The judicature of the court of Star Chamber appears to have originated in the exercise of a criminal and civil juris diction by the king's council, or by that section of it which Lord Hale calls the Concilium Ordinarium in order to dis tinguish it from the Privy Council, who were the deliberate advisers of the crown, (Hale's Jurisdiction of the Lord's House, chap. v.; Palgrave's Essay on the Origi nal Authority of the King's Council.) This exercise of jurisdiction by the king's council was considered as an encroach ment upon the common law, and being the subject of frequent complaint by the Commons, was greatly abridged by seve ral acts of parliament in the reign of Ed ward III. It was discouraged also by the common-law judges, although they were usually members of the council; and from the joint operation of these and some other causes the power of the Concilium Regis as a court of justice had materially declined previously to the reign of Henry VII., although, as Lord Hale observes, there remain " some straggling foot-steps of their proceedings" till near that time. The statute of the 3 Henry VII. c. 1, em powered the chancellor, treasurer, and keeper of the privy-seal, or any two of them, calling to them a bishop and tem poral lord of the council and the two chief justices, or two other justices in their absence (to whom the president of the council was added by mat. 21 Henry VIII. c. 20), upon bill or information ex hibited to the lord chancellor or any other, against any person for maintenance, giving of and retainers by inden tures or promises, or other embraceries, untrue demeanings of sheriffs in making panels and other untrue returns, for taking of money by juries, or for great riots or unlawful assemblies, to call the offenders before them and examine them, and pun ish them according to their demerits. The object and effect of this enactment are extremely doubtful ; but it is perhaps the best opinion that the court created by the 3 Henry VII. c. 1, was not the court of Star-Chamber ; that this court by stature fell into disuse after the middle of the reign of Henry VIII.; that the court of Star-Chamber was the old concilium or dinarium, against whose jurisdiction many statutes had been enacted from the time of Edward III., and that no part of the jurisdiction exercised by the Star-Cham ber could be maintained on the authority of the statute of Henry VII. At the beginning of the reign of Elisabeth, the court of Star-Chamber was unques tionably in full operation, in the form in which it was known in the succeeding reigns; and at this period, before it had degenerated into a mere engine of state, it was by no means destitute of utility. It was the only court in which great and powerful offenders had no means of set ting at defiance the administration of justice or corrupting its course. And during the reign of Elizabeth, when the jurisdiction of the Star-Chamber had reached its maturity, it seems, except in political cases, to have been administered with wisdom and discretion. (Palgrave's Essay on the King's Council, p. 105.) The proceedings in the Court of Star Chamber were by information, or bill and answer; interrogatories in writing were also exhibited to the defendant and witnesses, which were answered qn oath. The attorney-general had the power of exhibiting ex-officio informations ; as-had also the king's almoner to recover deo dands and goods of a felo•cle-se, which were supposed to go in support of the king's alms. In cases of confession by accused persons, the information and pro ceedings were oral ; and hence arose one of the most oppressive abuses of the court in political prosecutions. The proceed ing by written information and interro gatories was tedious and troublesome, often involving much nicety in pleading, and always a degree of preci sion in setting forth the accusation, which was embarrassing in a state prosecution. It was with a view to these difficulties that Lord Bacon discouraged the king from adopting this mode of proceeding in the matter of the pnrsuevants, saying that "the Star Chamber without confession was long seas." (Bacon's Works, vol. p. 872.) In political charges therefore the attorney-general derived a great ad vantage over the accused by proceeding are tenets or orally. The consequence was, that no pains were spared to procure confessions, and pressure of every kind, including torture, was unscrupulously applied. According to the laws of the court, no person could be orally charged unless he acknowledged his confession at the bar, "freely and voluntarily, without constraint." (Hudson's Treatise of the Court of But this check upon confessions improperly obtained seems to have been much neglected in practice during the later periods of the history of this court. Upon admissions of immaterial circumstance aggravated and distorted into confessions of guilt, the Earl of Northumberland was prose cuted ore terms, in the Star-Chamber, for being privy to the Gunpowder Plot, and was sentenced to pay a fine of 30,0001., and to be imprisoned for life • " but by what rule," says Hudson (doll. Arid. vol. ii. p. 63), " that sentence was, I know not, for it was ore terms, and yet not upon confession." And it frequently happened during the last century of the existence of the Star-Chamber, that enormous fines, imprisonments for life or during the king's pleasure, banishment, mutila tion, and every variety of punishment short of death were inflicted by a court composed of members of the king's cotur oil, upon a mere oral proceeding, without hearing the accused, without a written charge or record of any kind, and with out appeal.
