« ZurückWeiter »
he have called upon the lovers of truth and of justice to divest their minds of all prejudice; to be, when sitting in judgment upon a judge, themselves impartial. Knowing the nature of the high tribunal before whom he was to appear, there could, indeed, have been scarcely any necessity for such an appeal. He knew the joy which they " would feel, if he could clear his honour." He knew that, however grateful it may be to common minds to indulge in the vulgar pleasure of imaginary self-importance from the depression of superiority, a disinclination to condemn, even if truth call for conviction, is an attribute of every noble mind, always afflicted at the infirmities of genius. Knowing that, amongst the peers, many valued themselves upon ancient learning, he would have reminded them, that "the tree scathed with lightning, was with them of the olden time ever held sacred. Sure no tree of the forest, under Jove's favour, ever flourished more than myself; witness for me all those, who while the dews of heaven rested on me, were rejoiced to shelter under my branches: and I the more readily, my lords, remind you of an ensample of heathen piety, because I would not in the presence of some of you speak of Christian charity, which, if it were not recorded by one who cannot lie, I have found so cold that I might suppose it to be only painted forth in books, but, indeed, without life, or heat, or motion."
He could not have thought it necessary to warn the Lords, as he had apprised the King that "when from private appetite it is resolved that a creature shall be sacrificed, it is easy to pick up sticks enough from any thicket whither it hath strayed to make a fire to offer it with;" nor to have said to the Lords, as he had said to the King, "For the briberies and gifts wherewith I am charged, when the book of hearts shall be opened, I hope I Bhall not be found to have the troubled fountain of a corrupt heart, in a depraved habit of taking rewards to pervert justice: however, I may be frail, and partake of the abuses of the times."—For such appeals there would not, before such a tribunal, have been any necessity.
Passing from these general observations, how easy would Particular it have been to have examined each particular charge, by cltarges" separating the bundle, and breaking it stick by stick?
In the case of Holman and Young, it was alleged that Holman £1000 had been given to the Chancellor by Young, (a) youDK
(a) 22nd March.—In a suit between Hull, plaintiff, and Holman, defendant, Holman, deferring his answer, was committed to the Fleet, where he lay twenty weeks, and petitioning to be delivered, was answered by some about the Lord Chancellor, the bill shall be decreed against him (pro conjesso), unless he would enter into 2000/. bond to stand to the Lord Chancellor's order; which he refusing, his liberty cost him, one way and other, better than 1000/. Holman being freed out of the Fleet, Hull petitioned to the Lord Chancellor, and Holman, finding his cause to go hard on his side, complained to the Commons; whereupon the Lord Chancellor sent for him, and, to pacify him, told him, he should have what order he would himself.
From the Tract.—Mercurii, 21st Martii, 1620. Sir Robert Philips reports from the committee to examine Keeling and Churchill, who informed of many corruptions against my Lord Chancellor. 1. In the cause between Hull and Holman, Hull gave or lent my lord 1000/. since the suit began.
From the Journals.—March 21, 18th James. Hull and Holman. Sir R. Philips. Another case; Hull and Holman. Holman, refusing to answer, committed; there lay twenty weeks: after required to answer, and to give bond of 2,000/. to stand to my Lord Chancellor's order in it. That one Manby, about the Exchange, dealt in this business with Mr. Mewtys. That Holman, finding his order vary, resolved to complain to this house. That, upon Friday last, my lord sent for Hull and Holman; offered to make an indifferent end between them: and that Holman told Keeling he was a happy man now, he could have any thing from my Lord Chancellor.
To the seventh article of the charge, namely, "In the cause between Holman and Young, he received of Young 100/. after the decree made for him:" I confess and declare, that as I remember, a good while after th« VOL. XV. Z
Upon investigation it appeared, on this charge of a discontented suitor, that instead of £1000 having been advanced, the sum was £100, which was presented on behalf of Young after the decree, either by Young or by Mr. Toby Matthew, a son of the Archbishop of York, through life an intimate friend and correspondent of the Chancellor's, and in 1623 knighted by King James, (a) Worth and In the cause of Worth and Mainwaring, it was alleged ring. a that the Chancellor had been bribed by £100. Upon examination it appeared, that some months after the decree, which was for a great inheritance, the successful party presented £100. to the Chancellor. (6) Hody and In the case of Hody and Hody, the charge was, that \ Hody- £100. or £200. was presented to the Chancellor. The fact was that, some time after the suit was terminated,
cause ended, I received 100/. either by Mr. Toby Matthew, or from Young himself: but whereas I have understood that there was some money given by Holman to my servant Hatcher, to that certainly I was never made privy.—See note G G G.
