From which side the proposal of an annual payment of £50,000 by way of composition proceeded, the terms of the note do not distinctly explain; and Mr. Gardiner assumes that it came from the Commons. I cannot myself doubt however that "they" means the Committees of the House of Lords. It cannot be supposed that the Committees of the Commons would have made such an offer without authority from the House, and it appears evidently from the notes of the subsequent debates that it was a good deal higher than the House was prepared to go. But difficulties were found both as to matter and manner, and their consultations amongst themselves (in which I find no further traces of Bacon except in a recommendation to be content with the substance, if they could get it, and not to stand upon the form-" That we be not in Tantalus' case,Spectat aquas in aquis et poma fugacia captat :—Since it is to be hoped that his Majesty will give us satisfaction in the matter, let us give him satisfaction in the manner" 2) ended at last in a resolution (2 June) to postpone all further proceeding till the next session, and to send a message to the Lords to that effect.3 The truth was that other misunderstandings had arisen, which made smooth proceeding at present more and more difficult. And, to explain these, we must now follow the great Union question through its first stages. 5. The proceedings in relation to the Union began on the 14th of April with a message from the Lords inviting the Commons to a conference. Their proposition (announced by the L. Chancellor as "the King's purpose "4) was, to agree first upon a union in Name, and proceed afterwards to the consideration of laws and government;— their reason, I suppose, being that the Name appeared to be a simple thing which might be settled at once; while the other would be a long business. It soon appeared however that an alteration by Act of Parliament of the name and style of the two kingdoms was not so simple a thing as it seemed to be. The debate upon the answer to be given to the Lords' proposition turned entirely upon that point, and after lasting four days ended in a resolution that the Union in government ought to be agreed on first. 1 Hist. of England, i. 191. 2 C. J. p. 978. 3 Ib. p. 231. See a paper in Dudley Carleton's hand, entitled, "The several conferences with the Lords and debates in the Lower House touching the Union."-Domestic James I. vol. vii. A valuable paper, but unfortunately imperfect. C. J. p. 179. In this debate Bacon took a prominent part. The notes in the Journals however not being connected enough to show the tenour of his argument, it is better to take Carleton's account of what he said, though it is apparently but a small portion of it. Of his first speech (which seems to have been made on the 16th of April, upon the report of the propositions moved by the L. Chancellor on the 14th) Carleton gives the following abstract. That there were three considerations: Some things out of question; as the four unions named by the Lord Chancellor.1 Some things not properly in question; as the particular considerations of the union in substance. Some things now only in question: the name, and the appointing of Commissioners to treat of the matter. That the name was Great Britany; wherein he considered the King's justice, his honour, and policy. His justice, in regard of foreign Princes, upon whom he would not usurp by any unproper style of greatness, as that of Emperor or Great King; though the like was assumed by others, as by the Emperor of Germany and the Great King of Persia and Assyria. His honour, because honour contracted was better than honour divided; and compared it to one fair stone in a jewel, which was more precious than a jewel compacted of many. That the name was honourable for the antiquity; and none known of old but Albion and Britany; but one of these was only poetical, the other true and historical. His policy, because a Union in name will draw on a unity in affection betwixt the two kingdoms; by example of the Cantons, who under the general name of Helvetia were better united: The like of the several kingdoms under the name of Spain, and divers seignories under the title of Toscana. Two objections made: That we should change our ancient name of England. That we should prejudge the matter, and enwrap that which should be left free to the Committee. Two answers: Ever a good change for the better. 1 Viz. in sovereignty, in allegiance, in nature, and in religion.— Carleton's paper. No danger to give by way of advance that which may be a step forward to good action. Though the debate naturally ran upon the policy of the measures recommended, which involved the whole subject of the Union, the immediate business which the House had to settle was, what to do about the conference. And when the debate, having continued through the 18th without result, was opened on the 19th with a strong anti-Union speech, and seemed in danger of running the wrong way, Bacon interposed with an attempt to bring it back within its proper bounds. Of this second speech Carleton gives the following note. Sir Francis Bacon, directing his speech how to order a conference that was expected by the Lords touching this matter, divided his speech into 3 parts. 1. Matter of the Conference. 2. Limitation of the Commission. 