awards of indifferent arbitrators, whose decisions on constitutional points were conclusive and beyond the possibility of doubt or suspicion.

Two of the earliest questions which they were called upon to answer after the victory at Bosworth were, first, whether it was necessary that the act of attainder, which had been passed against King Henry while Earl of Richmond, in the last reign, should be repealed; and, secondly, whether the proposed act of settlement would have the effect "of resuming all the franchises and liberties of all manner of persons." To the first they answered that the crown had cleared away all corruption of blood; and to the latter they replied in the negative, thus quieting the apprehensions of both parties, and depriving the persons interested of the motive that would be most likely to operate in preventing a peaceful recognition of the new dynasty.' The loyalty of the adherents to the crown, whether worn by the present or any future possessor, was protected against the consequences of another revolution by a subsequent statute of the reign, which enacted that no person that should attend and do service to the king for the time being in his wars within this land or without should for that cause be afterwards convicted or attainted of high treason.2

The difficulty of enforcing the execution of the laws where great men were concerned, occasioned the introduction of a new court of judicature, which was apparently well adapted to correct the evils of the time, but which, by the abuse of its constitution, eventually became an instrument of tyranny and oppression. Associations had been formed which bound those who joined them to assist their chiefs and each other in all their private quarrels. By this species of maintenance crimes were committed with impunity,

1 Year Book, 1 Hen. VII., fo. 4. b. fo. 13.

2 St, 11 Hen. VII., c. 1.

the guilty evaded the laws, and juries were tampered with and intimidated. Liveries continued to be given notwithstanding the prohibitions which then existed, and retainers of the nobility were multiplied to a dangerous extent. Henry, who saw the political danger of this practice, and who, notwithstanding all his faults, was sincerely desirous of securing the due administration of justice to his people, very early in his reign determined to put an end to so obnoxious a system; and the remedy he devised was the institution of the court above referred to, in substitution of, or perhaps in addition to, the ordinary practice of examining such offences before the Council.

It consisted of the chancellor, the treasurer, and the keeper of the Privy Seal, one bishop, one temporal peer, and the two chief justices, or two justices in their absence; and they were authorised to call before them all persons who were charged with "unlawful maintenance, giving of liveries, signs, and tokens, and retainers by indenture, promises, oaths, writing, or otherwise, embraceries of the king's subjects, untrue demeaning of sheriffs in making of panels and other untrue returns, taking of money by juries, great riots and unlawful assemblies; " and they were to examine the truth, and punish the guilty, "after the form and effect of statutes thereof made," as if they were convicted "after the due order of the law." The meetings of this court were held in a room in the Palace at Westminster, called, from the ornaments with which its ceiling was decorated, the Star Chamber, a name which thence became attached to the court itself.1

Although the design of this court was repugnant to the spirit of a free constitution, by the trials taking place before it without the intervention of a jury, yet, limited to the

St. 3. Hen. VII., c. 1.

offences mentioned in the statute, and conducted in an equitable spirit, it might have formed an useful auxiliary to the other courts. But the power given to it by the statute was gradually extended by its judges, new offences were illegally made amenable to its censures, arbitrary judgments were pronounced, and severe and infamous punishments awarded at the discretion of the court, which were far beyond the "due order of the law." After exercising its usurped powers in oppression of the people for about a century and a half, the abhorrence it excited could no longer be resisted, and it was abolished in 1641.'

By another statute of this reign (11 Henry VII. c. 12.) poor persons, who were unable to sue for the redress of their injuries, were to have their writs without payment, and the Chancellor was directed to assign "lerned Councell and Attorneyes" for them, who were to do their duty without any reward. This was not the only Act passed for the benefit of suitors. By chapter 15. in the same year, rcciting the extortion of sheriffs and under-sheriffs in various counties by false plaints, a summary remedy was given against the offenders, and the proceedings in their courts were put under a better regulation. The 21st chapter of the same Parliament, after alleging that "perjury is much and customably used within the City of London" by jurors upon issues joined between party and party, enacted a punishment for such corruption when discovered, and fixed their future qualification and the penalty on the person that bribed them. And the 24th chapter proves the prevalence of this practice in other places, by a similar enactment which recites that "perjury in this land is in manifold causes by unreasonable means detestably used."

The custody of the Great Seal during this reign was com

St. 16 Car. I., c. 10.

mitted solely to ecclesiastics, two of them as chancellors, one as keeper, and one as keeper and chancellor successively.

LORD CHANCELLORS AND KEEPERS.

JOHN ALCOCK, Bishop of Worcester, filled the high office of Lord Chancellor for the first six months of Henry's reign; for though there is no record of his appointment, he is introduced with that title into the order for the coronation on October 30, 1485.'

JOHN MORTON, Bishop of Ely, became chancellor on March 6, 1486.2 Elevated to the Archbishoprick of Canterbury within a few months, he retained the Great Seal till his death on September 13, 1500, a period of more than four years. The king then kept it in his own hands for a month, when he delivered it to

HENRY DENE, Bishop of Salisbury, and soon afterwards Archbishop of Canterbury, on October 13, as keeper 3; who after holding it about a year and nine months, resigned it on July 20, 1502.

WILLIAM WARHAM, Bishop elect of London, was constituted keeper on August 11; but on January 21, 1504, this title was changed for that of chancellor by a new delivery of the Seal, the Bishop being then elect of Canterbury. remained in office till the king's death on April 21, 1509.

He

In the first year of this reign, the term "Lord High Chancellor" was first introduced, if we may so translate the "Cancellarius Magnus," by which Bishop Alcock is designated

Rutland Papers (Camden Soc.), 10.

2 Claus. 1 Hen. VII., n. 94. The "John, Bishop of Ely," in this record, has, by Dugdale and all subsequent writers, been mistaken for Alcock, who, however, was not made Bishop of Ely till the following December, on Morton's translation to Canterbury.

3 Claus. 16 Hen. VII., ind.

4 Ibid. 17 Hen VII., n. 47.

in opening the parliament.' In one of the bills addressed to Lord Audley in the next reign, he is styled "highe Chancellor of England."

MASTERS OF THE ROLls.

During the twenty-three years of Henry's reign, there were no less than eight occupants of the office of master of the Rolls, all of whom were of the clerical profession. Of these none appear, as in previous reigns, to have been selected from the masters in Chancery, and five were advanced to the episcopal bench; a plain proof that the position had greatly increased in importance.

ROBERT MORTON, who had been removed by Richard III., was restored on the accession of Henry VII. He was consecrated Bishop of Worcester in February, 1487, having on the 13th of November, 1485, obtained the appointment of WILLIAM ELIOT, as his coadjutor in the office.2 It appears, however, although Eliot's patent was for life, that he did not retain the place after Morton's elevation to the prelacy; for the patent of

DAVID WILLIAM is dated February 22, 1487 3, although Dugdale does not introduce him till November 26 in that year. He held the office about five years, dying apparently in possession.

JOHN BLYTH succeeded him on May 5, 1492. Being preferred to the Bishoprick of Salisbury,

WILLIAM WARHAM was put in his place on February 13,

Rot. Parl. vi. 267.

2 Pat. 1 Hen. VII., p. 4. m. 3.

I owe this information to my excellent friend Joseph Hunter, Esq.; and I feel bound to acknowledge the ready assistance which I have invariably received, not only in his, but in the other departments of the Record Office, whenever my distance from London has rendered it impossible for me to refer to the documents themselves.