Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 02.djvu/359

 Bacon otherwise than friendly to him. He had long advocated the policy of which the commons approved; and he had always given his voice in favour of a good understanding between them and the king. Yet, for all that, a storm was gathering against him.

Naturally Bacon had made enemies. Coke, who was a member of this parliament, and was soon to appear as a very influential one, both hated and despised him. Cranfield, the master of the wards, who was also a member, must have discovered that Bacon looked down on him as a mere accountant, and consequently was as bitterly disposed towards him as Coke had always been. Taken alone the opposition of the practical commonplace official might not have led to much, but it had at its back a sentiment which was all the more dangerous, because it did not imply any personal dislike of Bacon himself amongst the members of the house. That sentiment was one of dissatisfaction with the government of which Bacon had made himself the instrument, not sufficiently pronounced to make the house wish to place itself in direct opposition to the king, but sufficiently strong to make it ill-disposed to one who, like Bacon, had allowed his devotion to monarchical principles to be publicly known, whilst he had thrown a veil of secrecy over his disapproval of the policy of the actual monarch.

To this sentiment the strong feeling against the monopolies was certain to minister. The natural desire of finding some one to punish when things had gone wrong led men to search for victims. Mompesson and Michell were not of sufficient importance to satisfy this desire. Buckingham could not be touched without touching the king, and, besides, he expressed an ardent wish to join the commons in hunting down abuses. There remained the referees, who had certified that the monopolies were either good in law or beneficial in practice, and of these referees Bacon was the most conspicuous. For a time there was a call, strongly supported by Coke and Cranfield, for bringing the referees to account; but James stood firm, and the question of ministerial responsibility was shelved for the time.

If Bacon's conduct as a referee escaped inquiry, he was more exposed to attack than before. Those who wished to bring charges of any kind against him would know that they would have a favourable audience in the House of Commons, and probably also in the House of Lords. On 14 March Cranfield, who had led the attack upon the referees, complained of the court of chancery for the protection which it offered to insolvents, and Coke followed in the same strain. Before anything could be done to put the charge into shape, a certain Christopher Aubrey presented a petition to the commons in which the chancellor was directly charged with bribery. He was followed by Edward Egerton, who made much the same complaint. The peculiarity of these cases was that Bacon had decided against the persons who had given him money.

On 17 March the commons resolved to send the complaints before the lords for inquiry, without committing themselves on one side or the other. Bacon's own feeling during these days was one of assurance that the charges against him had been concocted by those who had failed to punish him as a referee. 'Your lordship,' he wrote to Buckingham, 'spoke of purgatory; I am now in it, but my mind is calm, for my fortune is not my felicity. I know I have clean hands and a clean heart, and I hope a clean house for friends or servants; but Job himself, or whoever was the justest judge, by such hunting for matters against him as hath been used against me, may for a time seem foul, especially in a time when greatness is the mark and accusation is the game. And if this be to be a chancellor, I think if the great seal lay upon Hounslow Heath nobody would take it up.'

Under the trial his health broke down. On the 18th he was unable to leave his house, and on the following day begged for time to reply to the accusations against him. Fresh charges were soon brought, amongst them that of Lady Wharton, who had given money directly into Bacon's hands and had received a crushing sentence almost immediately afterwards. That Bacon had taken the money as a bribe is most improbable, but he had certainly sinned against the rule which he laid down for himself, that though, according to the custom of the day, presents might be taken from suitors, they should never be accepted while the suit was pending. The best explanation of his conduct is that, according to his usual habit of caring to do the right thing without regarding how it was done, he had satisfied himself with judging justly, and had been almost incredibly careless of the appearance of his conduct in the eyes of others. On 16 April Bacon, who was sufficiently recovered to leave his house, had an interview with the king. The memoranda of what he intended to say to James have been preserved. 'There be three causes of bribery,' he wrote, 'charged or supposed in a judge: the first, of bargain or contract for reward to pervert justice; the second, where the judge conceives the cause to be at an end by the infonnation of the party or otherwise.