« PreviousContinue »
was more constant and regular than is usual at his age. His affections and passions were not strong, but rather equal than warm. With regard to that of love, there was a wonderful silence, considering his age, so that he passed that dangerous time of his youth, in the highest fortune, and in a vigorous state of health, without any remarkable imputation of gallantry. In his court no person was observed to have any ascendant over him, or strong interest with him and even the studies, with which he was most delighted, had rather proper times assigned them, than were indulged to excess, and were rather repeated in their turns, than that any one kind of them had the preference of, and controlled the rest: whether this arose from the moderation of his temper, and that in a genius not very forward, but ripening by slow degrees, it did not yet appear what would be the prevailing object of his inclination. He had certainly strong parts, and was endued with both curiosity and capacity; but in speech he was slow, and in some measure hesitating. But whoever diligently observed what fell from him either by way of question or remark, saw it to be full to the purpose, and expressive of no common genius. So that under that slowness and infrequency of discourse, his judgment had more the appearance of suspense and solicitude to determine rightly, than of weakness and want of apprehension. In the mean time he was wonderfully patient in hearing, even in business of the greatest length; and this with unwearied attention, so that his mind seldom wandered from the subject, or seemed fatigued, but he applied himself wholly to what was said or done: which (if his life had been lengthened) promised a very superior degree of prudence. There were indeed in the prince some things obscure, and not to be discovered by the sagacity of any person, but by time only, which was denied him; but what appeared were excellent, which is sufficient for his fame.
Secondly, where it is desired, that unto the words degree or dignity of baron, the word honour might be added I know very well, that in the preface of the baronet's patent it is mentioned, that all honours are derived from the king. I find also, that in the patent of the baronets, which are marshalled under the barons, except it be certain principals, the word honour is granted. I find also, that the word dignity is many times in law a superior word to the word honour, as being applied to the king himself, all capital indictments concluding contra coronam et dignitatem nostram. It is evident also, that the words honour and honourable are used in these times in common speech very promiscuously. Nevertheless, because the style of honour belongs chiefly to peers and counsellors, I am doubtful what opinion to give therein.
He died in the 19th year of his age of an obstinate fever, which during the summer, through the excessive heat and dryness of the season, unusual to islands, had been epidemical, though not fatal, but in autumn became more mortal. Fame, which, as Tacitus says, is more tragical with respect to the deaths of princes, added a suspicion of poison: but as no signs of this appeared, especially in his stomach, which uses to be chiefly affected by poison, this report soon vanished.
TO THE KING.
MAY IT PLEASE YOUR MAJESTY,
ACCORDING to your highness's pleasure signified by my lord chamberlain, I have considered of the
petition of certain baronets † made unto your Majesty for confirmation and extent or explanation of certain points mentioned in their charter; and am of opinion, that first, whereas it is desired, that the baronets be declared a middle degree between baron and knight, I hold this to be reasonable as to their placing.
Thomas Howard, earl of Suffolk.
The order of baronets was created by patent of king James I. dated the 22d of May, 1611. The year following, a decree was made relating to their place and precedence, and four years after, namely, in 1616, another decree to the same purpose. See Selden's Titles of Honour, Part II. Ch. V. p. 821. Ch. XI. p. 906, and 910. 2d Edit. fol. 1631.
He had been committed, in May 1613, to the Fleet, for speaking too boldly against the marshal's court, and for giving
Thirdly, whereas it is believed, that if there be any question of precedence touching baronets, it may be ordered that the same be decided by the commissioners marshal, I do not see but it may be granted them for avoiding disturbances.
Fourthly, for the precedence of baronets, I find no alteration or difficulty, except it be in this, that the daughters of baronets are desired to be declared to have precedence before the wives of knights' eldest sons; which, because it is a degree hereditary, and that in all examples, the daughters in general have place next the eldest brothers' wives, I hold convenient.
Lastly, whereas it is desired, that the apparent heirs males of the bodies of the baronets may be knighted during the life of their fathers; for that I have received from the lord chamberlain a signification, that your Majesty did so understand it, I humbly subscribe thereunto, with this, that the baronets' eldest sons being knights do not take place of ancient knights, so long as their fathers live.
