be discussed, they resolved to distribute them under four heads: namely, 1st, touching the deprivation, suspension and silencing of ministers. 2nd, touching the multiplicity of ecclesiastical commissions. 3rd, touching the form of citations. 4th, touching Excoinmunication. Of these heads the charge of the first was assigned to Bacon; the Archbishop of Canterbury being deputed to speak to it on the part of the lords. And the following note contains what we know of the result.2 Sir Francis Bacon reporteth the conference in ecclesiastical causes. My Lord Archbishop's speech touching silenced ministers.— Two parts of the Archbishop's speech: A narrative of the proceeding against ministers. Answer to propositions. Eleven books: A petition under hands.3 That ministers might be restored.-Precedent out of reformed Churches :-Subscription in all.— A case forlorn, that Romish subtlety should underprop English formality. A protestation an exclusion of a conclusion :-A negative. Kneeling, like All-hail to Christ:-Cross, like broth at the Sacrament:-Surplice, like a coat with many patches :-Coat with four elbows. Conclusion:-Immedicabile vulnus:-Leave off connivance: fall to further execution. 4 From this it would seem that the ground on which the Archbishop justified the proceedings complained of, was that the Ministers in question had not been content with the negative liberty of holding their opinions undisturbed, but had thought it their duty to turn upon aggressors, to vilify the ordinances of the Church, and teach 1 C. J. p. 2 It seems that there were two conferences, one on the 16th of April, when the Committees of the Commons were heard; the other when the Bishops gave their answer. "For Church matters (writes Dudley Carleton, 17 April 1606) "there were four points very curiously and learnedly handled by four apostles of the Lower House-deprivation, citation, excommunication, and the authority of the High Commiss on; by Sir Francis Bacon, the Attorney of the Wards, the Recorder, and the Solicitor: on which the Bishops took time till this day for answer; and as there was then a general fast and prayer among the brethren in the town for good success in their affairs, so do they now hasten Good Friday the sooner, and are all at their devotions." S. P. Dom. The next day was Good Friday, and I suppose the answer was postponed till after the Easter recess. 3 So in the Journals: qu. 'heads'? 429 April, 1606. C. J. p. 302. their congregations to regard her appointed ceremonial with contempt. In which it is likely enough that he had a good deal to say for himself. Other Conferences followed-in which however I do not find any report of anything said by Bacon: and all ended in the verbal presentation by the Speaker to the King of two petitions-one concerning the execution of Jesuits, the other concerning deprived ministers. With what effect we do not know; the King's answer, though reported to the House, being left blank in the Journals. 9. The reason why the discussion and rejection of these ecclesiastical grievances passed so quietly I take to be, that the attention of the reformers was engrossed at the time by a grievance of another kind. It may be remembered that in the last session one of the grievances most complained of was Purveyance; and that the difficulty arose mainly from this: The complaint of the Commons was that the proceedings of the Purveyors were against law; their demand, that the law should be made effectual to suppress them: a concession for which the Crown could not justly claim any pecuniary compensation, because it was asked to give up nothing except what did not legally belong to it. The Lords on the other hand (following the lead probably of Salisbury) thought that by carrying the concession a littlė further, a case for compensation might be made. They proposed therefore (if I have put the fragments of information correctly together) that the Crown should give up altogether its claim to be supplied with provision for its progresses by the countries through which it passed, receiving in exchange on Parliamentary security an annual payment of 50,000l. But the proposal being taken into consideration by the Commons, so many difficulties were found in it, that they agreed to let the whole question sleep till the next session. Taking the case up where they had left it, their first resolution (24 January) was to seek no further conference with the Upper House, but to bring in a bill. A Bill was brought in accordingly, and (after a debate which seems to have turned chiefly upon the question whether they should compound or not) referred to a Committee; with instructions "to frame a form of a commission to be set down in the Act." But before it was brought back from the Committee, a message had been received which induced them to reconsider their resolution. The King, in thanking the House "2 through the Speaker for the promised supply, had expressed himself as "well pleased that consideration should be had how the people might be eased of the grievances in Purveyance," and as wishing that "a conference of Committees of both Houses might be appointed for the said causes;" where matter would be communicated "nearly concerning the supply of his present estate.' This pointed of course at the difficult question of composition; but a request so conveyed from such a quarter could not either in courtesy or prudence be declined, and they agreed at once to forbear further proceeding with their Bill until they had conferred with the Lords. Unfortunately, the member whom they selected for their spokesman had a sharp tongue, and set forth the case in a style which offended and irritated his hearers; thereby