Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 18.pdf/547

 5I2

THE GREEN BAG

Bacon's new title. This was partly be cause of his political course, but perhaps even more because of his and Villiers', now the Duke of Buckingham's, interest in a number of monopolies, which were deserv edly unpopular. Hardly, however, had Parliament assembled when the storm broke from an unexpected quarter. On the isth of March, 1620, Sir Robert Phillips made a report on behalf of a Com mittee appointed by the House of Commons, to inquire into abuses complained of in the Courts of Justice, to the effect that two persons, Mr. Aubrey and Mr. Edward Egerton, had presented petitions against the Lord Chancellor for receiving fees from suitors in Chancery for favorable treat ment of their cases. The House seems to have been staggered at such charges, as well as surprised, and in great doubt as to the course to be pursued. It was finally concluded that, as the Chancellor was a Peer of the Realm, it would be proper to communicate the matter to the House of Lords, merely recapitulating the averments made by the petitioners, "without preju dice or opinion and to ask a conference." This course was pursued; Sir Robert Phillips presented the case to the Lords on the igih March, and on the zoth reported to the Commons that the Lords had received the communication "with affection" arid agreed to a conference. The news of the mere motion of the matter aroused other suitors, and on the same day Lady Wharton made complaint of having been compelled to give to the Lord Chancellor two sums, one of £100 to have a decree in her favor entered, and a further sum of £200 to have life put into her decree; that is, I suppose, to have it put in force. The first £100, Lady Wharton handed the Chancellor personally in a purse of her own making, which she asked him to accept as her handiwork, to which he gallantly replied, " What Lord could refuse a purse of so fair a lady's work ing?" The Register of the Court, a Mr. Churchill, and Lady Wharton's solicitor,

Mr. Keeling, were witnesses in this case.! A host of other suitors who had been de frauded out of what were great sums for those days came forward, so that by the time the cases came up for hearing in April, 1620, there were no less than 28 charges of bribery and corruption, of which notice was given to the Viscount St. Albans, embracing amounts of about £9000 in money and property, a prodigious figure for those days. The list of the gifts received included silver plate, jewels, and a cabinet valued at £800. To this presentation the Chancellor sent a written reply on April 24th, through the Prince of Wales, afterwards Charles I, who was always a warm friend of Bacon, which contained a general admission of guilt, but asked to be excused from answer ing the charges in detail, and prayed that his punishment might be restricted to the loss of his office of Chancellor. This an swer the House of Lords deemed evasive and inadequate, and Bacon was called on for a specific answer to the several charges. The Chancellor in compliance with this order furnished a further reply, taking up the charges in detail; he admitted nearly all of the accusations in substance, qualifying his answer in some of the cases by the ex cuse that the payments had been made either before the suit had been formally commenced or after the litigation had been ended, so that there was not actually a Its pcndcns when the gifts were taken. As to the silver plate, rings, and other jewels, he disputed their worth, claiming they were of less value than alleged in the complaints; while as to the cabinet, he contended that not only was it not so valuable as alleged, but that he did not want it, and had sent word to the donors to please send for it and take it away, which they had failed to do; (this seems to have a sound modern and familiar). Bacon further maintained that he had never been influenced by the gifts he received, but had always decided according to his conscience, and without regard to the magnitude of the gifts received from either