him, and of a design to poison Lady Roos. The King tried to contrive some course which would have made it unnecessary to publish the scandal by bringing the case into Court; but tried in vain. As carly as January 1617-8 it was referred to the Councilboard. Before the end of March it was transferred to the Star Chamber, where it seems that both parties put in bills of complaint; the Lakes for the wrong imputed, the Exeters for the wrongful imputation; and the cause was so complicated-the documents put in filling, it is said, 17,000 sheets of paper-that it could not be concluded by the end of the year. The final hearing was now set down for the three Star Chamber days next after Candlemas: the Judges and lawyers were ordered "to cut off all impertinent matter and contract it within some reasonable compass; "2 and the King meant to hear it himself.

All this, together with the prosecution of the Dutch merchants for exportation of gold, and the negotiation with the Commissioners from Holland about East Indian matters, promised a busy term; though the very press of business which occupied Bacon's time. makes his correspondence comparatively barren.3

On the 12th of January of this year occurred the great fire at Whitehall, when the Banqueting House was burnt down: which is worth mentioning, partly to correct an error in a popular book which represents the Lord Chancellor as present on the occasion,1— a misprint or misreading for Lord Chamberlain,-but chiefly as bearing upon the disappearance of official papers. When evidence which formed the justification of a government-proceeding is no longer to be found, people are apt to suspect that the papers have been removed because they would not bear examination. But there are many ways in which such disappearance may be accounted for; and one is an accident like this. "One of the greatest losses spoken of," says Chamberlain, "is the burning of all or most of the writings or papers belonging to the offices of the Signet, Privy Seal, and Council Chamber, which were under it,"-that is under the Banqueting House. Now the papers belonging to the Council office at this time may very likely have included many of the examinations connected with the case of Sir Walter Ralegh; and this may be the real reason why so few of them are now forthcoming.

1 W. Smithe to Carleton, 2 Dec. 1618. S. P.

2 Chamberlain to Carleton, 23 Jan. 1618-9. S. P.

3 It was at this time, as we learn from Chamberlain, that he published some new orders for his court, but I do not know that any existing set of orders for the government of Chancery can be identified with them.

4Court and Times of James I.' vol. ii. p. 124.

1619.] BUCKINGHAM'S INTERFERENCE IN SUITS.

3.

5

Of the few letters belonging to this period, the first (addressed to Lady Clifford) relates to some affair which is not explained. But I find in the Calendar of State Papers (14 March, 1617) notice of an "award between the Earl of Cumberland and the Earl and Countess of Dorset, and Henry Lord Clifford, concerning the estating of divers lands, etc., Cos York and Westmoreland, and payment of money;" and it is not unlikely that some remains of that question had to be dealt with by the Court of Chancery. Lady Clifford, wife of Henry Lord Clifford, was the daughter of Bacon's cousin Robert Earl of Salisbury; whose assistance to him "in the passages of his fortune," though not very strenuous, had no doubt been valuable enough to justify this expression of obligation in writing to his daughter.

TO THE LADY CLIFFORD.1

My good Lady and cousin,

I shall not be wanting in anything, that may express my good affection and wishes towards your Ladyship being so near unto me, and the daughter of a father to whom I was in the passages of my fortune much obliged. So with my loving commendations, in the midst of business, I rest

Your affectionate kinsman and assured friend,

York House, this 25th

of January, 1618.

FR. VERULAM, Canc.

Of Buckingham's letters in recommendation of suitors, I have said in the last volume what I had to say; and in one place I find that I have said a little too much. Unacquainted as I am with the rules of proceeding in the Court of Chancery and the reasons of them, I took the final arrangement of Dr. Steward's case,-a reference of the question in dispute to three indifferent persons chosen by the plaintiff and defendant,-to be not only a fair arrangement in itself but a kind of admission that the previous order of the Court had been too peremptory. I have been since informed, however, by one who understands Chancery business that this is not the true construction of the facts; that supposing Dr. Steward had any exception to take to the decree, and the Lord Chancellor had found that there was ground for a rehearing, he could not properly have proceeded in that way; and that the true inference from the

1 Gibson Papers, vol. viii. f. 102. Copy.

facts as stated by myself is that Bacon did in this case allow Buckingham to interfere in a way which cannot be justified and which he must himself have felt to be unjustifiable. If so, the case deserves further investigation by some one better qualified to understand such matters; for it has a material bearing upon the character of these letters, and my report of the circumstances is not complete enough to form a judgment upon in a question of that gravity. Much would depend upon the practice of the time, and I doubt whether the practice of Bacon's time can be safely inferred even from his own rules and ordinances for the government of the Court: for as we know that there were cases in which the Lord Chancellor held himself bound to obey an express command of the King even where it went against his own declared judgment, so there may have been others in which rules of procedure which he ordinarily acted on, and which if left to himself he would have acted on always, were waived in deference to the King's known wishes, or to avoid some interposition by authority which would have been more inconvenient. In the relations which then subsisted between the Chancellor, the King, and the Favourite, there was room and occasion for the exercise of a good deal of discretion; and too rigid an adherence to rules laid down for the security of justice might sometimes perhaps have endangered justice itself. If he contrived in other cases that the interference should issue in nothing worse than arbitration by indifferent persons chosen by the parties, I should not myself suppose that there was much harm done. In the meantime I wish to withdraw the paragraph in which I stated my own conclusion upon the case of Dr. Steward, and leave it as a question for inquiry and dispute.1

The remaining letters from Buckingham in behalf of suitors I continue, in fulfilment of my promise, to print as they occur; though I am not aware that anything of interest can be gathered from them, beyond their general character and intention.

