Decision against donors.

Presents

counsel.

King, in the administration of justice, by which the im-' partiality of the judges might be, or might appear to be disturbed. (a)

Could he not have said that both petitions contained internal and unanswerable proof that it was not the corruption of the judge, but the fault of the times, in which the practice originated? Could he not have said that the presents were made openly, in the presence of witnesses?

How could these offerings have influenced his judgment in favour of the donor, when, in both cases, he decided against the party by whom the presents were made? In the case of Awbrey he, to repeat the strong expressions which had been used, made "a killing decree against him:"(b) and with respect to Egerton, the decision was in favour of his opponent Rowland, who did not make any present until some weeks after the judgment was pronounced. (c)

But, not contenting himself by thus showing that the advised by offerings were neither presented nor received as bribes, could he not have said, the petitions both state that the presents were recommended by counsel, and delivered by men of title and members of parliament ? (c) Did they then act in

(a) Ante, p. clxxiii.

(b) See Journals in note GGG, under date 17th March, a killing order made to Awbrey's prejudice."

(c) See note (b), ante, p. cccxiii. See note G GG, at the end, where the passage is as follows: "In the cause between Sir Rowland Egerton, knt. and Edward Egerton, the Lord Chancellor received five hundred pounds, on the part of Sir Rowland Egerton, before he decreed the same; proved by the depositions of Sir Rowland Egerton: of John Brooke, who deposeth to the providing of the money, of purpose to be given to the Lord Chancellor, and that the same is delivered to Mr. Thelwall, to deliver to the Lord Chancellor of Bevis Thelwall, who delivered the five hundred pounds to the Lord Chancellor."

Whitelock, in his "Liber Famelicus," (see ante) says, "Presently upon my return to Cluer I did visit that honorable and worthy judge, Sir Edw.

compliance with long established practice, or were they all bribed? Were the practitioners in this noble profession polluted by being accessory to the worst species of bribery? Why, when the charge was made, did the Recorder instantly say, "If Egerton desired to congratulate him at his coming to the seal for his kindnesses and pains in former business, what wrong hath he done, if he hath received a present? And if there were a suit depending, who keeps a register in his heart of all causes, nay, who can amongst such a multitude?" (a)

Could he not have said that the custom of the Chan- Customary cellor's receiving presents had existed from the earliest to receive periods? (b) that a member had reminded the house of its existence, and said, "I think the Chancellor took

Coke, Lord Chief Justice of England, who was newly returned to Stoke from the parts about London, where he was fayne to attend about his unfortunate businesses at the court. Never man was so just, so upright, so free from corrupte solicitations of great men or frendes as he was. Never put counsellors that practised before him to annual pensions of money or plate to have his favor. In all cawses before him the counsel might assure his clyent from the danger of briberye, the secret mischiefs growing by wife, children, servants, chamber motions, courtesans great or small, and the most religious and orderlye man in his house that lived in our state."

And his diary contains the following entry :

(a) See note GGG. If Egerton, out of a desire to congratulate him at his coming to the seal for his kindnesses and pains in former business, what wrong hath he done, if he hath received a present? And if there were a suit depending, who keeps a register in his heart of all causes, nay, who can amongst such a multitude?

(b) Ante, p. cciii.

presents.

gratuities, and the Lord Chancellor before, and others before him? I have amongst the muniments of my own estate, an entry of a payment to a former Chancellor of a sum for the pains he had taken in hearing our cause.” (a)

This custom of judges receiving presents was not peculiar to England, but existed in the most enlightened governments; in the different states of Greece; in all feudal states; in France, where the suitors always presented the judge with some offering in conformity with their established maxim, "Non deliberetur donec solventur species;" and in England, from time immemorial. (b) It existed before the time of King John, and during his reign; and notwithstanding the rights secured at Runnymede, it has ever continued. It existed in the reign of Henry the Fifth; and although, during the reign of Henry the Eighth, Sir Thomas More declined to receive presents, his very power of declining proves that it was customary to offer them,

(a) See note (a), next page.

