( PDF ) Selected Writing of Sir Edward Coke

Download PDF

ads:

the selected writings

of sir edward coke

ads:

Livros Grátis

http://www.livrosgratis.com.br

Milhares de livros grátis para download.

edward coke

ads:

the selected writings

and speeches of

Sir Edward Coke



Volume Three

edited by

steve sheppard

liberty fund

indianapolis, indiana

This book is published by Liberty Fund, Inc.,

a foundation established to encourage study of

the ideal of a society of free and responsible individuals.

The cuneiform inscription that serves as our logo and as the design

motif for our endpapers is the earliest-known written appearance

of the word “freedom” (amagi), or “liberty.” It is taken from a

clay document written about 2300 b.c. in the Sumerian

city-state of Lagash.

᭧ 2003 Liberty Fund, Inc.

Frontispiece and cover art:

volume I: Reproduced courtesy of the Right Honourable

the Earl of Leicester and the Holkham Estate.

volume II: Collection of the Editor.

volume III: Corbis-Bettmann.

Material from Robert Johnson, Mary Keeler, Mija Cole, William Bidwell,

Commons Debates, 1628, Yale University Press, 1977:

reprinted by permission of Yale University Press.

08 07 06 05 04 03 p 54321

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Coke, Edward, Sir, 1552–1634.

[Selections. 2003]

The selected writings and speeches of Sir Edward Coke

edited by Steve Sheppard.

p. cm.

Includes bibliographical references and index.

isbn 0-86597-313-x (pbk.: alk. paper)

1. Law—England.

I. Sheppard, Steve, 1963–

II. Title.

kd358.c65 2003

349.42Ј092—dc22 2003061935

ISBNs:

0-86597-313-x volume I

0-86597-314-8 volume II

0-86597-441-1 volume III

0-86597-316-4 set

Liberty Fund, Inc.

8335 Allison Pointe Trail, Suite 300

Indianapolis, Indiana 46250-1684

Contents to Volume III

V. Speeches in Parliament

A. 1593 Three petitions; Coke as Speaker of the

House; liberty of speech, freedom of

Parliamentarians from arrest, and free

access for Parliamentarians; laws. 1187

B. 1621 Petition of Grievances; privileges of

Parliament; impeachments. 1194

C. 1625 Subsidies. 1217

D. 1628 Petition of Right. 1225

VI. Appendix I: Ofﬁcial Acts Related to Sir Edward Coke’s Career

A. The High Commission (Coke refuses to appear), 1611 1307

B. Commendams and the King’s Displeasure, 1616 1310

C. Coke’s Hearing, June 26, 1616 1323

D. Coke’s Arrest After Parliament, 1621 1329

E. Sir Edward Coke’s Case (The Sheriff’s Oath), 1626 1332

VII. Appendix II: The Epitaph of Sir Edward Coke 1336

Selected Readings Concerning the Life, Career,

and Legacy of Sir Edward Coke 1341

Table of Regnal Years 1379

Index 1407

Speeches in

Parliament



Speeches in Parliament 15931186

oke’s service in Parliament brackets his career both in time and in

politics, from a devoted servant of the Crown to a leader of the op-

position. There are, however, numerous constants among the issues he pro-

moted in each sitting he attended; most important, he sought to secure

the privilege of an independent Parliament, with members protected from

sanction for their parliamentary speech. Throughout the parliaments of the

1620s, his concern deepened that the King could not be relied on either

to allow Parliament its prerogatives of making laws for the subjects and of

passing taxes or to protect subjects from arbitrary rule. Those concerns

resulted in his support of increasingly powerful protests and petitions to

the Crown. The capstone of these was the Petition of Right.—Ed.

A. 1593

Three Petitions—Liberty of Speech,

Freedom from Arrest, and

Free Access for Parliamentarians;

Laws; Coke as Speaker

he Parliament of 1593 was a triumph for Coke. He navigated the con-

ﬂict that arose regarding members’ privileges in a series of incidents

beginning when Thomas Fitzherbert was arrested for debt between his

election to Parliament and the receipt of his election by the sheriff, de-

ﬂecting his claim that, as a member, he was free from arrest. Coke was a

loyal lieutenant to the Queen, burying a bill on reformation of the eccle-

siastical courts, while promoting bills to more closely regulate both Puritans

and Catholics, and helping to deliver large new subsidies, or taxes. He did

much to protect Parliament’s recently acquired “ancient” rights.—Ed.

February 22, 1593

Speech to the Queen, in the House of Lords

The Speaker’s Speech. The queen being come again to the Upper House, the

Commons presented the famous Edward Coke, esq. solicitor-general, as their

1. [Ed.: Cobbett, Parl. Hist., Vol. I. pp. 859–62.]

Speeches in Parliament 15931188

Speaker; who, being placed at the bar of the house, delivered himself as follows:

“Your maj.’s most loving subjects, the knights, citizens, and burgesses, of the

house of commons, have nominated me, your grace’s poor servant and subject,

to be their Speaker. Though their nomination hath hitherto proceeded, that

they present me to speak before your maj.; yet this their nomination is, only

as yet, a nomination and no election, until your maj. giveth allowance and

approbation. For, as in the heavens, a star is but opacum corpus,

until it have

received light from the sun; so stand I corpus opacum, a mute body, until your

highness’s bright-shining wisdom hath looked upon me, and allowed me. How

great a charge this is, to be the mouth of such a body as your whole Commons

represent, to utter what is spoken, Grandia Regni,

my small experience, being

a poor professor of the law, can tell. But, how unable I am to do this ofﬁce,

my present speech doth tell, that of a number in this house, I am most unﬁt.

For, amongst them are many grave, many learned, many deep wise men, and

those of ripe judgments: but I am untimely fruit, not yet ripe, but a bud

scarcely blossomed. So, as I fear me, your maj. will say, Neglectaˆ frugi eliguntur

folia:

amongst so many fair fruit ye have plucked a shaken leaf.—If I may

be so bold as to remember a speech (which I cannot forget) used the last parl.

in your maj.’s own mouth, Many come hither ‘ad consulendum qui nesciunt

quid sit consulendum’;

a just reprehension to many as to myself also, an un-

timely fruit, my years and judgment ill beﬁtting the gravity of this place. But,

howsoever, I know myself the meanest, and inferior unto all that ever were

before me in this place; yet, in faithfulness of service, and dutifulness of love,

I think not myself inferior to any that ever were before me. And, amidst my

many imperfections, yet this is my comfort; I never knew any in this place,

but if your maj. gave them favour, God, who called them to the place, gave

them also the blessing to discharge it.”

The Lord Keeper’s Answer. The Lord Keeper having received instructions from

the queen, answered him: “Mr. Solicitor, her grace’s most excellent maj. hath

willed me to signify unto you, that she hath ever well conceived of you since

2. [Ed.: an obscure body.]

3. [Ed.: the great matters of the Kingdom.]

4. [Ed.: The fruit is neglected and the leaves are picked.]

5. [Ed.: to give advice who know not what is to be advised about.]

Three Petitions 1189

she ﬁrst heard of you, which will appear, when her highness elected you from

others to serve herself. But, by this your modest, wise, and well-composed

speech, you give her maj. further occasion to conceive of you, above that which

ever she thought was in you; by endeavouring to deject and abase yourself

and your desert, you have discovered and made known your worthiness and

sufﬁciency to discharge the place you are called to. And, whereas you account

yourself corpus opacum, her maj. by the inﬂuence of her virtue and wisdom,

doth enlighten you; and not only alloweth and approveth you, but much

thanketh the lower house, and commendeth their discretion in making so

good a choice, and electing so ﬁt a man. Wherefore now, mr. Speaker, proceed

in your ofﬁce, and go forward, to your commendation, as you have begun.”

The Speaker’s Reply. The lord keeper’s speech being ended, the speaker began

a new speech: “Considering the great and wonderful blessings, besides the

long peace we have enjoyed under your grace’s most happy and victorious

reign, and remembering with what wisdom and justice your grace hath reigned

over us, we have cause daily to praise God that ever you were given us; and

the hazard that your maj. hath adventured, and the charge that you have borne

for us and our safety, ought to make us ready to lay down ourselves and all

our living, at your feet, to do you service.—After this he related the great

attempts of her maj.’s enemies against us, especially the Pope, and the king

of Spain, who adhered unto him. How wonderfully we were delivered in 88,

and what a favour God therein manifest unto her maj. His speech, after this,

tended wholly to shew, out of the history of England and the old state, how

the kings of England, ever since Hen. III.’s time, have maintained themselves

to be the supreme head over all causes within their own dominions. And then

reciting the laws that every one made in his time, for maintaining their own

supremacy, and excluding the Pope, he drew down this proof by a statute of

every king since Hen. III. to Edw. VI. This ended, he came to speak of laws,

that they were so great, and so many already, that they were ﬁt to be termed

‘elephantinae leges.’

Therefore to make more laws it might seem superﬂuous.

And to him that might ask, Quid causa ut crescant tot magna volumina legis?

It may be answered, In promptu causa est, crescit in orbe malum.

The malice

6. [Ed.: elephantine laws.]

7. [Ed.: What is the reason for the growth of such a large volume of law? . . . The immediate answer

is, because evil is on the increase in present times.]

Speeches in Parliament 15931190

of our arch-enemy, the devil, though it were always great, yet never greater

than now; and that ‘dolus et malum’ being crept in so far amongst men, it was

requisite that sharp ordinances should be provided to prevent them, and all

care be used for her maj.’s preservation. Now am I to make unto your maj.

3 Petitions, in the name of the Commons; 1st, That Liberty of Speech, and

Freedom from arrests, according to the ancient custom of parl. be granted to

your subjects; 2d, That we may have access unto your royal person, to present

those things that shall be considered amongst us; lastly, That your maj. will

give your royal assent to the things that are agreed upon. And, for myself, I

humbly beseech your maj. if any speech shall fall from me, or behaviour found

in me, not decent and ﬁt, it may not be imputed blame upon the house, but

laid upon me, and pardoned in me.”

The lord Keeper’s further Answer. To this speech, the Lord Keeper, having

received new instructions from the queen, made his reply. “In which he ﬁrst

commended the Speaker greatly for it; and then he added some examples of

history for the king’s supremacy in Hen. II. and other kings before the con-

quest. As to the deliverance we received from our enemies, and the peace we

enjoyed, the queen would have the praise of all those attributed to God only.

And, touching the commendations given to herself, she said, ‘Well might we

have a wiser prince, but never should they have one that more regarded them,

and in justice would carry an evener stroke, without exception of persons;

such a prince she wished they might always have.’ To your 3 demands the

Queen answereth; Liberty of Speech is granted you; but how far this is to be

thought on, there be two things of most necessity, and those two do most

harm, which are wit and speech: the one exercised in invention, and the other

in uttering things invented. Privilege of speech is granted, but you must know

what privilege you have; not to speak every one what he listeth, or what cometh

in his brain to utter that; but your privilege is, aye or no. Wherefore, mr.

Speaker, her maj.’s pleasure is, That if you perceive any idle heads, which will

not stick to hazard their own estates; which will meddle with reforming the

Church, and transforming the Common-wealth; and do exhibit any bills to

such purpose, that you receive them not, until they be viewed and considered

by those, who it is ﬁtter should consider of such things, and can better judge

of them. To your Persons all privileges is granted, with this caveat, that under

colour of this privilege, no man’s ill-doings, or not performing of duties, be

covered and protected. The last; Free Access is granted to her maj.’s person,

Three Petitions 1191

so that it be upon urgent and weighty causes, and at times convenient; and

when her maj. may be at leisure from other important causes of the realm.”

April 10, 1593.

Speech to the Queen at the House of Lords

The Speaker’s Speech to the Queen at the Close of the Session. April 10, the Queen

came to the House of Lords; and the Commons being called up, the Speaker,

on delivering the bills, made the following most elaborate Speech on the Dig-

nity and Antiquity of Parliaments:—“The high court of parl. most high and

mighty prince, is the greatest and most ancient court within this your realm.

For before the Conquest in the high places of the West-Saxons, we read of a

parl. holden; and since the Conquest they have been holden by all your noble

predecessors kings of England.—In the time of the West-Saxons a parl. was

holden by the noble king Ina, by these words: ‘I, Ina, king of the West-Saxons,

have caused all my Fatherhood, Aldermen and wisest Commons, with the

godly men of my kingdom, to consult of weighty matters, &c.’ Which words

do plainly shew all the parts of this high court still observed to this day. For

by king Ina is your maj.’s most royal person represented. The Fatherhood, in

ancient time, were these which we call bps. and still we call them rev. Fathers,

an ancient and chief part of our state.—By Aldermen were meant your no-

blemen. For so honourable was the word Alderman in ancient time, that the

nobility only were called Aldermen.—By Wisest Commons is meant and

signiﬁed knights and burgesses, and so is your maj.’s writ, de discretioribus &

magis sufﬁcientibus.

—By Godliest Men is meant your convocation-house. It

consisteth of such as are devoted to religion. And as godliest men do consult

of weightiest matters, so is your highness’s writ at this day pro quibusdam

arduis & urgentibus negotiis, nos, statum & defensionem regni nostri & ecclesiae

tangentibus.

Your highness’s wisdom and exceeding judgment with all-careful

Providence needed not our councils: but yet so urgent causes there were of

8. [Ed.: Cobbett, Parl. Hist., I, 889–91.]

9. [Ed.: of the more discreet and sufﬁcient.]

10. [Ed.: for certain difﬁcult and urgent business touching us, the estate and defence of our realm, and

of the Church.]

Speeches in Parliament 15931192

this parl. so important considerations, as that we may say (for that we cannot

judge) never parl. was so needful as now, nor any so honourable as this. If I

may be bold to say it, I must presume to say that which hath been often said

(but what is well said cannot be too often spoken) this sweet council of ours

I would compare to that sweet Commonwealth of the little bees:

Sic enim parvis componere magna solebam.

The little bees have but one governor whom they all serve, he is their king,

quia latera habet latiora;

he is placed in the midst of their habitations, ut in

tutissima turri.

They forage abroad, sucking honey from every ﬂower to bring

to their king. Ignavum fucos pecus a` praesepibus arcent.

The drones they drive

away out of their hives, non habentes aculeos.

And whoso assails their king,

in him immittunt aculeos, & tamen rex ipse est sine aculeo.

—Your maj. is that

princely governor and noble queen, whom we all serve; being protected under

the shadow of your wings we live, and wish you may ever sit upon your throne

over us. And whosoever shall not say Amen, for them we pray ut convertantur

ne pereant, & ut confundantur ne noceant.

Under your happy govt. we live

upon honey, we suck upon every sweet ﬂower: but where the bee sucketh

honey, there also the spider draweth poison. Some such venoms there be. But

such drones and door bees we will expel the hive and serve your maj. and

withstand any enemy that shall assault you. Our lands, our goods, our lives

are prostrate at your feet to be commanded. Yea, and (thanked be God, and

honour be to your maj. for it) such is the power and force of your subjects,

that of their own strength they are able to encounter your greatest enemies.

And though we be such, yet have we a prince that is sine aculco;

so full of

that clemency is your maj. I fear I have been too long, and therefore to come

now to your Laws.—The Laws we have conferred upon this session of so

honourable a parl. are of two natures; the one such as have life but are ready

11. [Ed.: For thus great things are built by little things.]

12. [Ed.: because he has broader sides;]

13. [Ed.: as in the safest tower.]

14. [Ed.: They drive the drones out of their dwellings.]

15. [Ed.: having no stings.]

16. [Ed.: they insert their stings, and yet the king himself is without a sting.]

17. [Ed.: that they be converted lest they perish, and that they be confounded lest they cause harm.]

18. [Ed.: without sting.]

Three Petitions 1193

to die, except your maj. breathe life into them again; the other are laws that

never had life, but, being void of life, do come to your maj. to seek life.—

The ﬁrst sort are those laws that had continuances until this parl. and are

now to receive new life or are to die for ever. The other, that I term capable

of life, are those which are newly made, but have no essence until your maj.

giveth them life.—Two laws there are, but I must give the honour where it

is due; for they come from the noble wise Lords of the upper house; the most

hon. and beneﬁcial laws that could be desired: the one a Conﬁrmation of all

Letters Patents, from your maj.’s most noble father, of all Ecclesiastical Livings,

which that king took from those superstitious monasteries and priories, and

translated them to the erecting and setting up of many foundations of Ca-

thedral Churches and Colleges, greatly furthering the maintenance of learning

and true religion.—The other law to suppress the obstinate Recusant and the

dangerous sectary, both very pernicious to your govt.—Lastly, your loving

and obedient subjects, the Commons of the lower house, humbly and with

all dutiful thanks, stand bound unto your gracious goodness for your general

and large Pardon granted unto them, wherein many great offences are par-

doned. But it extendeth only to offences done before the parl. I have many

ways, since the beginning of this parl. by ignorance and insufﬁciency to per-

form that which I should have done, offended your maj.; I therefore most

humbly crave to be partaker of your maj.’s most gracious pardon.”

B. 1621

Petition of Grievances; Privileges of

Parliament; Impeachments

he parliament of 1621 was the ﬁrst in which Coke was clearly in op-

position to the legislative agenda of the King. Increasingly faced with

evidence of the King’s contempt for parliamentary responsibility and in-

creasingly opposed to national policies pursued by Buckingham in the

King’s name, Coke worked to tie the passing of the Bill for Supply, or the

King’s request for Commons to grant him tax funds, to a petition for griev-

ances against Parliament’s privileges. Coke presented a defense of Parlia-

ment based on Magna Carta. The argument between King and Commons

for the upper hand took several forms. James I suggested Parliament be

suspended from May to November, which Coke opposed as an act against

Parliament’s privileges to decide its own adjournment (although the King

could dismiss it). Coke succeeded in having a royal commission requiring

adjournment of Commons from being read, after which a majority of the

House voted to adjourn. Coke moved resolutions to the King advising him

against a Spanish marriage and alliance with Spain, after which James or-

dered the House not to discuss such matters and denied the members any

privileges by right. Coke authored a protestation arguing for the liberties

of Parliament, including parliamentarians’ freedom of speech as “the an-

cient and undoubted birthright and inheritance of the subjects of England.”

Coke led or assisted in several impeachments, including one of a par-

liamentarian named Sheppard, who argued ﬂippantly against a Puritan-

sponsored bill to bar dancing on the Sabbath, which he held should be

Saturday. More signiﬁcantly, Coke assisted in impeachments of several of-

ﬁcials for bribery, most notably, assisting in impeaching Francis Bacon on

Petition of Grievances 1195

twenty-eight charges of misconduct as chancellor. Those changes consisted

mainly of accepting gifts of money from litigants before him (although

many of those donors lost their cases).

Coke supported bills for free trade and against monopolies. He also

approved of the impeachment of two monopolists.

At the end of the 1621 parliament, James I sent Coke, John Selden,

William Prynne, and other leaders of the opposition to the Tower. Coke’s

house, Holborne, was sealed and his legal papers were seized. See Coke’s

“Arrest after Parliament,” pp. 1329–1331.—Ed.

February 5, 1621.

Ed.: In a debate on the grant of a supply to the Kings the question was

whether to tie the supply to conditions of parliamentary grievance.

Sir Edward Coke. “‘Virtus silere in convivio, vitium in consilio.’

I joy that

all are bent with alacrity against the enemies of God and us; Jesuits, Seminaries,

and Popish Catholics: it was a grievance complained of the 8th of this reign,

that the laws against Recusants were not executed; I would have all those

Grievances, 8 Jac. reviewed, of which that was one; if any new increased to

take special consideration of them. I and Popham were 30 days in examination

of the Powder-Plot at the Tower. The root of it was out of all the countries

belonging to the Pope, and Faux repented him that he had not done it. God

then, and in 1588, delivered us for religion’s sake.—The privileges of the house

concern the whole kingdom; which, like a circle ends where it began. But

take heed, we lose not our liberties, by petitioning for liberty to treat of Griev-

ances, &c. No proclamation can be of force against an act of parl. In Edw.

IIId.’s time, a parl. was holden every year, that the people might complain of

Grievances. If a proclamation comes against this; the law is to be obeyed and

not the proclamation. The 4th Hen. VIII. Strowde moved against the Stannary

court: but was ﬁned after the parl. and imprisoned by the steward of the

Stannary. Thereupon, a law ensued, for freedom of speech in the house; but

1. [Ed.: Cobbett, Parl. Hist., I, 1187–88.]

2. [Ed.: Virtue keeps silence in company, vice in counsel.]

Speeches in Parliament 16211196

it ought to be done in due and orderly manner. My motion is, that the Griev-

ances may be set down; those that are nought in radice, or tractu temporis,

ﬁrst. The king’s ordinary Charge and Expences much about one; the extraor-

dinary ever born by the subject; therefore the king can be no beggar. And, if

all the corn be brought to the right mill, I will venture my whole estate, that

the king’s will defray his ordinary charges. Lastly, he moved for a committee

of the whole house for Grievances; and said the remedying them would en-

courage the house, and enable them to increase the Supply.”—After this the

question was put, Whether a Petition to the king for Freedom of Speech,

against Recusants, the business of the Supply, and for Grievances, should be

referred to a committee of the whole house? And it was resolved to go upon

them that afternoon.

February 7, 1621.

Ed.: In a debate on an alleged unlawful election of a member of the House,

the question was whether the member should be allowed to speak on his

own behalf.

Sir Edward Coke divides our laws into three parts: 1, common law; 2,

custom; 3, statute law. A committee is a jury. The committee may examine

for matter of fact and what they had done for the fact the House would not

alter, but for matter in law or right the parliament might, after the committee,

alter it.

February 13, 1621.

Ed.: In a debate on bills for limitations of suits, the question was whether

the limitations should apply in the courts of equity.

3. [Ed.: at root, or by the lapse of time.]

4. [Ed.: A Journal or Diary of the Most Material Passages in the Lower House of the Parliament

Summoned To Be Holden the Sixteenth Day of January Anno Domini 1620 but by Prorogation Adjourned

Till the 23th and then again to 30th of the same month, from Notestein, Relf, and Simpson, Commons

Debates, 1621, Vol. 2. [Hereinafter referred to as the “X Journal.”], February 7, 1621, p. 35.]

5. [Ed.: X Journal, February 13, 1621, ff. 64–65.]

Petition of Grievances 1197

Sir Edward Coke. I have motions to have some bills preferred. We had a

bill for limitation of suits in all the courts of England, both temporal and

ecclesiastical. I love the courts, yet I would have the suits limited within some

time. I will rehearse two examples to shew the inconveniencies which do arise

for want hereof. 1, Doctor Julio that was but an experimental physician at

length became the Queen’s physician in ordinary. But his wife must be divorced

after eighteen years (causa precontractus).

But by whom. By old Stapleton that

would make love to any woman. And then he married the fair lady he had

begotten with child. But mark the judgment, the lady and the child died within

a month. If this divorce had been limited this had never been. 2, Another

example, there was a legacy given; long after the party challenged it but the

witnesses were dead, whereas had he brought his suit in reasonable time it

would have easily been decided. Therefore to have these suits limited within

a certain time is that which I desire may be committed to the committees of

the former bills of limitation of suits. Now if this like you, paulo maiora

canamus.

All courts are either temporal or ecclesiastical. Temporal are either

of ordinary jurisdiction or extraordinary, of the common law or of equity. My

meaning is not to limit the king, for nullum tempus occurrit regi.

But in the

courts of equity I would have the parties limited. It is good to deal openly

and plainly. My Lord Chancellor hath power to proceed according to the

common law. According to the common law subjects be limited already but

not in equity. There is a great reason they should be limited there also, for if

the King’s Bench which is coram domino rege

be limited, why should not the

Chancery. If a ﬁne and recovery be passed, if a deed be enrolled, these are of

record and may be had at any time after; yet they are limited. How much

more should suits in Chancery, which have no writing to prove but oath of

witness, which may die. So that if one bring witnesses to outswear me, my

land is gone and yet there is no fault in the judge. I think this will be both

plausible to the subject and acceptable to the judges who for want of this

limitation are many times perplexed with these things.

6. [Ed.: (by reason of precontract [of marriage]).]

7. [Ed.: let us sing of somewhat greater things.]

8. [Ed.: time does not run against the king.]

9. [Ed.: before the lord king [a court limited to royal causes].]

Speeches in Parliament 16211198

February 15, 1621.

Ed.: In a debate to impeach Sheppard from Parliament, Coke agrees to Mr.

Thomas Sheppard’s expulsion.

Sir Edward Coke. Whatsoever hindereth the observation of the sanctiﬁcation

of the Sabbath is against the scripture.

...

Sir Edward Coke. That it is in religion as in other things, if a man go too

much on the right hand, he goes to superstition, if too much on the left, to

profaneness and atheism. And, take away reverence, you shall never have obe-

dience: maxima charitas, facere justitiam.

He wisheth to have such birds

crushed in the shell: for, if it be permitted to speak against such as prefer bills,

we should have none preferred.

February 17, 1621.

Ed.: In a debate on a bill for explanation of the statute 3 Jacobi, the question

concerned the taking of recusant’s land for payment of debt.

Sir Eward Coke. I agree with that which was spoken last but yet let us

husband time. It is good for a man in these days to take sureties and if one

die, to put in another, for there is no trusting to executors in these days. Sureties

bound jointly and severally are all principals. I would have a bill drawn which

should give the creditor his debt and damages and the sureties should be

secured only of the lands of the heir.