All which nevertheless I humbly submit to your Majesty's better judgment.
Your Majesty's most humble and most bounden servant,
THE CHARGE AGAINST MR. WHITELOCKE.‡
THE offence, wherewith Mr. Whitelocke is his opinion to Sir Robert Mansell, treasurer of the navy and vice-admiral, that the commission to the earl of Nottingham, lord high admiral, for reviewing and reforming the disorders committed by the officers of the navy, was not according to law; though Mr. Whitelocke had given that opinion only in private to his client, and not under his hand. Sir Robert Mansell was also committed to the Marshalsea, for animating the lord admiral against the commission. [Sir Ralph Winwood's Memorials of State, vol. iii. p. 460.] This Mr. Whitelocke
charged, for as to Sir Robert Mansell, I take it to | counsel, for you have lawyers sometimes too nice my part only to be sorry for his error, is a contempt of a high nature, and resting upon two parts: on the one, a presumptuous and licentious censure and defying of his Majesty's prerogative in general; the other, a slander and traducement of one act or emanation hereof, containing a commission of survey and reformation of abuses in the office of the navy.
as well as too bold, they are then ruled and assigned to be of counsel. For certainly counsel is the blind man's guide; and sorry I am with all my heart, that in this case the blind did lead the blind.
For the offence, for which Mr. Whitelocke is charged, I hold it great, and to have, as I said at first, two parts: the one a censure, and, as much as in him is, a circling, nay a clipping, of the king's prerogative in general; the other, a slander, and depravation of the king's power and honour in this commission.
This offence is fit be opened and set before your lordships, as it hath been well begun, both in the true state and in the true weight of it. For as I desire, that the nature of the offence may appear in its true colours; so, on the other side, I desire, that the shadow of it may not darken or involve any thing that is lawful, or agreeable with the just and reasonable liberty of the subject.
First, we must and do agree, that the asking, and taking, and giving of counsel in law is an essential part of justice; and to deny that, is to shut the gate of justice, which in the Hebrews' commonwealth was therefore held in the gate, to show all passage to justice must be open and certainly counsel in law is one of the passages. But yet, for all that, this liberty is not infinite and without limits.
If a jesuited papist should come, and ask counsel (I put a case not altogether feigned) whether all the acts of parliament made in the time of queen Elizabeth and king James are void or no; because there are no lawful bishops sitting in the upper house, and a parliament must consist of lords spiritual and temporal and commons; and a lawyer will set it under his hand, that they be all void, I will touch him for high treason upon this his counsel.
So, if a puritan preacher will ask counsel, whether he may style the king Defender of the Faith, because he receives not the discipline and presbytery; and the lawyer will tell him, it is no part of the king's style, it will go hard with such a lawyer.
Or if a tribunitious popular spirit will go and ask a lawyer, whether the oath and band of allegiance be to the kingdom and crown only, and not to the king, as was Hugh Spencer's case, and he deliver his opinion as Hugh Spencer did; he will be in Hugh Spencer's danger.
So as the privilege of giving counsel proveth not all opinions: and as some opinions given are traitorous; so are there others of a much inferior nature, which are contemptuous. And among these I reckon Mr. Whitelocke's; for as for his loyalty and true heart to the king, God forbid I should doubt it.
Therefore let no man mistake so far, as to conceive, that any lawful and due liberty of the subject for asking counsel in law is called in question when points of disloyalty or of contempt are restrained. Nay, we see it is the grace and favour of the king and his courts, that if the case be tender, and a wise lawyer in modesty and discretion refuseth to be of was probably the same with James Whitelocke, who was born in London, 28th November, 1572, educated at Merchanttaylors' school there, and St. John's college in Oxford, and studied law in the Middle Temple, of which he was summer reader in 1619. In the preceding year, 1618, he stood for the place of recorder of the city of London, but was not elected to it, Robert Heath, Esq. being chosen on the 10th of November, chiefly by the recommendation of the king, the city having been told, that they must choose none, whom his Majesty
And for the first of these, I consider it again in three degrees: first, that he presumed to censure the king's prerogative at all. Secondly, that he runneth into the generality of it more than was pertinent to the present question. And lastly, that he hath erroneously, and falsely, and dangerously given opinion in derogation of it.
