1620-1.] OPENING OF THE ATTACK UPON MONOPOLIES. 183 the not so fortunate. The Committee for Grievances had fallen upon Monopolies; an action which had been clearly enough foreseen, and which Bacon himself had wished to avoid by taking away the most unpopular of them before Parliament met. The manner in which he would have had this done is fully explained in the letter of the 29th of November, 1620 (which is signed, it will be observed, by Coke as well as by himself, Montagu, Hobart, and Crew), the end being to get rid of them all in some cases by anticipating the attack, and revoking the patents, as found by experience to be mischievous, before they were complained of; in others by waiting for the complaint and readily yielding to it; but not in any case to insist on upholding them against the current of opinion. And though the classified list which accompanied the letter has not been preserved, we happen to know that it included those two which drew the first fire, and did most to drive the Commons into a course and a temper fatal to harmonious co-operation in the business for which they had been called; and that, if his advice had been taken, those two Patents would have been already numbered among grievances past and redressed. It appears from his private letter to Buckingham of the same date (29 November, 1620) that both Montperson's Patent touching Inns, and Christopher Villiers's Patent touching Recognisances of Ale-houses, were among those set down as "likely to be stirred in by the Lower House of Parliament," and which it would be better for him "to take the thanks for ceasing than the note for maintaining." The King referred the question to the Council-table," where Bacon argued strongly for revoking Patents of that class by act of Council at once. But he was outvoted, and had to acquiesce in a resolution which he evidently thought unwise. Such Patents were to remain for the spirit of complaint to play upon and be appeased by their surrender. The King was to be represented as having been misled by his advisers, and quite ready to correct the error the moment he was informed of it. But the thanks for informing him were to go to the House and not to be anticipated by the Council. And it was true, no doubt, that in some cases a livelier gratitude may be excited by taking a burden off than could have been got by avoiding to lay it on. Bacon could not have forgotten a splendid and successful performance of that kind in the last years of Elizabeth. But neither could he have forgotten that both the times and the persons were changed. Elizabeth herself could not have acted that part with applause to the present audience, and would not have attempted it. But the experiment was to be tried, and the occasion was not long in coming. As early as the 6th of February a debate on the causes of the scarcity of money, which the King had recommended for consideration, brought up a complaint of the Patent for Gold and Silver Thread. It was an old Patent, with a long history, which had passed through several hands, undergone many references and modifications, and though much complained of by rivals in the manufacture, had never stood high in the list of public grievances; but it was now in the hands of Sir Giles Monperson-a man whose proceedings in regard to another Patent which had no relation to it had caused great discontent; and I suppose it was felt to be the beginning of the war, and the time for the Government to take up its position. Sir Edward Sackville, who, though anything but a Puritan and no way unfriendly to the Government, appears to have stood high in the favour of the House, indicated that position at once, and very clearly. "Sir Edward Sackville saith, that in all businesses of this nature and weight there is commonly a petition and other notes and collections delivered to his Majesty, pretending a good and benefit that by this suit will accrue both to his Majesty and to the Commonwealth; the consideration of which petition, and other collections concerning such businesses, his Majesty ever referreth to some certain referees, who examine it and certify to his Majesty the validity of it. He therefore desireth that those who were referees in this business and have certified his Majesty of the conveniency of it, and have thereby so much abused his Majesty and the . Commonwealth, may be known, and that their reasons may be examined, to the end that they may receive the blame and shame of it."1 : The debate for that day ended in a resolution "that those motions be referred to the former Committee of Grievances "; but we hear no more of this one for a good while a much stronger case against Monperson having been brought out by the investigation. On the 19th of February the Patent for Inns was brought in question by Mr. Noye, as an instance of a Patent that was "in itself good and lawful, but abused by the Patentees in the execution, who perform not the trust reposed in them from his Majesty." 2 The same character was given of it by Coke in the same debate. "There are three sorts of patents. 1st directly against law: 2d good in law, but ill in execution: 3d neither good in law nor execution. Of the second kind are patents for Inns." On the 20th the committee went into the case. There were three patentees, of whom Sir Giles Monperson was the principal; who being examined, stated that "there were two things that gave him encouragement to undertake 3 Ib. p. 65. 1 Proceedings and Debates, p. 17. 2 Ib. p. 64. 1620-1.] SENTENCE ON SIR FRANCIS MICHELL. 185 this business: 1st the want of power in Justices of Peace to set up or pull down inns: 2. The course that was taken before the Patent was granted; it being referred first for matter of law to the Lord Chancellor that now is, then being the King's Attorney-General': to the Lord Chief Baron of the Exchequer and Justice Nicolls; the second time, for matter of conveniency, to Suffolk, then Lord Treasurer of England, to Secretary Winwood, Secretary Lake, and Serjeant Finch." The next day Coke reported from the Committee that they found this Patent an exorbitant grievance both in itself and in the execution; and the same afternoon the Patent "for the forfeiture of the Recognizances for Ale-houses," in which Sir Francis Michell was implicated, came before them. This patent had been referred to the two Chief Justices (Montague and Hobart), Yelverton, and Coventry, or any two or more of them. "The Lord Hobart" (it was added)" did not certify on this reference; but the Lord Chief Justice Montague did; but it was no more than the