![Southampton being the only persons admitted to the royal presence.
On the following day, Southampton, was set at liberty.[332]
Sir Edward Coke was likewise among those who incurred the
displeasure of James for freedom of speech. Imprisonment in the
Tower followed his offence. The locks and doors of his chambers in
the Temple were sealed up, and several securities for money taken
away. Immured in prison, his family not being suffered to approach
him, he had yet another trial to encounter. James, whose meanness
equalled his improvidence, took this base occasion to sue Coke for
an old pretended debt due from Sir Christopher Hatton to Queen
Elizabeth. The reply of the Solicitor-general, Sir John Walter, when
the brief of this iniquitous case was sent to him, is worthy of a
nobler character of mind than that usually imputed to the English
lawyer of that period. “Let my tongue,” he answered, “cleave to the
roof of my mouth whenever I ope it against Sir Edward Coke;” yet
the suit was rigorously prosecuted. “That spirit of fiery
exhalation”[333]
was not daunted even by this petty and malignant
persecution. It was observed of him that he lost his advancement in
the same way that he got it[334]
—by his tongue. To the last, he
steadily resisted the oppressions of the crown, and his character,
odious as it was to his contemporaries, odious when we reflect upon
him as the vituperative judge of Ralegh, and too justly censured by
Bacon “for insulting misery,”[335]
has received the respect and
gratitude of posterity for its general political independence.
The fate of Bacon himself excited a still more mournful interest in
good minds, than the injuries inflicted upon Coke.
It becomes necessary for the biographer of Villiers, to examine
into the circumstances of an affair with which, as with every public
event of the day, he was intimately connected. Bacon, in afterwards
addressing James, alludes to Buckingham when he imputes his
degradation to the personal views of some secret foe. “I wish that,
as I am the first, so I may be the last of sacrifices in your times; and
when, from private appetite, it is resolved that a creature shall be
sacrificed, it is easy to pick up sticks enough from any thicket,
whither he has strayed, to make a fire to offer it with.”[336]](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/20031-250320070241-bf6a17f5/85/Strategic-Compensation-A-Human-Resource-Mangement-Approach-8th-Edition-Martocchio-Solutions-Manual-32-320.jpg)
![In the early period of his career, Buckingham had owed much to
the countenance, and more to the advice, of Bacon. The author of
the Novum Organum seems to have been among the first to discern
that remarkable association of personal and mental qualities in
Villiers, which promised to secure him an ascendancy over James.
Bacon lent the lustre of his name to shine upon the young courtier,
and expected in return that aid which Buckingham, he soon
perceived, would have it in his power to bestow. A mutual
dependence was established; Buckingham existed on the capital of
Bacon’s intellect; Bacon throve on the inferiority of the youth,
conscious of his defects, and wise enough to remedy his own
weakness by the strength of another.
No greater proof of confidence in a friend can be given than to
seek his advice, and Villiers paid Bacon that tribute. He requested
him “to instruct him how to fulfil his high station, how to serve the
King, how to conciliate the people.” In consequence of this, Bacon
had addressed to the Favourite a letter of advice,[337]
“such,”
observes the biographer of Bacon, “as is not usually given in courts,
but of a strain equally free and friendly, calculated to make the
person to whom it was addressed good and great, and equally
honourable to the giver and the receiver; advice which contributed
not a little to his prosperity in after life.”[338]
This manual of a courtier’s duty, it must be owned, was sadly at
variance with the practice that followed these nobly conceived
instructions on the part of him who gave them.
“You are,”—Bacon thus addressed Villiers—“as a new risen star,
and the eyes of all are upon you; let not your own negligence make
you fall like a meteor.” “Next to religion,” he adds elsewhere, “let
your care be to promote justice. By justice and mercy is the King’s
throne established.” “And as far as it may rest in you, let no arbitrary
power be intended. The people of this kingdom love the laws
thereof, and nothing will oblige them more than a confidence of the
free enjoying of them.” “Your greatest care must be,” he adds,
towards the conclusion, “that the great men of the court—for you
must give me leave to be plain with you, for so is your injunction laid
upon me—yourself in the first place, who are first in the eye of all](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/20031-250320070241-bf6a17f5/85/Strategic-Compensation-A-Human-Resource-Mangement-Approach-8th-Edition-Martocchio-Solutions-Manual-33-320.jpg)
![men, give no just cause of scandal either by light, vain, or by
oppressive carriage.”[339]
Notwithstanding these admirable precepts, the years during which
Lord Bacon held the Great Seal, and during which Villiers ruled
predominant, were, as it has been justly observed, “the darkest and
most shameful in English history.”[340]
The domestic government of
James and his favourite, in weakness and want of high principle,
corresponded but too mournfully with their foreign policy; with their
indifference to the great struggle for the interests of liberty and of
Protestantism in Germany; with their vacillating and cowardly
counsels. Whilst the continental nations were venting their surprise
and indignation in sallies of ridicule directed against England, the
King, who had nothing to bestow in the aid of a loyal cause in which
the welfare of his own child was bound up, resorted at home to the
most disgraceful expedients in order to exalt his favourite. During
this period, Buckingham held an absolute empire over the actions of
Bacon. A system of persecution against Coke had followed the
disgraceful affair of Sir John Villiers’ marriage. In an unlucky hour,
Bacon interfered between Lady Hatton and her injured husband; he
even descended to lend himself to the low affairs of these vulgar
great, and to take part against his enemy, Coke, and with his
arrogant wife. This was during the King’s absence in Scotland: as
matters then stood, this proceeding on the part of the Lord Keeper
militated against the marriage which Buckingham had at heart.
Bacon was soon taught, therefore, to see his error. The Favourite
resented his interference, and refused to be pacified. In vain did the
Lord Keeper stay certain proceedings against Coke which had been
instituted in the Star Chamber; in vain did he hasten to testify his
submission to Buckingham. Two successive days he went to the
stately apartments of the Favourite; waited meekly in an ante-
chamber, seated on an old box, with the Great Seal of England at his
side. At length, when he was admitted, he threw himself at the feet
of Buckingham, and swore never to rise thence till he had received
the pardon of the lofty personage whom he had once instructed in
the art of conducting himself with dignity.[341]](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/20031-250320070241-bf6a17f5/85/Strategic-Compensation-A-Human-Resource-Mangement-Approach-8th-Edition-Martocchio-Solutions-Manual-34-320.jpg)
![This was not such conduct as would entitle a man to respect even
from him on whom he cringed. Yet Bacon, in one of his letters
addressed to Buckingham, declares him to have been the “truest
and perfectest mirror of friendship that ever was in a court;” and
protests that “he should count every day lost in which he should not
study his well-doing in thought, or do his name honour in speech, or
perform service for him indeed.”[342]
Nor is the statement given by
Weldon, of the manner in which the seals were offered to Bacon by
Buckingham, credible. According to that writer, the Favourite, when
he sent to proffer them to Bacon, accompanied them with an
insulting message, saying, that whilst he knew him to be a man of
excellent parts, he was also aware “that he was an errant knave,
apt, in his prosperity, to ruin any that had raised him in his
adversity;” yet from regard to his master’s service, he had obtained
the seals for him; but with this assurance, that if he ever should act
to him as he had done to others, he would be cast down as much
below as he was now above any honour that he had expected,[343]
alluding to the flagrant ingratitude and perfidy of Bacon to Essex.
But this story, supported by no evidence, is at variance with
probability; and since it rests upon the authority of one who is
always inveterate against Buckingham, it may be discarded as wholly
unworthy of belief.
That Buckingham knew well the character of the Lord Keeper
before he promoted him to the Chancellorship—that he calculated on
his subservience to himself, expressed in his letters, so that posterity
may judge of Bacon’s professions—that he had discovered that the
doctrine of expediency influenced the practice of Bacon, is almost
certain; for he did not hesitate to sway him to the most disgraceful
countenance of abuses for which the whole country was crying out
for redress.
Amongst the grievances most disliked were those of monopolies;
and amongst the most detested of detestable patents was that for
the exclusive manufacture of gold and silver lace. It had been
conjointly granted to Sir Giles Mompesson, who is supposed to have
been the original of Sir Giles Overreach, and to Sir Frances Michell,
who is said to have suggested the character of Justice Greedy. Sir](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/20031-250320070241-bf6a17f5/85/Strategic-Compensation-A-Human-Resource-Mangement-Approach-8th-Edition-Martocchio-Solutions-Manual-35-320.jpg)
![Giles was a Wiltshire knight, patronised by Buckingham; or, as it was
the fashion of the day to speak, “a creature of the Favourite’s;” and
was concerned, not only in the patent of gold and silver lace, but in
forming the monopolies styled the patents of “Inns and Osteries.” In
this affair Michell assisted him.[344]
To render Bacon justice, he had formerly, when applied to with
regard to these patents on behalf of Sir Christopher Villiers, advised
Buckingham not to have anything to do with them.[345]
He declared
them to be one of the grievances which Parliament ought to put
down; but avowed his readiness, should it not be done away with,
“to mould it in the best manner, and help it forward.”[346]
The latter course was preferred by Buckingham, and was
therefore adopted. The result was not only that the manufacture of
gold and silver thread was adulterated, for that would have been a
matter of comparatively little consequence, but that an inquisitorial
jurisdiction was exercised by the patentees of the Inns and Osteries,
who were armed with as great powers as had ever been granted to
the farmers of the revenue. The abuses which resulted cried for
redress; and, during the session of 1620, Parliament took the matter
up. It became the province of the Lord Keeper to interpose, and he
decided that it should be settled with all convenient speed. “The
meaning of this was,” writes Lord Macaulay, “that certain of the
house of Villiers were to go halves with certain of the house of
Overreach and Greedy in the plunder of the public.”
Petitions were sent up to Parliament by persons who had suffered
under these exactions, and the whole affair was thoroughly “ripped
up.”[347]
The odium of these abuses fell upon Buckingham; the blame upon
the Lord Keeper, who had not restrained these patents. Sir Edward
Villiers, who was thought to be as “deep in the mire” as Mompesson
and Michell, was sent on an embassy for safety. Mompesson was, on
the third of March, 1621, summoned to appear before Parliament:
he had fled, assisted, according to common report, by Buckingham,
who dreaded further exposure, for Mompesson’s neck was in danger.
On the twenty-seventh of the same month, the King went to
Parliament, and pronounced sentence on Sir Giles, the dignity of his](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/20031-250320070241-bf6a17f5/85/Strategic-Compensation-A-Human-Resource-Mangement-Approach-8th-Edition-Martocchio-Solutions-Manual-36-320.jpg)
![wife remaining untainted.[348]
Michell, a newly-made knight, was
brought to his trial on the third of May, and suffered the singular
sentence of degradation, with all “the ceremonies of abasement,”
“but that,” observes Arthur Wilson, “being most proper to his nature,
he was but eased of a burthen, his mind suffered not.”[349]
He was
made incapable of holding office, fined 1,000l., and ordered to be
imprisoned in Finsbury Prison during the King’s pleasure. The
ceremonial was rendered sufficiently effective, and Buckingham, with
the highest persons of the realm, witnessed the process. The “old
justice,” as Michell was called, was brought by the Sheriffs of London
to Westminster Hall, on the last day of Term, when the sentence of
Parliament was read before him by a pursuivant, in an audible voice.
His spurs were then broken in pieces by the servants of the Earl
Marshal, and thrown away; the silver sword was taken from his side,
broken over his head, and thrown away. Last of all, he was
pronounced no longer a knight, but a knave; Garter, Clarencieux,
Norroy sitting at the feet of the Commissioners.[350]
Sir Giles Mompesson, meantime, having contrived to elude the
sergeants who had him in charge, was safe abroad; but a
proclamation was out against him. The Prince and Lords promised to
do all they could to ensure his being apprehended: the ports were
guarded. Buckingham, meantime, declared in the House that he had
no hand in the matter, but that the blame rested with the referees
who had tested the lawfulness of these patents.[351]
Sir Giles was
heavily fined; an annuity of 200l. on the new waterworks being all
that was reserved for Lady Mompesson and her child.
Two years afterwards he was, however, allowed to return to
England for three months, though under some risk; for the people
did not forget that the two words, “no Empsons,” formed his
anagram, and he was only permitted to land in England on the
petition of his wife.[352]
With what sensations Buckingham, who had certainly regarded the
peculation permitted by these patents as a family perquisite, must
have witnessed these proceedings, it is not easy to say. His once
generous character was gaining in hardness, and losing the traces of
its delicacy and scrupulousness every day.](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/20031-250320070241-bf6a17f5/85/Strategic-Compensation-A-Human-Resource-Mangement-Approach-8th-Edition-Martocchio-Solutions-Manual-37-320.jpg)
![But evils of a more stupendous character were soon to be
detected and avenged by a people who, Bacon truly said, “loved the
law of their land.” The Lord Keeper had reckoned for a long time that
the protecting hand of the Favourite could cover his venial
proceedings. On the twenty-seventh of January, 1620, he was
created Viscount St. Albans, with plenary investiture. The Lord
Carew carried his robe before him; the Marquis of Buckingham held
it up. The prosperous Lord Keeper gave the King most hearty thanks
for each successive step of his preferment. 1st, for making him his
solicitor; 2nd, his attorney; 3rd, a privy councillor; 4th, Keeper of the
Great Seal; 5th, chancellor; 6th, Baron Verulam; 7th, Viscount St.
Albans;—honours and emoluments which had been procured for him
entirely through the influence of Buckingham. The envious world
wondered, according to Sir Symonds D’Ewes, at the gratification of
Bacon’s pride and ambition. His estates in land were thought, at that
time, not to be more in value than four or five hundred pounds
yearly; his debts were supposed to amount to 30,000l. He was then
known to receive bribes in all cases of moment that came before
him.[353]
The hour of reckoning, however, eventually arrived.
The disgraceful transactions which brought this tardy justice on
the man so pre-eminent in letters, so debased in honourable
principle, had been a frequent source of complaint in parliament.
Thus, as a modern writer observes, “was signally brought to the test
the value of those objects for which Bacon had sullied his integrity,
had resigned his independence, had violated the most sacred objects
of friendship and gratitude, had flattered the worthless, had
persecuted the innocent, had tampered with judges, had tortured
prisoners, had plundered suitors, had wasted on paltry intrigues the
power of the most exquisitely constructed intellect that had ever
been bestowed on any of the children of men.”[354]
It is of no avail to
say that the custom of the day authorized the receiving of bribes
and presents; or to justify the mean subservience of the Lord
Chancellor by blaming the interference of Buckingham. That
interference may be justly censured; but it forms no ground of
acquittal to Bacon.](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/20031-250320070241-bf6a17f5/85/Strategic-Compensation-A-Human-Resource-Mangement-Approach-8th-Edition-Martocchio-Solutions-Manual-38-320.jpg)
![In the letter of advice addressed by this most inconsistent man to
Buckingham, when Sir George Villiers, he counsels him by no means
ever to be persuaded to interpose himself, “either by word or letter,
in any cause depending, or likely to be depending, in any court of
justice, nor suffer any other great man to do it where he could
hinder it, and by all means to dissuade the King from it.” “If it
prevail,” he adds, “it prevents justice; but if the judge be so just, and
of such courage, as he ought to be, as not to be inclined thereby,
yet it always leaves a taint of suspicion behind it. Judges must be
chaste as Cæsar’s wife—neither to be, nor to be suspected to be,
unjust; and, sir, the honour of the judges in their judicature is the
King’s honour, whose person they represent.”[355]
Shortly after Bacon had become Lord Keeper, a series of letters
was, nevertheless, commenced on the part of Buckingham in favour
of persons who were likely to come into chancery.[356]
And it is
related in Hacket’s Life of the Lord Keeper Williams, the successor of
Bacon, that there was not a cause of moment, but that, as soon as it
came to publication, one of the parties concerned in it brought
letters from this mighty peer and the Lord Keeper’s patron.[357]
A
committee was appointed by the House of Commons to inquire into
the proceedings of the courts of justice. Two charges of corruption
were brought against the Lord Chancellor; the one in the case of a
man named Aubrey, who had been advised to quicken a suit in
chancery by the bribe of a hundred pounds. The money was
presented, through the medium of Sir George Hastings, directly to
the Lord Chancellor at his lodgings in Gray’s Inn, and when Sir
George came out from the chambers, he told Aubrey that his
“Lordship was thankful, and assured him of good success in his
business, which, however, he had not.”[358]
The other case was that
of Mr. Egerton, who mortgaged his estate for four hundred pounds;
a sum which Bacon at first refused, saying it was too much, but
accepted at last. These charges were eventually preferred before the
House of Lords, and when the complaint was made in that assembly,
it devolved on Buckingham, in the absence of the Chancellor, who
was sick, to present a letter praying for time for the privilege of
cross-examining witnesses; and requesting that if there came up any](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/20031-250320070241-bf6a17f5/85/Strategic-Compensation-A-Human-Resource-Mangement-Approach-8th-Edition-Martocchio-Solutions-Manual-39-320.jpg)
![more petitions of the same nature, their Lordships would not take
any prejudice at their numbers, considering that they were against a
judge that made two hundred and forty decrees in a year.[359]
During
this interval, Bacon was assured of the sympathy of James and the
intercession of Buckingham. The King shed tears on hearing of his
dilemma, and procured a recess of parliament, in order to give him
time for defence. It was, however, judged best by the Chancellor,
notwithstanding all this powerful patronage, not to attempt a
defence, but to throw himself upon the mercy of the House. That, in
spite of this confession, Bacon still continued to enjoy the protection
of Buckingham, is evident, for the heir to the crown presented
Bacon’s memorable letter, full of eloquence, and expressed with the
inimitable address which he knew so well how to employ. This
submission was not deemed enough; a full confession was required.
