charges related to presents made long after the causes were terminated, and the complaints of his accusers were, not that the gratuities had, but that they had not influenced his judgment, as he had decided against them.
Such topics would have occurred to any advocate. With what force would they have been urged by the chancellor? In his Novum Organum, which he had published in the previous year, he had warned society, that "at the entrance of every inquiry our first duty is to eradicate any idol by which the judgment may be warped; as the kingdom of man can be entered only as the kingdom of God, in the simplicity of little children." How powerfully, then, would 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 apprized 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 shall not be found to have the troubled fountain of a corrupt heart, in a depraved habit of taking rewards to pervert justice: howsoever 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 it have been to have examined each particular charge, by separating the bundle, and breaking it stick by stick?
In the case of Holman and Young, it was alleged that £1000 had been given to the chancellor by Young. 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 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.
In the cause of Worth and Mainwaring, it was alleged 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.
In the case of Hody and Hody, the charge was, that £100 or £200 was presented to the chancellor. The fact was, that some time after the suit was terminated, Sir Thomas Perrot and Sir Henry Holmes presented the chancellor with some gold buttons, worth forty guineas.
In the case between Reynell and Peacock, the charge was, that there was much money given on both sides, and 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 a 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. Alban's, he borrowed a sum of Peacock.
In the cause of Barker and Hill, the charge was, that the chancellor had been bribed by a present made by Barker. The fact was, that the sum was presented some time after the decree had been made.
In the case of Smithwick and Wyche, the charge was, that 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.
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. He might have taken each particular case where the presents were before judgment, and the decrees against the donors. He might have explained that, in some of the
