Chief Justice of the Common Pleas (who had assented with the rest) added that he would ever trust the justness of his Majesty's commandment. After this was put to a point, his Majesty thought fit, in respect of the further day of argument, appointed the Saturday following, for the Commendams, to know from his Judges what he might expect from them concerning the same. Whereupon the Lord of Canterbury breaking the case into some questions, his Majesty did require his Judges to deal plainly with him, whether they meant in their argument to touch the general power of granting Commendams, yea or no. Whereupon all his said Judges did promise and assure his Majesty, that in the argument of the said case of Commendams, they would speak nothing which should weaken or draw into doubt his Majesty's prerogative for the granting of them; but intended particularly to insist upon the point of the lapse and other individual points of this case, which they conceive to be of a form differing from all other Commendams which have been practised. The Judges also went further, and did promise his Majesty, that they would not only abstain from speaking anything to weaken his Majesty's prerogative of Commendams, but would directly and in plain terms affirm the same, and correct the erroneous and bold speeches which had been used at the bar in derogation thereof. Also all the Judges did in general acknowledge and profess with great forwardness, that it was their duty, if any counsellor at the bar presumed at any time to call in question his Majesty's high prerogatives and regalities, that they ought to reprehend them and silence them; and all promised so to do hereafter. Lastly, the two Judges which were then next to argue, Mr. Justice Doddridge and Mr. Justice Winch, opened themselves unto his Majesty thus far; that they would insist chiefly upon the lapse, and some points of incertainty, repugnancy, and absurdity, being peculiar to this Commendam; and that they would shew their dislike of that which had been said at the bar for the weakening of the general power; and Mr. Justice Doddridge said that he would conclude for the King, that the church was void and in his Majesty's gift; he also said that the King might give a Commendam to a Bishop either before or after consecration, and that he might give it him during his life, or for a certain number of years. The Judges having thus far submitted and declared themselves, his Majesty admonished them to keep the bounds and limits of their several courts, and not to suffer his prerogative to be wounded by rash and unadvised pleading before them, or by new inventions of law; for as he well knew that the true and ancient common law is the most favourable for kings of any law in the world; so he advised them to apply themselves to the study and practice of that ancient and best law, and not to extend the power of any of their courts beyond their due limits; following the precedent of the best ancient Judges in the times of best government; and then they might assure themselves that he, for his part, in the protection of them and expediting of justice, would walk in the steps of the ancient and best kings: and thereupon gave them leave to proceed in their argument. When the Judges were removed, his Majesty, that had forborne to ask the votes and opinions of his Council before the Judges, because he would not prejudicate the freedom of the Judges' opinions, concerning the point, Whether the stay of proceedings that had been by his Majesty required could by any construction be thought to be within the compass of the Judges' oath which they had heard read unto them, did then put the question to his Council; who all with one consent did give opinion, that it was far from any colour or shadow of such interpretation, and that it was against common sense to think the contrary, especially since there is no mention made in their oath of the delay of justice, but only that they shall not deny justice, nor be moved by any of the King's letters to do anything contrary to law or justice. G. CANT. THO. ELLESMERE, Canc. T. SUFfolk. BROKE. RALPH WINWOOD. THO. LAKE. FULKE GREVILLE. I have never been able to sympathize with the rest of Posterity either in its admiration of Coke's behaviour on this occasion, or in its reprobation of that of the other Judges. Coke's famous reply has the advantage of being short, magniloquent, and intelligible without any context; and therefore convenient for quotation; and being quoted without reference to the actual context, it sounds just as well 2 B VOL. V. as magnanimous. But let any one look at it as it stands in the narrative; let him consider the question to which it pretends to be an answer; and he will see that it is in fact a mere refusal to answer,— and that upon no reasonable ground. The question asked had nothing to do with the state of any particular case, but related to a general rule of proceeding applicable to all cases alike. In any case, when the Judges were officially informed that the rights of the Crown were interested in it and that the King desired to speak with them, was it or was it not their duty to stay proceedings till they had heard what he had to say? The question was asked then because it was important to know beforehand how they meant to act in such cases thereafter. If Coke thought it was not his duty, he ought to have answered no. If upon better consideration he thought it was, he should have answered yes, and promised to act accordingly. But upon what pretence could he postpone his answer till “the case should be"? He was not asked to give an opinion beforehand upon the merits of any case, nor could a direct answer to the question put imply by possibility any such opinion. The whole of the case concerning which his opinion was asked was already before him. He had already, in the very letter which was under consideration, given an opinion upon it. Whether that opinion was right or wrong, and whether he meant to act upon it another time, was the