encumbering the discussion with personal apologies and justifications, and nearly bringing the two Houses into angry collision. But the substantial question was, as before, the expediency of compounding by an annual payment in money for "the removing and final taking away of these grievances touching the Purveyors." This question it was agreed, after much debating, to discuss in another Conference, in the presence of the Judges; and eight members were selected to conduct the argument on behalf of the Commons ;-with a special restriction, however, not to make any offer of composition, but if any were made on the other side, merely to hear and report. Bacon, who has not been mentioned hitherto as taking any part whatever in this matter, was one of the members selected for this duty; and to him also was assigned the task of reporting what passed. Of his report, which was made on the 1st of March, we have this note. Sir Francis Bacon reporteth the Conference touching the Purveyors. A speech in the beginning by Mr. Yelverton, in the end by a Counsellor; not pertinent, but looking back. Silence of consent and approbation :-The style of wisdom. 1 Lords' Journals, 12 Feb. 2 Sir E. Hoby to Edmunds, 7 March (C. and T. of James I. i. 59.) 3 "The 14th, the great Committee met with the Lords, where Hare delivered unto them a complaint out of sorrow and grief against the seed of the Devil, namely, Purveyors and officers of the green cloth. . . . The 15th, relation was made by the aforesaid committee by [to] the Commons; but so was it carried as the House stood much ill affected towards the Lords' carriage; and Hyde yielded many reasons why we should not yield more unto the King than we had; with many invectives; and so far put the House in distaste, as that an expectation grew of the sequel. And if your Lordship had heard them, you would have said that Hare and Hyde had represented the tribunes of the people."-Sir E. Hoby to Sir T. Edmunds. 7 March, 1605-6. (C. and T. of James I. i. 60.) Exceptions-Security, Conveniency, Proportion.- The one will not bend; the other doth apply itself. The House to select some which should set forth the right of the subject: The Lords to choose some, to maintain the Prerogative. To object to the security, as well as to the right. Apology touching the speech of Croesus' riches. Eighteen several articles in H. VII. time for the unjust ac cumulating of treasure. The day to be Monday. The point, of the Right and Security. The Judges to be present.— The sub-committee to dispute it:-The King's Prerogative and the Subject's liberty. Laws positive are never corrective of a King's right, but directive of a King's will. A necessity to admit a right if we lose the question.1 To this proposal for a fresh conference the Commons, again after long debate, assented. It took place according to appointment on the 4th of March, and appears to have been chiefly occupied with a speech from Coke, who had been called in to assist the Lords in maintaining "the Prerogative touching Purveyance:" which was followed by a plain warning from Salisbury that "the King's necessity could not admit that their bill should pass," that the Lords would not allow the refusal of it to be put upon him, and that the arrangement must be by composition." What line was taken by the managers of the conference on the part of the Commons, we are not informed; but upon their report to the House another long debate arose, lasting several days,-in the course of which Bacon made a speech which I judge by the notes to have been a considerable one. The question being whether they should agree to compound for the extinction of Purveyance, many difficulties were urged, not only as to the amount of revenue to be assured and the manner of raising it, but as to the security which could be taken for the performance of the other side of the bargain. For it was not easy to frame an act which should effectually secure the people against the claim of the p. 276. 1 C. J. 2 Ib. p. 277. Crown for purveyance, without creating a precedent for "binding the Prerogative"-a thing which the Judges in those days would hardly have allowed that a statute could do.' It will be seen that Bacon spoke in favour of Composition, and answered a series of objections. But I am afraid that nobody will be able to fill up the blanks completely enough to give a connected account of his argu ment. Composition disputed. Sir Francis Bacon:-A compact transaction:-Composition breeds mistaking. Quest. now, conveniency. Neither against the Prerogative nor against public good.— Fawning upon superiors :-Pleasing a multitude.— In altero fœda species servitutis: In altero falsa species libertatis. Humores moti et non remoti morbum aggravant. Nec insidiis cæli capiere sereni. First years of a King:- Dancing: - Triumphs: - Afterthoughts of ambition. Sinews of wars in coffers, as to have the sinews of peace in parchment. Practice of Powder a Supersedeas to other practices.— Their despairs dangerous, but their hopes more dangerous.Objections: A perpetual tax. Ans. A time of probation. Payments certain.-Royalties:- Casualties:-As fines for alienation, wards, fines of Alienations. 2. New precedent. A new precedent of an offer.-Discharge him now or never. 3. Precedent to redeem vexations. Prerogative buying. 4. Prerogative evicted, Dishonour. Dismissed, Honour. 5. King cannot part with his Prerogative. —Quest. of Security. Whether he should live upon **** Laws that trench to the Right bind the Prerogative: not simple Prohibitions. 1" Mr. Fuller-If the laws cannot bind the King in matter of Purveyance, as the Judges delivered, then the Composition to no purpose." C. J. p. 278. |