positive and negative, I should infer that in these matters he agreed with Bacon, up to the 29th of November: at which time, or soon after, a great change took place in his position. His ruling passion had always been the assertion and enforcement of the authority of his own office for the time being. While he was a Privy Councillor, and nothing else, his power was in proportion to the power of the King in Council, and no man set it higher. As soon as the electors of Liskeard chose him for their member, his power was in proportion to the power of the Lower House of Parliament; which it accordingly became his duty to magnify and enforce. An immense promotion! There is a story that when some one advised James early in that session" to take down the Lower House a little," he replied (being at the time in a very good humour with them on account of the subsidy just passed) that he was but one King, they were 400, and every one a King; and therefore he would let them alone. 1 Coke had suddenly risen from being the servant of the one King to be the ruler of the 400; and though just now very gracious and complimentary to his former master, was no longer to be "mated" by any caveat from him. But what had become known to him in the confidence of the Council-chamber his oath of secrecy forbade him to reveal without leave; and if of his own knowledge he could have said who the Referees were and what they certified, he did not communicate it, as of his own knowledge, either to the Committee or to the House. The only evidence which could have been produced at the Conference was the verbal statement of Sir Giles Montperson in one case, and of Sir H. Yelverton in the other.

But whatever reason they might have, the House was not in a humour to allow it. The Conference-committee had been a committee of the whole House. Every member therefore was a judge of the manner in which their instructions had been executed. And they lost no time in calling their orators to account.

The debate began with an attack upon their own Speaker, who seems to have been accused of so managing or mismanaging the putting of the question that the resolution of the House with regard to the Referees was either not passed or not understood. The private Journal gives the following sketch of the speeches made by way of objection to the conduct of the Conference; and they agree substantially with the notes in the Journal of the House,

"Mr. Mallory. That had it not been for Sir Dudley Digges and Sir Edward Coke, the business concerning Sir Giles Montperson at the conference with the Lords had fallen to the ground.

1 Locke to Carleton, 12 March, 1620-1. S. P. vol. cxx. no. 15.

1620-1.] CHARGES AGAINST MANAGERS OF CONFERENCE. 195

“Sir Robert Phillips. He had thought to have spoken but to two points, but now will speak to three.

"1. The Speaker doth not carry himself [well] in putting things to the question, nor frameth the question according to the sense of the House.

"2. That amongst other omissions yesterday in the conference, it was omitted to speak of the Referees: he hopeth it was not purposely forgotten; for no noble or free man will be afraid to name those that fear not to wrong their country.

"3. For a remedy, he would that at the next conference with the Lords the omissions might be spoken of and remembered; or rather that we should send to-morrow morning to repair our duties, and the King's and their own honours.

"Mr. Nevill. That the Speaker hath been the cause that many good and plausible motions have become abortive, and hath made them perish as soon as they have been born. That the heart and tongue of Sir Edward Coke are true relatives, but his pains hath not reaped that harvest of praise that he hath deserved. For the Referees, they are as transcendent delinquents as any other, and sure their souls made a wilful elopement from their bodies when they made these certificates; of which Referees some are active, and they have been and are very criminal; others are passive, and their names only have been used. He desireth that this matter of Referees may be duly considered, without respect of places or persons. "Sir Thomas Wentworth. That the omission may be supplied by some other members.

"Sir Dudley Digges. Wisheth that we should not be too curious in challenging too large a power.

"Sir Thomas Rowe. That those who were employed in opening of that business to the Lords, if they had doubted their order had not been large enough, should have asked a better order. That there was omitted all the particular commitments made by the Commissioners in the business of Gold and Silver Thread, the sophistication of the silk that was used to make the Gold and Silver Thread, the offering of yellow silk for gold thread; and therefore he wisheth that those who omitted anything of their parts, should to-morrow by another conference repair what they omitted yesterday."

:

There seems to have been no voice at all on the other side and the members who were complained of rose successively to make their

excuses.

"Mr. Hackwill excuseth himself and saith that in his part there was no Referee for on Sir Giles Montperson's petition for the 2007. old rent to be made up out of concealments, it was referred to Sir Thomas Coventry only to draw a book according to the petition, and not to consider of the lawfulness and conveniency of the grant.1

1 This is all of Hackwill's speech that is given in the private Journal. According to the note in the Journals of the House, he added-"That Mr. Chancellor

"Mr. Crew excuseth himself, saying, he hath the testimony of his own heart of his willingness to perform his duty for the service of this House: That he took it he had cleared his Majesty's honour by noting his judicious steps in the granting the Patent for Inns :-That there being no certificate concerning the lawfulness or conveniency of granting of the Patent of Inns (to his knowledge) brought into the House, he thought it not fit to mention the Referees but on good ground, and not on the verbal affirmation of Sir Giles Montperson.

"Mr. Recorder excuseth himself, saying he came with a faithful heart to perform the service of this House :-that he left out the Referees because there was no other proof of them than only the words of Sir Henry Yelverton, who only said there was a great person to whom this was referred." 1

I said that the alleged excuse for omitting to name the Referees seemed sufficient; and I cannot find either in the private Journal or the Journals of the House that any sufficient answer was given to it. Both Coke and Phillips made observations, and repeated the statements of Montperson and Yelverton: but, as far as I can make out, they offered no proof beside. And indeed Coke (who spoke so much more indulgently than usual that he almost withdrew the charge which he had himself made) seemed by implication to admit that they had no other proof. But we know what a high value (as evidence) he always claimed for a confession by which the confessant is himself incriminated and on that ground he thought, in the absence of better evidence, that Yelverton's was good enough.