First, I make a great difference between the king's grants and ordinary commissions of justice, and the king's high commissions of regiment, or mixed with causes of state.
For the former, there is no doubt but they may be freely questioned and disputed, and any defect in matter or form stood upon, though the king be many times the adverse party:
But for the latter sort, they are. rather to be dealt with, if at all, by a modest and humble intimation or remonstrance to his Majesty and his council, than by bravery of dispute or peremptory opposition.
Of this kind is that properly to be understood, which is said in Bracton, "De chartis et factis regiis non debent aut possunt justitiarii aut privatæ personæ disputare, sed tutius est, ut expectetur sententia regis.'
And the king's courts themselves have been exceeding tender and sparing in it; so that there is in all our law not three cases of it. And in that very case of 24 Ed. 3. ass. pl. s. which Mr. Whitelocke vouched, where, as it was a commission to arrest a man, and to carry him to prison, and to seize his goods without any form of justice or examination preceding; and that the judges saw it was obtained by surreption; yet the judges said they would keep it by them, and show it to the king's council.
But Mr. Whitelocke did not advise his client to acquaint the king's council with it, but presumptuously giveth opinion, that it is void. Nay, not so much as a clause or passage of modesty, as that he submits his opinion to censure; that it is too great a matter for him to deal in; or this is my opinion, which is nothing, &c. But illotis manibus, he takes it into his hands, and pronounceth of it, as a man would scarcely do of a warrant of a justice of peace, and speaks like a dictator, that this is law, and this is against law, &c.*
should refuse, as he did in particular except to Mr. Whitelocke by name. [MS. letter of Mr. Chamberlain to Sir Dudley Carleton, November 14, 1618.] Mr. Whitelocke, however, was called to the degree of serjeant in Trinity-term, 1620, knighted, made chief justice of Chester; and at last, on the 18th of October, 1624, one of the justices of the king's bench; in which post he died June, 1632. He was father of Bulstrode Whitelocke, Esq., commissioner of the great seal.
Sir H. Wotton, in a letter of his to Sir Edmund Bacon,
ROBERT EARL OF SOMERSET TO SIR THO-
I HAVE Considered that my answer to you, and what I have otherwise to say, will exceed the bounds of a letter; and now having not much time to use betwixt my waiting on the king, and the removes we do make in this our little progress, I thought fit to use the same man to you, whom I have heretofore many times employed in the same business. He has, besides an account and a better description of me to give you, to make a repetition of the former carriages of all this business, that you may distinguish that, which he did by knowledge of mine and direction, and betwixt that he did out of his own discretion without my warrant. With all this he has to renew to you a former desire of mine, which was the groundwork of this, and the chief errand of his coming to you, wherein I desire your answer by him. I would not employ this gentleman to you, if he were, as you conceit of him, your unfriend, or an ill instrument betwixt us. So owe him the testimony of oue, that has spoken as honestly, and given more praises of you, than any man, that has spoken to me.
My haste at this time makes me to end sooner than I expected: but the subject of my next sending shall be to answer that part you give me in your love, with a return of the same from
Your assured loving Friend,
be like Noah's dove, not knowing where to rest our
Your Majesty's most devoted, and faithful subject and servant,
Reasons why it should be exceeding much for his Majesty's service to remove the lord COKE from the place he now holdeth ¶ to be chief justice of England,** and the attorney†† to succeed him, and the solicitor the attorney.
TO THE KING.
