THe Author of a late Printed Paper intituled, A short, and true Vindication by Edward Bullock, &c. Pag. 1. chargeth me with indirect practises in the matter in Question; and then in a Marginall Note saith,, I call them indirect, because I conceive it not warrantable for any to publish the proceedings of a Parliament-Committee, be­fore they have done it, or without their Order: By Bullocks favour, I know no Law, nor Order that prohibiteth the publishing of a Committee of Parliament their pro­ceedings without their Order; but rather thinke it rea­sonable, that their proceedings be published to manifest their Justice, Equity, and integrity to the world, or the contrary if otherwise; besides the then Committee for Indempnity had done, as to the substance of Bullocks Pe­tition; they having voted that there was no Morgage, [Page 2]nor corrupt Decree as was complained of; Moreover the said Committee was by Vote of Parliament dis­solved, when I published the proceedings mentioned; And in the late Act for Transferring the Powers of the Committees for Indempnity, there is not one clause or sillable inserted, which transferreth any farther Hearing or Reporting of Bullocks Petition; albeit (as I have been cre­dibly informed) it was urged at what time the said Act was passed; And certainly Bullocks Petition, being by speciall Order of Parliament Referred to the Committee for Indempnity, ☞ Unlesse it had been expresly comprehended in the late Act for Indempni­ty. cannot but by speciall Order of the Parliament be pursued by any other Power, or Per­sons.

In the second Page, Bullock saith, that as to the abbre­viation of the Petition, it's indifferent just, and much of truth in it, but as to the Order he hath most grossely, and fallaciously mis-rejected it. Truly I abbreviated the Or­der, even as the Petition, but neither grossely, nor falla­ciously on Bullocks part (as he impudently alleadgeth) but rather on the Defendants part if defective: I shall first instance mine owne abreviation, and then discusse that instanced by Bullock, on the which he so much in­sisteth.

My Abbreviation is thus,

Whereupon (in Relation unto the Petition) the Par­liament by their Order the 7. of November, 1650. did referre the said Petition unto the Honorable Committee for Indemnity, to Examine, with power to send for Persons, Papers, and Records, and to consider the length of time, and how farre forth the matter was fit for Reliefe, and to give their Opinions therein, and report it to the House.

[Page 3]Bullock hath it thus Printed,

[Page 4]Thus have I according to Bullocks Printed Paper inserted the Parliaments Order (not differing in sub­stance from mine owne abbreviation) and have Com­mented thereupon (according to Law, Equity, and Rea­son, as I take it) that Bullock may not by mistake con­strue the Order of the Parliament of Old England ac­cording to his New England sense; for although Bullock hath in the Prayer of his Petition requested more, then he complaineth of in the Petition it selfe (as if the Ad­jective were of more validity than the Substantive) yet we know that our Parliament understands Logick so well, as to know Relatum, & Correlatum, that an Order in Relation to a Petition should not, nor ought not to be wrested or interpreted beyond it.

In the same Page Bullock sayes; But the Authour, to put the better vizard upon his cause (which (as he sayes) he is unwilling should come before upright, and impartiall Iudges) leaves out the most materiall Parts of the Order, which you finde in the Parenthesis, and in the latter end sayes, And to give their opinion therein; as if he would by that expression insinnate a beliefe in the Readers, that the Committee had a power of determining the cause: in the first place I have put no vizard upon my cause which needeth None, nor am I unwilling that it should come before upright, and unpartiall Judges, although I should be unwilling that it should come before any Partiall, or pr [...]-affected Judges; for the materiall parts of the Order (which he calls so) I have interpreted them already; but Bullock ought to Reflect on the materiall Parts of his Petition, (viz. a morgage, and corrupt Decree) to the which the Order hath Relation, and then he would finde the whole Order to be alike materiall; whereas he sayes, [Page 5]that I by the words [And to give their opinions therein] would insinuate a belief in the Readers) that the Com­mittee had a Power of determining the cause, he is greatly mistaken, for I have said in my abbreviation, and to give their Opinions therein, and report to the House.