"If we cannot come to the originals, let us take the confession of Sir H. Yelverton, who particeps criminis." 2

3

The debate then turned upon the manner of repairing these omissions, and there followed a somewhat distracted and disorderly discussion, in the course of which the Speaker was again sharply criticised, but which ended in the appointment of a Committee to make arrangements for another conference the next day. Coke was

to go early in the morning and ask for a second hearing. Crew and Finch were to be prepared to name the Referees, the fees to Justices, the advisers, the sharers, the proclamations, the imprisonment (in

of the Exchequer and Mr. Solicitor made agreements with Sir G. Montperson which much restrained that grant. Thinketh it of great consequence the Referees should be touched. That not proved at the Committee who the Referees for the Patents of Gold and Silver Thread."

1 Proceedings and Debates, vol. i. p. 135

a C. J. p. 547.

"Mr. Alford. That he warned them before of haste. Never saw Parliament so out of order." Id. Ibid.

1620-1.]

REPORTS OF THE SECOND CONFERENCE.

197

which Bacon was implicated), and all the rest: and Coke himself was to conclude and apply. The Lords replied that they would meet them at two in the afternoon. In the mean time the King came to the House and made "a long speech, the effect whereof was (as I hear)" says one of Carleton's correspondents, "to satisfy the Upper House that he was not guilty of those grievances which are now discovered, but that he grounded his judgment upon others who have misled him." He was a little afraid that the conference might hinder the passing of the Subsidy Bill, which was not yet complete; and sent a message to the Lower House desiring that, unless both could be despatched that afternoon, the conference might be deferred till Monday. But they answered that they would despatch both: 2 the conference was held at the hour agreed on and Crew and Finch performed their parts :-this time to Coke's satisfaction.

9.

It was an unfortunate day for Bacon; who, though only named among the rest, was the real object of attack-as appears from the fact that when he was overthrown shortly after upon a totally different charge, the rest were not pursued any further. And it was the more unfortunate because his accusers were at liberty to speak against him whatever they pleased, while he, if he had had ever so good a defence to make, was not at liberty to say a word in answer. He could not so much as intimate that he was prepared to answer the charge at the proper time, without transgressing the rules of the House. Coke in reporting to the Commons what passed, observed" that both the Lord Treasurer and the Lord Chancellor did offer to make apologies for themselves, and to justify what they certified as Referees; but they deferred it to a more seasonable time:" and when he inquired whether they said that "as from the Lords in general"— the answer was a general cry of No: and this statement is fully confirmed by the account given in the Lords' Journal of what was passing in the Upper House at the same time.

"The Lord Chancellor, removing from his place to his seat as a Peer, reported what passed at the last conference of both Houses on Saturday last; the inducement of which conference

1 Tho. Locke to Carleton, 12 March, 1620-1. S. P.

2 C. J. p. 549. They did not get the Subsidy Bill through till Monday: but it made no difference.

3 Proceedings and Debates, vol. i. p. 143.

4 C. J.

p. 550.

Sir Gyles
The effect

was, to clear the King's honour touching grants to Mompesson and the passages in procuring the same. of which conference was that the King, upon the petition of Sir Gyles Mompesson to have a patent to reform abuses of divers innkeepers, and a warrant to compound for the penalty of obsolete laws touching the prices of horse-meat, referred the same unto divers Judges for the point of law, and to divers Lords for the point of conveniency.

"That his Majesty had the like care in granting the patent for the monopoly of the sole making of gold and silver thread. And shewed how Sir Henry Yelverton advised the same to be resumed into his Majesty's own hands, and by indentures to authorise divers to govern the same; which was first referred also by his Majesty to the consideration of divers of his Council; that the benefit arising to the King was set over to others, pro tempore; that the authority granted by the King was much abused in the execution thereof, to the intolerable grievance of the subject; and much imposture was used in the trade.

"The Lord Chamberlain declared that at the said conference with the House of Commons, two great Lords (meaning the Lord Chancellor and Lord Treasurer) spake in their own defence, not being allowed so to do, when the Committees were named, and the said conference directed and limited by this House; which was against the ancient order thereof: and therefore his Lordship moved, an order to be now entered to prevent the like hereafter, which was agreed unto; with this, that the said two Lords should give the House satisfaction by the acknowledgment of their error therein.

"Whereupon the Lord Chancellor, removing to his seat as a Peer, did acknowledge that, contrary to the orders of the House, he had spoken at the last conference more than he had direction by the House to do; and acknowledged that he had erred therein the which acknowledgment the Lords generally accepted.

"The Lord Treasurer also made the like acknowledgment. And it was specially moved by the Lords that these acknowledgments should be entered by the clerk."1

The clerk who kept the Journal of the House of Lords entered with great punctuality all the orders and proceedings, but never

1 L. J. p. 42.