House thought good and honourable." So the attack turned against the execution, and the person principally implicated in it-which was Sir Francis Michell, a lawyer and Justice of the Peace. With him they made very short work: and if the universal condemnation of a man without hearing what he has to say in his own behalf is to be accepted as conclusive evidence against him, his case was very bad. On the 22nd Coke reported it to the House, and on the 23rd, after reading a petition from him, moved "that he was unfit to be a Justice of Peace; and that he should be declared to be unworthy and disabled to be of that commission :-that he should make restitution to all of whom it could be proved that he had received anything for this business that he should be sent to the Tower until he be put out of commission, and until he should make an humble submission here at the bar on his knee." And (the House assuming thereupon the authority of a Court of Justice) it was ordered, upon the question, by a general voice, 2 "That he should be held unworthy to be a Justice of the Peace, and be declared disable and unworthy to be of that commission or any other whatsoever, To be sent at 2 of the Clock in the afternoon to the Tower through the street on foot." After which the private Journal (for the Clerk of the House was ill all this time, and the usual notes were not taken) proceeds thus:: "And so Michell was called to the Bar to hear his sentence on his knee. After sentence passed he desired to be heard, but it was denied. 'Mr. Chancellor of the Duchy: That he might be heard after judg2 Ib. p. 84. 1 Proceedings and Debates, p. 77. ment, so as it be an humble suit, or anything not concerning the sentence given by the House.' 'Sir Edward Cooke: That he ought not to be heard after judgment.' "And so it was agreed by the vote of the whole House."' Michell's petition, to which this was the answer, had been (if the note of it be correct) short, sharp, and defiant. Monperson, whose manner of executing his Patent for Inns and Hosteries had exposed him to the same kind of censure, took warning from the result, and tried whether in this new Court of Justice,-where anybody was counsel for the prosecution, and the "general voice" was the Judge, and the defendant heard nothing of the trial except the sentence, upon which he was not allowed to make any remark,-an attitude of humility would fare better: and the next morning there was read in the House "The petition of Sir Giles Monperson. Wherein he confesseth that he hath erred in the execution of the Patent for Inns, both by his letters and otherwise to Justices of the Peace; and confesseth that so general a Patent cannot but be a great grievance to the subject; and prayeth the favourable construction of the House, to whose censure he willingly submitteth himself." This petition was referred, I presume, to the Committee, whose report on the case was brought up by Coke on the 27th. On which occasion he laid down another rule for their proceeding as a Court of Justice which must have been rather alarming to all who might come within their jurisdiction. "If any one accused for a grievance do justify it in this House of Parliament, it is an indignity to the House, and for this the House may send any one to the Tower." So at least the words are given in the private Journal. But I gather from the notes taken by the Clerk of the House (who had resumed his duties the day before) that it was meant not so much for a rule to guide their proceedings hereafter as for a doctrine invented to justify what they had done two or three days before. A doubt had been raised as to their right to pronounce judgment upon Michell and commit him to the Tower, for offences which were not against the House and had in fact been committed when there was no House in existence. Coke's reply (on the sudden) was in effect that he had committed an offence against the House then sitting. Being charged with that which they had voted a grievance, he had presented 1620-1.] THREATENED PROCEEDING AGAINST REFEREES. 187 a petition in which he justified it. This was a punishable offence. A case in point had occurred when he was Speaker. A deputy purveyor was charged in that House with many grievances, done before Parliament: and it was resolved that if, being sent for, he should defend what he had done, "for his defence he was to be there punished." "Michell came in as a counsellor and justified it, and his petition was arrogant and presumptuous."l As it appeared by the question that the law of the case was not known to everybody, he added that he would "set this out at large and deliver it to be kept for a memorial in this House:" which may account for its being entered in the private Journal in a separate paragraph by itself, as a legal axiom. In order however to set it out in proper form he felt that "further advice" would be desirable; and it seems the House thought so too; for it was presently agreed on the motion of Sir Edwin Sandys that Noye and Hackwill should go that afternoon to the Tower and search the precedents there-" to show how far and for what offences the power of this House doth extend to punish delinquents against the State, as well as those who offend against this House";2 and having first informed the Committee, should report to the House the next morning. The truth was, they had discovered that they did not know what the proper course of proceeding in such cases was; for their present course, now that it was brought out in full relief, could hardly approve itself on "further advice" even to Coke himself. : 7. Pending the search for precedents the debate turned again upon the point originally raised by Sir Edward Sackville-the examination of the Referees. "Here," said Sir Lionel Cranfield, now Master of the Wards, "is a projector and a patent: he had had no patent if the Referees had done their duty to remember therefore the Referees and so to clear the honour of the King: to have the original petition, answer, and certificate reviewed." The House approved. Monperson was forthwith brought to the Bar and questioned as to the referees for the Patent of Inns. His answers were simple, direct, and unreserved. It had been referred for matter in law to the Lord Chancellor, the Lord Chief Baron, Justice Crooke, Justice Nicolls, and after his death to Justice Winch and for the point of conveniency, to the Earl of Suffolk (then Lord Treasurer), Secretary Winwood, Secretary Lake, and Mr. Serjeant Finch. Having given * Proceedings and Debates, p. 103. 1 Commons' Journals, p. 530. |