1829.3 and Liberty of the Press. 390 



nothing would satisfy some but cropped ears, slit noses, branded faces, 

 whipped backs, gagged mouths, dungeons, banishment to remote islands, 

 and external separation from Avife and children ; and then," he adds, 

 " began the English nation to lay to heart their slavish condition, if this 

 court continued in its greatness." And then, when the English nation 

 DID begin to lay to heart their slavish condition — well — and what then ? 

 How should we know ? We are not the only persons in his IVIajesty's 

 dominions who read liistory. 



But as we were remarking, the recollection of what we had read in 

 our college days being revived, we naturally turned to some of those 

 musty volumes whence the matter of our recollection had been derived ; 

 and amid many curious things which we there found, a few, in particular, 

 attracted our attention. These we shall here transcribe ; for we dare 

 say some of our readers, to whom the name of Star-Chamber is as familiar 

 as " household words," have never been at the trovible, or had the 

 opportunity, of exploring its proceedings. To such, we promise, that 

 what we are about to bring under their notice, will at least amuse, if it 

 do not instruct them. 



The Star-Chamber, it may be briefly premised, was a sort of fungus, or 

 excrescence, that first began to shew itself in a formidable shape about 

 the reign of Henry VII., though it was not till nearly a century after- 

 wards, that its pernicious qualities poisoned the very springs of public 

 and private security in these realms. It had no legitimate origin — no 

 recorded foundation — .in statute law or royal decree; but may be 

 regarded as the spontaneous gi'owth of that ambiguous faculty in the 

 croAvn, called prerogative, at a period when prerogative trampled alike 

 upon law and reason. The lord keeper (or lord chancellor, as we should 

 now call him) was the supreme judge of this court, whose members 

 consisted, besides, of dukes, marquisses, earls, barons, archbishops, and 

 prelates, councillors of state, judges, &c. In the reigns of Henry VII. 

 and Henry VIII. their number was forty ; in that of Elizabeth about 

 thirty, and in that of Charles I. seldom more than twenty-four. Some- 

 times the king himself presided, and then, he alone was competent to 

 pronounce sentence, the others merely giving their advice to his Majesty. 

 It is mentioned, for example, that our British Solomon, James I. " sat 

 in a chair of state, elevated above the table, for five continued days, in 

 the great case of the Countess of Exeter against Sir Thomas Lake ;" and 

 that he " pronounced sentence with more accurateness, eloquence, and 

 judgment, than any of his progenitors had done before him.^' But now 

 let us see what kind of sentences were sometimes pronounced in tliis 

 court, and for what kind of offences. 



" Anno 1631. Att. Reg. (or attorney general) versus Greenville. — The 

 defendant affirmed to one Taylor, that the Earl of Suffolk was a base 

 lord, and had dealt basely with him, and bid Taylor tell him so ; and 

 afterwards told one Brabant what he had said to Taylor. The defendant 

 was committed ; fined four thousand pounds, to make his submission 

 to the earl in this court, and to pay him (besides the above fine which 

 went to the king) fouk thousand pounds damages." 



When it is remembered what eight thousand pounds were, two hun- 

 dred years ago, it may easily be supposed that very few men could aflord 

 to indulge in the expensive amusement of calling an earl " a base lord." 

 The diflerence in the value of money, indeed, should be constantly borne 

 in mind with reference to the oppressive character of these penalties. 



