Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

the Lord Chancellor to dismiss-probably as being an encroachment
upon his Prerogative; that Bacon thought it unadvisable for the
King to interfere—or at least to be seen to interfere; and suggested
an arrangement by which it might be avoided. Now I find among
the State Papers one undated, but supposed by the calendarer to
belong to November 1616, the contents of which are thus described,
"Remonstrance of the Farmers of Customs against the intended
proclamation for wearing English cloth, as calculated to injure trade
so much that they should be obliged to give up their patent." If
they resorted to the Court of Chancery for redress, and if the King
directed Bacon to move the Lord Chancellor to refuse them a hear-
ing, the following letter to Villiers-now Earl of Buckingham-
may very well have been his answer.

TO THE R. HON. HIS VERY GOOD L. THE EARL OF BUCKINGHAM.3
It may please your good L.

I pray let his Majesty understand, that although my Lord Chancellor's answer touching the dismission of the Farmer's cause was full of respect and duty, yet I would be glad to avoid an express signification from his Majesty, if his Majesty may otherwise have his end. And therefore I have thought of a course, that a motion be made in open court, and that thereupon my Lord move a compromise to some to be named on either part, with band to stand to their award. And as I find this to be agreeable to my Lord Chancellor's disposition, so I do not find but the Farmers and the other party are willing enough towards it. And therefore his Majesty may be pleased to forbear any other letter or message touching that business. God ever keep your Lordship.

Your Lordship's true and most devoted servant,
FR. BACON.

23 of Jan. 1616.

[ocr errors][ocr errors]

8.

The monopoly which is the subject of the next letter belongs to a class which is still considered legitimate. Clement Dawbeney had invented a machine for slitting iron bars into rods, and obtained a patent for the sole use of it. Upon complaint made to the Council by a rival bar-slitter that the monopoly was injurious to the public,

1 See vol. lxxxix. no. 54. Calendar, p. 410.

2 Created on the 5th of January 1616-7.

3 Fortescue Papers, orig. own hand.

the patent was called in and referred to the Attorney-General for examination. Here is his certificate.

MR. ATTORNEY'S CERTIFICATE TOUCHING THE PATENT FOR SLITTING IRON BARS.1

It may please your Lordships,

According to your Lps reference of the 12th of June last, I have considered the Patent of Clement Dawbeney, gent. for the slitting of iron bars into rods. And I have had before me the patentee that now is, and some of the nailers and blacksmiths that complained against the same, whereupon it pleased your Lps to call in the said Patent. But upon examination of the business I find the complaint to be utterly unjust, and was first stirred up by one Burrell, master carpenter to the East India Company who hath already himself begun to set up the like engine in Ireland, and therefore endeavoured to overthrow the said Patent, the better to vent his own iron to his further benefit and advantage; whereas the nailers and blacksmiths themselves do all affirm that they are now supplied by the Patentee with as much good and serviceable iron or rather better than heretofore they have been, and that the said Patent hath been of much use to the kingdom in general, and likewise very beneficial to themselves in their trades: and therefore your Lps may be pleased to suffer him quietly to enjoy it without any further interruption; and to this did Burrell himself and the opposers willingly condescend: which nevertheless I submit to the wisdom of this most hon. board.

Jan. 27° 1616.

FR. BACON.

It seems that the patentee was allowed to enjoy the fruits of his invention, and thereby encouraged to improve upon it. For on the 11th of December 1618 a licence was granted" to Clement Daubigny to make a new kind of engine to be driven by water for cutting iron into small bars, for 21 years.' 112

9.

In his "discourse on the plantation of Ireland,"-presented to the King in January 1609-9, when a large portion of the lands in

1 S. P. Dom. James I. vol. xc. no. 41. Original.

2 Calendar of State Papers, p. 602.

Ulster had recently fallen to the disposal of the Crown,-Bacon gives his opinion of the kind of persons whom it would be desirable to engage as planters, or "undertakers" as they were then called, and the kind of attractions which it would be necessary to offer in order to allure them. The persons, he thinks, should not be needy adventurers, but "men of estate and plenty." For such persons the prospect of " honour and countenance" would have chief attraction; and among other honours which might be attached to the enterprise, he suggests "knighthood, with some new difference and precedence."1