It was given by one sunk in character and broken in spirit, and was
received by the House. Prince Charles was then requested to
intercede with His Majesty that he would sequester the Great Seal,
to which James assented, declaring it was his resolution to fill up the
place of Chancellor forthwith. Bacon was summoned before the
House; he excused himself on the plea of sickness, and sentence
was passed upon him in his absence. He was decreed to pay a fine
of 40,000l., to be imprisoned in the Tower during the King’s
pleasure, and declared incapable of ever either sitting in Parliament
again, or of holding any office or employment; he was even
forbidden to come within “the verge”—that is, within twelve miles of
the Court.[360]
The condition of Bacon’s mind and body under this severe
disgrace seems to have been truly melancholy. One moment he was
merry, and declared that he believed he should be able to ride safely
through the tempest. When passing through the hall of his stately
abode at York House, on his servants rising at his presence, he said,
“Sit down, my friends; your rise has been my fall.” Upon one of his
friends observing, “You must look around you,” he answered, “I look
above me.” At other times his despair broke out in words that,
although somewhat abject, were touching in the extreme. As he lay
in his bed, his frame swoln with disease, he bade none of his](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/20031-250320070241-bf6a17f5/85/Strategic-Compensation-A-Human-Resource-Mangement-Approach-8th-Edition-Martocchio-Solutions-Manual-40-320.jpg)
![gentlemen come near him, nor take any notice of him, but
altogether to forget him, not hereafter to speak of him, nor
remember that there was such a being in the world.
In this extremity of sorrow, Buckingham visited the fallen one.
Already had Bacon written to him in the following terms:—“Your
Lordship spoke of purgatory; I am now in it; but my mind is in a
calm, for my fortune is not my felicity. I know I have clean hands,
and a clean heart, and I hope a clean house for friends or servants.
But Job himself, or whoever was the justest judge, by such hunting
for matters against him as hath been used against me, may, for a
time, seem foul, especially in a time when greatness is the mark,
and accusation is the game. And if this be to be a Chancellor, I think,
if the Great Seal lay upon Hounslow Heath, nobody would stoop to
take it up.” What marvellous self-deception, or consummate
duplicity! Owing to Buckingham’s mediation, a letter was given to
the King, from Bacon; in this he again asserted that innocence to
which he had solemnly renounced all claim before, in his submission
to Parliament.
“And now for the briberies and gifts wherewith I am charged;
when the book of hearts shall be opened, I hope I shall not be found
to have the troubled fountain of a corrupt heart, in a depraved habit
of taking rewards to pervert justice, however I may be frail, and
partake of the abuses of the times.”[361]
On the nineteenth of March, Bacon addressed a letter to the
House of Lords, contending, he said, that charges of bribery were
brought against him; he prayed that they would not prejudge him
for absence, having been ill, and preparing for a higher tribunal; that
they would give him leisure to make his defence, which would be
plain and ingenuous; also, that they would not be prejudiced against
him by the number of petitions brought against a man who gives
two hundred decrees and orders a year, exclusive of causes. He did
not, he said, desire to make greatness a subterfuge for guiltiness.
[362]
Notwithstanding a message from James to Parliament, saying that
he had refused the tender of the Great Seal from the Lord
Chancellor, and hoped that they would give him a patient hearing,](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/20031-250320070241-bf6a17f5/85/Strategic-Compensation-A-Human-Resource-Mangement-Approach-8th-Edition-Martocchio-Solutions-Manual-41-320.jpg)
![“but to judge him as they thought fit, if matters prove foul,”[363]
Bacon was suspended. He wrote a pitiful, specious letter to the
House of Lords, in which he “rejoiced that in the midst of his
profound afflictions the greatness of a magistrate was no shelter for
crime.” His only justification, he said, was his non-concealment of his
offences. He did not mean to reply to particular questions, nor cavil
at witnesses, nor urge extenuations. He submitted to their judgment
and mercy, but hoped that the loss of his soul might be sufficient
expiation for his faults. He pleaded for compassion, by the example
of the King’s clemency, and their own fellow feeling for him.[364]
Until the first of May, 1621, Bacon remained Lord Chancellor of
England. On the afternoon of that day, the Lord Treasurer, Viscount
Mandeville, the Duke of Lennox, Lord Steward of the King’s
Household, the Earl of Arundel, Earl Marshal of England, the Earl of
Pembroke, and the Lord Chamberlain of the Household, repaired to
York House. They were introduced into the presence of Bacon, and
then told him “that they were sorry to visit him on such an occasion,
and wished it had been better.” “No, my lords,” he replied, “the
occasion is good.” He then delivered to them the Great Seal, saying,
as he gave it up, “It was the King’s favour that gave me this, and it
is my fault that he hath taken it away.” The seal was conveyed to
Whitehall, and restored to the King, who exclaimed, on receiving it,
“Now, by my soul, I am pained at my heart where to bestow this;
for, as for my lawyers, they are all knaves.”[365]
But Buckingham had
provided against this difficulty, and the high office which Bacon had
so greatly abused was bestowed upon Williams, Bishop of Lincoln,
who was now the chief adviser of the Marquis, and to whose
counsels much that had been done was attributed.
The choice of Williams, for this high office, reflected no discredit
upon Buckingham. Bishop Goodman terms this prelate “a man of as
great wit and understanding as ever I knew any man.” “And truly,”
he adds, endeavouring to rebut Weldon’s charge of a mean birth,
“he was as well-descended and had as good kindred as any man in
North Wales, none beyond him. He had a very quick apprehension,
and for the discharge of the Lord Keeper’s Office, he was never
taxed with any insufficiency. I have heard him make his reports in](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/20031-250320070241-bf6a17f5/85/Strategic-Compensation-A-Human-Resource-Mangement-Approach-8th-Edition-Martocchio-Solutions-Manual-42-320.jpg)
![the Lord’s House of Parliament, and answer such petitions, that in
truth we did wonderfully commend him.”[366]
To these essentials
Williams added the popular qualities of hospitality and liberality; in
this respect he resembled Laud. “There was not a man in England,”
says Bishop Goodman, “that kept a more orderly house than Laud
did, or bred up his servants better. But I will join these two
celebrities together for the great hospitality which they kept, inviting
and entertaining strangers.” With regard to liberality, the erection of
St. John’s College, Cambridge, the foundation there of several
scholarships and fellowships, the library at Westminster, the library
at Lincoln, the repairs of Westminster Abbey, and the care which
Williams took, even when he was Lord Keeper, of the young scholars
at Westminster, sufficiently attest his great and salutary views.
Whilst he was Proctor at Cambridge, he conducted a magnificent
entertainment, given to the Lord Chancellor Egerton, and to the
Spanish ambassadors, on which occasion Egerton told him that he
“was fit to serve a king,” and afterwards introduced him at court.[367]
The chief circumstance that brought Williams into notice was his
figuring at Cambridge in a disputation, before Prince Charles, in
1612-13,[368]
when he was made a Bachelor of Divinity by special
grace, in order that he might become a disputant in the Theological
Controversy.[369]
Still, great subserviency was expected even from the Lord Keeper
in those days of despotic rule. The industrious letter writer, John
Chamberlain, who supplies us with all the gossip and news which, in
those days, had no outlet in the public press, writes of this new
appointment in these terms:—
“The King has made the Dean of Westminster Lord Keeper for a
year and a half; if he behave well, he is to retain office for a year
and a half longer, and then to surrender it: he is to consult one of
the Chief Justices in all cases of importance.”[370]
He quietly adds, immediately afterwards, that the Bishop of
Bangor had been sent to the Fleet for disputing “malapertly” with
the King on the Sabbath; and that Dr. Price had shared the same
punishment for his sermon at Oatlands. The “Prevaricator” of
Cambridge was expelled the University for saying, at a banquet that](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/20031-250320070241-bf6a17f5/85/Strategic-Compensation-A-Human-Resource-Mangement-Approach-8th-Edition-Martocchio-Solutions-Manual-43-320.jpg)
![he gave, that he would have all sorts of instruments except
Gondomar’s pipe.[371]
The Lord Keeper’s “good behaviour,” therefore,
meant an absolute subjection of reason and understanding; and,
more especially, an entire adherence to that line of politics which
might happen to be agreeable at the time to the King.
The Great Seal, when it had been fetched from the miserable
Bacon, was delivered by the King, in presence of the Prince and the
Privy Council, to Williams, and was received with a short speech,
“marvelling at His Majesty’s benignity,” and promising to be pastor of
the sheep. In his first speech in the Court of Chancery, the Lord
Keeper vindicated the principle on which the King had determined to
fill up the post with one who was not a lawyer.[372]
A few months before Buckingham, who, as “Steward of the City
and College of Westminster,” was patron of the Deanery, had made
the young disputant Dean of Westminster. Williams, nevertheless,
abstained from paying any court to the Favourite; his pride and
honesty kept him aloof. “For he had observed,” says Bishop Hacket,
“that the Marquis was very apt suddenly to look cloudy upon his
creatures, as if he had raised them up on purpose to cast them
down.” One day, however, whilst the Dean was attending upon King
James, in the absence of the Marquis, the Monarch suddenly
inquired, without any relation to the previous discourse, “when he
was at Buckingham?” “Sir,” replied Williams, “I have had no business
to go to his lordship.” “But,” rejoined the King, “you must go to him
about my business,” and Williams accordingly sought an interview
with the Marquis. The Favourite and the Dean were thus brought
into contact, and the result was favourable to both. To Buckingham
it procured an able and, for the time, a zealous friend, to whom he
owed the great service which Williams afterwards performed in
converting Lady Katherine Manners from Popery; and Williams
obtained, for his part, a munificent and deserving patron. A different
version of the causes of Williams’s elevation was given by a
scandalous historian. According to Sir Anthony Weldon, it was owing
to the hopes which the Countess of Buckingham entertained of
becoming, in her third nuptials, the wife of Williams, who is said to
have “thought otherwise of that marriage when he was Lord Keeper](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/20031-250320070241-bf6a17f5/85/Strategic-Compensation-A-Human-Resource-Mangement-Approach-8th-Edition-Martocchio-Solutions-Manual-44-320.jpg)
![Williams, than he had done as Dean of Westminster,”[373]
“which,” he
adds, “was the cause of his downfall.” But this report was wholly
without foundation. “Williams was generally beloved by his
neighbours,” says Bishop Goodman, “and for that report, that he
should be great with Buckingham’s mother, it is an idle, foolish
report, without any colour of truth.”[374]
His appointment as Lord
Keeper gave, however, great offence to the members of the bar. It
was loudly resented that the highest post in the law should be
bestowed upon a doctor of divinity; and this step was, it was
supposed, preparatory to filling all the courts of judicature with
churchmen. Williams, nevertheless, proved himself to be admirably
adapted for the office. He had already gained general confidence by
persuading the King to suffer Parliament to sit, and to go on, in
opposition to those who, being afraid of exposure, had endeavoured
to prejudice Buckingham and his royal master against that assembly.
[375]
As a chancellor, he was acknowledged, even by the most
distrustful, to be a faithful counsellor; and by the friendship and
instruction of the Lord Chancellor, Egerton, to whom he had been
domestic chaplain, he had been prepared for the great duties of his
legal office. Egerton, on his death, had addressed to Williams these
words:—“If you want money, I will leave you such a legacy as shall
furnish you to begin the world like a gentleman. I know,” he added,
“you are an expert workmen. Take these tools to broach with: they
are the best I have.” He then gave him some books and papers,
which he had written with his own hand, being directions concerning
the regulation of the High Court of Parliament, the Court of
Chancery, and the Star Chamber, for the dying Chancellor foresaw
that his chaplain might, in the course of his career, require such
materials.[376]
The promotion of Williams involved very important consequences
to the English Church. It was by his instrumentality that Bishop Laud
was first brought forward at the Court of James.
Williams foresaw the rise of that eminent and unfortunate man,
but few persons could have predicted his fall.
An accidental circumstance drew upon Laud the attention which
his learning, his zeal, and his ardent piety, tainted as it was by](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/20031-250320070241-bf6a17f5/85/Strategic-Compensation-A-Human-Resource-Mangement-Approach-8th-Edition-Martocchio-Solutions-Manual-45-320.jpg)
![bigotry, might not have procured him. Bishops, and even
archbishops, in those days, were, as we have seen, by no means
restricted from the diversions of the hunting-field, nor even, if
occasion occurred, from martial exploits. Archbishop Abbot, among
the rest, had been a jovial huntsman. The practice was, it is true,
forbidden by the canons of the church, but those had not been
admitted by the law of the land. There was a high and violent party
in the church, who were eager that Abbot should be deprived of his
ecclesiastical dignities, on account of the accident in which he shot a
keeper, a mishap which the worst construction could only render into
justifiable homicide. Laud was amongst the most vehement of these,
and his views of the case were so rigid, that he did not consider the
orders which Archbishop Abbot conferred afterwards to be valid.
There were others who judged differently, and amongst the rest, the
justly celebrated Lancelot Andrews, who maintained that since
Bishop Juxon was famous for breeding the best dogs in England,
and was yet worthy to be promoted to a see, Abbot was excusable.
But the resistance of Laud was agreeable to Buckingham, who
already had constituted himself his patron. By his influence, Williams
was induced to get Laud made Bishop of St. David’s, and Laud
afterwards acknowledged that and other obligations by exclaiming,
“My life will be too short to repay his Lordship’s goodness.” Yet he
lived to change his opinion.
The rise of Laud at Court may be traced by distinct, steps. In
1621-2, we find him preaching at Court, on the day of the King’s
accession,[377]
and “commanded to print.”[378]
Shortly afterwards the
King sent to Laud, to converse with him about the Countess of
Buckingham, who was wavering on the subject of her faith. Several
interviews succeeded, and in consequence, it may be presumed, of
Laud’s exertions in that cause, he became chaplain to the Marquis of
Buckingham. For a time, his efforts at conversion appear to have
been crowned with success. The Countess consented to receive the
sacrament in the King’s chapel, and received a present, according to
common report, of 2,000l. for her conformity.[379]
Sometimes
religious discussions took place before His Majesty, and on one
occasion, the answer of Laud to the nine articles, delivered in a book](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/20031-250320070241-bf6a17f5/85/Strategic-Compensation-A-Human-Resource-Mangement-Approach-8th-Edition-Martocchio-Solutions-Manual-46-320.jpg)
![from Fisher, the Jesuit, was read and argued upon at Windsor, in the
presence of James, his son, Buckingham, his mother, and his lady.
