The Court of Star Chamber.
33i
THE COURT OF STAR CHAMBER. By John D. Lindsay. V. THE method of compelling the attend ance of defendants before the court is thus described in a contemporaneous work : — "And those that be sued there bee called by a Subpoina to appear before the King and his Councell, at a day mentioned in the writ. And the which day if hee make default, then upon oath taken that the partie was served with the Subpoena, there shall issue out an Attachment, upon the which if he be taken and doe appeare, hee shall bee committed to the Fleet, by the discretion of the court. If hee bee not taken, nor yeeld hims"elfe, there shall then issue out a Proclamation of Rebellion, with Commandment to apprehend him, and to have his body before the King, and his Councell, at the day set downe in the writ. At the which if he appeare hee shall be committed to the Fleet. But if he appeare gratis upon the Proclamation, or upon the Attachment, the contempt will not bee so heinous, if hee have any reasonable excuse. And upon his default o» appearance upon the Proclamation, there shall goe out an Commission of Rebellion, which appeareth hereafter in this Treatise. "Note that if the partie doe gratis yeeld himselfe upon Proclamation hee shall bee bound by obligation to the King before the Master of the Office of this court, to appeare at everie Session of the Lords untill hee bee discharged." ' Its procedure was founded upon an in formation, generally drawn up by the At torney-General, in which the charge was set forth after the style of a bill in chan cery. The defendant put in his answer also in the form of an answer in chancery. He might be examined upon interroga tories, and was liable to be required to take 'The Court of Starre-Chamber, and matters before the King's Council, London, 1641.
what was called the ex-officio oath. This was an oath in use in the ecclesiastical courts, by which the person who took it swore to make true answer to all such matters as should be demanded of him. This oath was always held in great popular disfavor, and its unpopularity is well shown in the Lilburn case referred to hereafter. The evidence of witnesses was given upon affidavit. When the case was ripe for hearing it came on for argument much in the way in which Equity cases are argued in these days. The parties appeared by counsel; the information, answer and depositions were read and commented upon; and fin ally each member of the court pronounced his opinion and gave his judgment separ ately. Queen Elizabeth made great use of the Star Chamber as an instrument of royal vengeance. 1 On one occasion Arthur Guntor, a re tainer of Philip Howard, Earl of Arundel, then the jealous rival of Robert Dudley, Elizabeth's favorite, for the hand of the Queen, was brought before the Star Cham ber on the information of one of Dudley's servants to answer for the evil wishes he had expressed of the favorite, for standing in the Earl's way. Guntor confessed to having in dulged in some gossip, and was dismissed with a reprimand and caution. Arundel, himself, who incurred Elizabeth's displeasure because of his reconciliation with 1 Elizabeth regarded extravagance of dress a royal prerogative, for in 1579, an order was made by the Court of Star Chamber " that no person should use or wear excessive long cloaks as of late be used, and before two years past hath not been used in this realm; no person to wear such long ruffs about their necks, to be left off such monstrous undecent attiring."
