Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 19.djvu/293

 returned to parliament for the county of Southampton. In January 1600–1 he received a commission from the queen to inquire into the abuses connected with patents, a work which was soon interrupted by the more urgent duty of investigating the Essex plot (Cal. State Papers, Dom. 1598–1601, pp. 560, 563). His speech on the prosecution of Sir Christopher Blunt, Sir Charles Davers, and others of the conspirators, is reported at length in Cobbett's ‘State Trials,’ i. 1435. In the parliament of 1601 he represented the borough of Southampton. On the accession of James I he was retained in office as solicitor-general, and placed on the commission for perusing and suppressing unlicensed books; and he received the honour of knighthood at Whitehall on 23 July 1603. At the general election of March 1603–4 he retained his seat for the borough of Southampton. On 27 Oct. 1604 he was created chief baron of the exchequer (, Progresses of James I, i. 208;, Whitgift (fol.), ii. 577; , Chron. Ser. 99, 100). His elevation to the bench disqualified him for sitting in the House of Commons, but he was permitted to attend the debates in the upper house. A new writ was issued for Southampton in his place 9 Nov. 1605, little more than a year after his promotion to the chief justiceship. He helped to try the conspirators concerned in the gunpowder treason on 27 Jan. 1606 (, State Trials, ii. 159); and the same year delivered an elaborate judgment on the important case of Bates, a Levant merchant, who had refused to pay the duty on certain currants imported by him, on the ground that it had been imposed without the consent of parliament. The duty had in the first instance been imposed by the Levant Company under a patent by Elizabeth; but James I, soon after his accession, by letters patent, directed the revenue officers to levy the duty upon all currants imported, thus subjecting the Levant Company to the impost (ib. ii. 382, 391). Fleming's judgment, which proceeded wholly ‘upon reasons politic and precedents,’ was for the crown. He argued that it was part of the royal prerogative to impose customs, and that the amount was in the absolute discretion of the king, and moreover that in the particular case, currants being a luxury, no real hardship was suffered. The judgment, which is reported at length in Cobbett's ‘State Trials,’ ii. 388, was subjected to much severe criticism by Hakewill and Whitelocke, in the course of the great debate on impositions in June and July 1610 (ib. p. 477; Debates in 1610, Camden Soc. 79, 103, 157). Coke roundly says that it was ‘against law and divers express acts of parliament’ (Inst. pt. ii. cap. 30, ad fin.) On 25 June 1607 Fleming was advanced to the chief-justiceship of the king's bench. In that capacity he delivered a judgment in the case of the postnati tried in the exchequer chamber in 1608 (, State Trials, ii. 609), the question being whether the accession of James I had the effect of naturalising in England persons born in Scotland, and in Scotland persons born in England after the event. It was decided in the affirmative, two judges only dissenting. Fleming's judgment has not been preserved. On 13 Feb. 1610 he was commissioned to supply the place of the lord chancellor during his sickness (Cal. State Papers, Dom. 1603–10, p. 58). In 1612 he was a member of the committee of the privy council that sat at York House to determine whether the Countess of Shrewsbury had been guilty of an offence in refusing to give information to the privy council concerning the escape of her niece, Arabella Stuart, to which she had been privy. Fleming took occasion to enlarge upon the several privileges incident to nobility by the law of England, arguing that being derived from the king, they entailed on persons of quality a correlative obligation ‘to answer, being required thereto by the king, to such points as concern the safety of the king and quiet of the realm,’ the breach of which was a high contempt and ingratitude. The committee were unanimous that the matter was cognisable in the Star-chamber, and resolved that if sentence should there be given the countess should be fined 20,000l. and imprisoned during the king's pleasure (, State Trials, ii. 774–6). Anthony à Wood (Fasti Oxon. (Bliss), ii. 355) states that on 7 Aug. 1613 it was ‘granted by the venerable convocation that Sir Thomas Fleming, chief justice of England, might be created M.A., but whether it was effected appears not.’ Fleming died the same night in his bed, after entertaining his tenantry at his seat, Stoneham Park, Hampshire. He was buried in the parish church of North Stoneham. It has been said that Bacon regarded Fleming as an ‘able man.’ Coke is more explicit, giving him credit for ‘great judgment, integrity, and discretion,’ and ‘a sociable and placable disposition’ (Rep. x. 34). Fleming and his eldest son, Sir Thomas, were both members of a club founded in 1609 for the practice of the gentle game of bowls, at East Standen, Isle of Wight, where the members usually dined with the governor twice a week during the season (, Isle of Wight, p. 223). Fleming married in 1570. By his wife, of whom we know nothing beyond the fact that her christian name was Mary, he had issue