tions. The Committee charged with that work had been proceeding diligently with it all the time. Their first meeting was on the 6th ; on the 12th they were ready with their report: which was brought up by Sir Edwin Sandys in a very able and elaborate speech. They had got together all the records; thoroughly examined the subject; were more sensible than ever of the magnitude of the grievance; more confident than ever that the Crown had no legal right to levy Impositions without consent of Parliament. They conceived that the King had been misinformed; and proposed, as the true way of disabusing him, first to induce the Upper House to join in a petition for removal of the burden; 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."

This was the end proposed. By way of preparation, the subject was formally laid out in nine divisions; and each division, after the excellent practice of those times, was assigned to a separate speaker or speakers. With the distribution of the argument (which is not wanted for explanation or illustration of anything that comes within the scope of this work) we need not trouble ourselves. The question, of immense importance then, has been long settled beyond the reach of dispute, and taken its place among the curiosities of history. That it was then a question fairly debatable is all we need now bear in mind; and of this there is evidence enough in the fact that six or seven years before it had been decided one way after formal hearing by the authorized interpreters of the law, and was now for the second time decided the opposite way by a House of Commons very strong in lawyers, and almost unanimous. The only part of the distribution which much concerns us is that which was assigned to Bacon. But that is remarkable enough to be worth quoting in ex

tenso.

"Nine heads, nine burthens upon several persons.

I. 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 patents 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 cloths: 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 peti

1 C. J. p.
481.

tion last Parliament divers hundreths of these taken away; so now not remaining above 300 or 400; yet that those remaining far more worth than all the rest abolished.

3. The claim for none of his ancestors ever did so, but pretended wars, needs, etc. Prayed continuance but for a time.-This committed to Mr. Attorney."

Now when we consider the peculiar position in which Bacon stood towards the House and towards this particular question,-holding an office which had but a few weeks before been voted incompatible with the duties of a member of Parliament as binding the holder to the King's side, and having only four years before put himself forward personally as an earnest and uncompromising maintainer of the King's right on grounds of law,—their selection of him for a part like this must be regarded as a remarkable proof of personal confidence. The task of opening and laying the groundwork of an argument2 which was to make good a conclusion in the teeth of the King's most notorious prejudices, was to be entrusted to the King's attorney-general. The officer whose official relation to the King was thought to imply subservience incompatible with the duties of a member, was to explain to the Lords that the King had in this matter of Impositions assumed powers which none of his progenitors had assumed, both in time, in number, and in circumstance; that whereas no former King had set any Impositions but for a time limited, he had set them "for him and his heirs for ever:" whereas no former King had set more than two or three, he had set more than as many hundreds; whereas no former King had set them but upon pretence of war or need, he had set them when there was no such pretence.

The matter, it is true, was a very delicate one to manage. The successful result of the conference would depend very much upon the temper and spirit in which it was opened, upon the tact and persuasive speech of the opener, and the personal favour with which the audience were prepared to look upon him and listen to him. In all these respects Bacon was no doubt the man for the work. The House knew by often-repeated experience in whose hands such a business had the best chance of prospering. But the same skill which enables a man to guide a cause right which he wishes to succeed will enable him to guide wrong a cause which he wishes to fail. Now they knew that not long ago he had believed them to be wrong in point of law and whether they were right or wrong, such a peti

1 C. J. p. 481.

:

2 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." Whitelocke's 'Liber Famelicus,' p. 42.

tion as they wanted to persuade the Lords to join in was certain to bring them into disagreeable collision with the King; whose most recent declaration on the subject was regarded as discouraging.1 How was it that they could trust him with such an office? Upon the point of law, indeed, it is possible that he had changed his opinion. When the question first fell under debate, the records (upon the evidence of which the argument chiefly turned) had been imperfectly examined; and one distinguished lawyer who had formerly been a conspicuous speaker on behalf of the King's right to impose, had professed himself a convert upon the sight of precedents which had been disinterred by the Committee appointed to search.2 Now we happen to know that shortly after the last Parliament “ certain records concerning Impositions" were delivered to Bacon, and that he made private notes upon some of them. What these records were indeed (further than that their bearing upon the case was thought important), or what the tenour of his notes was (further than that they were private, and that he wished to keep them so), we do not know. But it is possible that they had had upon his opinion the same effect which others had formerly had upon Hackwill's. And if that were so, he was all the better qualified for the task now laid upon him. His own conversion would give additional weight to his authority, and point him out as specially fitted to set forth the reasons for reconsidering a conclusion which he had himself formerly concurred in, but had since discovered to rest on imperfect information. As for collision with the King, it was an evil both for himself and the country which he must have wished extremely to avoid. But he probably felt that it could not be avoided now except by the King's yielding ground; which he would be more likely to do if he saw the House unanimous than if there were symptoms of divided opinions among the leaders. Whether or not he now thought the King's claim good in law, he must have been fully satisfied by this time that it could not be maintained in fact. Right

1 "Mr. Delliverge, accordant, in respect of the little hope yesterday of relief of Impositions." C. J. 5 May, 1614. 'Yesterday" was the day on which the King had spoken to them.

