I Presume it seems as strange to your Lordships, as to my self and others, that those Animadversions (com­posed of so many mistakes and er­rours, and larded throughout with such malitious aspersions and sur­mises) should be published in the name of Thomas Harlackenden, Esq; a Gentleman of Worth and Quality, and recommended to your Honours Patronage, whose Noble and heroick Spirits, have ever shewed much aversness from all pro­ceedings which endeavour to wound the reputation of a good cause Controverted, through the sides of the Asser­tors.

I shall not trouble your Lordships with the repetiti­on of them, but annex hereunto a List of those Gentle­mens Names, who concurred with me in those times [Page 2]and actions, whereunto the Animadverter takes offence; not doubting but their known Integrities and Judgments, will abundantly vindicate my Reputation therein, being Persons of too great Judgement, to be deluded with sha­dowes only, and too much fidelity to betray their Trust, and sacrifice their Consciences to advance any mans par­ticular Interest: Neither will I trouble your Lordships, by relating with what diligence those Animadversions were dispersed at Allington Court, and at the late Sessi­on of Sewers, amongst the Commissioners and Jurors, at and before such time as they were impanelled; the consequence whereof I leave to your Lordships conside­ration, upon that which ensued; but will briefly state the matters in difference between us, and for satisfaction therein, refer your Lordships, partly to my former Treatises, and partly to that which followes.

1. The principal matters in difference are briefly these. First, whither the late drowned lands, being re­covered thirty yeers since, having formerly spent twen­ty yeers time, and twenty thousand pounds fruitlesly in hopes of recovery, at the disproportions of twelve pence per Acre, drowned lands, and four pence per Acre Som­mer lands, shall be scotted at the same disproportions, during the continuance of the Indraught in Wittersham Level; the continuance thereof being necessary for both their preservations, and no future advantage thereby gi­ven to the late drowned lands, then to the late sommer-lands.

Whereunto I answer, that it is acknow ledged by the Animadverter, fol. 54. That when the Articles were a­greed upon between the Committees for the upper Le­vels and Wittersham, dated the 18th of February, 9 Car. 1. The upper Levels were drained, which occasioned [Page 3]those Articles; from which your Lordships may ob­serve, That Wittersham Indraught, was not of absolute necessity to the recovery of the drowned lands, other then to procure the concurrence of the owners of the som­mer-lands, and others, for whose preservation the same was of absolute necessity, as the Animadverters Grand­father hath often declared, (and after attested under his hand, not many weeks before he died) which your Lord­ships may peruse in my Remonstrance, towards the end thereof, fol. 6.

And further, The decaying sommer-lands, notwith­standing their many years preservation by the three first Indraughts at Peening, Ebony, and Woodruff, grew after­wards into further decay; so that in the year, 1630. the Channel of the River of Rother, was so much swerved and decayed, as that all the lands sewing thereunto, viz. Romney Marsh, Walland Marsh, &c. all which lie some miles neerer the sea then the upper Levels, were in danger to lose their Sewer, much more the decaying sommer-lands, which lie further from the fall, as is manifested by the transactions of the Lords Bayliffs and Jurates of Romney Marsh, the Commissioners for Walland Marsh, and the Commissioners for the upper Level, and are declared in my Remonstrance, fol. 13, 14. All which makes it evident, That since the yeer 1633. (the late drowned lands being then perfectly drained as they now are) both the late decaying lands, and late drowned lands, have been only preserved by the said Works, and In­draught, and no further advantage thereby given to the late drowned lands, then to the late decaying lands. And now do your Lordships judge, by what Rules of Sew­ers, Law or Conscience, the late drowned lands shall be further taxed at twelve pence per Acre, (lesser measure) [Page 4]and the late decaying lands at four pence per Acre (lar­ger measure) for the continuance of Wittersham In­draught; by means whereof the whole Rents and Pro­fits of all, or a considerable part of the late drowned lands, as they have been for fifty yeers past, so may be for fifty yeers to come, swallowed up in charge of Scotts, and the inheritance of those lands, sacrificed for the preservation of those decaying sommer-lands, which during all that time, have, and will thereby yield to the Owners thereof, eighteen or twenty shillings per Acre, cleer yeerly profit above all charge of Scotts, so that it had been much better for the Owners of the late drowned lands, if the recovery of their lands had never been at­tempted.

2. The second matter in difference, is, Whether by the Law or Rule of Sewers, Sherley Moor shall enjoy a larger measure of 18. or 20. foot to the Pole, and all the other Levels but 16. foot ½ being now all under one Commission.

I Answer, That this disproportion of measure, is without Pre­sident or Example; contrary to all Rules of Sewers, and contrary to the Statute or Ordinance, De Terris Men­surandis; and therefore the Animadverter endeavours to support it with a pretended previous Agreement, made between the Owners of Sherley Moor, and those of the other Levels, before their conjunction in one Commissi­on, viz. That Sherley Moor was to continue that dispro­portion of measure, and of scotting at twelve pence per Acre drowned, and four pence per Acre sommer-lands. Whereunto I answer, That this Agreement was never insisted on, nor objected at the Reference made to the four learned Lawyers in 1627. howbeit Sir Edward Hales [Page 5]Knight and Baronet, deceased, was then present, (who is pretended to be Party to such Agreement) as appears by the case then drawn up, which is set forth in my Remon­strance, fol. 17. and which was given in evidence by the Owners of the sommer-lands, to the Jurors, at the late Session of Sewers holden at Tenterden. And for that I find that the Animadverter fol. 23. hath set forth the de­cretal part (as he terms it) of the decree made the 26th of May 1626. And fol. 16 hath set down part of the Pream­ble of a Decree, made the 19th of September, 1650. I shall present to your Lordships both these Decrees at large, that your Lordships may the better judge of the Animadverters candid Quotations and Inferences, men­tioned in the remainder of his Animadversions, upon which I have not at this time leisure to give your Lord­ships particular observations.

