The Court of Star Chamber. celibacy becomes waived and also the pen ance. In early Russian times divorce was primitive — the spouses who longed for separation simply journeyed from their houses to a public square, holding each the end of brittle muslin, which they there publicly pulled apart, declaring with that act a mutual wish for separation. In the New York case the testimony of
575
infidelity was complete; and when the executed commission of inquiry shall reach the Holy Synod there will be, undoubtedly, a decree in favor of the Russian merchant; and doubtless one in contumacia of penance to the wife so as to operate should she ever return to Russia. Of course a decree of celibacy would not have effect out of its jurisdiction.
THE COURT OF STAR CHAMBER. X. By John D . Lindsay. AFTER about ten weeks' confinement at the places named, the Star Chamber ordered " that Dr. Bastwick should be re moved to the Castle or Fort of the Isles of Scilly, Mr. Burton to the Isle of Guernsey, and Mr. Prynn to which of the two castles on the Isle of Jersey the Governor should think fit; and that none be admitted to have conference with them, or to have access to them, but whom the captains of the said castles or their deputies should appoint; they not to be allowed pen, paper or ink, nor any books, but the Bible and common prayer book, and other books of devotion consonant to the doctrine and discipline of the Church of England; no letters or writ ings to be brought them, but what shall be opened, nor any to be sent from them; that the wives of Bastwick and Burton should not land or abide in any of the said islands, and if they did they should be detained in prison till further order from the board; and the conductors of the three said prisoners, either by sea or land, to suffer none but themselves to speak to them in their passage." They were accordingly sent to the islands, where they remained till the beginning of the Long Parliament in 1641, when their sentences were declared illegal, and they were released and reparation directed to be made by the members of the court who participated in the proceedings.
The barbarity of the punishment inflicted in these cases was indeed monstrous. By the statute of 2 Mary it was provided that if a libeller went so far as to libel the King or Queen by name, no greater fine could be imposed than£ioo with a month's imprisonment, and no corporeal punishment unless the defendant refused to pay the fine, in which case some other punishment in lieu of the fine might be inflicted at the month's end; and this penalty was not to be passed except the offense were confessed or fully proven by two witnesses who were required to produce certificates of their character for veracity. The 7 Eliz. increased the imprisonment to three months and the fine to £200, but in other respects the statutes were alike. The disparity between these times and those of Charles I. was therefore startling. A libeller in Queen Mary's time was fined but .£100, in Queen Elizabeth's £200. In Queen Mary's days it was a month's im prisonment, in Queen Elizabeth's three months, and this only if the libel were against the King or Queen. In Charles I. however it was £5000, per petual imprisonment and infamous public corporeal punishment, with the loss of blood and all the cruel aggravations in the method of its infliction that could be de vised — and this though the alleged libel
