ONe Edward Bullock in No­vember, 1650. exhibited his Petition to the Parliament of England, setting forth, that one Thomas Bullock his Ʋnkle, had Morgaged the Mannors of Arberfeld, and Barkham in the County of Berks, unto one Edmund Standen for 4000l. with Power of Re­demption: And that by corrupt, and foule Practices between the said Edmund Standen, and the Lord Keeper Egerton, the said Morgage was Ratified, on the be­halfe of the said Edmond Standen, with­out Paying any farther consideration for the said Mannors: And Prayed that [Page 2]the whole Proceedings touching the said unjust Decree, And the corrupt Pratices in obtaining thereof, might be Referred to a Committee to Examine.

VVhereupon the Parliament by their Order, the 7. of November 1650. did refer the said Petition unto the Ho­nourable Committee for Indempnity, to Examine with Power to send for Persons, Papers, and Records, and to consider the length of Time, and how far forth the mat­ter was fit for Reliefe, and to give their Opinions therein, and report it unto the House.

At the Hearing of the said cause be­fore the said Committee, on Thursday the 20 of Macch, 1650. the said Edward Bullock made no Proofe at all either of any Morgage, or corrupt Decree upon any Bill for Redemption, much lesse made he any shew of Proofe or Cor­ruption in obtaining the same Decree; [Page 3]The Councell of the said Edward then ingeniously confessing, that they had mistaken their case in the said Petition, and did then insist upon a pretended Title at Law, by vertue of a certaine Conveyance, made by the said Thomas Bullock, before the Sale of the said Lands, made unto the aforesaid Edmund Standen; And also pretending that the said Lands were undersold; although the said Petitioner, and his Councell very well knew, as it was then by Councell made appeare, on the behalf of Standen the Defendant, that the said Precedent conveyance, was adjudged fraudulent, and within the Relief of the Statute of 29. Eliz. (as being made with Power of Revocation, and with full intent to defraud any Purchaser from him the said Thomas Bullock; as by severall De­crees exemplified under the Great Seale it doth, and may appeare) and it was so [Page 4]Resolved by the Judges of England upon solemne Debate, and remaineth so reported in Sir Edward Cook his third Book, in Twines case (Standen and Bul­lock) and great reason there was, for the Judges gave Resolution on the case mentioned; for he, or they who make a ‘Deed of Conveyance for Lands with pow­er of Revocation, doe when they Bar­gaine, and sell such Lands Implicitely, though not Explicitely revoke such for­mer Act and Deed; in regard the vertue of a Precedent Revocable Act, is deter­minable by the vertue of a subsequent Absolute Act.’ Now let any indifferent Rationall man judge whether the said Edward Bullock, were not most Impu­dent to set forth in his Petition a Mor­gage, and corrupt Decree, and afterwards to plead a Pretended fraudulent Title, and that after threescore years, and up­wards? But Bullock suggested the mat­ter [Page 5]of Morgage, and corrupt Decree in his Petition, craftily knowing or belie­ving, that otherwaies his Petition would not have been Read, and Referred by the Parliament: however of what ill consequence it may prove, that any should be permitted to venture so au­daciously to abuse the Parliament with matter of untruth, I submit it unto their Grave censures; as also whether it be consonant to Religion, or Reason, that the Lord Keeper Egerton should be scandalized with corrupt and foule practi­ces, to the Dishonour of his Family, and posterity; & that Owners, & Proprietors of Lands should be damnified, or mo­lested by false and clamorous Petitions.

At the Hearing aforesaid, Standen the Defendant made it appeare before the said Committee, that Thomas Bul­lock in the Petition mentioned had sold the said Mannors, and Lands outright [Page 6]unto Edmund Standen, Esq. for 4000l. by Deed of Bargaine and Sale acknow­ledged, and Enrolled the 12. day of June, in the 31. yeare of Q. Elizabeth, with Fines, and Recoveries, and release of Interest with warranty;It was made appeare at the Hearing, by Bill, and An­swer, Exem­plified under the Great Seale of Queene Eli­zabeth, That Bullock did ac­knowledge Ed­mund Standen to have beene the best Chapman he could meet with­all, upon valua­able considerati­on for the said Lands. Also that the said Thomas Bullock had a Deed of De­feasance of the Mannors, and Lands set forth in the Petition, for, and during the Tearm of his naturall life, yeelding, and paying unto the aforesaid Edmund Standen, his Heires or Assignes, but 150l. yearely; also that the wife of the said Thomas had Right, and did for Di­vers years enjoy Right of Dower; more­over that four Leases at the time of the sale of the aforesaid Mannors, and Lands, were in being upon underva­lue. Bullock the Petitioner, at the said Hearing, by certaine Depositions taken in the Country, since the exhibiting of his Petition (most of the Deponents [Page 7]☞ being of his owne Kinred, or name) made appeare onely Heresayes, as that such an one had heard say, that the Mannors and Lands were Morgaged by Thomas Bullock aforesaid, unto the aforesaid Edmund Standen; that such, and such had heard say, that the Lands were worth 800l. per ann. yearly Rent; that they had heard say, that the woods were worth, sayes one 7. another 8. a­nother 9000l. for not any two of them agree in any one thing of their Heare­sayes, as by the said Depositions it doth and may appeare. Now whether De­positions ☞ of heare-sayes, ought to be Balanced with Deeds, and Records, I leave it to the judgement of All truly Rationall, and understanding men.