10. [Ed.: Cobbett, Parl. Hist., I, 1191–92.]

11. [Ed.: To do justice is the greatest charity.]

12. [Ed.: X Journal, February 17, 1621, f. 100.]

Petition of Grievances 1199

February 19, 1621.

In the Committee of Grievances

Ed.: In a debate on the patent for Inns, which would effectively allow local

monopolies for inns to be granted by the crown, the question is whether

the power to grant such patents is in the king’s prerogative.

Sir Edward Coke. There is prerogative indisputable, and prerogative dis-

putable. Prerogative indisputable, is that the king hath to make war: disputable

prerogative is tied to the laws of England; wherein the king also hath divers

prerogatives as nullum tempus,

&c. None of all these Monopolies but have

ﬁne examples. There are 3 sorts of patents. 1st. Directly against the law: 2d.

good in law, but ill in execution: 3d. neither good in law nor execution. For

the ﬁrst, when the sword of justice, which the laws have trusted the king withal,

is given to a subject; and the king saith in his Book, that all grants of Mo-

nopolies, and dispensations of penal laws are void in law: when the king gran-

teth his power to a subject, the commonwealth rues for it; and of this kind

are old debts. For remedy of this that a course be taken, that, if debts owing

to the king are not called for within a time, then to be lost. Of the 2nd kind

are Patents for Inns. A 3rd are those which are neither good in law nor ex-

ecution; and these are concealments, which are dishonourable to the king, for

no subject may do it; and indeed the king never knows of it, the sole fault

whereof lies in the referrees; and for this a bill should be drawn, that if the

king hath been out of possession 60 years, and not recovered any rent for it

within that time, then not to be recovered by the king as a concealment.

Monopolies are now grown like Hydras’ heads: they grow up as fast as they

are cut off. All new ofﬁces raise the prices of things. In 4 Hen. 7. a dispensation

was granted, that some should not pay Subsidies: this was after repealed by

act of parl. for otherwise it would have grown so common, that no man would

have paid, seeing others freed. He shewed that all the kings, from Edw. III.

to this king have granted Monopolies; and, even in queen Elizabeth’s time,

there were some granted. Sir Rd. Mompesson and one Rob. Alexander pro-

13. [Ed.: Cobbett, Parl. Hist., I, 1193.]

14. [Ed.: no time [runs against the king].]

Speeches in Parliament 16211200

cured of queen Eliz. a Patent for the sole transporting of anise-seed. Monop-

olies have been granted heretofore de vento & sole;

that in Devonshire and

Cornwall a patent was granted, that none should dry pilchards but those pat-

entees.

February 26, 1621.

Ed.: In a debate on the scarcity of money, the question was the causes of

the lack of gold and silver coins throughout the kingdom.

Sir Edward Coke sheweth, that there were two things that principally con-

cern and encrease kingdoms and commonwealths, viz. soldiers and money.

That there was coined from the 1 Eliz. unto 16 Jac. nine millions and a half

of silver and gold. Sheweth further, that there are 7 Causes of want of Money

and Coin in this kingdom.—1. Money turned into plate.—2. Gold folia that

is employed in gilding of things.—3. Change of Money, or silver being much

undervalued by us here of that our gold is; which was raised; and so was not

our silver, and also all our money passeth at lower rates here, than it doth

beyond sea in other countries.—4. The East India Company, who had licence

to transport 100,000 l. at their ﬁrst setting up; and albeit they do not, since

that time carry out of the kingdom any more English money, yet they intercept

the dollars and other money that would otherwise come into this kingdom,

and bring in for it nothing but toys and triﬂes.—5. The goods imported exceed

the goods exported, and therefore there must needs go forth of our coin to

pay for the surplusage.—6. The French merchants for wine carry forth

80,000 l. per ann. and bring in nothing but wines and lace, and such like

triﬂes.—7. The Patent for Gold and Silver lace, which not only wastes and

consumes our bullion and coin, but hindereth the bringing of any into the

kingdom; which was wont to be so much as would yield 20,000 l. per ann.

of good bullion.

15. [Ed.: of the wind and sun.]

16. [Ed.: Cobbett, Parl. Hist., I, 1194–95.]

Petition of Grievances 1201

March 1, 1621.

Ed.: In the proceedings against Sir Giles Mompesson, a Monopolist and

Patentee, Coke made observations about men of six types of occupations.

Sir Edward Coke. There are in my observation 6 kinds of men, that never

thrive or prosper. 1. Alchymist; for omne vertitur in fumum

with him. 2.

Monopolizer; for he engrosseth to himself what should be free for all men.

3. Promoter, who for the most part lives upon the spoil of poor men. 4. Con-

cealment-monger, or he that gets Concealments. 5. Depopular, who turns all

out of doors, and keeps none but a shepherd and his dog. 6. New Projector,

who is lately started up.

March 8, 1621.

Conference with the Lords in the Painted Chamber

Ed.: In a debate concerning Sir Giles Mompesson and monopolies.

Sir Edward Coke. There is (you have heard) the public good pretended but

a private intended. Then to have a proclamation to attend a private gain is a

great grievance and a lamentable thing.

That which I shall say shall be distributed into four parts: 1, for clearing

of, an adding to, the King’s honor; 2, for remedies of these things in time to

come; 3, to shew precedents how such like cases have been censured and

punished in former times; 4, to add a conclusion. I will not meddle with the

King’s prerogative, which is twofold: 1, absolute, as to make war, coin money,

etc.; 2, or in things that concern meum et tuum,

and this may be disputed

of in courts of parliament.

The King was careful to have prevented the grievances, as appears by his

17. [Ed.: Cobbett, Parl. Hist., I, 1198.]

18. [Ed.: everything is turned into smoke.]

19. [Ed.: X Journal, March 8, 1621 f. 170–76.]

20. [Ed.: mine and thine (i.e. property).]

Speeches in Parliament 16211202

proclamation primo Jacobi and his Declaration set forth 8 Jacobi. If these had

been observed, we had not been troubled. The King never granted any but

he referred it, as you have heard. Further, the 12 Jacobi ex parte Regis, in the

Exchequer, he granted a seal wherein he expressed himself thus: We, having

a just care of our loving subjects, will not have our prerogative extended to private

uses. Overﬂowing will make rivers lose their proper channels. It may be said

that these patents were granted as rewards of former services, and is not prae-

mium

as necessary for good service as poena

for evil service. Yes, but yet

kings will not have any men serve them for reward and therefore when any

such patents were granted they went in this form: ex mero motu et gratia speciali

etc.

4 Hen. 4, there was a statute of bargain because many grants had passed

without deliberation; it was ordained by the king that whosoever shall sue for

any lands, he should be punished by the Council and disabled of the thing

sued for; he was a wise and potent king and knew his revenue could not subsist

if he gave way to such suits.

Now for remedies. 1, He that hath thus offended is in the king’s mercy and

that all such patents be called in again. 5 Edward 3 the Commons complain

that many persons about the king had got a commission to inquire of all things

that belong to the king’s revenue. By the way, what persons were these to

whom the king granted this? It is said it was granted to ribaulds. What are

they? Ribaulds are such as always beg and never work. What do they with

this commission? They by virtue hereof make writs, returns, inquisitions and

get escheators to take possession and then the ribaulds sue to the king to have

some of these things thus found granted unto them in the very same manner

as Sir Giles Mompesson hath done. But the Commons desired that these

commissions might be repealed and hereafter granted to men of account.

It’s necessary that some law be made for the time to come that no monopoly

be granted, and they that procure any such may incur some great punishment,

and this will kill the serpent in the egg.

Now for precedents. I remember Phaeton’s counsel to Icarus, altius egressus

etc.,

and concludes medio tutissimus ibis.

So if we go too high we may wrong

21. [Ed.: a prize.]

22. [Ed.: a penalty.]

23. [Ed.: of our mere motion and especial grace, etc.]

24. [Ed.: the higher ﬂight, etc.]

25. [Ed.: You will go most safely in the middle way.]

Petition of Grievances 1203

the king’s prerogative; if too low, we betray our country. Therefore medio

tutissimus ibis.

How is that to go by precedents. I ﬁnd then that in parliaments

(besides the way of acts and petitions) there is a power of judicature or judicial

proceedings and that in 4 sorts: 1, coram domino rege et magnatibus vel consilio

suo; 2, coram magnatibus solis; 3, coram magnatibus et communitate; 4, coram

communitate tantum.

I will give several examples of these. First, coram domino

rege et magnatibus, in Edw. 1 time the Bishop of Coventry queritur de Hugone

extraneo

10 Rich. 2, the Commons complained to the king and the Lords

of a very great man called Michael de la Pole, then Lord Chancellor, for that

he for his own private gain had suffered divers letters patents to pass in dish-

erison of the crown and subverting courts of justice. 28 Hen. 6 (vel 8), there

was a complaint against William, Duke of Suffolk, for that he procured from

the king divers liberties in derogation of the common law; the justices in eyre

did enquire of this.

Secondly coram magnatibus only, and there is a necessity in this because

else justice will fall to the ground and the subject in some cases cannot be

relieved. As, suppose a judgment be given for the king in the King’s Bench,

there is no help for this but a writ of error which must be brought before the

Lords in the Upper House of parliament. Now the king cannot be judge in

his own case, therefore it must be judged by the Lords alone or not at all.

Alice Pearce, 1 Rich. 2, was complained of to the Lords for preferring many

suits in derogation of the common law and against the commonwealth. The

Lords awarded imprisonment and banishment. 42 Edw. 3, John de la Lee,

steward of the king’s house, kept a court in his chamber and sent pursuivants

for men and imprisoned them. He was committed to the Tower there to remain

till he had paid ﬁne and ransom. 5 Edw. 3, William Ellis, a merchant of Yar-

mouth and farmer of the customs, under color hereof oppressed divers of the

king’s subjects by exactions.

The Commons complained, the Lords awarded him to prison until he had

made ﬁne and ransom. 5 Edward 3, Richard Lyons, a merchant of London,

a notable projector (he was well acquainted with divers Lords and promised

26. [Ed.: You will go most safely in the middle way.]

27. [Ed.: 1. Before the lord king and his great men or council. 2. Before the great men alone. 3. Before

the great men and commonalty. 4. Before the commonalty alone.]

28. [Ed.: complained against Hugh the stranger.]

Speeches in Parliament 16211204

great matters as all projectors do), was accused that by his solicitation he

procured dispensations to carry staple commodities to other places than to

the staple towns, contrary to the law; 2, that having taken the customs to

enhance them, pretended the king’s gain but intended his own lucre; 3, that

he devised such a new kind of money as would have robbed and overthrown

the kingdom. This was a merchant indeed but for the horribleness of his fact

he was sentenced: 1, to be sent to the Tower there to remain till he had made

ﬁne and ransom; 2, never to bear ofﬁce; 3, never to come near the king nor

his Council; 4, to be disfranchised of his liberty of London. John Peache,

Anglice John Sin (conveniant rebus nomina saepe suis),

was complained of for

that he had gotten the sole selling of sweet wines. This sole selling sheweth

it to be a plain monopoly; hereby the price was enhanced. He was committed

to the Tower and paid ﬁne and ransom. But some may say these be but poor

fellows, shew an example of a great man. John, Lord Neville, who had a

regiment in Britain, the Commons complained of him that under color of

the king’s authority he had oppressed and impoverished the people. He was

sentenced to the Tower and paid ﬁne and ransom. All these in Edward the

Third time.

3, Thirdly, coram magnatibus et communitate. William Lord Latimer (hath

his name because he was interpreter betwixt the Britons and us), who was

Lord Chamberlain, was accused that he was partaker with Richard Lyons in

all his projects and was sentenced deeply, but the king pardoned him. The

tenor of which pardon was thus: cum ﬁdelis et dilectus noster etc., coram mag-

natibus et communitate regni indicatus fuit etc.

I say the king pardoned him

but it cost him six score thousand marks, 7 Rich. 2.

4, Coram communitate tantum. Arthur Hall wrote a book in derogation of

the House of parliament. He was imprisoned in the Tower and ﬁned, expelled

the House and another chosen in his room, 23 Eliz. 28 Eliz., a simple and

weak man (one somewhat frantic) gave vli. to a mayor to choose him burgess.

The mayor was ﬁned for it. 38 Hen. 8, in Brooke, if a burgess be made a

mayor sedente parliamento,

presently a new must be chosen for he is tied to

another charge. Adam de Berry, Mayor of Calais and a captain, had been such

29. [Ed.: Names are often suited to their subjects.]

30. [Ed.: whereas our faithful and beloved, etc. was indicted before the great men and commonalty of

the realm, etc.]

31. [Ed.: while parliament was sitting.]

Petition of Grievances 1205

an oppressor as that he was complained of, whereupon he ﬂed. It was awarded

his goods should be seized. That’s the parliamentary course. And thus I leave

you to tread in the steps of your noble progenitors. Empson was hanged, but

his offence was not so great as Sir Giles Mompesson’s. He indeed got a grant

to dispense with penal laws according to his discretion and caused men to be

endicted for riots and to be imprisoned and caused divers to be outlawed, so

that the subjects being thereby vexed and terriﬁed murmured in their hearts

and were alienated from the King. Mompesson hath exceeded him in the like,

at least succeeded him. See the fortune of it, Empson made one Mompesson

his heir for so I ﬁnd it. Mompesson, son of Empson.

It’s recorded in a book called the Mirror of Justices that King Allured called

Alfred, anno 873, made an act to have 2 parliaments in one year. Edward the

First made an ordinance to have one parliament in two years, and performed

that. 4 Edward 3. for the redress of many mischiefs and grievances which daily

encrease in the commonwealth, it was ordained that a parliament be held

every year. In those days parliaments were accounted necessary every year. And

is there not the same necessity still. The kingdom and commonwealth may

be likened to a fair ﬁeld and a pleasant garden, but if the ﬁeld be not tilled

and the garden often weeded, infaelix lolium et steriles nascuntur avenae.

And

all ill humors increase in the body and hurt the body if they be not purged,

humores moti non remoti corpus laedunt.

So likewise abuses and corruptions

increase in the commonwealth. Therefore often parliaments are necessary that

good laws may be made to prevent and punish them, ut poena ad paucos metus

ad omnes perveniat.

And we by daily experience ﬁnd that of diseases to be

true, quia non profertur cito contra mala sententia.

Therefore the hearts of

the sons of men is set on them to do them mischief.

March 14, 1621.

Ed.: In a debate concerning a bill on monopolies and dispensations.

32. [Ed.: there rise up barren tares and wild oats.]

33. [Ed.: Humours hurt the body when they are disturbed, not when they are removed.]

34. [Ed.: that a penalty administered to a few may strike terror in everyone.]

35. [Ed.: because sentence is not executed quickly against evil actions.]

36. [Ed.: X Journal, March 14, 1621, f. 193.]

Speeches in Parliament 16211206

Sir Edward Coke. All the Judges of England are all una voce,

when the

law gives the Crown a penalty he cannot grant the penalty to a private man,

for it is inseparable and cannot be divided. We come to the Council Table

where it is recorded by the Council, who conﬁrmed it and liked it very well,

that there should be no sole selling. No law can be equal to all countries and

cannot be granted to a private man. The sole buying and selling of anything

and sole importation and exportation is a monopoly. Sir Richard Mompesson,

sole importation of upon a quo warranto

was judged a monopoly.

Another, for sole importation of stone pots was likewise judged a monopoly,

and likewise exportation. And for the parliament, who denies that it is a court

of record at Westminster.

March 15, 1621.

Ed.: Following a debate on whether a member of the House can protect

a bankrupt, Coke reports his conference with the Lords in which he dis-

cussed the King’s power over the penal laws.

Sir Edward Coke, according to an order being to go up to the Lords to carry

the heads of the conference unto them, returning made this report. First, to

prevent that this sending of the heads in writing might not be made a precedent

against us to do the like hereafter, I told them then when the Commons sought

conference with their Lordships it hath been always verbal and upon the Lords’

report it was entered in their Journal. Yet because it was requested by them,

whom we had found so ready and kind to us in the said conference and the

rather for that it stood upon so many particulars as that the best memory

could scarce carry them away, we have condescended unto them.

I proceeded to shew what good ground the King had for saying in his Book

of Declaration of his royal pleasure that monopolies and dispensations of penal

laws were against law. For the Judges 2

Jacobi took it into deliberation three

days, looked into their books and precedents, whereupon having resolved they

37. [Ed.: of one voice.]

38. [Ed.: Writ to enforce the limits of an ofﬁce, power, or franchise, or to bar someone from acting

without legal authority.]

39. [Ed.: X Journal March 15, 1621, ff. 280–3.]

Petition of Grievances 1207

signiﬁed their resolutions in writing to the Lords of the Council that the taking

of forfeitures of the penal laws was an inseparable prerogative of the Crown

not to be imparted to any. Their reasons were: ﬁrst, because those laws were

made pro bono publico.

If a private person have the forfeiture it will be pro

privato.

Secondly, the King is pater patriae.

Therefore the realm trusteth

him when they will not trust a private man. Thirdly, because of the incon-

veniences of it. For when a subject is clothed with the King’s prerogative he

seldom keeps a measure. For I never saw an universal patent granted but it

was disorderly executed. Fourthly, it’s a scandal to justice. The Council Board

approved and applauded this resolution of the Judges as one of the best that

ever was given. The King then, having the opinion of the Judges in point of

law and of his Council for point of state, had good and sufﬁcient ground for

making such a Declaration.

I shewed precedents likewise against monopolies. King Philip, coming over

to marry Queen Mary, arrived at Southampton where, being royally received

by the town, to gratify them granted them a monopoly that all sweet wines

which were brought into this kingdom should be brought into Southampton.

During Queen Mary’s time none durst speak against it, but 2

Eliz. it was

questioned and judged to be a monopoly, whereupon 5

Eliz. the subject by

an act of parliament was freed from it, but the stranger remained bound,

William Simpson had gotten a patent for the sole importation of stone pots

and heath to make brushes withal. This was complained of to the Queen. Go

(said she) to Burleigh, then Lord Treasurer, Popham and Coke, and cause a

quo warranto to be brought against it. And it was adjudged a monopoly. Sir

Thomas Wilkes his patent of sole making of salt in Norfolk, because he had

made a new addition to it, yet it was adjudged to be a monopoly because a

new button added to an old coat makes it not a new coat, and etc. Sir John

Paggington his patent of sole importation of starch, his patent overthrown.

Richard Mompesson and Robert Alexander for the sole importation of drugs

and aniseeds, a monopoly. Elizabeth Martin, the sole buying of ﬁsh livers to

make train oil. Sir Edward Darcy, the sole importation and exporting of cork

prohibited and adjudged a monopoly.

40. [Ed.: for the public good.]

41. [Ed.: for private gain.]

42. [Ed.: father of the nation.]

Speeches in Parliament 16211208

Next, for concealments, a patent as bad or rather worse than any other.

First, that no nobleman can grant land wherein he hath not actual possession.

Therefore it cannot stand with the justice of the king to grant any land to

the disherison of his subjects. Secondly, it robs the king of his tenures which

is the tree of his revenue, with which goeth licence of alienation, wards, and

marriage. Thirdly, it robs the church. Christ whipped the buyers and sellers

out of the temple; he would much more whip the buyers and sellers of

churches. Fourthly, it robs the poor, for Sir Giles Mompesson had passed

twelve hospitals in one book. Therefore the King hath reserved these things

justly to himself, commanding in his said Book that neither the Broad Seal

nor his Privy Signet should be put to any of these.

I told them also that this parliament we had been careful to observe these

three things diligently: ﬁrst, that we would not deal with the King’s absolute

power, whereby he may make war, etc. Cum canerem regis et proelia Cinthius

aurem vellet et admonuit.

When as I did begin to sing of kings and war,

Apollo pulled me by the ear and said I went too far. Secondly, to preserve the

King’s honor. And to this end we have set down the King’s guides, the referees.

Thirdly, to provide for the wealth of the King. But the King cannot be rich

if the subject be poor.

I then told them I had one thing more if they were not weary. The Prince

desired to hear it. I said, in the Italian history there was mention made of a

friar who had spent his time in holy devotion. He was sent to Rome to preach,

and because he had never been at Rome before he went 10 or 12 days before

the time. And when he came and observed so much ceremonies and pomp

and so little devotion, what a lamentable thing (said he) is this, I will not

preach here. Yet when his day came he went into the pulpit, and said this,

matto Sante Piero, St. Peter was a fool. This he said three times and came

down again; and being examined why he spake those words, answered, St.

Peter said non habeo aurum nec argentum,

silver and gold have I none, but

the Pope hath plenty. He spent his time in prayer, the Pope in pleasure and

vanity; he in building the inward man, you in pampering the outward man.

If any of you do go to heaven, St. Peter was a fool to undergo such pressures.

43. [Ed.: When I sang of Kings and wars, Cynthius (i.e. Apollo) seized me by the ear and rebuked me

(a quote from Vergil’s Eclogues, 6.1).]

44. [Ed.: Gold and silver have I none.]

Petition of Grievances 1209

So surely I may say matto Signor Empsono, matto Signor Dudleio. Our Mom-

pesson hath gone beyond you, what fools were they to be hanged (for, as it

were, a matter of nothing). Sir Giles Mompesson hath gone so far beyond

them all as that a man had need of an astrolobe to take the height of it. And

therefore I hoped they would give condign punishment. So I delivered them

the heads.

March 16, 1621.

Ed.: In a debate concerning the propriety of serving a subpoena on judges

to testify in a matter over which they are not presiding.

Sir Edward Coke said, that every one who sitteth here is as a judge, and

hath a vote negative in the making of the laws of this kingdom: that the Judges

of the Common Pleas, or of any court, are never sworn as witnesses in any

case, albeit they know of something concerning it, and can testify in it; but,

if their knowledge be asked, they answer it without an oath: that no Judge

of the Star-Chamber can be served with a subpoena ad testiﬁcandum in that

court; and therefore none of us are to be examined as witnesses in any thing

whereof this House with the Lords are to be judges.

...

Sir Edward Coke. That for a member of this house to be examined on oath

in a business sent from us to the Lords was never before desired: that we were

best to answer, that we have no precedents that ever it was done, and that

there is no necessity in it, because the greatest matters are sufﬁciently proved.

March 22, 1621.

Ed.: In a debate concerning a bill on the election of burgesses.

Sir Edward Coke. I had rather live under severe laws than under any man’s

discretion. Misera servitas est ubi ius est vagum et incognitum.

45. [Ed.: Cobbett, Parl. Hist., I, 1206–7.]

46. [Ed.: X Journal, March 22, 1621, f. 224.]

47. [Ed.: It is miserable slavery where the law is vague or unknown. (Servitas in the journal is a misprint

for servitus)]

Speeches in Parliament 16211210

April 20, 1621.

Ed.: In a debate concerning the bribery of judges.

Sir Edward Coke. I love Sir John Bennet well but I hate bribery. First let

it be set down in writing and then present it to the Lords. If it be found true,

it will touch him near. If not, beatus est,

for blessed is he that keepeth his

hand from bribery.

May 3, 1621.

Ed.: In a debate on a bill concerning unjust exaction of fees in courts of

justice.

Sir Edward Coke. Courts of justice are like a circle, you cannot add anything

unto it but you mar it. If you put new to old it will never agree. If the king

will grant an ofﬁce to two whereas anciently it appertained to one, it will never

do well. 13 Hen. 4, there is a resolution that a fee cannot be set to a new ofﬁce

without an act of parliament. It’s in the canvas case and the grant of an ofﬁce

without a fee is void. 27 Hen. 8, if I grant to one to be my steward without

a fee, it’s void. But in a court of justice if you bring in a new ofﬁce it will

never want fees. Therefore let there be none. If the King grant a new ofﬁce

and give him a fee, it’s void.

May 4, 1621.

Ed.: In a debate regarding when the King can intervene in proceedings.

Sir Edward Coke. When any judgment is given in a case concerning the

king (as all criminal cases do for they are contra coronam et dignitatem suam,

)

48. [Ed.: X Journal, April 20, 1621, f. 267.]

49. [Ed.: he is blessed.]

50. [Ed.: X Journal, May 3, 1621, f. 304.]

51. [Ed.: X Journal, May 4, 1621, f. 308.]

52. [Ed.: against his crown and dignity.]

Petition of Grievances 1211

the king may stay judgment and execution. 2 Edw. 3; 20, it’s enacted that no

judgment shall be stayed for any message whatsoever. This is true for the late

Queen hath sent and the Judges have answered they may not. Nay if the Great

Seal come they may not stay judgment between party and party. But if the

king be a party he may stop it, 1 Hen. 7. To question this judgment is strange;

if a judgment be given when a judge is absent, if he come after into the court

it shall be accounted his judgment. Nay, if a judge be present and give his

voice against a judgment yet, being judged by the rest it shall be his judgment.

If the king send to stop an indictment in an appeal I would not do it but in

an indictment I would let the judgment entered stand, referring the execution

to his Majesty, my great master.

May 5, 1621.

Ed.: In a debate concerning a bill to conﬁrm Magna Charta in chapter 29,

to bar corporations from engaging in the imprisonment of individuals.

Sir Edward Coke. The Statute of Magna Charta hath ben 32 [times] Con-

ﬁrmed, and never hath it ben so infringed as of late yeears. Corporations have

gotten by Lawes according to Law, and to imprison for breach, but that is

against all Law. But this bill trenshes so deepe that a man for any cause of

State can not be imprisoned but theay must shew ther reson. and therfor faulty

in that and oute of the Statute of Magna Charta as in 33 Hen. 6 and conﬁrmd

so by all the judges. For L[ondon]s Corp[oratio]ns, lett them follow the Law

and not committ upon by Lawes, for theay cannot doo that.