3. Disposing and ordering of the Conference. He began with the last; and wished that the Lower House should not be the objectors only, but to make the case indifferent betwixt the two Houses. Touching the second part he advised that the Commissioners might treat generally with the Lords, without limitation, but conclude nothing. For the matter which was now seasonably to be prepared, he made a collection of 8 objections; whereof some were made by Sir Maurice Barkley, who first turned the stream backward, and others by particular members of that House the day before and that morning. "He would seem (adds Carleton) "to make answers to the objections, and did only shew his good will in it: but no matter came from him worth the noting." But whatever may have been thought of the value of his answers, it is clear that his candour and fairness as a reporter was felt and valued at its worth, and that his speeches had made a favourable impression on the House; for in all the subsequent proceedings (which were very many) the leading part was by common consent assigned to him. The debate continued one day more, and ended at last (20th April) in the appointment of a Committee to meet the Lords, and hear their proposition: with instructions to assent to a conference concerning the appointment of Commissioners to treat of a union in Government; but till that were settled, not to assent to any conference concerning the alteration of the Name: a limitation which was against Bacon's advice-namely that they should have commission to treat of everything though not to conclude upon anything —and which (as we shall see) was not a fortunate amendment. The King in the mean time had not been prepared to meet with any difficulty at this stage; and hearing of so many speeches made in criticism of a proposition which was in fact his own, he became desirous-very naturally, though I think not very judiciously-to make a speech for himself. "The Lower House" (says Carleton) "being thus prepared for conference with the Lords,-before the time or place was appointed, or their message sent, the King sent to the House that as many as could should come before him that afternoon. They came accordingly, and were placed in the gallery next St. James' Park, whither the King came about 3 of the clock, accompanied with most of the Lords of the Parliament." This was on Friday, the 20th of April. The next day, Bacon, who had been selected as spokesman and reporter, gave a full account of what passed to the House; but as the notes of his report in the Journals (p. 953) are scarcely intelligible, and it is important to understand the position which the King really took up in this matter, it may be convenient to give Carleton's account of it in his own words. His Majesty's speech was directed to the Committees of both the Houses, and was to this effect. That he desired to be heard before they did consult. That the long debating in the Lower House was against his expecta : tion that the doubts which were cast were but curiosities of ignorant persons, such as sought to find knots in bulrushes. He desired his breast were made of crystal: and though he was unhappily embarked in former matters, in this he liked not to have his deliberations questioned. That it was the greatest and the least question that ever came in Parliament. He made then a proposition of 3 parts. That the union which is already in substance should be acknow- That a name should be presently given according to this union. do further concern the union. tion. He repeated certain objections; as one, that the change was dishonour- 1st objec able. Wherein he held himself wronged and dishonoured; because as the honour of the Kings of England his predecessors doth descend upon 2nd objection. Answer. 3rd objec tion. Answer. him, so should he bear the burden of the dishonour, if there were any in the change. The question of names so foolish that it should not trouble wise men. The comparison in this to be like titles and honours given to great men ; as the Earls of Dorset and Northampton had lost nothing by accession of their new styles. That an enumeration of titles in a Prince were more honourable than one single name. If so, then might he as well call himself Lord of Cornwall, Devon, Cumberland, Northumberland, &c. A bunch of arrows always better than one. And one Barony which is of great value more to be esteemed than many petty Lordships. Why should this matter be first propounded here, and what if Scotland should not assent ? He would have this realm have the honour of the first proposition, as being next to him in honour: and if Scotland should refuse, he would compel their assents; having a stronger party there than the opposite party of the mutiners. That he would so unite it, that the Crown of Scotland should be ever adherent and follow the succession of the blood of England, That the island was Britany, and therefore being King of the whole island, he would be King of Britany,-as Brutus and Arthur were, who had the style and were kings of the whole island. That this was the reason of his haste, being interessed in honour to be called that which he was. That we were all likewise interessed, because shadows beget substance, and unity in name an unity in affection. That to suspect him to bring in innovation were to slander him, and were no less offence than Scandalum Regis is in comparison of Scandalum Magnatum. That he cannot alter laws of himself, nor will not, but that the Commissioners should treat of a participation of such laws as were good in each and defective in the other, without prejudice of the fundamental laws of both realms. For conclusion he proposed a project of an Act touching the present change of the name and appointing of a commission, and advised that in our consultations we should not look to sophistry, but substance." It is probable that Bacon, in his report of this speech, managed his lights and shadows so as to throw some of the points into the background. But it is well to see the worst of it; and from the foregoing abstract, which lies under no suspicion of partiality, it will be seen that the King's explanation was frank, courteous, and good-tempered, and with regard to his own intentions and purposes, satisfactory enough. Only the last paragraph was of a nature to |