These endeavours proved futile; the Countess became eventually
confirmed in the Church of Rome, and retreated to her house at
Goadby, to enjoy the exercise of her persuasion, undisturbed by the
observations of the world. Hitherto, she had been one of the most
brilliant leaders of fashion; her retirement from the Court was
therefore the theme of much remark. Her compliance with the King’s
wishes in receiving the Holy Communion was said to have been
prompted by her dread of banishment from that sphere in which she
had figured.[380]
It was during the following year that she relapsed to
Popery, and after she was, as Mr. Chamberlain declared, sent from
Court, either on that account, or perhaps on account of a quarrel
with her daughter-in-law.[381]
Whatsoever may have been the reason for the retirement of this
ambitious woman, one may easily imagine with what mingled
emotions of chagrin and triumph she returned to the scene of her
early married life; her sons, already great, were ennobled, and
influential; her title and fortune formed a striking contrast between
the all-powerful mother of a royal favourite, and the lowly serving
maid in the household of an obscure Leicestershire country
gentleman; yet there were, as it so appears, clouds overshadowing
even the brightness of her destiny, and darkening, eventually, the
close of her singularly prosperous career.](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/20031-250320070241-bf6a17f5/85/Strategic-Compensation-A-Human-Resource-Mangement-Approach-8th-Edition-Martocchio-Solutions-Manual-47-320.jpg)
![cherished project, known at the time as the Spanish treaty, was
brought under consideration.
Little more than two years had elapsed after the death of James’s
first-born, Prince Henry,[382]
when the Duke of Lerma, the minister of
Philip the Third of Spain, opened a negotiation with Digby, then
ambassador at Madrid, the object of which was to arrange a
marriage between Prince Charles and Donna Maria. This princess
was the sister of Philip the Fourth of Spain, and her elder sister
being married, was styled the Infanta.
In June, 1622, Charles wrote to Lord Digby, desiring to hear
speedily upon the subject which the young prince had nearest his
heart—whether the King of Spain were really affected to the
marriage or not, and intended to proceed in it; in which case,
Digby’s instructions were to perfect all the capitulations, and to
agree that the journey of the Infanta to England should take place
during the ensuing spring.[383]
Lord Digby, as he now informed Charles, had first availed himself
of all the secret means he could devise, of discovering the wishes of
his Spanish Majesty; and on conversing with his ministers
afterwards, had received from them every possible encouragement.
In the long and interesting letter in which he replied to the young
Prince’s inquiries, Digby described an interview with the Infanta, to
whom he begged to address himself in the name of her young and
royal suitor, and to deliver to her a message. The King gave him
permission to see the Infanta, and with his own lips to enter on the
subject; Digby having represented to that Monarch, that Charles,
being now twenty-one years of age, was desirous of bringing
matters to a conclusion, and that His Majesty, King James, having
but one son, was anxious “not to delay longer the bestowing of him.”
The King of Spain, in return, assured his British Majesty that there
was no less affection to the match in him, than there had been in his
father. “I can frame,” writes Digby to the Prince, “no opinion but
upon these exterior things, and men that do negotiate with great
princes must rely upon the honour and truth of their words and
propositions, especially in a case of this nature.”[384]
Much was
expected from the return of Count Gondomar from England to](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/20031-250320070241-bf6a17f5/85/Strategic-Compensation-A-Human-Resource-Mangement-Approach-8th-Edition-Martocchio-Solutions-Manual-49-320.jpg)
![Spain; his coming was, as Digby declared, to be of great use, “for he
holds,” adds that nobleman, “great credit here, and will be able to
clear away all difficulties, being extremely affectionate to the
business.” Gondomar, it appears, had then already landed at
Bayonne.
Digby next expatiated at length upon the perfection of the
Infanta. This princess appears to have presented a rare instance of
great personal attraction, combined with sweetness of disposition,
sensibility, and piety. That she was not eventually united to Charles
must, in spite of the calculations of politicians, ever be a subject of
regret. Her good sense might have acted beneficially upon the well-
intentioned but mistaken Monarch, who was fatally swayed by the
counsels of Henrietta Maria.
Lord Digby, experienced in courts, thus expressed himself with
regard to Donna Maria.
“For the person of the Infanta, this much:—I will presume to say
unto your highness, that I have seen many ladies attending when I
had my audience with the Queen and Infanta, but she is by much
the handsomest young lady I saw since I came into Spain; and for
her goodness and sweetness of her disposition, she is by the whole
Court generally commended.”
In subsequent letters, Lord Digby was still more explicit, although
he knew, he said, that expectations generally exceed reality; yet
should the Prince, on seeing the Infanta, not “judge her to be a
beautiful and dainty lady, he shall be single in his opinions and from
all who have ever seen her.[385]
”
These praises of Lord Digby’s are borne out by other testimonies;
that, more especially, of Toby Mathew, who followed the Prince into
Spain, and who calls the Infanta, then in her eighteenth year, as “fair
in all perfection;” her face without one “ill feature,” presenting that
contour which “shews her to be highly born.” The expression of her
countenance peculiarly sweet; and her figure, concealed as it was by
the close ruffs and cuffs then worn by the Spanish ladies, was
declared to be perfect; her head was well set upon her neck; “and
so,” adds the minute observer, “are her hands to her arms; and they](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/20031-250320070241-bf6a17f5/85/Strategic-Compensation-A-Human-Resource-Mangement-Approach-8th-Edition-Martocchio-Solutions-Manual-50-320.jpg)
![say that before she is dressed, she is incomparably better than
after.”[386]
Lord Digby protested also to Charles that his future bride, as she
was then esteemed, had “the fairest hand that he had ever seen,
that she was very straight and well-bodied, and a likely lady to make
the Prince happy.”
This portraiture was calculated to increase the ardour of the
thoughtful and enthusiastic Charles; whilst the character drawn of
the Infanta tended to raise the sentiment of admiration into one of
respect. Brought up, as Lord Digby relates, with great care, and in
retirement, there might be more gravity and reserve than were usual
in English ladies, in her deportment; but this was a “fault easy
mended.” Having asked every possible question of her childhood and
youth, the ambassador protested that “never heard he so much
good of any one as of the Infanta.” To this testimony may be again
added that of Toby Mathew, who portrays her so free from pride and
worldliness, “that she seemed to shine from her soul through her
body;” the beauty of her mind very far exceeding that of her person.
Everyday this young Princess passed in prayer three or four hours,
and then occupied herself in making something which might be sold
for the benefit of the sick and wounded in the hospitals, or busied
herself in drawing lint out of linen for their use. She spent, in her
charities, a hundred pounds a month, appropriating what was
allowed her for recreation to these good deeds. Each returning
Wednesday and Saturday found her in the confessional, or
communicating, “for she carrieth,” relates Toby Mathew, “in
particular, a most tender devotion to the Blessed Sacrament, and the
Immaculate Conception of our Blessed Lady.” This deep sense of her
responsibilities, this earnest piety, alarmed the English Puritans, who
forgot that whilst no one was more steadfast to her faith than
Katharine of Arragon, there existed not a more tolerant being, as far
as we have the means of judging, nor sat upon the throne of the
Queen’s-Consort of England, one more beloved by all sects and
classes of the people than that ill-used and ill-fated foreigner. They
remembered, perhaps, that whilst the Romish persuasion acted](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/20031-250320070241-bf6a17f5/85/Strategic-Compensation-A-Human-Resource-Mangement-Approach-8th-Edition-Martocchio-Solutions-Manual-51-320.jpg)
Strategic Compensation A Human Resource Mangement Approach 8th Edition Martocchio Solutions Manual
- 1. Download the full version and explore a variety of test banks or solution manuals at https://testbankdeal.com Strategic Compensation A Human Resource Mangement Approach 8th Edition Martocchio Solutions Manual _____ Follow the link below to get your download now _____ https://testbankdeal.com/product/strategic-compensation-a- human-resource-mangement-approach-8th-edition-martocchio- solutions-manual/ Access testbankdeal.com now to download high-quality test banks or solution manuals
- 2. Here are some recommended products for you. Click the link to download, or explore more at testbankdeal.com Strategic Compensation A Human Resource Mangement Approach 8th Edition Martocchio Test Bank https://testbankdeal.com/product/strategic-compensation-a-human- resource-mangement-approach-8th-edition-martocchio-test-bank/ Canadian Human Resource Management A Strategic Approach Canadian 10th Edition Schwind Solutions Manual https://testbankdeal.com/product/canadian-human-resource-management-a- strategic-approach-canadian-10th-edition-schwind-solutions-manual/ Human Resource Management A Contemporary Approach 8th Edition Beardwell Solutions Manual https://testbankdeal.com/product/human-resource-management-a- contemporary-approach-8th-edition-beardwell-solutions-manual/ Applying IFRS Standards 4th Edition Picker Test Bank https://testbankdeal.com/product/applying-ifrs-standards-4th-edition- picker-test-bank/
- 3. Auditing The Art and Science of Assurance Engagements Canadian 14th Edition Arens Test Bank https://testbankdeal.com/product/auditing-the-art-and-science-of- assurance-engagements-canadian-14th-edition-arens-test-bank/ Introduction to Management Science A Modeling and Case Studies Approach with Spreadsheets 4th Edition Hillier Solutions Manual https://testbankdeal.com/product/introduction-to-management-science-a- modeling-and-case-studies-approach-with-spreadsheets-4th-edition- hillier-solutions-manual/ Personal Finance 5th Edition Jeff Madura Test Bank https://testbankdeal.com/product/personal-finance-5th-edition-jeff- madura-test-bank/ Introduction to Probability and Statistics 13th Edition Mendenhall Solutions Manual https://testbankdeal.com/product/introduction-to-probability-and- statistics-13th-edition-mendenhall-solutions-manual/ Social Psychology and Human Nature Comprehensive Edition 3rd Edition Baumeister Test Bank https://testbankdeal.com/product/social-psychology-and-human-nature- comprehensive-edition-3rd-edition-baumeister-test-bank/
- 4. Succeeding in Business with Microsoft Excel 2013 A Problem Solving Approach 1st Edition Gross Test Bank https://testbankdeal.com/product/succeeding-in-business-with- microsoft-excel-2013-a-problem-solving-approach-1st-edition-gross- test-bank/
- 5. Copyright ©2015 Pearson Education, Inc. 207 CHAPTER 10 Employer-Sponsored Retirement Plans and Health Insurance Programs Learning Objectives 1. State the definitions of qualified plans and nonqualified plans and indicate the main difference between them. 2. List nine minimum standards for qualified plans. 3. Explain what defined benefit plans are. 4. Explain what defined contribution plans are. 5. List and summarize two types of defined contribution plans. 6. Identify and summarize three broad classes of health insurance programs. 7. Briefly state the rationale for consumer-driven health care. Outline I. Exploring Retirement Plans A. Overview B. Origins of Employer-Sponsored Retirement Plans C. Trends in Retirement Plan Coverage and Costs II. Qualified Plans A. Overview B. Minimum Standards for Qualified Plans III. Defined Benefit Plans A. Overview B. Minimum Funding Standards C. Benefit Limits and Tax Deductions IV. Defined Contribution Plans A. Overview B. Individual Accounts C. Investments of Contributions D. Employee Participation in Investments E. Accrual Rules F. Minimum Funding Standards G. Contribution Limits and Tax Deductions V. Types of Defined Contribution Plans A. Types B. Section 401(k) Plans C. Profit-Sharing Plans D. Stock Bonus Plans E. Employee Stock Ownership Plans (ESOPs)
- 6. Copyright ©2015 Pearson Education, Inc. 208 VI. Hybrid Plans: Cash Balance Plans A. Overview VII. Defining and Exploring Health Insurance Programs A. Overview B. Origins of Health Insurance Benefits C. Health Insurance Coverage and Costs VIII.Fee-for-Service Plans A. Overview B. Features of Fee-for-Service Plans IX. Managed Care Plans A. Overview B. Health Maintenance Organizations C. Features of Health Maintenance Organizations X. Preferred Provider Organizations A. Overview B. Features of Preferred Provider Organizations C. Deductibles D. Coinsurance XI. Point-of-Service Plans XII. Specialized Insurance Benefits A. Overview B. Prescription Drug Plans C. Mental Health and Substance Abuse D. Features of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Plans XIII.Consumer-Driven Health Care Plans A. Overview B. Flexible Spending Accounts XIV. Discussion Questions and Suggested Answers XV. End of Chapter Case; Instructor Notes, and Questions and Suggested Student Responses XVI. Additional Cases from the MyManagementLab Website; Instructor Notes, and Suggested Student Responses
- 7. Copyright ©2015 Pearson Education, Inc. 209 Lecture Outline I. Exploring Retirement Plans A. Overview 1. Individuals may receive retirement benefits from as many as three sources a. Employer-sponsored retirement plans provide employees with income after they have met a minimum retirement age and have left the company b. The Social Security Old-Age, Survivor, and Disability Insurance (OASDI) program provides government-mandated retirement income to employees who have made sufficient contributions through payroll taxes (more in Chapter 11) c. Individuals may use their initiative to take advantage of tax regulations that have created such retirement programs as individual retirement accounts (IRAs) and Roth IRAs 2. Companies establish retirement or pension plans following one of three design configurations: a. Defined benefit plan b. Defined contribution plan c. Hybrid plan 3. Tax incentives encourage companies to offer pension programs 4. Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ERISA Title I and Title II provisions set the minimum standards required to “qualify” pension plans for favorable tax treatment 5. Failure to meet any of the minimum standard provisions “disqualifies” pension plans for favorable tax treatment 6. Pension plans that meet these minimum standards are known as qualified plans 7. Nonqualified plans refer to pension plans that do not meet at least one of the minimum standard provisions; typically, highly paid employees benefit from participation in nonqualified plans (more in Chapter 12) B. Origins of Employer-Sponsored Retirement Plans 1. Until World War II, pension plans were adopted primarily in the railroad, banking, and public utility industries 2. Favorable tax treatment of pensions was established through the passage of the Revenue Act of 1921 and government-imposed wage increase controls during World War II in the early 1940s 3. Led companies to adopt discretionary employee benefits plans such as pensions that were excluded from those wage increase restrictions 4. Current tax treatment of qualified plans continues to provide incentives both for employers to establish plans and for employees to participate in them 5. Contribution to a qualified plan is deductible in computing the employer’s or employee’s taxes based on who made the contribution 6. This preferential tax treatment is contingent on the employer’s compliance with the ERISA
- 8. Copyright ©2015 Pearson Education, Inc. 210 C. Trends in Retirement Plan Coverage and Costs 1. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, private sector participation in at least one company-sponsored retirement plans was: a. 55 percent in 1992–1993 b. 32 percent in 1992–1993 in defined contribution plans and slightly less in defined benefit plans c. 48 percent in 2012 in defined contribution plans d. Noticeable decline in defined benefit plans in the last several years 2. Two important explanations for these trends in participation a. Shift in the labor force toward different occupations and industries b. Costs 3. Shift in labor force a. Relative decline in employment among full-time workers, union workers, and workers in goods-producing businesses b. Decline in full-time workers and increase in part-time workers has led to fewer opportunities for participation in company-sponsored retirement plans c. Decline in union affiliation (i.e., union members or just part of the bargaining unit) also contributes to the overall trends i. In 2012, about 66 percent of employees affiliated with unions were eligible to participate in a defined benefit plan whereas only 12 percent of employees not affiliated with unions were eligible. ii. In 2012, about 45 percent of employees affiliated with unions were eligible to participate in a defined contribution plan whereas only 41 percent of employees not affiliated with unions were eligible. d. Expansion of service industries relative to somewhat stable employment in the goods-producing sector helps to explain retirement plan participation e. Fewer service-oriented workers have access to defined benefit plans (17 percent versus 27 percent) f. Percentage of workers with access to defined contribution plans is higher and similar in both industries (approximately 60 percent percent) g. Actual employee participation in defined contribution plans is drastically lower for service employers than for goods-producing companies 4. Costs a. Defined benefit plans are quite costly to employers compared with defined contribution plans b. The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) serves as the insurer by taking over pension obligations for companies that terminate their defined benefit plans because of severe financial stress c. Companies with defined benefit plans pay premiums to the PBGC to insure defined benefit plans in the event of severe financial distress d. The Pension Protection Act requires that companies that are at high risk of not meeting their pension obligations pay substantially more to insure defined benefit plans, adding to the substantial cost
