1621 THE REFEREES. 45 pulsion of the fugitive from the seat in their House which he was hardly likely to re-occupy.1 The feeling that the Commons were in earnest spread rapidly. Even Buckingham, insolent as he usually was in the face of opposition, partook of the alarm. He knew Buckingham's alarm. that his declared enemies could muster a considerable party amongst the Lords, and that the petition against the Scotch and Irish Peers had been, in reality, a demonstration against himself.2 If the Commons chose to turn upon him as the real author of the obnoxious patents, was he certain of finding an impartial tribunal in the Upper House? The base metal which lay concealed beneath the splendid tinsel of his arrogance stood revealed at the touch of danger. He chose a moment when Coke happened to be present at the bar, to tell the Lords that he had always believed that the patents were for the good of the country. If it were not so, the blame lay with the referees, who had reported in their favour.3 March 3. His attack upon the referees. Even if Buckingham had refrained from this ungenerous attack, it was hardly possible that the burning question of the referees could be avoided much longer. How could security be obtained for the future, unless the circumstances were investigated under which Mompesson's abuses had received. the countenance of these great officers of state. If Bacon were right in his interpretation of the law, it was the law that must be altered. If he were wrong, the true interpretation of the law must be placed beyond doubt. It was a further question whether, if the law had been broken, it had been broken with the interested connivance of its highest guardians, the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice. Had there been no higher motive at work, it would have been both unjust and impolitic in the Commons to turn their vengeance upon the subordinate ministers of iniquity, whilst they closed their eyes to the sanction given in high places to the evil work. 1 Proceedings and Debates, i. 103, 108, 112, 114; Commons' Journals, i. 530-533. Locke to Carleton, March 3, S. P. Dom. cxx. 6. 2 Despatch of Tillières, March, Raumer, ii. 306. 8 Commons' Journals, i. 537. February Cranfield demands investigation. In spite of the weight of these considerations, so anxious was the House to remain on good terms with the King, that during the fortnight which had elapsed since Noy and Coke had opened the attack upon the referees, only a single voice had been raised in support of their proposal. That voice was Cranfield's, and Cranfield regarded Bacon with that supercilious contempt which a man who has risen in the world by a thorough knowledge of the details of business is too frequently accustomed to feel for the more polished intellect of a philosophic statesman. Nor was Cranfield inclined to measure his words in speaking of those whom he disliked. His language was rough and uncourteous. If, for the time being, he stooped to flatter Buckingham, he made amends by barking at everybody else. It was from no enlarged views of political economy that he opposed the patents. He would have found it difficult to give any reason against them which would have squared with his ideas on the general course of trade. But just as Coke regarded them from the point of view of a common-law judge, so Cranfield looked upon them from the point of view of a City tradesman. Why they were injudicious he would have found it hard to say. But he saw that their immediate effect was to disarrange the course of trade. It is thus that the experience of practical men corrects the mistaken theories of the learned, and that Coke and Cranfield, inconsistent as they were with themselves, were able to raise a warning voice. against the splendid mischief which Bacon, consistent in his errors, had conceived. Cranfield's hostility to Bacon was, no doubt, rendered more acute by a dispute which had arisen on a point of jurisdiction between the Court of Wards and the Court of Chancery. When, early in the session, complaints had been brought against his own Court, he had cleverly placed himself at the head of the movement, and had ostentatiously courted inquiry.1 Strong in the popularity which he had thus acquired, he was not long in assuming the offensive. On February 24, he asked 1 Proceedings and Debates, i. 44. 1621 Feb. 27. GOLD AND SILVER THREAD. 47 that, to clear the honour of the King, the referees should be subjected to an examination. On the 27th he repeated his demand. He wished to know why they had presumed to certify the lawfulness of any patent that was a grievance.1 But the House made no response. Ever. in the matter of the disputed jurisdiction he found but little support. A committee was appointed to investigate the question, and recommended that counsel should be heard on both sides. Against this remissness Cranfield protested. It was not enough for him to obtain a decision that Bacon's claim to jurisdiction was unfounded. He wished to have it proclaimed to the world that Bacon's judgment had been unjust.2 Events were fighting on Cranfield's side. On March 3, the very day on which Buckingham was frightened into his declaration against the referees, the House of Commons, at the motion of Sir Robert Phelips, turned its attention to the patent for gold and silver thread. A committee was appointed to examine Michell and Yelverton in the Tower,3 and its report was delivered on the 