present question. What withheld him from answering? I can hardly think that any one who has taken the trouble to read that letter will find any difficulty in believing that he felt he had been in the wrong. The extent of the royal prerogative was a question of law, determinable by statutes and precedents. The course taken on this occasion by the Judges under his influence was one of those encroachments upon the prerogative by which it has been gradually limited and reduced within narrower bounds. The change might promise to be beneficial: but it was a change. As the law then stood, the precedents were against them, and therefore they were in the wrong. Eleven of them (who had probably formed no opinion of their own upon the question, but merely followed his), now saw that they had been in the wrong, and very properly submitted. Coke also felt that he had been wrong, but not being able to bring himself to own it,-a thing which he never found easy, he took refuge in that magniloquent evasion: the whole proceeding from first to last being very characteristic of him, and in my opinion not at all sublime. The question, however, was not the less practically settled: the King succeeded in holding his consultation, and the cause was allowed to proceed on the day appointed. The Pramunire, it will be seen, was not touched upon on this occasion. Only two days before, the Archbishop of Canterbury with some other of the Council had been directed to inquire into the history of that proceeding and ascertain who were the authors of it,1 -for the rumour was that it had been invented and advised by Coke himself,—and the further dealing with the question waited for their report. 4. A case occurred at this time which shows that Bacon, though he never advised the reopening of the Church controversies which had been settled in the Hampton Court conference, continued to be as much as ever in favour of the healing policy which he had then so earnestly advocated. Dr. Burgess was a famous preacher, who having fallen under ecclesiastical censure-for what particular nonconformity we are not told-and been forbidden to preach, had betaken himself to the practice of medicine. While attending Lucy, Countess of Bedford, the Queen's great favourite and companion, in a serious illness, he had taken the opportunity to minister to her mind; and that with so good effect, that when she reappeared in Court after her recovery she wore her own face,-which, they say, made her look" somewhat strange." Mayerne, the Court physician, was so struck with his skill as a soul-curer,-what he thought of him as a body-curer tradition does not say,-that, thinking to do him a good turn, he "commended him to the King" for his performance, forgetting that the spiritual influence of a Puritan who had been for some offence against orthodoxy forbidden to preach was the last thing the King wanted to hear of, and that the sick-room might be as dangerous as the pulpit. It was an unlucky commendation. The King "was so moved" (says Chamberlain) "that he should dogmatize (as he called it) in his Court, that he commanded the Archbishop to look to it; who, sending for him, used him somewhat roughly, and enjoined him not to practice within ten miles of London." Upon this it seems that he removed to Isleworth. But Lady Bedford did not lose her interest in him, and he had other friends in influential positions. Among the rest, Lady Winwood, wife of Sir Ralph who was presently to be Secretary of State, was a devoted disciple; so much so that six months later we find them taking a house in that part of the country at an extravagant rent,being willing to "give the more for Dr. Burgess's neighbourhood."3 In course of time his many friends and admirers seem to have suc 1 Camden. 3 Jan., 1616. 3 Id. 3 March, 1613-4. 2 Chamberlain to Carleton. 1 Aug. 1613. ceeded in inducing him to give way upon some of the points on which he had hitherto been unconformable, so far as to admit of his being licensed to preach again, and Bacon now wished Villiers to use his influence with the King in his behalf,-a sufficient proof that his policy with Puritanism was still a policy of conciliation. Of this letter we have two copies, one preserved among Bacon's own papers at Lambeth, and dated the 12th of June, the other printed by Robert Stephens from the original, which I have not seen, and dated the 13th. The Lambeth copy being all fairly written in Bacon's own hand, and having been folded and directed, was no doubt intended to go. But, wishing to make some additions or alterations in it, he withheld it and substituted the other. As it is a short letter, I give both versions entire. A LETTER TO SIR GEORGE VILLIERS, FOR THE RESTORING OF DR. BURGESS TO PREACH. 12 JUN. 1616.1 Sir, I do think you may do yourself honour, and (that which is more) do a good work, if you will assist and perfect a motion begun (and that upon a good ground both of submission and conformity) for the restoring of Doctor Burgess to preach. And I wish likewise that if Gray's-Inn should think good (after he is free from the state) to choose him for their preacher, his Majesty should not be against it: for certainly we shall watch him well if he should fly forth; so as he cannot be placed in a more safe auditory. This may seem a trifle; but I do assure you I do scarce know a particular wherein you may open more honest mouths to speak honour of you than this. And I do extremely desire that there may be a full cry from all sorts of people, specially the best, to speak and to trumpet out your commendation. I pray take it to heart, and do somewhat in it. I rest, Your devoted and bounden servant, FR. BACON. 12th of June 1616. TO SIR GEORGE VILLIERS.2 Sir, There is a particular wherein I think you may do yourself honour, which as I am informed hath been laboured by my Lady 1 Gibson Papers, vol. viii. f. 35. All in Bacon's own hand: folded, sealed, and directed, but apparently not sent. 2 Stephens's first collection, p. 167. From the original. |