May 17, 1621.

Ed.: In considering pending bills seeking monopolies and price ﬁxing.

Sir Edward Coke. That there is 19 patents for monopolies, concealments,

and penal laws, tearing the ﬂowers from the Crown. In the 44 of Eliz., by

53. [Ed.: The notes by Sir Thomas Barringon of the House of Commans in 1621, May 5, 1621, in

Notestein, Relf, and Simpson, Commons Debates, 1621, vol. 3, p. 172.

54. [Ed.: X Journal, May 17, 1621, f. 340.]

Speeches in Parliament 16211212

proclamation all of this nature was damned, and therefore I think it ﬁt by

petition to go to the King that all these may be damned.

June 2, 1621.

Ed.: In a debate concerning trade and customs.

Sir Edward Coke saith, that this motion of sir D. Digges is a worthy motion;

for freedom of trade is the life of trade: that customers are called in latin

Publicani, and every one knoweth, that Christ called publicans sinners; and

we may justly match and call publicans customers, and customers sinners; for

they cozen and deceive both the king and kingdom. He saith, he will never

fear questioning for what he hath here said; for he hath here spoken old English,

which is conscience. He knoweth he hath offended many, because it pleased

this house to put him in the chair at the committee concerning monopolies;

whereby he hath proceeded the more carefully. He would have those of the

out ports, who shall desire to farm their customs, to offer good sureties: but,

for the better furtherance of trade, he would have an order of declaration

entered here, that none of those patents of monopolies, which have been here

condemned, should be put in execution during this adjournment or cessation.

November 22, 1621.

Ed.: Here Coke prefaces the reports of three members of the Lords.

Sir Edward Coke. I am to make report of three speeches of three great lords.

1, The Lord Bishop of Lincoln, Lord Keeper of the Great Seal of England. 2,

The Lord Digby. 3, The Lord Treasurer. But ﬁrst I will begin with myself. I

am in this case at a great disadvantage, for it appears their speeches were

premeditates meditationes

; mine must needs be properatus.

They (no doubt)

had conference one with another before, and collatio peperit artes et perﬁcit

55. [Ed.: Cobbett, Parl. Hist., I, 1291.]

56. [Ed.: X Journal, November 22, 1621, f. 404.]

57. [Ed.: considered thoughts.]

58. [Ed.: sudden.]

Petition of Grievances 1213

artes.

I marked how everyone of them spake in his own element, and that

hath ever been the order in parliaments, but I am sure I am out of my element.

The ﬁrst of them was a divine and excellent orator for persuasion. The second

was my Lord Digby who was ambassador, and he was set forth in the King’s

negotiation. The third was my Lord Treasurer who was to speak concerning

the treasure of the kingdom. They are all in the vigor of their age. I am in

declining. They have had it from the fountain, I from the streams. And thus

much of myself. Now I come to their speeches.

December 3, 1621.

Ed.: In a debate on the foreign and domestic policy implications of an

alliance by royal marriage with Spain.

Sir Edward Coke answereth something that hath not been answered. Melius

est recurrere quam male currere, satius est recurrere quam praecurrere.

Hath not

every man the marriage of his own child, yea, the king cannot dispose of the

marriage of my son. If lands descend from another ancestor, the king cannot

have the wardship and marriage, the father living. These are inseparable pre-

rogatives of the Crown and king. Marriage and leagues, war and peace, they

are arcana imperii

and not to be meddled with. If they were a petition of

right that required an answer, I would never prefer it or give my consent to

the preferring of it; but it’s only a petition of grace. The Prince his marriage

must move either directly or indirectly from the King. Now we have heard

the Lords say that Janus his temple must be opened; the voice of Bellona must

be heard and not of the turtle. Nay more we heard that his Majesty must

either abandon his children or engage himself in war. The King of Spain

maintains 6 armies, his forces have gotten the Palatinate, so then we must

ﬁght against the Spaniards. But we desire that we might ﬁght against Spain.

We say that the hope of the marriage with Spain is the cause of the insolency

59. [Ed.: conference begets and perfects professional skills.]

60. [Ed.: X Journal, December 3, 1621, ff. 467–68.]

61. [Ed.: It is better to run back than to run badly; it is more satisfactory to run back than to run

precipitately forward.]

62. [Ed.: government secrets (the essentials of statecraft).]

Speeches in Parliament 16211214

of the papists. We advise nothing but what his Majesty liketh, for surely it

will avert the hearts of many that he should marry with any but a protestant.

For marriage with strange women the scripture saith cauti sitis ne avertant

corda vestra et sequamini deos alienos.

To do this by way of petition is good

and hath no hurt in it. If it please his Majesty he may take this petition for

a ground and lay it by or else make use of it when the match is next moved.

He may give it life if he please and quash it at his pleasure, for we draw not

a bill to bind but a petition, precedents whereof you may have divers. Edward

3 did confer with his Commons concerning his marriage. 42 Edw. 3. No. 7,

a foreign prince did abuse him and he being weary of arms was for a treaty,

and they dissuaded him from peace and persuade him to take his sword in

hand because a just war was better than a dishonorable peace. That the Com-

mons may argue, debate and dispute of the estate of the kingdom which

concerns the good of it. 4 Hen. 5, a league was to be made between the King

of England and Sigismund, King of the Romans, by act of parliament and

there is an act for it. The writ is our guide. Nil nisi prudentia aut ratione fecit

vetustas.

The king calleth the parliament pro magnis arduis et urgentibus ne-

gociis nos statum et defensionem regni nostri ac statum et defensionem ecclesiae

concernentibus etc.

Now judge if ever cause were more urgent than this or

did concern the state, kingdom and commonwealth. Ecclesiam Anglianam are

the words of the writ and doth not this concern religion?

December 15, 1621.

Ed.: In a debate on the King’s prerogative on the privileges and liberties

of his subjects.

Sir Edward Coke. Silence would smite my conscience. Cum aequali dubium,

cum principe stultum, cum puero poena[m], cum puella pudorem.

One out of

63. [Ed.: You must be careful not to turn away your hearts and follow strange gods.]

64. [Ed.: Past ages made nothing without prudence or reason.]

65. [Ed.: for great, hard and urgent business concerning us, the estate and defence of our realm, and

the estate and defence of the Church, etc.]

66. [Ed.: X Journal, December 15, 1621, ff. 509–510.]

67. [Ed.: With an equal, doubt; with the prince, foolishness; with a boy, punishment; with a girl,

shame.]

Petition of Grievances 1215

Ireland would not dispute with the king. The king as the sun in summo gradu

hath his full light. In the 39 Edw. 4, the liberties of the court is the law of the

court. 19 Hen. 6. When the law groweth dangerous, they may be freed by

parliament. How can great men be punished, their burthen is pulled off. We

must have another interpretation. He would have us have any other style as

nulli vendimus.

The king will not sell justice. The law no custom but by

custom, that is, particular laws. The King doth not mean to take our privileges

away. But that a Committee of the whole House for we can have no proxies

but we represent others. That a committee be appointed on Monday.

December 17, 1621.

Sir Edward Coke saith, that we have now, by this last message, as he conceiveth,

an allowance of our Privileges, which indeed are our’s by law, by custom, by

precedent, and by act of parl. That he thinketh, if we did set down our privi-

leges and liberties, it would clear us of all those rubs. He wisheth, that himself

were a sacriﬁce, so as there were a good and perfect correspondency and right

understanding between the king and the house, as he hopeth there is: That

one Walter Clerk, being a burgess for Chippenham, was ﬁned for a riot in

time of parl. at the king’s suit; which encouraged also one Rob. Basset to sue

the said Clerk, on an action of trespass; and also one John Payne sued the

said Clerk to an outlawry, and laid him up in the Fleet: but hereupon this

house of parl. would do nothing till they had their burgess again. Those of

the king’s side said then, that, for the king’s suit, Non omittas propter aliquam

libertatem;

and it was then also alledged, on the behalf of this house, that

the king calleth the burgesses here for the service of the kingdom; and if one

of them may be taken from us, all may like-wise by the same right.

...

Sir Edward Coke would have us make a Protestation for our Privileges: That

he can tell us when both houses did sit in parl. together, both the lords and

the commons: That the demand of the privileges of this house, by the Speaker

68. [Ed.: in the highest degree.]

69. [Ed.: to no one shall we sell.]

70. [Ed.: Cobbett, Parl. Hist., I, pp. 1352, 1355.]

71. [Ed.: do not omit on account of any liberty.]

Speeches in Parliament 16211216

was after they began to be questioned: and, at ﬁrst, when the demand of the

privileges was made to the kings of this realm, it used to be done still at the

ﬁrst meeting of the parl.; and in this manner, that, if the house might not

have their privileges and liberties, they would sit silent. He would have us

make our protestation for our privileges, and then send the same to the king,

that he may see it.

C. 1625

Subsidies

he parliament of 1625, the ﬁrst of Charles I, was a much less contro-

versial parliament than that of either 1621 or 1624, but it grew more

heated as it progressed. Coke began the ﬁrst parliament moderately, with-

holding his motion on the ﬁrst day to appoint a committee of grievances.

Coke, however, opposed both heavy taxes and the Duke of Buckingham’s

inﬂuence and policies.—Ed.

June 22, 1625.

Ed.: Responding to a motion for a committee of grievances or for good

harmony between the King and Parliament.

Sir Edward Coke gave 3 reasons against making committees for grievances

and courts of justice: ﬁrst, the danger of infection by drawing the meaner sort

of people about us, which was the judicial reason of the adjourning of the

term; 2, there have been no grievance[s] since the King came to the crown;

3, we have yet received no answer of our last grievances, therefore we are ﬁrst

to begin to petition his Majesty for that; and hereafter let us be careful to

present our grievances in such time that we may have an answer before the

breaking up of the parliament.

1. [Ed.: Bedford MS. 197, June 22, 1625, 5, reprinted in Janssen and Bidwell, Proceedings in Parliament,

1625.]

Speeches in Parliament 16251218

June 23, 1625.

Ed.: In a debate on the privileges of a member of Parliament taken into

execution in an action for debt.

Sir Edward Coke. The liberty of parliament the heartstring of parliament.

2 questions: Whether Sir William Cope shall have his privilege for the last

parliament or this.

14 Hen. 4, the knights could have no wages because the parliament dissolved

and the King’s death.

Privilege holds as well upon prorogation as adjournment. 31 Hen. 6, the

parliament prorogued. The Duke of York, regent, sued the Speaker in the

vacation and had a judgment. The Commons desired their Speaker.

Ed.: In a debate concerning the problems associated with the perceived

increase in the numbers of priests and Jesuits.

Sir Edward Coke.

Non intellecti nulla est curatio morbi.

Diseases kill not

men for the most part, but the neglect of cure in due time. So in the politic

body, 4 causes of the swarming of these locusts: [1,] suffering of them in the

land with impunity; 2, begging of recusants; 3, dependence upon landlords

and great men. To appoint a committee to look over the former petitions and

answers.

June 24, 1625.

In the Committee of the Whole House

Ed.: Considering petitions concerning the exercise of religion.

Sir Edward Coke. We have not yet touched the center point of the decay

of religion. Where prophecy ceases, the people perish. A great part of the realm

2. [Ed.: House of Commons, Draft Journal, MS. 3409, H.L.R.O., June 23, 1625, 133.]

3. [Ed.: Committee Book, MS. 3410, H.L.R.O., June 23, 1625, 157.]

4. [Ed.: There is no cure for a disease which is not understood.]

5. [Ed.: Committee Book, June 24, 1625, 158, reprinted in Janssen and Bidwell.]

Subsidies 1219

without teaching. To petition the King to have this in some sort remedied.

A precedent for this in the midnight of popery: quinquagesimo

of Edw.3, n.

96, the Commons complained of this to the King, this long before Luther.

To desire the King that he would call his bishops to him and advise with them.

June 30, 1625.

Ed.: In a debate on the assessment of subsidies.

Sir Edward Coke. Ordinary charges the King should bear alone; but ubi

commune periculum commune auxilium.

In extraordinary he may requirerelief.

27 Edw. 3, the King told his subjects he demanded no aid because he had

good ofﬁcers. The King’s revenue as it is, is able to supply his ordinary. Ancient

parliaments did so limit their gifts, that they might meet again. Till 31 Eliz.

never but one subsidy granted, and Sir Walter Mildmay, though he were a

great ofﬁcer, spoke against it then. But since that time there has been no such

thing. 35

.3 subsidies, 6 15[s]; 39

, 3 subsidies, 6 15[s]; 43

, 4 subsidies, 8 15[s];

etc. And it is not to be forgotten that the tonnage and poundage which yields

160,000l. per annum, and the subsidies of the clergy 20.000l. per annum, are

all by gifts of parliament. The time for these two subsidies he would have

October and April.

August 2, 1625.

Ed.: Considering the censure of Canon Richard Montague, for publishing

books contrary to the current orthodoxy.

Sir Edward Coke (having spoken before, yet being permitted contrary to

the orders of the House to speak again). That the privilege of the House of

Commons was the heartstring of the commonwealth. We are the general in-

quisitors, but for the point of doctrine not to judge but to transfer: pro de-

6. [Ed.: in the ﬁftieth.]

7. [Ed.: Bedford MS, June 30, 1625, 18v.]

8. [Ed.: where there is mutual danger, mutual assistance.]

9. [Ed.: Bedford MS, August 2, 1625, 41v.]

Speeches in Parliament 16251220

fensione Ecclesiae,

given as one cause of calling parliaments in all the ancient

writs; and when both Houses have done their duties it will come to the King

at last. 18 Hen.3, the parliament beseech the King not to pardon those who

were condemned in parliament. 15 Edw.3, John of Gaunt and the Lord Latimer

were questioned for giving the King ill counsel. No man, not John of Gaunt

himself, is to be excepted. Many men (and I myself) will speak in parliament

that which they dare not speak otherwise.

August 5, 1625.

Ed.: In debate concerning the use of treasury revenues for war.

Sir Edward Coke spoke. In King Edward the 3d’s time, who was a valiant

and a wise king, the clergy did petition the King for 3 things: for the main-

tenance and preservation of religion, for a peaceable government, and for the

continuance and increase of love between the King and his subjects, was that

petitioned then, and is it not needful now. He is afraid some ill star has ruled

that has brought us hither. But the place where he is now, in the Divinity

School, puts him in mind not to fear any evil but to put our trust in God.

For surely we have a gracious and a religious King. And are there no more

precedents to this purpose? Yes, in the time of that stout and valiant King

Henry the Fourth you shall ﬁnd that the Commons, perceiving things to go

awry, did resort unto the King by petition who rectiﬁed the same. See the

records of Hen.4.

Two things are urged against us very strongly to give, ﬁrst our engagement,

secondly, the King’s necessity. For the ﬁrst, our engagement by the House. It

was not other but if that the King would turn his weapon against the right

enemy, they would supply him in a parliamentary course.

And for the other argument of necessity, I ﬁnd in Bracton, a father of our

law, that there is a threefold necessity: necessitas affectata, inevitabilis aut in-

vincibilis, et improvida.

That this is not affectata in his conscience he dares

acquit the King. That it is invincibilis, or inevitabilis, he does not believe. God

10. [Ed.: for the defence of the Church.]

11. [Ed.: Petyt MS 538-8, August 5, 1625, 134v-9, reprinted in Janssen and Bidwell.]

12. [Ed.: Necessity may be [1] pretended, [2] inevitable or invincible, or [3] unexpected.]

Subsidies 1221

forbid that his Majesty should be put to that pinch. We have no invasions,

no eighty-eights. That it is improvida he does verily believe. And therefore he

thinks that in respect that it has grown by improvidence and is not inevitable,

not to be supplied by the House.

Cannot the King as well live off his revenue as his ancestors? King Edward

the 3d maintained wars in France 14 years before he had supply. Ofﬁces ought

to be held and used by men of experience and understanding, of good years,

judgment, and discretion, to execute such ofﬁces. Or else they were void in

law, and so be our [books and] law cases: 3

Eliz., Dyer, Skrogges’s case and

many other books. And a kingdom can never be well governed where unskillful

and unﬁtting men are placed in great ofﬁces and hold the great ofﬁces of the

kingdom. For if they are inexperienced and unskillful themselves, they cannot

execute them or make choice of ﬁt men under them by reason of want of

experience and judgment. Neither are young and unskillful persons to be

trusted with such great ofﬁces. Besides multiplicity of ofﬁces to be held by

one man is a great prejudice to the merit of honor and his Majesty’s well-

deserving subjects. And by this means that which was wont to be thought ﬁt

to advance divers as a reward of their good service or a token of his Majesty’s

favor and grace and bestowed only upon men of great desert both of king and

kingdom, is now held and engrossed by one man only which is neither safe

for his Majesty nor proﬁtable unto the kingdom. And whereas the king[s]

might and anciently have rewarded many by one of these great ofﬁces upon

one of his servants whom he found to be most ﬁt for it and another and by

such means keep his revenue to himself, it is now come to pass that by en-

grossing of ofﬁces his Majesty’s Exchequer stands charges with many pensions

for the reward of service at least alleged. Nay, his ancient crown land granted

away to gratify men in this kind.

The ofﬁce of Admiral is the greatest ofﬁce of trust about the King, for the

beneﬁt of the kingdom, it being an island consisting of trade, and therefore

requires a man of great experience and judgment (which he cannot attain unto

in a few years), and such a one as shall have spent his time in the understanding

of it. And he says for his part were he to go to sea he had rather go with a

man that had been once on the seas and able to guide and manage a ship or

ﬂeet than with him that had been 10 times at the haven.

The Master of the Ordnance was anciently a tradesman until 37 Hen. 8

and then it was conferred on a nobleman and ever since it has been in the

nobility and was never well governed.

Speeches in Parliament 16251222

Ric.2 such granting of ofﬁces wrought a great disquiet in the state. 3

Hen. 7 oppression by subsidies made [a] rebellion. 14 Hen.8, when as great

taxes were laid upon northernmen by the means of the Cardinal, the Earl of

Northumberland being employed in the same the people slew him; the King

he laid it upon his Council, his Council on the judges, and the judges on the

Cardinal, and there it rested.

It has been told us that by the late King’s neutrality the wars increased,

neutralitas nec amicos parit nec inimicos tollit,

and as the case now stands it

is a good project for the parliament and a worthy action to bring the King,

that he may be able to subsist of his own estate which is now in a consumption.

And the ship has a great leak which may be stopped yet, but if it be not stopped

in time, it will all come to nought. And subsidies never given for the ordinary

but for the extraordinary expenses of the King.

No state can subsist of himself in an honorable estate except it has 3 things.

First, free ability to support itself for his own necessaries and defense against

any sudden invasion.

Secondly, that it must be able to aid his allies and foreign friends.

Thirdly, to reward his well-deserving servants. The ordinary to be discharged

by the ordinary.

The causes of defect [are] not for want of income, but through the ill or-

dering of it, which grows either by wasting or surcharging it. And therefore

the remedy must be accordingly There is medicina removens and medicina

renovans.

He moves to have a committee to recollect the heads for memorials,

which are great enemies to the revenue of the crown whereof fraud is one and

instances what hurt it does in the customs. The ofﬁcers bought their ofﬁces

dear and they wink at the merchant. And then to make up all, there must be

a medium and so the farmers grow rich. How is it else that he that was but

a broken merchant lately, by farming the customs awhile, is now become worth

40 to 50,000 l.

Another is new-invented ofﬁces with large fees. 12 Edw.4, a complaint of

the like nature for an ofﬁce of Surveyor of the Brewer[s] with a large fee. And

old ofﬁces with new fees [and new ofﬁces with new fees] to be repealed as by

the law they may be with the love of the people and honor and proﬁt of the

13. [Ed.: Neutrality does not win friends or remove enemies.]

14. [Ed.: medicine which removes [and] medicine which renews.]

Subsidies 1223

King. President of York to cease, president of Wales to cease; they are both

needless charges for the people who had rather to live under the government

of the common laws. The western men had the same honor as may appear

by the statute of 32 Hen.8, but they desired to be governed by the common

laws and to shake off that honor. Another not to monopolize ofﬁces singula

ofﬁcia singulis teneantur sicut judices,

every ofﬁcer to live off his ofﬁce and

not to beg other things.

If the old ofﬁces and old orders were kept there would be no need of new

tables and therefore Sir Simon Harvey by his will should out of his ofﬁces.

And voluntary annuities and pensions to be retrenched are not bought and

sold, and a new market kept of them as now it is. And all unnecessary charges

and portage money twelve d. of the pound taken away whereas they make

great gain of it themselves.

And overmuch bounty is another thing that is to be restrained. For here

is no friend to the King or state that seeks a fee farm or a new ofﬁce. The

statute of 4 Hen.4: no man ought to beg any thing of the crown till the King

be out of debt. This statute is called Brangwyn, which is Welsh for a white

crow. They are like a crow ever craving, and for their sins they are white. In

the time of want and dearth, as now it is, costly apparel, diet, and Lady Vanity

is to be abandoned.

And thus much for medicina removens. Now for medicina renovans. The

King has 31 forests, and parks almost without number. Every one of them is

a great charge to the crown. And therefore those to be peopled, and what

greater honor can be to the King than by building of churches and increasing

of his people without doing wrong to others to grow rich. Besides, Ireland,

which is now a very plentiful and rich nation (pray God it be not monop-

olized), by Holinshed it appears that in King Edward the 3d’s time yet it did

yield clearly unto the crown 30,000 l. per annum and now is a great charge

to the crown.

His project. There is no farmer that had any lease made unto him by King

James but will give half a year’s rent, with all his heart, to have the same

conﬁrmed by King Charles. And if the King will take these courses he did

hope, as old as he was, to live to see King Charles to be styled Charles the

Great.

15. [Ed.: Single ofﬁces should be held by single individuals, as in the case of judges.]

Speeches in Parliament 16251224

6 Edw. 3, numero 4

, a[nd] 5 Edw. 3, numero 5

. The Commons did petition

the King to live off his own estate and there it is alleged that the ordinary

revenue should maintain the ordinary charge. 27 Edw. 3, numero 9

, the King

did not make a new charge to an old ofﬁce.

6 Edw. 1 and 1 Hen. 5 upon an extraordinary aid and grievance the Commons

show that the King ought to keep himself within his compass.

That shop boys be not taken from their shops and placed in the ofﬁce of

Green Cloth.

5 Hen. 4. 11 Hen. 6 numero 24 et 25, the Lord Cromwell being then Treasurer

acquainted the Commons with the King’s revenue and his goings out and

prayed them that the[y] would take a course to keep the King within his

revenue. And in 1

Hen. 7 and 11 Hen. 7 the Commons conﬁned his Majesty

to his revenue.

August 10, 1625.

Ed.: In debate on the Supply.

Sir Edward Coke, who said, “That two leaks would drown any ship. That

solum & malum concilium

was a bottomless sieve. An ofﬁcer should not be,

cupidus alienae rei, parcus suae; avarus republicae; super omnia expertus. Misera

servitus est, ubi lex incerta aut incognita.

That in the 11th Hen. 3. Hubert de

Burgh, chief justice, advised the king that Magna Charta was not to hold,

because the king was under age when that act was made. He was created earl

of Kent, but degraded for this some time after. In the 16th Hen. 3. Segrave,

chief justice, was sentenced for giving sole counsel to the king against the

common-wealth. That it was malum consilium to press more Subsidies when

they had given two; and to bring them hither only for 40,000l. And, lastly,

offered to give 1000l. out of his own estate, rather than grant any Subsidy

now.” The result of all which was, resolution was then agreed on, “That a

committee of the whole house should be appointed at eight o’clock the next

morning, to consider what return to make to his maj’s message delivered this

day.”

16. [Ed.: Cobbett, Parl. Hist., II, 35.]

17. [Ed.: the ill advice of one person.]

18. [Ed.: covetous of another’s property, sparing with his own, greedy with the state, his ﬁnger in every

pie. It is miserable slavery where the law is uncertain or unknown.]

D. 1628

Petition of Right

arliament was focused at the outset on The Five Knights’ Case, in which

citizens were committed to prison not for crimes created by parliament

or for avoiding a parliamentary tax but for not paying loans that were in

theory voluntary but were in fact coerced by the King. Their writs of habeas

corpus had been denied by the newly obedient King’s Bench. Seventy-six

men lingered in prison over the winter. Charles I’s opening address, warning

members not to meddle in his affairs, helped little. Coke, elected inde-

pendently by two separate constituencies, but seated only for one, was by

then at the extreme of his opposition to Charles, although his deep loyalty

to the Crown was a continuing theme in his actions. Coke moved early

for a committee of the whole to consider both grievances of Parliament

and the King’s supply, or tax support for military or other unusual expenses.

Commons passed a remonstrance against Charles’s unilateral raising of

money from tonnage and poundage. Coke argued for the protection of

habeas corpus, moving for a Petition of Right, which was drafted on his

lines and voted up. There were numerous arguments over details, particu-

larly over the King’s use of martial law, which Coke opposed. The House

of Lords introduced an amendment to save the “sovereign power of the

Crown.” Coke persuaded the Commons to defeat the amendment. The

Lords, inﬂuenced largely by Coke, who represented Commons to them,

agreed with the amendment’s removal. The King, advised by Buckingham,

initially gave an evasive answer that would not amount to acceptance of

the Petition as law. Coke denounced Buckingham as the cause of the King’s

insult to parliament. The Lords and Commons made a new joint address

to Charles I, asking him to assent. Charles I assented to the Petition of

Right as a statute of the realm, and the Commons granted him his supply,

having already passed ﬁve subsidies, or emergency grants and specialized

taxes on goods.

