Imágenes de páginas

alum commissioners. That the king eventually turned the monopoly of alum to his own benefit, we have evidence as we proceed further. By statute, 21, Jac. cap. iii, all monopolies are declared unlawful, but tacked to this general enactment were provisoes barring its operation to various patents and monopolies and among them of alum (Craik's Commerce Book ii. cap. vii.) and in the Calendar of the flouse of Lords for 1640 (iv. 42) appears a petition for redress against certain persons "who formed the alum works of his late majesty."

Bacon assumed the office of Lord Keeper in 1617 and there have been preserved no less than three copies of "the effect of that which was spoken by the Lord Keeper of the great seal of England at the taking of his place in Chancery in performance of the charge his majesty had given him when he received the seal." Following this, in the same collections, are copies of his speeches to Sergeant Hutton on being appointed one of the Justices of the Common Pleas, to Sir John Denham on his being made one of the Barons of the Exchequer, and to Sir William Jones on his appointment as Lord Chief Justice of Ireland."* There is a curious letter, described in the fifth report, from the Earl of Arundell in Scotland to Sir Francis Bacon, Lord Keeper of the Great Seal of England, praying for a decree as to the possession of certain lands of his uncle of Northampton, and soliciting from the Lord Keeper a speedy hearing of a "cause dependinge befor you between me and one Parkes."t

In 1618, he received the higher dignity of Lord Chancellor, and in this office he appears at his worst. The celebrated case of "the gold and silver thread" patent, is amply illustrated from the calendar of documents in the House of Lords, given in the third report. In April, 1618, a commission was issued to the Lord Chancellor and others to "examine, find out, and punish abuses in the making or importing of gold and silver thread" (p. 16), and following quickly upon this are copies of warrants for the impeachment of certain persons for breach of the patent. Another commission was issued in October of the same year, and in April, 1619, summonses were sent to certain persons to appear before Sir Giles Mompesson and Sir Francis Michell as Commissioners, and in the same year a document setting forth the grievances of Michael Sellar, wrongfully imprisoned by the same.‡ It is needless to trace the history of this wretched business through all the stages that the report on the House of Lords' papers allows of; but I

* i. 62; iii. 213; iv. 374.
This is only dated 1619, or it
Mr. Gardiner's date of June, 1619.

+ Miss C. Griffith's Papers, v. 409.
might remove Mr. Spedding's distrust of
Vol. xiv., p. 206. (Vol vii. of “Life and

think Mr. Spedding's account, given in his last volume, might be cleared of many of the surmises by a careful examination of these set of documents. The remaining questions connected with Sir Giles Mompesson are equally set forth among the House of Lords' papers. The tale is ended with a warrant of the House of Lords, to search for Sir Giles Mompesson, and for papers, &c., signed by the same man, who, whatever might have been his opinion at the Council-table concerning the Patent touching Inns,* after Parlia ment had brought the matter to a terrible point, had declared the patent of gold and silver thread to be "decidedly beneficial" in face of the notorious abuses attaching to it-"Fr. St. Alban. Canc."

In evidence how near the vengeance of the Commons was approaching, Sir Giles Mompesson, two days before the warrant was issued writes to Buckingham, "praying him to influence the king to direct the Commons to set down their charges in writing that he may have opportunity of auswering them and preserving his good name."t

We have come now to the close of Bacon's official career; and scattered among eight (at least) different houses of the countrymen of Bacon, the philosopher, are copies of a document wrung from the guilty conscience of the criminal minister. "The humble submission and supplication of the Lord Chancellor of England, Sir Francis Bacon, to the Right Honourable the Lords of Parlia ment assembled."‡

