reign was swept away only sixteen years after, with universal consent, without a struggle, or a hope, or a regret. My answer is, that a King who was not otherwise strong enough to defy his people attempted to do it by means of the Star Chamber, and so provoked them to take it away from him. The impossibility of obtaining supplies from Parliament except upon conditions to which he could not submit had driven Charles to extraordinary ways of raising money.

"For the better support of these extraordinary ways, and to protect the agents and instruments who must be employed in them, and to discountenance and suppress all bold inquirers and opposers, the Council-Table and Star-Chamber enlarge their jurisdictions to a vast extent, holding (as Thucydides said of the Athenians) for honourable that which pleased and for just that which profited.' And being the same persons in several rooms, grew both courts of law to determine right, and courts of revenue to bring money into the Treasury: the Council-Table by proclamations enjoining to the people what was not enjoined by the law, and prohibiting that which was not prohibited: and the Star-Chamber censuring the breach and disobedience to those proclamations by very great fines and imprisonment; so that any disrespect to any acts of state or to the persons of statesmen was in no time more penal, and those foundations of right by which men valued their security, to the apprehension and understanding of wise men, never more in danger to be destroyed.”1

And again :

"The exorbitances of this court had been such (as hath been before touched) that there were very few persons of quality who had not suffered or been perplexed by the weight or fear of those censures and judgments. For having extended their jurisdiction from riots, perjuries, and the most notorious misdemeanours to an asserting all proclamations and orders of state; to the vindicating illegal commissions, and grants of monopolies (all which were the chief groundworks of their late proceedings) no man could hope to be longer free from the inquisition of that Court than he resolved to submit to those and the like extraordinary courses. And therefore there was an entire inclination to limit and regulate the proceedings of that Court: to which purpose a bill was brought in," etc.

He then relates how a bill which was intended for the regulation of the Court grew by a kind of accident into a bill for its total abolition, was passed by the Commons contrary to all precedent upon a single reading without being committed, met with no opposition in the House of Lords, and so received the Royal Assent;and concludes the story in words which show that as to the value of 2 Id. book iii. p. 400,

1 Clarendon, book i. p. 122.

1619-20.] CLARENDON ON ABOLITION OF STAR CHAMBER. 95

the institution when placed under proper regulation, he entirely agreed with Coke and Bacon.

"Thus fell that high Court, a great branch of the Prerogative; having rather been extended and confirmed than founded by that Statute of the tenth year of K. Henry VII.. for no doubt it had both a being and a jurisdiction before that time, though vulgarly it received date from thence; and whilst it was gravely and moderately governed, was an excellent expedient to preserve the dignity of the King, the honour of his Council, and the peace and security of the kingdom. But the taking it away was an act very popular; which it may be was not then more politic than the reviving it may be thought hereafter, when the present distempers shall be expired."2

If the abuses which were felt to be so intolerable and thought to be so incorrigible arose (as it seems they did) from the undue extension of the jurisdiction of the Court, it must have been for want of public rules defining its jurisdiction and regulating its procedure. And this defect Bacon seems to have observed already, and designed to remedy. For a set of "rules for the Star Chamber" which were to constitute a "durable pillar for the justice of this kingdom in perpetuity" can hardly have had any other object. In the beginning of June 1620, when there was no outcry against the Court, he wrote to Buckingham as follows:

TO THE MARQUIS OF BUCKINGHAM. 4

My very good Lord,

3

I went to Kew for pleasure, but I met with pain. But neither pleasure nor pain can withdraw my mind from thinking of his Majesty's service. And because his Majesty shall see how I was occupied at Kew, I send him these papers of Rules for the

1 So printed. It should evidently be "third."

Clarendon, book iii. p. 401.

There were some symptoms however about this time of popular murmur against the extent of jurisdiction assumed; and it pointed to the very abuse which brought the Court to an untimely end. "Indeed," says Chamberlain, writing on the 8th of July 1620, "the world is now much terrified with the StarChamber, there being not so little an offence against any proclamation but is liable and subject to the censure of that court." He does not however mention any particular case in which its power seems to have been abused; and the question whether an offence against a proclamation was justly censurable depends upon the question whether it was a proclamation of the law, or only of the King's pleasure. But the existence of the murmur may have suggested to Bacon the application of the remedy.

4 Gibson Papers, vol. viii. fo. 126. Copy. No fly-leaf. Indorsed, "To La Marq Buck. concerning orders and rules of the Star-Chamber. Sent by Mr. Huggans."