- 9. Copyright ©2015 Pearson Education, Inc. 211 II. Qualified Plans A. Overview 1. Entitle employers and employees to substantial tax benefits 2. Employers and employees specifically do not pay tax on their contributions within dollar limits that differ for defined benefit and defined contribution plans 3. Investment earnings of the trust in which plan assets are held are generally exempt from tax 4. Participants or beneficiaries do not pay taxes on the value of retirement benefits until they receive distributions B. Minimum Standards for Qualified Plans 1. Thirteen fundamental characteristics: a. Participation requirements b. Coverage requirements c. Vesting rules d. Accrual rules e. Nondiscrimination rules: testing f. Key employee and top-heavy provisions g. Minimum funding standards h. Social Security integration i. Contribution and benefit limits j. Plan distribution rules k. Qualified survivor annuities l. Qualified domestics relations orders m. Plan termination rules and procedures 2. Participation requirements a. Age requirements - employees must be allowed to participate in pension plans after they have reached age 21 b. Service requirements - employees must be allowed to participate in pension plans after they have completed one year of service (based on 1,000 work hours) 3. Coverage requirements a. Limit the freedom of employers to exclude employees b. Qualified plans do not disproportionately favor highly compensated employees 4. Vesting rules a. Vesting refers to an employee’s non-forfeitable rights to pension benefits b. There are two aspects of vesting: i. First, employees are always vested in their contributions to pension plans ii. Second, companies must grant full vesting rights to employer contributions on one of the following two schedules - cliff vesting or six-year graduated schedule
- 10. Copyright ©2015 Pearson Education, Inc. 212 c. Cliff vesting schedules must grant employees 100 percent vesting after no more than three years of service d. Known as cliff vesting because leaving one’s job prior to becoming vested under this schedule is tantamount to falling off a cliff because an employee loses all of the accrued employer contributions e. The six-year graduated schedule allows workers to become 20 percent vested after two years and to vest at a rate of 20 percent each year thereafter until they are 100 percent vested after six years of service f. Plans may have faster gradual schedules to 100 percent vesting in fewer than six years g. The graduated schedule is preferable to employees who anticipate changing jobs frequently because they will earn the rights to keep part of the employer’s contribution sooner. h. Employees recognize that layoffs are more common in today’s volatile business environment and they stand to benefit by earning partial vesting rights sooner than earning full vesting rights at a later date i. Employers prefer the cliff vesting schedule recognizing that many employees tend to change jobs more frequently than ever before, allowing them to reclaim non-vested contributions for employees who leave before becoming vested j. After six years of participation in the pension plan, an employee has the right to receive all of the contributions plus interest on the contributions made by the employer 5. Accrual rules a. Qualified plans are subject to minimum accrual rules based on the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) and ERISA b. Accrual rules specify the rate at which participants accumulate (or earn) benefits c. Defined benefit and defined contribution plans use different accrual rules 6. Nondiscrimination rules: Testing a. Nondiscrimination rules prohibit employers from discriminating in favor of highly compensated employees in contributions or benefits, availability of benefits, rights, or plan features b. Employers may not amend pension plans so that highly compensated employees are favored 7. Benefit and contribution limits a. Refer to the maximum annual amount an employee may receive from a qualified defined benefit plan during retirement b. Contribution limits apply to defined contribution plans: i. Employers are limited in the amount they may contribute to an employee’s defined contribution plan each year ii. The Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 amended IRC Section 415, mandating increases in these limits effective after December 31, 2001, and indexing them each year for inflation to keep retirement savings from falling behind
- 11. Copyright ©2015 Pearson Education, Inc. 213 increases in the cost of goods and services, thereby making retirees less dependent on Social Security retirement benefits (more in Chapter 11) ii. The limits were set to expire after the year 2009, but the Pension Protection Act of 2006 made the limits permanent 8. Allowable tax deductions for employers a. Employers may take tax deductions for contributions to employee retirement plans based on three conditions: i. Retirement plans must be qualified ii. The employer must make contributions before the due date for its federal income tax return for that year iii. Deductible contributions are based on designated amounts set forth by the IRC (as subsequently amended by the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 and the Pension Protection Act of 2006) 9. Plan distribution rules a. Refers to the payment of vested benefits to participants or beneficiaries b. Payable in a variety of ways i. Lump sum distributions are single payments of benefits ii. In defined contribution plans, lump sum distributions equal the vested amount (i.e., the sum of all employee and vested employer contributions, and interest on this sum) iii. In defined benefit plans, lump sum distributions equal the equivalent of the vested accrued benefit iv. Annuities represent a series of payments for the life of the participant and beneficiary v. Annuity contracts are usually purchased from insurance companies, which make payments according to the contract vi. Inherent risk of defined contribution plans has given rise to income annuities vii. Income annuities distribute income to retirees based on retirement savings paid to insurance companies in exchange for guaranteed monthly checks for life 10. Plan termination rules and procedures a. Apply only to defined benefit plans b. Three types of plan terminations: i. Standard termination ii. Distress termination iii. Involuntary termination c. Qualified plans must follow strict guidelines for plan terminations including sufficient notification to plan participants, notification to the PBGC, and distribution of vested benefits to participants and beneficiaries in a reasonable amount of time
- 12. Copyright ©2015 Pearson Education, Inc. 214 III. Defined Benefit Plans A. Overview 1. Guarantee retirement benefits specified in the plan document 2. Usually expressed in terms of a monthly sum equal to a percentage of a participant’s preretirement pay multiplied by the number of years he or she has worked for the employer 3. Benefit is fixed by a formula 4. Level of required employer contributions fluctuates from year to year 5. Level depends on the amount necessary to make certain that benefits promised will be available when participants and beneficiaries are eligible to receive them 6. Annual benefits are usually based on age, years of service, and final average wages or salary 7. Retirement plans based on unit benefit formulas specify annual retirement benefits as a percentage of final average salary Example: Unit Benefit Formulas Let’s assume Mary retires at age 59 with 35 years of service. Let’s also assume her final average salary is $52,500. Mary multiplies $52,500 by the annual percentage of 68.20%. Her annual benefit is $35,805.00 ($52,500 X 68.20%) B. Minimum Funding Standards 1. Employers make an annual contribution that is sufficiently large to ensure that promised benefits will be available to retirees 2. Actuaries periodically review several kinds of information to determine a sufficient funding level a. Life expectancies of employees and their designated beneficiaries b. Projected compensation levels c. Likelihood of employees terminating their employment before they have earned benefits 3. ERISA imposes the reporting of actuarial information to the IRS, which in turn submits these data to the U.S. Department of Labor, which reviews the data to ensure compliance with ERISA regulations C. Benefit Limits and Tax Deductions 1. IRC sets a maximum annual benefit for defined benefit plans that is equal to the lesser of $205,000 in 2013, or 100 percent of the highest average compensation for three consecutive years 2. The limit is indexed for inflation in $5,000 increments each year beginning after 2006 IV. Defined Contribution Plans A. Overview 1. Employers and employees make annual contributions to separate accounts established for each participating employee, based on a formula contained in the plan document
- 13. Copyright ©2015 Pearson Education, Inc. 215 2. Formulas typically call for employers to contribute a given percentage of each participant’s compensation annually 3. Employers invest these funds on behalf of the employee, choosing from a variety of investment vehicles a. Company stocks b. Diversified stock market funds c. Federal government bond funds 4. Participants bear the risk of possible investment gain or loss, and benefit amounts depend upon several factors, including: a. Contribution amounts b. Performance of investments c. Forfeitures transferred to participant accounts B. Individual Accounts 1. Defined contribution plans contain accounts for each employee into which contributions are made, and losses are debited or gains are credited 2. Contributions to each employee’s account come from four possible sources: a. The first, employer contributions, are expressed as a percentage of an employee’s wage or salary b. The second, employee contributions, are usually expressed as a percentage of the employee’s wage or salary c. The third, forfeitures, come from the accounts of employees who terminated their employment prior to earning vesting rights d. The fourth contribution source is return on investments. In the case of negative returns (or loss), the corresponding amount is debited from employees’ accounts C. Investments of Contributions 1. ERISA requires that a named fiduciary manage investments into defined contribution plans 2. Fiduciaries are individuals who manage employee benefit plans and pension funds 3. Possess discretion in managing the assets of the plan, offering investment advice to employee participants, and administering the plan 4. Responsible for minimizing the risk of loss of assets 5. Possess the authority to delegate investment responsibility to an investment manager 6. Investment managers select investments based on a comparison of the risk and return potential of various investment options 7. May invest assets in a variety of investment vehicles, including equities, government bonds, cash, insurance, and real estate 8. Usually invest assets in more than one type of investment vehicle to balance risk and return potential D. Employee Participation in Investments 1. Some companies may allow plan participants to choose the investment of funds in their individual accounts
- 14. Copyright ©2015 Pearson Education, Inc. 216 2. It is not uncommon for large companies to offer investment alternatives through such companies as Fidelity, Vanguard, and T. Rowe Price E. Accrual Rules 1. The accrued benefit equals the balance in an individual’s account 2. Companies must not reduce contribution amounts based on age 3. Companies may also not set maximum age limits for discontinuing contributions F. Minimum Funding Standards 1. The minimum funding standard for defined contribution plans is less complex than it is for defined benefit plans 2. This standard is met when contributions to the individual accounts of plan participants meet the minimum amounts as specified by the plan G. Contribution Limits and Tax Deductions 1. Employer contributions to defined contribution plans represent one factor in annual additions 2. Refers to the annual maximum allowable contribution to a participant’s account in a defined contribution plan 3. The annual addition includes employer contributions, employee contributions, and forfeitures allocated to the participant’s account 4. In 2013, annual additions were limited to the lesser of $51,000 or 100 percent of the participant’s compensation V. Types of Defined Contribution Plans A. Types 1. Section 401(k) plans 2. Profit sharing 3. Stock bonus plans 4. Employee stock ownership plans (ESOPs) B. Section 401(k) Plans 1. Named after the section of the IRC that created them 2. Also known as cash or deferred arrangements (CODAs) 3. Permit employees to defer part of their compensation to the trust of a qualified defined contribution plan 4. Only private sector or tax-exempt employers are eligible to sponsor 401(k) plans 5. Three noteworthy tax benefits: a. Employees do not pay income taxes on their contributions to the plan until they withdraw funds b. Employers deduct their contributions to the plan from taxable income c. Investment gains are not taxed until participants receive payments C. Profit-Sharing Plans 1. Set up to distribute money to employees 2. Establish a profit-sharing pool (i.e., the money earmarked for distribution to employees) 3. May choose to fund profit-sharing plans based on gross sales revenue or some basis other than profits
- 15. Copyright ©2015 Pearson Education, Inc. 217 4. May take a tax deduction for contributions not to exceed 25 percent of the plan participants’ compensation in 2013 5. Employer contributions a. Three common formulas establish employer contributions: i. Fixed first-dollar-of-profits ii. Graduated first-dollar-of-profits iii. Profitability threshold b. The fixed first-dollar-of-profits formula uses a specific percentage of either pretax or after-tax annual profits (alternatively, gross sales or some other basis) contingent upon the successful attainment of a company goal c. The graduated first-dollar-of-profits formula is not a fixed percentage and varies by profit levels d. Profitability threshold formulas fund profit-sharing pools only if profits exceed a predetermined minimum level, but fall below some established maximum level 6. Allocation formulas a. Companies usually make distributions in one of three ways: i. Equal payments ii. Proportional payments to employees based on their annual salary iii. Proportional payments to employees based on their contribution to profits b. Equal payments to all employees reflect a belief that all employees should share equally in the company’s gains in order to promote cooperation among employees c. For proportional payments to employees based on their annual salary, higher paying jobs presumably indicate the greatest potential to influence a company’s competitive position d. For proportional payments to employees based on their contribution to profits, some companies measure employee contributions to profits based on job performance; however, this approach is not very feasible because it is difficult to isolate each employee’s contributions to profits D. Stock Bonus Plans 1. May be the basis for a company’s 401(k) plan 2. Qualified stock bonus plans and qualified profit-sharing plans are similar because both plans invest in company securities 3. Reward employees with company stock (i.e., equity shares in the company) 4. Benefits are usually paid in shares of company stock 5. Participants of stock bonus plans possess the right to vote as shareholders 6. Voting rights differ based on whether company stock is traded in public stock exchanges E. Employee Stock Ownership Plans (ESOPs) 1. May be the basis for a company’s 401(k) plan
- 16. Copyright ©2015 Pearson Education, Inc. 218 2. Invest in company securities, making them similar to profit-sharing plans and stock bonus plans 3. ESOPs and profit-sharing plans differ because ESOPs usually make distributions in company stock rather than cash 4. ESOPs are essentially stock bonus plans that use borrowed funds to purchase stock 5. Two types: a. Nonleveraged—company contributes stock or cash to buy stock which is then allocated to participants b. Leveraged—plan administrator borrows money from a financial institution to purchase company stock which may then be used for the financing of existing debt, estate planning, or financing an acquisition or divestiture VI. Hybrid Plans: Cash Balance Plans A. Overview 1. Combine features of traditional defined benefit and defined contribution plans 2. Cash balance plans are defined benefit plans that define benefits for each employee by reference to the amount of the employee’s hypothetical account balance 3. Many companies have chosen to convert their defined benefit plans to cash balance plans for two key reasons: a. Cash balance plans are less costly to employers than defined benefit plans b. They pay out benefits in a lump sum instead of a series of payments and increase the portability of pension benefits from company to company Why Cash Balance Plans: • In January 2012, employees had worked for their current employer for a median value of 4.4 years; those aged 45 to 54 had worked for their current employer a median value of 7.8 years. Younger workers aged 25 to 34 had worked a median value of 3.2 years. • These data suggest workers may be accumulating retirement benefits from several jobs; employers have attempted to deal with these changing needs by seeking alternative approaches to providing retirement income. 4. Most common approaches include a fixed percentage of earnings and percentages that vary by age, length of service, or earnings 5. Participants receive credits expressed as a percentage of annual pay, and these credits earn interest at a designated rate
- 17. Copyright ©2015 Pearson Education, Inc. 219 6. Amounts stated in these individual accounts are strictly hypothetical because the employer contributes money to the plan as a whole covering all employees 7. Complex federal rules require that employers have sufficient assets to cover the amounts expressed in every employee’s hypothetical account VII. Defining and Exploring Health Insurance Programs A. Overview 1. Covers the costs of a variety of services that promote sound physical and mental health, including physical examinations, diagnostic testing, surgery, hospitalization, psychotherapy, dental treatments, and corrective prescription lenses for vision deficiencies 2. Employers usually enter into a contractual relationship with one or more insurance companies to provide health-related services for their employees and, if specified, employees’ dependents 3. The insurance policy specifies the amount of money the insurance company will pay for such particular services as physical examinations 4. Employers pay insurance companies a negotiated amount, or premium, to establish and maintain insurance policies; the term insured refers to employees covered by the insurance policy 5. In the United States, companies can choose from three broad classes of health insurance programs: a. Fee-for-service programs b. Managed care plans c. Point-of-service plans 6. An emerging class of health insurance programs is based on consumer- driven health care, where employees: a. play a greater role in decisions on their health care b. have better access to information c. share more in the costs B. Origins of Health Insurance Benefits 1. Great Depression of the 1930s gave rise to employer-sponsored health insurance programs 2. Congress proposed the Social Security Act of 1935 to address many of the social maladies caused by the adverse economic conditions, incorporating health insurance programs 3. President Franklin D. Roosevelt, however, opposed the inclusion of health coverage under the Social Security Act. Health insurance did not become part of the Social Security Act until an amendment to the Act in 1965 established the Medicare program 4. In the 1930s, hospitals controlled nonprofit companies that inspired today’s Blue Cross and Blue Shield plans 5. In the 1940s, local medical associations created nonprofit Blue Shield plans, which were prepayment plans for physician services 6. The federal government also imposed wage freezes during World War II, which did not extend to employee benefit plans
