me as a New Year's Gift, I neglected to inquire whether the
cause was ended or depending; but since I find that though the cause was
then dismissed to a trial at law, yet the equity is reserved, so as it
was in that kind _pendente lite_." Bacon knew that this explanation
would be read by men familiar with the history of New Year's Gifts, and
all the circumstances of the ancient usage; and it is needless to say
that no man of honor thought the less highly of Bacon at that time,
because his pure and guiltless acceptance of customary presents was by
ingenious and unscrupulous adversaries made to assume an appearance of
corrupt compliance.

How far the Chancellors of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries
depended upon customary gratuities for their revenues may be seen from
the facts which show the degree of state which they were required to
maintain, and the inadequacy of the ancient fees for the maintenance of
that pomp. When Elizabeth pressed Hatton for payment of the sums which
he owed her, the Chancellor lamented his inability to liquidate her just
claims, and urged in excuse that the _ancient fees_ were very inadequate
to the expenses of the Chancellor's office. But though Elizabethan
Chancellors could not live upon their ancient fees, they kept up palaces
in town and country, fed regiments of lackeys, and surpassed the ancient
nobility in the grandeur of their equipages. Egerton--the needy and
illegitimate son of a rural knight, a lawyer who fought up from the
ranks--not only sustained the costly dignities of office, but left to
his descendants a landed estate worth L8000 per annum. Bacon's successor
in the 'marble chair,' Lord Keeper Williams, assured Buckingham that in
Egerton's time the Chancellor's lawful income was less than three
thousand per annum. "The lawful revenue of the office stands thus,"
wrote Williams, speaking from his intimate knowledge of Ellesmere's
affairs, "or not much above it at anytime:--in fines certain, L1300 per
annum, or thereabouts; in fines casual, L1250 or thereabouts; in greater
writs, L140; for impost of wine, L100--in all, L2790; and these are all
the true means of that great office." It is probable that Williams
under-stated the revenue, but it is certain that the income, apart from
gratuities, was insufficient.

The Chancellor was not more dependent on customary gratuities than the
chief of the three Common Law courts. At Westminster and on circuit,
whenever he was required to