BALL HIS VINDICATION Against BULLOCK; Showing, A former NARRATIVE subscribed William Ball, to be true: AND A late Printed Paper subscribed Edward Bullock, to be Notoriously false and Scandalous.  
HUMBLY PRESENTED TO The Parliament of ENGLAND, BY WILLIAM BALL, Esq  
Printed in the Year, 1652.   

Ball his Vindication against Bullock; showing a former Narrative subscribed William Ball, to be true: AND A late Printed Paper in Answer thereunto, subscribed Edward Bullock, To be Notoriously false and Scandalous.  
THe Author of a late Printed Paper entitled, A short, and true Vindication by Edward Bullock, etc. Pag. 1. chargeth me with indirect practices in the matter in Question; and then in a Marginal Note saith,, I call them indirect, because I conceive it not warrantable for any to publish the proceed 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 proceed without their Order; but rather think it reasonable, that their proceed be published to manifest their Justice, Equity, and integrity to the world, or the contrary if otherwise; besides the than Committee for Indemnity had done, as to the substance of Bullocks Petition; they having voted that there was no Mortgage, nor corrupt Decree as was complained of; Moreover the said Committee was by Vote of Parliament dissolved, when I published the proceed mentioned; And in the late Act for Transferring the Powers of the Committees for Indemnity, there is not one clause or syllable 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 special Order of Parliament Referred to the Committee for Indemnity, 
☞ Unless it had been expressly comprehended in the late Act for Indemnity.  cannot but by special 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 grossly, and fallaciously mis-rejected it. Truly I abbreviated the Order, even as the Petition, but neither grossly, nor fallaciously on Bullocks part (as he impudently allegeth) but rather on the Defendants part if defective: I shall first instance mine own abreviation, and then discuss 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 refer the said Petition unto the Honourable Committee for Indemnity, to Examine, with power to send for Persons, Papers, and Records, and to consider the length of time, and how fare forth the matter was fit for Relief, and to give their Opinions therein, and report it to the House.  
Bullock hath it thus Printed,  

Die Jovis 7. November 1650. The Humble Petition of Edward Bullock Gentleman, an Inhabitant of New- England was this day read.  
Ordered by the Parliament, that this Petition be referred to the Committee of Indemnity to Examine the truth of the motter, [certainly, whether Mortgage or no Mortgage (as was complained of) corrupt or no corrupt Decree] to consider the length of time, and how far this case is fit for Relief [whether (in case it were a Mortgage) fit for Redemption in regard of the length of time] (and to report the true state of it.) 
The Defendant Standen desireth the true state of the case may be Reported according to Records, and Deeds, but not according to Heare-sayes.  [That the House might not be deceived in the case] with their Opinions to the House [for their clear understanding of the matter in Debate] with Power to send for Persons, Papers, and Records.  
Henry Scobel Cleric. Parl.   
Thus have I according to Bullocks Printed Paper inserted the Parliaments Order (not differing in substance from mine own 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, than he complaineth of in the Petition itself (as if the Adjective were of more validity than the Substantive) yet we know that our Parliament understands Logic 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 says; But the Author, to put the better vizard upon his cause (which (as he says) he is unwilling should come before upright, and impartial judges) leaves out the most material Parts of the Order, which you find in the Parenthesis, and in the latter end says, And to give their opinion therein; as if he would by that expression insinnate a belief 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 unpartial Judges, although I should be unwilling that it should come before any Partial, or pr●-affected Judges; for the material parts of the Order (which he calls so) I have interpreted them already; but Bullock ought to Reflect on the material Parts of his Petition, (viz. a mortgage, and corrupt Decree) to the which the Order hath Relation, and then he would find the whole Order to be alike material; whereas he says, 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 says, that the Depositions (considering the length of time, etc.) 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 own affirmation could not be above 6. or 7. years 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 fare as to swear a Negative; also that man and most of the Deponents are, or call themselves Bullock the Petitioners Kindred (most of them being also of his name) they are for the most part very mean, and inconsiderable Persons, One (if not more) of them a Cottager; also that the Depositions were unduly taken in the Country; for first, the Committee were empowered only to send for Persons, Papers and Records; not to send down 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 itself assembled (not Parliament-men in a Committee) can do: 
●●●r can the ●●●liament me●●●d Placitum ●●●rcise an Ar●●●●ary Power, 〈◊〉 with cause ●●●sonably ma●●●ested, etc. 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, etc. that they had many Parliament-men their Friends; by which means, and by their Invitations, and Feast they alured many of their Deponents, to whom also they gave 2. s. 6, d. or more for their pains, as can be proved. But admitting the Depositions were as full as Bullock allegeth, 
●ave instan●●● all this formerly in my narrative.  shall Depositions of Hear-sayes be balanced with an absolute Deed of bargain and sale enroled; with fines, and recoveries exemplified under the great Seal; with a Release of Interest with warranty for Standen, and his Heirs for ever? certainly that were against all Law and Reason.  