- 18. Copyright ©2015 Pearson Education, Inc. 220 7. Many employers began offering health care benefits to help compete for and retain the best employees, particularly during the labor shortage when U.S. troops were overseas fighting in World War II 8. In the 1960s, the federal government amended the Social Security Act. Titles XVIII and XIX of the Act established the Medicare and Medicaid programs, respectively 9. The Health Maintenance Organization Act of 1973 (HMO Act) promoted the use of health maintenance organizations 10. Since the 1970s there has been substantial emphasis on managing costs, and consideration has been given to providing coverage to the uninsured (e.g., the failed national health care proposal under former President Bill Clinton) C. Health Insurance Coverage and Costs 1. Companies stand to gain from sponsoring these benefits in at least two ways: a. Healthier workforce should experience a lower incidence of sickness absenteeism b. Health insurance offerings should help the recruitment and retention of employees 2. Most recent comprehensive national data indicate that more than half (70 percent) of all private sector employees had access to at least one employer-sponsored health insurance program in 2012 3. Varies by employer size, industry group, and union presence 4. A larger percentage of employees in larger companies, goods-producing companies, and union employees had coverage 5. Employee contributions represent a relatively small percentage of the health insurance premiums as of March 2012 a. Single coverage - 21 percent b. Family coverage - 32 percent 6. Single coverage extends benefits only to the covered employee 7. Family coverage offers benefits to the covered employee and his or her family members as defined by the plan (usually, spouse and children) VIII.Fee-for-Service Plans A. Overview 1. Provide protection against health care expenses in the form of a cash benefit paid to the insured or directly to the health care provider after the employee has received health care services 2. Three types of eligible health expenses: a. Hospital expenses b. Surgical expenses c. Physician charges 3. Policyholders (employees) may generally select any licensed physician, surgeon, or medical facility for treatment, and the insurer reimburses the policyholders after medical services are rendered 4. Two types of fee-for-service plans:
- 19. Copyright ©2015 Pearson Education, Inc. 221 a. Indemnity plans b. Self-funded plans 5. Indemnity plans are based on a contract between the employer and an insurance company which specifies the expenses that are covered and the rate 6. Self-funded plans are those in which companies pay benefits directly from their own assets, either current cash flow or funds set aside in advance for potential future claims 7. Self-funding makes sense when a company’s financial burden of covering employee medical expenses is less than the cost to subscribe to an insurance company for coverage 8. Three types of expenses: a. Hospitalization b. Surgical c. Physician 9. Companies sometimes select major medical plans to provide comprehensive medical coverage instead of limiting coverage to these three specific types of expenses or to supplement these specific benefits B. Features of Fee-for-Service Plans 1. Common fee-for-service stipulations include: a. Deductibles b. Coinsurance c. Out-of-pocket maximums d. Preexisting condition clauses e. Preadmission certification f. Second surgical opinions g. Maximum benefits limits 2. Deductibles a. Employees must pay for services (i.e., meet a deductible) before insurance benefits become active b. The amount is modest, usually a fixed amount ranging anywhere between $100 and $500 depending on the plan c. Amounts may also depend on annual earnings, either expressed as a fixed amount for a range of earnings or as a percentage of income 3. Coinsurance a. Refers to the percentage of covered expenses paid by the insured b. Most indemnity plans stipulate 20 percent coinsurance c. This means the plan will pay 80 percent of covered expenses; the policyholder is responsible for the difference, in this case 20 percent d. Insurance plans most commonly apply no coinsurance for diagnostic testing and 20 percent for other medical services; coinsurance rates for these services tend to be the highest, usually 50 percent. 4. Out-of-pocket maximum a. Protects individuals from catastrophic medical expenses or expenses associated with recurring episodes of the same illness
- 20. Copyright ©2015 Pearson Education, Inc. 222 b. Usually stated as a fixed dollar amount and apply to expenses beyond the deductible amount c. Unmarried individuals often have an annual out-of-pocket maximum of $1,000, and family out-of-pocket maximums are as high as $3,500 5. Preexisting condition clauses a. Condition for which medical advice, diagnosis, care, or treatment was received or recommended during a designated period preceding the beginning of coverage b. Designated period for preexisting conditions usually spans between three months and one year c. Imposed by insurance companies in order to limit their liabilities for serious medical conditions that predate an individual’s coverage 6. Preadmission certification a. Physicians must receive approval from a registered nurse or medical doctor employed by an insurance company before admitting patients to the hospital on a nonemergency basis (i.e., when a patient’s life is not in imminent danger) b. Insurance company doctors and nurses judge whether hospitalization or alternative care is necessary c. They determine the length of stay appropriate for the medical condition d. Precertification requirements reserve the right for insurance companies not to pay for unauthorized admissions or hospital stays that extend beyond the approved period 7. Second surgical options a. Reduce unnecessary surgical procedures (and costs) by encouraging an individual to seek an independent opinion from another doctor b. Insurance companies cover the cost of this consultation 8. Maximum benefit limits a. Expressed as a dollar amount over the course of one year or over an insured’s lifetime b. Setting annual maximums provide insurance companies with greater control over total cost expenditures IX. Managed Care Plans A. Overview 1. Emphasize cost control by limiting an employee’s choice of doctors and hospitals 2. Three kinds: a. Health maintenance organizations (HMOs) b. Preferred provider organizations (PPOs) c. Point-of-service plans (POS) B. Health Maintenance Organizations 1. Prepaid medical services—fixed periodic enrollment fees cover HMO members for all medically necessary services only if the services are delivered or approved by the HMO
- 21. Copyright ©2015 Pearson Education, Inc. 223 2. Generally provide inpatient and outpatient care as well as services from physicians, surgeons, and other health care professionals 3. Most medical services are either fully covered or, in the case of some HMOs, participants are required to make nominal copayments 4. Common copayment amounts vary between $15 and $50 for each doctor’s office visit, and $10 to $50 per prescription drug C. Features of Health Maintenance Organizations 1. Share several features in common with fee-for-service plans (out-of- pocket maximums, preexisting condition clauses, preadmission certification, second surgical opinions, and maximum benefits limits) 2. HMOs differ from fee-for-service plans in three important ways: a. HMOs offer prepaid services, whereas fee-for-service plans operate on a reimbursement basis b. HMOs include the use of primary care physicians as a cost-control measure c. HMO coinsurance rates are generally lower than fee-for-service plans 3. HMOs designate some of their physicians, usually general or family practitioners, as primary care physicians 4. Primary care physicians determine when patients need the care of specialists 5. The most important duty is perhaps to diagnose the nature and seriousness of an illness promptly and accurately, after which the primary care physician refers the patient to the appropriate specialist 6. The most common HMO copayments apply to physician office visits, hospital admissions, prescription drugs, and emergency room services 7. Office visits are nominal amounts, usually $25 to $50 per visit; hospital admissions and emergency room services are higher, ranging between $50 and $150 for each occurrence 8. Inpatient services require copayments that are similar in amount to those for hospital admissions for medical treatment; however, copayments for outpatient services (e.g., psychotherapy, consultation with a psychiatrist, or treatment at a substance abuse facility) are generally expressed as a fixed percentage of the fee for each visit or treatment. HMOs usually charge a copayment ranging between 15 percent and 25 percent X. Preferred Provider Organizations A. Overview 1. Select group of health care providers agrees to furnish health care services to a given population at a higher level of reimbursement than under fee- for-service plans 2. Physicians qualify as preferred providers by meeting quality standards, agreeing to follow cost-containment procedures implemented by the PPO, and accepting the PPOs reimbursement structure 3. The employer, insurance company, or third-party administrator helps guarantee provider physicians’ minimum patient loads by furnishing employees with financial incentives to use the preferred providers
- 22. Copyright ©2015 Pearson Education, Inc. 224 B. Features of Preferred Provider Organizations 1. Features most similar to fee-for-service plans are out-of-pocket maximums and coinsurance, and those most similar to HMOs include the use of nominal copayments 2. Preexisting condition clauses, preadmission certification, second surgical opinions, and maximum benefits limits are similar to those in fee-for- service and HMO plans 3. PPOs contain deductible and coinsurance provisions that differ somewhat from other plans C. Deductibles 1. Unlike fee-for-service plans, PPOs often apply different deductible amounts for services rendered within and outside the approved network 2. Higher deductibles are set for services rendered by non-network providers to discourage participants from using services outside the network D. Coinsurance 1. PPOs calculate coinsurance as a percentage of fees for covered services 2. PPOs also use two sets of coinsurance payments: a. The first set applies to services rendered within the network of care providers b. The second to services rendered outside the network 3. Coinsurance rates for network services are substantially lower than they are for non-network services. 4. Coinsurance rates for network services range between 10 percent and 20 percent 5. Non-network coinsurance rates run between 60 percent and 80 percent XI. Point-of-Service Plans 1. Combines features of fee-for-service systems and health maintenance organizations 2. Employees pay a nominal copayment for each visit to a designated network of physicians 3. Employees possess the option to receive care from health care providers outside the designated network of physicians, but they pay somewhat more for this choice XII. Specialized Insurance Benefits A. Overview 1. Carve-out plans are set up to cover dental care, vision care, prescription drugs, mental health and substance abuse, and maternity care 2. Specialty HMOs or PPOs usually manage carve-out plans based on the expectation that single-specialty practices may control costs more effectively than multispecialty medical practices B. Prescription Drug Plans 1. Cover the costs of drugs 2. Apply exclusively to drugs that state or federal laws require to be dispensed by licensed pharmacists
- 23. Copyright ©2015 Pearson Education, Inc. 225 3. Prescription drugs dispensed to individuals during hospitalization or treatment in long-term care facilities are not covered by prescription drug plans 4. Three kinds of prescription drug programs: a. Medical reimbursement plans i. Reimburse employees for some or all of the cost of prescription drugs ii. Usually associated with self-funded or independent indemnity plans b. Prescription card programs i. Offer prepaid benefits with nominal copayments ii. Limit benefits to prescriptions filled at participating pharmacies, similar to managed care arrangements for medical treatment c. Mail order prescription drug programs i. Dispense expensive medications used to treat chronic health conditions such as HIV infection or such neurological disorders as Parkinson’s disease ii. Offer a cost advantage because they purchase medications at discounted prices in large volumes C. Mental Health and Substance Abuse 1. Twenty percent of Americans experience some form of mental illness (e.g., clinical depression) at least once during their lifetimes 2. Nearly 20 percent develop a substance abuse problem 3. Employee Assistance Programs (EAPs) represent a portal to taking advantage of employer-sponsored mental health and substance abuse treatment options 4. EAPs help employees cope with personal problems that may impair their personal lives or job performance, including alcohol or drug abuse, domestic violence, the emotional impact of AIDS and other diseases, clinical depression, and eating disorders D. Features of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Plans 1. Cover the costs of a variety of treatments, including: a. Prescription psychiatric drugs (e.g., antidepressant medication) b. Psychological testing c. Inpatient hospital care d. Outpatient care (e.g., individual or group therapy) 2. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-V) used to diagnose mental disorders based on symptoms, and both fee-for-service and managed care plans rely on the DSM-V to authorize payment of benefits 3. From the employee’s perspective, coinsurance and maximum benefits amounts are generally less generous than general health plans in three ways: a. First, coinsurance amounts for mental health and substance abuse benefits, expressed as a percentage of treatment cost for both
- 24. Copyright ©2015 Pearson Education, Inc. 226 indemnity and managed care plans, range between 40 percent and 50 percent b. Second, mental health and substance abuse plans limit the annual number of outpatient visits or days of inpatient care c. Third, annual and lifetime maximum benefits were set significantly lower 4. The Mental Health Parity Act and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 requires that any group health plan that includes mental health and substance use disorder benefits along with standard medical and surgical coverage must treat them equally in terms of: a. out-of-pocket costs b. benefit limits and practices (such as prior authorization and utilization review) XIII.Consumer-Driven Health Care Plans A. Overview 1. Refers to the objective of helping companies maintain control over costs while also enabling employees to make greater choices about health care 2. Enables employers to lower the cost of insurance premiums by selecting plans with higher employee deductibles 3. The most popular consumer-driven approaches are flexible spending accounts and health reimbursement accounts 4. Provide employees with resources to pay for medical and related expenses not covered by higher deductible insurance plans at substantially lower costs to employers B. Flexible Spending Accounts 1. Permit employees to pay for specified health care costs that are not covered by an employer’s insurance plan 2. Prior to each plan year, employees elect the amount of pay they wish to allocate to this kind of plan 3. Employers then use these monies to reimburse employees for expenses incurred during the plan year that qualify for repayment 4. Qualifying expenses include: a. Out-of-pocket costs for medical treatments b. Products or services related to mental or physical defect or disease along with certain associated costs 5. The advantage to employees is the ability to make contributions to their FSAs on a pretax basis 6. The disadvantage is the “use it or lose it” provision of FSAs 7. Employers may establish health reimbursement accounts 8. Three differences between HRAs and FSAs: a. Employers make the contributions to each employee’s HRA whereas employees fund FSAs with pretax contributions deducted from their pay. HRA arrangements are particularly appealing to employees with relatively low salaries or hourly wage rates because they do not contribute to them
- 25. Copyright ©2015 Pearson Education, Inc. 227 b. HRAs permit employees to carry over unused account balances from year to year, whereas employees forfeit unused FSA account balances present at the end of the year c. Employers may offer employees HRAs as well as FSAs, and the use of these accounts are not limited to participation in high-deductible health care plans, which is the case for HSAs 9. The idea of consumer-driven health care has most recently received substantially greater attention than before because of the Bush Administration (President George W. Bush) and the Republican-led congress who favor greater employee involvement in their medical care and reducing the cost burden for companies to help maintain competitiveness in the global market 10. The Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 added section 223 to the IRC, effective January 1, 2004, to permit eligible individuals to establish HSAs to help employees pay for medical expenses 11. Employers offer HSAs along with a high deductible insurance policy, established for employees. High-deductible health insurance plans require substantial deductibles and low out-of-pocket maximums a. For individual coverage, the minimum annual deductible was $1,250 with maximum out-of-pocket limits at or below $6,250 in 2013 b. For family coverage, the deductible was $2,500 with maximum out-of- pocket limits at or below $12,500 12. HSAs offer four main advantages to employees relative to FSAs and HRAs: a. First, HSAs are portable, which means that the employee owns the account balance after the employment relationship ends b. Second, HSAs are subject to inflation-adjusted funding limits c. Third, employees may receive medical services from doctors, hospitals, and other health care providers of their choice, and they may choose the type of medical services they purchase, including such items as long-term care, eye care, and prescription drugs d. Fourth, HSA assets must be held in trust and cannot be subject to forfeiture. That is, any unspent balances in the HSA can be rolled over annually and accumulate tax-free until the participant’s death. FSAs and HRAs have no legal vesting requirement, which means employees do not possess the right to claim unused balances when they terminate employment HSAs: • In 2013, an employer, an employee, or both may contribute as much as: a. $3,250 annually for unmarried employees without dependent children or b. $6,450 for married or unmarried employees with dependent children • Employers may require employees to contribute toward these limits. • Employee contributions would be withheld from an employee’s pay on a pretax basis.
