The state of the Suit in Chancery, between Francis Verslyn pl': against Peter Manning, Michael Pulmer and their wives etc. defendants is, viz.  
IAcob Verslyn was seized in Fee of the lands in question, under whose estate all the parties claim. And the said jacob Verslyn having in his perfect health traveled in person to Master Sergeant Foster, and used his counsel and advice in making of a Will, dat. 23. julij 1601. wherein he settled his lands in the name of the Verslyns, and published the same in Marchant-taylors' Hall and there left the Duplicate thereof with a purpose never to revoke the same.  
That the defendants (who now seek the reversal of the decree in Chancery by Act of Parliament, taking advantage of the old man's weakness both of body and memory, being no way able to go abroad and also of the Plaintiffs imprisonment) by false Rumours, viz. That Francis the pl' had said he was ashamed of his Parents and would change his name; That his Mother was a Whore; to one Doctor Nowell her son in law & to Petula a Broker, and that Francis the Plaintiff had sold his Patrimony for 700. pounds and had received in hand 300. pounds and had taken part with Sir jeram Bows against the said jacob his Father. Upon these untrue reports (making the said jacobs' wife the Instrument) they caused the said jacob, being aged 84. years and upwards to alter his said will, and to disinherit his said eldest son Francis and to settle the lands upon the defendants and their wives his daughters, they having great portions with their wives in marriage; The just and legal proceed of the said suit appeareth as followeth.  
The suit for this land after the death of jacob, between the said Francis his son and the defendants his daughters, and their husbands was in the Chancery before the Lord Ellesmere, whose care was so great to do justice in this cause; That after solemn hearing thereof three whole days together in one Term in open Court in Chancery; It was upon the fourth day of February 9 jacobi ordered, that the said Plaintiff should exhibit an Information in the starchamber for the said practices etc. That so his Lordship might have the Assistance of that honourable court, for his better judgement in the cause.  
That in the said suit in starchamber the defendants as to the undue practices in procuring the said last will pleaded the general pardon, and prayed the benefit thereof, So as the Court could not proceed to Sentence: And as to the forging and publishing of the Deed of Feoffment of part of the lands pretended to be made by old jacob to Peter Manning and his wife, the said Manning and Say (being the defendants charged therewith) pleaded not guilty; And as to the misdemeanour in obtaining the said deed they pleaded the general Pardon, as appeareth by the order made in that Court. 27. Maij 12. jacobi.  
That upon hearing of the cause in starchamber, the Court did find very strong, & main presumptions, that the said deed was forged, and counterfeit yet forbear to give Sentence not having full, and apparent proof thereof in regard of the heaviness of a Sentence for such an offence as appears by the said order, being the words of the Sentence there.  
That after the hearing and order in starchamber, the cause was again solemnly heard three whole days together in open Court in Chancery, aswell upon the depositions in Chancery as in the starchamber, and decreed for the plaintiff 12. julij 12. jacobi.  
That after the death of the Lord Chancellor Ellesmere, the defendants exhibited a new bill in Chancery of review and reversal of the former decree: And that upon solemn hearing in open Court, the said former decret was confirmed, and the plaintiffs Bill dismissed as appeareth by the said second decree dated: 12 Februarij 16. jacobi.  
That the end and scope of the said original decree is to settle the state and possession of the lands of old jacob Verslyn in Francis his eldest son as heir at Common law against the said pretended last will, and deed of feoffement.  
That it is now about 7. years since the first decree in Chancery since which time the plaintiff Francis and jacob his younger brother one of the defendants are dead, and that the lands are now in the hands of several purchasers, and that the children and creditors of the said Francis are to be relieved out of the moneys received, and to be received for the said lands as appears by the will of the said Francis.  
That it is not pretended by the Bill in Parliament that any of the decrees or orders were obtained by bribes or rewards, or any Indirect course whatsoever, But it is suggested that the said former decree in Chancery was grounded upon many mistaken and misconceived suggestions not sufficiently proved, which is a very untrue surmise, & altogether improbable considering the great wisdom, experience & understanding of the then Lord Chancellor, together with his great care and deliberation in hearing of the said cause in both Courts, and there being no bribery or corruption objected against him, the said Decree being likewise grounded upon many effectual proofs and reasons not mentioned in the said Bill, and yet they now lay an imputation upon him being dead.  
That if way be given to such improbable and scandalous pretences as thereby to question this decree made upon so many solemn and deliberate hear, both in the starchamber and Chancery, and confirmed by a succeeding Lord Chancellor by a second decree in Chancery upon a Bill of review exhibited by the said defendants, many most just Decrees willbe questioned, and the Rights and possessions of many claiming by and under them disturbed; which also will tend to the general disgrace of the Decrees of that High Court, and likewise to the great trouble of this honourable House, in the examination of such improbable, scandalous pretences;  
THat therefore this Honourable HOUSE will be pleased, to consider the dangerous Consequent of such a Precedent, and to Dismiss the said Bill.