The Attorney in the Court of Wards and Duchy sign informations, which concern the King; and sit as Judges.

In the Star-chamber, reference to the King's Counsel as well as the Judges." 1

The inconvenience however, whatever it might be worth, did not apply to the present case; for the Attorney was at liberty, and fully competent to do all that was necessary. And it was resolved that "Evidence touching the Bill of Attainder" should be given "by Mr. Attorney at the Bar, and not by Mr. Solicitor and Sir Fr. Bacon, being members of the House."2 So Sir Edward Coke was heard on behalf of the Crown, and their own counsel on behalf of the parties; the Bill (with some amendments introduced by the Committee, to which the Lords had signified their assent) went through its stages; and whatever Bacon may have had to do with it in or out of the House—and we know that a proviso tendered by the Counsel of one of the parties was "much disputed "s-we hear no more of him in relation to it till it was passed: and then we only hear that he was deputed to carry it up to the Lords. 4

13.

There is a paper preserved among the Tanner MSS. in the Bodleian Library, which is supposed by Mr. Dixon (to whom we are indebted for the discovery of it) to be the notes of a speech made by Bacon during this session, against a bill for the regulation of fees payable for copies out of Courts of Record. Such a bill was brought in, it is true, on the 25th of January 1605-6; and after counsel had been heard (14 Feb.) for the parties interested, was referred to a committee; by which it was reported (7 March) "as fit to sleep." Bacon's name however is not mentioned in the Journals either as one of the Counsel heard at the Bar, or as a member of the Committee, or as a speaker in the only debate upon it that is recorded. And on referring to the original manuscript, I find a note in the margin, which cannot be well reconciled with Mr. Dixon's supposition. This note, if I have read it correctly, means that the original was a certified copy made on the 19th of January 1605-6. The words are "1605, Ext. per Philipp et Rob. 19 Janu." Now if the date refer to the time when the copy was examined, the paper cannot refer to anything delivered in Parliament: and I rather think that it must have been a professional opinion,-of which certified copies might be wanted-given upon the Bill to the parties interested be1 C. J. p. 296. 2 Ib. p. 296. 3 Ib. p. 308, 12 May. 4 Ib. 13 May.

fore it was exhibited. If so,-and the fact that Bacon had given such an opinion would account for his not being put on the Committee,the proper place for it would have been at the beginning of the Session instead of the end. The difference however is not material, and the present arrangement, though accidental, will perhaps be found more convenient. The paper has every appearance of being genuine.

SIR FRAN. BACON'S ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE BILL OF

SHEETS.1

1. First, it hath sprung out of the ashes of a decayed monopoly by the spleen of one man; that because he could not continue his new exaction, therefore would now pull down ancient fees.

2. Secondly, it knows the way out of the house, for in the xxxv. Eliz. the like bill was preferred, and much called upon at the first, and rejected at the engrossment, not having twenty voices for it.

3. Thirdly, it is without all precedent; for look into former laws, and you shall find that when a statute erects a new office or act to be done, it limits fees, as in case of enrolment, in case of administration, &c., but it never limits ancient fees to take away men's freeholds.

4. Fourthly, it looks extremely back, which is against all justice of Parliament, for a number of subjects are already placed in offices, some attaining them in the course of long service, some in consideration of great sums of money, some in reward of service from the Crown, when they might have had other suits, and such officers again allied with a number of other subjects who valued them according to their offices. Now if half these men's livelihoods and fortunes should be taken from them, it were an infinite injustice.

5. Fifthly, it were more justice to raise the fees than to abate them. For we see gentlemen have raised their rents and the fines of their tenants, and merchants tradesmen and farmers their commodities and wares, and this mightily within c. years. But the fees of officers continue at one rate.

6. Sixthly, if it be said the number of fees is much increased because causes are increased, that is a benefit which time gives 1 Tanner MSS. 169, 42.

2 This I suppose was the "Bill for the better expedition of Justice in the Star Chamber "concerning which see Vol. I. p. 226.

It is no more than if there were an

and time takes away. ancient toll at some bridge between Barwick and London, and now it should be brought down because that, Scotland being united, there were more passengers.

7. Seventhly, causes may again decrease, as they do already begin; and therefore, as men must endure the prejudice of time, so they ought again to enjoy the benefit of time.

8. Eighthly, men are not to consider the proportion between the fee and the pains taken, as if it were in a scrivener's shop, because in the copies (being the principal gain of the officer) was considered ab antiquo his charge, his attendance, his former labours to make him fit for the place, his countenance and quality in the commonwealth, and the like.

9. Ninthly, the officers do many things sans fee, as in causes in forma pauperis, and for the King &c., which is considered in the fees of copies.

