invariably to amplify the Prerogative both in season and out of season, reminded the Chief Justice that he had already virtually sanctioned Proclamations by his decisions on the bench, and that "he [Coke] had himself given sentence in divers cases" for the Proclamation against building. In this argumentum ad hominem Bacon had a manifest advantage over his adversary; but he took a course likely to be most injurious to the real interests of the Crown, however much it might for the moment commend him to James, as being a "peremptory royalist." Coke showed more wisdom in replying that "it was better to go back than to go on in the wrong way.' After conference, the judges decided that "the King by his Proclamation cannot create any offence which was not an offence before;" and to this decision the King conformed.

But although (in spite of Bacon's courtier-like and mischievous opposition) this obstacle to an understanding between the Crown and the Commons was removed, other obstacles soon arose. Courtiers and officials who were interested in collecting the dues of the Crown, could not acquiesce in a commutation which impoverished them; and it was natural that they should attempt to make the King suspect that he had been cheated in his bargain, reminding him that, until his debt was cleared off, he would still be at the mercy of Parliament. On the other hand the Commons feared that the King, by means of his permanent income, would be independent of them and neglectful of their grievances; and hence they hesitated to commit themselves. On 31 October, 1610 (fifteen days after Parliament had met), the King, incensed at their delay, required from the Commons a "resolute and speedy answer whether they would proceed with the Contract, yea, or no." Their discussion. revealed their suspicious humour: provision was to be made "that this £200,000 be not doubled or trebled by enhancing of the coin by the King;" that Parliaments should be regularly held; and that the £200,000 be not alienated from the King; but no attempt was made to recede from their bargain. Meantime the King had come to the conclusion finally to break off the Contract; and he did this effectually by announcing (5 November, 1610) that in addition to the annual £200,000 and in addition to the subsidy and fifteenth last given, he expected

K

a Supply of £500,000 for the payment of his debts: without this, he said, it had never been his intention, much less his agreement, to proceed with the Contract. It can hardly be doubted that here again the King broke loose from his chief adviser, and that he, and he alone, was responsible for the quashing of the Contract on which Salisbury had set his heart. The Commons of course replied that they could not proceed in the matter. An attempt was made by the King (after conference with some thirty members of the Lower House) to reopen the question; but it completely failed. On 25 November, 1610, James wrote a furious letter to Salisbury protesting that he had "had patience with this assembly these seven years, and from them received more disgraces, censures, and ignominies than ever Prince did endure." He complains that at the last meeting of the Council they "parted irresolute." He had followed their Lordships' advice "in having patience, hoping better issue. He cannot have asinine patience." He therefore gave orders for the immediate adjournment of Parliament; which was dissolved in the following February. And so ends the story of Cecil's Great Contract.

§ 18 BACON'S PRIVATE THOUGHTS ON POLITICS

Meantime, while Cecil was thus active, what was Bacon thinking of his activity, and of politics in general, of the coming Revolution, and of the best means for averting it? The answer to these questions will be found in a private note-book of his, called the Commentarius Solutus-i.e. "Loose, or Miscellaneous, Commentary "-in which he set down his thoughts, small and great, about all subjects, political, private, literary, philosophical, as they suggested themselves to him in July, 1608, about a month after Cecil had laid on the new Impositions.1 These jottings are, obviously, far more trustworthy, as an index of Bacon's inmost convictions, than letters to the King, or speeches for the King, advocating the Prerogative. In

1 Spedding, iv. 39-95. The pages bear the running title of Transportata, i.e. transferred (from a former note-book). Some of the notes may therefore be of older date than July, 1608; some, from internal evidence, are seen to have been written in July. See Spedding, iv. 22.

the latter, Bacon may have naturally been influenced by a desire of promotion; but in the former he "relates himself to paper" as to a most secret friend. The disjointed form of these entries; the frankness with which he makes the most discreditable avowals about himself; the cool directness with which he sets down plans for humouring, or utilising, the leading men of the day-including his cousin the Lord Treasurer, and the King himself-make it absolutely certain that the book could never have been written with a view to publication, or in the hope of exhibiting himself in a favourable light to posterity. Here then we are safe with Bacon: here we have his true self described by one who has the amplest information and not the slightest temptation to excuse or gloss or misrepresent for what is the use of making misrepresentations to a sheet of paper? Every word, therefore, that Bacon sets down here we may accept as representing what he believed to be his motives and objects. He may have been mistaken-as men are sometimes mistaken about their own motives and objects-but, unless we find him making himself out to be much better than we have reason for thinking him to be, we must be very sceptical to disbelieve the evidence afforded by the Commentarius Solutus as to Francis Bacon's public and private objects.

