Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 17.pdf/745

 712

THE GREEN BAG

that great sums had been lost by the Chan cery officials, and later it was asserted that the Chancellor himself had caused or con nived at the defalcations. That he was avaricious was well known, for when he was appointed to his office it was known that, in addition to the two thousand pounds usually granted to a new chan cellor to provide him with a residence and other matters suitable to his station and salary of four thousand pounds a year, Macclesfield demanded and received from the king twelve thousand pounds in cash. When the storm burst the Chancellor, in an effort to save himself, on December 17, 1724, issued a stringent order command ing all Masters in Chancery "to procure and send to the Bank of England a chest with one lock and hasps for two padlocks." Within the chest each master was to place all moneys and securities belonging to suitors, and the chests were to be locked, the master keeping the middle key, one of the clerks in Chancery the key of one pad lock, and an officer of the bank the key of the other. This was a most ridiculous mode of "locking the stable door after the horse was stolen." Depositing chests in the bank would not restore the funds that had been dissipated, and the inconvenience of the plan at once became apparent. The vault wherein the chests were kept could not be opened unless two of the directors of the bank were present, so that to get a single pound a meeting of five officials was requisite. It is not strange that in a few months a new order was issued requiring the masters to deposit the trust funds in the bank itself. The storm increased, and the Chancellor who, as has been stated, was an adept in the subtlest arts of political management, and who therein had placed the king under obligation to him, began to prepare his defensive works. It was re ported that the losses would be made good out of the public funds. The Chancellor resigned his office and the Great Seal was put into commission, three leading lawyers

being made commissioners to whom the king made an address, which it was hoped would spread oil on the angry waters. But the matter could not be hushed up. A petition was presented to the House of Commons by two noblemen of high rank, who were guardians of a lunatic duchess, stating that large sums entrusted to a master had been embezzled, and praying for action in the matter. Debate was post poned, and the king sent another soothing message to the Commons. It was unavail ing, and Lord Macclesfield was impeached "of high crimes and misdemeanors." The force of political influence is shown by the fact that on the question of impeachment. one hundred and sixty -four out of four hun dred and thirty-seven votes were cast in the negative. Upon the trial the Chancellor was ac cused of demanding and receiving large sums of money for the appointment of Chancery officers and conniving at the practise of these officers repaying them selves from the trust moneys in their con trol, and with advising certain defaulters how to conceal their fraud. To this tre mendous charge the Chancellor made no denial of fact. He relied upon law and usage — his formal answer to the articles of impeachment avowed that "he did not sell offices, but only received presents from the persons on whom the offices were con ferred." But upon the trial the managers proved the contrary. They declared that 'there probably may be a difference be tween a present and a price, if there is. it is the latter his lordship is charged with tak ing, a price fixed by him, insisted on, haggled for, and unwillingly paid by the purchaser. Unfortunately the price was greater than could possibly be given by one who was to be contented with the fair prof its of the office, as was well known to the recipient, who, to make amends to the pur chasers, connived at their paying that ex travagant price from the money of the suitors with which they were entrusted."