And Sir Edward Hales after the alteration of the for­mer disproportions of scots of twelve pence and four pence, never alledged any such previous agreement; but contrariwise in the presence of Sir Thomas Culpeper, Sir Iohn Henden, Iohn Austen, Esquire, my Self, and others, when we met together in London, to state the matters in difference touching the proportions of scots, did declare himself well satisfied with the Rates of scots then agreed upon, (which were after decreed) and further expressed great content, that the said difference was reconciled in so amicable a manner, and upon such indifferent propor­tions; as by the testimony of a witness without excep­tion, then present, and yet living, can be made appear. The proportions of scots then agreed were put in wri­ting, viz.

The Subscribers were Owners of the greatest part of the said Levels, which was afterwards Decreed accord­ingly, and those proportions continued until the late Session at Tenterden.

And further; This pretended previous Agreement be­ing objected at a Session of Sewers holden at Cranbrook, the 15th of Aprill, 1650. Sir Thomas Culpeper, who at the time of such conjunction in Commission, was an active Commissioner for the Interest of the sommer-lands, (not then having any drowned lands) and was chosen by the Owners of the sommer-lands, to attend the said Referrees in 1627. and must have known of that pretended Agreement, if any such had been, denied that he ever knew of any such Agreement. And further made several answers to that Objection, which are set forth in my Summary Relation, sol. 27, 30. which I have also inserted herein for your Lordships full satisfaction, desiring your Lordships by the way to observe, That howbeit the Animadverter hath borrowed that Objecti­on (and others) thence, he doth not in his Animadver­sions take notice of many of the answers there made to the same.

The Arguments were these.

1. First, they alledged, That Sherley Moor, and Ebo­nie were formerly governed by distinct Commissions from the other Levels, and would never have consented to be put into one Commission, and joyned in the charge of the Works with the drowned lands, if it had not been first agreed at what proportion each should be Scotted, viz. the Sommer-lands at four pence, and the drowned lands at twelve pence the Acre.

To which it was answered, That if by agreement they meant the opinion and consent of the Commissi­oners, as the conditions of the Lands at that time were, There is no Question it was so; but if they intended, that there was any agreement in the nature of a Con­tract between party and party, that was not granted, neither was there any Record or Evidence, nor so much as the Preamble of a Decree to prove ir, which no man will easily believe could have been omitted in a Business of such concernment, if any such Agreement had been made; neither is it probable to be conjectured, that af­ter those Levels were joyned in one Commission, the Commissioners would have impannelled a Jury to en­quire and present what Works were fit to be done, and after what proportions the several Levels ought to be Scotted thereunto, and have had so many meetings, and spent so much time (from April 1609. till October 1613) before the same was determined, if it had been agreed, as was alledged. But admit there were any such Agree­ment, yet by the Reference made to the four learned Lawyers aforesaid, the Award by them made, and con­firmation thereof by Decree 11 March, 1627. (as is before expressed) the same was absolutely made void.

2. Secondly, it was alledged, that Sherley Moor, Ebo­my, [Page 14]and the rest of the Sommer-lands, did continue their antient Channel, and did not sew through Wit­tersham Level, as the drowned lands did, and that the carrying of the River of Rother through Wittersham, and making the Low lands thereof an Indraught, was onely in the interest of the drowned lands; and therefore that there was no reason that the Sommer-lands should be taxed at an equal rate with the drowned lands, to­wards that great Rent and Work of charge.

To this it was answered, That although Sherley Moor, and the rest of the Sommer-lands did not all carry their waters through Wittersham Level, a consi­derable proportion of them did, viz. The Levels of Farnhil, Dombarn, Wittersham, and others; and that the making the low Lands of Wittersham, an Indraught was the onely means, which preserved the antient Channel for sewing any part of them; that onely having procured them that great fall by which their lands have not only been preserved, but perfectly cured.

And it was further answered, That the making the Low lands of Wittersham an Indraught (which alone had occasioned so great charge) was not in the in­terest of the drowned lands, but wholly in the interest of the Sommer-lands, to procure them the fall and sewer which they now enjoy; for it was evident upon several breaches of Knel's Dam wall, that the Owners of the drowned lands might have drained them by car­rying their waters that way only, without letting of the Sea into Wittersham, which they often endeavored; but the Owners of the Sommer-lands from time to time opposed them, and that the drowned lands were drai­ned several years before those Works were finished, or the Sea let into the said Indraught, by the breach in [Page 15] Knells Damm Wall in the year 1633.

3. Thirdly, it was alledged, That Sherley Moor and Ebonie could at a cheaper rate by other ways have sewed and secured their lands, then by joyning with the other Levels; but by what ways that was they did not shew.

In answer whereunto, It was said, that this might have been more truly urged by the Owners of the drowned lands, If the Owners of the Sommer-lands would have permitted them to carry their waters through Witter­sham Level, without making the low lands there an In­draught, before such time as the Channel was so swer­ved as that the fresh waters could not come down to keep open their Out-fall, or at any time after.

And it was further answered, That in 1609. when the Levels of Sherley Moor, Ebony and Newenden were first joyned in one Commission, the Sommer-lands were in a decaying condition and apparent danger to become drowned and lost lands; That afterwards se­veral Works were undertaken, which cost the Owners of the drowned lands above 30000 l. And those Works proved altogether fruitless for the Recovery of the drowned lands, and served only for the present pre­servation of the Sommer-lands; yet so as they fell a­gain into decay, and were in danger to become drowned and lost lands, before such time as the Sea was let into Wittersham Indraught: So that at a Session of Sewers holden at Hawkhurst the 21. of January 1632. more then Thirty Jurors of the respective Counties of Kent and Sussex did Present, That there then were within the limits of the Commission for the Upper Levels 3000 Acres or thereabouts of Marsh lands that then were u­sually drowned a great part of the year, and yielded little profit or benefit to the Owners thereof, And al­so [Page 16]2000 Acres of Marsh land which then were good Sommer-land, and were dry most part of the year, but decaying, and in danger to be lost and drowned; And that they did then conceive and verily believe, that the best way and means to regain the 3000 acres of drown­ed lands, and to preserve the said decaying lands, was by taking the Low-lands of Wittersham Level, and making and imploying the same for an Indraught. The charge whereof hath further cost the Owners of the drowned lands near 100000 l. so that indifferent men will hard­ly be perswaded without a Mathematical Demonstra­tion, that the Sommer-lands could have found a chea­per way to preserve and secure themselves then by joyning with the other Levels.

