NOTE Z 7.. 



They were made by counsel in the cause and persons of eminence. In his 

 answer to the 24th, 25th, and 26th charges in which the Chancellor was 

 reused of having received presents from the companies of Grocers and Apothe- 

 iries, he says, &quot; If I had taken it in the nature of a bribe, I knew it could 

 not be concealed, because it must be put to the account of the three several 

 companies.&quot; On the 20th of March Sir Richard Young said, in the House of 

 Commons, that, when he attended upon my Lord Chancellor, Sir John Trevor s 

 lan brought a cabinet, and a letter to my Lord Chancellor, and entreated me 

 deliver it, which I did openly ; and this was openly done, and this was all 

 knew of it. Sir Edward Coke said, &quot; It was strange to him that this money 

 lould be thus openly delivered, and that one Gardner should be present at the 

 lyment of the 200.&quot; 



The Charges. 



That it was customary for presents to be made by the suitors to the Chan 

 cellor in the time of Lord Bacon, may be collected from his lordship s answers 

 to the charges which were preferred against him. 



In the first charge, which was in the case of Egerton and Egerton, the cause 

 was heard by the Chancellor, with the assistance of Lord Hobart, and the 

 present was made some days after the decision was pronounced. Unless it was 

 customary in these times to receive presents, why was the present made after 

 the cause was decided I His words are : &quot; I do confess and declare, that upon 

 a reference from his majesty of all suits and controversies between Sir Rowland 

 Egerton and Edward Egerton, both parties submitted themselves to my award 

 by recognizances reciprocal in ten thousand marks apiece ; thereupon, after 

 divers hearings, I made my award with the advice and consent of my Lord 

 Hobard ; the award was perfected and published to the parties, which was in 

 February. Then some days after the 300. mentioned in the charge was deli 

 vered unto me. Afterwards Mr. Edward Egerton fled off from the award ; 

 then in Midsummer term following a suit was begun in Chancery to have the 

 award confirmed, and upon that suit was the decree made mentioned in the 

 article. 



The second charge is in the same cause. In the first charge the present was 

 made on behalf of Rowland Egerton, one of the suitors. In the second charge 

 it was made on behalf of Edward Egerton, the other suitor ; and on his behalf 

 the presents were made by men of eminence, Sir George Hastings, and Sir 

 Richard Young, counsel in the cause, and members of parliament. Unless, 

 therefore, it can be supposed that the whole bar could be accessary to crime, 

 and that suitors could be so wild as to imagine that the judgments would be 

 influenced by money presented by both parties, it seems to follow that it was 

 customary to receive presents. It appears also in the Chancellor s answer to 

 this second charge, that the presents were made soon after his coming to the 

 seals, when presents were made by many. His words are : &quot; I confess and 

 declare, that soon after my first coming to the seal, being a time when I was 

 presented by many, the 400. mentioned in the said charge was delivered unto 

 me in a purse, and as I now call to mind from Mr. Edward Egerton, but as far 

 as I can recollect, it was expressed by them that brought it to be for favours 

 past, and not in respect of favours to come.&quot; 



To the third charge, which was the case of Hody and Hody, the present was 

 also made after the decision, and made by Sir Thomas Perrott, who was, I 

 suspect, counsel in the cause, and was a present of gold buttons worth 50. 

 which, even if it had been before the decision, can scarcelv be supposed to be 

 the bribe that would be made to influence the judgment in a cause of great 

 inheritance. His words are ; &quot; I confess and declare, that as it is laid in the 

 charge, about a fortnight after the cause was ended it being a suit for a great 

 inheritance there was gold buttons about the value of 50. as is mentioned in 

 the charge presented unto me, as I remember by Sir Thomas Perrott and the 

 party himself.&quot; 



In the fifth charge, which was in Sir Thomas Monck s case, the present was 

 made three quarters of a year after the decree, and it was made by Sir Henry 