The sum of these secret records, so far as politics are concerned, is that Bacon exhibits himself in them as a resolute and determined courtier; without the slightest apprehension for the liberties of his country; systematically aiming at the extension of the royal Prerogative; jealous of lawyers and of the attacks of lawyers on what he 'deemed the rights of the Crown; apparently approving of Salisbury's project for composition, but at the same time inclining to a policy of distracting the attention of the people from the enlargement of the Prerogative by an aggressive Foreign Policy. But all these general objects never induced him to forget the particular object of self-aggrandisement which pervades the Diary. And this is the weak point in our advocacy when we would fain urge that Bacon was, at all events, sincere in his Monarchical theories. To be a Monarchist and exalt the Prerogative was so manifestly for his own interest, and he was so manifestly addicted to the constant contemplation of

1

his own interest, that we can never feel quite certain whether his conviction is prompted by public or private considerations. But the total impression which the Commentarius Solutus conveys to us is that, so far as Bacon could be sincere where his own interests were concerned, he was sincere in taking the side of the Crown against the side of the people. We, in these days, see with perfect clearness that "the Prerogative of the Crown would need to be curtailed when it was applied to less important objects than the maintainence of national unity." But Bacon saw nothing of this. He liked Parliaments; but Parliament was to represent the wishes of the people, not to govern. The King, assisted by the Council, was to rule in reality as well as in name; and for that purpose the Crown needed a revenue independent of the contributions of the people (except in time of war or other emergency), and the royal Prerogative required to be strengthened, not weakened. A good and wise king could govern better than a popular assembly. Whether James was equal to such a responsibility, and whether the favourites and flatterers whom he gradually collected round him, could supplement his inadequacies, Bacon never seems to have entertained a doubt. His intellect as well as his interests disposed him to prefer to see government in the hands of the few, and made him averse to "popularity" and popular men.

The private schemes of the Commentarius may be deferred for further consideration; we are now dealing only with the political notes; and first among these in importance comes an entry as to the method of dealing with the great obstacle in the way of the enlargement of the Prerogative-the resistance of the lawyers. Without the lawyers, the country-gentlemen in the House of Commons could have given no expression to the constitutional claims of the people, and therefore in order to silence the House James needed only to suppress the lawyers. Here Bacon was assured of the support both of the King and of the Archbishop of Canterbury (Bancroft). During the last two or three years (1605—8) there had been complaints on the part of the Ecclesiastical Courts that the Common Law Judges had interfered with their proceedings by Prohibitions, requiring

1 Gardiner, History, vol. i. p 42.

the former to proceed no further till they proved their right of jurisdiction. Bancroft, taking the part of the Ecclesiastical Courts, appealed to the King (1607) declaring that the Judges were mere delegates of the Sovereign, who therefore "had power to take what causes he pleased out of their hands and to determine them himself." Coke indignantly denied this. “Then,” said the King, "I shall be under the Law, which is treason to affirm." The Chief Justice replied by quoting the saying of Bracton that "the King ought not to be under any man but under God and the Law." 1 No doubt Bacon has this dispute, and Coke especially in his mind, when he speaks of "mere lawyers," and suggests that it will be well to intimidate those who had seats in the House of Commons by the fear of losing promotion.

"Judges to consult with King as well as the King with Judges. Query, of making use of my Lord of Canterbury his opposition to the la(wyers), in point of reforming the laws and disprizing mere lawyers. "To prepare either collect (ions), or at least advice, touching the equalling of laws.

'Rem(inder); to advise the K(ing) not to call sergeants before parliament, but to keep the lawyers in awe."

By the side of these entries, there is a marginal note as follows:

"Summary justice belongeth to the King's prerogative. The fountain must run, where the conduits are stopped."

Another entry mentions a different kind of "Prohibitions" affecting non-Ecclesiastical Courts.

"Being prepared in the matter of Prohibitions. Putting in a claim for the K(ing). The 4 necessities, (1) time, as of war; (2) place, as frontiers remote; (3) person, as (for example) poor (persons) that have no means to sue those that come in by safe-conduct; (4) matter, mixed with State."

This refers to a dispute concerning jurisdiction between the Court of King's Bench, and the Council in the Marches of

1 Gardiner, History, ii. 39. Later (1608) Bancroft said it was "more likely that the poor would obtain justice from the King than from the country gentlemen who composed the House of Commons, or from the Judges who were in league with them. Juries were generally dependents of the gentry, and the cause of justice could not but suffer from their employment."-(Ib. 41).