4. Fourthly, they urged, That when that great and chargeable Work of carrying the River of Rother through Wittersham Level was undertaken, the Owners of the Sommer-lands would never have joyned there­in: But that it was again agreed, that the lands should be scotted at 12 pence and 4 pence, as they were before the Reference, and Award made by Sir Edward Little­ton, Sir John Glanvil, Sir Ralph Whitfield, and Serjeant Clerk.

To this it was answered, That no such Agreement was either produced in writing or proved per Testes; nor was it probable that the Owners of the drowned lands would ever have agreed or submitted to be scotted after the former unequal rates of 12 pence and 4 pence, had not the said Reference, and Award, with the De­cree of Confirmation thereof made the 11. of March 1627. been concealed from them after the deaths of Nicolas Earl of Thanet, Mr Dike, Mr Fowle, and other principally interessed in the drowned lands, who often [Page 17]protested against bringing the lands again to the former unequal rate of Scotts.

And further, That as there was no general consent of the Commissioners; so the same was never publiquely propounded to the Owners of the drowned lands for their Assent thereunto; and all impartial men are of opinion, that the Owners of the Sommer-lands had not then so much confidence either of the Justice, or Honor thereof, as to acquaint any one of the Owners of the drowned lands (not interessed in the Sommer-lands) how the Business of Scotting was settled in 1627. and then demand his consent to bring the scotts to the former disproportions of 12 d. and 4 d. after they had spent above 30000 l. which wholly redounded to the benefit of the Sommer-lands; and considering that when the Award and Decree before-mentioned were made, that the Sommer-lands and drowned lands should be scotted alike, there were then no Works in hand or propounded for recovery or mending of the drowned lands; and then for them to Award or Decree that those lands which were not yearly worth one peny, should be scotted at 12 pence the acre to every scott, for such Works only as tended to the preservation of the Som­mer-lands (worth 20 shillings per acre) had been con­trary to all equity and common reason; But only in re­gard it was then intended, that if there should again a­ny Works be undertaken, aswell for Recovery of the drowned lands as Preservation of the Sommer-lands, that they should both joyn in an equal rate of scotts; and after all this how farr it was agreeable to equity or fair dealing for the Owners of the Sommer-lands to re­duce the scotts to the former disproportions for the Works and Indraught in Wittersham Level, which were [Page 18]only necessary for the preservation of their lands, was left to indifferent Judges.

Lastly, it was answered, That the Commissioners of Sewers (having so strong an Adversary as the Sea) were to alter and make Decrees as the condition of the lands and emergent occasions should from time to time re­quire, that they have no power to tie their own hands by such Agreement as is alledged, nor can be bound by any other power then that by which they have their power, an Act of Parliament.

5. Fifthly they urged, That the Works for the Reco­very of the drowned lands were not perfected; and therefore the Arguments used for equal scotting of the lands for Preservation, were not of force till the Works were finished. And they did instance in the Charge bestowed upon Blackwall, and the new laying of the Sluce which formerly lay at Thorney Wall.

To which it was answered, That both by the Letter, Intention, and Equity of the before-mentioned Award, and Decree thereupon made, the whole Charge of the Works and Indraught in Wittersham Level should have been born at an equal rate of Scotts, and much more all future Works, if any remained unperfected.

It was further answered, That Nature it self had forced her way for Recovery of the drowned lands se­veral years before the Works were perfected, and the Sea let into the Indraught, and that Blackwall was made upon the Presentment of Jurors and Reports of Com­missioners, after Views taken for Information of the Commissioners, aswell to preserve the Upper Levels from being surrounded with Salt water, which dayly in­creased upon them as in hopes to recover 600 acres of land for which there was a great Rent paid to the Own­ers [Page 19]thereof by the Upper Levels, and for preservation of the other High-lands of Wittersham; and as for the new laying of the Sluce at Thorney Wall, they were not so well advised to instance upon that, being only for the preservation of Sherley Moor, and the other Sommer-lands, and the Interest of the drowned lands not at all concerned therein.

6. Sixthly they shewed, That there was a Debt ow­ing by the Countrey, the greatest part whereof had been due divers years: And therefore no Reason that the Sommer-lands should be equally scotted with the drowned lands towards the payment of that Debt.

To that it was answered, That such Debt did grow due long since 1627. and was not the twentieth part of that charge which since that time should have been born at an equal rate of scotts in performance of the Award and Decree before-mentioned.

It was further answered, That no part of that Debt did grow by Works done for the Recovery of the drowned lands, those lands being perfectly drained ma­ny years before, but was contracted by means of the Sea (which was first let the Low-lands of Witter­sham, chiefly in the Interest of the Sommer-lands) his breaking into a great part of the High-lands of Witter­sham, whereby there hath near 1400 l. per Annum been added to the great Rent which the Countrey formerly paid, and by making new inset Walls of a very great charge to preserve the other high Lands there from be­ing drowned in like manner. And if the drowned lands should continue scotted at these unequal rates till that debt were paid, it were the same to the Owners of the drowned lands, as if they should be so scotted for ever; For at the proportions they are now scotted, the whole [Page 20]Rent of their lands doth hardly pay the yearly charge that lies upon them, and consequently can never wear out the debt.

7. Seventhly, They excepted against the Referrees, that they having already declared themselves in the Re­port, should sit as Judges, and give their votes therein.

To which it was answered, That certainly they were not the more like to be partial, or any way unfit to sit as Judges; for having taken pains to view the lands in the several Levels, and by all ways and means to in­form themselves of the merits of the Cause, no more then in the Parliament, the Committees of any Bill, or other Business, are thought the less fit to give their Voices, for having first debated, digested, and reported the Cause to the House. This Exception therefore seemed somewhat strange, it being the first that ever was known to any there to be taken of that kinde; and those Gentlemen themselves having often been Refer­rees, and given their Votes in the same Cause.

8. Eighthly they urged, That the sommer-lands were onely to be preserved, and were then as much worth to be lett by the year, as now they are. The deep drowned lands being nothing worth, were to be recovered, and preserved, and therefore no reason they should be Scotted at equal rates.