Speeches in Parliament 16281226

During the ongoing debates on the Petition of Right, other debates on

religious issues occupied considerable attention, and Parliament passed laws

against religious error.—Ed.

March 20, 1628.

Ed.: In debate on the elections of members and of certain government

ofﬁcials.

Sir Edward Coke. It behooves us with all endeavor to labor that the kingdom

be kept in unity. The devil put in this. This is not to cut the member but to

strike the root. They must have men of gravity. These men make a separation

between king and people. I beseech God this Machiavellian trick be found

out and punished.

...

Sir Edward Coke. We passed divers excellent laws last parliament. Let a note

be made of them, and let them be delivered to the House upon Monday

morning.

...

Sir Edward Coke.

I have spent my youth in Suffolk, my age in Bucking-

hamshire, and had a thought never more to have seen a parliament. I desire

there may be no precipitation but that a few days may be allotted to consider.

For questionable elections, I humbly move they may be examined in order

as they come.

March 21, 1628.

Ed.: Describing an unwritten, but proposed bill to bring in the names of

recusants.

1. [Ed.: “Proceedings and Debates,” f. 8v. In Johnson, Cole, Keeler, and Bidwell, Common Debates 1628.

vol. II, p. 34. (hereinafter CD, 1628.)]

2. [Ed.: Stowe Ms. 366, March 20, 1628, 5.]

3. [Ed.: Harleian MS, March 21, 1628, f. 289v, in CD, 1628, II, 44.]

Petition of Right 1227

Sir Edward Coke

said that to draw a committee before we have a bill, and

it be read, is not usual. Let it be ﬁrst read, for we must have a subject, a

foundation, and that is it we must work upon.

Ed.: In debate on the limits of property forfeiture or loss of life before

attainder or conviction.

Sir Edward Coke said, in 4

Hen. 6, the Chancellor of England did use to

take a theme, and divide it, and speak of some subject therein. And that was,

“While we have time let us do some good.” So I, at this time, “Let us do

something.” Mr. Speaker, nothing is more precious to a man in this life than

liberty. Imprisonment is a heavy punishment; and yet just in many cases. The

law gives remedy if a horse or a sheep be taken. If a man be in prison, God

forbid but the law should give remedy. It doth give remedy, you know right

well. There is a habeas corpus

that the judges cannot deny. Nay, there is a

writ called de homine replegiando,

grounded upon Magna Carta. If a man be

unjustly committed, there is a writ, and secret of law in it. But many do think

that this writ is gone. So saith Stanford; he gave his opinion of 28 Edw.3. but

he comes with that of 42 Edw.3, a law made that all statutes made against

Magna Carta should be void; but this writ is grounded upon that; then it

stands. Thus the secret of law. If they repeal the act ﬁrst, the law resolves we

have laws made that men should not be long detained in prison. If the keeper

of a jail keeps me in prison, and do not sue out a commission of freedeliverance,

he loses his prison. So that the prison is but a surety to bring a man forth, if

he have no surety. But shall a man be in perpetual imprisonment? That is

against the law of the land. For seeing a man hath surety for himself, God

forbid the law should hold him in prison. The law is curious in this, touching

the liberty or freedom of a subject. To give strength to the law, I have penned

a bill. I do not doubt but this bill will have many oppugners. Therefore I keep

my reasons till the time.

The bill read, entitled An act against long and unjust detainment of men

in prison.

4. [Ed.: Harleian MS, March 21, 1628, 291v–92, in CD, 1628, II, 45.]

5. [Ed.: produce the body [a writ to review the legality of an incarceration.]]

6. [Ed.: For replevying a man; a writ of bail for one incarcerated neither for a crime nor by royal

command.]

Speeches in Parliament 16281228

It recited that by the laws of the realm, no person in prison, or committed

to prison, for any offense done, or supposed to be done, ought to be detained;

but justice in convenient time is to be executed, that, if he be innocent, he

may be acquitted and delivered. It is desired that no person now in prison,

or restrained of liberty, or which shall be, by commandment or other warrant,

for any contempt done or supposed to be done, shall, after the end of this

session, be kept in prison. If he be not delivered within two months after the

parliament, he shall within two months be set at liberty until an accusation

be alleged. And for default of such discharge, the parties shall be freely dis-

charged from all offenses committed by them within two months. And if any

such person shall not be set at liberty, he shall be acquitted of all offenses

whatsoever.

March 22, 1628.

Ed.: In a debate on the King’s Request for supply, focusing on his abilities

with regard to taxes and loans.

Sir Edward Coke. The way I shall take, I am absolutely to give supply to

his Majesty, yet with some caution. To tell you of foreign dangers and inbred

evils, I will not do it. The state is inclining to a consumption. It is curable.

I fear not foreign enemies. God send us peace at home. For the disease I will

propound remedies. I’ll speak nothing out of my head, but from my heart

and out of acts of parliament. I am not able to ﬂy at all grievances, but only

at loans. Let us not ﬂatter ourselves, who will give subsidies if the King may

impose what he will, and if after a parliament the King may enhance what

he pleaseth. I know the King will not do it. I know he is a religious king free

from personal vices, but he deals with other men’s hands and sees with other

men’s eyes. Will any give any subsidy that he may be taxed after parliament

what they please? The King cannot tax any by way of loan. I differ from them

that would have it go by way of grievance, but I would have it go alone.

I’ll begin with a notable record, it cheers me to think of it: 25 Edw.3, num.

16. It is worthy to be writ in letters of gold. Loans against the will of the subject

7. [Ed.: Proceedings and Debates, ff. 14–14v, in CD, 1628, II, 64–65.]

Petition of Right 1229

are against reason and the franchises of the land, and they desire restitution.

What a word is that “franchise.” Villeins in nativo habendo,

their lord may

tax them high or low, but this is against the franchise of the land for freemen.

“Franchise” is a French word, and in Latin it is liberty. In Magna Carta, nullus

imprisonetur

nor put out of his liberty or franchise. 9 Hen.3, cap. 29 have

been conﬁrmed by good kings 33 times. 12 Hen.3, sententias lata super cartas.

The Magna Carta is called carta libertates et franchisae.

Rot. pat., 21 Hen.3,

mem. 4, Carta libertatis quia liberos facit,

and to overthrow it makes slaves.

42 Edw.3, they make a law that all laws against Magna Carta are void. Edw.1,

statute de conﬁrmatione cartarum,

no benevolence nor aid shall be but by

assent of the realm; 25 Edw.1, which expounds Magna Carta. 34 Edw.1, nullum

tallagium seu auxilium per nos ponetur sine voluntate baronum, etc.

They were

wise, they unfolded much in few words. Tallagium comes a talliare,

from

cutting. You shall not cut a part of my substance without my will, and that

is tailoring excises of bread and wine. It is cutting if you cut any part of the

subject. No tallage shall be done; the word tallagium was in the Conqueror’s

time. W. Conqueror, volumus ut omnes liberi homines habeant terras suas in

pace sine omni tallagio, ita quod nihil exigatur nisi per communem concessum,

as appears by Mr. Lambarde’s ancient laws, etc.

Objection: 34 Edw.1. is no act of parliament.

Answer: ’Tis true it is in the form of a charter, but yet an act of parliament.

9 Ric.2, rot. 10, the King cannot raise supply but by assent of parliament. 5

Ric.2, many undone by loans.

Objection: May not enemies come in, and in such a time of necessity may

not loans be?

Answer: 13 Hen.4, rot. parl., 10 et 18, no tallage or subsidy for defense of

8. [Ed.: For having a villein; a writ to apprehend a villein who had run from the lord’s state.]

9. [Ed.: no one shall be imprisoned.]

10. [Ed.: the sentences [decisions] made upon the charters, a statute passed in 1228 codifying some

rulings made on the basis of the charters.]

11. [Ed.: the charter of freedom and franchise.]

12. [Ed.: the charter of liberty, because it makes men free,]

13. [Ed.: for conﬁrmation of the charters,]

14. [Ed.: no tallage or aid shall be imposed by us without the consent of the barons.]

15. [Ed.: Tallagium [tallage, or tax] comes from talliare [to cut.]

16. [Ed.: We will that all free men shall have their lands in peace without any tallage, so that nothing

will be exacted except by reason of a common concession,]

Speeches in Parliament 16281230

the realm or sea shall be without act of parliament, for parliaments ought to

be every year.

Fortescue, cap. 34 et 35, shows how in other countries they set impositions

at will, but the king of England per se aut ministros tallagium aut subsidium

non potest imponere sine assensu totius regni.

Escuage, you know, may be un-

certain, and though it be done in respect of tenure, yet being uncertain it

cannot be without act of parliament.

Hen.7 got a benevolence of his people and he made a promise in parliament

not to do the like again, 11 Hen.7, cap. 10, rot. 16 Henry 8, the great cardinal

made a commission to take the sixth part of all plate. When they came into

Norfolk and Suffolk they rose and would not pay it. The King laid it on the

Council and said “I never consented to this commission.” 34 Hen.8, “Quin-

zime,” br.9, no tallage can be without act of parliament. I do but gild gold to

constrain a man to lend. None can be sure of his own.

Question: What will you do?

Answer: I would have this loan an act of parliament, and as a preface to

an act of subsidies, and woven into it, and let the other grievances be in all

humility tendered to his Majesty. And I do not despair. His Majesty is most

free of all his predecessors.

March 24, 1628.

Ed.: In a debate over a bill for conscripting soldiers, considering the role

of Deputy Lords Lieutenant.

Sir Edward Coke. When they shall come to it the deputy lieutenants have

a greater excuse than everyone knows of. I’ll tell them how the law stands at

this day. When I was a student I could not understand two statutes that concern

this point: 5 Hen.2, cap. 10, 18 Hen.6, cap. 19. I was in a wood; never any

book case explained them, and those statutes say that if any soldier be returned

by indenture, and returned by record, for the terms to serve their master, etc.,

17. [Ed.: A tallage or subsidy cannot be imposed by him or his ministers without the assent of the

whole kingdom.]

18. [Ed.: Proceedings and Debates, f. 16, in CD, 1628, II, 79–80.]

Petition of Right 1231

I found a precedent of an indenture of a soldier of Erpingham. In republica

sunt servanda jura belli.

Sir John Erpingham was sent for to the King and

treated with him for the soldiers, and came down into the country and got

his tenants and others that went with him. See for this 48 Edw.3; 9 Edw.4,

16; 21 Edw.4, 75. It was an excellent law, that the poor man went with his lord

and master, but for an Englishman to go with a stranger, what misery is it?

They must not be sine ﬁde et sine sede

that are captains. It must be with one

that he may live with when he returns. In Edw.3 times there came a new

course, men were pressed. I had rather live under a sharp law than under no

law, et nihil novum sub sole,

the same course was then as is now. Then they

pressed men, and 25 Edw.3, cap. 8, it was enacted that no man shall ﬁnd arms

and munition but by his tenure. There’s a negative law; 4 et 5 Phil. et Mar.,

cap. 2 was but for a time. Now they have new courses and new discipline.

But now we are without law. I hold the deputy lieutenants lie under the stroke

of the law for what they do. Let there be a committee of soldiers and others

of my profession to pen a law for them. For the love of God and safety of

the realm, let it not be said that there wants laws that touch government, that

we may live under a law and not other men’s discretions.

...

Ed.: In a debate on supply.

Sir Edward Coke.

I am heartily glad that I ﬁnd a concurrence in matter

and judgment. It concerns us in point of honor. It is a tender point to a king.

I would not have so great a price set on it as honor. The King hath precedency.

We will consider of supply and grievances too. Both were propounded. The

order gives the supply the precedency. We cannot give the King honor; he

hath all honor. It was the purpose of the House to look into grievances. If

loans be not taken away from us, we cannot do what we desire.

...

19. [Ed.: The laws of war are to be preserved in the commonwealth.]

20. [Ed.: without faith and without a ﬁxed abode.]

21. [Ed.: and there is nothing new under the sun,]

22. [Ed.: Proceedings and Debates, f. 18, in CD, 1628, II, 84.]

Speeches in Parliament 16281232

In the Committee for Religion

Ed.: In debate concerning lease laws relating to recusants.

Sir Edward Coke.

The proclamation touching recusants and the com-

mission for composition, to speak freely, is a toleration. When I was Attorney,

when a lease was made of recusants’ lands, there was a special covenant that

they should not come into a recusant’s hand, as now it doth. What doth it

differ from a toleration? If there be such a commission, ’tis against the law.

This man that hath it is to be brought here, and to be examined how many

recusants he hath compounded with, and to bring all the commissions in.

March 25, 1628.

Committee of the Whole House

Ed.: In a debate concerning a subject’s liberties in his person and in his

property, the Parliamentary response to The Five Knights’ Case.

Sir Edward Coke. I like the motion well to have time given. The matter is

very weighty, and of very great consequence. In medio tutissimus ibis.

I shall

ever be as ready to maintain the King’s prerogative as any man. I have been

twice sworn to it, and it was resolved 3 Jac. at the parliament that the King’s

prerogative is the supreme part of the laws of the realm. No other state is like

this.

Divisos ab orbe Britannos.

We have a national law appropriate to this king-

dom. If you tell me of other laws, you are gone. I will only speak of the laws

of England. This question is a question of law. That Mr. Attorney may have

something to answer, I will say somewhat, and I shall speak with reverence;

and I would not speak were it not that my gracious King I hope shall hear

it. It is not I, Edward Coke, that speaketh it. I shall say nothing, but the

23. [Ed.: Proceedings and Debates, f. 18v, in CD, 1628, II, 85.]

24. [Ed.: Proceedings and Debates, ff. 21–21v, in CD, 1628, II, 100–101.]

25. [Ed.: You shall go most safely in the middle, or moderate way.]

26. [Ed.: The British are separated from the rest of the world.]

Petition of Right 1233

records shall speak. I shall be ready to convert myself on better reason. Errores

ad sua principia referre est refellere.

This opinion grows out of Westminster

I and Mr. Stanford, that these men shall not be bailed: those that are in for

murder or by command of the King or of his justices or of the forest, Stanford

accordingly. In every text mark the context. The command of the King is in

the King’s Bench, which is there coram rege, and per preceptum regis,

is the

command of the judges of the King’s Bench, and the other justices of the

Common Pleas.

And in the same time I will show you that the command of the King is

meant by the judges. Westminster 1, cap. 9, if men follow not with hue and

cry they shall be amerced by the by King. 2 Ric.3, 11, non in camera regis sed

in curia regis,

and it shall be by the justices. Westminster 1, cap. 20, de mal-

efactoribus in parcis,

’tis a grievous law. He shall be ﬁned at the King’s will,

that is at the will of the judges. The King distributes his power by the judges.

Westminster 1, cap. 26 and 29, it is given to the King, it is meant the judges.

The same men that made that law made that question, and by the King is

meant the King’s justices. 1 Ric.2, cap. 12, mentions the warden of the Fleet,

etc., if not by the King’s [writ] or by the commandment of the King. H.4.

took it literally; one was in execution in the Fleet, the King sent him for a

soldier, but that ought to be by a command from some court. 5 Mariae 162;

13 Eliz. 297, Westminster 1 say, none shall be bailable by the command of the

King; it must be taken by some courts of justice. For the reasons of the judg-

ment I heard them not nor understand them. I will speak in rem and not in

personam.

Pasch., 18 Edw.3, rot. 33, coram rege,

Bildeston’s case. Edw.3 ﬁrst

made a warrant showing no cause to apprehend a man, and had a writ under

the great seal to deliver this man to the Tower till further order should be

taken by the King. This command came not verbally or by any signiﬁcation,

but by writ, and he lay two years in the Tower, and there the King commanded

that he should be brought into the King’s Bench, which was by habeas corpus,

and there before Scott, the Chief Justice, they asked whether there were any

27. [Ed.: To trace errors to their beginning is to bring them to an end.]

28. [Ed.: before the king [and] by the king’s command,]

29. [Ed.: not in the king’s chamber but in the king’s court,]

30. [Ed.: concerning wrongdoers in parks,]

31. [Ed.: to the matter and not the person.]

32. [Ed.: before the king [i.e. in the King’s Bench],]

Speeches in Parliament 16281234

other cause of his commitment and the lieutenant said aright nihil nisi breve

praedictum,

and they said that it is not cause sufﬁcient, and so he was de-

livered. There was the King’s writ and yet without cause. Then came another

writ to show that they should have information that he coined the King’s coin,

and proclamation was made, and a short day given. This was not sufﬁcient

cause.

16 Hen.6, “Monstrans de faits”

182, the King cannot command any to be

imprisoned. 1 Hen.7. 4b, the King cannot arrest any man. Fortescue, cap. 8.

concurs with the former. I never read one opinion against it. No free man

ought to be committed but the cause must be showed in particular. If it be

for treason or murder the particular must not be showed, but the general must.

If he escape and break prison, if there be a particular cause, he shall suffer as

if he were condemned for the fact. Commit him generally; if the jailer and

he join together, it is ﬁneable only. 1 Ric.2. de Frangentibus Prisonam,

the

cause for which he is taken, etc. If the cause be not set down he may escape.

I will conclude with the chiefest authority, the Acts of the Apostles, 25 cap.

verse the last: It is against reason to send a man to prison and not to show

the cause. What I speak it is that my Sovereign be truly informed of the laws,

which I dare say he will defend with his sword, as well as his predecessors. I

have now given a preparative to Mr. Attorney, according to the old course of

physic, which is before you purge a man to give him a preparative. I have

much more in store.

...

Sir Edward Coke. No restraint ever so little, but it is an imprisonment.

...

Sir Edward Coke. For us to touch anything that the King’s prerogative can

reach unto, it is dangerous. For employment in the King’s service, shall we

not leave that to the King and trust him therewith? 18 E.2, Beaumont was of

the Great Council, and of the Privy Council. The King desired his counsel,

to employ him abroad. He refused and was ﬁned and imprisoned for it. I was

employed to go to Ireland. I was willing to go and I hoped (if I had gone) to

have found some Mompesson there. I would have gone, else I should have

been ﬁned and imprisoned.

33. [Ed.: nothing except the aforesaid writ,]

34. [Ed.: showing the record, demonstrating the legal basis for a claim or judgement.]

35. [Ed.: Concerning those that break prison,]

Petition of Right 1235

...

Sir Edward Coke. Qui bene distinguunt, bene docent.

I put my case of a

great lord to give his counsel and to be an ambassador. The King cannot press

soldiers to go beyond the seas. 1 Edw.3. is for soldiers but not for others things.

March 26, 1628.

In the Committee of the Whole House

Ed.: In a debate over supply, especially concerning appropriations and im-

pressment and conﬁnement of men for naval vessels.

Sir Edward Coke. These are matters of great weight. The course of this

House is to deliberate well before we order. Let every man have a copy and

keep it secret. Some things are general. If they were in particular we might

give a better answer. It is desired to pay some arrears. We must know what

they are, and we must consider the ability of the country to pay these, for we

are to serve the country. What these arrearages are, none know.

...

Sir Edward Coke. Conﬁnements in a foreign country or in a man’s house

is all one. This is a new-growing evil. Venienti occurrite morbo.

It is against

Magna Carta. Liber homo non imprisonetur.

In Queen Elizabeth’s time it was

resolved no free man should be conﬁned to any place whatsoever. Did that

blessed Queen conﬁne recusants till a law was made? And shall men that are

no delinquents be conﬁned?

It is much against the liberty of the subject that a Norfolk man should be

conﬁned to Cumberland. Let it be ordered that it is the ancient and undoubted

right of the subjects of England not to be conﬁned to a particular place but

by act of parliament.

Ed.: Concerning an oath administered by the commissioner of a loan.

36. [Ed.: He who makes good distinctions teaches well.]

37. [Ed.: Proceedings and Debates, f. 24v, in CD, 1628, II, 122–25.]

38. [Ed.: Remedy the growing disease.]

39. [Ed.: A free man is not to be imprisoned.]

Speeches in Parliament 16281236

Sir Edward Coke. One thing hath been moved. These loans were done by

commission. No commission can be granted but it must be warranted by law,

as a writ, a commission of jail delivery of nisi prius, etc., in all these it is factum

secundum legem Angliae.

All commissions must not be new, but such as are

in the register or in the Chancery. 18 Edw.3, all novel inquires and these adul-

terate commissions were damned by parliament. 9 Hen.4, num. 36, the King

would regulate mariners by a commission, and it would not be, for that there

was no such form. 1 Eliz., a commission was granted to the Earl of Bedford

to determine the right of an ofﬁce in the Common Pleas, and they committed

the poor man, who was delivered by a habeas corpus.

Ed.: Concerning the progress of debate, at the end of the morning session,

addressing Edward Littleton, the speaker.

Sir Edward Coke. I never saw that moderation in any parliament as is used

in this. Men ought to speak pertinently. When you hear a man not speak to

the question, you in the chair are to stand up and take him off.

March 27, 1628.

Ed.: This follows the reading of a petition from a conference with the Lords.

Sir Edward Coke. It joys my soul to see this care for the honor of God and

His worship. One thing would be added. The Jesuits do now live in our realm.

If we do nothing against them, I pray God they do nothing against us.

March 29, 1628.

In the Committee of the Whole House

Ed.: Concerning the King’s inability to imprison a freeman without cause.

40. [Ed.: done according to the law of England.]

41. [Ed.: Proceedings and Debates, f. 27v, in CD, 1628, II, 145.]

42. [Ed.: Proceedings and Debates, ff. 35–36, in CD, 1628, II, 190–193.]

Petition of Right 1237

Sir Edward Coke. This is questio juris.

They that have spoken pithily and

learnedly, and that with all reverence to his Majesty and the Council. I said

before I gave them a preparative that removed the humors, humores moti and

not remoti corpus destruunt.

They that argued for the King would not answer

what was said. They slighted it as nothing to the purpose. There is a ﬁgure

called simulatio

that (God forgive me) I used when I was in their

places, that that we cannot answer we scorn and slight. I will leave this question

as naked as Aesop’s crow.

Duo sunt instrumenta ad omnes res conﬁrmandas et confutandas: ratio et auc-

toritas.

They that speak here must beat upon reason.

1. I shall produce therefore some reasons, ﬁrst from the universality of the

persons whom this concerns. Commentaries, 236, it is maxim that the common

law hath so admeasured the King’s prerogative that in no cause it can prejudice

the inheritance of the subject, and how doth this absolute authority that is

pretended concern not only the commonalty but the lords and all spiritual

persons and all ofﬁcers? For if he be committed and be called on for his ofﬁce,

his ofﬁce is forfeited. It concerns all men and women, and therefore it deserves

to be spoken of in parliament. This may dissolve this House, for we may be

all thus committed.

31 Hen.6. rot. 27, rot. parl., no member of the parliament can be arrested

but for felony, treason, or the peace, and all here may be committed, and then

where is the parliament? Sure the Lords will be glad of this; it concerns them

as well as us.

2. The second reason is from the indeﬁniteness of the time, non deﬁnitur

in lege.

Had the law given this prerogative it would have set some time to

it, else mark what would follow. I shall have an estate of inheritance for life

or for years in land or property in my goods, and I shall be a tenant at will

for my liberty, and I shall have property in a goose and not liberty in my

person. Perspicua vera non sunt probanda.

Objection: When you were Chief Justice you did otherwise than now you

43. [Ed.: a question of law.]

44. [Ed.: Humours destroy the body when disturbed, not when they are removed.]

45. [Ed.: pretence.]

46. [Ed.: There are two instruments for conﬁrming and refuting all things: reason and authority.]

47. [Ed.: it is not deﬁned in law.]

48. [Ed.: Obvious truths do not need to be proved.]

Speeches in Parliament 16281238

speak. I would have another speak truth: Wray was wont to say letters of great

men were letters of justice. When I was a student I wondered what he meant.

His meaning was that letters in that kind do let justice, or further it. Nothing

fell out in my place of justice, but I kept a note of it. Beckwith was committed

and no cause showed. We meant to bail him, and then came the lords’ letter

that we should bail him (God be thanked for it) and the letter was kept and

my note saith so. Sir John Broket was committed and no cause showed, and

perhaps the judges would have delivered him, and then came a letter from

the lords (God be thanked). The Council Table must be maintained, or the

commonwealth will perish.

Objection: There was a mandatum regis

and the party was remanded. I

deny that I ever was at any disputation in my place of any judgment that was

given. I confess freely when I read Stanford only, perhaps I was of his opinion;

but when I saw such a company of authorities against it, God forbid that I

should follow my guide when my guide goes wrong. 12 Hen.7. Yew’s case, he

was committed tam pro felonia quam per mandatum domini regis:

the at-

torney, seeing the court would deliver him, retraxit mandatum suum.

If the King had such as prerogative for which there was only an opinion

of one judge in Queen Mary’s time, shall that weigh down so many acts of

parliament and precedents as are on our sides?

The remittitur quousque,

what means the quousque?

That is quousque

secundum legem terrae deliberatur

but it is not quousque curia advisari vult.

In Hen.6. Markham was then a lawyer, and Edward the fourth asked him if

the King might arrest one. The laws to the King are quoad directionem and

not quoad correctionem.