It was, if not in compliance, at least in accordance with this suggestion, that in the beginning of 1611 the order of Baronets was instituted an order which was to be hereditary; to give rank, precedence, and title, without privilege; to be limited in numbers; and to consist entirely of gentlemen of good family and estate, who should bind themselves to pay into the Exchequer a sum sufficient to maintain 30 foot soldiers in Ireland for 3 years, at the same time declaring on oath that they had not directly or indirectly paid anything else for the honour. To ensure the appropriation of the money so paid to the service of the new plantation, the Treasurer was specially instructed to keep it apart by itself, that it might be "wholly converted to that use for which it was given and intended." The earliest patents were issued on the 22nd of May 1611, while Salisbury was still living, and Bacon only Solicitor; and though the first of these Baronets was his own half-brother, it is not probable that he had anything to do with the measure at that time, unless possibly his pen was used in drawing the patent. But questions arose afterwards on points of privilege and precedency, and a petition of certain Baronets for explanation and declaration, being presented to the King about this time, was referred by him to Bacon for his report. Of this report I find a copy at Lambeth, corrected and signed by Bacon himself, and docketed in Meautys's hand "A certificate for the Baronets:" but without any date. I have thought this the right place for it, because I find from the calendar of State papers that on the 10th of March 1616-7 there issued under the sign manual "Letters Patent declaratory of the dignity of baronet as a mean rank between barons and knights, declaring their precedency, and that of their wives, sons and daughters, over knights, and promising knighthood to the heir of any baronet on attaining his majority:" and this I suppose to have been the King's answer to the petition which was the subject of the following report.

See above, vol. iv. P. 121.

[ocr errors][ocr errors]

TO THE KING.1

May it please your Majesty,

According to your Highness' pleasure signified by my Lord Chamberlain, I have considered of the petition of certain baronets made unto your Majesty for confirmation and extent or explanation of certain points mentioned in their charter; and am of opinion.

That first, whereas it is desired, that the baronets be declared a middle degree between baron and knight, I hold this to be reasonable as to their placing.

Secondly, where it is desired that unto the words degree or dignity of baron, the word honour might be added, I know very well that in the preface of the baronets' patent it is mentioned that all honours are derived from the king. I find also that in the patent of the Baneretts, which are marshalled under the baronets (except it be certain principals,) the word honour is granted. I find also that the word dignity is many times in law a superior word to the word honour, as being applied to the King himself, all capital indictments concluding contra coronam et dignitatem nostram. It is evident also that the word honour and honourable are used in these times in common speech very promiscuously; nevertheless, because the style of honour belongs chiefly to peers and counsellors, I am doubtful what opinion to give therein.

Thirdly, whereas it is believed that if there be any question of precedence touching baronets it may be ordered that the same be decided by the commissioners marshal, I do not see but it may be granted them for avoiding disturbances.

Fourthly, for the precedence of baronets, I find no alteration or difficulty, except it be in this, that the daughters of baronets are desired to be declared to have precedence before the wives of knights' eldest sons; which because it is a degree hereditary, and that in all examples the daughters in general have place next the eldest brothers' wives, I hold convenient.

Lastly, whereas it is desired that the apparent heirs males of the bodies of the baronets may be knighted during the life of

1 Gibson Papers, vol. viii. f. 275. Copy with corrections in Bacon's hand : signature original. 2 William Earl of Pembroke.

3 Precedence was given to the baronet above all bannerets, except those who were made in the field, under the banner, the King being present.

their fathers; for that I have received from the Lord Chamberlain a signification, that your Majesty did so understand it, I humbly subscribe thereunto; with this, that the baronets' eldest sons being knighted do not take place of ancient knights, so long as their fathers live.

All which nevertheless I humbly submit to your Majesty's better judgment.

one;

Your Majesty's most humble
and most bounden servant,
FR. BACON.

This institution of the order of Baronet, is commonly spoken of as a disgraceful proceeding on the part of the King. Why, I have never been able to understand or conjecture. The object was a good the conditions were open and honourable; the persons selected were no way unfit or disreputable; the order itself has never fallen into disgrace. To invite contributions and other assistance towards the settlement and civilization of what was then the most unsettled part of Ireland from the class of persons likeliest to do the work effectually, cannot be considered an unworthy act on the King's part. To belong to a family which had borne arms for three generations, to have an estate worth 10007. a year in land, to undertake to pay into the Exchequer 10807. on the special condition that it should be appropriated to the maintenance of order in Ireland, and to receive in return a titular distinction and certain rights of precedency for themselves and their heirs male, with an assurance that the number of persons on whom it should be conferred should be limited to two hundred, cannot be considered as in any way discreditable to the parties dealt with. And if it is true (as it may or may not be) that the Baronets as a body did not play any conspicuous part in the reclamation of Ulster from barbarism, but that their main service was the contribution of the money at the beginning, it is true also that as a body they have flourished and continue to flourish in honour and importance-an order of men much respected, and (though no longer limited in numbers) retaining its full value in public estimation; an order into which men otherwise honourably distinguished think it an additional distinction to be admitted; while those who succeed to it by inheritance are so far from being ashamed of its origin, that they value their title the more the further they can trace it back. Why should a tree which bears such fruit be reckoned a discredit to the planter? I can only suppose that the opinion was first thrown out by somebody who knew that the payment of money was a condition of the patent, but did

« AnteriorContinuar »