- 26. Copyright ©2015 Pearson Education, Inc. 228 XIV. Discussion Questions and Suggested Answers 10-1. Are employees more likely to favor defined contribution plans over defined benefit plans? How about employers? Explain your answer. Employees are more likely to favor defined benefit plans because they guarantee retirement benefits. This benefit is usually expressed in terms of a monthly sum equal to a percentage of a participant’s preretirement pay multiplied by the number of years he or she has worked for the employer. Defined contribution plans, on the other hand, contain accounts for each employee based on contributions that are made, losses that are debited or gains that are credited. This is why defined contribution plans are more likely to be favored by employers because these plans build strong incentives to perform well throughout the entirety of the given employees’ employment in the company. 10-2. Summarize the controversial issues regarding cash balance plans. There are two key controversies surrounding cash balance plans. The first issue centers on favorable treatment to younger workers and unfavorable treatment to older employees. The second issue is based on the practice of converting traditional defined benefit plans to cash balance plans and reducing benefits. 10-3. Discuss the basic concept of insurance. How does this concept apply to health care? Insurance is the pooling of risk. In order to have such insurance people often pay monthly or yearly premiums in order to ensure that when an accident or incident does occur, they are prepared to deal with the consequences economically. In health care, insurance covers the cost of a variety of services that promote sound physical and mental health, including physical examinations, diagnostic testing, surgery, hospitalization, psychotherapy, dental treatments, and corrective prescription lenses for vision deficiencies. Some participants consume less than they contribute and some consume more than they contribute. However, because need is unpredictable, all are protected. 10-4. Describe the principles of fee-for-service plans and managed care plans. What are the similarities and differences? Fee-for-service plans provide protection against health care expenses in the form of a cash benefit paid to the insured or directly to the health care provider after the employee has received health care services. These plans pay benefits on a reimbursement basis. Three types of eligible health expenses are hospital expenses, surgical expenses, and physician charges. Under fee-for-service plans, policyholders may generally select any licensed physician, surgeon, or medical facility for treatment, and the insurer reimburses
- 27. Copyright ©2015 Pearson Education, Inc. 229 the policyholders after medical services are rendered. Managed care plans emphasize cost control by limiting an employee’s choice of doctors and hospitals. Three common forms of managed care are health maintenance organizations, preferred provider organizations, and point-of-service plans. The main difference between these fee-for-service and managed care plans is that fee-for-service allows employees to pick any doctor or hospital they choose, whereas managed care plans limit those choices. 10-5. Discuss some of the choices an employer may make to help control health care costs. An employer can make different choices in order to help control health care costs, such as health reimbursement accounts, which make it so that employers contribute to each employee’s HRA whereas employees fund FSAs with pretax contributions deducted from their pay. Employers may also choose to limit coverage or to share costs with employees in the form of premium contributions or high co-pays and coinsurance. XV. End of Chapter Case; Instructor Notes, and Questions and Suggested Student Responses Case Name: A Health Savings Account at Frontline PR Instructor Notes The high cost of healthcare insurance is a challenge that many employers are facing. Controlling costs, while providing employees with an affordable option that is competitive with other employers, is important. Consumer-driven healthcare means that employees have more responsibility in their medical spending. The use of HSA's combined with a high-deductible health insurance plan will likely reduce costs for employers. However, it is a new approach to healthcare insurance and employers will likely initially receive resistance from employees who do not understand the option. Suggested Student Responses: 10-6. What are some advantages of the implementing the HSA option? The HSA coupled with the high deductible healthcare insurance plan offers the company cost savings and also may reduce overall healthcare costs as the employees will be more involved in their healthcare decisions. While the insurance plan has a high deductible, there is a low out-of-pocket maximum expense to the employee. The HSA offers several advantages over the FSA currently offered by Frontline. The HSA allows employees to roll over funds to the next year if they aren’t used. Because FSA’s are ‘use or lose,’ if employees set aside too much money, at the end of the year they may seek out medical
- 28. Copyright ©2015 Pearson Education, Inc. 230 treatment that isn’t really necessary. Further, employees find HSA’s attractive because they are portable and the employee can take their balance with them when they leave a company. Further, there are some tax advantages for the employees with the HSA option. 10-7. What are some potential disadvantages of the HSA option? Because HSA's are not a popular option, employees will not likely be familiar with them. Therefore, it may be a challenge to communicate the benefits of the HSA to employees. Employees will likely have some concerns about their out-of-pocket expenses. The chapter also notes that the structure of the HSA and high deductible healthcare insurance may influence some employees to avoid preventive care, which could lead to more significant problems and healthcare costs later. 10-8. What do you recommend? Why? Student responses may vary here. If the HSA option is recommended, the student may determine that the cost savings is the most important aspect. The student may also suggest that Susan first explore other options such as a preferred provider organization or a managed care plan such as a health maintenance organization before making a decision. A full analysis of both the cost to Frontline, as well as the impact on the employee’s costs should be conducted before making a decision. MYLAB QUESTIONS 10-9. Compare and contrast defined contribution plans with defined benefit plans. Answer: Under defined contribution plans, employers and employees make annual contributions to separate accounts established for each participating employee, based on a formula contained in the plan document. These formulas typically call for employers to annually contribute a given percentage of each participant's compensation. The most common types of these plans are profit-sharing plans, employee stock ownership plans (ESOPs), deferred 401(k) plans, and savings and thrift plans. Under defined benefit plans, employees are guaranteed retirement benefits as spelled out in the plan document. This benefit is expressed in terms of a monthly sum equal to a percentage of a participant's preretirement pay multiplied by the number of years he or she has worked for the employer. The contributions an employer makes typically fluctuate from year to year. Defined benefit and defined contribution plans differ in a number of ways. One difference is the likelihood an employee will achieve retirement income objectives. With a defined benefit plan, the employees know what amount of benefits they will receive upon retirement. With a defined contribution plan, employees will not know this in advance. Another difference is the cost of the two types of plans. With a defined
- 29. Copyright ©2015 Pearson Education, Inc. 231 contribution plan, employers know the plan's cost on a year-to-year basis; this is unknown with a defined benefit plan. A third difference is that although both plans are complex to administer, companies find that defined benefit plans are more burdensome. 10-10. Define health insurance concepts such as insurance policy and premium and explain the different types of health insurance programs. What are the differences among these programs? Answer: Insurance policy specifies the amount of money the insurance company will pay for particular services such as physical examinations. Premium is the negotiated amount that employers pay insurance companies to establish insurance policies. Broadly there are three health insurance programs: 1) fee-for-service plans, 2) managed care plans, and 3) point-of-service plans. Fee-for-service plans pay benefits on a reimbursement basis. A cash benefit is paid to the insured or directly to the healthcare provider for the healthcare services. Hospital expenses, surgical expenses, and physician charges are considered eligible health expenses. Managed care plans limit employees' choice of doctors and hospitals to control costs. Health maintenance organizations, a common form of managed care plans, offer prepaid services. On the contrary, fee-for-service plans offer reimbursement. Also, coinsurance rates are generally lower in HMO plans. Point-of-service plans combine the features of fee-for-service plans and HMOs. Like HMOs, employees pay a nominal copayment for each visit to a designated network of physicians. However, employees can receive care from providers outside the designated network of physicians with paying somewhat more for this choice. XVI. Additional Cases from the MyManagementLab Website; Instructor Notes, and Questions and Suggested Student Responses Case Name: Cutting Costs at VentaCare Instructor Notes Cost containment is a challenging concern for companies trying to attract and retain talented staff through offering an attractive benefits program. Employees may find benefit offerings attractive, but it is challenging for a company to determine if they are getting a positive return on their investment in a benefits program. Employers should take a strategic approach in determining their benefits program by targeting benefits that promote employee behaviors that add value to the company.
- 30. Copyright ©2015 Pearson Education, Inc. 232 Suggested Student Responses: 10-11. How should Allison approach evaluating VentaCare’s benefit program? Allison should first identify what the objectives are of the benefits program. If staying ahead of their competition is important, she should identify what benefits competitors offer. If they are trying to promote certain employee behaviors, she should specifically identify those behaviors. For example, in the nursing home setting, they most likely want employees to stay healthy so they do not miss work and do not deter the health of the residents. Therefore, wellness programs and other health-related benefits are important. She should also undertake an analysis of actual usage of benefits to make sure all of the benefits they currently offer are being used. For example, if the company finds that the Employee Assistance Program is rarely used, cutting this benefit may be an appropriate cost saving measure. 10-12. What are some benefits Allison should consider changing or eliminating? Why? Student responses may vary here. Their recommendations should focus on maintaining as much of the program as possible, but limiting the costs. Further, the company should examine the tax advantages that some benefits offer before considering eliminating them. One suggestion may be to reduce some of the benefits without eliminating them entirely. For example, they may want to limit the tuition reimbursement program to only coursework that is relevant to the nursing home business. Or the company could maintain the short and long term disability insurance programs, but ask employees to contribute some toward the premiums.
- 31. Other documents randomly have different content
- 32. Southampton being the only persons admitted to the royal presence. On the following day, Southampton, was set at liberty.[332] Sir Edward Coke was likewise among those who incurred the displeasure of James for freedom of speech. Imprisonment in the Tower followed his offence. The locks and doors of his chambers in the Temple were sealed up, and several securities for money taken away. Immured in prison, his family not being suffered to approach him, he had yet another trial to encounter. James, whose meanness equalled his improvidence, took this base occasion to sue Coke for an old pretended debt due from Sir Christopher Hatton to Queen Elizabeth. The reply of the Solicitor-general, Sir John Walter, when the brief of this iniquitous case was sent to him, is worthy of a nobler character of mind than that usually imputed to the English lawyer of that period. “Let my tongue,” he answered, “cleave to the roof of my mouth whenever I ope it against Sir Edward Coke;” yet the suit was rigorously prosecuted. “That spirit of fiery exhalation”[333] was not daunted even by this petty and malignant persecution. It was observed of him that he lost his advancement in the same way that he got it[334] —by his tongue. To the last, he steadily resisted the oppressions of the crown, and his character, odious as it was to his contemporaries, odious when we reflect upon him as the vituperative judge of Ralegh, and too justly censured by Bacon “for insulting misery,”[335] has received the respect and gratitude of posterity for its general political independence. The fate of Bacon himself excited a still more mournful interest in good minds, than the injuries inflicted upon Coke. It becomes necessary for the biographer of Villiers, to examine into the circumstances of an affair with which, as with every public event of the day, he was intimately connected. Bacon, in afterwards addressing James, alludes to Buckingham when he imputes his degradation to the personal views of some secret foe. “I wish that, as I am the first, so I may be the last of sacrifices in your times; and when, from private appetite, it is resolved that a creature shall be sacrificed, it is easy to pick up sticks enough from any thicket, whither he has strayed, to make a fire to offer it with.”[336]
- 33. In the early period of his career, Buckingham had owed much to the countenance, and more to the advice, of Bacon. The author of the Novum Organum seems to have been among the first to discern that remarkable association of personal and mental qualities in Villiers, which promised to secure him an ascendancy over James. Bacon lent the lustre of his name to shine upon the young courtier, and expected in return that aid which Buckingham, he soon perceived, would have it in his power to bestow. A mutual dependence was established; Buckingham existed on the capital of Bacon’s intellect; Bacon throve on the inferiority of the youth, conscious of his defects, and wise enough to remedy his own weakness by the strength of another. No greater proof of confidence in a friend can be given than to seek his advice, and Villiers paid Bacon that tribute. He requested him “to instruct him how to fulfil his high station, how to serve the King, how to conciliate the people.” In consequence of this, Bacon had addressed to the Favourite a letter of advice,[337] “such,” observes the biographer of Bacon, “as is not usually given in courts, but of a strain equally free and friendly, calculated to make the person to whom it was addressed good and great, and equally honourable to the giver and the receiver; advice which contributed not a little to his prosperity in after life.”[338] This manual of a courtier’s duty, it must be owned, was sadly at variance with the practice that followed these nobly conceived instructions on the part of him who gave them. “You are,”—Bacon thus addressed Villiers—“as a new risen star, and the eyes of all are upon you; let not your own negligence make you fall like a meteor.” “Next to religion,” he adds elsewhere, “let your care be to promote justice. By justice and mercy is the King’s throne established.” “And as far as it may rest in you, let no arbitrary power be intended. The people of this kingdom love the laws thereof, and nothing will oblige them more than a confidence of the free enjoying of them.” “Your greatest care must be,” he adds, towards the conclusion, “that the great men of the court—for you must give me leave to be plain with you, for so is your injunction laid upon me—yourself in the first place, who are first in the eye of all
- 34. men, give no just cause of scandal either by light, vain, or by oppressive carriage.”[339] Notwithstanding these admirable precepts, the years during which Lord Bacon held the Great Seal, and during which Villiers ruled predominant, were, as it has been justly observed, “the darkest and most shameful in English history.”[340] The domestic government of James and his favourite, in weakness and want of high principle, corresponded but too mournfully with their foreign policy; with their indifference to the great struggle for the interests of liberty and of Protestantism in Germany; with their vacillating and cowardly counsels. Whilst the continental nations were venting their surprise and indignation in sallies of ridicule directed against England, the King, who had nothing to bestow in the aid of a loyal cause in which the welfare of his own child was bound up, resorted at home to the most disgraceful expedients in order to exalt his favourite. During this period, Buckingham held an absolute empire over the actions of Bacon. A system of persecution against Coke had followed the disgraceful affair of Sir John Villiers’ marriage. In an unlucky hour, Bacon interfered between Lady Hatton and her injured husband; he even descended to lend himself to the low affairs of these vulgar great, and to take part against his enemy, Coke, and with his arrogant wife. This was during the King’s absence in Scotland: as matters then stood, this proceeding on the part of the Lord Keeper militated against the marriage which Buckingham had at heart. Bacon was soon taught, therefore, to see his error. The Favourite resented his interference, and refused to be pacified. In vain did the Lord Keeper stay certain proceedings against Coke which had been instituted in the Star Chamber; in vain did he hasten to testify his submission to Buckingham. Two successive days he went to the stately apartments of the Favourite; waited meekly in an ante- chamber, seated on an old box, with the Great Seal of England at his side. At length, when he was admitted, he threw himself at the feet of Buckingham, and swore never to rise thence till he had received the pardon of the lofty personage whom he had once instructed in the art of conducting himself with dignity.[341]
- 35. This was not such conduct as would entitle a man to respect even from him on whom he cringed. Yet Bacon, in one of his letters addressed to Buckingham, declares him to have been the “truest and perfectest mirror of friendship that ever was in a court;” and protests that “he should count every day lost in which he should not study his well-doing in thought, or do his name honour in speech, or perform service for him indeed.”[342] Nor is the statement given by Weldon, of the manner in which the seals were offered to Bacon by Buckingham, credible. According to that writer, the Favourite, when he sent to proffer them to Bacon, accompanied them with an insulting message, saying, that whilst he knew him to be a man of excellent parts, he was also aware “that he was an errant knave, apt, in his prosperity, to ruin any that had raised him in his adversity;” yet from regard to his master’s service, he had obtained the seals for him; but with this assurance, that if he ever should act to him as he had done to others, he would be cast down as much below as he was now above any honour that he had expected,[343] alluding to the flagrant ingratitude and perfidy of Bacon to Essex. But this story, supported by no evidence, is at variance with probability; and since it rests upon the authority of one who is always inveterate against Buckingham, it may be discarded as wholly unworthy of belief. That Buckingham knew well the character of the Lord Keeper before he promoted him to the Chancellorship—that he calculated on his subservience to himself, expressed in his letters, so that posterity may judge of Bacon’s professions—that he had discovered that the doctrine of expediency influenced the practice of Bacon, is almost certain; for he did not hesitate to sway him to the most disgraceful countenance of abuses for which the whole country was crying out for redress. Amongst the grievances most disliked were those of monopolies; and amongst the most detested of detestable patents was that for the exclusive manufacture of gold and silver lace. It had been conjointly granted to Sir Giles Mompesson, who is supposed to have been the original of Sir Giles Overreach, and to Sir Frances Michell, who is said to have suggested the character of Justice Greedy. Sir
- 36. Giles was a Wiltshire knight, patronised by Buckingham; or, as it was the fashion of the day to speak, “a creature of the Favourite’s;” and was concerned, not only in the patent of gold and silver lace, but in forming the monopolies styled the patents of “Inns and Osteries.” In this affair Michell assisted him.[344] To render Bacon justice, he had formerly, when applied to with regard to these patents on behalf of Sir Christopher Villiers, advised Buckingham not to have anything to do with them.[345] He declared them to be one of the grievances which Parliament ought to put down; but avowed his readiness, should it not be done away with, “to mould it in the best manner, and help it forward.”[346] The latter course was preferred by Buckingham, and was therefore adopted. The result was not only that the manufacture of gold and silver thread was adulterated, for that would have been a matter of comparatively little consequence, but that an inquisitorial jurisdiction was exercised by the patentees of the Inns and Osteries, who were armed with as great powers as had ever been granted to the farmers of the revenue. The abuses which resulted cried for redress; and, during the session of 1620, Parliament took the matter up. It became the province of the Lord Keeper to interpose, and he decided that it should be settled with all convenient speed. “The meaning of this was,” writes Lord Macaulay, “that certain of the house of Villiers were to go halves with certain of the house of Overreach and Greedy in the plunder of the public.” Petitions were sent up to Parliament by persons who had suffered under these exactions, and the whole affair was thoroughly “ripped up.”[347] The odium of these abuses fell upon Buckingham; the blame upon the Lord Keeper, who had not restrained these patents. Sir Edward Villiers, who was thought to be as “deep in the mire” as Mompesson and Michell, was sent on an embassy for safety. Mompesson was, on the third of March, 1621, summoned to appear before Parliament: he had fled, assisted, according to common report, by Buckingham, who dreaded further exposure, for Mompesson’s neck was in danger. On the twenty-seventh of the same month, the King went to Parliament, and pronounced sentence on Sir Giles, the dignity of his
- 37. wife remaining untainted.[348] Michell, a newly-made knight, was brought to his trial on the third of May, and suffered the singular sentence of degradation, with all “the ceremonies of abasement,” “but that,” observes Arthur Wilson, “being most proper to his nature, he was but eased of a burthen, his mind suffered not.”[349] He was made incapable of holding office, fined 1,000l., and ordered to be imprisoned in Finsbury Prison during the King’s pleasure. The ceremonial was rendered sufficiently effective, and Buckingham, with the highest persons of the realm, witnessed the process. The “old justice,” as Michell was called, was brought by the Sheriffs of London to Westminster Hall, on the last day of Term, when the sentence of Parliament was read before him by a pursuivant, in an audible voice. His spurs were then broken in pieces by the servants of the Earl Marshal, and thrown away; the silver sword was taken from his side, broken over his head, and thrown away. Last of all, he was pronounced no longer a knight, but a knave; Garter, Clarencieux, Norroy sitting at the feet of the Commissioners.[350] Sir Giles Mompesson, meantime, having contrived to elude the sergeants who had him in charge, was safe abroad; but a proclamation was out against him. The Prince and Lords promised to do all they could to ensure his being apprehended: the ports were guarded. Buckingham, meantime, declared in the House that he had no hand in the matter, but that the blame rested with the referees who had tested the lawfulness of these patents.[351] Sir Giles was heavily fined; an annuity of 200l. on the new waterworks being all that was reserved for Lady Mompesson and her child. Two years afterwards he was, however, allowed to return to England for three months, though under some risk; for the people did not forget that the two words, “no Empsons,” formed his anagram, and he was only permitted to land in England on the petition of his wife.[352] With what sensations Buckingham, who had certainly regarded the peculation permitted by these patents as a family perquisite, must have witnessed these proceedings, it is not easy to say. His once generous character was gaining in hardness, and losing the traces of its delicacy and scrupulousness every day.
