and
respectful; it meant to be _benedictum et pacificum parliamentum_. Every
one knew that there would be "grievances" which would not be welcome to
the Court, but they did not seem likely to touch him. Every one knew
that there would be questions raised about unpopular patents and
oppressive monopolies, and about their legality; and it was pretty well
agreed upon at Court that they should be given up as soon as complained
of. But Bacon was not implicated more than the Crown lawyers before him,
in what all the Crown lawyers had always defended. There was
dissatisfaction about the King's extravagance and wastefulness, about
his indecision in the cause of the Elector Palatine, about his supposed
intrigues with Papistical and tyrannical Spain; but Bacon had nothing to
do with all this except, as far as he could, to give wise counsel and
warning. The person who made the King despised and hated was the
splendid and insolent favourite, Buckingham. It might have been thought
that the one thing to be set against much that was wrong in the State
was the just and enlightened and speedy administration of equity in the
Chancery.

When Parliament met, though nothing seemed to threaten mischief, it met
with a sturdy purpose of bringing to account certain delinquents whose
arrogance and vexations of the subjects had provoked the country, and
who were supposed to shelter themselves under the countenance of
Buckingham. Michell and Mompesson were rascals whose misdemeanors might
well try the patience of a less spirited body than an English House of
Commons. Buckingham could not protect them, and hardly tried to do so.
But just as one electric current "induces" another by neighbourhood, so
all this deep indignation against Buckingham's creatures created a
fierce temper of suspicion about corruption all through the public
service. Two Committees were early appointed by the House of Commons:
one a Committee on Grievances, such as the monopolies; the other, a
Committee to inquire into abuses in the Courts of Justice and receive
petitions about them. In the course of the proceedings, the question
arose in the House as to the authorities or "referees" who had certified
to the legality of the Crown patents or grants which had been so grossly
abused; and among these "referees" were the Lord Chancellor and other
high officers, both legal and political.

It was the little cloud. But lookers-on like Chamberlain did not think
much of it. "The ref