Let us turn now to the points which bear upon those portions of his career which I have, at the commencement of these papers, termed personal. Little is to be discovered among the sources I have been using relative to his connection with the unfortunate, though criminal, Earl of Essex. This subject occupies the largest share, perhaps, of public opinion, and it is one of the principal points seized upon in the recent controversy. We have the letters from Antonie Bacon to Essex and the Earl's answers, confessedly written by Francis Bacon, to serve the cause of his friend with her Majesty, in the first report, page 47, the second, page 51, and the third, page 300. Connected with the name of Antonie Bacon also, there are four copies of the apology of the Earl of Essex in 1598 to Mr. Antonie Bacon.§ Among the manuscripts of E. P. Shirley, Esq is Francis Bacon's counterteit letter to the Earl of Essex, beginning"Her Majesty pro eeding thus by gradation," and the Earl's answer beginning, "Mr. Bacon, I thank you for your kind letter." Dr. Abbott, at page 152 of the Contemporary Review,



Spedding, xiv., page 153.
i. 62; iii. 22, 204, 214;
§ ii. 8.; iv. 373, 596; v. 363.


+ House of Lord's Papers, iii. 18.
iv. 372, 373, 353; v. 410.
Spedding, vol. ix.

II v. 362.

quotes a letter from Bacon to Lord Henry Howard, bearing on the trial of Essex, and cannot arrive at the date any nearer than that it was after 29 November, 1599. Among a series of papers and letters in which Essex is concerned, I find a copy of Mr. F. Bacon's letter to my Lord H. H. beginning, "My Lord, there be very few besides yourself," and again there is a letter mentioned from "Fr. Bacon to Lord Howard--December, 1590 or 1599," among the manuscripts of the Marquis of Bath. The papers relating to Bacon's connection with Essex closes with a contemporary letter to the ancestor of Lord Bagot from Robert Adderley. It is dated 1600, June 9th,-" Sir, of Thursday last, my Lord of Essex was at York House before the lords of the Council and other Lords, the Queen's Attorney and Bacon; who showed himself a pretty fellow and answered them all well without any touch, but only in some disloyalty towards her Majesty," . . .. the letter continues describing curiously the Earl's conduct.‡

We next come to his connection with Buckingham. A letter dated, 6th Dec. 1619, to the Marquis from his secretary, Sir Robert Naunton, gives Bacon's opinion of Yelverton's conduct of the case of the Merchant Strangers, which Bacon himself had communicated in a letter bearing date 9th November.§ In the same collection,|| which contains many letters not printed by Mr. Spedding or Stephens, is a letter from Buckingham, stating "that Corten, having been earnest to make a match between Christopher Villiers and Sir S. Harvey's daughter, His Majesty desires that he may be allowed to put in security for the payment of his fine," and another letter, undated, begs "to favour Sir Thomas Monck's suit in chancery as far as he lawfully may."¶

When we view the last acts of the official career of this great man a heap of documents calendared in the House of Lords papers tell their own tale of the gradual approach to his downfall. But we have to search into private collections for the first intimation of the coming storm. Mr. Spedding dwells much upon the favour in which Bacon was held, both by the King and court;** but among the Phelips MSS., already frequently mentioned, is a curious letter to Sir Edward Phelips from Robert Newdegate,tt showing that James was aware of his Chancellor's misdoings, and was not

* Lord de Tabley's Papers, i. 47. The reply is also among this collection. iv. 334.

+ iii. 185. || Hon. G. M. Fortescue, ii. 57. such of this collection as have been

¶ Ibid.

Spedding, xiv. 47.

Mr. Spedding appears to have used only printed for "The Camden Society."

** xiv. 165.

++ It may be mentioned that the date is given in print, 1609, an evident mistake for 1619. Vide report of Commissioners, page xviii. is mentioned, who was not raised to that peerage until 1612.

Lord Chichester

careful about the terms used. The writer mentions that "the King has this summer received great complaint against my Lord Chancellor, and to the number of 500 articles; the King said if they were proved he would make him an example to all ages, and moreover, he said he would hang him; begs him to burn the letter."