In the same Page, Bullock to colour his pretence of a mortgage in his Petition mentioned, saith, that, in the Deed the Estate is claimed by, is not only granted the Estate in particular, but likewise all the Estate whatsoever within the Realm of England, which should, or aught of right to descend to my Uncle, etc. 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 obtain as much as he could for his money? is there any law, or custom to the contrary? sure I am that all understanding Lawyers will affirm that such General Terms may be sufficient in a Deed of Purchase; however myself and my Kinsman hold no more Lands which were his Uncles, then what are mentioned in Bullocks Petition, lying in the forest of Windsor, and Division thereof.  
In the Page aforesaid; Bullock saith; that it cannot be expected he should make out Corruption in a judge Dead (after so many years, and not being a party to the cause) so fully as if done but yesterday; by his leave, or rather audaciousness, the L. Keeper Egerton was never accounted a corrupt Judge, nor any way blemished with corruption; certainly had it been so in Bullocks case, some of the succeeding Keepers, upon complaint would have Redressed it: But Bullock seemeth to lay an aspersion upon the L. Keeper Egerton, in that he passed a Decree in behalf of Standen, which he prayed not for (as saith Bullock) for my part I have not perused the Decree; but admitting what Bullock allegeth to be true, the L. Keeper might well do it, for Thomas Bullock had made a fraudulent conveyance Dated, 2. of january 28. 
☞  of Eliz. (at this day to be seen) by which he endeavoured not only to defraud any Purchasor, or Purchesors; but also the Queen herself, her Heirs, and Successors, of Escheates in case of Treason; as by the said Deed it doth, and may appear; in regard of all which the L. Keeper might well Dam, and Decree against such Deed or Deeds, albeit 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 appear; and yet (by Bullocks acknowledgement, Pag. 4.) the L. Keeper left his Father to the Common Law to try his Title; which showeth no mortgage: in the same Pag. Bullock saith; That the L. Keeper being judge 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 Deeds (I offered at the Hearing, which were allowed then by the now Defendants Council) Damned, and canceled, 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 than for corruption; However it was in those Days The Court to punish Forgery, Perjury, subornation of witnesses, of all which Bullocks Father was guilty as by Records Exemplified under the Great seals of Queen Elizabeth, and King james it may appear, as in my Narrative I have set forth; so that Bullock was Justly sentenced in that Court for his unjust, and enormous Practices. He saith there that his Father's Deeds were Damned, and canceled, and adjudged fraudulent by Reason of the Pretended Power of Revocation; To this impudent Assertion I answer, That the Deed by which Bullock would claim, is at this day uncancelled, Dated 2. of jan. 28. Eliz. (as aforesaid) comprehending a foregoing Deed made to Edward Combs Dated the 22. of December before; that the forementioned Deed is signed Thomas Bullock, William Kingsmell, Edward Combs before named; That it hath an absolute and express 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 appear; 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 june in the 31. of Eliz. before six sufficient 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 appear. Bullock says, those Deeds were offered and allowed at the Hearing, which is most false; for his Council only talked of some Copies of Records; this Deed he could not have; But what have such Deeds to do with a Mortgage? if there were a Mortgage, why pursued he not that, but waved from it at the Hearing, and would feign 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 known where to find him? But Bullock hath, and doth sometimes Pretend a Mortgage (which notwithstanding his Father never Pretended, as by Records may be made appear) sometimes a title at Law, 
☞  which I have here instanced, and which was adjudged fraudulent by the Judges of the Land upon solemn Debate; whom this man most audaciously Taxeth, saying in the forementioned Pag. that if the L. Cook, and the judges were now alive, they would be ashamed of their opinions and judgements.  
