Page images
PDF
EPUB
[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]

to have it allowed, with the addition of his own signature, on the
ground that his other counsel was afraid to sign it, lest he might
thereby incur the censure of the court. But he was denied this
privilege, and, for contempt in not filing his reply signed by both
his counsel, the information was taken pro confesso, and the court
proceeded to pass sentence upon him accordingly. It has been
the pride and glory of the profession in courts of common law,
that, with rare exceptions, counsel have been found willing and
bold enough to stand by a party charged with an offence, and to
sustain his rights, even against the insolence of power or the
exasperated passions of the populace, wherever the right of em-
ploying counsel has been recognized by law. Curran's memory is
indelibly associated with the bold and eloquent defence of the
Irish patriots, and the trial of the British soldiers for the part
they took in the so-called " Boston massacre," in 1770, is a
memorable instance of the power of argument and persuasion on
the part of legal counsel in successfully maintaining the cause
of justice against the clamor of the public and the passions of
a jury.

There, were, as has already been stated, counsel admitted to
practise in the Star Chamber, and without their aid, it would
seem from the cases reported, a party could not be heard even in
his own defence. But the seeming advantage which was thus
accorded to the accused, was, at times, more than neutralized by
the acts of intimidation by which the court suppressed every
thing like a free exercise of this privilege of counsel. Thus it is
stated that in Prynne's case, who was complained of in connec-
tion with two others, his counsel, Mr. Holt, prepared his answer,
but refused to sign it, "saying he had an express order to the
contrary." He did, however, sign the answer of one of the
parties accused, and, upon its being alleged that it was scan-
dalous," it was referred to the two Chief Justices, Brampton and
Finch, when Finch "reviled Holt exceedingly, and told him he
ought to have his gown pulled over his ears for drawing it,”
although, in fact, "it was only a confession or explanation of the
charge in the bill, and a recital of acts of Parliament."

66

This, however, was but in keeping with the general course of dealing of this court with any one who presumed to question their power, or throw obstacles in the way of accomplishing their purposes. Thus we have three instances reported of counsel

1

i

questioning the jurisdiction of this court, by insisting by way of demurrer, as it was called, that the matter upon which they were assuming to act was not within the subject-matter delegated to them by the act of Henry VII. One of these was the case of Mr. Plowden, whose age and standing probably sheltered him from any thing more than a refusal to consider the objection. In another, the counsel was pardoned on account of his youth and inexperience. But in the third, the Sergeant was sharply rebuked by the court for such a flagrant violation of the dignity of the court, as to question the extent of its power. The case of Fuller is still more remarkable. He was a bencher of Gray's Inn, and was employed to sue out a writ of habeas corpus to test the validity of a warrant from the High Commission court, by which two Puritans were imprisoned for refusing to take a certain oath. For this he was, at Bancroft's instigation, imprisoned by the Star Chamber, and lay in jail till his death. Whitelock, a barrister, and afterwards a judge, having given a private opinion to a client, that a certain commission issued by the crown was illegal, was brought before this court for contempt and slandering the king's prerogative, and was only let off upon making a humble submission.

Such, in general terms, were the constitution and powers of this famous court; and, when we come to examine its proceedings in particular cases, we shall find that they were such as might naturally be expected under a corrupt and despotic government, from judges acting directly under the eye of the monarch. But, before considering these, it is proper to say a few words upon the name of the court itself. A great deal has been written upon this subject, and writers are, to this day, divided upon the question. The more commonly received notion has been, what is probably true, that it took its name from the chamber in which its sittings were held, the ceiling of which, it is said, was ornamented with stars. Hence the name camera stellata. Blackstone, however, states that there were no stars remaining there in the time of Elizabeth. Others have found the origin of the term in the fact that, by a law prior to Edward I., the contracts of the Jews, called “starrs,” were deposited in the exchequer of the king, in Westminster, in chests or boxes, in the chamber or apartment in which this court used to assemble. Others trace it to the Saxon word steran, to steer or rule, "as doth the pilot," in

the words of Coke, "because this court doth steer and govern the ship of the commonwealth." Others still applied the term because the chamber was full of windows; and the kind of crimes, stellianata, of which the court had cognizance, supplied to others the etymology of the name.

There is nothing in these speculations to violate probabilities or offend good taste. But the awe with which some writers contemplated this court, and the base and truckling spirit with which they treat even of its name, can hardly be read, in the light of history, without positive disgust. Hudson, of Gray's Inn, who was a practitioner in this court, wrote quite an extended treatise upon its powers and duties, in the time of James I. In speculating upon its name, he remarks, in language which a school-boy now would know better than to adopt : "Stars have no light but what is cast upon them from the sun by reflection, being his representative body." "So in the presence of his great majesty, the which is the sun of honor and glory, the shining of those stars is put out, they not having any power to pronounce any sentence in this court, for the judgment is the king's only; but, by way of advice, they deliver their opinions, which his wisdom alloweth or disalloweth, increaseth or moderateth, at his royal pleasure." And he gives an instance, by the way of illustration of this, where the king, "during the dignity of that court, sat five continual days in a chair of state elevated above. the table, about which his lords sat, and after that long and patient hearing, and the opinions, particularly given by his great council, he pronounced a sentence more accurately eloquent, judiciously grave, and honorably just, to the satisfaction of all hearers and all the lovers of justice, than all the records extant in this kingdom can declare to have been, at any former time, by any of his royal progenitors."