Fortescue, cap. 8, nullus rex Angliae proprio ore

can commit any; it is too

49. [Ed.: command of the king.]

50. [Ed.: both for a felony and by command of the lord King:]

51. [Ed.: withdrew his mandate.]

52. [Ed.: let him be sent back until [etc.].]

53. [Ed.: until.]

54. [Ed.: until he shall be delivered according to the law of the land.]

55. [Ed.: until the court will be advised.]

56. [Ed.: for direction and not for correction.]

57. [Ed.: no king of England by his own mouth.]

Petition of Right 1239

low a thing for him. 8 Hen.4, the King has distributed his judicial power to

the courts of justice and ministers of justice, and it is too low for so great a

monarch as the King is to commit men to prison. 18 Edw.3, rot. 33, Bildeston’s

case. Sed quaesitum est del lieutenant si alia esset causa. Qui respondit non habuit

nisi breve praedictum. Sed quia videtur curie breve non esse sufﬁcient[em] ideo

deliberatur.

Here’s a court that cannot be daunted with any fear. Now to

your balance that is in your hands that sits in the chair. Put in Stanford and

21 Edw.1 (though it was nothing) into one balance, and into the other put 7

acts of parliament, 3 book cases, and the precedents; sure haec via non ducit

in urbem.

For my reading, I never read any opinion or record against it.

There must be added that if any be committed for a just cause he ought

not to be detained long in prison. By the Statute of Gloucester, if a man be

imprisoned he shall remain there till the next coming of the justices, but there

must be a time. Westminster 2, cap. 29, rex concedit

that none shall be long

in prison, ne diu detineantur in prisona.

8 Hen.4, if one have a jail and sue

not a commission of jail delivery it is a forfeiture.

Ed.: Criticizing the precedential merit of an opinion in which Coke had

allowed the Privy Council to commit a prisoner without bail.

Sir Edward Coke. This report moves me not. That report is not yet 21 years

old, but under age, being 13 Jac. In truth when I read Stanford I was of his

opinion, but after looking into those records before mentioned I was of another

mind. He brings an ill time of 13 Jac.; there were many of the traitors of the

powder treason then committed per mandatum concilii.

For the report, those

apocrypha reports, there’s no credit to be given to them. It was done by some

young student that did mistake. It was no judgment of the court, but the

student’s own making.

58. [Ed.: But the lieutenant was asked whether there was any other cause; and he answered that he had

none except the aforesaid writ; but because it appeared to the court that the writ was insufﬁcient, he was

therefore delivered.]

59. [Ed.: this road does not lead to the city.]

60. [Ed.: the King grants . . .]

61. [Ed.: . . . that they shall not be long detained in prison.]

62. [Ed.: by command of the council.]

Speeches in Parliament 16281240

March 31, 1628.

In the Committee of the Whole House

Ed.: In debate about a petition of both Houses concerning recusants, con-

sidering the effect of the precedent of 13 Jac.

Sir Edward Coke. The glass of time runs out, and some things cast amongst

us have retarded us. When I spake against the loans and this matter I expected

blows, and somewhat was spoken, though not to the matter. Concerning that

which I did when I was a judge, I will say somewhat. Indeed a motion was

made, but no argument or debate or resolution upon advice. I will never

palliate with this House. There is no judge that hath an upright heart to God

and a clear heart to the world but he hath some warrant for everything he

doth. I confess when I read Stanford and had it in my hands I was of that

opinion at the Council Table. But when I perceived some members of this

House were taken in the face of this House and sent to prison, and when I

was not far from that place myself, I went to my book, and would not be

quiet till I had satisﬁed myself. Stanford was my guide and my guide deceived

me; therefore I swerved from it. I have now better guides. Acts of parliament,

and of other precedents, these are now my guides. I desire to be freed from

the imputation laid upon me.

As for the intended judgment, I fear (were it not for this parliament) it had

been entered. A parliament brings judges and all other men into good order.

If a clerk had drawn this he would have done it by a precedent, and no pre-

cedent warrants it, and therefore some other did it.

This draft of the judgment will sting us, quia nulla causa fuit ostenta, ideo

ne fuit bayleable,

and so it appears by the records. I persuade myself Mr.

Attorney drew it. I had a copy of my Lord Anderson’s report of 34 Eliz. long

ago. I durst not vouch it as it was in that copy, for it was apocrypha, and did

not answer his gravity that made it, and yet it was cited in the King’s Bench

that all the judges of England ruled it.

63. [Ed.: Proceedings and Debates, ff. 36v–37, in CD, 1628, II, 213.]

64. [Ed.: because no cause was shown, therefore he was not bailable.]

Petition of Right 1241

April 1, 1628.

In the Committee of the Whole House

Ed.: This is a discussion of a book of writs compiled by Lord Anderson.

Sir Edward Coke. Of mine own knowledge this book was all writ with my

Lord Anderson’s own hand, and I had a copy of it in Queen Elizabeth’s time.

It is no ﬂying report of a young student. I was Solicitor then, and Treasurer

Burghley was as much against commitment as any of this kingdom; it was

the white staves that made the stir. I know who it was that offended; it was

not done by all. It was one that laid men in corners and dark places. Let us

now go to the question.

...

Ed.: In a discussion about the inability to hold a suspect without cause.

Sir Edward Coke. When one is in one prison and brought thence into the

King’s Bench by habeas corpus, he cannot be bailed, if he be not in Maresc.,

and if he be not bailed he is remanded to the prison from whence he came.

April 2, 1628.

In the Committee of the Whole House

Ed.: This is a debate about the grant of supply for war.

Sir Edward Coke. When I considered from whence those articles came, and

with what consideration they were molded, I doubted whether I should speak

or not, but ﬁnding a way to speak out of a record, I will tell you my opinion.

When poor England stood alone, and had not the access of another kingdom,

and yet had more and as potent enemies as now it hath, and yet the King of

England prevailed.

65. [Ed.: Proceedings and Debates, ff. 40–40v, in CD, 1628, II, 229–31.]

66. [Ed.: Proceedings and Debates, ff. 42v–43, in CD, 1628, II, 248–50.]

Speeches in Parliament 16281242

42 Edw.3, num. 2, in the parliament roll, the King and the parliament gave

God thanks for his victory against the kings of Scotland and of France. He

had them both in Windsor Castle as prisoners. What was the reason of those

conquests? Four reasons were given: 1, the King was assisted by good counsel;

2, there were valiant men; 3, they were timely supplied; 4, good employment.

8 Ric.2, num. 3, the King was environed with the Flemings, Scots, and

French, and the King of England prevailed.

17 Ric.2, num. 1, wars were in Ireland and Scotland. The King of England

prevailed, and thanks were given to God here, and I hope we shall live to give

God thanks for our King’s victories.

13 Ric.2, num. 1, the King was environed with Spaniards, Scots, and French,

and yet the King of England prevailed. I am now in no fear of Scotland.

Henry the fourth was a great warrior. The Bretons were a trouble to him.

Calais assaulted, Ireland besieged, other troubles, but the King of England

prevailed.

7 Hen.4, one or two great men about him so mewed him up that he took

no other advice but from them. The Chancellor took this theme or text in

his speech at the parliament, Multorum consilia requiruntur in magnis. In bello

qui maxime timent sunt in maximis periculis.

Let us give and not be afraid

of our enemies; let us supply bountifully, cheerfully, and speedily, but enter

not into particulars. King Solomon’s rule is qui repetit separat, nay separat

foederatos.

We are united in duty, etc., to the King. The arrearages will of

necessity separate us; quae causa,

it is a wonderful thing. This will turn us

out into other discourses. Follow Solomon’s rule, qui repetit separat.

The

King hath 80 score thousand pound a year for the Navy, and to scour the

Narrow Seas. It hath been taken, and we are now to give it, and shall we now

give more to guard the seas besides, when that it is taken without our gift,

and diverted another way? For the 1,000 horse and 10,000 foot, a pure de-

fensive war is a vast thing, yet in an island defensive war is the safest. It is a

great thing to have such an army. I will not speak against it, but in general

I would give the King a bountiful supply. It shall never be said we deny the

67. [Ed.: The advice of many people is required in great things. Those who are most afraid in war are

in the greatest danger.]

68. [Ed.: he who strikes again divides, nay divides the allied forces.]

69. [Ed for what reason,]

70. [Ed.: he who strikes again divides.]

Petition of Right 1243

King all supply. I think myself bound; where there is commune periculum

there must be commune auxilium.

The King, in King James his father’s time,

was an excellent means to procure all these excellent laws we then had, whereby

is prevented all these worms, these locusts, the caterpillar, the informer, mo-

nopolizer, and concealer. We are in hand to have a fast. It shall be expedient

that we pray that the King have good counsel and valiant men, and what we

give be well employed.

April 3, 1628.

In Conference with the Lords

Ed.: A Report to the House of Lords concerning Acts of the House of

Commons dealing with the liberties of subjects.

Sir Edward Coke. “Your lordships have heard 7 acts of parliament in point,

and 31 precedents summarily collected, and with great understanding deliv-

ered; which I have perused, and understand them all thoroughly: 12 of the

precedents are in terminis terminantibus,

a whole jury of precedents, and all

in the point. I am transported with joy, because of the hope of good success

in this weighty business, your lordships being so full of justice, and the very

theme and subject both promise success; which was corpus cum causa, the

freedom of an Englishman, not to be imprisoned without cause shewn; which

is my part to shew, and the reason and the cause why it should be so; wherein

I will not be prolix; for to gild gold were idle and superﬂuous.”—After that

he had cleared some doubts made of the Statute of Westminster, which saith,

‘That the sheriff, and others, in some cases, may not replevin men in prison,’

he proceeded further and said, “That all those arguments offered unto you

in this last conference, are of a double nature. 1. Acts of parliament. 2. Judicial

precedents. For the ﬁrst I hold it a proper argument for your lordships; because

you, my lords temporal, and you, my lords spiritual, gave your assent unto

71. [Ed.: mutual danger.]

72. [Ed.: mutual assistance.]

73. [Ed.: Cobbett, Parl. Hist., II, 266–71.]

74. [Ed.: in exact or determinative boundaries (directly on point).]

Speeches in Parliament 16281244

those acts of parl.; and therefore, if these cannot persuade you, nothing can.

For the 2nd, which are judicial precedents, it is Argumentum ab authoritate,

and Argumentum ab authoritate, valet afﬁrmative;

that is, I conceive (through

it be no good argument to say negatively) the present judges gave no opinion

in this point. 3. It is good law, which I fortify with a strong axiom. Neminem

oportet sapientiorem esse legibus.

Now these two arguments being so well

pressed to your lordships by my colleagues, I think you may wonder what my

part may be: it is short but sweet; it is the Reason of all those Laws and

Precedents; and reason must needs be welcome to all men: for all men are

not capable of understanding the law, but every man is capable of reason. And

these reasons I offer to your lordships, in afﬁrmance of the antient laws and

precedents made for the Liberty of the Subject, against Imprisonment,without

cause expressed. 1. A re ipsa. 2. A minori ad majus.

3. From the remedies

provided. 4. From the extent and universality of the same. 5. From the in-

deﬁniteness of the time. 6. A ﬁne.—The ﬁrst general reason is, A re ipsa, even

from the nature of imprisonment, ex visceribus causae;

for I will speak nothing

but ad idem, be it close or other imprisonment; and this argument is threefold;

because an imprisoned man upon will and pleasure, is 1. A bond-man. 2. Worse

than bond-man. 3. Not so much as a man; for mortuus homo non est homo;

a prisoner is a dead man. 1. No man can be imprisoned upon the will and

pleasure of any, but he that is a bond-man and villain; for that imprisonment

and bondage are propria quarto modo

to villains: now propria quarto modo,

and the Species, are convertible; whosoever is a bond man may be imprisoned,

upon will and pleasure; and whosoever may be imprisoned, upon will and

pleasure, is a bond-man. 2. If Freemen of England might be imprisoned at

the will and pleasure of the king, or his commandment, then were they in

worse case than bond-men or villains; for the lord of a villain cannot command

another to imprison his villain without cause, as of disobedience, or refusing,

to serve, as it is agreed in the Year-Books.’—And here he said, ‘That no man

75. [Ed.: an argument from authority,]

76. [Ed.: An argument from authority has afﬁrmative value;]

77. [Ed.: No one ought to be wiser than the laws.]

78. [Ed.: 1. From the thing itself. 2. From lesser to greater.]

79. [Ed.: the heart of the case;]

80. [Ed.: A dead man is no man.]

81. [Ed.: appropriate in the fourth way (according to the universality of the same).]

Petition of Right 1245

should reprehend any thing he said out of the books or records. He said, he

would prove a freeman, imprisonable upon command or pleasure without

cause expressed, to be absolutely in a worse case than a villain; and if he did

not make this plain, he desired their lordships not to believe him in any thing

else; and then produced two Book-Cases, 7 Edw. 3.; A prior had commanded

one to imprison his villain; the judges were ready to bail him, till the prior

gave his reason, that he refused to be bailiff of his manor, and that satisﬁed

the judges. Second Case, 33 Edw. 3. Title Trespass 253. in Faux Imprisonment:

it was of an abbot, ‘who commanded one to take and detain his villain; but

the cause being demanded, he gives it, because he refused, ‘being thereunto

required to drive his cattle. Ergo, Freemen imprisoned, without cause shewn

are in worse case than villains, that must have a cause shewn them why they

are imprisoned. 3. A Freeman imprisoned, without cause, is so far from being

a bond-man, that he is not so much as a man; but is indeed a dead man, and

so no man. Imprisonment is in law a civil death; perdit domum, familiam,

vicinos, patriam,

and is to live amongst wretched and wicked men, male-

factors, and the like. And that death and imprisonment was the same, he

proved by an argument ab effectis,

because, they both produce the like im-

mediate effects: he quoted a book for this; ‘If a man be threatened to be killed,

he may avoid feofment of lands, gifts of goods, &c. So it is if he be threatened

to be imprisoned: the one is an actual, the other is a civil death. And this is

the ﬁrst general argument, drawn a re ipsa, from the nature of imprisonment,

to which res ipsa consilium dedit.

—The second general Reason he took from

his books; ‘For, he said, he had no law, but what, by great pains and industry,

he learned at his book; for, at ten years of age, he had no more law than other

men of like age. And this second reason is, a` minori ad majus:

he takes it

from Bracton, ‘Minima poena corporalis est major qualibet pecuniaria.’

But

the king himself cannot impose a ﬁne upon any man, but it must be done

judicially by his judges, per justitiarios in curia, non per regem in camera;

and so it hath been resolved by all the judges of England. He quoted 3 Rd.

82. [Ed.: He loses his home, his family, his neighbours, his country,]

83. [Ed.: from this effect.]

84. [Ed.: the thing itself gives counsel.]

85. [Ed.: from the minor to the major:]

86. [Ed.: The least corporal punishment is greater than a pecuniary penalty.]

87. [Ed.: by justices in court, not by the king in his chamber;]

Speeches in Parliament 16281246

2. The third general Reason is taken from the number and diversity of rem-

edies, which the laws give against imprisonment, viz. Breve de Homine reple-

giando; de Odio & Atia; de Habeas Corpus; an appeal of imprisonment. Breve

de Manucaptione. The two latter of these are antiquated; but the writ de odio

& atia

is revived, for that was given by the statute of Magna Charta, cap.

29. and by statute of 42 Edw. 3. it is declared, That all statutes made against

Magna Charta, are void. Now the law would never have given so many rem-

edies, if the freemen of England might have been imprisoned at will and

pleasure.—The fourth general Reason is from the extent and universality of

the pretended power to imprison; for it would extend not only to the commons

of this realm, and their posterities: but to the nobles of the land, and their

progenies: to the bishops and clergy of the realm, and their successors. And

he gave a cause why the commons came to their lordships, ‘Commune peri-

culum commune requirit auxilium.’

Nay, it reached to all persons, of what

condition or sex, or age, soever; to all judges and ofﬁcers, whose attendance

is necessary, &c. without exception; and therefore an imprisonment of the

such extent, without reason, is against reason.—The 5th general Reason is

drawn from the indeﬁniteness of the time, the pretended power being limited

to no time, it may be perpetual during life and this is very hard. To cast a

man into prison, nay, to close prison, and no time allotted for his coming

forth, is a hard case, as any man would think that had been so used. And here

he held it an unreasonable thing, that a man had a remedy for his horse or

cattle, if detained, and none for his body thus indeﬁnitely imprisoned; for a

prison, without a preﬁxed time, is a kind of hell.—The 6th and last argument

is, ‘A Fine;’ and sapiens incipit a` ﬁne;

and he wished he had begun there

also. This argument he made threefold. Ab honesto.

This being less hon-

ourable. Ab utili.

This being less proﬁtable. A tuto.

This imprisonment,

by will and pleasure, being very dangerous for the king and kingdom.’ 1. Ab

honesto. It would be no honour to a king or kingdom, to be a king of bondmen

88. [Ed.: Writ requiring the sheriff to determine whether the charge is based only on hatred and ill

will, in which case bail should be granted.]

89. [Ed.: A common danger requires common assistance.]

90. [Ed.: The wise man begins from the end;]

91. [Ed.: From what is honourable.]

92. [Ed.: From what is useful.]

93. [Ed.: From what is safe.]

Petition of Right 1247

or slaves; the end of this would be both dedecus & damnum, both to king and

kingdom, that in former times hath been so renowned. 2. Ab utili. It would

be against the proﬁt of the king and kingdom, for the execution of those laws

before remembered, Magna Charta. 5 Edw. 3. 28 Edw. 3. 42 Edw. 3. whereby

the king was inhibited to imprison upon pleasure. You see, quoth he, that this

was vetus querela,

an old question; and now brought in again, after seven

acts of parliament: I say, the execution of all these laws are adjudged in par-

liament to be for the common proﬁt of the king and people; and he quoted

the Roll, ‘This pretended power being against the proﬁt of the king, can be

no part of his prerogative.”—He was pleased to call this a binding reason,

and to say, ‘That the wit of man could not answer it; that great men kept this

Roll from being’ printed, but that it was equivalent in force to the printed

Rolls. 3. A tuto. It is extremely dangerous to the king for two respects; 11, of

loss; 2, of destroying the endeavours of men. First, if he be committed without

an expression of the cause, though he escape, albeit in truth it were for treason

or felony, yet this escape is neither felony nor treason; but if the cause be

expressed for suspicion of treason or felony, then the escape, though it be

innocent, is treason or felony. He quoted a case in print like a reason of the

law, not like a remittitur at the rising of the court, for the prisoner traditur

in ballium, quod breve regis non fuit sufﬁciens causa;

i.e. the king’s command.

He quoted another famous case. The commons in parliament, incensed against

the duke of Suffolk; desire he should be committed: the lords and all the

judges, whereof those great worthies, Prescot and Fortescue, were two, de-

livered a ﬂat opinion, That he ought not to be committed without an especial

cause. He questioned also the name and etymology of the writ in question,

corpus cum causa; ergo,

The cause must be brought before the judge, else

how can he take notice thereof? Lastly, he pressed a place in the gospel, Acts

25, last verse, where Festus conceives it an absurd and unreasonable thing, to

send a prisoner to a Roman emperor, and not to write along with him the

cause alledged against him; send therefore no man a prisoner, without his

causes along with him, hoc fac & vives.

And that was the ﬁrst reason, a` tuto,

94. [Ed.: an old dispute.]

95. [Ed.: is delivered on bail, that the king’s writ was not a sufﬁcient cause;]

96. [Ed.: body with cause (an alternate form of habeas corpus ).]

97. [Ed.: do this and you will live.]

98. [Ed.: that of avoiding risk,]

Speeches in Parliament 16281248

that it was not safe for the king, in regard of loss, to commit men without a

cause.—The 2nd reason is, That such commitments will destroy the en-

deavours of all men. Who will endeavour to employ himself in any profession,

either of war, merchandise, or of any liberal knowledge, if he be but tenant

at will of his liberty? for no tenant at will will support or improve any thing,

because he hath no certain estate; ergo, to make men tenants at will of their

liberties, destroys all industry, and endeavours whatsoever. And so much for

these six principal Reasons,

Taken











A re ipsa.

A minori ad majus.

A remediis.

From the Extent and Universality.

From the Indeﬁniteness of the Time.

A ﬁne.











Loss of











Honour.

Proﬁt.

Security.

Industry.

These were his reasons.—Here he made another protestation, “That if rem-

edy had been given in this case, they would not have meddled therewith by

no means; but now that remedy being not obtained in the king’s bench, with-

out looking back upon any thing that hath been done or omitted, they desire

some provision for the future only. And here he took occasion to add 4 Book-

Cases and authorities, all in the point, saying, That if the learned counsel on

the other side, could produce but one against the liberties, so pat and pertinent,

Oh! how they would hug and cull it. 16 Hen.6. Tit. Monstrance de Fait, 182.

by the whole court, the king in his presence cannot command a man to be

arrested, but an action of false imprisonment lieth against him that arresteth:

if not the king in his royal presence, then none others can do it: Non sic itur

ad astra.

20 Hen. 6. 4. Hussey reports the opinion of Markham, chief-justice

to Edward the Fourth that he could not imprison by word of mouth; and the

reason, because the party hath no remedy; for the law leaves every man a

remedy of causeless imprisonment: he added, that Markham was a worthy

judge, though he fell into adversities at last by the lord Rivers’s means, For-

tescue, chap. 18. Proprio ore nullus regum usus est

100

to imprison any man, &c.

4. Eliz. a blessed queen, renowned for justice and religion. Pl. 235. The com-

99. [Ed.: He does not in this way achieve immortality (lit. is [not thus] gone to the stars).]

100. [Ed.: It is not proper that any rule be used.]

Petition of Right 1249

mon law hath so admeasured the king’s prerogative, as he cannot prejudice

any man in his inheritance; and the greatest inheritance; and the greatest

inheritance a man hath, is the Liberty of his Person, for all others are accessary

to it; for this he quoteth the Orator, Major Haereditas, venit unicuique nostrum,

a jure & legibus quam a parentibus.

101

And these are the 4 authorities he cited

in this point; now he propounded and answered two objections; 1st in point

of state; 2ndly in the course held by the commons. 1. Obj. ‘May not the privy-

council commit, without cause shewed in a matter of state where secrecy is

required? would not this be an hindrance to his maj.’s service? Answ. ‘It can

be no prejudice to the king as to matter of state, for the cause must be of

higher or lower nature. If it be for suspicion of treason, misprision of treason,

or felony, it may be by general words couched; if it be for any other thing of

smaller nature, as contempt, and the like, the particular cause must be shewed;

and no individuum vagum,

102

or uncertain cause to be admitted. 2. Obj. ‘If

the law be so clear as you make it, why needs this declaration andremonstrance

in parliament? Answ. The subject hath in this case sued for remedy in the

king’s bench, by Habeas Corpus, and found none; therefore it is necessary to

be cleared in parliament.”—Here sir Edward Coke ended his discourse: and

then he made a Recapitulation of all that had been offered unto their lordships,

That generally their lordships had been advised by the most faithfulcounsellors

that can be, viz. dead men; these can’t be daunted by fear nor muzzled by

affection, reward, or hope, of preferment; and therefore your lordships might

safely believe them; particularly, their lordships had 3 several kinds of proofs.

1. Acts of Parliaments, judicial precedents, good reasons. 1. You have had many

antient acts of parliament in the point, besides Magna Charta; that is, 7 acts

of parl. which indeed are 37, Magna Charta being conﬁrmed 30 times; for so

often have the kings of England given their royal assents thereunto. 2. Judicial

precedents of grave and reverend judges, in terminis terminantibus, that long

since departed the world, and they were many in number. Precedents being

12, and the judges 4 of a bench, made 4 times 12 and that is 48 judges. 3. You

have, as he termed them, vividas rationes,

103

manifest and apparent reasons.

101. [Ed.: A greater inheritance comes to every one of us from the law and the statutes than from our

parents.]

102. [Ed.: vague particulars,]

103. [Ed.: manifest reasons,]

Speeches in Parliament 16281250

Towards the conclusion, he declared, That they of the commons have, upon

great study and serious consideration, made a great manifestation unani-

mously, nullo contradicente,

104

concerning this great Liberty of the Subject;

and have vindicated and recovered the body of this fundamental liberty, both

of their lordships and themselves, from shadows; which some times of the

day, are long, sometimes short, and sometimes long again; and therefore we

must not be guided by shadows; and they have transmitted to their lordships

not capita rerum,

105

heads or briefs; for these compendia are dispendia;

106

but

the Records at large, in terminis terminantibus.’ And so he concluded “That

their lordships are involved in the same danger, and therefore, ex congruo &

condigno,

107

they desired a conference; to the end their lordships might make

the like Declaration as they had done, ‘commune periculum commune requirit

auxilium;’

108

and thereupon take such further course, as may secure their lord-

ships and them, and all their posterity, in enjoying of their antient, andoubted,

and fundamental liberties.”

April 4, 1628.

109

In the Committee of the Whole House

Ed.: In a debate concerning subsidies and taxes.

Sir Edward Coke. This House was never yet divided. I came hither this day

to give subsidies, and the King hath furthered me. If we should go away without

giving, what rumors would there be, and what distractions in the town! Some

have moved for poll money. I would have no new thing. I would have no

constraint in wardships and subsidies. Let a man have a good pennyworth in

his own land. Let it go by assessment. For poll money, there are divers pre-

cedents, but all with ill success. 4 Ric.2, num. 15, he demanded money by the

104. [Ed.: with no one speaking against.]