This was consented to be true at such time as the first joynt Commission was taken out for all the said Le­vels; and upon these grounds the Commissioners did then think it equall, and accordingly decreed, that the Sommer-lands should be scotted but after the rate of sour pence, the deep drowned lands after twelve pence the Acre to every scott; but now, that the deep drown­ed lands were many years since recovered, and become [Page 21]fully as safe from future decay as the Sommer-lands, that such recovery hath cost the Owners of those lands more then double the value of the Inheritance of them, the Sommer-lands having been all that time preserved, and the Owners of them receiving yearly sixteen or eighteen shillings the Acre above all scotts; now that the heavie charge lying upon those lands, is onely for preservation, wherein Sherley Moor, and the rest of the late decaying Sommer lands are more then equally in­teressed with them, and for whose preservation the Sea was necessarily let into Wittersham Level, which hath produced this great charge; now for them to be continued at the former unequal rates of twelve pence, and four pence, whereby the deep drowned lands, though drained of water, are still drowned in charge, paying more in Scotts then their yearly Rent amounteth unto, this seemed very unequall to all the Commissioners not interessed.

9. They alledged, that they had little or no benefit by the Works, nor the yearly Rents of their lands thereby improved; that by the words of the Statute, all lands are to be scotted according to the benefit they receive; and therefore since the benefit was little, the scots might not be great.

To this it was answered, That about fourty years since, when the general Works were first undertaken, and the Levels of Sherley Moor, and Ebony joyned in one Commission with the rest, the Preamble in every Decree recites, that there were so many Acres of land drowned Winter and Sommer, so many Acres, viz. Sherley Moor, and the rest, which were drowned in the Winter, and drie in the Sommer, but in danger of fur­ther decay, and to become drowned and lost lands;

Lastly, The first general Works which were underta­ken after such conjunction of all the said Levels in one Commission, were the Indraughts at Peening and Ebony, which were undertaken upon Presentment of Jurors and Views of Commissioners; and the Decree for the said Works, is extant upon Record (whereof the Animad­verter had a Copy long since) bearing date the 17 ^o Au­gust 13. Iac. In which Decree, nor in any subsequent Decree, there is not any mention made of any such pre­vious Agreement, which without all doubt would not have been omitted, if any such had been, the same be­ing of such consequence to Posterity. And now do your Lordships judge of the Animadverters confidence, and groundless asserting that Agreement, both in the Epistle Dedicatory, and Animadversions.

And in Case any such Agreement had been, the same extended only to Sherley Moore; and then I know not why all the other lands within the limits of the Commis­sion, should not be equally scotted for their preservation, according to the Custome of Romney Marsh, so much urged at the late Session, as caused the Jurors to alter their exhibited presentment; Or if notwithstanding the said Custome, the same sommer-lands in Farnhill, Dom­barn, Wittersham, and Kentchill (which cannot pretend to any such Agreement, being included within the Com­mission for the Upper Levels, before the conjunction with Sherley Moor) shall continue scotted at four pence per Acre, and the late drowned lands at twelve pence per Acre (which injoy only the benefit of preservation, as the other lands do) but that then the disproportion of scots between the late drowned lands tendered by the Ju­rors, in concurrence with the Opinion of the two Lord Chief Justices, touching the casualties and uncerteinties [Page 23]of lands, ought to have been established; which I sub­mit to your Lordships judgements.

3. The third matter in difference, is, Whether the Marsh-lands in Redhill, Appledore, and Stone, shall be discharged from bearing any part of the charge of the said Indraught, their common Outfall to the Sea, which was many years since in apparent danger to be lost, ha­ving thereby been restored and preserved.

In Answer whereunto, I must first let your Lordships know, That by the Law and Rule of Sewers, All lands sewing into a Common Outfall, which is maintained at a general Charge, ought to contribute thereunto, and can­not be exempted from the charge thereof in Toto, if they may in Tanto.

That those lands have received benefit by the Works and Indraughts in Wittersham Level, is demonstrated, For that Walland Marsh, whose waters issue into the same Channel 4 or 5 miles nearer the Sea, then most of those lands, and consequently had a greater fall, and better Sew­er, have received benefit thereby, and do contribute to the charge thereof; which by Agreement with the Up­per Levels, they were not to do until such time as their Sewer was bettered by the said Works, and are to con­tribute during the continuance thereof, and not after. And further, the Animadverter, fol. 55. hath set forth a Presentment of Jurors, pretended to be made in August, 1635. whereby it was presented (as he alledgeth) That if the sea were not speedily let into the Low-lands of Wittersham, it would be prejudicial to the Sewers of all the lands that sewed into the River of Rother. And I likewise desire your Lordships to observe, That this supposed Presentment was at such time, when Sir Walter Roberts, and other Owners of the drowned lands, oppo­sed [Page 24]the letting of the sea into Wittersham Indraught; at most of which transactions I was present, and viewed the then desperate decay of the Sewer of the sommer-lands, which issued their water by Thorney Sluce, howbeit the late drowned lands were then perfectly drai­ned. And by the presentment of the late Jurors it ap­pears, That the preservation of the Outfall at Thorney Sluce is necessary for the well sewing of the same lands in Redhill, Appledore, and Stone, yet they are thereby ex­empted from bearing any part of the charge of Witter­sham Indraught, whereby that Outfall is, and for many yeers hath been preserved. And your Lordships by per­using the Decree herein set forth, may observe the fair and civil respect which the then Commissioners shewed unto the Owners of those lands.

4. The fourth matter in difference, is, Whether lands formerly drowned, and paid equally for their re­covery, being recovered, part of those lands are worth 25. s. per Acre, other part of them but 15. s. per Acre, (by reason of casualties) shall continue equally scotted for works of preservation only, when as their respective benefits thereby, are so different and disproportionate?

In answer whereunto, I presume to let your Lord­ships know, That by the Queries and Answers thereun­to, subscribed by the two Lord Chief Justices, set forth in my Summary Relation, fol. 23. (which may be an ade­quate Rule in the proportioning of all scots) it appears, [Page 27]That by the Law, Casualties, and Incertainties of profit by the works, are to be considered in the proportioning of scots upon those lands, with other of better condition.