Of the numerous petitions against his conduct there is to be shown a goodly number. The petition of Christopher Aubrey, mentioned by Mr. Spedding as the first sign of the charge against the Chancellor ;* of Lady Anne Blount;† and of John Wrenham, are all in the Phelip's collection. In the House of Lords there are the petitions of Christopher Aubrey, William Pargiter, and Montagu Wood; also a long petition from the Company of Grocers in London. Nor did the petitions end with his impeachment. In 1624, April 7, there is one from Philip Page, ¶ vouched for by a second document sent in on May 14th ;** and as late as 1625-6, ;' March 21st, appears another petition, that of Mary Sole.++

Mr. Spedding has indulged in a contemplation as to how Bacon might have met the charge if he had been allowed to defend him. self, irrespective of King and Court, and perhaps the following document may assist such an object. On May 8th, 1621, Sir Ralph Hamby petitions that "his examination touching the charge of corruption against the late Lord Chancellor may be kept secret, and not furnished to his adversaries, who have endeavoured to procure a copy of the same from the Clerk of the Parliament."++


[ocr errors]

Concerning the conduct of his impeachment, we have first " my Lord Chancellor Bacon's letters to ye Lords of Parliament, 1621, asking time to advise with his counsel upon the charge of bribery,' and a copy of his letter to the House of Lords, on March 19th, in Miss Griffith's collection§§. The calendar of the House of Lords Papers afford a running narrative of the facts. There are the names of witnesses sworn on March 20th and 21st; draft of interrogatories to be administered to the witnesses on March 21st, names of the witnesses examined, copy of examination of Sir Thomas Perient and Philip Holman, and list of persons to be sent for as witnesses also on March 21st, list of witnesses sworn on March 22nd and on May 28th, a writ of certiorari for record of proceedings in Parliament¶¶. Bacon gave up the seals on the 30th April, and there is a copy of the

[blocks in formation]

Latin entry on the close roll of the circumstances, under which the great seal passed from Francis Viscount St. Albans to Lord Keeper William."

The remaining references to Bacon in the reports of the Historical Manuscript Commission relate to early copies of his works and to his correspondence, chiefly after retiring to Gorhambury.

Of his correspondence, there is a collection of several letters, thirty-nine in number, in the possession of the Duke of Northum. berland,† the last of which was written after his fall to an unknowne person, beginning Sir, clouds of miserie darken so much such as are not in the sunneshine of prosperitie.' With reference to this collection it is to be noted that the Commissioner's envoy states there appear to be variations from the texts as printed by Mr. Spedding. The Marquis of Westminster has fifty-four letters written on various occasions; and the Marquis of Bath a copy of" Letters by Lord Bacon" occupying twenty-seven leaves, and the the Duke of Bedford a true copie of the Lord Chancellor Bacon's letters of state from the time of his being Solicitor until his death. There are three letters relating to Sir G. Chaworth which Mr. Spedding apparently has not seen, as he does not in any way notice them, though they evidently contain information on the subject of the Petty Writs, which ended in an arrangement whereby "Bacon retained the patent and Sir G. Chaworth had some interest in, though he was not joined to it."T The first, dated July 13th 1623, is to Lord Cranfield and asks for a day for hearing the complaint of Sir George Chaworth, apparently, says the report, for an annuity granted by Bacon.** Lord Cranfield's answer to the above, promising a speedy hearing, follows, dated the next day from Chelsey. The next is a letter from Bacon, acknowledging the Lord Treasurer's last letter and stating that "neither to blame he nor Sir G. Chaworth but Sir Arthur Ingram, who made as if the matter were easy: If he (St. Alban's) gets his own arrears he can pay Chaworth.++ This letter explains the one printed by Mr. Spedding from Meantys to Bacon. The last is dated October 6th, of the same year, addressed from Bedford House to the Lord Treasurer. He states that his course of physic has kept him from visiting the Lord Treasurer: asked Mr. Mewtis to attend as his deputy, asks for the same measure of favour as he signified to him


iii. 214. || iii. 184.

* Miss C. Griffith, v. 410. + iii. 120. § ii. 2. There is also a letter from Andrews to Bacon, temp. Eliz., mentioned at iii. 300, and one from Bacon to Cranfield, 1619, about commissions for debts, at iv. 299, not mentioned by Spedding.

Earl de la Warr, iv. page 286.

Spedding, vol. xiv. page 390.
tt Ibid.

II vol. xiv. 387.

« AnteriorContinuar »