105. [Ed.: heads of things.]

106. [Ed.: Collections . . . waste.]

107. [Ed.: for the sake of congruence and equal dignity.]

108. [Ed.: mutual danger requires mutual assistance.]

109. [Ed.: Stowe MS, 366. April 4, 1628, 48v–49, in CD, 1628, II, 308.]

Petition of Right 1251

poll. It caused a rebellion where the rude multitude chopped off many a good

man’s head. 4 Hen.7, there was a new device to raise money, but the gentlemen

of Yorkshire would not pay to that rate, whereupon the Duke of North-um-

berland being sent amongst them, they chopped off his head also. In the

country (for which I serve) the gentlemen are not much aforehand, and the

poor are very poor. I agree with him that rung at the fore-bell, 5 subsidies to

be paid between this and Christmas.

April 8, 1628.

110

In the Committee of the Whole House

Ed.: In a debate on a grievance from the regulation and quartering of sol-

diers.

Sir Edward Coke. There is a secret of law what may a lieutenant do by law.

Before 27 Eliz. there were no continued lieutenants but upon certain occasions,

as occasion did serve, like the High Commission Court, which was never but

upon some occasions, for it is very dangerous to have it standing; no appeal

can be from it. In time of peace a lieutenant can do nothing but according

to law. Pasch., 39 Edw.3 rot. 92, coram rege. Thomas Lancaster in Edw.2 made

an insurrection and was taken ﬂagrante crimine,

111

and they gave judgment

without indictment, and he was beheaded. Sed pro eo quod non fuit arrainatus

sed secundum leges, etc., et cur res fuit aperta; ideo fuit reversum, that is, tempus

pacis.

112

If the courts of justice be open, none ought to be executed. Nothing

must be done but according to law, and it is adjudged that he was unlawfully

put to death. If there be an uproar, if the King’s courts be open you can do

no martial law. 1 Edw.3, pars prima, Roger de Mortimer was executed by martial

law when the King’s court was open, and his heir had an assize and reversed

it. Two laws will never stand in England: if the courts be open, no martial

law. 14 Edw.3, 122, the is more plain. Pasch., 28 Edw.3, rot. 33,

110. [Ed.: Proceedings and Debates, ff. 54v–55, in CD, 1628, II, 362–63.]

111. [Ed.: While the crime was ﬂagrant, or during the crime.]

112. [Ed.: But because he was not arraigned according to the laws, etc., and [the king’s court] was open,

therefore it was reversed [that is,] time of peace.]

Speeches in Parliament 16281252

Worcester coram rege, Mortimer, Earl of March, was none of the best men,

but you must punish him by law, else you make him innocent. He was taken

and without judgment had his head chopped off, and his heir came and re-

covered all.

This billeting of soldiers in my house is dangerous. Domus est tutissimum

refugium.

113

One says, keep soldiers from idleness, or else nihil cogitat nisi de

ventre et venere.

114

You hear how fruitful they are. There are 4,000 men now

billeted. No doubt but upon an humble petition his Majesty, hearing of it,

will take a course with them. The King of Denmark wants men; send them

thither. Let a subcommittee draw a petition. If this vermin be in the country,

it will disable and dishearten the country. No doubt his Majesty will meet us

half way.

April 9, 1628.

115

Ed.: Considering a disputed election result for Coventry, in which two

sheriffs returned results.

Sir Edward Coke. The words of the statute are, citizens free and residents

be chosen, and no other. The judgement of the election is the right of them

that sit here, and not the return of the sheriff. When I was Speaker this question

was then, and it was answered the election is free and they may choose a

stranger, and that law was made for the beneﬁt of the citizen, and quilibet

potest renunciare juri pro se ipso.

116

They may disclaim their own liberty, and

give away their own liberties, and when they choose them by way of impli-

cation this makes them freemen: and I was chosen in Cornwall, where I was

never free nor resident, and I was then Speaker. The sheriff is not judge. He

is to return according to the major number, and this House is to judge of it.

In Buckinghamshire the county did elect one, and the sheriff would not return

him because he was outlawed, and 1 Jac. he was here and punished.

This sheriff was called in and brought to the bar, and kneeled, and there

confessed his fault that he did it out of ignorance, and confessed that Mr.

113. [Ed.: A house is the safest refuge.]

114. [Ed.: [They] think of nothing but ﬁlling their belly and sating their lust.]

115. [Ed.: Proceedings and Debates, ff. 56–57, in CD, 1628, II, 376–79.]

116. [Ed.: anyone is able to renounce a law made for his beneﬁt.]

Petition of Right 1253

Greene and Mr. Purefoy had the plurality of voices, but because they were

not residents he did not return them.

...

Ed.: Considering a warrant to dispatch troops, by a lawyer who was not a

lieutenant empowered to dispatch them.

Sir Edward Coke. This gentlemen made a warrant for fear. Habemus reum

conﬁtentem,

117

he himself confesseth it. We have rules and they guide us. Melius

est omnia mala pati quam malo consentire.

118

It is writ in every honest man’s

heart not to consent to ill. This man made a warrant when no warrant was

made to him. 11 Ric.2, the judges, amongst whom was Bealknap, gave this

opinion against his conscience and said it was out of fear; but at home he

could not sleep but, said he, “I deserve 3 H’s: a hurdle, a halter, and a hangman.”

After 1 Hen. 4, in the parliament roll, it is said that no man hereafter shall

excuse himself by fear. I say cowards fear; Vir sapiens est robustus.

119

He will

never shrink for fear. Nihil est timor sed perditio.

120

It betrays succors. It is no

answer to say he hath given his judgment from fear. I mislike a man that differs

from me in fear. This man is not laicus but doctus.

121

His credit is his life. Let

our censure be ad correctionem, not ad destructionem.

122

His offense is great;

this almanac must serve for the meridian of England. This example will prove

more and try more than twenty points of doctrine, and it will strike far. Solus

Deus errare non potest.

123

April 10, 1628.

124

Ed.: Debating the King’s or the house’s authority to adjourn or recess by

prorogue.

117. [Ed.: We have a defendant who confesses,]

118. [Ed.: It is better to suffer every wrong than to consent to evil.]

119. [Ed.: The wise man is robust.]

120. [Ed.: Fear is nothing but desperation.]

121. [Ed.: not a layman but learned.]

122. [Ed.: for correction, not destruction.]

123. [Ed.: Only God is incapable of error.]

124. [Ed.: Proceedings and Debates, f. 60v, in CD, 1628, II, 400.]

Speeches in Parliament 16281254

Sir Edward Coke. I am as tender of the privileges of this House as of my

life, and they are the heart-strings of the commonwealth. The King makes a

prorogation, but this House adjourns itself. The commission of adjournment

we never read, but say, “This House adjourns itself.” If the King write to an

abbot for a corody for a varlet, if it be ex rogatu,

125

though the abbot yields

to it, it binds not. Therefore I desire that it may be entered that this is done

ex rogatu regis.

126

April 12, 1628.

127

Ed.: Responding to a message from the King, which attempted to pressure

the house to grant the supply quickly and to ignore their grievances.

Sir Edward Coke. Crede mihi, bene qui latuit, bene vixit.

128

I may say, bene

dixit qui bene tacuit.

129

This message may prove gracious. It stands on 5 parts.

First, his Majesty tells us he hath given us timely notice of his supply and of

his expectation. Secondly, that he ﬁnds a stop. This we must clear or refer it

to a committee, that we chalk out our proceedings, and if we can, let us open

our stop, and show that we so proceeded as never subjects did. Thirdly, that

he expects that we apply ourselves to his Majesty’s affairs. My soul and all this

House (for we have all one soul and one judgment and affection to the King)

agree to that. Fourthly, that his Majesty’s affairs (his affairs are the affairs of

the kingdom) and ours proceed together, and not one to interrupt the other.

Let us speak it with all reverence, we were the unworthiest men that ever lived

or took any English air if we give not supply to the King, and to make provision

for our liberties. If we be not interrupted with grievances, we shall end all, if

his Majesty will give us a gracious answer, and to expedite them will expedite

us. As for the conclusion, that shall never fall out, God forbid. Let us with

all speed address ourselves to show there is no stop on our side, and prepare

our grievances.

125. [Ed.: by desire,]

126. [Ed.: by the king’s desire.]

127. [Ed.: Proceedings and Debates, f. 64v, in CD, 1628, II, 431–32.]

128. [Ed.: Believe me, he who has kept himself well hidden has lived well.]

129. [Ed.: He has spoken well who has kept silent.]

Petition of Right 1255

April 14, 1628.

130

Ed.: On Lord Suffolk’s allegation that John Selden had destroyed records

and had uttered sedition.

Sir Edward Coke. I persuade myself that that great Lord spake not of himself.

Razing records is felony, and sure that noble Lord was informed that a record

was razed, and that was felony. I expect that that worthy gentleman shall be

an ornament to the law. But this toucheth not him but this House. The charge

is heavy for razing records reported by a great Lord of noble blood. We are

bound to stand by him and acquit him. Let us ﬁnd out the author. If this be

not righted, never employ any more. I will not speak of the Bishop of Durham,

that lately presumed to offend in this kind. 21 Hen. 8, when the statute of

nonresidence came in and bribes of the clergy suppressed, Bishop Fisher said

it was want of faith; down goes the church, look to Bohemia. The House

would not sit, but the Bishop made a friar’s distinction and said he meant not

the House of Commons, but Bohemia, and this was then accepted of. I hope

this will not hinder the business. Set down the words in verbis conceptis

131

and

desire justice of the Lords.

April 15, 1628.

132

In the Committee of the Whole House

Ed.: In debate on the regulation and quartering of soldiers, and the grievance

for it, against an argument for the King’s power, based on Coke’s report

of Lord Sanchar’s case, 9 Reports 117.

Sir Edward Coke. I am glad there is no other authority than is cited. We

touch not the King’s power. The King hath power to grant commissions of

oyer and terminer, but the manner now is only the question. The King may

pardon felonies, no man disputes it; but if a pardon be good in a particular

130. [Ed.: Proceedings and Debates, ff. 66v–67, in CD, 1628, II, 448.]

131. [Ed.: in the words as solemnly uttered.]

132. [Ed.: Proceedings and Debates, ff. 73v–74, in CD, 1628, II, 466.]

Speeches in Parliament 16281256

cause, we do dispute every day. We do not innovate but what was done in

the best kings’ times. The martial law belongs to the Constable and Marshal.

We set down in what times the martial law is to be executed. Those com-

missions now granted are not in the old form. Admit the King hath a power,

that power may be regulated by act of parliament. 13 Ric.2, cap. 2, the King,

willing to ordain remedy, hath declared the power of the Constable and Mar-

shal: that the Constable is to have cognizance touching deeds of arms and war

out of the sea, and also war within the sea that cannot be determined by the

common law. The military men may ﬁnd fault with the gentlemen of the long

robes that dispute this power. I honor that profession. We will teach them

how to use martial law.

April 17, 1628.

133

In Conference with the Lords

Ed.: This is the second conference on the Liberty of the Subject.

Sir Edward Coke began thus:—‘Your lordships have well perceived how

fairly, and with what respect, we have dealt with you, and ever shall. We

brought up unto you what we had resolved on; and not only that, but the

cause and grounds of our resolutions, and all our records; the like whereof

was never done in parliament and we are to maintain what we did. The natural

and the politic body have a great resemblance and proportion: and as the

natural body hath symptoms of good or evil health, so we hold it a good

symptom for us, that Mr. Attorney was so long and so loth to come to it. My

lords, we will break order rather than defer the business. This conference is

between the two houses. Mr. Attorney is no member of your house: he attends

you; but his voice is with us: yet we are so willing to proceed, that we will

take no hold of threads: let him say what he can, we will allow him a voice

here, where he ought not to speak. We have delegatam potestatem, tantum

permissam, quantum commissam;

134

and therefore, for all new matter of this

conference, we come with ears, not with tongues. For the resolutions of the

133. [Ed.: Cobbett, Parl. Hist., II, 294.]

134. [Ed.: a delegated power, only permitted insofar as it has been committed;]

Petition of Right 1257

judges, we are glad of them; and we are conﬁdent never a judge in England

will be against what we have resolved. We can say nothing to it; it is new

matter; but we will report it faithfully to our house.

...

Sir Edward Coke

135

spake next. ‘As,’ said he, ‘the centre of the greatest circle

is but a little prick, so the matter ever lies in a little room; but weighty businesses

are spun out to a high length. This he said, was more weighty than difﬁcult:

his part was little; he would run over Mr. Attorney’s Reasons brieﬂy; and, said

he, ‘summa sequar vestigia rerum.

136

This tenet of theirs was expressed shortly

and signiﬁcantly: it was a wonder for him to hear the Liberty of the Subject

should be thought incompatible with the regality of the king; for nihil tam

proprium est imperii, quam legibus vivere,

137

saith Bracton. Nay further, At-

tribuit rex legi quod lex ei; dominium enim & imperium exercere, sine lege, non

potest.

138

—First he, said, Mr. Attorney seemed to intimate, that, in this speciale

mandatum

139

a cause should be conceived to blind the judges, when other

matter was intended. He had heard indeed of that sentence, Qui nescit dis-

simulare, nescit regnare;

140

but he held it no good divinity; for David, in the

119th Psalm, desires ‘a sound heart;’ that is, a heart without dissimulation:

ergo no king should cover to dissemble in his mandates. Then for that case

of rebellion, in Ireland, he said, it was bona terra, mala gens.

141

But, he said,

O’Donnel’s children lost nothing by the bargain; periissent nisi periisset:

142

for

they were better brought up here in the true religion, instead of popery. Besides,

they have lost nothing, for their blood was tainted. It was charity to keep

them. A strange proviso, that a thing happening once in 100 years should

overthrow and marr so many statutes in continual use, against the old rule,

‘Ad ea quae frequentius accidunt, jura adaptantur! ’

143

And he never heard of

such an objection.—In the next Reason, he said, Mr. Attorney came close to

135. [Ed.: Cobbett, Parl. Hist., II, 323–28.]

136. [Ed.: I will trace only the high points.]

137. [Ed.: nothing is so appropriate to supreme power as to live by the laws,]

138. [Ed.: The king bestows on the law what the law bestows on him; for he cannot exercise dominion

and supreme power without law.]

139. [Ed.: a special mandate [scope of ofﬁce].]

140. [Ed.: He who does not know how to dissemble does not know how to govern;]

141. [Ed.: a good land, but a bad people.]

142. [Ed.: they would have perished if he had not perished:]

143. [Ed.: The laws are adapted to those things which occur frequently.]

Speeches in Parliament 16281258

him, and said he was glad he had awaked him. That a king is trusted in greater

things, as war, money, pardons, denisons; ergo, &c. Negatur, said he, for the

liberty of the person is more than all these; it is maximum omnium humanorum

bonorum,

144

the very sovereign of all human blessings: yea, but the king may

make money of brass, (saith Dionysius Halicarnasseus) or other base metal, as

he heard queen Elizabeth say, that her father, king Henry the eighth. did hope

to live so long, till he saw his face in brass; i.e. in brass money. He said this

was a main point: and that whatever the king’s power was by the common

law, yet was it qualiﬁed by acts of parl. And no man will deny but the king

may limit himself by acts of parl.—He cited 9 Ed. 3. c. 4. 3 Hen. 5. c. 1. that

the money must be of weight sterling; ergo, it must now be of the lay and

ﬁneness of sterling. In another statute, ‘de dimissione denariorum,’ it is re-

quired the coin should be de legali metallo; ergo, not illegitimate.

145

Why must

the king have the mines of gold in my land, but for the use of his mint and

coining? He cited also a law of King Edgar, C. 8. and of Canutus, C. 8. that

no money should be current but of gold and silver. And for Pardons; they are

also limited, in wilful murder; as he proved out of the 4 and 25 Edw. 8. And

this he said by the way. Now his part was short; he had before expressed what

books and warrants they had for their tenet. If he be a little more earnest than

seems ﬁtting, he craves your lordships pardon; it concerns him near. He takes

occasion here to say (under reformation) his reasons were not answered, or

not fully. He touched upon his former reason from imprisonment; that it is

a badge of a villain to be imprisoned without cause; that this and saller luy

haut & bas sont propria quarto modo to villains;

146

this he presents with all

reverence; for we, said he, speak for the future times only: our king is good,

and the council most gracious; but non nobis nati sumus;

147

it is for our posterity

that we desire to provide, rather than for ourselves, that they be not in worse

case than villains; for to be imprisoned without cause shewn, is to be im-

prisoned without cause at all. De non apparentibus & non existentibus, eadem

est ratio.

148

—He agreed with Mr. Attorney in the enumeration of all the kinds

of Habeas Corpus; and if they two were alone, he did not doubt but they

144. [Ed.: the greatest of all human goods,]

145. [Ed.: of lawful metal: therefore, not unlawful.]

146. [Ed.: Tallaging high and low are the proper signs, in the fourth manner.]

147. [Ed.: It was not for us that we were born;]

148. [Ed.: Things not appearing come under the same reasoning as things non-existent.]

Petition of Right 1259

should agree in all things. Only, he said, that for a freeman to be tenant at

will for his liberty, he could never agree to it; it was a tenure that could not

be found in all Littleton.—Then he also touched his former argument from

universality; that the lords, the bishops, and all are jumbled and involved in

this universality. Law doth privilege noblemen from arrests: this new doctrine,

like the little god Terminus, yields to none. Nay, the judges themselves, when

they should sit on the Bench, must be walking towards the Tower. Then he

fell to a protestation, that he intended no prejudice at all to the king for matters

of state; for the honourable must be maintained in honour, or this common-

wealth could not subsist; but the question was, Whether they ought not to

express the cause? He repeated again Plowden, 4 Eliz. pl. 236. The common

law hath so admeasured the king’s prerogative, as he cannot prejudice any

man in his inheritance. He cited also 42 Edw. 3. c. 1. to prove that all judgments

given against Magna Charta are void.—Next he was pleased to say, He was

not so well dealt with in one particular as he expected: For a student’s report

should not have been cited against him. He desired Mr. Attorney to remember,

he had not veritatem ex cathedra;

149

or infallibility of spirit; that was for the

Pope. He said, he misgrounded his opinion upon 33 Hen. 6. which being

nothing to the purpose, he is now assured his opinion is as little to the

purpose.—Here he took notice of an objection, What, can you arrest none

without a process or original writ? Why, the suspected fellow will run away?

To which he answered, that process signiﬁes the whole proceeding: and cited

a rule in law, Quando lex aliquod concedit, concedere videtur id, sine quo res

ipsa esse non potest.

150

The law gives process and indictment; ergo, gives all

means conducing to the indictment. And this answers all Mr. Attorney’s cases

of watchmen and constables.”

...

—“Sir Ed. Coke put your lordships in mind, that you had the greatest cause

in hand, that ever came into the Hall of Westminster, or, indeed, into any

parliament. My lords, said he, your noble ancestors, whose places you hold,

were parties to Magna Charta; so called for weight and substance, for, oth-

erwise, many other statutes are greater in bulk; as Alexander, a little man,

149. [Ed.: truth by reason of [the papal] chair;]

150. [Ed.: When the law grants something, it is deemed to grant everything without which the thing

itself cannot be.]

Speeches in Parliament 16281260

called magnus

151

for his courage. And you, my lords, the bishops, said he, are

commanded fulminare,

152

to thunder out your anathemas against all infringers

of Magna Charta. (Sententia lata super Chartas).

153

And all the worthy judges

that deserved their places, have ever had Magna Charta in great estimation.

Now, as Justice hath a sword, so it hath a balance, Ponderat haec causas, percutit

ille reos.

154

Put together, my noble lords, in one balance 7 acts of parliament,

records, precedents, reasons, all that we have spoken, and that of 18 Edw. 3.

whereto I found no answer; and, in God’s name, put into the other balance

what, Mr. Attorney hath said, his wit, learning, and great endowments of

nature; and, if he be weightier, let him have it; if not, then conclude with us.

You are involved in the same danger with us; and therefore we desire you, in

the name of the commons of England, represented in us, that we might have

cause to give God and the king thanks for your justice, in complying with

us.”—And here rested Sir E. Coke.

Ed.: In response to a call from the Lords for a further conference on the

Liberties of the Subject, and a journal from the Commons of 1621, recording

Coke’s views then of Magna Carta.

Sir Edward Coke.

155

We speak our consciences as it is for the present. We

sometimes change our opinions upon better reason. Also it is dangerous for

us to allow this, for the Clerk with his pen may mistake in setting down words.

Perhaps he mistook. Shall this conclude us? The Clerk may leave out some-

what, and say then some opinion were so. That shall not bind us. Let us

answer that we will think of it, and give what answer shall be ﬁt for us to

give. It is not ﬁt the book be any evidence against us. The Clerk’s ofﬁce is

not to take our sayings, but to take the orders of the House only.

151. [Ed.: the great.]

152. [Ed.: to cast lightning bolts,]

153. [Ed.: opinion on the Charters [a statute].]

154. [Ed.: The case weighted in the one, the guilty punished by the other.]

155. [Ed.: Stowe MS 366, f. 77, in CD, 1628, II, 512.]

Petition of Right 1261

April 18, 1628.

156

Ed.: Debating the Liberty of the Subject, Coke draws an analogy between

the rights of the subject to refuse an ofﬁce and Richard de Pembridge’s

refusal of the Lieutenancy of Ireland.

Sir Edward Coke. For foreign employments there is a difference when the

party is the King’s servant and when not. 46 Edw. 3, rot. 33 in dorso; this was

the time when the law was in its height. Sir Richard Pembridge was a baron

and the King’s servant and Warden of the Cinque Ports. He was commanded

to go into Ireland and to serve as deputy there, penitus recusavit, propter quod

idem rex reducens in memoriam incensa beneﬁcia ei impensa et propter inobe-

dientiam suam et ingratitudinem, etc.

157

Note that Ireland is part of the kingdom

of England. What punishment had he? He was not committed, yet the King

was highly offended because he had ofﬁces and fees and lands pro servitio suo

impenso.

158

The King seized his lands and ofﬁces et conservationem Quinque

Portuum et Castrum Pembroke et custodiam forestae, etc., et custodiam haeredis

J.S. durante minoritate commissam sibi per regem, volens quod praedictus non

intromitteret et dat ofﬁcia, etc.

159

I went to the parliament roll, and in 47 Edw.3

there was another precedent for foreign employment. They that have ofﬁces

and lands pro concilio aut servitio impenso,

160

if they refuse, those lands and

ofﬁces so given were seized, but no committment.

156. [Ed.: Proceedings and Debates, ff. 78–78v, in CD, 1628, II, 540–541.]

157. [Ed.: he utterly refused on account of which the king called to mind the innumerable beneﬁts

bestowed on him, and, because of his disobedience and ingratitude, etc.]

158. [Ed.: for his service given.]

159. [Ed.: and the keeping of the Cinque Ports and Pembroke Castle, and the keeping of the forest,

etc., and the wardship of the heir of J. S. committed to him by the king during the minority, willing that

the aforesaid [Richard] should not intermeddle, and gave the ofﬁces, etc.]

160. [Ed.: for advice or service given,]

Speeches in Parliament 16281262

April 18, 1628

161

In the Committee of the Whole House

Ed.: In a debate on the jurisdiction of martial law over conscripts, Coke

responds to an argument by Sir Henry Martens, that martial law displaces

common law.

Sir Edward Coke. I shall maintain jus belli. Maxime conservanda sunt belli

jura.

162

The civilian that expounded 13 Ric.2, his exposition corrupts the text.

God send me never to live under the law of conveniency or discretion. He

saith also both laws stand together cumulative. Bring it to a court of justice.

Shall the soldier and justice sit on one bench? The trumpet will not let the

crier speak, non bene convenient.

163

He vouched 4 et 5 Phil. et Mar. and the

proviso there. That is one of the causes the statute was repealed. This is to

go out of the text. The question must be determined by the law of England,

and the martial law is bounded by it. If you bring me other laws it is not to

the purpose. The common law is the great and principal law. Take a case

mixed with the civil law, the common law carries it, 22 Hen.4. The civilians

enjoy their lands by the common law, and not by the civil law. Quod intem-

pestivum injucundum.

164

I will ﬁrst show what is the time of peace, which is

when the courts of Westminster are open, for when they are open then you

may have a commission of oyer and terminer; and where the common law

can determine a thing, the material law cannot. Pasch. 14 Edw.3, in the Ex-

chequer, in the Earl of Kent’s case. Hen.2 grants a fair to St. Ives rendering

50 li. per annum, and after, by another charter, he granted that if the proﬁts

of the fair be interrupted by reason of war, he should not pay the rent after

the King grants the rent to the Earl of Kent. In a scire facias the abbot pleads

that it was tempus belli,

165

and thereupon issue was joined. 18 Edw.2, “Quare

161. [Ed.: Proceedings and Debates, ff. 81–81v, in CD, 1628, II, 545–46.]

162. [Ed.: the law of war. The laws of war are important to be preserved.]

163. [Ed.: They do not well go together.]

164. [Ed.: What is inappropriate is unpleasant.]

165. [Ed.: time of war.]

Petition of Right 1263

Impedit,” 175, the issue was passed if it were a time of war or of peace, and

nothing is there ajdudged; but in 14 Edw.3 the record saith that the said issue

ought to be judged by recorda regis, it shall not be tried by a jury but by the

records. Whether martial law may be in time of peace, 21 Edw.4, 10, de termino

Trinitatis nihil, quia tempus duelli et non tenuit.