That there are such Casualties, Incertainties, and dif­ference in values between some of the late drowned lands, appeared to the late Jurors upon their View, was proved unto them upon Oath, & will be further proved by seve­ral Testimonies when thereunto required. But it being objected, That by the Custome of Romney Marsh, all lands (good and bad) pay equally for maintenance of Dymchurch Wall, which is for their preservation. The Jurors who had before tendered their presentment, That those Casual lands should pay and be taxed at two third parts, and no more, which the other drowned lands of the better condition, withdrew the same, and after presen­ted all the said drowned lands to be equally scotted. And yet notwithstanding the said custome, did present the sommer-lands to be taxed but at one third part with the late drowned lands, when as all the said lands (as appear­eth by the same Presentment) have preservation only by the said works; which I refer to your Lordships consi­deration.

My Lords,

I shall not trouble your Lordships, nor my Self, with a reply to all the fallacies, Errours and mistakes, set forth in those Animadversions, but shall only make some Observations upon two or three of them, that your Lord­ships may the better judge of the rest.

First, the Animadverter tells your Lordships, sol. 67. That all scots granted between March, 1627. and Sep­tember, 1633. were granted according to the Decree of the 11th of March, 1627. and inferrs, that the same De­cree was not smothered or concealed, for that it was [Page 28]confirmed depending the Treaty with the Committees of Wittersham Level, and yet with confidence affirms in several places of his Animadversions, That it was not then intended that the Works and Indraught in Witter­sham Level, (then in Treaty) should be borne at an equal rate of scots, according to the said Decree, whereas if it had been otherwise intended, that Decree of Confirmati­on had been vain and superfluous. And your Lordships may be pleased to take notice, That such Decree of Confirmation, was made before the decease of Thomas Dike, Esquire, who signed that Decree of the 11th of March; was privy and party to all the proceedings which induced the same, so that it could not then be con­cealed. But Mr. Dike dying in the year, 1632. having survived Nicholas, late Earl of Thanet, Laurence Peirs, Iohn Bromfield, Esquires, and several other Owners of the drowned lands, who were likewise privy to those pro­ceedings, and leaving all their Heirs very young, and wholly ignorant thereof, The said Decree of the 11th of March, was never afterwards Confirmed, but so far smothered and concealed, as that when those Decrees of the 5th of September, 1633. the 27th of October, 1637. the 4th of Iune, 1639. and the 3d of Iune, 1640. were signed by the Commissioners then present, by which the scots were again reduced to the disproportions of twelve pence and four pence, I was present also, and often perused all the Records and Decrees brought to any of those Sessions; yet by such perusal of them, or by any debate or discourse of the Commissioners, could never discover that Decree of the 11th of March, or the Decree for Confirmation thereof, till many years after, when Sir Thomas Culpeper, the Animadverters Grand­father, acquainted me therewith; And further, the said [Page 29]Sir Thomas Culpeper, then whom no man was more active for the Interest of the sommer-lands, nor better acquaint­ed with the transactions of those times, affirmed publick­ly at a Session of Sewers in the presence of neer thirty Commissioners, That the Owners of the sommer-lands had not then when the scots were so reduced to the for­mer disproportions of twelve pence and four pence, so much confidence of the Justice or Honour thereof, as to acquaint any one Owner of the drowned lands not inte­ressed in the sommer-lands, how the business of scotting was setled in March 1627. and then demand his consent for reducing them to the former disproportions.

And your Lordships may be pleased to take notice of another fallacy set forth in the Epistle Dedicatory, and several places of the Animadversions, viz. That in the yeer, 1637. by Decree of Sewers, with the full and free consent of the Commissioners and Owners, as well for the Interest of the sommer-lands, as the drowned lands, all things relating to the said Works and Rates of scot­ting the lands towards the charge thereof, were unani­mously agreed to, and confirmed, and the Rates of twelve pence the Acre for the drowned lands, and four pence the Acre for the sommer-lands, for all works in Witter­sham Level, and one yeerly scot of twelve pence the Acre, for the Sluce and Works upon the old Channel; O monstrum, horrendum; For were that Decree printed with the Animadversions, it would therein have clearly appeared to your Lordships, That neither the Sluce, or Works in the old Channel, are once mentioned, or so much as intimated in any part of that large Decree; and that those words (full and free consent of the Owners, &c.) have no relation or influence to the granting or proportioning of scots (as is pretended) for discharge [Page 30]of the Works, Rents, and other Charges occasioned by the said Indraught; but those scots are granted and pro­portioned by a Decree distinct from the other Decrees, and without any such Preface of full and free consent, &c. And Sir Thomas Culpeper who was party to, and present at the making of that Decree, declared (as before is set forth) what full and free consent was given thereunto by the Owners of the drowned lands; And your Lordships may further take notice, That the proportion of scotting was before that time, reduced to twelve pence and four pence, by Decree of Sewers made the 5th of September, 1633. wherein there are not any words of full and free consent, nor is it pretended by the Animadverter, that there are any such: And further, that of nine Commissi­oners who signed that Decree of 1637, onely one of them (and he was wholly ignorant of the said Decree of 1627.) had any Interest in the drowned lands, other then such who had likewise such interest in the sommer lands, as those disproportions were for their advantage; That the Decree of the 5th of September, 1633. was signed by ten Commissioners, of whom one onely had such interest in the drowned lands, as rendered those disproportions to his disadvantage; That of eight Commissioners who signed the Decree of June the 4th 1639. there was not any one of them but had a benefit by those disproporti­ons, and six of them were not at all interessed in the drowned lands; And that of twelve Commissioners, who signed the Decree of June the 4th 1640. there were onely three that had any Interest in the drowned lands, of whom Mr. Gibbon and my Self, were two, (neither of us then having any knowledge of the Decree of March, 1627.) the third was the late Lord Culpeper, who I beleeve was then likewise ignorant of that Decree; nor can the Ani­madverter [Page 31]make it appear that he knew thereof; but howsoever, his Interest in the sommer-lands was such, as that those disproportions redownded to his Lordships benefit. Neither can I find upon perusal of the Decrees, That at any Session of Sewers holden for the said Levels, from, 1632. till 1645. there were ever three Commissi­ons present, who had not such Interest in the sommer-lands, (if Owners) but that those disproportions accru­ed to their profit, the Owners of the sommer-lands had so wisely provided for their Interest at the renewing of that Commission, which for your Lordships satisfacti­on therein, will fully appear to your Lordships, by perusing the Commissioners names, impowred by the Commission of those times which I have hereunto an­nexed, most of whom with their Interests and Relations, are well known to your Lordships, viz.

