Lord Zouch, meantime, the former Warden of the Cinque Ports, was perfectly satisfied with the compensation of 500_l._ a year, secured on lands, and 1,000_l._ ready money, in lieu of his office.[312] Surely, if arrangements like these, completed without secrecy, and known to every gossip of the Court, be deemed corrupt and illegal, every minister of modern times might be liable to a similar imputation. Footnote 312: Inedited State Papers. Another charge was that Buckingham had procured titles of honours for his allies, and pensions to support them; had embezzled the King’s money, and obtained grants of Crown lands to an enormous value.[313] A list of his titles and offices proves, indeed, the blind and almost insane partiality which had placed the favourite on the pinnacle of power. Footnote 313: Brodie, vol. ii., p. 113. The statement of his possessions is equally amazing, more especially when we consider his origin and his early difficulties. Crown lands, to the value of 284,895_l._, had been allotted to the Duke, "besides the Forest of Layfield--the profit made out of the strangers’ goods--and the moiety of the customs in Ireland." And yet the Duke avowed before Parliament that his debts amounted to 100,000_l._,[314] and we find, as a sad confirmation of the charge, among the documents in the State Paper Office, a warrant of payment of 2,500_l._ to Sir William Russell, for interest of 30,000_l._ advanced to the Duke of Buckingham by his Majesty’s orders.[315] Even the money given him, it was justly alleged, was a small sum compared with that which the Duke had derived from other sources. “How then,” asked Mr. Sherland, one of the managers of the impeachment, “can we hope to satisfy his prodigality, if this be true? If false, how can we hope to satisfy his covetousness? And, therefore, your lordships need not wonder if the Commons desire, and that earnestly, to be delivered from such a grievance.” Footnote 314: Ibid, 123. Footnote 315: Date, March 6, 1625. Finally, the Duke was charged with having either intentionally, or unintentionally, accelerated the death of King James. The imprudent interference of Buckingham, under the influence of his mother, with the medical treatment of the King, was adduced as a proof of guilt. The absurdity of this charge, which was afterwards taken up with much bitterness by both parties in that time of violent discussion, seems to throw a doubt upon the whole impeachment.