10. Tenthly, there is great labour of mind in many cases, as in the entering of orders, and in all examinations. All which is only considered in the copies.

11. Eleventhly, these offices are either the gift of the King, or in the gift of great officers, who have their office from the King, so as the King is disinherited of his ancient right and means to prefer servants, and the great offices of the kingdom likewise disgraced and impaired.

12. Twelft' `y, there is a great confusion and inequality in the bill; for the copies in the inferior courts, as for example in the Court of the Marches, the Court of the North (being inferior courts) are left in as good case as they were, and high courts of the kingdom only abridged, whereas there was ever a diversity half in half in all fees, as Chancellor's, clerks', and all others.'

13. Thirteenthly, if fees be abridged as too great, they ought to be abridged as well in other points as in copies, and as well in other offices as in offices towards the law. For now prothonotaries shall have their old fees for engrossing upon the roll, and the like, and only the copies shall be abridged; whereas, if it be well examined, the copies are of all fees the most reasonable; and so of other offices, as customs, searchers, mayors, bailiffs, &c. which have many ancient fees incident to their offices, which all may be called in question upon the like or better reason.

1 So in MS.

14. Fourteenthly, the suggestion of the Bill is utterly false, which in all law is odious. For it suggesteth that these fees have of late years been exacted, which is utterly untrue, having been time out of mind, and being men's freehold, whereof they may have an assize, so as the Parliament may as well take any man's lands, common mynes, &c. as these fees.

15. Fifteenthly, it casts a slander upon all superior Judges, as if they had tolerated extortions, whereas there have been severe and strict courses taken, and that of late, for the distinguishing of lawful fees from new exactions, and fees reduced into tables, and they published and hanged up in courts, that the subjects be not poled nor aggrieved.

16. Sixteenthly, the law (if it were just) ought to enter into an examination and distinction what were rightful and ancient fees and what were upstart fees and encroacht, whereas now it sweeps them all away without difference.

17. Seventeenthly, it requires an impossibility, setting men to spell again how many syllables be in a line, and puts the penalty of xx s. for every line faulty, which is xviii. a sheet. And the superior officers must answer it for clerks' fault or oversight.

18. Eighteenthly, it doth disgrace superior Judges in Court, to whom it properly belongeth to correct those misdemeanours according to their oaths and according to discretion, because it is impossible to reduce it to a definite rule.

19. Lastly, this being a penal law, it seems there is but some commodity sought for, that some that could not continue their first monopoly mought make themselves whole out of some penalties.

And this I think is all that can be made intelligible concerning the part played by Bacon during this session: which closed on the 27th of May without any sign of discontent on either side (and to the personal satisfaction of Sir Edward Coke1), and was prorogued to the 18th of November.

1 See his letter to Sir Thomas Lake, 22 May, 1606. (Dom. James I. vol. xxi.) "Sir-I have made ready this general pardon (moulded in the former mould) for his M. signature. I perceive it not good that so many good men tarry so long together and therefore I wish an end of this Parliament."

WE have seen that in March 1605-6 Salisbury had been showing some interest in Bacon's fortunes. And though we do not know precisely either what he had promised or how much his promises meant, there is reason to believe that he had favoured a proposed arrangement by which Bacon might have been advanced at last to the Solicitorship. Sir Henry Neville, writing to Winwood on the 11th of March in that year, says "We are in some expectation of a creation of four Barons: viz. the Lord Chief Justice, Mr. Attorney, who is designed Chief Justice in Gaudie's room, Sir John Fortescue, and Sir Thomas Knevett," &c. The words which I have printed in italic are conclusive of the fact that a rumour to that effect was in circulation at that time; and as the same rumour is distinctly alluded to in the following letter, we need not hesitate to date it within a few days before or after the 11th of March; nor is there much room for doubt that Salisbury's demonstration of "tenderness over Bacon's contentment" was subsequent to and consequent upon this letter. For if anything of the kind had passed between them before, it would have been impossible to avoid some reference to it on such an occasion.

This letter was first printed in the 'Remains' (1648) with this heading, "A Letter to the Earl of Salisbury touching the Solicitor's place, at what time he stood but in doubtful terms of favour with his Lordship." Although not to be found in the Resuscitatio, it appears to have been contained in Bacon's own collection, and is here taken from the copy in the British Museum, which differs from the other in one or two places, and is evidently more correct.

TO THE EARL OF SALISBURY.2

It may please your Lordship,

I am not privy to myself of any such ill deserving towards

I Winwood's Memor. ii. 198.

2 Add. MSS. 5503, fo. 102.