The judges of the Court of Star Chamber were the lord chancellor or lord keeper, who presided, and when the voices were equal gave the casting vote, the lord treasurer, the lord privy seal, and the president of the council, who were members of the court, ex **do, In addition to these were associated, in early periods of the history of the court, any peers of the realm who chose to attend. According to Sir Thomaa Smith, the judges in his time were the " lord chancellor, the lord treasurer all the king's majesty's council, and the barons of this land." ( Commonwealth of England, b. iii. c. 5.) Hudson states that the number of attendant judges " in the reigns of Henry VII. and Henry VIII. have been well near to forty ; at some one time thirty ; in the reign of Queen Elizabeth often times, hut now (i. a in the time of James I.) much lessened, since the barons and earls, not being privy councillors, have forborne their attendance." lie further states, that "in the times of Henry VII. and Henry VIII. the court was most commonly fre quented by seven or eight bishops and prelates every sitting-day ;" and adds, "that in those times, the lines trenched not to the destruction of the offender's estate, and utter ruin of him and his pros perity, as now they do, but to his correc tion and amendment, the clergy's sons being of mercy." (Coll. Jurid. vol. p. 36.) The settled course during the latter part of the reign of Elizabeth and the reigns of James I. and Charles I., seems to have been to admit only such peers as judges of the Court as were members of the privy council.
The civil jurisdiction of the Star Chamber comprehended mercantile con troversies between English and foreign merchants, testamentary causes, and dif ferences between the heads and common alty of corporations, both lay and spiri tual. The court also disposed of the claims of the king's almoner to deodands, and also such claims as were made by subjects to deodands and catalla felo Rum (chattels of felons) by virtue of charters from the crown. The criminal jurisdiction of the court was very ex tensive. If the king chose to remit the capital punishment, the court had juris diction to punish as crimes even treason, murder, and felony. Under the com prehensive name of contempts of the king's authority, all offences against the state were included. Forgery, perjury, riots, maintenance, embracery, fraud, libels, conspiracy, and false accusation, misconduct by judges,justices of the peace, sheriffs, jurors, and other persons connected with the administration of justice, were all punishable in the Star Chamber.
It was also usual for the judges of assize, previously to their circuits, to repair to the Star-Chamber, and there to receive from the court directions respect ing the enforcement or restraint of penal laws. Numerous instances of this un warrantable interference with the admi nistration of the criminal law occur with reference to the statutes against recusants in the reigns of Elizabeth and James L A court of criminal judicature, coat posed of the immediate agents of the pre rogative, possessing a jurisdiction very extensive, and at the same time imper fectly defined, and authorized to inflict any amount of punishment short of death, must, even when best administered, have always been viewed with apprehension and distrust ; and accordingly in the earlier periods of its history we flail con stant remonstrances by the Commons against its encroachments. As civiliza tion, knowledge, and power increased among the people, the jurisdiction of the lords of the council became intolerable. A measure which was introduced into the House of Commons in the last parlia ment of Charles I., to limit and regulate the authority of this court, terminated in a proposal for its entire abolition, which was eventually adopted without opposition in both Houses. The statute 16 Car. I. c. 10, after reciting Magna Charts and several early statutes in support of the ordinary system of judicature by the common law, goes on to state that " the judges of the Star-Chamber had not kept themselves within the points limited by the statute 3 Henry VII., but had under taken to punish where no law warranted, and to make decrees having no such authority, and to inflict heavier punish ments than by any law was warranted ,• and that the proceedings, censures, and decrees of that court had by experience been found to be an intolerable burthen to the subjects, and the means to intro duce an arbitrary power and government." The statute then enacts, " that the said court called the Star-Chamber, and all jurisdiction, power, and authority belong ing unto or exercised in the same court, or by any of the judges, officers, or ministers thereof, should be clearly and absolutely dissolved, taken away, and determined ; and that all statutes giving suctjurisdiction should be 7ealed.