• Thomas Lord Coventry, L. Keeper, &c.
• Philip Earl of Pemb. & Mountgom, &c.
• Theophilus Earl of Suss. Warden, &c.
• Edward Earl of Dorset, Chamb. &c.
• Robert Earl of Leicester
• Mildmay Earl of Westmorland
• Thomas Earl of Winchelsea
• John Earl of Thannet
• Henry Lord Abergavenay
• Francis Lord Deere
• Sir Henry Vane, Knight, Treasu. &c.
• Sir Joh. Finch, Knight, Chief Just. &c.
• Sir Edward Henden, Knight, one of the Barons, &c.
• Sir George Fane, Knight
• Sir Thomas Pelham, Baronet
• Sir John Shelley, Knight and Baronet
• Sir John Baker, Baronet.
• Sir Henry Sedley, Baronet
• Kn ^ts and Baronets
  • Sir Rog. Twisden
  • Sir Edward Hales
  • Sir Walter Roberts
  • Sir Joh. Sidley of Wroatham
  • Sir Edw. Deering
• Sir Michael Livesey, Baronet
• Sir Thomas Peirs, Baronet
• Sir Ralph Whitfield, Knight, one of the Kings Serjeants at Law
• Sir Geo. Saadis, Knight of the Bathe
• Sir Henry Guilford
• Sir Francis Barnham
• Sir Thomas Hendly
• Sir Peter Hayman
• Sir Alexander Culpeper of Sedgbury
• Sir Humphry Tufion
• Sir Robert Darrell.
• Sir Thomas Parker
• Sir Robert Filmer
• Sir John Honywood
• Sir Thomas Culpeper
• Sir Thomas Springate
• Sir John Culpeper.
• Sir John Hales
• Sir Robert Honywood
• Sir Anthony St. Leger
• Sir Robert Honywood younger
• Sir Cheney Culpeper, Knight
• Sir Robert Foster, Serjeant at Law
• [Page 32]The Dean of Canterbury for the time being
• Samuel Short
• Thomas Covert
• John Mun
• Robert Burnham
• Anthony St. Leger
• William Clarke
• Robert Wildigos
• Edward Chute
• Norton Knachbull
• Lawrence Ashburnham
• William Cage
• Ralph Freak
• John Henden
• William Boys
• Edward Partheridge
• Thomas Fludd
• John Fag
• John Thetcher
• John Alford
• John Argall
• Richard Porter
• Robert Moyle
• Nicholas Toke
• Henry Crisp
• John Theobald
• Nicholas St. Iohn
• Thomas Dike
• Martin Shepherd
• William Culpeper
• Thomas Godfrey
• William White
• Thankfull Frewen
• George Curtis, Esquires
• Q. The Mayors of Rye, Winchelsea, and Tenterden, for the time being
• Thomas Short
• Robert Curtis
• Edmund Gibbon
• Joseph Butcher
• Richard Donnton
• Edward Finch
• Shemaiah Setherst
• Nicholas Knight
• John Meers
• Edward Masters of Woodchurch
• Thomas Scot
• John Fowle
• Nathaniel Powell
• Richard Coberham
• Robert Bindlos, Gentlemen
• Q. The Expenditor of Romney Marsh.
• Q. The Expenditor of the five Wa­terings
• Q. The Bayliffs and Expenditor of Walland Marsh

Out of which number the Animadverter, fol. 44. hath selected 26 Commissioners, whom he conceived (but of a false conception) were for the Interest of the drowned lands, viz.

• Nicholas late E. of Thanet.
• John Lord Tufton.
• Sir John Shelley.
• Sir Walter Roberts.
• Sir John Wildegoss.
• Sir Ralph Bosvile.
• Sir Ale. Culpeper.
• Sir John Fowle.
• Sir Iohn Culpeper.
• William Shelley.
• Robert Foster.
• Iohn Culpeper.
• Edward Bromfield
• William Boys.
• Thomas Dike.
• William Culpeper.
• Ralph Bufkin.
• Thomas Sands.
• Richard Porter.
• Peter Courthope.
• [Page 33] William White.
• Thankfull Frewen.
• Edmond Gibbon.
• Richard Downton.
• William Muddle.
• Ioseph Benbridge.

In Answer whereunto, I must acquaint your Lord­ships, That Nicholas Earl of Thanet, and Thomas Dike, Esquire, were dead before this Commission issued, which ushered in the great oppression which after fell upon the Owners of the drowned lands; That Sir Ralph Bosvile, and Richard Porter, were wholly interessed in the som­mer-lands; That Sir Iohn Fowle, and Sir Iohn Culpeper, had such Interest in the sommer-lands, as that it was for their advantage to reduce the scots unto the dispro­portions of twelve pence and four pence; That fourteen of those 26 Commissioners, had not then any lands in the said Level, and may not be said to be more for the interest of the drowned lands, then sommer-lands; And that it cannot be made to appear, that at any one time, during the continuance of that Commission, there ap­peared at any Session of Sewers, more then three Com­missioners of such Interest in the drowned lands, as ren­dered those disproportions prejudicial unto them. And now do your Lordships judge, whether the scots were in the yeer 1633. reduced to twelve pence per Acre drown­ed lands, and four pence per Acre sommer-lands, by the full and free consent of the Owners of the drowned lands, or by the Power and Influence which the Owners of the sommer-lands had in that Commission. And I desire your Lordships to observe, How that the Animadver­ter doth often affirm, That the scots were reduced to those disproportions, by the full and free consent of the Owners of the drowned lands, and as often, That it was in pursuance of the pretended previous Agreement. Of which Agreement it seems the Grand-children have bet­ter [Page 34]knowledge then their Grandfathers had, whom they pretend to be parties thereunto. From whose example the present Owners of the sommer-lands, have for seve­ral years past, (as is well known to your Lordships) in­deavoured to procure a Commission for the said Levels, with the like advantages. From what hath been declared, your Lordships may Collect what full and free consent there was of the Owners of the drowned lands, for altera­tion of the manner of scotting, so solemnly setled in 1627. by Award, Consent, and Decree of Sewers, and which continued till the yeer 1633. and by the express words and intendment of that Decree, (which is set down in my remonstrance, fol. 26.) was to be continued for all future works.