[ocr errors]

The fulsome flattery of this fanciful etymology of the name of this court is quite equalled by another writer, whose work, West's Symboleography, was published in the same reign, about the time of the settlement of this court: "The dignity of this court is such and so great as no other kingdom hath ever created the like, being without pair or equal." He refers to the hours of the day when its sittings are held, ordinarily from nine to eleven o'clock, and speaks also of the windows and stars in the roof as giving rise to its name, and then adds: "Yet, emble

matically, they resemble the body of the judges of that court, consisting of persons of great eminence, being the principal men of the two great estates of this kingdom, the lords spiritual and temporal, the head of which bodie is our sovereign lord the king, who, when he pleaseth, sitteth there in his own person. But in his absence these judges doe censure and determine all causes there depending, by majority of voices, deriving their light and authority from his majesty, as the stars from the sun." Nonsense like this might be tolerated from men who knew no better, or had had their common sense blinded by the use of language by others. But this cannot be said of Lord Coke, who knew how, sometimes, to lay aside his sycophancy, though he did not at others hesitate, as in the case of Sir Walter Raleigh, to play the bully and the blackguard in office, if obsequiousness to royalty dictated such a rôle. His language is: "It is the most honorable court, our parliament excepted, there is in the Christian world, both in respect of the judges of the court and of the honorable proceeding according to their jurisdiction, and the ancient and just order of the court." "And it is truly said, 'Curia cameræ stellatæ, si vetustatem spectemus, est antiquissima, si dignitatem honoratissima.' This court, the right institution and ancient orders thereof being observed, doth keep all England in quiet."

[ocr errors]

The discretionary power of this court, in the matter of punishment, made it, moreover, a most dreadful engine of iniquity and cruel injustice in the hands of unscrupulous men. Instances of this disgrace the history of its administration, especially under the first two Stuarts, James I. and Charles I. It could not, it is true, inflict capital punishments, but it could do worse, by robbing, maiming, torturing, and disgracing its victims. Thus it is stated, in general terms, by the writer already quoted, "In this sentence the court doth punish the offender and relieveth the oppressed. The punishment is by fine, imprisonment, loss of ears, or nailing to the pillory, slitting the nose, branding the forehead, whipping of late days, wearing of papers in public places, or any punishment but death." "Loss of ears was inflicted upon perjured persons, infamous libellers, scandalors of the State, and such like." Branding in the forehead and slitting of the nose was a punishment inflicted upon forgers of false deeds, conspirators to take away the life of innocents, false

66

[ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors]

scandal upon the judges and first personages of the realm." "Wearing papers hath been in all ages, and before the statute of 5 Elizabeth was, the usual punishment of perjury, but since hath been used as a punishment for oppressors and great deceits." "Sometimes the punishment is, by the wisdom of the court, invented in some new manner, for new offences, as for Trask, who raised Judaism up from death, and forbade the eating of swine's flesh. He was sentenced to be fed with swine's flesh when he was in prison." "And so tender the court is of upholding the honor of the sentence, as they will punish those which speak against it with severity, as they did Finch and Partridge for certifying his majesty upon a petition matter which crossed the sentence of the court in the case of one Herlakenden." And it is gravely stated by Barrington, that, during the reign of Charles I., the fines inflicted by this court were so enormous, that the audience gathered around the court-room at three o'clock in the morning, in order to secure places to hear the proceedings, as men gather around the table where play is the deepest.

Some of these sentences are collected in Hume's and Hallam's histories, and full reports of the proceedings of the court may be found in the volumes of State Trials, with which many besides lawyers are familiar. We select a few for purposes of illustration. Sir David Foulis was fined £5,000, chiefly because he had dissuaded a friend from compounding with the commissioners of knighthood. Sir Anthony Roper was fined £4,000 for violating a law made in the time of Henry VII., against converting arable land to pasture, and this as late as the time of Charles I. Morley, for reviling, challenging, and striking Sir George Theobald, one of the king's servants, in the court of Whitehall, was fined £10,000. A citizen, when shown a swan in the crest of a man of quality, saying he did not trouble himself about that goose, was fined by this court for the offence, and reduced to beggary. Richard Grenville said of the Earl of Suffolk, with whom he had. had difficulty, that he was "a base lord," and was condemned to pay a fine of £8,000 for such a slander. Ray, for exporting some fuller's-earth, was set in the pillory and fined £2,000. One of the most remarkable cases was that of Bishop Williams, who had been lord-keeper of the seal, a popular prelate, a man of learning and spirit, and, at one time, a special favorite of James. While

« PreviousContinue »