LORD CHANCELLOR BACON story is preserved. These letters, written in the early part of 1616, arranged in detail in advance the whole scheme for Somerset's apparent punishment and real escape, which was subsequently carried into effect in nearly every, particular. First, Bacon caused to be hurried on the trials, convictions, and executions of the minor criminals, so that as he explained to the King in one of these letters, the public indignation and clamor for justice might be in a measure appeased; while the trials of the Earl and Countess were from time to time postponed until the popular interest in the case was abated. Second, the indictment, which Bacon speaks of in his letter as "the manner of charging him," was so moderated "as it might not make him odious beyond extent of mercy;" a contrast to the proceeding against Essex, where Bacon admitted he did not proceed tenderly. The Attorney General then care fully wrought, first with the Countess and then with the Earl, by a judicious mixture of threats and promises, and so played upon their hopes and fears, as to induce from them a confession of guilt and a throwng themselves on the King's mercy, and to secure the suppression of the secret, what ever it was, of which Somerset had knowl edge. It was then contrived that after a relatively short imprisonment of a mild type, both Somerset and the Countess were pardoned and released, and the greater part of their estates restored to them, after which they retired into the country, begat children and lived and died happily. This happy ending for the Somersets was, how ever, an evident miscarriage of justice, for which the Attorney General, who engineered the whole scheme, was directly responsible. No higher motive than unscrupulous and obsequious devotion to the Crown can pos sibly be assigned for his course, while his continual entreaties to the Crown and to the favorite Villiers, for promotion in office and rank and for pecuniary grants, indicate that greed of reward was a strong incentive to his action.
509
I will allude episodically to two or three other incidents before going on to the last disgraceful scene which ended his Chancellor ship. The first of these episodes is known as Whitlocke's case. It is notable because it was an effort on Bacon's part to take away a time-honored and recognized liberty of the Bar and to degrade and humiliate our pro fession. Mr. James Whitlocke, a barrister who had studied law in the Middle Temple and was then a man of about forty, engaged in active practice at the Bar, gave an opinion as counsel in the early part of the year 1613 to his client, Sir Robert Mansell, Treasurer of the Navy, and Vice Admiral, that a cer tain commission issued by the Crown to the Earl of Nottingham, for reviewing certain alleged disorders in the Navy, was not ac cording to law. This opinion was given in private to his client. Bacon, then Solicitor General, caused Mr. Whitlocke as well as his client to be brought before the Lords of the Council in the Queen's Presence Chamber, where he taxed the unfortunate lawyer with what he denounced as a contempt of a high character. In his speech to the Coun cil Sir Francis Bacon said, "We must and do agree that the asking and taking and giving of counsel in law is an essential part of justice . . . but yet for all that, this liberty is not infinite and without limits. ... So as the privilege of giving counsel proveth not all opinions; and as some opin ions given are traitorous, so are others of a much inferior order, which are contemp tuous. And among these I reckon Mr. Whit locke's. . . . For the offense for which Mr. Whitlocke is charged I hold it great and to have two parts, the one a censure, ... a clipping of the King's prerogative in gen eral,; the other a slander and depravation of the King's power and honor in this com mission. And for the first I consider it in three degrees, first that he presumed to censure the King's prerogative at all, . . . And lastly that he hath erroneously, falsely, and dangerously given opinion in derogation