5th by Phelips. He told the story of the successive patents and proclamations, each one more stringent than the last. Bacon, Mandeville, and Yelverton had certified in favour of the monopoly. The whole business, it appeared, had been utterly mismanaged. The silver and gold had been alloyed with lead. The coin had been melted down. Measures of such doubtful legality that Yelverton shrank from sharing in them, had been employed to maintain the villany. But he had yielded at last to the threats of Sir Edward Villiers, and to fear of the ill consequences of resisting a brother of the favourite.4 March 3. The gold and silver thread. Phelips's statement was confirmed by further inquiry. The names of Mompesson and Michell acquired fresh notoriety as the active members of the commission by which the monopoly was enforced. It was since Mompesson's name had been added to the list that the workmen complained of increased tyranny and harshness. 1 Proceedings and Debates, i. 89, 103. 3 Proceedings and Debates, i. 117. 2 Commons' Journals, i. 537. 4 Ibid. i. 120. Every element of opposition in the House was united in disgust at these revelations. The champions of the common law were justly dissatisfied with the creation of an arbitrary tribunal which sent men to prison without the interference of a jury. The advocates, or those who thought themselves the advocates, of liberty of trade were displeased by the restriction placed upon the freedom of labour, whilst those whose great commercial doctrine was the preservation of the precious metals were horrified when they heard of the treatment to which the coin had been subjected. On March 8, a committee was ordered, not only to lay before the Lords the complaint of the House against Mompesson, but to demand, in set terms, an inquiry into the conduct of the referees.1 March 8. The demand the conduct of the referees. That afternoon the Lords listened to the long complaint of the Lower House. The grievances of the inns, of the concealed lands, and of the gold and silver thread, were recited in order. But not a word was said inquiry into about the referees. This part of the charge had been entrusted to two lawyers, Sir Heneage Finch and Thomas Crew; and either because they had no definite information on which to found a charge, or for some other reason, they held their peace. But Finch and Crew were not allowed to persist in their prudential silence. They were bidden to go back the next day, and to neglect to deliver their message at their peril.2 It was all very well for Buckingham to shift the blame from his own shoulders to those of the referees. But no such course was possible for James. Whatever might be the exact forms assumed by the inquiry into the conduct of Bacon and Mandeville, it was plain that it would be, in effect, a revival of the old parliamentary system of impeachment, which would carry with it a reversal of the whole constitutional policy of the Tudors. Within the memory of living man no minister of the Crown had been practically regarded as responsible to anyone but the Sovereign. For James, therefore, to allow 1 Commons' Journals, i. 546. 2 Ibid. i. 547. Woodford to Nethersole, March 15, S. P. Germany. 1621 INQUIRY INSISTED ON. 49 the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Treasurer to be called in question by Parliament would be to sacrifice that claim to sovereignty for which he had always so persistently struggled. Mar. 10. The King resists inquiry. James, therefore, resolved to do his best to stem the tide. On the morning of the day on which Finch and Crew were to return with the message which they had omitted to deliver, he summoned the Commons to appear before him in the Upper House. He wished to know, he said, upon what they founded their claim to omnipotence? They had no precedents for what they were doing, excepting from times of confusion and anarchy. What had such cases to do with the age in which they were living? The sceptre was now in the hands of a wise and legitimate Sovereign, and it was to him that the honour of directing the government should be left. "Before Parliament met," he added, "my subjects, whenever they had any favour to ask, used to come either to me or to Buckingham. But now, as if we had both ceased to exist, they go to the Parliament. All this is most disrespectful. I will, therefore, tell you a fable. In the days when animals could speak, there was a cow burthened with too heavy a tail, and, before the end of the winter, she had it cut off. When the summer came, and the flies began to annoy her, she would gladly have had her tail back again. I and Buckingham are like the cow's tail, and when the session is over you will be glad to have us back again to defend you from abuses." Never was a grave constitutional question argued in a stranger way. The King's apologue, as may well be imagined, Persistence of the Commons. made but very little impression on his hearers. The first act of the Commons, on returning from the scene, was to send messengers to make fresh arrangements for the conference in the afternoon. The King, who was still within the precincts of the House of Lords, was deeply annoyed. Hurrying back in a passion, he seized upon the first excuse that came to hand as a channel for his dissatisfaction. It happened that the Subsidy Bill, which was to carry out the resolution passed a fortnight before, was to have gone through committee in the Commons on that |