- 38. But evils of a more stupendous character were soon to be detected and avenged by a people who, Bacon truly said, “loved the law of their land.” The Lord Keeper had reckoned for a long time that the protecting hand of the Favourite could cover his venial proceedings. On the twenty-seventh of January, 1620, he was created Viscount St. Albans, with plenary investiture. The Lord Carew carried his robe before him; the Marquis of Buckingham held it up. The prosperous Lord Keeper gave the King most hearty thanks for each successive step of his preferment. 1st, for making him his solicitor; 2nd, his attorney; 3rd, a privy councillor; 4th, Keeper of the Great Seal; 5th, chancellor; 6th, Baron Verulam; 7th, Viscount St. Albans;—honours and emoluments which had been procured for him entirely through the influence of Buckingham. The envious world wondered, according to Sir Symonds D’Ewes, at the gratification of Bacon’s pride and ambition. His estates in land were thought, at that time, not to be more in value than four or five hundred pounds yearly; his debts were supposed to amount to 30,000l. He was then known to receive bribes in all cases of moment that came before him.[353] The hour of reckoning, however, eventually arrived. The disgraceful transactions which brought this tardy justice on the man so pre-eminent in letters, so debased in honourable principle, had been a frequent source of complaint in parliament. Thus, as a modern writer observes, “was signally brought to the test the value of those objects for which Bacon had sullied his integrity, had resigned his independence, had violated the most sacred objects of friendship and gratitude, had flattered the worthless, had persecuted the innocent, had tampered with judges, had tortured prisoners, had plundered suitors, had wasted on paltry intrigues the power of the most exquisitely constructed intellect that had ever been bestowed on any of the children of men.”[354] It is of no avail to say that the custom of the day authorized the receiving of bribes and presents; or to justify the mean subservience of the Lord Chancellor by blaming the interference of Buckingham. That interference may be justly censured; but it forms no ground of acquittal to Bacon.
- 39. In the letter of advice addressed by this most inconsistent man to Buckingham, when Sir George Villiers, he counsels him by no means ever to be persuaded to interpose himself, “either by word or letter, in any cause depending, or likely to be depending, in any court of justice, nor suffer any other great man to do it where he could hinder it, and by all means to dissuade the King from it.” “If it prevail,” he adds, “it prevents justice; but if the judge be so just, and of such courage, as he ought to be, as not to be inclined thereby, yet it always leaves a taint of suspicion behind it. Judges must be chaste as Cæsar’s wife—neither to be, nor to be suspected to be, unjust; and, sir, the honour of the judges in their judicature is the King’s honour, whose person they represent.”[355] Shortly after Bacon had become Lord Keeper, a series of letters was, nevertheless, commenced on the part of Buckingham in favour of persons who were likely to come into chancery.[356] And it is related in Hacket’s Life of the Lord Keeper Williams, the successor of Bacon, that there was not a cause of moment, but that, as soon as it came to publication, one of the parties concerned in it brought letters from this mighty peer and the Lord Keeper’s patron.[357] A committee was appointed by the House of Commons to inquire into the proceedings of the courts of justice. Two charges of corruption were brought against the Lord Chancellor; the one in the case of a man named Aubrey, who had been advised to quicken a suit in chancery by the bribe of a hundred pounds. The money was presented, through the medium of Sir George Hastings, directly to the Lord Chancellor at his lodgings in Gray’s Inn, and when Sir George came out from the chambers, he told Aubrey that his “Lordship was thankful, and assured him of good success in his business, which, however, he had not.”[358] The other case was that of Mr. Egerton, who mortgaged his estate for four hundred pounds; a sum which Bacon at first refused, saying it was too much, but accepted at last. These charges were eventually preferred before the House of Lords, and when the complaint was made in that assembly, it devolved on Buckingham, in the absence of the Chancellor, who was sick, to present a letter praying for time for the privilege of cross-examining witnesses; and requesting that if there came up any
- 40. more petitions of the same nature, their Lordships would not take any prejudice at their numbers, considering that they were against a judge that made two hundred and forty decrees in a year.[359] During this interval, Bacon was assured of the sympathy of James and the intercession of Buckingham. The King shed tears on hearing of his dilemma, and procured a recess of parliament, in order to give him time for defence. It was, however, judged best by the Chancellor, notwithstanding all this powerful patronage, not to attempt a defence, but to throw himself upon the mercy of the House. That, in spite of this confession, Bacon still continued to enjoy the protection of Buckingham, is evident, for the heir to the crown presented Bacon’s memorable letter, full of eloquence, and expressed with the inimitable address which he knew so well how to employ. This submission was not deemed enough; a full confession was required. It was given by one sunk in character and broken in spirit, and was received by the House. Prince Charles was then requested to intercede with His Majesty that he would sequester the Great Seal, to which James assented, declaring it was his resolution to fill up the place of Chancellor forthwith. Bacon was summoned before the House; he excused himself on the plea of sickness, and sentence was passed upon him in his absence. He was decreed to pay a fine of 40,000l., to be imprisoned in the Tower during the King’s pleasure, and declared incapable of ever either sitting in Parliament again, or of holding any office or employment; he was even forbidden to come within “the verge”—that is, within twelve miles of the Court.[360] The condition of Bacon’s mind and body under this severe disgrace seems to have been truly melancholy. One moment he was merry, and declared that he believed he should be able to ride safely through the tempest. When passing through the hall of his stately abode at York House, on his servants rising at his presence, he said, “Sit down, my friends; your rise has been my fall.” Upon one of his friends observing, “You must look around you,” he answered, “I look above me.” At other times his despair broke out in words that, although somewhat abject, were touching in the extreme. As he lay in his bed, his frame swoln with disease, he bade none of his
- 41. gentlemen come near him, nor take any notice of him, but altogether to forget him, not hereafter to speak of him, nor remember that there was such a being in the world. In this extremity of sorrow, Buckingham visited the fallen one. Already had Bacon written to him in the following terms:—“Your Lordship spoke of purgatory; I am now in it; but my mind is in a calm, for my fortune is not my felicity. I know I have clean hands, and a clean heart, and I hope a clean house for friends or servants. But Job himself, or whoever was the justest judge, by such hunting for matters against him as hath been used against me, may, for a time, seem foul, especially in a time when greatness is the mark, and accusation is the game. And if this be to be a Chancellor, I think, if the Great Seal lay upon Hounslow Heath, nobody would stoop to take it up.” What marvellous self-deception, or consummate duplicity! Owing to Buckingham’s mediation, a letter was given to the King, from Bacon; in this he again asserted that innocence to which he had solemnly renounced all claim before, in his submission to Parliament. “And now for the briberies and gifts wherewith I am charged; when the book of hearts shall be opened, I hope I shall not be found to have the troubled fountain of a corrupt heart, in a depraved habit of taking rewards to pervert justice, however I may be frail, and partake of the abuses of the times.”[361] On the nineteenth of March, Bacon addressed a letter to the House of Lords, contending, he said, that charges of bribery were brought against him; he prayed that they would not prejudge him for absence, having been ill, and preparing for a higher tribunal; that they would give him leisure to make his defence, which would be plain and ingenuous; also, that they would not be prejudiced against him by the number of petitions brought against a man who gives two hundred decrees and orders a year, exclusive of causes. He did not, he said, desire to make greatness a subterfuge for guiltiness. [362] Notwithstanding a message from James to Parliament, saying that he had refused the tender of the Great Seal from the Lord Chancellor, and hoped that they would give him a patient hearing,
- 42. “but to judge him as they thought fit, if matters prove foul,”[363] Bacon was suspended. He wrote a pitiful, specious letter to the House of Lords, in which he “rejoiced that in the midst of his profound afflictions the greatness of a magistrate was no shelter for crime.” His only justification, he said, was his non-concealment of his offences. He did not mean to reply to particular questions, nor cavil at witnesses, nor urge extenuations. He submitted to their judgment and mercy, but hoped that the loss of his soul might be sufficient expiation for his faults. He pleaded for compassion, by the example of the King’s clemency, and their own fellow feeling for him.[364] Until the first of May, 1621, Bacon remained Lord Chancellor of England. On the afternoon of that day, the Lord Treasurer, Viscount Mandeville, the Duke of Lennox, Lord Steward of the King’s Household, the Earl of Arundel, Earl Marshal of England, the Earl of Pembroke, and the Lord Chamberlain of the Household, repaired to York House. They were introduced into the presence of Bacon, and then told him “that they were sorry to visit him on such an occasion, and wished it had been better.” “No, my lords,” he replied, “the occasion is good.” He then delivered to them the Great Seal, saying, as he gave it up, “It was the King’s favour that gave me this, and it is my fault that he hath taken it away.” The seal was conveyed to Whitehall, and restored to the King, who exclaimed, on receiving it, “Now, by my soul, I am pained at my heart where to bestow this; for, as for my lawyers, they are all knaves.”[365] But Buckingham had provided against this difficulty, and the high office which Bacon had so greatly abused was bestowed upon Williams, Bishop of Lincoln, who was now the chief adviser of the Marquis, and to whose counsels much that had been done was attributed. The choice of Williams, for this high office, reflected no discredit upon Buckingham. Bishop Goodman terms this prelate “a man of as great wit and understanding as ever I knew any man.” “And truly,” he adds, endeavouring to rebut Weldon’s charge of a mean birth, “he was as well-descended and had as good kindred as any man in North Wales, none beyond him. He had a very quick apprehension, and for the discharge of the Lord Keeper’s Office, he was never taxed with any insufficiency. I have heard him make his reports in
- 43. the Lord’s House of Parliament, and answer such petitions, that in truth we did wonderfully commend him.”[366] To these essentials Williams added the popular qualities of hospitality and liberality; in this respect he resembled Laud. “There was not a man in England,” says Bishop Goodman, “that kept a more orderly house than Laud did, or bred up his servants better. But I will join these two celebrities together for the great hospitality which they kept, inviting and entertaining strangers.” With regard to liberality, the erection of St. John’s College, Cambridge, the foundation there of several scholarships and fellowships, the library at Westminster, the library at Lincoln, the repairs of Westminster Abbey, and the care which Williams took, even when he was Lord Keeper, of the young scholars at Westminster, sufficiently attest his great and salutary views. Whilst he was Proctor at Cambridge, he conducted a magnificent entertainment, given to the Lord Chancellor Egerton, and to the Spanish ambassadors, on which occasion Egerton told him that he “was fit to serve a king,” and afterwards introduced him at court.[367] The chief circumstance that brought Williams into notice was his figuring at Cambridge in a disputation, before Prince Charles, in 1612-13,[368] when he was made a Bachelor of Divinity by special grace, in order that he might become a disputant in the Theological Controversy.[369] Still, great subserviency was expected even from the Lord Keeper in those days of despotic rule. The industrious letter writer, John Chamberlain, who supplies us with all the gossip and news which, in those days, had no outlet in the public press, writes of this new appointment in these terms:— “The King has made the Dean of Westminster Lord Keeper for a year and a half; if he behave well, he is to retain office for a year and a half longer, and then to surrender it: he is to consult one of the Chief Justices in all cases of importance.”[370] He quietly adds, immediately afterwards, that the Bishop of Bangor had been sent to the Fleet for disputing “malapertly” with the King on the Sabbath; and that Dr. Price had shared the same punishment for his sermon at Oatlands. The “Prevaricator” of Cambridge was expelled the University for saying, at a banquet that
- 44. he gave, that he would have all sorts of instruments except Gondomar’s pipe.[371] The Lord Keeper’s “good behaviour,” therefore, meant an absolute subjection of reason and understanding; and, more especially, an entire adherence to that line of politics which might happen to be agreeable at the time to the King. The Great Seal, when it had been fetched from the miserable Bacon, was delivered by the King, in presence of the Prince and the Privy Council, to Williams, and was received with a short speech, “marvelling at His Majesty’s benignity,” and promising to be pastor of the sheep. In his first speech in the Court of Chancery, the Lord Keeper vindicated the principle on which the King had determined to fill up the post with one who was not a lawyer.[372] A few months before Buckingham, who, as “Steward of the City and College of Westminster,” was patron of the Deanery, had made the young disputant Dean of Westminster. Williams, nevertheless, abstained from paying any court to the Favourite; his pride and honesty kept him aloof. “For he had observed,” says Bishop Hacket, “that the Marquis was very apt suddenly to look cloudy upon his creatures, as if he had raised them up on purpose to cast them down.” One day, however, whilst the Dean was attending upon King James, in the absence of the Marquis, the Monarch suddenly inquired, without any relation to the previous discourse, “when he was at Buckingham?” “Sir,” replied Williams, “I have had no business to go to his lordship.” “But,” rejoined the King, “you must go to him about my business,” and Williams accordingly sought an interview with the Marquis. The Favourite and the Dean were thus brought into contact, and the result was favourable to both. To Buckingham it procured an able and, for the time, a zealous friend, to whom he owed the great service which Williams afterwards performed in converting Lady Katherine Manners from Popery; and Williams obtained, for his part, a munificent and deserving patron. A different version of the causes of Williams’s elevation was given by a scandalous historian. According to Sir Anthony Weldon, it was owing to the hopes which the Countess of Buckingham entertained of becoming, in her third nuptials, the wife of Williams, who is said to have “thought otherwise of that marriage when he was Lord Keeper
