§ 29 THE "ADDLED PARLIAMENT

In the Parliament, thus inauspiciously opened by the King in accordance with Bacon's advice, everything, from the beginning to the end, went as wrong as might have been expected. On 8 April the King had a second time addressed both Houses, still on the lines of Bacon's Memorial, with tedious protestations, blandishments, and repeated disavowals of bargaining, intriguing, and the like; all of which could have no other result than to deepen the distrust of the Commons. On 11 April, as though to stultify all the King's protests, the new and inexperienced Secretary rose to move the grant of supplies, and to read over the list of concessions which the King was prepared to make. But all this time no mention had been made of Impositions. On the following day the temper of the members was made apparent by the following motions thus recorded in the Journals of the House:

"Mr. Middleton: That the heads of the matters of Grace tend to the Gentility, not to cities, boroughs, burgesses, or merchants offereth a bill concerning Impositions.

"Sir Maurice Berkley: against Ecclesiastical Courts."

:

Here then was the question of Impositions at once coming to the fore-front, the House being by no means, like Bacon, contented with a "hope" of "somewhat to be done" in this matter. And, next to that, came a question that does not appear to have suggested itself as a difficulty, either to Bacon or to the Undertakers, viz., the Ecclesiastical grievances. In vain did the Secretary depict the miseries of the State at home and abroad for want of money, and compare the King's graces to another Magna Charta; in vain did Bacon dilate upon the state of Europe "never so dark," and on the warm and shining graces" of the King, which needed not the AttorneyGeneral's "little burning-glass" to enhance them. The House

1 of these concessions Professor Gardiner says that they "prove how completely he" (the King) "might have every gentleman in England at his mercy. Many of them were directly tenants of the Crown; and those who were not might easily be entangled in the meshes of a law which gave every facility to the Sovereign in prosecuting his extremest rights." They were therefore rather acts of justice than concessions of favour.

P

was wild with suspicions, probably mixing together their jealousy of the Undertakers, with their indignation at recent interferences with elections; and the question of supply was deferred till the House should meet ten days hence after Easter.

On 18 April the Bill on Impositions was read a second time. By general consent the House refused to allow a vital constitutional question to be decided by a single judgment in the Court of Exchequer, which they set aside as "erroneous;" and neither Bacon, nor any of those who had previously supported the King's Prerogative, made any attempt to stem the current. No progress was made with business; and on 2 May they were still harping on the Undertakers. One of Bacon's wittiest and most genial speeches failed to divert them from pursuing this investigation, which did not drop till the full and open explanation of Sir Henry Neville showed that there remained nothing to investigate.

On 3 May the House discussed Impositions, and on the 4th1 returned, not improved in temper, from the presence of the King, who had summoned them to hear his opinions on the matter; and they determined to ask the Lords for a conference on the subject. At this point an attempt was made by the King's friends to push on the question of Supply; but after a vehement discussion it was resolved, not indeed to refuse Supply -for there was a general disposition to be liberal when the time should come-but "to do nothing in matters of that nature till they had ordered somewhat for the good of the public."

The Committee charged with preparing for the conference with the Lords brought up its report on 12 May. When the question was first debated, in the last Parliament, the records had been imperfectly examined. Having now collected all the records and examined the subject, they were confident that Impositions were illegal and that the King had been misinformed. They therefore proposed first to induce the Upper

1 "Mr. Delliverge, accordant, in respect of the little hope yesterday of relief of Impositions."-C. J., 5th May, 1614. "Yesterday, says Mr. Spedding, was the day on which the King had spoken to them" (v. 55). It would seem, therefore, that the interview with the King took place on the 4th, and that "4th" should be written for "5th" in Spedding, v. 49, "On the 5th the King sent for them," &c.

House to join them in a petition for the removal of the burden, and then to present the joint petition to the King, together with a remonstrance of their right, "that so, this eased, they might with better judgment and with alacrity proceed to the King's Supply, the first end of this Parliament."

At this point we are confronted with a very startling fact. "Sir Francis Bacon, Attorney-General, at the conference, was to have made the Introduction to the business, and to set the state of the question;" and here are the heads of the Introduction:

"An Introduction, briefly declaring the matter in fact and state of the question. Direction to him in three things, wherein we conceive the King to have, by misinformation, done other than any of his ancestors.

:

"1. The time for now by letters patent, and in print, these Impositions set for him and his heirs for ever : which never done before; which strange; because no proclamation bindeth longer than the King's life; so could not impose but during his own life.

