490

LADY WHARTON'S CASE.

equalize the decision. But it can hardly be doubted that so long as one suitor was wealthier, his case would fare the best. In Valore's case he borrowed two thousand pounds: this was the same Valore to whom he has declared he owed 20,000%., which he wished the King to forgive. He now refers to that letter, and alleges it was but two thousand that he owed, and that he considered himself indebted in that sum, as the two loans now charged as bribes.

The evidence of the various bribes in their nakedness, even measured by his extenuation, looks hideous enough. Thus we find in Lady Wharton's cause, he first took a purse of money, but that her suit still languished, but receiving 2007. more, "her decree had life." But this was not sufficient. Shute, one of Bacon's servants in the courts, suggests that she shall make over the estate in suit, to Lord Bacon, preserving a life interest to herself, to the disinheritance of her children. This monstrous proposal she refuses; and, by consequence, not only loses her suit, but her 3007., which is the cause of her present petition. But then, not without further aggravation. For obtaining two hundred pounds more, Bacon decreed for her. Afterwards damning his own decree, by which another two hundred pounds, the expense and misery of a second suit were added to her first loss.

It may be well to endeavour to laud and honour Bacon's private character. It is very cheap praise. It is very easy to honour one who has been no cause of suffering to ourselves. It merely requires a lack of perception of virtue, of respect for integrity, of a sense of the distinction between right and wrong. But can it be believed that

CHEAP VENERATION FOR GENIUS.

*

491

the unhappy and wretched suitors, tortured and ruined by Bacon's prodigality, that he may send his servants to court with gold buttons, and clad like ambassadors, would have accorded to him this praise? Is there to be no distinction henceforth between vice and virtue? Is justice not a sacred inheritance, as sacred, as inestimable as liberty itself? Is the lamp of truth placed on high, for man's maintenance and protection, no longer the object of his sacred care? Finally, are we at liberty to falsify facts, or confound truth, to serve an ignoble theory or a base motive?

Shall any tenth-rate literary charlatan, to make a reputation for being marvellously astute, for being wiser than great historians, so corrupt history, so falsify the chronicles, so pervert evidence, that we shall cease to execrate what is infamous, or revere what is sincerely worthy of honour? May the just heavens forbid! Shall he be at liberty to play tricks, alter dates, pervert the facts, bring false charges against individuals, coin occurrences, that he may sell books?

The unhappy suitors, whom this voluptuous Sybarite destroyed and made wretched, are not with us. But if we have no reverence for truth or justice abstractedly, we surely have pity and regard for the victims of his oppression, for the miserable wretches ruined by his prodigality. Slaughtered in estate that he might squander. Made forlorn that he might outshine his neighbours in the grandeur of his processions, in his almost regal state, his equipages, and his retinue of servants? The Cry of the orphan, destitute, penniless, flung upon the streets-Of the

* Letter, March 24, 1621, State Paper Office,

492

THE EGERTONS' CASE.

widow, flung from affluence into penury-Of the strong man bowed down and heartbroken-Of the mother deprived of her children's all,-shall they not go up as a prayer to heaven, to invoke fire down, to consume the wretched idolater of a base creed? To punish the infamous polluter of a sacred religion and a holy altar?

The

Bacon falls. His vile associate in sin, the Bishop of Llandaff, being a bishop, is, for the honour of his cloth, not punished, merely admonished in convocation. House of Commons has no power to deal with him, he being an ecclesiastic, and the Church is merciful to its erring son, not in pity, but to avoid scandal. He, in the cause of Egerton, had, in addition to the money received by Bacon, demanded a bribe of 6000 marks (to be guaranteed by a bond for 10,000 marks). Egerton could not raise so vast a sum, therefore Llandaff proposed that the decree should be made in Egerton's favour, and then raised out of the land so obtained, promising in verbo sacerdotis, on the faith of a priest, on the word of a bishop, that he would cancel the bond for 10,000 marks if the decree were not made in his favour. To justify the decree, and shift the responsibity from Bacon's shoulders, it was further agreed that a petition should be made to Buckingham and to the King to interfere in favour of the bribers. But, unfortunately, Villiers and the King, unwilling to be the catspaws, both refuse on this occasion. The decree therefore is against the Egertons. But the bishop refuses to deliver up the bond for 10,000 marks-hence their petition.

An attempt has been made to juggle the public into the belief that a man of infamous character, Churchill,

THE WITNESSES AGAINST BACON.

493

The

was the chief, if not the only witness in these cases. witnesses are brought in by dozens. Churchill is one of a hundred. He is important and useful, for he was once a servant under Bacon, and can therefore speak as to specific acts in corroboration. It is easy to show bribery, but it is very difficult indeed to show Bacon's complicity, to bring every present precisely home. It is not at all difficult to show the wretched extortions practised, but it is a matter of much more intricacy to trace every gift to a dependent home to the Chancellor. To get behind the scenes and fathom the mystery of where the money goes to. Churchill, as one of Bacon's servants, can help in this, but he is only one of the aids. For the state of his character justice cannot be too nice in that particular. If the dishonest did not disagree, or if all testimony from persons of dubious virtue were refused, difficulty would exist in securing punishment at all. His character, however, is not impeachable on the historic evidence presented, as that is an ex-parte accusation. But it is hardly probable that a very virtuous man would undertake his task.

As an answer to the proposition that the whole of this trial was a move of Villiers and Coke to expel Bacon little need be urged. It is as competent to show that Redpath and Robson were the victims of a political faction; that Lord Palmerston, being in league with Redpath, was by Lord John Russell overthrown through Robson. To heighten the narrative, Mr. Palmer, Mr. Cook, and Sir Fitzroy Kelly all assisting in the plot, would make the history more interesting and equally intelligible. history of our own time, after showing us that Mr. Edwin

A

494 THE CRIMES THAT PULLED HIM DOWN.

James took Capri, having visited Italy somewhere about that time, and that Lord Elgin, from entering China somewhere in the same century, conquered at Chilianwallah, would be equally instructive—and probable.

The facts were, Bacon was in friendly and amicable correspondence with Villiers after the inquiry into the abuses of the law courts commenced, and remained throughout in correspondence with the King. The favourite, who knew him, found that he had actually been taking bribes of the suitors he had recommended. That he had played him false again. He did not withdraw his countenance altogether. This he feared to do, for the Lord Verulam had a pen and wrote history; but he would not, he dared not, assist him openly. Even he had trembled for his place. He had handed over, or professed to hand over, his brothers to justice. They had filed. Sir John Bennet, Yelverton, Mitchel, Monpesson, were all punished. He was not powerful enough to save Bacon, nor, indeed, why should he? He did not move in any way against him.

Bacon, throughout, acknowledged the justice of his sentence. Thrice repeated his confession. Never charged any one with plotting against him-that plea was reserved for the nineteenth century.

If Bacon could have used such a defence, would he not have employed it?

The Chairman of the Committee of Grievances plotting with Villiers to overthrow Bacon, for the vile purpose of bringing in Williams as Lord Chancellor, another ingenious surmise, is equal to the proposition that Lord Palmerston plotted with Palmer to bring in the Bishop of