However; I have here inserted a true Copy taken out of the Booke of the Clerk of the Honourable Committee for Indempnity, by which may ap­peare [Page 8]the Resolutions, and Results of that Committee touching Bullocks Petition, &c.

After this Hearing, and the Resolu­tions and Orders of the aforesaid Com­mittee; the Petitioner Bullock, and his Complices did for a while acquiesse; But being of turbulent spirits, he and they move the said Committee (con­sisting notwithstanding of different [Page 9]Persons, as often it did) that the Re­port depending might be examined, and presented to the Committee, &c. Albeit on their parts, there was no matter of fact upon Evidence to be drawne up, but onely matter of Hearesayes by Deposi­tions, the matter of fact upon the Evi­dence of Deeds, and Records being only made appeare by Standen the Defen­dant: yet the Committee for Indem­nity then sitting, thought fit (as it seemes) to adde some other Gentlemen to the former, to Examine the Case, when it is drawne up to be Reported, and Present it, &c. whereupon two of those Gen­tlemen issued forth a Summons, in these words following; viz.

Two Gentlemen added, as aforesaid, sat according to the Summons; And after some rather talking, then Argu­ments used by both Parties, viz. the Petitioner and Defendant by their Councell, the Report was by those Gentlemen (who were present at that time called for to be read, and exami­ned; The Report had beene drawne up onely by the Clerk of the Honourable Committee for Indemnity, who either by mistake or by compliance, inserted the Hearesayes taken in the Depositions on Bullock the Petitioners behalse, (touch­ing the valews of the aforesaid Lands, and woods) as matter of fact upon Evi­dence; which thing was different from the Order of the Committee, which saith, that the rest of the mat­ter [Page 11]☞ of fact upon the Evidence be drawn up, and Reported unto the House: The Order saith not; That the rest of the matter of Heare­sayes upon the Evidence be drawn up, and reported to the House, certainly there is great difference between matter of Fact, and mat­ter of Hearesayes: Moreover the aforesaid Clerk had omitted di­vers things, either of purpose, or neglect which ought to have been inserted on the behalf of the De­fendant; and said, when it was ac­cordingly urged by the Defen­dants Councell, that he desired to compare the Report with his Book; It is an hard and unheard of matter, that a Clerks Book should be in Nature of a Record, or warranty for matter of Title, &c. The Gentlemen of the Commit­tee, or sub-Committee aforesaid, perceiving that the matter would require some debate, and time, adjourned; And soone after the Committee for Indempnity, was [Page 12]dissolved by Vote of Parliament.

This is a true Narrative of the late Petitioner Bullock his procee­dings, who in his Petition set Forth only a Morgage and Corrupt De­cree; But at the Hearing he insist­ed upon a Title, adjudged Fraudu­lent, and Null by all the Iudges of the Land, & in almost all the Courts of Iudicature in Westminster (in which William Bullock the Petiti­oners Father became most notori­ously vexatious to Ed: Standen the Purchaser, and to William Standen his Son, by forgery, subornation of witnesses, Riots, and such like Pra­tices, which for their Infamy, and in jury, can hardly be parallel'd in many Ages, as by severall Records, & exemplifications under the Great Seales of Q. Eliz. and K. James, it doth and may appeare) and lastly at the hearing, or Auditing of the [Page 13]Report, the Petitioner did insist upon the valews of the Lands in the Petition mentioned according to some Depositions of Hear-sayes of his owne Kinred, and name, lately taken; whereas the contrary (if Requisite) can be made appear; viz. That the Mannors, & Lands in that Petition mentioned are not worth above 600l. per an. after above 60. years emprovement; and if the said Lands were wel wooded, then were they of the lesse yearly Pro­fit; However they that shall con­sider that Bullock had, and enjoy­ed a Defeasance of the Mannors, and Lands for his naturall life, (who might by course of yeares have lived a long time) that his wife had and enjoyed Right of Dower for a long continuance; that four Leases were in being up­on undervalew, as aforesaid, That [Page 14]the said Lands were situate, and being in the Forest of Windsor, may indiffe­rently conclude that 4000l. was in the 31. Eliz. a valuable consideration. Ad­mitting notwithstanding, that the Lands were worth more; if all that have pur­chased Lands at an undervalue, should by such devices, as these of Bullock, be molested and troubled; not any free­borne Person of this Land can be se­cure of his Estate. For as much as the Mannors and Lands in the Petition mentioned are claimed, and held by, from, and under me (the Authour hereof) during the terme of my natu­rall life (being Cozen, and heire of William Standen late of Arberfeld, Esq. Deceased) as by Deeds, and Records it doth, and may appeare; I have there­fore Published this Narrative, to un­deceive all, and such whom this may any way concerne.