Which notwithstanding, the Animadverter, fol. 35. with great confidence affirms, That the four learned Lawers, who made that Award did not intend that the same should always remain in full force for the equality of scots, in case the Commissioners, as well for the drowned lands as sommer-lands, upon new undertakings without the limits of their own Commission, should agree amongst themselves, and upon that occasion settle other and more equal (though different) proportions ac­cording to the advantage that the drowned lands and som­mer-lands respectively, should have by these works; And also notwithstanding a set meeting of Commissio­ners for Romney Marsh, Walland Marsh, Wittersham Le­vel, and the Upper Levels at Ashford, September the 18th 1629. and of some of them at several other times to consult and agree, At what proportion the new works then proposed to be done in Wittersham, should be paid and borne, and Agreements thereupon made accord­ingly.

To which I answer, That the Animadverter hath sup­posed a Case (when there was never any such) and then takes it for granted; and hath in the same manner pro­ceeded in most of his Arguments set down in his Ani­madversions, which your Lordships will easily discover on your considerate perusal of them, though my time nor occasions will not permit me to delineate them to your Lordships. And I further answer, That neither by the Articles with Wittersham Level, nor at the meeting of the Commissioners for Romney Marsh, Walland Marsh, &c. in September, 1629. nor at any other time was it pro­pounded, much less agreed, at what Rates and Propor­tions the Upper Levels should be taxed or scotted for the Works and Indraught in Wittersham Level; Nor was the same the business of any of those meetings, which were only to consider in what manner the intended works were to be proceeded in, and what contribution Romney Marsh and Walland Marsh, should pay towards the same, which were agreed upon accordingly: Nor doth the Animadverter make it appear by the Preamble of any Decree, or by any other writing, or by any discourse or conference, That any Owner of the drowned lands, not interessed in the sommer-lands, who knew of the said Decree of the 11th of March, ever assented, (which is the Agreement controverted, and which the Animad­verter would Incognito croud into other Agreements, whereunto this hath no reference) much less formally a­greed to for himself, and others of the same interest, That for the Works and Indraught in Wittersham Level, the scots should be again reduced to the former dispropor­tions of twelve pence and four pence: Nor that the same was otherwise effected, then by such advantage of Com­missioners, and other meanes before herein declared.

And I further answer, That no man can beleeve that the four learned Lawyers who made that Award, or the Commissioners who Decreed the same, intended that such equality of scots should extend only to the works then in being, if he consider that the matters in diffe­rence between the Owners of the drowned lands and sommer-lands being referred unto them, they did upon hearing both parties, draw up the Case with the Queries arising from the same, whereunto both Parties assented; one of those Queries being thus, viz. If the Indraught in Woodruff be left off and not used, and other new works of Recovery and Preservation undertaken, how and by what Rates the Rent shall be paid, and the charge of such Works, borne hereafter by the Decrees aforesaid? There­upon an Award was made, and Decreed by several Com­missioners interessed in the sommer-lands, That all scots to be granted for all Works thereafter to be done, should be granted and paid equally, as well for the sommer-lands, as drowned lands.

And further, That there were then no works on foot, (as the Animadverter doth acknowledge in his Epistle Dedicatory, and elsewhere) which either did or could be pretended to drain the drowned lands, or better their condition, and then for them to Award and Decree, That those lands which were not yearly worth one peny the Acre, should be scotted at twelve pence per Acre to every scot, for such works only as tended to the preser­vation of the sommer-lands (worth twenty shillings per Acre) had been contrary to all Equity and common Reason, if it had not been then intended, that if there should then after any works be undertaken, as well for the recovery of the drowned lands, as preservation of the sommer-lands, that they should both join in an equal [Page 37]rate of scots, according to the said Award and Decree thereupon made, and with the full and free consent of the Owners of the sommer-lands. And thus much Sir Thomas Culpeper, the Animadverters Grandfather, not many weeks before he died, attested under his hand, who being a Party that submitted unto that Award, and joy­ned in the Decree for Confirmation thereof, could not but know the intent and scope thereof much better then his Grandson, the Animadverter. And the Animad­verter further informs your Lordships, of the good Na­tures of the Owners of the drowned lands; who not­withstanding that they then made it appear, that they would have preserved themselves at far easier rates then they had done since their conjunction with the drowned lands, yet they condescended to pay towards those re­maining works, equally Acre for Acre with the drowned lands, and so continued to do till 1633. Of their good Natures therein, I leave to the Judgement of your Lord­ships abundant Charity, upon consideration of the Pre­mises; but I desire your Lordships to take notice, that the Animadverter doth not at all declare or mention by what ways or means the same was feazable; and that Sir Thomas Culpeper, who was then upon the Place, tells your Lordships, that indifferent men can hardly be per­swaded without a Mathematical Demonstration, that those decaying lands could have found a cheaper way to preserve and secure themselves, then by joyning with the other Levels.

As to that part of the Animadverters Objection, That the Works and Indraught in Wittersham Level, are out of the limits of the Commission for the Upper Levels, and concerned Romney Marsh and Walland Marsh, as well as the Upper Levels, and therefore not intended by the [Page 38]Award and Decree thereupon made to be borne at an equal rate of scots.

I further Answer, That the Works and Indraught then being at Woodruff, were likewise out of the Com­mission for the Upper Levels, viz. In Walland Marsh, and did concern the Sewers of Romney Marsh and Walland Marsh, as the Works and Indraught in Wittersham now do; and therefore it could not otherwise be intended, but that the Charge thereof was to be borne at an equal rate of scots.

