ad it been followed,
the history of the Stuart dynasty would have been different, and the
Crown and the Parliament would have wrought together for the good and
the honor of the nation, at least through a generation to come. But the
upstart Buckingham was supreme. He had studied Bacon's strength and
weakness, had laid him under great obligations, had at the same time
attached him by the strongest tie of friendship to his person, and
impressed upon his consciousness the fact that the fate of Bacon was at
all times in his hands. The new Chancellor had entered on his great
office with a fixed purpose to reform its abuses, to speed and cheapen
justice, to free its administration from every influence of wealth and
power. In the first three months of service he brought up the large
arrears of business, tried every cause, heard every petition, and
acquired a splendid reputation as an upright and diligent judge. But
Buckingham was his evil angel. He was without sense of the sanctity of
the judicial character; and regarded the bench, like every other public
office, as an instrument of his own interests and will. On the other
hand, to Bacon the voice of Buckingham was the voice of the King, and he
had been taught from infancy as the beginning of his political creed
that the king can do no wrong. Buckingham began at once to solicit from
Bacon favors for his friends and dependants, and the Chancellor was weak
enough to listen and to answer him. There is no evidence that in any one
instance the favorite asked for the violation of law or the perversion
of justice; much less that Bacon would or did accede to such a request.
But the Duke demanded for one suitor a speedy hearing, for another a
consideration of facts which might not be in evidence, for a third all
the favor consistent with law; and Bacon reported to him the result, and
how far he had been able to oblige him. This persistent tampering with
the source of justice was a disturbing influence in the Chancellor's
court, and unquestionably lowered the dignity of his attitude and
weakened his judicial conscience.

Notwithstanding this, when the Lord Chancellor opened the Parliament in
January, 1621, with a speech in praise of his King and in honor of the
nation, he seemed to be at the summit of earthly prosperity. No voice
had been lifted to question his purity and worth. He was the friend of
the King, one of the chief supports of the throne, a champion indeed of
high prerogative,