166

1 Hen.4, all the appeals of

things done within the realm shall be tried by the good law, so called in opposito

in the cruel war. If two men go into a foreign nation and there ﬁght and one

is killed, the martial law tries it by way of appeal according to the civil law.

13 Hen.4, fol. 5, accordant. Drake slew Doughty beyond sea. Doughty’s brother

desired an appeal in the Constable and Marshal’s court, and Wray and the

other judges resolved that he might there sue. We make no law, we must not

mediate ubi lex non distinguit.

167

To hang a man tempore pacis

168

is dangerous.

I speak not of prosecution against a rebel. He may be slain in the rebellion,

but after he is taken he cannot be put to death by the martial law. Pasch., 39

Edw.3, rot. 49; 28 Edw.2, num. 13, when the courts are open martial law cannot

be executed. 5 Hen.4, num. 39, Wilman’s case, the Constable and Marshal

desired an addition to their commission, and they proceeded against some

according to that power; but because it was not according to their ancient

power it was void, for they cannot do anything according to that additional

power, and there was a prohibition to stay their proceedings by virtue of that

additional power. 6 Hen.7, 4, 5, the King granted a leet and that there should

be cognizance of rape, and the grant was void. So, if the King grant to the

justices of the Common Pleas to hear felonies. The civilian provided for him-

self, and said the commission is only for actual soldiers, but the commission

goes to all soldiers, and all that shall join with them. And who shall judge of

this, who are soldiers and who they are that join with them? There are now

60 articles to which that commission hath reference; 40 of them are written

in blood. How shall the soldier know how to obey them? They are not under

the Great Seal. The Council of York had a commission with reference to

instructions. When I was judge in the Common Pleas, we granted prohibi-

tions, and after, King James caused them to be added to the commission itself.

166. [Ed.: for Trinity term, nothing, because it was the time of battle and it was not held.]

167. [Ed.: where the law makes no distinction.]

168. [Ed.: in time of peace.]

Speeches in Parliament 16281264

April 21, 1628.

169

Ed.: Reporting on the conference with Lords, held on April 17.

Sir Edward Coke. I will tell you how I began. The Lords and we stayed an

hour for Mr. Attorney before he came. When he came I made a protestation,

and I observed it was a good symptom, he was so loath to come to it. I said

he was by order of parliament not to speak. If he had any voice at all, his voice

was here with us; but the case was such that to expedite it we would break

any order. My part fell into reason. He said there was an incompatibility

between a monarchy and our resolution. But I said nihil est tam proprium

monarchiae quam leges et sine legibus non potest esse imperium.

170

He said that

sometimes the true cause must be concealed and hid. But I said that holds

not in law; qui nescit dissimulare nescit vivere.

171

He put a case of Irish rebels

that were put in the Tower. I answered it was charity to keep them. And Sir

Dudley Digges answered they are to lie there till they ﬁnd good sureties for

their good behavior, which they are not able to do, and also ad ea quae fre-

quentius accidunt jura adaptantur,

172

and that case has not fallen out but sel-

dom. He leaped over seven statutes by the art of simulation, and four cases

he put by way of simile, as money, the King may make it of what metal he

please, etc., and therefore he may imprison. It is a plain non sequitur. But I

answered this case of coining by the statute of 25 Edw. 3 and 9 Hen. 5, all

money must be of the lay of sterling. I told him what I heard Queen Elizabeth

say of her father’s nativity that was cast, and that he should live till he saw

his face brass, and so he did. Copper payment is no payment. But it was

further answered, admit the King abase his money, he himself suffers more

than the subject. So if he make war (which was another of the Attorney’s

similes) he and the subject are both involved there. To pardon a malefactor,

or to make a denizen (which were his other cases), the King may lose by it.

Therefore may he imprison? A strange argument, a simile. He said the judges

169. [Ed.: Proceedings and Debates, ff. 83–83v, in CD, 1628, III, 5–6.]

170. [Ed.: Nothing is so appropriate to monarchy as laws, and supreme power cannot exist without

laws.]

171. [Ed.: He who knows not how to dissemble knows not how to live.]

172. [Ed.: The laws are adapted to things which occur frequently,]

Petition of Right 1265

knew wherefore Monson was committed, so I said the judges know wherefore

the gentlemen were committed.

Then came a serjeant at law. He had 5 damnable and desperate reasons.

1. That our conclusion tended to an anarchy and not to a monarchy.

2. If this be yielded to, it is to put the sword into the King’s hand with one

hand, and to pull it out with another.

3. You must allow the King to govern by the law of state or else there is

no power there.

4. This question is too high a question to be determined where the persons

are to receive irreparable loss.

5. This raised up dust in all our faces. If the King demanded money by way

of loan and the party refuse and be committed, will you have the cause brought

up in a habeas corpus?

So he dealt most unjustly and rashly, and I move that we may have a con-

ference with the Lords about him. As for the resolution of the judges, they

say they neither determined one nor other, and it is no judgement. They

comply with us.

April 22, 1628.

173

Ed.: Prior to his speech, committing a bill, the speeches were these:

Mr. Jordan. An act for the further punishing of adultery and fornication.

Mr. Jordan. I did always look that this bill should ﬁnd many opposers

but, Mr. Speaker, this is no laughing matter. I humbly move according to

the motion of a lawyer in the last parliament that those that ﬁnd themselves

guilty of this vice would speak against the commitment of this bill, but

those that are against it would speak for it.

They cry, “Commit it! Commit it!”

Sir Edward Coke. I see you all cry, “Commit it! Commit it!” and you laugh

at it as you say so but, good Mr. Speaker, it is the bill, not the sin, which we

would have committed.

173. [Ed.: Stowe, April 22, 1628, 97–97v, in CD, 1628, III, 26.]

Speeches in Parliament 16281266

April 25, 1628.

174

In the Committee of Grievances

Ed.: In debating the effect of a Common Council which was an act by the

City of London, to imprison a man for non-payment of forced loans as-

signed to the City, a portion of which he was involuntarily assigned.

Sir Edward Coke. This is of more weight than difﬁculty. A Common Council

may take place in four cases: 1, for the government of the City according to

the laws of the realm. 2, for the common proﬁt, as for mending ways, etc.,

so as it exceed not law and reason. 3, to regulate trades and to prevent fraud,

as a halfpenny for a cloth that is measured and searched, etc. 4, an ornament

to the City upon a victory. But to compel a man to lend money to purchase

land, etc., it is altogether unlawful. The King dealt only with the Mayor and

Court of Aldermen, and not with this party.

April 26, 1628.

175

In the Committee of the Whole House

Ed.: Debating proposals from the Lords sent to commons as a counter-

offer to their proposals on the Liberty of the Subject. The three propositions

were to declare Magna Carta and six later statutes to be still in force, that

according to Magna Carta, the subjects have a fundamental propriety in

their goods and liberty in their person, that he conﬁrms these as in ancient

times, that he will act according to common law, and that he would not

extend his prerogative to diminish the propriety in goods or liberty of their

persons.

Sir Edward Coke. This is case of great consequence, and we are to deal

tenderly. This is the wheel that turns that great business of the House. That

174. [Ed.: Proceedings and Debates, f. 91v, in CD, 1628, III, 77–78.]

175. [Ed.: Proceedings and Debates, f. 99, in CD, 1628, III, 94–96.]

Petition of Right 1267

that I speak is for future times. We see what an advantage they have that are

learned in the law in penning articles, above them that are not, how wise

soever. Our resolutions are plain and open and clear. What theirs are we are

to dispute. We have resolved nemine contradicente,

176

“that no free man,” etc.

This is according to my conscience and knowledge. The ﬁrst proposition for

Magna Carta and the six other statues, the words are good, but they conclude

nothing in what cases they are in force. Is it if any be imprisoned without

cause? And there’s not a word of that. Also they conceive these statutes are

explanatory, and they mention not 36 Edw. 3. I delight in the King’s grace,

but will you have Magna Carta as a grace? Our petition is a petition of right,

and the King is to do it in right.

For the second proposition, that “according to Magna Carta” we have “pro-

priety,” etc., that determines nothing. The question is what is lex terrae ?

177

Therein some differ. If I have any law, lex terrae is the common law.

For the third, we shall out of grace enjoy our ancient fundamental liberties.

Is it not right? I know not what “fundamental” is. It is Holborn Latin.

178

understand not fundamental liberty or propriety. We gain nothing by all those.

He will “graciously” conﬁrm all our “just liberties.” We are in a round. The

King’s Council say they may commit us without cause shown, and all is out

of grace, and as our ancestors did under the King’s “best progenitors.” Who

are his best progenitors, they that had best possessions, or best virtues? I never

read who was the best king. Also there wants the word “predecessors.” The

bishops therefore are gone.

The fourth has more danger in it than is meant, that within “all cases”

within “the common law,” etc. That concerns the liberty of the subject. His

Majesty would “proceed,” etc. Shall we seclude all the statutes and customs,

and he not proceed according to the common law? And yet the common law

must now yield to the law martial. I am sure the martial law is here meant.

The common law must yield to it.

For the ﬁfth, I will point at it. I understand not much in it. His Majesty’s

prerogative “intrinsical.” It is a word we ﬁnd not much in the law. It is meant

that intrinsical prerogative is not bounded by any law, or by any law qualiﬁed.

176. [Ed.: with no one speaking against,]

177. [Ed.: the law of the land.]

178. [Ed.: The Latin learned by lawyers.]

Speeches in Parliament 16281268

We must admit this intrinsical prerogative an exempt prerogative, and so all

our laws are out. And this intrinsical prerogative is entrusted him by God and

then it is due jure divino,

179

and then no law can take it away. Then it follows

that for defense, etc., if his Majesty “shall ﬁnd” cause to commit, he may. We

are but where we were. We cannot yield to this, that he should have power

to commit any, and within “convenient time” he shall declare the cause; and

this is that we all strive for, and the kings contended for it before Magna Carta,

and could never prevail; and the conﬁrmation is in general to be shown, if it

be per mandatum domini regis,

180

or “for matter of state”; and then we are

gone, and we are in a worse case than ever. If we agree to this imprisonment

“for matters of state” and “a convenient time,” we shall leave Magna Carta

and the other statutes and make them fruitless, and do what our ancestors

would never do. We shall say “for matter of state” and “a convenient time”

a man maybe committed without cause. 20 Hen. 3, there was a little point in

law to be changed for antenati before marriage. Sed responderunt omnes comites

et barones (there was no duke nor marquess then), “Nolumus leges Angliae

mutare.”

181

I would never yield to alter Magna Carta. We are now about to

declare and we shall now introduce and make a new law, and no king in

Christendom claims that law, and it binds the subject where he was never

bound. Never yet was any fundamental law shaken but inﬁnite trouble ensued.

The statute of non clameum:

182

the common law was that you were to make

claim in one year: that was taken away, and then came such troubles as they

were never quiet till 4 Hen. 7. So the law was that no man should will his

lands by testament: now we have that law altered, and now ﬁve parts of the

suits in Westminster Hall are upon that point. It is true rerum progressus os-

tendunt multa quae [in] initio praecaveri non possunt.

183

Shake Magna Carta,

and we know what will come of it. You have a rule in building, lapis male

positus non est removendus.

184

Have we come up thither, and declared what

the law is, and shall we go back and consent of these commitments? Consider

the trust we reposed in the Lords. We showed them our evidence. We desire

179. [Ed.: by divine law,]

180. [Ed.: by command of the lord king,]

181. [Ed.: But all the earls and barons answered: “We will not change the laws of England.”]

182. [Ed.: [statute of ] non-claim:]

183. [Ed.: The progress of events reveals many things which cannot be foreseen at the outset.]

184. [Ed.: A misplaced stone is not to be removed.]

Petition of Right 1269

them to declare the like, but to be against us we begged it not. If the Lords

will not comply with us, but make any hesitation, I doubt not our gracious

Sovereign will comply with us.

April 28, 1628.

185

Ed.: Discussing a subpoena of member Sir Simeon Steward, who was bound

by a recognizance not to assert his privileges as a member of the house.

Sir Edward Coke. There was a fault on all sides. The recognizance is upon

record. He is now bound not to make any use of his privilege. A man elected

cannot refuse; he must serve his trust. He can make no proxy; he sits for many

a thousand. It was ill done to do this. Let us send for the recognizance.

...

In the Committee of Lawyers

Ed.: Later that afternoon, the subcommittee of lawyers met to discuss a

bill more fully protecting the Liberty of the Subject under Magna Carta.

Selden spoke ﬁrst of the need to set down Magna Carta in the form of

13 Hen. 4.

Sir Edward Coke.

186

1 Hen. 8, it was in the parliament roll that no loan or

privy seal shall be without parliament. When I was Attorney I saw it, but now

it is lost. 5 Ric. 2, num. 11, divers merchants are undone by loans. 9 Ric. 2,

rot. 60, to the same purpose. 13 Hen. 4, num. 10 et 18, no loan or aid for

guarding of the realm. Westminster 1, cap. 1, none shall come to eat in the

house of any prelate or any other. Let us recite all these laws in the bill.

185. [Ed.: Proceedings and Debates, f. 95v, in CD, 1628, III, 124.]

186. [Ed.: Proceedings and Debates, f. 99, in CD, 1628, III, 130–31.]

Speeches in Parliament 16281270

April 29, 1628.

187

In the Committee of the Whole House

Ed.: Here, Coke reports the framing of the Petition of Right to the Com-

mittee of the Whole House.

At a committee for the whole House concerning the framing of a bill for

the liberties, Sir Edward Coke reports from the committee.

Sir Edward Coke. First, they agreed to set down 3 capita: 1, propriety of

goods; 2, liberty of person; 3 and lastly, billeting of soldiers; and also the

particular statutes that are in force: Magna Carta, cap. 29; 25 Edw. 1, the ﬁrst

part of it. 34 Edw. 1, De Tallagio Concedendo; 5 Edw. 3; cap. 1; 25 Edw. 1, num.

16; et 25 Edw. 3, cap. 4; 28 Edw. 3; 36 Edw. 3, num. 9, 20 et 24; 37 Edw. 3; 42

Edw. 3, num. 12; 1 Ric. 3, cap. 2. In this law we looked not back, for qui repetit

separat;

188

and we have made no preamble other than the laws before men-

tioned, and we desired our pen might be in oil and not in vinegar.

The bill was exhibited and read.

An act for the better securing of every free man touching the propriety of

his goods and liberty of his person:

Whereas it is declared and enacted by Magna Carta that no free man is to

be convicted, destroyed, etc.: and whereas by a statute made in Edw. 1, called

De Tallagio non Concedendo, and whereas by the parliament 5 Edw. 3 and 4

Edw. 3 and 29 Edw. 3, etc.; and whereas the said Great Charter was conﬁrmed

and that the other laws, etc., be it enacted that Magna Carta and these said

acts of explanation and other the acts be put in due execution, and that all

judgments, awards, and rules given or to be given to the contrary shall be

void; and whereas by the common law and statutes it appears that no free

man ought to be committed by command of the King, etc., and if any free

man be so committed, and the same returned upon a habeas corpus, he ought

to be delivered or bailed.

Be it enacted now that no free man shall be committed by the King or

187. [Ed.: Proceedings and Debates, ff. 100–100v, in CD, 1628, III, 149–51.]

188. [Ed.: who repeatedly (criticizes) divides (others) (an allusion to Ecclesiasticus.)]

Petition of Right 1271

Privy Council, and the cause ought to be expressed; the same and no other

being returned upon a habeas corpus shall be delivered or bailed.

And whereas by the common law and statutes every free man has a propriety

in his goods and estate, as no tax, tallage, etc., nor any soldier can be billeted

in his house, etc.; be it enacted that no tax, tallage, loan shall be levied, etc.,

by the King or any minister without act of parliament, and that none be

compelled to receive any soldier in his house against his will.

...

Sir Edward Coke. If the King should have this prerogative, he should lose

most by it, and if the naked truth could appear to his Majesty he should see

that no ﬂowers of his crown should be violated, and the subject made worse

than a villein. But for that that no cause should be shown upon the com-

mitment, the honest man and the honest judge shall be most miserable, he

that has an upright heart to God. I was committed to the Tower and all my

books and study searched, and 37 manuscripts were taken away, and 34 were

restored, and I would give 300 l. for the other 3. I was inquired after what I

had done all my life before. So then there may be cause found out after the

commitment, and the commitment is fearful. All men’s mouths are open

against the party, and our friends afraid as well to come to us. I think the acts

of parliament include these questions in substance, but it is only implied. It

is not now without occasions that we insist upon this. Were there ever such

violations offered? Were there ever such commissions and oaths?

Objection [by Sir Dudley Digges]: Shall we do that to the King now that

never was done before?

Answer: Why, was there ever such violations? And is not the King named

in Magna Carta, at least by way of implicity? And 36 Edw. 3 and 25 Edw. 3

names the King and his Council.

May 1, 1628.

189

In the Committee of the Whole House

Ed.: Discussing a message from the King to the House asking whether the

189. [Ed.: Proceedings and Debates, f. 105, in CD, 1628, III, 189.]

Speeches in Parliament 16281272

House would not accept his promise to abide by his word to abide by the

law.

Sir Edward Coke. We receive comfort from his Majesty’s gracious care over

us. We dispute here of our liberties, but his Majesty’s care watches over us.

Now is the axe laid to the root of the tree. That that proceeded from his

Majesty is great. His Majesty desires us to let him know whether we will rely

upon his gracious promise or no. Let us consider of it against tomorrow.

May 2, 1628.

190

In the Committee of the Whole House

Ed.: Debating whether to accept the King’s word or to press for the Petition

of Right.

Sir Edw. Coke. That Royal Word had reference to some message formerly

sent: his majesty’s word was, That they may secure themselves any way, by

bill, or otherwise, and he promised to give way to it: and to the end that this

might not touch his majesty’s honour it was proposed, that the bill come not

from this house, but from the king: ‘We will and grant, for us and our suc-

cessors, that we and our successors will do thus and thus.’ And it is to the

king’s honor that he cannot speak but by record.

Others desired the house to consider, when and where the late promise was

made: was it not in the face of both houses? Cruel kings have been careful to

perform their promises; yea, though they have been unlawful, as Herod: there-

fore, if we rest upon his majesty’s promise, we may assure ourselves of the

performance of it. Besides, we bind his maj. by relying on his word. We have

laws enough; it is the execution of them that is our life, and it is the king that

gives life and execution.

190. [Ed.: Cobbett, Parl. Hist., II, 344.]

Petition of Right 1273

May 3, 1628.

191

In the Committee of the Whole House

Ed.: On the same matter of relying on the King’s word or insisting on the

Petition of Right.

Sir Edward Coke. Misconceiving is the mother of misdoing. Sure I am

misreports bring forth delays. We will not Strain or enlarge anything. We agree

upon the substance.

...

Sir Edward Coke. I ﬁnd we err much in sending messages. 2 Hen. 4, num.

10, the King ought not to take any information what is done here till it be

resolved here.

...

Ed.: On the same matter.

Sir Edward Coke. Futura sunt contingentia.

192

Let us absolutely confess we

do not encroach on his prerogative.

May 6, 1628.

193

In the Committee of the Whole House

Ed.: On the same matter.

Sir Edward Coke. Let us go in a parliamentary way. For any not to rely on

the King it is not ﬁt trust. In him is all the conﬁdence we have under God.

He is God’s lieutenant. Trust him we must. Was it ever known that general

words were a sufﬁcient satisfaction to particular grievances? Was ever a verbal

191. [Ed.: Proceedings and Debates, ff. 108–108v, in CD, 1628, III, 234–236.]

192. [Ed.: Future things are contingent.]

193. [Ed.: Proceedings and Debates, f. 113, in CD, 1628, III, 271–72.]

Speeches in Parliament 16281274

declaration of the King verbum regium?

194

When grievances be, the parliament

is to redress grievances and mischiefs that happen. Imprisonments are our

grievances, billeting of soldiers, unnecessary loans, etc. Did ever parliament

rely on messages? They ever put up petitions of their grievances, and the King

ever answered them. The King’s answer is very gracious, but what is the law

of the realm? That is the question. I put no difﬁdence in his Majesty. The

King must speak by a record, and in particulars, and not in general. Let us

have a conference with the Lords, and join in a petition of right to the King

for our particular grievances. Did you ever know the King’s messages come

into a bill of subsidies? All succeeding kings will say, “You must trust me as

well as did your predecessors, and trust my messages.” But messages alone

never came into a parliament. Let us put up our petitions; not that I distrust

the King, but because we cannot take his trust but in a parliamentary way.

May 7, 1628.

195

In the Committee of the Whole House

Ed.: Discussing the Commissions of the King’s Lieutenants and the In-

structions for Martial Law.

Sir Edward Coke. It is agreed that the articles are not now for this climate.

They are not under the Great Seal, and so no man can have warrant from

them, and so not according to law. For the commission itself—the learned

man himself disliked these words, that it go to any but to soldiers—then this

commission must be against law. 41 Edw. 3 an annuity granted for counsel;

the counsel is to be given in that profession the grantee is of. Secundum dis-

crecionem vestram—it is per leges to discern quid sit justum,

196

but it is a great

difference that is between jurisdiction and execution. Execution is in debel-

lando et in bello when it is ﬂagrante crimine,

197

but may they now in time of

peace execute this martial law? Without all question they cannot. I observe

194. [Ed.: the royal word.]

195. [Ed.: Proceedings and Debates, f. 115v, in CD, 1628, III, 307.]

196. [Ed.: “According to your discretion” (means to discern) by the laws what is just,]

197. [Ed.: in combat and in war, (when it is for) a ﬂagrant crime,]

Petition of Right 1275

in all the commissions, if it be for a thing done within the realm there the

commissions go only per incarceracionem corporis, etc., judicandum legibus.

198

Show me an act of parliament against 5 Hen. 4, no. 24, 25.

May 9, 1628.

199

In Conference with the Lords on May 8, 1628.

Ed.: Presenting the Commons’ view to promote the Petition of Right.

I pray your Lordships to excuse us, for we have been this day till one of

the clock about the great business, and (blessed be God) we have dispatched

it in some measure; and before this time we were not able to attend your

Lordships, but I hope that this meeting will prove to be a great blessing to

us. My Lords, I am commanded from the House of Commons to express the

singular care and affection they have of concurrence with your Lordships in

these urgent affairs and proceedings in this parliament, both for the good of

the commonwealth and principally for his Majesty. And this I must say in

this particular: if we had hundreds of tongues we were not able to express that

desire which we have of that concurrence with your Lordships; but I will leave

that without any further expression.

My Lords, it is evident what necessity there is, both in respect of ourselves

and our posterities, to have good success of this business. We have acquainted

your Lordships with the reasons and the grounds, and after we had some

conference we received from your Lordships ﬁve propositions, and it behooves

me to give your Lordships some reasons why you have not heard from us

before now. For in the meantime, as we were consulting of this weighty busi-

ness, we have received divers messages from our great sovereign the King, and

they consisted of ﬁve parts:

First, that his Majesty would maintain all his subjects in the just freedom

both of their persons and estates.

Secondly, that he will govern us according to the laws and statutes.

198. [Ed.: by imprisonment of the body, etc.; one should judge according to the laws.]

199. [Ed.: Proceedings and Debates, ff. 116v–118v, in CD, 1628, III, 338–41.]

Speeches in Parliament 16281276

Thirdly, that we shall ﬁnd much conﬁdence in his royal word, (I pray

observe it).

Fourthly, that we shall enjoy all our rights and liberties with as much free-

dom as ever any subjects have done in former times.

Fifthly, that whether we shall think it ﬁt, either by way of bill or otherwise,

to go on in this great business, his Majesty would be pleased to give way to it.

These gracious messages did so work upon our affections that we have taken

them into deep consideration. My Lords, when we had those messages (I deal

plainly, for so I am commanded by the House of Commons), we did consider

in what way we might go for our most secure way (nay, yours). We did think

it the safest way to go in a parliamentary course, for we have a maxim in our

House of Commons, and written on the walls of our House, that old ways

are the safest and surest ways.

And at last we fell upon that which we did think (if that your Lordships

did consent with us) is the most ancient way of all, and this is, my Lords, via

fausta,

200

both to his Majesty, to your Lordships, and to ourselves; for, my

Lords, this is the greatest bond that any subject can have in any parliament:

verbum regis.

201

This is an high point of honor, but this shall be done by the

Lords and Commons assented unto by the King in parliament. This is the

greatest obligation of all, and this is for the King’s honor and our safety.

Therefore (my Lords), we have drawn a form of a petition, desiring your

Lordships to concur with us therein. For we do come with an unanimous

consent of all this House of Commons, for there is great reason your Lordships

should do so, for your Lordships be involved in the same. Commune periculum

requires commune auxilium.

202

And so I have done with the ﬁrst part. And

now I shall be bold to read that which we have so agreed on. I shall desire

your Lordships that I may read it, which he did, and is as follows.

Ed.: Coke’s language following is the Petition of Right, as considered by

the Lords and as adopted, modiﬁed only by two lines added at the Lords’

behest on May 11 and 20. The ﬁnal petition was adopted on June 2.

200. [Ed.: through love,]

201. [Ed.: word of the King.]

202. [Ed.: Mutual danger (requires) mutual assistance.]