TO THE LORD CHANCELLOR.2

My honourable Lord,

Lest my often writing may make your Lordship conceive that this letter hath been drawn from me by importunity, I have thought fit for preventing of any such conceit to let your Lordship know, that Sir John

1 Mr. Heath has been kind enough to investigate the case, and his report will be found in the appendix to this volume. I will not repeat the indiscretion of offering any opinion of my own on the points at issue.

Harl. MSS. 7006, f. 120. Orig. Docketed by Meautys, "26 Januarii, 1618. My Lo. of Buck. to your Lp. touching Sir John Wentworth."

1619.] JUDGMENT IN THE LAKE AND EXETER CAUSE.

7

Wentworth whose business I now recommend is a gentleman whom I esteem in more than an ordinary degree. And therefore I desire your Lordship to shew him what favour you can for my sake in his suit, which his Majesty hath referred to your Lordship: which I will acknowledge as a courtesy unto me, and rest

Your Lordship's faithful friend and servant,
G. BUCKINGHAM.

Newmarket, 26 January, 1618.

4.

Of the great Lake and Exeter cause we hear nothing in Bacon's correspondence; for as the King heard it all himself, there was no occasion for any report. But as a great business with which the Council had been so long occupied, it is fit to state what became

of it.

By a letter from Sir Thomas Wynne to Carleton, dated 14th February, 1618-9, we learn that it continued five days, the King being every day present: that the first day was occupied with a bill brought by Sir T. Lake against Luke Hatton; the second, with Lady Exeter's bill against Sir Thomas Lake's wife and daughter and both his sons; the third, with Sir Thomas Lake's answer; the fourth, with a cross bill brought by young Sir T. Lake against Lady Exeter; and the fifth, which was the last day of term, with the censure. The evidence went utterly against the Lakes; not only failing to prove the charges against Lady Exeter, but proving forgery and subornation of witnesses on their own part. The blame of the contrivance seems to have lain between Lady Roos and her mother, their respective shares being doubtful. But Sir Thomas Lake himself did not come off clear, and though we are told that both Bacon and Digby "would fain have extenuated bis fault," it would seem by the judgment that he was thought as much to blame as either. Heavy fines to the Crown, heavy damages to the party, with imprisonment during pleasure, submissions, and apologies, were awarded in pretty equal proportions to all the principals; and Sir Thomas had to resign his seals of office-a result which seems to be abundantly explained without imputing it to a personal grudge on the part of Buckingham, and a determination "to drive him, if possible, from Court." There appears to have been only one opinion in the country as to the blackness of the case which he had certainly abetted and used all his influence to maintain; and if he had not been very wicked, he had certainly been very weak. But among the singular felicities 1 Sir T. Wynne to Carleton, 14 Feb. S. P.

of Buckingham, if he was really the author of these things, there is none more singular than this-whenever he "made up his mind" to ruin a man, that man immediately did something on his own account which without his intervention made ruin inevitable. So far as we have advanced as yet, no man has been driven from Court who would not have had to leave it if Buckingham had never been born.

His victory over the Earl of Suffolk was not yet complete, as we see by the next letter; but it was on its way to completion: for examination failed to clear him.

TO THE MARQUIS OF BUCKINGHAM.1

My very good Lord,

I send by post this sealed packet containing my Lord of Suffolk's answer in the Star Chamber; I received it this evening at six of the clock, by the hands of the Master of the Rolls, sealed as it is with my Lord of Suffolk's seal, and the Master's of the Rolls. But neither I nor the Master of the Rolls know what is in it; but it cometh first to his Majesty's sight; only I did direct that because the authentic copy (unto which my Lord is sworn, according to the course of the court) is not so fit for his Majesty's reading, that my Lord of Suffolk should send withal a paper copy which his Majesty might read with less trouble. My Lady Suffolk is so ill of the small-pox, as she is not yet fit to make any answer.

Bingley's answer is come in, a long one; and as I perceive, with some things impertinent, yea and unfit. Of that I confer with Mr. Sollicitor to-morrow; and then I will further advertise your Lordship.

God ever preserve and prosper you.

Your Lordship's most obliged friend,

York-house, this 23 February,

at 9 of the clock.

5.

and faithful servant,

FR. VERULAM, Canc.

The Queen, who had been suffering from dropsy since the begin

1 Gibson Papers, vol. viii. f. 124. Copy. Docketed, " 1618, 23 February. A copy of y' Lps. letter to my L. Marquis Buckingham, sending withal my L. of Suffolk's answers."