IT MAY PLEASE YOUR MOST EXCELLENT MAJESTY, HAVING understood of the death of the lord chief justice,† I do ground in all humbleness an assured hope, that your Majesty will not think of any other but your poor servants, your attorney,‡ and your solicitor,§ one of them, for that place. Else we shall [Reliq. Wotton, p. 421, edit. 3d,] written about the beginning of June, 1613, mentions, that Sir Robert Mansell and Mr. Whitelocke were, on the Saturday before, called to a very honourable hearing in the queen's presence-chamber at Whitehall, before the lords of the council, with intervention of the lord chief justice Coke, the lord chief baron Tanfield, and the master of the rolls; the lord chief justice of the king's bench, Fleming, being kept at home by some infirmity. There the attorney and solicitor first undertook Mr. Whitelocke, and the recorder, [Henry Montagu,] as the king's serjeant, Sir Robert Mansell, charging the one as a counsellor, the other as a questioner, in matters of the king's prerogative and sovereignty upon occasion of a commission intended for a research into the administration of the admiralty. "Whitelocke in his answer," adds Sir Henry Wotton," speaks more confusedly than was expected from a lawyer; and the knight more temperately than was expected from a soldier Whitelocke ended his speech with an absolute confession of his own offence, and with a promise of employing himself hereafter in defence of the king's prerogative. In this they generally agreed, both counsellors and judges, to represent the humiliation of|ral June 25, 1607.
FIRST, it will strengthen the king's causes greatly amongst the judges; for both my lord Coke will think himself near a privy counsellor's place, and thereupon turn obsequious; and the attorney-general, a new man, and a grave person, in a judge's place, will come in well to the other, and hold him hard to it, not without emulation between them, who shall please the king best.
both the prisoners to the king, in lieu of innocency, and to intercede for his gracious pardon: which was done, and accordingly the next day they were enlarged upon a submission under writing."
*He was committed to the Tower on the 21st of April, 1613, and died there of poison on the 15th of September following. Sir Thomas Fleming, who died about August, 1613. was justice of the common pleas, November 26, 1613, in the room of Sir Edward Coke, removed to the post of lord chief justice of the king's bench, October 25.
Sir Francis Bacon himself, who was appointed attorneygeneral, October 27, 1613.
To Sir Julius
Of chief justice of the common pleas, having been appointed to that office June 30, 1606.
**He was advanced to that office October 25, 1613. + Sir Henry Hobart, who had been appointed attorneygeneral July 4, 1606.
Sir Francis Bacon, who had been sworn solicitor-gene
Secondly, the attorney-general sorteth not so well | Besides, the remove of my lord Coke to a place of with his present place, being a man timid and scru- less profit, though it be with his will, yet will be pulous both in parliament and other business, and thought abroad a kind of discipline to him for that in a word was made fit for the late lord opposing himself in the king's causes; the example treasurer's bent, which was to do little with much whereof will contain others in more awe. formality and protestation: whereas the now solicitor going more roundly to work, and being of a quicker and more earnest temper, and more effectual in that he dealeth in, is like to recover that strength to the king's prerogative, which it hath had in times past, and which is due unto it. And for that purpose there must be brought in to be solicitor some man of courage and speech, and a grounded lawyer; which done, his Majesty will speedily find a marvellous change in his business. For it is not to purpose for the judges to stand well-disposed, except the king's council, which is the active and moving part, put the judges well to it; for in a weapon, what is a back without an edge?
Thirdly, the king shall continue and add reputation to the attorney's and solicitor's place, by this orderly advancement of them; which two places are the champion's places for his rights and prerogative; and being stripped of their expectations and successions to great place, will wax vile; and then his Majesty's prerogative goeth down the wind.
Sir John Dodderidge was made judge of the king's bench, November 25, 1612, and Sir Augustin Nichols of the common pleas the day following.
