and absolute, and which they had been all thinking and talking about for the last month under a full impression that it admitted of no defence at all: an impression which only a high degree of trained and practised judicial impartiality can dismiss or suspend in order to reconsider. It was the first case also of its kind, and had come before them when the appetite was fresh and keen. The Bishop's censure came on a month later; when both Houses were tolerably well satisfied with slaughter, when the Lords had established their credit with the Commons as a Court of Judicature by a readiness to condemn, with or without reason, whomsoever they accused; and when other matters were beginning to occupy their attention.

On the 24th of April, as soon as the Lords were ready to hear the report of the Committees prepared according to the last instructions, the Prince rose and said that the L. Chancellor had sent him his submission; and therewith delivered his letter; which was immediately read, first by the clerk and then by the Lord Chief Justice. After which there was a pause. "No Lord spoke to it after it was read for a long time." "The question is," said the Lord Chamberlain at last (who seems to have acted as leader of the government party), "whether this submission be sufficient to ground your Lordships' judgment for a censure, without further examination;" and thereupon the House resolved itself into a Committee of the whole to consider it. The first thing was to have the charge, that is "the collection of the corruptions wherewith the Lord Chancellor was charged," now amounting to twenty-threeread out; and then the confession. Elsing's notes of the debate which followed give us some light as to the views of the different parties. The Prince and Buckingham were evidently for accepting the submission and sparing a formal sentence; but that motion found so little encouragement that it does not appear to have been formally put. Others on the other hand were for ignoring it altogether. "If this submission intend a connivance," said Lord Saye, "it had been well in the beginning, but coming now after the examinations and proofs, it comes too late. Neither is it sufficient to ground our sentence. Moved to proceed." "The confession is not sufficient," said the Earl of Suffolk (who was not sorry perhaps to repay Bacon in kind for his proceedings in the Star Chamber in 1619), "for he desires to be a judge,-to lose his seal, and that to be the sentence: wherefore it is far short of that we expect." But the true objection and the fair and just course was indicated by the Lord Chamberlain and the Earl of Southampton. It was a confession that he had done enough to deserve condemnation and censure, but not that he had done what he was charged with. "It is not suffi

1621.] A PARTICULAR CONFESSION REQUIRED FROM BACON. 249

...

cient," said the Lord Chamberlain: "for the confession is grounded upon a rumour. . . . .He neither speaks of the particular charge, nor confesseth anything particular." "He is charged by the Commons," said Southampton, "with corruption; and no word of confession of any corruption in his submission. It stands with the justice and honour of this House not to proceed without the parties' particular confession; or to have the parties to hear the charge, and we to hear the parties' answer."

All agreeing that the confession was not full enough, but must refer to the particular charges, the question arose, whether Bacon should be required to attend and hear and answer in person, or should have them sent to him and return his answer in writing. Upon this there was a difference of opinion, and a debate followed which throws some further light upon the personal history of the case. Buckingham, Arundel, the Lord Chamberlain, Southampton, Lenox, the Prince, the Bishop of Durham; all spoke in favour of sending the particulars of the charge to him and expecting his answer by letter: both Buckingham and the Lord Chamberlain advocating it earnestly and eagerly. On the other hand, Huntingdon, Suffolk, Saye, and Wallingford, were all for bringing him to the bar,-Suffolk especially urging it vehemently and repeatedly. On a division, it was carried in favour of what may be called, I suppose, the Court party (for all the Councillors who spoke were in the majority); and agreed that the charge should be sent to him.1

10.

When the "collection of corruptions" was read to the House that they might compare it with the confession, it had been read together with "the proofs thereof;" meaning the names of the witnesses whose depositions constituted the evidence in each case. It was now sent to Bacon; but "without the proofs," and with the following message:-

"That the Lord Chancellor's confession is not fully set down by his Lordship in the said submission for three causes. 1. His Lordship confesseth not any particular bribe nor corruption. 2. Nor showeth how his Lordship heard of the charge thereof. 3. The confession, such as it is, is afterwards extenuated in the same submission: and therefore the Lords have sent him a particular of the charge, and do expect his answer to the same, with all convenient expedition." "

His reply by the messengers was that "he would return the Lords an answer;" which being their own word should have been least

1 Elsing's notes of the Lords' debates in 1621 (Camd. Soc. 1870) pp. 13–18. Lords' Journals, 24 April, p. 85.

liable to be misunderstood. But a letter which he wrote at the same time to their Speaker raised a suspicion that his "answer" was to be a defence. The contents of this letter we do not know; for being addressed to the Chief Justice and not to the House, no official notice was taken of it. It seems, however, that it contained something about "postilling the matters of charge in the margent," and something about time to be allowed. I should suppose therefore that its real object was, first to explain the form of the answer which he meant to return, and secondly to learn what time would be allowed for drawing it up. Upon this followed a lively debate. Their difficulty apparently was to understand how a confession could require time. The charges were definite. He was either guilty or not guilty. If guilty, let him say so at once, and they were prepared to pronounce judgment. If not, let him come to the Bar and defend himself. That a charge might be true in part and yet require limitations and explanations to make it true altogether, was a point in judicial science beyond their present learning, and remained unintelligible to them all through ;-as we shall see. But though the doubt might have been spared, the course they took to settle it was rational. Upon the Prince's motion, seconded by Southampton, it was resolved to ask him the question: did he mean to confess or to defend himself? A message was sent accordingly, requiring an answer "directly and presently." And answer was immediately returned this time, we are told, " in writing." 2

"The Lord Chancellor will make no manner of defence to the charge, but meaneth to acknowledge corruption, and to make a particular confession to every point, and after that an humble submission.