(b) Barrington, in his observations on the statutes, as a note to Nulli vendemus nulli negabimus aut differemus rectum vel justitiam, says, "This part of Magna Charta is calculated to prevent abuses in the crown with regard to the administration of justice and in some cases the parties litigant offered part of what they were to recover, to the crown."

Maddox, in his History of the Exchequer, collects likewise many instances of fines for the King's favour, and particularly William Stutewell, presented to King John three thousand marks, for giving judgment with relation to the barony of Mowbray, which Stutewell gave against William de Mowbray, (I) Petyt. MSS. vol. i. p. 57, where the proceedings may be likewise seen.

"It was usual to pay fines anciently for delaying law proceedings, even to the extent of the defendant's life; sometimes they were exacted to expedite process, and to obtain right. The county of Norfolk (always represented as a litigious county, insomuch that the number of attornies allowed to practise in it is reduced by a statute of Henry the Sixth to eight) paid an annual composition at the Exchequer, that they might be fairly dealt with.”—Maddox, Hist. Exch. p. 205.

The Dean of London paid twenty marks to the King, that he might assist him against the bishop in a law-suit.

and, in conformity with this practice, the usual presents were made to Lord Bacon within a few hours after he had accepted the great seal, the only pecuniary compensation, except a very trifling salary, to which the Lord Keeper was entitled for labours never intended to be gratuitous. (a)

What could have been said in answer to this statement, that the presents were made openly, that the decision was against the party by whom they were made, and that they were made by the advice of counsel and delivered by men of eminence, and sanctioned by immemorial practice | in this and in all countries?

Might he not have called upon the justice of the house for protection from the aspersions of two discontented suitors, who had no more cause of complaint against him

(a) The whole salary did not then exceed 2790l. per annum, according to the statement of Dean Williams, who says these are all the true means of that great office:

Fines certain

Fines casual

Writs

Impost of wine

£1300

See this subject fully considered in note G G.

In Lloyd's life of Sir Augustine Nicholls, who was one of the judges in the time of James the First, he says, "We had exemplary integrity, even to the rejection of gratuities after judgment given, and a charge to his followers that they came to their places clear handed, and that they should not meddle with any motions to him, that he might be secured from all appearance of corruption."

When the charge was made against Lord Bacon, the following observation was made in the House of Commons, as appears in the Journals of Lunæ 26 Martii, 19 Jacobi.-Alford. That the Chancery hindereth commerce at home. Many things propounded about the Lord Chancellor. Thinketh he took gratuities; and the Lord Chancellor before, and others before him. Hath a ledger-book, where 30s. given to a secretary, and 10l. to a Lord Chancellor, for his pains in hearing a cause. Will proceed from Chancellor to Chancery: will offer heads, to be considered by a

committee.

than Wraynham, (a) by whom he was slandered, or Lord Clifford, by whom he was threatened to be assassinated? (b) Might he not have called upon the house for protection against these calumnies at a time when the excited people wished for some sacrifice, as a tribute to public opinion, an atonement for public wrongs, and a security for better times?

The people are often censured for their selection of a victim, but, where they contend for a principle, they lose sight of the individual. It is this dangerous indifference that enables bad men to direct, for private ends, a popular tumult. The Jewish people demanded merely their annual privilege; it was the priests who said, "Save Barrabas.”

On the 17th of March the Chancellor presided, for the last time, in the House of Lords. The charges which he had at first treated with indifference, were daily increasing, and could no longer be disregarded. From the pinnacle on which he stood, he could see the storm gathering round him: old complaints were revived, and new accusations industriously collected; and, though he had considered himself much beloved in both houses of parliament, he felt that he had secret enemies, and began to fear that he had false friends. He resolved, therefore, to meet his accusers; but his health, always delicate, gave way, and instead of being able to attend in person, he was obliged by writing to address the House of Peers.

To the Right Honourable his very good Lords, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in the Upper House of Parliament

assembled.

My very good Lords,-I humbly pray your lordships all to make a favourable and true construction of my absence.