trusted to his own powerful mind, and met the accusation instantly and with vigour, he might at once, strong as the tide was against all authority, have stemmed the torrent, and satisfied the intelligent, that the fault was not in the chancellor, but the chancery.
Might he not have reminded the house that, although.he knew the temporary power of custom against opinion, he, in resistance of the established practice, had exerted himself to prevent any interference, even by Buckingham or the king, in the administration of justice, by which the impartiality of the judges might be, or might appear to be disturbed.
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 Aubrey, he, to repeat the strong expressions which had been used, made "a killing decree against him:" 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.
But, not contenting himself by thus showing that the 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? Did they then act in 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 kindness 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?"
Could he not have said that the custom of the chancellor's receiving presents had existed from the earliest periods? that a member had reminded the house of its existence, and said, "I think the chancellor took 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."
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. 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, 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.
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 than Wraynham, by whom he was slandered, or Lord Clifford, by whom he was threatened to be assassinated? 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 opinions, 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.