2 "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." C. J. p. 467.

3 "Mr. Attorney generally questioned what records he hath seen.-That he received, shortly after last Parliament, from Mr. Jones, which he took to have been given him, whereupon he hath made private notes.-Wisheth those were transcribed. The rest ready to redeliver. And pressed whether he have any other, or have seen any, affirmeth, not." C. J. p. 486. May 14, 1614.

or wrong, the question was clearly carried against the King. To have it carried in such a manner that the collision should not be violent or visible, was the best that could be hoped now. We have seen that he thought the question admitted of "accommodation ";1 and we shall see hereafter in what particular way he thought it might be managed, so as to involve a virtual abandonment of the King's claim and yet to make it seem his own voluntary act, induced by public considerations, and having no reference to the question upon which the difference had arisen. Judging from the general tenour of his policy, I have little doubt that he was preparing at this time to work towards some such end; this being one of those struggles between Prerogative and Privilege in which it was of vital importance to avoid a definite and declared victory on either side.

If so, his readiness to take the part assigned, whatever his private opinion may have been on the point of law, is sufficiently accounted for: he could not have served the King better. And on the other hand, if he was willing to undertake and desirous to succeed in it, his appearance at the head of a Committee of Conference would give them countenance and strength. If the House could trust him, nothing was more natural than that they should employ him. That in a business so delicate and difficult, so distasteful to the higher powers, and so easy to make miscarry, they should have felt they could trust him, was to his credit and to theirs. But it is evident they did.

They proceeded warily; and to make more sure of their ground, and prevent the danger of being confounded by the production on the sudden of some new unexpected precedent, they took the precaution, before agreeing upon their message to the Lords, of inviting all dissentients to make known their objections. At the debate in which this motion was made, Bacon was present and spoke. But though he raised some questions and desired further inquiry as to certain of the positions which it was proposed that he should himself maintain, it is clear from the notes of his speech that he did not mean to raise again the question of the King's right, but was willing in a general way to accept the part assigned to him.

NOTES OF SPEECH ON PREPARATION FOR CONFERENCE
TOUCHING IMPOSITIONS.

Mr. Attorney:-That their putting this part upon him an argument of their good opinion. Trust in his person discharged

1 Letter to the King. "Wherein I meet with the objection of Impositions, but yet I conceive it may be accommodate." Vol. IV. p. 372.

2 "Mr. Thorpe moveth that if any man can speak anything for the King's right of imposing without Parliament, they will do so." C. J. p. 486, May 16.

the suspicion of his place. For the three points, spoken of matters in fact; wisheth that this tried true, e'er propounded: for erring in matter of fact more subject to redargution than matter in law. Moveth whether an indefinite grant of imposing imply not a perpetuity. 2dly. Claims by word and by fact: the latter the stronger. Words the female, acts the male. The number :-That they that speak, of the greater number.

Adviseth a conference between the sub-committees, and a view then to be taken of the records; and every one to be bounded to his part; for hard for him that cometh before not to speak something of that which cometh after; for that it blemisheth the part of him that cometh after, when deflowered by him that precedeth.1

This was spoken on the 16th of May. But it was not till the 21st that they were ready to send their message of invitation to the Lords; not till the 26th that they received the answer. So there was much deliberation on both sides.

The answer was a refusal.

"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."

No

Such a refusal was a very unusual measure. The Commons, it is true, had within recent memory refused to confer with the Lords about the amount of a subsidy :3 but that was because they took taxation to be the particular function of the Lower House. such reason could be pretended by the Lords in this case. In such a question as the legal right of putting impositions upon merchandise, a joint petition from the two Houses was the orderly and constitutional way of proceeding; to which a Conference was a necessary preliminary. In assenting to it they did not bind themselves to assent to the prayer of the proposed petition: in refusing it, they refused not merely to acquiesce in the conclusion, but to entertain the question. The truth, I take it, was that those of the Councillors and courtiers who had been in treaty with the "Undertakers," meaning to use them for their own purposes, or (in the Earl of Suffolk's own phrase) to "play the knave with them," had found that the game was not going in their favour, and resolved to break it up. 2 L. J. p. 708. 3 See Vol. I. p. 216.

1 C. J. p. 486, May 16, 1614.