Paper of the Intruders, called A Narrative of their drai­ning of Bedford Levell; about which, they say, that they have expended above 250000. l. and in another Nar­rative printed two days since, 50000. l. so that it seems they agree not in their account. I must tell you what the Petitioners say, That in the first Paper the Intruders admit the yearly charge to be but 8000. l. per annum, which from 1649. to 1660. being eleven years, is but 88000. l. So there is a gross mistake of 162000 l. besides the other sum of 50000 l. So that if the Petitioners should admit of 88000. l. raised in Taxes, by 8000. l. per annum, the Intruders are indebted to such as may justly call them to an ac­count, for 20000. l. received by sale of the Kings lands, and more than double so much by the sale of the Peti­tioners lands, beside the imperfections of their accompts [Page 16] and vast needless charges, for the support of the said Level; and the Intruders have no reason to complain of the Petitioners mercy, if they be put out, without gi­ving account of the mean profits, especially the Peti­tioners (or those from whom they claim) having ex­pended at least 200000. l. (above twenty years since,) which the Petitioners conceive is part of the 250000. l. before pretended to be disbursed; not have the Peti­tioners received any mean profits, or advantages for the same, wherein the Intruders have more than trebly reimbursed themselves: So that if the Petitioners do not call the Intruders to an account, it is a favour ad­mitted towards them for quietness sake, which is wish­ed by