9. The rest of the business of the Session has not much interest for us; but as Bacon's name appears in the journals from time to time, I am bound to give account of what he said and did. There was one Act passed, which, if not originally his own, seems to have fallen into his hands in its progress through the Committee: "An Act Concerning Matters of Assurances amongst Merchants." It seems that formerly, if any dispute arose upon a question of assurance, the practice was to settle it by arbitration; the arbitrators being appointed by the Lord Mayor. But of late it had been becoming usual to decline arbitration, and force the party assured to seek his remedy by suit in the Queen's courts. This course caused delay which was very inconvenient to the merchant, and a bill was brought in by somebody to remedy it. The particular provisions of this bill are not reported, but the Committee to which it was referred' seem to have thought them inadequate, and to have recommended a new bill instead, giving power to the Lord Chancellor to appoint a standing commission for the determination of such disputes "in a brief and summary course, without formality of pleadings or proceedings," their decrees being subject under certain conditions to an appeal in Chancery.2 The report of this Committee was brought up by Bacon on the 7th of December, with the following speech : SPEECH ON BRINGING IN A BILL CONCERNING ASSURANCES AMONG MERCHANTS. I am, Mr. Speaker, to tender to this House the fruit of the Committees' labour, which tends to the comfort of the stomach of this realm; I mean the merchant; which if it quail or fall into a consumption, the State cannot choose but shortly be sick of that disease. It is inclining already. A certainty of gain is that which this law provides for; and by Policy of Assurance the safety of goods is assured unto the merchant. This is the lodestone that draws him out to adventure, and to stretch even the very punctilio of his credit. The Committees have drawn a new bill, far differing from the : suspended but this is done by Her Majesty's proclamation, and not by any statute, because her M. mercy and grace should be the more superabundant; and you should not believe what contentment the Commons receive at it." Levinus Monck to Mr. Wilson, 12 Dec. 1601. S.P.O. Domestic. 113 Nov. D'Ewes, p. 626. 2 Statutes of the Realm, 43 Eliz. c. 12. old. The first limited power to the Chancery, this to certain Commissioners by way of Oyer and Terminer. The first that it should only be there: this that only upon appeal from the Commissioners it should be there finally arbitrated. But lest it may be thought to be for vexation, the party appellant must lay in deposito, etc. And if upon hearing it goes against him, must pay double costs and damages. We thought this course fittest for two reasons. First, because a suit in Chancery is too long a course, and the merchant cannot endure delays. Secondly, because our courts have not the knowledge of their terms, neither can they tell what to say upon their cases, which be secrets in their science, proceeding out of their experience. I refer the Bills, both old and new, to your considerations, wishing good success therein, both for comfort of the Merchant and performance of our desires. The Bill is entitled An Act for Policy of Assurance used amongst Merchants.1 The new Bill, having been referred in its turn to a Committee, and brought up again by Bacon, with some amendments (14 Dec.), was passed in the end, without any observations that we hear of.2 Another debate in which he took part was upon a motion for repealing a favourite Act of his own. In the general Act "for the continuance of divers statutes and the repeal of others," it was proposed to include "The Statute of Tillage," on the ground that it laid a burden upon the husbandman which, when corn was cheap (as it was then), he could not bear. Bacon, whose own measure it was (see Vol. II. pp. 79-83), opposed the motion on the same grounds of general policy which he had formerly urged and always continued to hold sound; as may be gathered from the following short note of his speech. SPEECH AGAINST THE REPEAL OF THE STATUTE OF TILLAGE. "The old commendation of Italy by the poet is Potens viris atque ubere gleba; and it stands not with the policy of the State that the wealth of the kingdom should be engrossed into a few pasturers' hands. And if you will put in so many provisoes as be desired, you will make so great a window out of the law that we shall put the law out of the window, etc. 1 Townshend, p. 289. Harl. MSS. 2283, fo. 91. 2 D'Ewes, pp. 680, 684, 685. The husbandman a strong and hardy man ;-the good footman: which is a chief observation of good warriors," etc. So he concluded the statute not to be repealed, etc.1 He was answered by Sir Walter Ralegh with arguments founded on good free trade principles: but in the end the statute was continued, only with a provision that it should not apply to Northumberland. It was also moved to annex to the "statute of Rogues" a certain "exposition" of it, which had been made, it seems, by the justices. The following note of Bacon's speech against this motion contains all that the journals tell us as to the effect and the fate of it. SPEECH AGAINST A MOTION FOR MAKING A JUDICIAL EXPOSITION OF A STATUTE PART OF THE STATUTE. There were never yet but two Articuli: the one Articuli super Chartas, when the sword stood in the Commons' hand: the other Articuli Cleri, when the Clergy of the land bare sway: and that done upon deliberation and grave advice. I beseech you remember, these are done by Judges, and privately, and perhaps in a chamber. And shall we presently without scanning or view enact them? It befits not the gravity of this house. And so, after a long speech, dashed it.2 Breaches of privilege, in the form of liberties taken with members' servants, were unusually frequent during this Session, and made the proceedings unusually lively. But the only case in which Bacon is mentioned as taking a part in the debate was the following: Mr. Fleetwood, a member of the House, had sent by his servant a sum of money in a bag to one Holland, a scrivener. Holland afterwards told Fleetwood that there wanted £10. 