- 45. Williams, than he had done as Dean of Westminster,”[373] “which,” he adds, “was the cause of his downfall.” But this report was wholly without foundation. “Williams was generally beloved by his neighbours,” says Bishop Goodman, “and for that report, that he should be great with Buckingham’s mother, it is an idle, foolish report, without any colour of truth.”[374] His appointment as Lord Keeper gave, however, great offence to the members of the bar. It was loudly resented that the highest post in the law should be bestowed upon a doctor of divinity; and this step was, it was supposed, preparatory to filling all the courts of judicature with churchmen. Williams, nevertheless, proved himself to be admirably adapted for the office. He had already gained general confidence by persuading the King to suffer Parliament to sit, and to go on, in opposition to those who, being afraid of exposure, had endeavoured to prejudice Buckingham and his royal master against that assembly. [375] As a chancellor, he was acknowledged, even by the most distrustful, to be a faithful counsellor; and by the friendship and instruction of the Lord Chancellor, Egerton, to whom he had been domestic chaplain, he had been prepared for the great duties of his legal office. Egerton, on his death, had addressed to Williams these words:—“If you want money, I will leave you such a legacy as shall furnish you to begin the world like a gentleman. I know,” he added, “you are an expert workmen. Take these tools to broach with: they are the best I have.” He then gave him some books and papers, which he had written with his own hand, being directions concerning the regulation of the High Court of Parliament, the Court of Chancery, and the Star Chamber, for the dying Chancellor foresaw that his chaplain might, in the course of his career, require such materials.[376] The promotion of Williams involved very important consequences to the English Church. It was by his instrumentality that Bishop Laud was first brought forward at the Court of James. Williams foresaw the rise of that eminent and unfortunate man, but few persons could have predicted his fall. An accidental circumstance drew upon Laud the attention which his learning, his zeal, and his ardent piety, tainted as it was by
- 46. bigotry, might not have procured him. Bishops, and even archbishops, in those days, were, as we have seen, by no means restricted from the diversions of the hunting-field, nor even, if occasion occurred, from martial exploits. Archbishop Abbot, among the rest, had been a jovial huntsman. The practice was, it is true, forbidden by the canons of the church, but those had not been admitted by the law of the land. There was a high and violent party in the church, who were eager that Abbot should be deprived of his ecclesiastical dignities, on account of the accident in which he shot a keeper, a mishap which the worst construction could only render into justifiable homicide. Laud was amongst the most vehement of these, and his views of the case were so rigid, that he did not consider the orders which Archbishop Abbot conferred afterwards to be valid. There were others who judged differently, and amongst the rest, the justly celebrated Lancelot Andrews, who maintained that since Bishop Juxon was famous for breeding the best dogs in England, and was yet worthy to be promoted to a see, Abbot was excusable. But the resistance of Laud was agreeable to Buckingham, who already had constituted himself his patron. By his influence, Williams was induced to get Laud made Bishop of St. David’s, and Laud afterwards acknowledged that and other obligations by exclaiming, “My life will be too short to repay his Lordship’s goodness.” Yet he lived to change his opinion. The rise of Laud at Court may be traced by distinct, steps. In 1621-2, we find him preaching at Court, on the day of the King’s accession,[377] and “commanded to print.”[378] Shortly afterwards the King sent to Laud, to converse with him about the Countess of Buckingham, who was wavering on the subject of her faith. Several interviews succeeded, and in consequence, it may be presumed, of Laud’s exertions in that cause, he became chaplain to the Marquis of Buckingham. For a time, his efforts at conversion appear to have been crowned with success. The Countess consented to receive the sacrament in the King’s chapel, and received a present, according to common report, of 2,000l. for her conformity.[379] Sometimes religious discussions took place before His Majesty, and on one occasion, the answer of Laud to the nine articles, delivered in a book
- 47. from Fisher, the Jesuit, was read and argued upon at Windsor, in the presence of James, his son, Buckingham, his mother, and his lady. These endeavours proved futile; the Countess became eventually confirmed in the Church of Rome, and retreated to her house at Goadby, to enjoy the exercise of her persuasion, undisturbed by the observations of the world. Hitherto, she had been one of the most brilliant leaders of fashion; her retirement from the Court was therefore the theme of much remark. Her compliance with the King’s wishes in receiving the Holy Communion was said to have been prompted by her dread of banishment from that sphere in which she had figured.[380] It was during the following year that she relapsed to Popery, and after she was, as Mr. Chamberlain declared, sent from Court, either on that account, or perhaps on account of a quarrel with her daughter-in-law.[381] Whatsoever may have been the reason for the retirement of this ambitious woman, one may easily imagine with what mingled emotions of chagrin and triumph she returned to the scene of her early married life; her sons, already great, were ennobled, and influential; her title and fortune formed a striking contrast between the all-powerful mother of a royal favourite, and the lowly serving maid in the household of an obscure Leicestershire country gentleman; yet there were, as it so appears, clouds overshadowing even the brightness of her destiny, and darkening, eventually, the close of her singularly prosperous career.
- 48. CHAPTER VII. THE SPANISH TREATY—NEGOTIATIONS BETWEEN THE DUKE OF LERMA AND LORD DIGBY—THE INFANTA DESCRIBED BY LORD DIGBY—HER GREAT BEAUTY, PIETY, AND SWEETNESS—THE DESCRIPTION OF HER BY TOBY MATHEW—SHE IS DISPOSED TO RECEIVE CHARLES’S ADDRESSES—GONDOMAR— ATTENTIONS SHOWN TO HIM IN ENGLAND—ELY HOUSE ALLOTTED FOR HIS RECEPTION—JEALOUSY OF THE PROTESTANTS AT THE FAVOUR SHOWN HIM—FIRST NOTION OF CHARLES’S JOURNEY TO SPAIN SUGGESTED BY BUCKINGHAM—HIS ARGUMENTS IN FAVOUR OF IT—OBSTACLES TO THE PRINCE’S MARRIAGE WITH THE INFANTA— BUCKINGHAM’S DEBTS AND DIFFICULTIES—INTERVIEW BETWEEN GONDOMAR AND THE DUKE OF LENNOX—JOURNEY OF CHARLES AND BUCKINGHAM INTO SPAIN—THEY STOP IN PARIS—LOUIS XIII.—ANNE OF AUSTRIA—HENRIETTA MARIA— THEY PROCEED TO MADRID—RECEPTION THERE—ENTRANCE IN STATE INTO THAT CITY—COUNTESS OF PHILIP IV.— FESTIVITIES IN HONOUR OF THE PRINCE—THE KING’S LETTERS TO HIM. CHAPTER VII. 1622. In the midst of all the difficulties and differences of opinion which embarrassed the question of assisting the Palatinate, or of leaving the darling of her country, Elizabeth of Bohemia, to her fate, that
- 49. cherished project, known at the time as the Spanish treaty, was brought under consideration. Little more than two years had elapsed after the death of James’s first-born, Prince Henry,[382] when the Duke of Lerma, the minister of Philip the Third of Spain, opened a negotiation with Digby, then ambassador at Madrid, the object of which was to arrange a marriage between Prince Charles and Donna Maria. This princess was the sister of Philip the Fourth of Spain, and her elder sister being married, was styled the Infanta. In June, 1622, Charles wrote to Lord Digby, desiring to hear speedily upon the subject which the young prince had nearest his heart—whether the King of Spain were really affected to the marriage or not, and intended to proceed in it; in which case, Digby’s instructions were to perfect all the capitulations, and to agree that the journey of the Infanta to England should take place during the ensuing spring.[383] Lord Digby, as he now informed Charles, had first availed himself of all the secret means he could devise, of discovering the wishes of his Spanish Majesty; and on conversing with his ministers afterwards, had received from them every possible encouragement. In the long and interesting letter in which he replied to the young Prince’s inquiries, Digby described an interview with the Infanta, to whom he begged to address himself in the name of her young and royal suitor, and to deliver to her a message. The King gave him permission to see the Infanta, and with his own lips to enter on the subject; Digby having represented to that Monarch, that Charles, being now twenty-one years of age, was desirous of bringing matters to a conclusion, and that His Majesty, King James, having but one son, was anxious “not to delay longer the bestowing of him.” The King of Spain, in return, assured his British Majesty that there was no less affection to the match in him, than there had been in his father. “I can frame,” writes Digby to the Prince, “no opinion but upon these exterior things, and men that do negotiate with great princes must rely upon the honour and truth of their words and propositions, especially in a case of this nature.”[384] Much was expected from the return of Count Gondomar from England to
- 50. Spain; his coming was, as Digby declared, to be of great use, “for he holds,” adds that nobleman, “great credit here, and will be able to clear away all difficulties, being extremely affectionate to the business.” Gondomar, it appears, had then already landed at Bayonne. Digby next expatiated at length upon the perfection of the Infanta. This princess appears to have presented a rare instance of great personal attraction, combined with sweetness of disposition, sensibility, and piety. That she was not eventually united to Charles must, in spite of the calculations of politicians, ever be a subject of regret. Her good sense might have acted beneficially upon the well- intentioned but mistaken Monarch, who was fatally swayed by the counsels of Henrietta Maria. Lord Digby, experienced in courts, thus expressed himself with regard to Donna Maria. “For the person of the Infanta, this much:—I will presume to say unto your highness, that I have seen many ladies attending when I had my audience with the Queen and Infanta, but she is by much the handsomest young lady I saw since I came into Spain; and for her goodness and sweetness of her disposition, she is by the whole Court generally commended.” In subsequent letters, Lord Digby was still more explicit, although he knew, he said, that expectations generally exceed reality; yet should the Prince, on seeing the Infanta, not “judge her to be a beautiful and dainty lady, he shall be single in his opinions and from all who have ever seen her.[385] ” These praises of Lord Digby’s are borne out by other testimonies; that, more especially, of Toby Mathew, who followed the Prince into Spain, and who calls the Infanta, then in her eighteenth year, as “fair in all perfection;” her face without one “ill feature,” presenting that contour which “shews her to be highly born.” The expression of her countenance peculiarly sweet; and her figure, concealed as it was by the close ruffs and cuffs then worn by the Spanish ladies, was declared to be perfect; her head was well set upon her neck; “and so,” adds the minute observer, “are her hands to her arms; and they
- 51. say that before she is dressed, she is incomparably better than after.”[386] Lord Digby protested also to Charles that his future bride, as she was then esteemed, had “the fairest hand that he had ever seen, that she was very straight and well-bodied, and a likely lady to make the Prince happy.” This portraiture was calculated to increase the ardour of the thoughtful and enthusiastic Charles; whilst the character drawn of the Infanta tended to raise the sentiment of admiration into one of respect. Brought up, as Lord Digby relates, with great care, and in retirement, there might be more gravity and reserve than were usual in English ladies, in her deportment; but this was a “fault easy mended.” Having asked every possible question of her childhood and youth, the ambassador protested that “never heard he so much good of any one as of the Infanta.” To this testimony may be again added that of Toby Mathew, who portrays her so free from pride and worldliness, “that she seemed to shine from her soul through her body;” the beauty of her mind very far exceeding that of her person. Everyday this young Princess passed in prayer three or four hours, and then occupied herself in making something which might be sold for the benefit of the sick and wounded in the hospitals, or busied herself in drawing lint out of linen for their use. She spent, in her charities, a hundred pounds a month, appropriating what was allowed her for recreation to these good deeds. Each returning Wednesday and Saturday found her in the confessional, or communicating, “for she carrieth,” relates Toby Mathew, “in particular, a most tender devotion to the Blessed Sacrament, and the Immaculate Conception of our Blessed Lady.” This deep sense of her responsibilities, this earnest piety, alarmed the English Puritans, who forgot that whilst no one was more steadfast to her faith than Katharine of Arragon, there existed not a more tolerant being, as far as we have the means of judging, nor sat upon the throne of the Queen’s-Consort of England, one more beloved by all sects and classes of the people than that ill-used and ill-fated foreigner. They remembered, perhaps, that whilst the Romish persuasion acted
- 52. benignantly on her mind, on that of her daughter it engendered bigotry, and caused persecution. Professing this earnest piety, Donna Maria appears also to have been free from the imprudence of giddy coquetry, to which her sister, Anne of Austria, was prone. “She was of few words, but free and affable with her ladies,” and though at first sight she gave no indications of quickness of mind, those who knew her well respected her judgment, while they admired that freedom from personal vanity, so rare in the young and flattered. “Of her person, and beauty, and dressing,” writes Toby Mathew, “she is careless, and takes what they bring her without much ado.” Her courage and calmness under trying circumstances were also commended—the annalist thought it worth while to specify that “thunder and lightning affrighted her not,” “and when, at Aranjuez, the Queen had made a public entertainment for the King, and the scaffolding fell, and boughs fell in and caught fire, and all the company fled, Donna Maria remained calm and collected, only calling for the Condé di Olivarez to keep her from the crushing of the people: retiring at her usual pace, without any sign of agitation.” This happened when she was only sixteen years of age. Between the Infanta and her royal brother, Philip IV., the greatest affection subsisted. Not a morning passed that he did not visit her in her apartments, and wait whilst she prepared to go abroad. Yet, in spite of this partiality, she made a point of never interfering in public business. In one respect she resembled Katharine of Arragon; although deeply sensible of any unkindness, she was one who would never expostulate with the unkind, but grieved in secret. Here was true heroism: the power to suffer, the wisdom to forbear: the greatness of mind, not, in family disputes, to challenge sympathy, is a quality of inestimable importance, both in private and public life. A portion only of the careful eulogium passed on the Infanta reached Charles, whilst he was as yet contemplating a journey to see the rare being upon whom his hopes of felicity were placed: but a description was sent by Digby of the interview which took place between him and the Infanta. “After I had secluded her from His Majesty,” wrote the ambassador, “I told her that I had likewise a
- 53. Welcome to our website – the perfect destination for book lovers and knowledge seekers. We believe that every book holds a new world, offering opportunities for learning, discovery, and personal growth. That’s why we are dedicated to bringing you a diverse collection of books, ranging from classic literature and specialized publications to self-development guides and children's books. More than just a book-buying platform, we strive to be a bridge connecting you with timeless cultural and intellectual values. With an elegant, user-friendly interface and a smart search system, you can quickly find the books that best suit your interests. Additionally, our special promotions and home delivery services help you save time and fully enjoy the joy of reading. Join us on a journey of knowledge exploration, passion nurturing, and personal growth every day! testbankdeal.com