Page:American Historical Review vol. 6.djvu/786

 "]"](> Reviews of Books papers, historical collections, and the ancient legal treatises, such as those of Lambard, Hudson, and Crompton, the mass of manuscript ma- terial consulted is impressive, both in its extent and in its character. Yet here the scholar is confronted by the ever recurring misfortune — the loss of early records. ' ' In fact, the most valuable records of the Court are no longer to be found." On August 19, 1608, "the Lord Chan- cellor delivered to Sir Francis Bacon, then become clerk of the Star Chamber," six books of the " Kallender of Orders," extending from the first year ofHenry VII. to the thirty-second year of Elizabeth ; but their "ultimate fate is unknown. A committee of the House of Lords re- ported in 1 719 that the last notice of the decrees and orders ' that could be got was that they were in St. Bartholomew's Close, London.' No efforts have succeeded in bringing them to light." The author's treat- ment of the bibliography of her subject is commendable. In the " Introduction" the rise of the Privy Council, in its uncer- tain relation to the surviving Ordinary Council, is traced ; and the ineffectual attempts to curb its jurisdiction are considered. At the accession of Henry VII., the King's Council "in the usual meaning of the term " was the Privy Council ; and it had a " large and but partially defined jurisdiction, the justification of which was found in part in the inadequacy of the common law and of the rules of the Chancery, and in part in the inability of the courts of the kingdom to see that justice was done when might and right were ranged on opposite sides." The body of the monograph is divided into four sections, for which it would have been better had appropriate headings been given. The first section is the most important, dealing mainly with the dual problem of the composition and jurisdiction of the court as affected by the famous statute of 3 Hen. VII., c. i. After a careful and minute examination of the source-materials the conclusion is reached that in the reign of Henry VIII., as also in that of Henry VII., neither the membership nor the jurisdiction of the court conformed to the statute of 3 Hen. VII., c. i, as usually interpreted. Moreover, the King's Council is found perform- ing the same functions as the court, whether sitting in the "Camera Stellata ' ' or elsewhere ; and, conversely, the powers of the Star Chamber appear to be equivalent, even in state matters, to those of the Council itself The Star Chamber in fact claimed its vast jurisdiction on the ground that it was the King's Council. The court and its partisans were therefore historically justified in asserting that its constitution and power were older than Henry's statute. " The justice of the Council's claim to such an enormous authority might rightly be questioned, but not the Star Chamber's right to exercise that authority when conceded. " The purpose of Henry's statute was probably fourfold. In the first place, a " warning was given to offenders of every degree that another and very vigorous attempt would be made to crush out certain crying evils." In the second place, "the statute definitely recognized a somewhat sum- mary form of proceeding, which, in part at least, was not new to the Council." In the third place, "without prohibiting any judicial au-