The case of this gentleman will render the detail of it necessary for the illustration of this letter; and the circumstances of it, not known in our history, may be thought to deserve the reader's attention. He was a native of the West of England, and a recusant, against whom a proclamation was issued in June 1613, charging him with high treason against the king and state for having published a very scandalous and railing book against his Majesty, under the title of Balaam's Ass, which was dropped in the gallery at Whitehall. Just at the time of publishing this proclamation, he happened to cross the Thames, and inquiring of the watermen what news? they, not knowing him, told him of the proclamation. At landing, he muffled himself up in his cloak, to avoid being known; but had not gone many paces, when one Mr. Maine, a friend of his, meeting and discovering him, warned him of his danger; and being asked what he would advise him to do, recommended it to him to surrender himself; which he did to the earl of Southampton. He denied himself to be the author of the libel: but his study being searched, among his papers were found many parts of the book, together with relics of those persons who had been executed for the gun-powder treason, as one of Sir Everard Digby's fingers, a toe of Thomas Percy, some other part of Catesby or Rookewood, and a piece of one of Peter Lambert's ribs. He was kept prisoner in the Tower till March 1618, when the true author of the libel was discovered to be John Williams, Esq. a barrister of the Middle Temple, who had been expelled the house of commons on account of his being a papist. The discovery was owing to this accident: a pursuivant in want of money, and desirous to get some by his employment, waited at the Spanish ambassador's door, to see if he could light upon any prey. At last came out Mr. Williams, unknown to the pursuivant; but carrying, in his conceit, the countenance of a priest. The pursuivant, therefore, followed him to his inn, where Williams, having mounted his horse, the pursuivant came to him, and told him, that he must speak a word or two with him. "Marry, with all my heart," said Williams; "what is your pleasure ?" "You must light," answered the pursuivant; "for you are a priest." "A priest?" replied Williams; "I have a good warrant to the contrary, for I have a wife and children." Being, however, obliged to dismount, the pursuivant searched him; and in his pocket was found a bundle of papers sealed up; which the pursuivant going to open, Williams made some resistance, pretending they were evidences of a gentleman whose law-businesses he transacted. The pursuivant insisting upon opening the papers, among them was found Balaam's Ass, with new which, upon examination, Williams confessed himself to be the author. He was brought
Lastly, whereas now it is voiced abroad touching the supply of places, as if it were a matter of labour, and canvass, and money; and other persons are chiefly spoken of to be the men, and the great suitors; this will appear to be the king's own act, and is a course so natural and regular, as it is without all suspicion of these by-courses, to the king's infinite honour. For men say now, the king can make good second judges, as he hath done lately; but that is no mastery, because men sue to be kept from these places. But now is the trial in those great places, how his Majesty can hold good, where there is great suit and means.
TO THE KING.
IT MAY PLEASE YOUR MOST EXCELLENT MAJESTY, WE have, with all possible care and diligence, considered Cotton's † cause, the former and the
to trial on the 3d of May, 1619, for writing that and another book entitled Speculum Regale; in both of which he had presumed to prophesy, that the king would die in 1621, grounding this prediction on the prophecy of Daniel, where the prophet speaks of time and times, and half a time. He farther af firmed, that antichrist will be revealed when sin shall be at the highest; and then the end is nigh: that such is our time; sin is now at the highest; ergo that the land is the abomination of desolation mentioned by Daniel, and the habitation of devils, and the antimark of Christ's church. Williams's defence was, 1. That what he had written was not with any malice or disloyalty of heart towards the king, but purely from affection, and by way of caution and admonition, that his Majesty might avoid the mischiefs likely to befall him; having added in his book, when he delivered the threats of judgment and destruction, which God avert, or such words. 2. That the matter rested only in opinion and thought, and contained no overt act; no rebellion, treason, or other mischief following it. 3. That he had enclosed his book in a box sealed up, and secretly conveyed it to the king, without ever publishing it. But the court was unanimously of opinion, that he was guilty of high treason; and that the words contained in the libel, as cited above, imported the end and destruction of the king and his realm; and that antichristianism and false religion were maintained in the said realm; which was a motive to the people to commit treasons, to raise rebellions, &c. and that the writing of the book was a publication. Reports of Henry Rolle, serjeant at law, part II. p. 88. In consequence of this judgment he had a sentence of death passed upon him, which was executed over-against Charing-Cross two days after. MS. letters of Mr. Thomas Lorkin to Sir Thomas Puckering, Bart. dated at London, June the 24th and 30th, 1613, and March the 16th, 1618-9, and May the 4th and 5th, 1619, among the Harleian MSS. Vol. 7002. At his death he adhered to his profession of the Roman catholic religion, and died with great resolution. He prayed for the king and prince; and said, that he was sorry for having written so saucily and irreverently; but pretended that he had an inward warrant and particular illumination to understand certain hard passages of Daniel and the Revelation, which made him adventure so far. MS. letter of John Chamberlain, Esq. to Sir Dudley Carleton, dated at London, May 8, 1619.
This case was urged against the seven bishops at their trial in king James II.'s reign by Sir William Williams, then solicitor-general, who observed, Trial, p. 76, that it had been made use of by Mr. Solicitor-general Finch on the trial of Col. Sidney, and was the great "case relied upon, and that guided and governed that case; though there is nothing of this, that appears in the printed trial of Sidney.
