1623-4.] SUIT FOR LEAVE TO SIT IN PARLIAMENT AGAIN. 453

4.

The petition which Bacon had prepared for the House of Lords towards the end of the year 1621 for help in obtaining leave to come within the verge of the Court, was prevented by the dissolution of Parliament: and the desired liberty was granted a few months after. He now felt a strong desire to be relieved from that other clause in the sentence which forbade him to sit in Parliament, and to be so relieved with the good liking of the Lords themselves; which had always been the condition on which he asked for any favour in his troubles; and without which indeed this particular favour would have been of no value. Desiring that the motion should come from themselves, and if possible from those who were most independent, he did not proceed by formal petition but addressed himself privately to two of the most prominent members of the popular party in the Upper House-who had taken an active part in the proceedings against himself, and were most opposed to Buckingham and the Court party-the Earl of Southampton and the Earl of Oxford.

Not having been degraded from his rank as a Peer, he would, I suppose, be summoned to attend each Parliament in the usual form (for the Clerk of the Crown was not officially informed of his disqualification); but having been forbidden ever to sit in Parliament, he could not obey the summons without an express warrant releasing him from that part of the sentence. I do not know exactly what authority the House of Lords had in the matter, or whether they had any power to remit a punishment awarded in a former Parliament by themselves. Probably not. But an intimation to the King that they wished to readmit Bacon into their company would no doubt have procured the necessary warrant. And it must have been this, I think, in which he now desired the favour and furtherance of these two noblemen. For though he speaks of "wishing to have his writ," it appears from a later letter that it was not the writ itself, but the liberty to use it, which he wanted. Writing to Sir Humphrey May at new year's tide, 1625 (that is, 1625-6), he says "my writ for Parliament I have now had twice before the time, and that without any express restraint not to use it." And yet it is evident that he regarded himself as still excluded and unable to sit without a pardon. Whence we may also infer that these two letters which follow had been without effect.

1 That would be for James's last Parliament (Feb. 1623-4) and Charles's first (June, 1625),

TO THE RIGHT HONBLE. HIS VERY GOOD LORDSHIP THE EARL OF SOUTHAMPTON.1

My very good Lord,

It pleased your Lordship when we met last, and did not think, I dare say, that a Parliament would have been so soon, to assure me of your love and favour; and it is true that out of that which I have heard and observed of your noble nature I have a great affiance in your Lordship. I would be glad to receive my writ this Parliament, that since the root of my dignity is saved to me it might also bear fruit, and that I may not die in dishonour.

But it is far from me to desire this except it may be with the love and consent of the Lords: if their Lordships shall vouchsafe to think me worthy of their company or fit to do them service, or to have suffered sufficiently, whereby I may now be after 3 years a subject of their grace as I was before a subject of their justice.

In this matter I hold your Lordship's favour so essential as if God shall put it into your heart to give me your favour and furtherance, I will apply my industry and other friends to cooperate with your Lordship. Otherwise I shall give over to think of it; and yet ever rest

Your Lordship's affectionate and humble servant,

Last of January,

1623.

FR. ST. ALBAN.

TO THE EARL OF OXFORD.2

My very good Lord,

Let me be an humble suitor to your Lordship for your noble favour. I would be glad to receive my writ this Parliament, that I may not die in dishonour. But by no means, except it should be with the love and consent of my Lords to readmit me, if their Lordships vouchsafe to think me worthy of

1 From a copy of the original letter in Bacon's own hand (which is at Latimer), sent me by Mr. J. A. Froude, who supposes it to have come into Lord Chesham's family through Lady Rachel Russell, who was Lord Southampton's daughter.

2 Gibson Papers, vol. viii. f. 194. Rough draught in Bacon's hand. Indorsed "To Lo. of Oxford, 2 Feb. 1623."

1623-4.] DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE KING AND COMMONS. 455

their company; or if they think that which I have suffered now these three years, in loss of place, in loss of means, and in loss of liberty (for a great time), to be a sufficient expiation for my faults, whereby I may now seem in their eyes to be a fit subject. of their grace, as I have been before of their justice. My good Lord, the good which the commonwealth mought reap of my suffering, is already inned. Justice is done; An example is made for reformation; The authority of the House for judicature is established. There can be no further use of my misery; perhaps some little may be of my service; for I hope I shall be found a man humbled as a Christian, though not dejected as a worldling. I have great opinion of your Lordship's power, and great hope for many reasons of your favour; which if I may obtain, I can say no more but nobleness is ever requited in itself; and God (whose special favour in my afflictions I have manifestly found to my comfort) will I trust be my pay-master of that which cannot be requited by

Your Lordship's affectionate humble servant, etc.

5.

But though Bacon's voice was not to be heard again in Parliament or Council, we have one more note of what he would have said there, which for us is as good as a speech reported, if not better.