In the aforesaid Pag. Bullock says, 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 enroled, That I take to be the Deed to Combs, which if it be it maketh no matter, for Standen had a fine, and Recovery from Combs as well as from Bullock, moreover that of Combs is comprehended, and comprised in the Deed made with Power of Revocation already mentioned, which last was fraudulent, in regard fraudulently made, and fraudulently concealed: as for the Fines, and Recoveries they do 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 persuaded is most false, and surreptitiously obtained, etc. First, for the Leases they are in the Deed of Bargain, and Sale mentioned, and exempted; which Deed was produced, and yielded unto by Bullocks Council at the hearing; for the matter of Dower, it was alleged by Standens Council, and the Deeds are in Being; but were insisted to disprove a Mortgage, the main scope of the Petition; and that we so far disproved, as that the Committee hath Voted that there was no Mortgage, nor corrupt Decree, as by Bullock was complained of. But is not Bullock impudent to intimate a Bill, and Answer Exemplified under the Great Seal to be false and surreptitiously obtained?  
I am even weary of Answering this man's Insolences, and impertinences; but shall briefly insist upon a few; he saith his Father was five years in the Fleet, so ought he to be for false clamour, and vexatious Practices: 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 Mortgage 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 Town (being a whole year's interval) 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 do with an Order of the House, not directed unto them, but others; they have only to do with the Committees Order: Secondly, That his Father laid a continual claim, indeed he laid a continual clamour. Thirdly, he minceth out his Father's crimes, which Exemplifications under the Great Seals of Queen Elizabeth, and King james, will make appear Notorious for Forgery, Perjury, subornation of witnesses, and such like: Fourthly, That one Nicholas Mead should steal away his Uncle's writings, where (saith he) it is to be vehemently suspected, were the Defeasance to the pretended Deed of Sale; how Ridiculous this is let any man Judge; for a Defeasance must be to a Real Deed of Sale, not to a Pretended One; but as touching a Deed of Defeasance, his Uncle hath acknowledged in his Answer, exemplified under the Great Seal, that he had one for the term of his Natural life, as for other writings they belonged of Right to Edmond Standen the Purchasor; and whereas he saith, that Standen gave Mead a Copyhold, or 100ls. as it is proved upon Oath, not any such thing is proved but by Heare-sayes, and therein it seems they do not agree, one affirming a Copyhold, and another an Hundred pound. Fiftly, he saith that it was confessed by one of the Defendants Council, that the Land was worth 1000ls. per annum, this is Notoriously false, but admit Council 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 own Name, and Kindred; of which I have instanced enough before. Sixthly, he calleth the Purchasor (Standen) a pretended Purchasor; that Edmond Standen was an absolute Real Purchasor, hath been already proved before the Committee at the hearing, who have voted that there was no Mortgage, 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 myself the Author hereof, being Cousin, and Heir of William-Standen late of Aberfeld, Esq. Dceased, was Son of joachim 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 appear; certainly therefore I am of the the Blood, although not of the name of the Purchasor: my Kinsman, who enjoyeth the Lands by Agreement, and contracts from me, was Son of Thomas Standen Gentleman, who was Son of john 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 Son 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 as Contentions spirits of Bullock and his Brother; whom I leave to God's 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 until the 21. of this instant August, I could never procure it.  
August this 24. 1652. William Ball.