It is but justice to the memory of our great antiquary, Sir
latter, touching the book and the letter in the gilt apple, and have advisedly perused and weighed all the examinations and collections which were formerly taken; wherein we might attribute a good deal of worthy industry and watchful inquiry to my lord of Canterbury. We thought fit also to take some new examinations; which was the cause we certified no sooner. Upon the whole matter, we find the cause of his imprisonment just, and the suspicions and presumptions many and great ; which we little need to mention, because your Majesty did relate and inforced them to us in better perfection, than we can express them. But, nevertheless, the proofs seem to us to amount to this, that it was possible he should be the man; and that it was probable, likewise, he was the man: but no convicting proofs, that may satisfy a jury of life and death, or that may make us take it upon our conscience, or to think it agreeable to your Majesty's honour, which next our conscience to God, is the dearest thing to us, on earth, to bring it upon the stage; which notwithstanding we, in all humbleness, submit to your Majesty's better judgment. For his liberty, and the manner of his delivery, he having so many notes of a dangerous man, we leave it to your princely wisdom. And so commending your Majesty to God's precious custody, we rest
Your Majesty's most humble and bounden servants,
22 Jan. 1613.
TO JOHN MURRAY* OF THE BED-CHAMBER TO THE KING.†
I KEEP the same measure in a proportion with my master and with my friend; which is, that I will never deceive them in any thing, which is in my power; and when my power faileth my will, I am sorry.
Monday is the day appointed for performing his Majesty's commandment. Till then I cannot tell what to advise you farther, except it should be this, that in case the judges should refuse to take order in it themselves, then you must think of some warrant to Mr. Secretary, who is your friend, and constant in the businesses, that he see forthwith his Majesty's commandment executed, touching the double lock; and, if need be, repair to the place, and see by view the manner of keeping the seal; and take order, that there be no stay for working of the Robert Cotton, Bart. to remark here a mistake of Dr. Thomas Smith in his life of Sir Robert, p. 26, prefixed to his catalogue of the Cottonian library, where he has confounded the Cotton, mentioned in the beginning of this note, with Sir Robert Cotton, and erroneously supposed, that the suspicion of having written the libel had fallen upon the latter.
He was created viscount of Annan in Scotland, in August, 1622. Negotiations of Sir Thomas Roe, in his Embassy to the Ottoman Porte, p. 93. In April, 1624, the lord Annan was created earl of Annandale in Scotland. Ibid. p. 250.
seal of justice, nor no prejudice to Killegrew's farm, nor to the duty of money paid to the chief justice. Whether this may require your presence, as you write, that yourself can best judge. But of this more, when we have received the judges' answer. It is my duty, as much as in me is, to procure my master to be obeyed. I ever rest
Your friend and assured January 21, 1614. FR. BACON. I pray deliver the enclosed letter to his Majesty. To his very good friend Mr. John Murray, of his Majesty's bed-chamber.
TO MR. MURRAY.
My Lord Chancellor, yesterday in my presence, had before him the judges of the common pleas, and hath performed his Majesty's' royal command in a very worthy fashion, such as was fit for our master's greatness; and because the king may know it, I send you the enclosed. This seemeth to have wrought the effect desired; for presently I sent for Sir Richard Cox,‡ and willed him to present himself to my lord Hobart, and signify his readiness to attend. He came back to me, and told me, all things went on. I know not what afterwards may be; but I think this long chase is at an end. I ever rest Yours assured,
January 25, 1614.
+ This, and the three following letters, are printed from Harl. MSS. Vol. 6986.
He was one of the masters of the green cloth, and had had a quarrel at court during the Christmas holy-days of the year 1614, with Sir Thomas Erskine; which quarrel was made up by the lords of the marshal's court, Sir Richard being obliged to put up with very foul words. MS. letter of Mr. Chamberlain to Sir Dudley Carleton, January 12, 1614-5.
§ Edmund Peacham, a minister in Somersetshire. [MS. letter of Mr. Chamberlain, dated January 5, 1614-15.] I find one