6s. of the proper sum. Fleetwood's man being called in and "justifying the payment," Holland gave him the lie: whereupon he gave Holland the lie: whereupon Holland with the help of his man beat him. Fleetwood brought the matter before the House, and the question was whether they should be sent to the Tower, or taken into custody by the sergeant. Bacon's opinion is thus reported: 1 Townshend, p. 299. Harl. MSS. 2283, fo. 98 b. 2 Ib. p. 290. Harl. MSS. 2283, fo. 92. SPEECH AGAINST COMMITTING TO THE TOWER FOR AN ASSAULT ON A MEMBER'S SERVANT. I have been a member of this House these seven Parliaments, and never yet knew above two that were committed to the Tower. The first was Arthur Hall, for that he said the Lower House was a new person in the Trinity; and (because these words tended to the derogation of the state of this House, and giving absolute power to the other) he was therefore committed. The other was Parry, that for a seditious and contemptuous speech made even there (pointing to the second bench) was likewise committed. Now this offence is not of the like nature, and very small, not done to the person of any member of this House. And therefore I think the Sergeant's custody is punishment sufficient." The conclusion was, that Holland and his man should both be in the Sergeant's custody for five days, and pay double fees. But the question which brought Bacon out in the mood least in accordance with his traditional reputation, was one relating to Charitable Trusts and it is a pity that the point in dispute is not more fully recorded. An Act had been passed in the last Session to prevent the misapplication of the revenues of colleges, hospitals, and other charitable institutions. By this Act the bishops were armed with powers which were found or thought to be dangerous; a bill "to explain the meaning of the Statute" was accordingly brought in,2 and on the second reading referred to the Committee for Repeal of Statutes.3 In Committee it was agreed to repeal the existing Act and pass a new one. In the course of the new bill through its stages, a question arose whether the old Act should be repealed by the general Act for the Repeal of Statutes, or by the new one: that is, (if I understand the point rightly), whether it should be repealed or only amended. Bacon seems to have been, for some reason or other, extraordinarily eager against the repeal. The fragment of his speech which Townshend has preserved, does not enable me to understand the importance of the point in dispute, or the particular motives of his opposition; but the passage has a personal interest, as giving us a glimpse of him in a state of excitement to which he did not often give way in public. 1 Townshend, p. 260. Harl. MSS. 2283, fo. 70 b. 3 28 Nov. D'Ewes, p. 617. He said (we are told) among many other things That the last Parliament there were so many other bills for the relief of the Poor that he called it a Feast of Charity. And now this statute of 39° having done so much good as it was delivered to the House, and the Lord Keeper having told him that he never revoked but one decree of the Commissioners, we should do a most uncharitable action to repeal and subvert such a mount of charity; and therefore we should rather tenderly foster it than roughly cry away with it. I speak (quoth he) out of the very strings of my heart; which doth alter my ordinary form of speech; for I speak not now out of the fervency of my brain, etc. So he spake something more against the bill put in by Mr. Phillips for repeal: by reason Bishops' lands were put in, and inrolments, etc., which he said was a good fetch and policy for the sole practices' of the Chancery. Mr. Phillips answered, That he would not speak as he had spoken, rather out of humour than out of judgment; neither had he brought to the House a market-bill or mercer's bill concerning the state, etc. And so, after many persuasions for the bill, and bitter answers to Mr. Bacon, he ended with desire to put it to the question whether it should be repealed by the public act or by his private bill.2 A long debate followed, which ended in an agreement that it should be repealed by the general Act. Without knowing what were the provisions of the new bill, as originally proposed, it is impossible to guess what should have made Bacon so vehement; for the mere form of proceeding could hardly involve anything very material: but there is no doubt about the fact. Not only was it remembered and noticed in the House the next day, but it seems that the counsel of the night had not restored him to his usual composure. The next morning a question of privilege was under discussion. Sir Francis Hastings-whose brother, Lord Huntington, was one of the parties interested-was going to speak a second time, when the following dialogue occurred : "Mr. Bacon interrupted him, and told him 'it was against the course.' To which he answered, 'He was old enough to know when and how often to speak.' To which Mr. Bacon said, 'It was no Sic. qu. practisers ? 2 Townshend, p. 291; Harl. MSS. 2283, fo. 92 b. 3" In nocte consilium." Essay of Counsels, vi. p. 426. |