Star-Chamber; wherein his Majesty shall erect one of the noblest and durablest pillars for the justice of this kingdom in perpetuity that can be; after by his own wisdom and the advice. of his Lords he shall have revised them, and established them. The manner and circumstances I refer to my attending his Majesty. The rules are not all set down, but I will do the rest within two or three days. I ever remain

Your Lordship's most obliged friend,
and faithful servant,

FR. VERULAM, Canc.

9 June 1620.

Whatever the form of the enclosed Rules may have been, the principles to which they were to give effect would no doubt be those which are laid down in the aphorisms concerning Censorian Courts of which (as the best supply of the lost paper which I can offer) I subjoin a translation.

APHORISM 32.

Let there be Courts and jurisdictions which may decide according to the judgment and discretion of a good man, in cases where the rule of law fails. For the law (as has been said before) cannot be framed to meet all cases; but is adapted to such as generally occur. But Time, as was said of old, is the wisest of things, and the author and inventor every day of new cases.

APHORISM 33.

New cases occur both in criminal and civil causes; in criminal, requiring punishment; in civil, requiring relief. The Courts which deal with the former we call Censorian; those which deal with the latter Prætorian.

APHORISM 34.

Let the Censorian Courts have jurisdiction and power not only to punish new offences, but also to increase the punishments prescribed by the law for old offences, where the cases are heinous and enormous. For what is enormous is in a manner

new.

1619-20.] JURISDICTION OF PRÆTORIAN COURTS.

APHORISM 35.

97

Let the Prætorian Courts in like manner have power as well to give relief against the rigour of the law, as to supply the defect of the law. For if a remedy be due to one whom the law has forgotten, much more to one whom it has wounded.

APHORISM 36.

Let these Censorian and Prætorian Courts confine themselves to cases enormous and extraordinary; and not encroach upon the ordinary jurisdictions: lest the thing tend rather to supplant the law than to supply it.

APHORISM 37.

Let these jurisdictions reside in the Supreme Courts only, and not be communicated to the Inferior. For the power to supply, extend, or moderate laws, comes very near to the power of making laws.

APHORISM 38.

But let not these Courts be committed to a single person; but consist of several. And let their decrees not go forth in silence; but let the Judges state their reasons, and that openly before the bystanders; so that the authority, which in respect of power is free, may yet be circumscribed in respect of fame and opinion.

APHORISM 39.

Let them not have authority to shed blood; nor let any capital sentence be pronounced by any court whatever except according to a law known and certain. God himself denounced death before he inflicted it: and no man ought to be deprived of his life, who did not know beforehand that he was sinning against his life.

APHORISM 40.

In the Censorian Courts let there be a third vote allowed; that is, that the judges be not obliged either to acquit or condemn, but may likewise declare the fact not proven. And let there be power to inflict not a penalty only, but also a note or

VOL. VII.

H

mark; such, I mean, as shall not extend to actual punishment, but may end either in admonition only, or in a light disgrace,— punishing the offender as it were with a blush.

APHORISM 41.

In the Censorian Courts let the inchoating and middle acts towards all great crimes be punished, though the fact be not accomplished. For it is as well the part of severity to punish the beginnings of crimes, as of mercy to prevent (by punishing the middle acts) the perpetration of them. 1

The business which was next coming before the Star Chamber was one belonging to its proper jurisdiction, as then understood. A new charter had been granted to the City of London, which contained some objectionable clauses, and it was found upon inquiry that they had been inserted by the Attorney-General without sufficient warrant. The Attorney-General being the officer upon whom the King depended for a knowledge of the effect of what he sigred, an inaccurate or negligent report in such a case was reckoned a grave delinquency. It seems that he was ready to confess the error and to make submission in writing, and that the City was also willing to surrender its patent. Nor was it supposed to be the King's intention to visit the error with any great severity. But it was considered that the public and formal hearing before the Court could not be dispensed with; the example, and the satisfaction of the King's honour, requiring it. This we learn from the letter from the Council which follows. The particulars of the charge will appear presently in the report of the trial, and therefore it is not necessary to say more here.

TO THE KING, 2.

May it please your most excellent Majesty,

According to your commandment we met together yesterday at Whitehall, and there consulted what course were fittest to be taken now in this business of your Majesty's Attorney. General, both for the satisfying your own honour, as also for calling in the late exorbitant charter of the city; which are the

1 Works, vol. i. p. 810.

2 Stephens's first collection, p. 248. From the original. Second collection, p. 109.