(0) Son of Dr. Tobie Matthew, Archbishop of York. He was born at Oxford, in 1578, while his father was Dean of Christ Church, and educated there. During his travels abroad, he was seduced to the Romish religion by Father Parsons. This occasioned his living out of his own country from the year 1607 to 1617, when he had leave to return to England. He was again ordered to leave it in October, 1618; but in 1622 was recalled to assist in the match with Spain; and, on account of his endeavours to promote it, was knighted by King James I. at Royston, on the 10th October, 1623. He translated into Italian Sir Francis Bacon's Essays, and died at Ghent in Flanders, October 13, 1655, N. S.
(1) To the thirteenth article of the charge, namely, "He received of Mr. Worth 100/. in respect of the cause between him and Sir Arthur Mainwaring," I confess and declare that this cause, being a cause for inheritance of good value, was ended by my arbitrament and consent of parties; so a decree passed of course; and some months after the cause was ended, the 100/. mentioned in the said article was delivered to me by my servant Hunt.—Hunt was detected by the Chancellor as having privately received 200/. which he made him return.
Sir Thomas Perrot and Sir Henry Holmes presented the
In the case between Reynell and Peacock, the charge Reynell was, that there was much money given on both sides, and pi^,,^ a diamond ring. The facts turned out to be that presents were given on both sides; that Sir George Reynell was a near ally of the Chancellor's, and presented the gratuity as a New Year's gift for former favours, when the great seal was first delivered to the Lord Keeper, and when presents were, as of course, presented by various persons; and that by the intervention of a friend and neighbour at St Albans, he borrowed a sum of Peacock. (6)
In the cause of Barker and Hill, the charge was, that Barker and the Chancellor had been bribed by a present made by HiH" Barker. The fact was, that the sum was presented some time after the decree had been made, (c)
(a) See note G G G.
(b) I confess and declare, that at my first coming to the seal, when I was at Whiteball, my servant Hunt delivered to me 200f. from Sir George Reynell, my near ally, to be bestowed upon furniture of my house, adding further that he had received divers former favours from me, and this was, as I verily think, before any suit begun. The ring was certainly received pendente lite, and though it were at New-year's tide, it was too great a value for a New-year's gift, though, as I take it, nothing near the value mentioned in the charge.
To the twentieth article of the charge, namely, " That he took of Peacock toof, at Dorset House, at my first coming to the seal, as a present, at which time no suit was begun; and at the summer after, I sent my then servant Lister to Mr. Rolfe, my good friend and neighbour at St. Albans, to use his means with Mr. Peacock, who was accounted a moneyed man, for the borrowing of 300f. and after by my servant Hatcher for borrowing of 500f. more, which Mr. Rolfe procured; and told me at both times it should be without interest, script, or note, and that I should take my own time for payment of it.
(c) To the twenty-third article of the charge, namely, "In the cause of Mr. Barker, the Lord Chancellor received from Barker 700f." I confess and declare, that the sum mentioned in the article was received from Mr. Barker some ume after the decree past.
Smithwick In the case of Smithwick and Wyche, the charge was, Wyche tnat Smithwick had presented £600 to the Chancellor, but he had decided against him, and the money was repaid. The fact was, that Smithwick had paid £200 to Hunt, one of the Chancellor's servants, unknown to the Chancellor; that the decision was against Smithwick, and that the Chancellor, when he saw an entry of the sum in his servant's account, had defalced it, and ordered it to be returned, (a)
He might, in the same manner, have decomposed all the charges. He might have selected the fourteen cases in which the presents were made after, and many of them long after judgment had been pronounced, (b) He might have taken each particular case where the presents were
(u) In the cause between Smithwick and Wyche, the matter in question being for accompts; the merchants, to whom it was referred, certified on the behalf of Smithwick; yet Smithwick, to obtain a decree in his cause, was told by one Mr. Borough (one near the Lord Chancellor), that it must cost him 200/. which he paid to Mr. Borough, or Mr. Hunt, to the use of the Lord Chancellor; and yet the Lord Chancellor decreed but one part of the certificate; whereupon he treats again with Mr. Borough, who demanded another 100/. which Smithwick also paid, to the use of the Lord Chancellor; then his lordship referred the accompts again to the same merchants, who certified again for Smithwick: yet his lordship decreed the second part of the certificate against Smithwick, and the first part (which was formerly decreed for him) his lordship made doubtful. Smithwick petitioned to the Lord Chancellor for his money again, and had it all, save 20/. kept back by Hunt for a year.
To the twenty-first article of the charge, namely, " In the cause between Smithwick and Wyche, he received from Smithwick 200/. which was repaid:" I confess and declare, that my servant Hunt did, upon his account, being my receiver of the fines upon original writs, charge himself with 200/. formerly received of Smithwick; which, after that I had understood the nature of it, I ordered him to repay, and to defalke it out of his accounts.
(4) 1. Egerton and Egerton. 2. Hody and Hody. 3. Monk's case. 4. Trevor and Ascue. 5. Holman and Young. 6. Fisher and Wrenham. 7. Scott's case. 8. Lenthall. 9. Wroth's case. 10. Lord Montagu's. 11. Dunch's case. 12. Buswell. 13. Barker. 14. French merchants.