The last Parliament had been broken up upon a dispute about the abstract right of the House of Commons to discuss matters the ordering of which belonged to the Crown. The discussion itself did not threaten any difference in action which might not have been got over. By the help of some mutual concessions (for which they were prepared on both sides) they could have agreed pretty well as to what should be done. The Commons, when they found what difficulties their advice would involve, would have consented to modify it.' The King, if his right to interfere had not been disputed or ignored, would not have insisted upon interfering. But the Commons could not be content without declaring that their privilege of discussing such questions was an "ancient and un

1 "Even now they had no wish to impose terms on the King. One member after another rose to point out that their petition did not even require an answer." Gardiner, vol. ii. p. 135.

2 "He had at Williams's suggestion lowered his demands till he asked for nothing more than a mere polite acknowledgment of a historical fact." b. p.

147.

doubted birth-right;" while the King could not be content without an acknowledgment that they enjoyed it by the grace and favour of the Crown. It was a matter of principle on both sides; on which neither could give way. The Commons entered in their books a formal record of their claim. The King sent for their books and tore the record out. And on these terms they parted, leaving that old dispute in a condition more inconvenient than ever for adjustment. But though there was no chance of settling it, there was hope that in the next Parliament it would be allowed to sleep; for recent events had brought the Government and the people into better agreement as to practical objects.

In the autumn of 1621, when the state of the negotiation was explained to the two Houses by Digby, the difference of opinion between the Commons and the King as to policy was large and important. If Digby's report had been followed by a proposal to raise a force for the conquest of Spain, the recovery of Bohemia, and the overthrow of Popery, it is probable that the Commons would have taken it up with zeal, foreseen no difficulties, and suspended other disputes. But the recovery of the Palatinate only, leaving other things as they were-Bohemia in the hands of the Emperor, England in alliance with Spain, the Prince in treaty for an Infanta, and the English Catholics encouraged by toleration,was not an object in the pursuit of which they could forget everything else. They wished for it, and meant no doubt to secure it; but they wanted to secure a great deal more, and they did not observe that the course which it was proposed to take for the rescue of the Palatinate would be crossed by an attempt to accomplish the rest. The hope of the Government was that if the cause of the Palatinate could be separated from the cause of Bohemia; if the demand were limited to the status quo ante bellum; and if at the same time it were seen that military preparations were in progress to enforce it, then Spain, whose interest in the marriage made her a natural ally of England in this matter, would join with England in pressing the Emperor to consent. But to make this policy successful, it was important that the country should seem to be of one mind; and the debate in the House of Commons betrayed too clearly that this was not the case. They voted indeed by general consent a single subsidy, which would have heen enough to sustain the garrisons in the Palatinate through the winter; but they postponed the rest, alleging that there was no hurry; and their course left it doubtful whether they were ready to grant more except upon conditions involving a total change of policy. For they coupled the

1623-4.]

WARLIKE ADVICE OF THE COUNCIL.

457

offer of the single subsidy with a petition setting forth their own view of what should be done; and this was in direct, opposition to the course to which the Government had committed itself. Spain being in their eyes the great enemy and Popery the great evil, they would have had the King put himself at the head of the Protestant powers of Europe, declare war against Spain, marry the Prince to a Protestant, enforce the execution of the laws against Recusants, educate Papists' children under Protestant schoolmasters, prevent them from leaving England, and prohibit absolutely the restoration of forfeited lands.

So main a difference, though if the question of the abstract right had not been thrust in, it need not have caused an irreconcilable quarrel, must have seriously embarrassed the national action. But when the new Parliament met in February, 1623-4, the conditions of the question had been materially changed. On the 29th September, 1622, the case of the Palatinate had been laid before the Council for advice; and the Council, judging that the time had come which they had anticipated in their first report (March 5th, 1616-7)--the time when the treaty might be broken off "upon some material point of religion "-had advised prompt and peremptory action. The recent fall of Heidelberg, which had made the Prince impatient for the marriage by means of which he looked for its recovery, had made the Council impatient for a decisive answer as to the intentions of Spain.

"After a long and anxious deliberation, extending over four days, it was decided that a direct summons should be addressed to the King of Spain. Seventy days would be allowed him to obtain from the Emperor the restitution of Heidelberg; and if it should happen that either Mannheim or Frankenthal had also been taken, it was to be restored as well. Philip was also to engage that the negotiations for a general peace should be resumed on the basis laid down in the preceding winter, and to bind himself by an express stipulation that if the Emperor refused to consent to these terms he would order a Spanish army to take the field against him, or at least would give permission to an English force to march through Flanders into the Palatinate. If within ten days after this resolution was laid before Philip, he had not given a favourable answer under his hand and seal, Bristol [i.e. Digby] was to leave Madrid at once, and to declare the marriage treaty broken off."

A letter from Gondomar, received a few weeks after, full of promises that all obstacles to the match would soon be removed, made no change in the opinions of the Council; and had this ad

1 Gardiner, vol. ii. p. 256.