Bernard Quaritch Ltd.

BACON, Francis (1561-1626), Baron Verulam and Viscount St Albans, Lord Chancellor. Letter, subscribed and signed (‘assured / fr. verulam canc[ellarius]’) to Edward, Lord Zouch, Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports, informing him that the Attorney General was issuing a process [of subpoena as a witness] ‘againt Hugh Hugginson & Josias Ente concerning the busines against the Dutchmen in Starchamber’, and ‘not wishing to serve such processe within your jurisdiction without your leave’, Bacon asks him to send up the two men ‘to answere Mr Attorneyes Bill’ voluntarily. Gorhamburie [Hertfordshire], 3 August 1619.

1 page, folio, with integral address leaf (seal tear repaired, trace of seal, endorsement ‘R[eceived] 6 August’), old foliation at head, trace of former hinge; the main body of the letter is written by a clerk in a clear secretary hand with names and valediction in italic; in fine, fresh condition.

Bacon on the export of gold and silver. The ‘busines against the Dutchmen’ was a celebrated case with more than forty defendants who had been exporting gold and silver coins, bullion, plate, vessels, and other treasure contrary to statutes that went back to the fourteenth century (the Statute of Money, 9 Edward III) and most recently to the King’s proclamation of 23 November 1611. Gold and silver, at this time, were equated with national wealth, and national wealth was seen as the measure of national power. Export of gold and silver, therefore, weakened the nation. This was a serious matter in the troubled economic climate of 1619, and the Attorney General, Sir Henry Yelverton was very aggressive in pursuing the Dutch case. This probably explains why he was prepared to ride roughshod over ‘the auncient priviledges & customes’ of the Cinque Ports where he did not have the jurisdiction to issue subpoenas. As the barrister William Hudson observed disapprovingly in his ‘Treatise of the Court of Star Chamber’ written about 1621, ‘the Dutch cause … was a Case of State, wherein the Commonwealth was much interested, and I hope will be no precedent for future times’ (page 209), and, again, there were ‘many precedents tending to the overthrow of the antient courses’, i.e. procedures, of the Star Chamber (page 201).

Hudson wrote further that ‘in the great Dutch Case the king distributed a great sum of money amongst the clerks in recompense of their care, fees, and travail’ (page 135). And for the Attorney General, ‘let me be understood when I say, that the king’s attorney is not tied to the strict rules of prosecution; for that is only to strictness of time … He must make a good bill, in matter and form, as a common person; he must join issue, give convenient time for examination of witnesses, as a common person (the denial and restraint whereof was no small scandal to the justice of the kingdom in the Dutch Case)’ (page 137). Bacon was probably just as appalled as Hudson at the conduct of the Dutch case, hence his friendly warning to Lord Zouch to send up the witnesses before subpoenas were served.

Cases in Star Chamber were conducted in English by written proceedings, beginning, for an official or government prosecution, with the Information of the Attorney General, here a large vellum sheet unusual in that the names of additional defendants are added in a small hand between the lines:

… whereas this Realme of England … is and always heretofore hath ben indowed with many riche native blessings and comodities both by sea and land through exportacion … whereby great treasures of gould and silver, jewells and other pretious commodities have thereinto ben brought from forrayne Landes … which Treasures … by the Pollitique State, and government of this Realme … have ben ordained to bee and remayne therein as an immoveable and perpetual Stock, never to be transported or conveyed out of the Lande again, but still to remaine therein for … commerce and trade … aswell for the makinge and mainteyninge of just and honourable warres … as also for the adorneinge and furnishinge of the Kingdome with a glorious Luster fitt for the Matie thereof in the time of peace … Nevertheless diverse and sundrie Marchaunts Straingers as also Denizens and Natives that used to trade … speciallie within the Citties of London, Yorke, Chester, Exon, Bristowe, Southampton, Lyme, Norwich, Ipswich, Dover, Canterbury, and diverse other places, portes, havens, creeks and keies [quays] within this Realme, for their private gaine, have … most unlawfullie and closelie bought, transported, set and carried away not only all sortes of your Maties currant coynes of gould and silver … also … plate, vessels, bullion and other parcels of gould and silver in great abundance out of this Realme into forraigne kingdoms, countreyes and nations … hidden, concealed and packed upp in the fouldes of broadclothes, packes, and fardells of kersie … butter firkins …. and other devices … to the full worth & value of £200,000 … to the intolerable damage to this Realme … wherein the said Marchaunts have lived and settled themselves and their families, and have gotten great estates and riches … may your Matie grant writ of subpoena … [against] John de Munsey, John Lamott, Samuel de Visher, Henrick Vanderhoeven, Joos and James Godscall [and 36 other named defendants]

Once the subpoenas were issued, the case proceeded by means of written pleadings: the defendants’ answers, mostly simple denials (some forty of these survive in the Dutch case), plaintiff’s replication, and defendants’ rejoinders. After the exchange of pleadings the taking of proofs and supporting evidence could begin. The main emphasis was on depositions of witnesses responding on oath to written questions called interrogatories, drafted by counsel for one side or the other. It is characteristic of the records of the Star Chamber that more pleadings, which were on parchment, survive than proofs of evidence, which were on paper kept in damp conditions after the abolition of the Court (Guy, pages 23-4, 27-9). Unfortunately that is the case here. So we do not know what questions Hugginson and Ente were to be asked, and can only speculate what crimes they may have witnessed in the ports or creeks of Kent or Sussex.

It is pretty clear from Hudson that at least some of the defendants were found guilty because, he writes, they should have paid the plaintiff’s costs according to the terms of Lord Keeper Egerton’s order Hil. 44 Eliz., ‘a fit order to be continued, but the same hath not been late used. For in the great Dutch case the King’ paid the fees and expenses of the clerks (pages 134-5). As usual the actual records of the Star Chamber do not record the outcome of the case, as the Decree and Order Books, giving final judgements, were lost before 1705, and none survives.

The text of Bacon’s letter: For all these uncertainties, Bacon’s letter is a splendid testimony to his respect for law and custom against the interference of political expediency:

My very good Lorde, Whereas there are Processe gone out at Mr Attorney g[e]nr[a]lls prayer against Hugh Hugginson & Josias Ente concerning the busines against the Dutchmen in Starchamber, out of a desire to preserve the ancient priviledges & customes due to yor place, not to serve such Processe within yor Jurisdiccion wthout yor leave & consente, I have thought good hereby to desire yor Lp: for his Mats: service, that you would cause them forthwth to be sente up to answere Mr Attorneyes Bill and abide such further proceedings as their case shall require. So I commende yor Lp: to gods goodnes, and reste.

Gorhamburie 3. Aug: 1619.

Your Lp’s verie loving frende assured fr. verulam canc[ellarius]

The National Archives, STAC 8, bundle 25, no. 23; William Hudson, ‘A Treatise of Star Chamber’, Collectanea juridica, II (1792), 1-240.

£17500

This item is listed on Bibliopoly by Bernard Quaritch Ltd.; click here for further details.