In the 3. Page Bullock sayes, that the Depositions (con­sidering the length of time, &c.) are taken from the mouths of such witnesses, against whom there is no just exception, and do prove the most part of my complaint fully; to which I answer (as formerly in my Narrative) that the Depo­sitions are but matters of Hear-sayes, excepting those of one Allnut, who by his owne affirmation could not be above 6. or 7. yeares old at the time of the Bargain, and sale of the Lands to Standen the Purchasor, and yet that fellow (having been an under-Sergeant or waiter at one of the Counters London) hath audaciously sworn Positively to his knowledge, Yea and hath gone so farre as to sweare a Negative; also that man and most of the Deponents are, or call themselves Bullock the Peti­tioners Kinred (most of them being also of his name) they are for the most part very meane, and inconsi­derable Persons, One (if not more) of them a Cottager; also that the Depositions were unduely taken in the Country; for first, the Committee were impowred onely to send for Persons, Papers and Records; not to send downe Commissions into the Country, And those Gentlemen must give me leave to tell them, that a Parliament-Committee ought not to exceed a tittle of their Order, or Power given unto them,☞ for that were to exercise an Arbitrary Power, ad Placitum, which not any but the Parliament it selfe assembled (not Par­liament-men [Page 6]in a Committee) can doe: [...]r can the [...]liament me­ [...]d Placitum [...]rcise an Ar­ [...]ary Power, [...] with cause [...]sonably ma­ [...]ested, &c. I have in my [...]ok De consti­ [...]e Pop [...]l [...] li­ [...]i instanced. Moreover Fleet Bullock the Petitioners Brother having a Com­mission into the Country, vapoured exceedingly in the presence of the Deponents, and others; saying, and giving out, That they were sure of the Lands, and that then they would be Courteous Neighbours, &c. that they had many Parliament-men their Friends; by which meanes, and by their Invitations, and Feastings they allured many of their Deponents, to whom also they gave 2. s. 6, d. or more for their paines, as can be pro­ved. But admitting the Depositions were as full as Bullock alledgeth, [...]ave instan­ [...] all this for­ [...]rly in my [...]rrative. shall Depositions of Hear-sayes be bal­lanced with an absolute Deed of bargaine and sale enrol­led; with fines, and recoveries exemplified under the great Seale; with a Release of Interest with warranty for Standen, and his Heires for ever? certainly that were against all Law and Reason.

In the same Page, Bullock to colour his pretence of a morgage in his Petition mentioned, saith, that, in the Deed the Estate is claimed by, is not onely granted the Estate in particular, but likewise all the Estate whatsoever within the Realme of England, which should, or ought of right to descend to my Uncle, &c. But what of this? if his Uncle (whom he calls the pretended vendor) would sell all his Estate in England, might not Standen pur­chase, and obteine as much as he could for his money? is there any law, or custome to the contrary? sure I am that all understanding Lawyers will affirme that such Generall Tearmes may be sufficient in a Deed of Purchase; however my selfe and my Kinsman hold no more Lands which were his Uncles, then what are mentioned in Bullocks Petition, lying in the forrest of Windsor, and Division thereof.