As to that scandalous aspersion which the Animadver­ter fol. 65. hath cast upon the Commissioners and Jurors in 1644. I answer, That not any one of these Jurors was at such time as he was impanelled, Owner of any lands within the limits of the Commission, as they then severally affirmed upon examination before the Com­missioners, and as then appeared by the Scot-book for that year then produced for better discovery thereof; but upon what Grounds or Mistakes some persons joyn­ed in that Petition (as Captain Kedwell, and others) who were neither Owners nor Farmers of any of the lands therein mentioned, I know not.

And as to that other malicious Insinuation, touching the Clark of the Sewers, and the defacing and withdrawing of Records, I answer; That if any such have been, the Animadverter if he know thereof, ought to prosecute the Offenders: I know some Records are missing, which made against the Interest of the sommer-lands (if produ­ced) which I could never see or procure; and that the present Clerk, who was sometime my menial servant, was chosen Clerk but in 1652. and the proceedings whereat the Animadverter takes most offence, were seve­ral yeers before, when Mr. William Powell, a well-wisher [Page 39]to the sommer-lands, being Farmer unto a considerable part thereof, and Tenant unto Sir Edward Hales, was Clerk of the Sewers.

My Lords,

I have neither time or opportunity to make particu­lar Answers to the many malicious Surmises and Ca­lumnies, cast upon S. N. P. by the Animadverter, in every page of those Animadversions, who the better to blast and invalidate whatever should be by him produced or urged, doth not take notice of his Grandfather, or any of his Reasons or Arguments, who was an Actor in all those transactions which passed at such time when I was wholly a stranger to those Levels, and often decla­red them, with the Grounds and Reasons of them, but with oblique reflexions insinuates them as my Fancies and Constructions, grounded only upon ipse dixit. I desire your Lordships to call to mind, That Sir Thomas Culpeper, who was the Dean and Chapters Tenant to the High-lands in Appledore about fourty yeers, and knew best what benefit and security those lands had received and enjoyed by those works, did joyn (with other Com­missioners) in several Decrees, whereby those lands are scotted to the Works and Indraught in Wittersham Level.

My Lords,

I have hereunto annexed the late presentment of the Jurors at Tenterden, with the Decrees thereupon made, and some Observations upon both, which I refer to your Lordships consideration.

My Lords,

If those Jurors had taken a view of the lands in Sherley Moor, Redhill and Appledore, (howbeit there fell much rain about that time) they would have found them to be welsewing lands; and that all the sommer-lands in Sher­ley Moor and elsewhere, other then part of Ebony Level, (which have fall enough into the Channel to do the same) issue their waters, together with the drowned lands, through the Indraught in Wittersham Level, and then I presume would not (upon mature deliberation) have found any reason why the late sommer-lands should be scotted for their preservation, but at one third part with the late drowned lands, unto the said Works and In­draught, whereby they equally enjoy preservation, the sommer-lands being of equal yeerly value with the best of the drowned lands, and of much more, then a conside­rable part of them.

And they might likewise then have seen, That the High-lands in Sherley Moor, Redhill, and Appledore, issue their waters between Redding Gutt and Keet Gutt, one of them lying on the East, the other on the West of them, viz. above and belove them, upon the same Channel, and must have benefit of sewer, as those lands have which sew their waters through Redding and Keet Gutts, and con­tribute to the charge of the said Works and Indraught, for the benefit they receive thereby; and then I presume, that they would not have presented, That it did not ap­pear unto them, that the High-lands in Sherley Moor, Redhill, and Appledore, (issuing their waters between Red­ding [Page 47]and Keet Gutts as aforesaid) received any benefit by the said Works and Indraught, much less have present­ed (upon mature deliberation) that those lands ought not to be scotted unto the said Works and Indraught, for that it appears unto them, that they receive no benefit thereby, especially when it after appears in the fourth Clause of their presentment, That the maintaining of the Outfall into the old Channel, is necessary for the well sewing of those High-lands.

And further, had those Jurors been conversant or acquainted with matters of Sewers, they could not upon mature deliberation have presented, That for repair of the Sluce at Thorney Wall, and cleansing the slub out of the Channel there, that all the lands, drowned lands and sommer-lands, conteining about 5000 Acres, and the 1000 Acres of High-lands, shall be equally scotted to the Charge thereof, when as it appeared unto them up­on their View, and is apparent to every eye upon the Place, that no part of the drowned lands, nor the twen­tieth part of the sommer-lands, sew any of their waters by that Sluce or Channel; and therefore by the Law and Rule of Sewers, are not to be scotted thereunto; or had they well understood what operations and effects Groyns and Obstructions make in a salt Channel, they would not have presented, That the decay of that Sluce, was the cause that the slubb swerved the Channel, but would have presented, That the Groyns, Bridges, and Obstructions made in the Channel, had caused the same, and that it were fit to have them removed.

That those Groynes and Obstructions, have caused the Channel to swerve, hath appeared upon several Views of the Commissioners,. And it is further mani­fested by several Decrees (which are hereunto annexed) [Page 48]made by Commissioners, most of them being interessed in the sommer-lands; and had been removed, if the li­mits of Walland Marsh had not been unduly inlarged to Oxney Ferry, (which prevented the same) As your Lord­ships may well remember.

My Lords,

I beleeve those Jurors to be men of integrity, and such as will not act contrary to their Consciences; But they are men, and may erre in their Judgements through miss-Conusance or miss-Information, therefore I hope it may be said without offence, that there are errours in their Presentments.

As to the Decrees which are made according to those Presentments, I shall not mention them, for that your Lordships may judge of them by what hath been already declared; Only your Lordships may take notice, That the Commissioners have not only charged all those lands for cleansing the said Channel as is presented, but have further charged them towards the mending and arming the Walls in Stone and Appledore Levels, which were at first made, and have ever since been maintained, as all the other Walls of the Upper Levels are, at the parti­cular Charge of the respective Owners.

My Lords,

I have quitted my Interest in the Levels, and have ta­ken this trouble upon me for Vindication of the Truth, and to beget a right Understanding of the Matters in Difference, in the Parties concerned, that Peace and Uni­ty may ensue thereupon, which is the Chief aim of,