LORD CHANCELLOR BACON prison before execution. This course of intimidation and cajolery of the Judges, in subversion of the independence of the Courts, was carried still further by Bacon a little later in the well-known case of the Comniendams, a species of letters issued by the Kings authority controlling church preferments. In this case certain of the Judges had, when the case in some form was before them, expressed opinions ques tioning the King's prerogative in this matter, whereupon Bacon, the Attorney General, seems to have addressed a communi cation to the Judges, directing them to postpone any further hearing of these cases until they should have conferred with the King, and that the day of hearing should be put off until the King's further pleasure. To this monition the Judges, headed by Lord Coke, made a noble reply, denying the Attorney General's right so to interfere with or control the course of business be tween private suitors, and claiming that in the matter before them, the construction of certain statutes, it was their duty if letters of authority (the Commendams) were offered before them, which were contrary to law, so to decide, and to certify the same to the King, and go on to do justice notwith standing said letters. The next step was the summoning of the Judges as a body be fore the King and council, where they were so bullied and browbeaten that first the other Judges, and finally Coke himself, were driven to confess themselves in error, and to promise to sustain the King's prerogative, and to correct the bold and erroneous speeches which had been used at the Bar in derogation thereof. Am I not justified, therefore, in contending that we should rightly look upon Bacon as an enemy of the Bench and Bar, who as a lawyer did his ut most to degrade and enslave both? His only excuse seems to be his servile devotion to the Monarch at whose hands, and those of his favorite Villiers, he was con tinually begging gifts and preferment. No devotion to the Crown and its prerogatives
511
could excuse its legal minister, the Attor ney or Solicitor General, who really repre sents the State, not the Monarch, for such endeavors to humiliate and enslave the Bar, of which the Attorney General is the head, or degrade and fetter the Bench, whose independence it should have been his duty to protect. You may ask what is the rel evance of these questions of legal duty to the present day. The answer is the ques tions are eternal, only the manner and form of the temptation vary. Whether the desire be to gain the favor of an ostensible ruler, king, or governor, or to win the approval of that still more fickle, and sometimes more cruel tyrant the mob, even if we call it the people, the lawyer, or statesman, who to win popular applause manifested by the clamor of the newspaper helps to suppress free speech on the part of the Bar, or to incite public feeling against those who maintain the unpopular side; or the man whatever his position, who by flattery, per suasion, insult, or menace, or even by the supposed weight of public opinion seeks to influence the Bench, deserves the condem nation of Bacon. The next and concluding act of the drama shows us Bacon not precisely on the Bench he had striven to degrade, but yet higher, upon the Wool-sack. He had won his re ward for his subserviency to the King and the new favorite Villiers, and had been made first Lord Keeper, during Lord Egerton's long illness, and Lord Chancellor after his death. His highest ambition had been realized and howsoever foully he had played for the stake, he had won at last. But circumstances had changed, the King had been compelled by need of funds to call a new Parliament, which came together in 1620 resolved to vindicate the ancient liberties of England, and to check the evils which had accumulated during the long years which had elapsed since the last Parlia ment had been prorogued. Against no individual was the feeling stronger than against the Viscount of St. Albans, Francis