[Page 7]In the Page aforesaid; Bullock saith; that it cannot be expected he should make out Corruption in a Iudge Dead (after so many yeares, and not being a party to the cause) so fully as if done but yesterday; by his leave, or ra­ther audaciousnesse, the L. Keeper Egerton was never accompted a corrupt Judge, nor any way blemished with corruption; certainely had it been so in Bullocks case, some of the succeeding Keepers, upon complaint would have Redressed it: But Bullock seemeth to lay an aspertion upon the L. Keeper Egerton, in that he passed a Decree in behalfe of Standen, which he prayed not for (as saith Bullock) for my part I have not perused the De­cree; but admitting what Bullock alledgeth to be true, the L. Keeper might well doe it, for Thomas Bullock had made a fraudulent conveyance Dated, 2. of Ianuary 28.☞ of Eliz. (at this day to be seene) by which he en­deavoured not onely to defraud any Purchasor, or Pur­chesors; but also the Queen her selfe, her Heires, and Successors, of Escheates in case of Treason; as by the said Deed it doth, and may appeare; in regard of all which the L. Keeper might well Damme, and Decree against such Deed or Deeds, allbeit not prayed for; yet did not L. Keeper Egerton Decree it by himslfe, but by, and with the assistance of the Judges of either Bench, as by the Decree it doth appeare; and yet (by Bullocks acknowledgement, Pag. 4.) the L. Keeper left his Father to the Common Law to try his Title; which sheweth no morgage: in the same Pag. Bullock saith; That the L. Keeper being Iudge in the Star-Chamber (a just sentenced Court for its Corruption, and oppression) the said Standen preferred his Bill there against my Father, and had those Deedes (I offered at the Hearing, which were [Page 8]allowed then by the now Defendants Councell) Damned, and cancelled, and adjudged fraudulent by Reason of the Pretended Power of Revocation. To all which I answer; That the L. Keeper was (I believe) Judge in the Starr-chamber, as usually the L. Keepers were; That that Court might be justly sentenced for Rigorous oppression rather then for corruption; However it was in those ‘Dayes The Court to punish Forgery, Perjury, subor­nation of witnesses, of all which Bullocks Father was guilty as by Records Exemplified under the Great seales of Queen Elizabeth, and King Iames it may ap­peare, as in my Narrative I have set forth; so that Bullock was Justly sentenced in that Court for his unjust, and enormious Practices.’ He saith there that his Fathers Deeds were Damned, and cancelled, and ad­judged fraudulent by Reason of the Pretended Power of Revocation; To this impudent Assertion I answer, ‘That the Deed by which Bullock would claime, is at this day uncancelled, Dated 2. of Ian. 28. Eliz. (as aforesaid) comprehending a foregoing Deed made to Edward Combes Dated the 22. of December before; that the forementioned Deed is signed Thomas Bullock, William Kingsmell, Edward Combes before named; That it hath an absolute and expresse clause of Revoca­tion to all uses, intents, and purposes whatsoever. To the only use of Thomas Bullock (the vendor) and to his Heirs for evermore;’ as by the said Deed it doth, and may appeare; so that Thomas Bullock had thereby full pow­er to sell his Lands, as other men have, who hold Lands to themselves and their Heirs for ever: Moreover Thomas Bullock did actually Revoke this forementioned Deed, the 3. of Iune in the 31. of Eliz. before six suffi­cient [Page 9]witnesses, One of them being a Master of Chan­cery; another one of the six Clerks; a third Clerk of the Petty-Bagg; all of them Esquires, as can be made appeare. Bullock sayes, those Deeds were offered and allowed at the Hearing, which is most false; for his Councell only talked of some Copies of Records; this Deed he could not have; But what have such Deeds to doe with a Morgage? if there were a Mor­gage, why persued he not that, but waved from it at the Hearing, and would faine have insisted upon his pretended Title? if there were a Title at Law, why did he not mention that in his Petition, that we might have knowne where to finde him? But Bullock hath, and doth sometimes Pretend a Morgage (which notwithstan­ding his Father never Pretended, as by Records may be made appeare) sometimes a title at Law,☞ which I have here instanced, and which was adjudged fraudu­lent by the Judges of the Land upon solemne Debate; whom this man most audaciously Taxeth, saying in the forementioned Pag. that if the L. Cook, and the Iudges were now alive, they would be ashamed of their o­pinions and Iudgements.

In the aforesaid Pag. Bullock sayes, that there was no fraud in the Deeds (which is as true, as that there was no Power of Revocation in the Deed mentioned The first of the Deeds being enrolled, That I take to be the Deed to Combes, which if it be it maketh no matter, for Standen had a fine, and Recovery from Combes as well as from Bullock, moreover that of Combes is comprehen­ded, and comprised in the Deed made with Power of Revocation already mentioned, which last was fraudu­lent, in regard fraudulently made, and fraudulently [Page 10]concealed: as for the Fines, and Recoveries they doe not Declare the uses, intents, or purposes of a Deed.

In the same Page he saith, I know not of any such Lease, nor charges, neither was it proved by any Deeds, witnesses, or other writings, but by a pretended Bill of Standens, And an Answer of mine Uncles in Chancery exemplified, which I am perswaded is most false, and surreptitiously obtained, &c. First, for the Leases they are in the Deed of Bargaine, and Sale mentioned, and exempted; which Deed was produced, and yealded unto by Bul­locks Councell at the hearing; for the matter of Dow­er, it was alleadged by Standens Councell, and the Deeds are in Being; but were insisted to disprove a Mor­gage, the maine scope of the Petition; and that we so far disproved, as that the Committee hath Voted that there was no Morgage, nor corrupt Decree, as by Bullock was complained of. But is not Bullock impudent to intimate a Bill, and Answer Exemplified under the Great Seale to be false and surreptitiously obtained?