But humbly craves liberty, that where the charge is more full than he finds the truth of the fact, he may make declaration of the truth in such particulars; the charge being brief, and containing not all circumstances." 8

With this at last they seem to have been satisfied, and though Suffolk still insisted that the submission should be made in person, they agreed to give him to the 30th of April (five days) to send in "such confession and submission as he intended to make."

1 "Agreed, not to be read, but the L. Chief Justice to open the substance thereof.

1. To postill all the matters of charge in the margent in writing. 2. To have Saturday come sennight, for that the same time was given to another." Elsing p. 18.

2 Elsing, p. 23.

3 Lords' Journals, p. 87.

1621.] BACON'S OWN CONFESSION OUR BEST EVIDENCE. 251

11.

That the collection of charges sent to him was not accompanied with what they called "the proofs,"—that is, with a note of the names of the witnesses by whose depositions each was said to be proved,-was not material. If he had meant to defend himself, he would have wanted to know not only who they were, but what they had deposed. But intending to make a clear confession of the truth as far as he "knew or remembered," it was enough to be informed of the facts which were laid to his charge. What more was contained in those depositions I suppose he never knew, unless by report of those who had been present at the examinations "in open court": and we are still more in the dark than he was; for we know nothing at all about any of them, except the few which were taken at first by the Commons, and sent up by them to the Lords with reports of what they proved, not always (as we have seen in the case of Dr. Feild) to be borne out by a more stringent examination. As this list contains all the offences of which he was accused, and therefore all to which his confession applies, we must be careful not to suppose that he thereby admitted himself to be guilty of anything beyond what is set down in the record and acknowledged by himself to be true. The absence of all attempt on the part of the Lords either to sift and weigh evidence, or to distinguish cases according to the degree of guilt implied, or to explain how far in each case he was proved to have transgressed the law, or what the law was, and where lay the line which separated what was permitted from what was forbidden,— their course of bundling into one bag charges and depositions of all natures, and calling upon him to confess or answer to the bundle,makes his own articulate confession upon each separate charge, with its corrections, distinctions and qualifications, the best evidence we have as to the nature and degree of his offences. He had already said that he meant to confess himself guilty of corruption. But corruption includes acts of various complexions-varying from violations of universal morality of the blackest dye to violations only of artificial and conventional regulations, made to defend the outworks of morality-acts illegal rather than immoral: and as the judges neither made any attempt themselves to draw such distinctions, nor placed on record any of the evidence which would enable us to do so, we are compelled to fall back upon Bacon himself, as being really our only authority; and to hold him guilty to the extent of his own confession, and no further. From the manner in which the case was tried it is impossible to regard anything else as proved.

On the 30th of April, the Lord Chief Justice received from him a paper roll, sealed up; which being delivered to the Clerk and opened, was found to be directed to the Lords; and ordered to be read. It was in the following words. The text is taken from the copy printed in the Journal for April 30. The names of the witnesses whose depositions were referred to as proving the several charges, I have inserted in foot-notes from the collection which was read in the House on the 24th of April, and contains probably all that the House knew about the matter.1

TO THE RIGHT HONOURABLE THE LORDS SPIRITUAL AND TEMPORAL, IN THE HIGH COURT OF PARLIAMENT AS

SEMBLED.

The Confession and humble Submission of me, the Lord Chancellor.

Upon advised consideration of the charge, descending into my own conscience, and calling my memory to account so far as I am able, I do plainly and ingenuously confess that I am guilty of corruption; and do renounce all defence, and put myself upon the grace and mercy of your Lordships.

The particulars I confess and declare to be as followeth :

1. To the first article of the charge, videlicet, In the cause between Sir Rowland Egerton and Edward Egerton, the Lord Chancellor received five hundred pounds on the part of Sir Rowland Egerton, before he decreed the cause :"2

I do confess and declare, that upon a reference from his Majesty of all suits and controversies between Sir Rowland Egerton and Edward Egerton, both parties submitted themselves to my award by recognizance reciprocal in ten thousand marks apiece; thereupon, after divers hearings, I made my award, with advice and consent of my Lord Hobart. The award was perfected and published to the parties, which was in February; then some days after, the five hundred pounds mentioned in the charge was delivered unto me.

1 See Lords' Journals, p. 85.

2 "Proved by the depositions of Sir Rowland Egerton; of John Brooke, who deposeth to the providing of the money, of purpose to be given to the Lord Chancellor; and that the same is delivered to Mr. Thelwall, to deliver to the Lord Chancellor; of Bevis Thelwall, who delivered the 500l. to the Lord Chancellor."