"2. Multitude of Impositions: Queen Mary-Gascoigne wines and clothes. Queen Eliz. added only one, of sweet wines. From Ed. III. to Queen M. none. In Ed. III., Ed II., Ed. I., but five in all.-That upon a petition last Parliament divers hundredths 1 of these taken away; so now not remaining above 300 or 400; yet that those remaining far more worth than those abolished.

"3. The Claim: for none of his ancestors ever did so, but pretended a wars, needs, &c. : prayed continuance, but for a time."

2

This was the part "committed to Mr. Attorney:" but how could the Attorney have undertaken it with any show of consistency-having but recently been an unflinching defender of the right of Imposition-or with any prospect of retaining the King's favour? Mr. Spedding's conjecture, that Bacon (as well as the distinguished lawyer, Hackwill) had been converted to the popular view by a sight of records and precedents delivered. to Bacon shortly after last Parliament, is rendered almost certain by the fact that he was selected by the House for the important task of introducing the whole question in the conference with

2 i.e. alleged.

1 That is, "hundreds." 3 "Mr. Hackwill:-Wisheth his tongue might cleave to the roof of his mouth if not speak to this Bill: it is of that importance.-That he pitied them that last Parliament began the question, confident upon the arguments and judgment in the Exchequer.--That, after he had heard the matter argued and seen the precedents, he converted; so now remaineth, and will do his best to convert his brethren."

the Lords. For who, in their senses, would select as an advocate one who professed himself a disbeliever in the cause, and who could not therefore be reasonably expected to be zealous or cogent? But if Bacon was a convert, then the House might naturally feel that his conversion and position as the King's servant would add weight to his authority. Still there remains the question-what motive induced Bacon thus to take a course apparently destined to destroy his prospects of promotion and influence, by depriving him of the favour of the King? Was it patriotism? or penitence? or was it a concerted arrangement with the King?

It can hardly have been mere penitence or patriotism. For surely a patriotic Attorney would have been afterwards called to account by the King, when, at the conclusion of the Parliament, he animadverted on the opposition he had received, and on some of the opposing members who had given him most trouble. And there is nothing in Bacon's conduct or correspondence during the last year or two, and nothing in Bacon's character, to make it credible that he, the private and trusted adviser of the King, should thus have thwarted his Majesty on a principal point of policy, merely upon a sudden access of legal remorse, brought about by evidence which had been in his possession for three years.

Probably both the King and his Attorney were already well aware that the desired conference with the Lords would either not take place, or else that it would result in a reinforcement of the Prerogative by the combined decision of the Lords and the Judges with Coke at their head. The Bishops could be relied on to act in a mass as King's men in any political question; so could the Privy Councillors; and between them they could easily overpower even a considerable majority of the independent peers. If that was to be so, what harm could the King's Attorney do, by both acting on his convictions, and at the same time retaining his influence with the House of Commons-an influence which he might hereafter use for the King's benefit? In the House he would pose as one who, though in high favour with the King and the Privy Council, was, if not actually converted, at least convinced that their side of the question was more fairly arguable than he had before supposed;

in the royal presence he would appear as still the unfaltering champion of the King's Prerogative, who, if he accepted the painful duty of appearing to assail it, endured that pain only because the appearance of assault would be its best defence.

If Bacon still believed in the right to "impose," he had at least no excuse for being silent in its defence. For on 16 May, -so anxious was the House to hear all sides of the question before the conference with the Lords-it was moved and resolved that "If any man can speak anything for the King's right of imposing without Parliament, they will do so," and Bacon addressed the House, expressing his willingness to accept the part assigned to him, but in no way raising again the question of the King's right.

On 21 May, the message of invitation was sent to the Lords; and on 24 May, Bacon was relieved by their reply from all anxiety-if he ever entertained any-lest the proposed meeting should take place. Finding that they could not depend upon the Judges to support the right of Imposition, the Lords replied that

"Their Lordships, having entered into a grave and serious consideration as well of the matter itself as of divers incident and-necessary circumstances, did not think it convenient to enter into any conference of that cause concerning the point of Impositions at that time."

As might have been anticipated, it was the King's men in the Upper House, that thwarted the conference. Of the sixtynine peers who voted, thirty were for conferring; but the phalanx of fifteen bishops, nine Privy Councillors, and two Scotch peers over-bore the independent opposition; and by a majority of nine the conference was declined. So unusual and affronting a refusal was still further embittered by some insolent expressions of a bishop, Neile by name- a principal instrument in hurrying on the shameless divorce of Lady Essex-who declared that no man who had taken the oaths of allegiance and supremacy could ever discuss Impositions, and that, if the Commons were admitted to argue their case, they would effect a breach between the two Houses, as well as between the King and his subjects, by their seditious and undutiful speeches.

Infuriated by the report of this language, aggravating the