I am even weary of Answering this mans Insolences, and impertinences; but shall briefly insist upon a few; he saith his Father was five yeares in the Fleet, so ought he to be for false clamour, and vexatious Practises: Pag. 6. he saith, that as to the Votes of the late Commit­tee (which I have in my Narrative inserted) they are in substance truth, ☞ then is the whole substance of his Peti­tion voted against, for that Committee hath voted that there was no Morgage nor corrupt Decree, as aforesaid; The Residue is impertinent, or improbable, or abso­lutely false; as first, that the Gentlemen of the sub-Committee should be a greater part of the time out of [Page 11]Towne (being a whole yeares intervall) that the sub-Committee should seem inclineable to proceed according to the Order of the House, to Report the true state of the Case. Truly I conceive those Gentlemen of more In­tegrity, and Judgement; for a sub-Committee hath not to doe with an Order of the House, not directed unto them, but others; they have onely to doe with the Committees Order: Secondly, That his Father laid a continuall claime, indeed he laid a con­tinuall clamor. Thirdly, he minceth out his Fathers crimes, which Exemplifications under the Great Seales of Queene Elizabeth, and King Iames, will make appeare Notorious for Forgery, Perjury, sub­ornation of witnesses, and such like: Fourthly, That one Nicholas Mead should steale away his Un­cles writings, where (saith he) it is to be vehemently suspected, were the Defeasance to the pretended Deed of Sale; how Rediculous this is let any man Judge; for a Defeasance must be to a Reall Deed of Sale, not to a Pretended One; but as touching a Deed of Defeasance, his Unkle hath acknowledged in his Answer, exemplified under the Great Seale, that hee had one for the tearme of his Naturall life, as for other writings they belonged of Right to Edmond Standen the Purchasor; and whereas he saith, that Standen gave Mead a Coppy-hold, or 100l. as it is proved upon Oath, not any such thing is proved but by Heare-sayes, and therein it seemes they doe not a­gree, one affirming a Coppy-hold, and another an Hundred pound. Fiftly, he saith that it was confest by one of the Defendants Councell, that the Land was worth 1000l. per annum, this is Notoriously false, [Page 10]but admit Councell should therein mistake, what is that to the purpose? he saith also that it is proved to be worth 6. or 700l. per annum, at the time of the pretended Sale, besides woods to above double 4000l. this is not any way proved, but by Depositions of Heare-sayes of his owne Name, and Kinred; of which I have instanced enough before. Sixthly, he calleth the Purchasor (Standen) a pretended Purchasor; that Edmond Standen was an absolute Reall Purchasor, hath been already proved before the Committee at the hearing, who have voted that there was no Mor­gage, therefore consequently a Purchase: Lastly, he saith,☞ that God hath been pleased utterly to extinct that Name, and Blood (speaking of the Standens) This is notoriously false, for my selfe the Author hereof, being Cousin, and Heire of William-Standen late of Aberfeld, Esq. Dceased, was Sonne of Ioachim Ball Gentleman, and of Elizabeth his wife, Daughter of Antony Standen of E [...]sher in the County of Surrey Gentleman, who was next brother to Edmond Standen the Purchasor, as by matter of Record it doth, and may appeare; certainly therefore I am of the the Blood, although not of the name of the Purchasor: my Kinsman, who injoyeth the Lands by Agreement, and con­tracts from me, was Son of Thomas Standen Gentleman, who was Son of Iohn Standen of Egham in the Coun­ty of Surrey aforesaid Gentleman, who was fift Bro­ther of Edmond Standen the Purchasor, so that he is both of the Name, and Blood: And if Bullock be a Sonne to the Brother of his Ancestor, we are both of us Grandsones to the Brothers of Our Ancestor: But by this may be perceived the Malicious, as well [Page 11]as Contentions spirits of Bullock and his Brother; whom I leave to Gods Justice: to the Parliaments Judgement, and to all Judicious and honest men's cen­sures.

I had answered this Scandalous Printed Paper sooner, but albeit I heard thereof, yet untill the 21. of this instant August, I could never procure it.