Petition of Right 1277

To the King’s most excellent Majesty:

Humbly show unto our Sovereign Lord the King, the Lords spiritual and

temporal, and Commons in this present parliament assembled, that whereas

it is declared and enacted by a statute made in the time of the reign of King

Edward the ﬁrst, commonly called Statutum de Tallagio Non Concedendo, that

no tallage or aid should be laid or levied by the King or his heirs in this realm

without the good will and assent of the archbishops, bishops, earls, barons,

knights, burgesses, and other the free men of the commonalty of this realm,

and by an authority of parliament held in the XXVth year of the reign of King

Edward the Third, it is declared and enacted that from thenceforth no person

should be compelled to make any loans to the King against his will, because

such loans were against reason and the franchises of the land. And by other

laws of this realm it is provided that none shall be charged by any charge or

imposition called a benevolence, or by such like charge; by which the statutes

beforementioned, and other the good laws and statutes of this realm, your

subjects have inherited this freedom, and they should not be compelled to

contribute any tax, tallage, or aid, or other like charge not set by common

consent in parliament. Yet, nevertheless, of late divers commissions directed

to several commissioners in several counties, with instructions, have issued;

by pretext whereof your people have been in divers places assembled and

required to lend certain sums of money to your Majesty. And many of them,

upon their refusal so to do, have had an unlawful oath administered unto

them, and have been constrained to become bound to make appearance and

to give attendance before your Privy Council, and in other places, and others

of them have been therefore imprisoned, conﬁned, and sundry other ways

molested and disquieted; and divers other charges have been laid and levied

upon your people in several counties by lord lieutenants, deputy lieutenants,

commissioners for musters, justices of peace, and others by command and

direction from your Majesty, or your Privy Council, against the laws and free

customs of the realm.

And where also by the statute called the Great Charter of the Liberties of

England, it is declared and enacted that no free man may be taken or im-

prisoned, or be disseized of his freehold or liberties, or his free customs, or

be outlawed or exiled, or in any manner destroyed, but by the lawful judgment

of his peers, or by the law of the land; and in the 28th year of the reign of

King Edward the Third it was declared and enacted by authority of parliament

that no man, of what state or condition that he be, shall be put out of his

Speeches in Parliament 16281278

lands or tenements, nor taken, nor imprisoned, nor disinherited, nor put to

death without being brought to answer by due process of law.

Nevertheless, against the tenor of the said statutes, and other the good laws

and statutes of the realm to that end provided, divers of your subjects have

been of late imprisoned without any cause shown, and when for their deliv-

erance they were brought before your justices by your Majesty’s writs of habeas

corpus, there to undergo and receive as the court should order, and their keepers

commanded to certify the causes of their detainer, no cause was certiﬁed, but

that they were detained by your Majesty’s special command, signiﬁed by the

lords of your Privy Council, and yet were returned back to several prisons

without being charged with anything to which they might make answer ac-

cording to the law.

And whereas of late great companies of soldiers and mariners have been

dispersed into divers counties of the realm, and the inhabitants against their

wills have been compelled to receive them into their houses, and there to suffer

them to sojourn against the laws and customs of this realm, and to the great

grievance and vexation of the people; and whereas also by authority of par-

liament, in the 25th year of the reign of King Edward the Third, it is declared

and enacted that no man shall be forejudged of life or limb against the form

of the Great Charter and the law of the land; and by the said Great Charter

and other the laws and statutes of this your realm, no man ought to be adjudged

to death but by the laws established in this your realm, either by the customs

of the said realm, or by acts of parliament; and whereas no offender of what

kind soever is exempted from the proceedings to be used, and punishments

to be inﬂicted by the laws and statutes of this your realm; nevertheless, of late

time divers commissions under your Majesty’s Great Seal have issued forth

by which certain persons have been assigned and appointed commissioners

with power and authority to proceed within the land, according to the justice

of martial law, against such soldiers or mariners or other dissolute persons

joining with them as should commit any murder, robbery, felony, mutiny, or

other outrage or misdemeanor whatsoever, and by such summary course and

order as is agreeable to martial law and as is used in armies in time of war, to

proceed to the trial and condemnation of such offenders, and them to cause

to be executed and put to death according to the law martial. By pretext

whereof some of your Majesty’s subjects have been by some of the said com-

missioners put to death, when and where, if by the laws and statutes of the

Petition of Right 1279

land they had deserved death, by the same laws and statutes also they might,

and by no other ought to, have been judged and executed.

And also sundry grievous offenders, by color thereof claiming an exemption,

have escaped the punishments due to them by the laws and statutes of this

your realm by reason that divers of your ofﬁcers and ministers of justice have

unjustly refused or forborne to proceed against such offenders according to

the said laws and statutes upon pretense that the said offenders were punishable

only by martial law, and by authority of such commissions as aforesaid; which

commissions, and all other of like nature, are wholly and directly contrary to

the said laws and statutes of this your realm.

They do therefore most humbly pray your most excellent Majesty that none

hereafter be compelled to make or yield any gift, loan, benevolence, tax, or

such like charge, without common consent by act of parliament. And that

none be called to make answer, or to take such oath, or to give attendance,

or to be conﬁned, or otherwise molested or disquieted concerning the same,

or for refusal thereof. And that no free man, in any such manner as is before

mentioned, be imprisoned or detained. And that your Majesty would be

pleased to remove the said soldiers and mariners, and that your people may

not be so burdened in time to come. And that the aforesaid commissions for

proceeding by martial law may be revoked and annulled. And that hereafter

no commissions of like nature may issue forth to any person or persons what-

soever to be executed, as aforesaid, lest by color of them any of your Majesty’s

subjects be destroyed or put to death contrary to the laws and franchises of

the land.

All which they most humbly pray of your most excellent Majesty as their

rights and liberties according to the laws and statutes of this realm. And that

your Majesty would also vouchsafe to declare that the awards, doings, and

proceedings to the prejudice of your people in any of the premises shall not

be drawn hereafter in consequence or example. And that your Majesty will

be also graciously pleased, for the further comfort and safety of your people,

to declare your royal will and pleasure, that in the things aforesaid all your

ofﬁcers and ministers shall serve you according to the laws and statutes of this

realm, as they tender the honor of your Majesty and the prosperity of this

kingdom.

Speeches in Parliament 16281280

May 12, 1628.

203

Ed.: Discussing a hearing on procedural failings in the election in Cornwall,

the deputy lieutenants of Cornwall were summoned to appear before the

house. On the question, which they raised by letter, of whether they may

be represented by counsel.

Sir Edward Coke. To say a man shall have counsel in every cause—if in

the Star Chamber they confess it, they are to be ore tenus

204

and to have no

counsel; and if in any action a man confess the fact, he is to have no counsel

for so much as he has confessed.

May 13, 1628.

205

Ed.: The deputy lieutenants of Cornwall refused to appear before the house,

claiming their service to the King required they stay in Cornwall, for which

they were condemned to the Tower, after which Coke observes . . .

Sir Edward Coke. I had rather give account to God for mercy than for justice.

The end of all punishment is poena ad paucos, metus ad omnes.

206

These gen-

tlemen have ill fortune that have light[ed] on gentlemen of this House of great

worth and service. That that moves me is that they have entered into the

King’s breast as to say: His Majesty will be justly provoked, and suppose that

we countenanced you against him. Thus they climb up to the King’s heart.

The acknowledgment below draws no blood. Let them do it.

May 17, 1628.

207

Ed.: On a petition by Turkish merchants, imprisoned for nonpayment of

an import on currants.

203. [Ed.: Proceedings and Debates, f. 121, in CD, 1628, III, 370.]

204. [Ed.: by word of mouth.]

205. [Ed.: Proceedings and Debates, f. 123v, in CD, 1628, III, 388–89.]

206. [Ed.: a penalty imposed on the few may be a terror to all.]

207. [Ed.: Proceedings and Debates, f. 129, in CD, 1628, III, 450.]

Petition of Right 1281

Sir Edward Coke. This petition brings in question the right of impositions

which is clear cannot be imposed, and so this House did resolve. If impositions

be set they will be multiplied, and when trade is overburdened merchandise

will cease. For the imposition upon currants, I know Fleming was then Chief

Baron, and they conferred with other judges who differed from them in their

opinion. This 2s. is now super-added. We know the King’s wants to be great,

and so never questioned this revenue. Shall this moderation of ours bring in

these new impositions? Why is this seizure? The goods ought not to be seized

for nonpayment of the new imposition. Let the parties have a replevin.

...

Ed.: Reporting on a Conference with Lords held mid-day on the pending

Petition of Right.

Sir Edward Coke

208

reports from the conference that the Lord Keeper spoke

to this purpose.

First he mentioned the great care and correspondency of the Houses, then

the happy hopes of a good issue for, at the last conference, he said, the study

was to sweeten all things for the King, and since that the debate of the Upper

House had been wholly spent in the argument of imprisonment. The Lords,

he said, had resolved nothing conclusively, but by way of addition, to make

the petition easy and passable with his Majesty, presented some few words to

be added at the end. The Lord Keeper read those words for, he said, he would

not alter the narrative nor the prayer of the petition. Lastly he desired all

convenient expedition, and left it to the House to consider whether they would

sit this afternoon or no; if they would, the Lords would do so also. The words

of addition were these:

We humbly present to your Majesty this petition not only with a care of

preserving our own liberties, but with due regard to leave entire your sovereign

power wherewith your Majesty is trusted for the protection, safety, and happiness

of your people.

208. [Ed.: Stowe MS 366, May 17, 1628, 174–74v, in CD, 1628, III, 454.]

Speeches in Parliament 16281282

May 19, 1628.

209

Ed.: Debating a bill to remove the four counties nearest to Wales from the

jurisdiction of the Marches of Wales.

Sir Edward Coke. We are about the King’s revenue, let us withdraw un-

necessary expenses. This question grows upon 23 Hen. 8, that there shall be

a President and Council of Wales and the Marches. I know these counties

have ever sued to be discharged, but these four counties were never part of

the Marches of Wales 18 Edw. 2, Ass, 82. ass. direct al vic de Shropshire; vic

returne, que le lieu ou fuit in le Marches de Wales ubi breve domini regis non

currit. 1. E. 3. dower direct al vic de Shropshire, et fuit dit que it gist en lieu ou

de Marches de Wales ubi breve domini regis non currit, 7 Edw. 3, 9, acc. 3 Ric.

2. num. 29 et 30, parliament roll, les counties complain que ils fuer

counties et nul parte del Wales, et ils prie aide par les inroades, etc. 6 Hen. 4, 9,

scire facias, vic de Salop returne que il fuit in Marches de Wales et breve domini

regis non currit la. 23 Hen. 6., cap. 5; 32 Hen. 6, cap. 4, Marches est ubi limits,

etc.

210

as Northumberland is part of the Marches of Scotland. There was an

Earl of the Marches but he was never Earl of Shropshire. There is a council

in York. 32 Hen. 8., in the general pardon, the King was at a great charge to

found a council in Cornwall, etc. Then the Cornish men petitioned the King

they might live under the law, and not under a president.

Ed.: Reporting on the conference with the Lords, held earlier that day, on

the Petition of Right and the Lords’ proposed amendment.

209. [Ed.: Proceedings and Debates, f. 130v–131, in CD, 1628, III, 466–68.]

210. [Ed.: 18 Edw. II in [Fitzherbert’s Abridgement, title] Assise, 82, an assize directed to the sheriff of

Shropshire; the sheriff returns that the place where [etc.] was in the marches of Wales where the lord king’s

writ runs not. 1 Edw. III, dower directed to the sheriff of Shropshire, and it was said that it lies in the

marches of Wales where the lord king’s writ runs not. 7 Edw. III, 9, agrees. 3 Ric. II, nos. 29 and 30 in

the parliament roll, the counties complain that they were [blank] counties and no part of Wales, and they

pray aid by the inroads, etc. 6 Hen. IV, 9, in scire facias, the sheriff of Shropshire returns that it was in

the marches of Wales and the lord king’s writ does not run there. 23 Hen. VI, chapter 5. 32 Hen. VI,

chapter 4, marches is where limits, etc.]

Petition of Right 1283

Sir Edward Coke reports from the conference. We began and showed the

reasons and grounds we had to refuse their propounded alterations. We began

with the word “pretext” but that must be construed according to the precedent

matter. But for that word we were content to yield to it.

Secondly, for that the loan was “upon urgent occasions,” etc., to that we

said [ﬁrst,] all loans were against law. Secondly, it might imply some loans

upon pressing occasions were lawful. Thirdly, it was not agreeable to our con-

clusion for our prayer was, “that no loan,” etc. Fourthly, if we allege urgent

reasons, reasons of state, we must look into what is passed that may hinder

us in our ends. The Bishop of Lincoln said that this was but to make the

matter more sweet and passable, and that the King was jealous of his honor

and desirous to render himself fair to posterity. But the good Bishop said it

was no weighty matter but, he argued, if the King cannot take loans, no not

even when urgent and pressing occasions were, [then] much less when there

were none. I replied that optandum in legibus ut judici quam paucissima re-

linquuntur,

211

and let us leave nothing to posterity, and it is not a ﬁt shaft for

our quiver for us, the House of Commons, to say lands were “upon urgent

affairs,” etc.

Thirdly, “unlawful oath,” we think it is unlawful, and I said there was never

a Lord there but thought so. The Lord Keeper said this oath was not in the

commission but in the instructions. Also, the Lord President said that oath

was but to discover a practice in some that dissuaded, and not for them that

refused. The Lord Saye replied that it was his own collection, and that he had

no warrant from the House so to say. Also they say that the Lords, most of

them, were employed in the loan. I replied, under terms of sweetness we must

not go from our ends; and though the words were not in the commission,

yet they were in the instructions that were printed, and if the party refused,

every such party was examined, nay witnesses were examined. These were

primae impressiones, and let us principiis obstare.

212

As for the Lords, I would

not meddle with them. But for the gentlemen that were used therein, I said

I hoped well of this parliament, and that a general pardon will amend all; but

in itself the Great Seal is to protect men from wrong. This seal was used to

oppress men.

211. [Ed.: It is desirable in laws that as little as possible be left to the judge,]

212. [Ed.: (These were) cases of a new kind, (and let us) oppose them from the very beginning.]

Speeches in Parliament 16281284

Fourthly, for the words “Privy Council” they would have it “at London.”

I said the truth of the cause was not at London, but before the Council. Also,

we hope this will be a law for hereafter.

Fifthly, for the words “superior power.” I said that was to leave a word for

the King and his council, but I think this and the former was yielded unto

by the Lords.

Sixthly, as for martial law. I said it is difﬁcult to say when the King’s army

is on foot, and how many men make an army, and if they be on foot. If they

be not in war they can hang none. The Lord Keeper replied if a rebellion be

in the farthest parts, if you stay for an attainder, all is lost. I answered, there

is a difference. If they resist the King’s power you may slay them in the ﬁeld,

but for jurisdicton afterwards they must be tried by law. Also, we complain

of what is done in time of peace. The noble Duke said, I would fain know,

if a general lead an army and there are those that are disobedient, that will

obey nothing so that the expedition does nothing but bring home damnum

et dedecus,

213

shall we come to the common law? I asked if this case were within

the land or without. He said he meant without. Then, said I, the Marshal

and Constable may try it. The Lords said they came with an intent to bring

all to a happy end, and that they would acquaint their House with what was

done. The Duke said that he would do his best service to make a good end

of this parliament, and to do the best service he could for King and people.

As for the word “pretext,” it is ordered that it be yielded unto.

May 20, 1628.

214

In the Committee of the Whole House

Ed.: Reporting on that day’s conference with Lords.

Sir Edward Coke reports from the conference with the Lords. Lord Keeper

1, delivered their desire of correspondence with this House; 2, that the Lords

agreed to all parts of our petition and waived all their alterations, except the

213. [Ed.: damage and disgrace,]

214. [Ed.: Journal of the House of Commons, Tuesday, May 20, 1628, p. 116, in CD, 1628, III, 491.]

Petition of Right 1285

word “pretext” and the word “unlawful.” 3 reasons to alter that last word: 1,

it was too high and too rigid; “unlawful” may be against the law of God,

nature, and reason; 2ly, it may be understood against the law divine and moral;

[3ly] that they will instead of “new and unlawful” change it to an oath “not

warranted or warrantable by the laws or statutes of this realm.” Desired ex-

pedition; if we would sit this afternoon they would. Desired to know our mind

in that.

...

In the Committee of the Whole House

Ed.: Debating the House’s response to the Lords’ response, and arguing

against their broad amendment by adding a new ﬁnal paragraph.

Sir Edward Coke.

215

This is magnum in parvo.

216

This is propounded to be

a conclusion of our Petition. It is a matter of great weight; and, to speak plainly,

it will overthrow all our Petition; it trenches to all parts of it; it ﬂies at Loans,

at the Oath, at Imprisonment, and at Billetting of Soldiers: this turns all about

again. Look into all the petitions of former times; they never petitioned

wherein there was a saving of the king’s sovereignty. I know that prerogative

is part of the law, but “Sovereign Power” is no parliamentary word. In my

opinion it weakens Magna Charta, and all the statutes; for they are absolute,

without any saving of “Sovereign Power”; and should we now add it, we shall

weaken the foundation of law, and then the building must needs fall. Take

we heed what we yield unto: Magna Charta is such a fellow, that he will have

no “Sovereign.” I wonder this “Sovereign” was not in Magna Charta, or in

the conﬁrmations of it. If we grant this, by implication we give a “Sovereign

Power” above all laws. Power in law, is taken for a power with force: the sheriff

shall take the power of the county; what it means here, God only knows. It

is repugnant to our Petition: that is, a Petition or Right, grounded on acts of

parliament. Our predecessors could never endure a salvo jure suo,

217

no more

than the kings of old could endure for the church, Salvo honore Dei & ec-

215. [Ed.: Cobbett, Parl. Hist., II, 357. (May 17, 1628).]

216. [Ed.: a great thing in a small package.]

217. [Ed.: saving his right.]

Speeches in Parliament 16281286

clesiae.

218

We must not admit of it, and to qualify it is impossible. Let us hold

our privileges according to the law: that power that is above this, is not ﬁt

for the king and people to have it disputed further. I had rather, for my part,

have the prerogative acted, and I myself to lye under it, than to have it disputed.

May 24, 1628.

219

Ed.: Debating a request from the Lords for a conference with the House,

seeking a large committee from both sides to consider the Petition or other

approaches to the same business.

Sir Edward Coke. I like not that we should say that this is not a parliamentary

way. A negative is dangerous, and when wise men differ in opinion—quod

dubitas, ne feceris.

220

This addition came not out of our quire but from the

Lords, and we have conferred with them and better we had never meddled

with this than to add this that is in fair terms. And at ﬁrst I was taken with

it, and it seemed glorious, but now I see it was as dangerous a thing as ever

came in parliament. Now shall we decline all, and come to new propositions,

and declarations, and what? To accommodate? Let us know if the Lords be

satisﬁed or not. If they be not, then it must sleep. If I have any understanding

this addition wounds the fundamental laws. Let us go to the Lords and say,

if you be not satisﬁed give us your reasons.

May 26, 1628.

221

Ed.: Reporting on a conference with the Lords that day, in which they

agreed to drop the remaining requests for amendments to the Petition.

Sir Edward Coke reports to the House from the Lords, thus. I am almost

dead for joy. A Domino factum est istud, et est mirabile in oculis nostris,

222

etc.

218. [Ed.: saving honour to God and the Church.]

219. [Ed.: Proceedings and Debates, ff. 151–151v, in CD, 1628, III, 598.]

220. [Ed.: do not do anything about which you are doubtful.]

221. [Ed.: Stowe MS 366, May 26, 1628, 192v, in CD, 1628, III, 614.]

222. [Ed.: This has been done by the Lord, and it is marvellous in our eyes. (A quote from the Vulgate,

Psalm 117:23).]

Petition of Right 1287

My Lord Keeper said he had many times delivered from the Lords words of

friendship and good correspondency to the House of Commons, but now

their Lordships were resolved not to show words but deeds for a good issue

towards the happiness of King and kingdom. Concerning the petition of right,

he said in a matter of such weight their Lordships have proceeded with long

and serious debate since the last conference. But now they were, in omnibus,

223

agreed with us, and stood upon no alterations but those which were already

granted: the word “means” for “pretext” and “not warrantable by the laws and

statutes of this kingdom” instead of the word “unlawful.” The petition, he

said, remains with you; and as the Lords have already voted it in the Upper

House, so they expect we should do here; and having so done, they said they

would move the King for a speedy hearing. There remains yet one excellent

circumstance. The Lords do desire that, as we do touch upon military matters

in our petition, so we would take into consideration the right regulating of

them; and by way of bill to settle the charge and the ofﬁce of deputy lieutenants;

and thus I hope you shall see a blessed end of this parliament.

May 27, 1628.

224

Ed.: Presenting the ﬁnal Petition of Right from the Commons to the Lords.

May 27. The commons sent a message to the lords, by sir Edw. Coke, and

others, “To render them their most hearty thanks, for their noble and happy

concurrence with them all this parliament: and they acknowledged that their

lordships had not only dealt nobly with them in words, but also in deeds.

That this Petition, which they were now to deliver, contained the true liberties

of the subjects of England, and a true exposition of the Great Charter, not

great for the words thereof, but in respect of the weight of the matter contained

therein, the Liberties of the People: that their lordships concurring with the

commons, had crowned the work; and therefore they doubted not, but as the

ﬁrst parliament of king James was called felix parliamentum,

225

so this might

be justly stiled parliamentum benedictum.

226

Sir Edward concluded with the

223. [Ed.: in all respects.]

224. [Ed.: Cobbett, Parl. Hist., II, 372–73.]

225. [Ed.: happy parliament.]

226. [Ed.: blessed parliament.]

Speeches in Parliament 16281288

humble desire of the commons, that the lords would join with them to beseech

his maj. for the more strength of this Petition, and the comfort of his loving

subjects to give a gracious answer to the same in full parliament.” This said,

he delivered the Petition of Right, fairly engrossed; and then they withdrew

into the Painted Chamber.

June 2, 1628.

227

Petition of Right.

The Petition exhibited to his Majesty by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal,

and commons in this present Parliament assembled, concerning divers Rights

and Liberties of the Subject, with the King’s Royal Answer thereunto in full

Parliament.

“To the King’s most excellent maj.: humbly shew unto our sovereign lord

the king, the lords spiritual and temporal, and commons, in parliament as-

sembled, that whereas it is declared and enacted, by a statute made in the

reign of king Edw. 1 commonly called, ‘Statutum de Tallagio non concedendo,’

that no tallage or aid shall be laid or levied, by the king or his heirs, in this

realm, without the good-will and assent of the archbishops, bishops, earls,

barons, knights, burgesses, and other the freemen of the commonalty of this

realm: and by authority of parliament, holden in the 25th year of king Edw.

3, it is declared and enacted that from thenceforth no person shall be compelled

to make any loans to the king against his will, because such loans were against

reason and the franchises of the land. And, by other laws of this realm, it is

provided, that none should be charged by any charge or the position called

a Benevolence, nor by such like charge; by which the statutes before men-

tioned, and the other the good laws and statutes of this realm, your subjects

have inherited this freedom, that they should not be compelled to contribute

to any tax, tallage, aid, or other like charge, not set by common consent in

parliament: yet nevertheless, of late, divers commissions, directed to sundry

commissioners in several counties, with instructions, have issued, by pretext

whereof, your people have been in divers places assembled, and required to

lend certain sums of money unto your maj. and many of them, upon their

227. [Ed.: Cobbett, Parl. Hist., II, 374–77.]

Petition of Right 1289

refusal so to do, have had an unlawful oath administered unto them, not

warrantable by the laws and statutes of this realm, and have been constrained

to become bound to make appearance, and give attendance before your privy

council, and in other places; and others of them have therefore been impris-

oned, conﬁned, and sundry other ways molested and disquieted: and divers

other charges have been laid and levied upon your people, in several counties,

by lords lieutenants, deputy lieutenants, commissioners for musters, justices

of peace, and others, by command or direction from your maj. or your privy

council, against the laws and free customs of this realm.—And whereas also,

by the statute called, ‘The Great Charter of the Liberties of England,’ it is

declared and enacted, that no freeman may be taken or imprisoned, or be

disseized of his freeholds or liberties, or his free customs, or be outlawed or

exiled, or in any manner destroyed, but by the lawful judgment of his peers,

or by the law of the land. And in the 28th year of the reign of king Edw. 3.

it was declared and enacted by authority of parliament, that no man, of what

estate or condition that he be, should be put out of his lands or tenements,

nor taken, nor imprisoned, nor disherited, nor put to death, without being

brought to answer by due process of law: Nevertheless, against the tenor of

the said statutes, and other the good laws and statutes of your realm, to that

end provided, divers of your subjects have of late been imprisoned, without

any cause shewed; and when, for their deliverance, they were brought before

your justices, by your maj.’s writs of Habeas Corpus, there to undergo and

receive as the court should order, and their keepers commanded to certify the

causes of their detainer, no cause was certiﬁed, but that they were detained

by your maj.’s special command, signiﬁed by the lords of your privy council;

and yet were returned back to several prisons, without being charged with

any thing, to which they might make answer by due process of law.—And

whereas of late, great companies of soldiers and mariners have been dispersed

into divers counties of the realm, and the inhabitants, against their wills, have

been compelled to receive them into their houses, and there to suffer them

to sojourn, against the laws and customs of this realm, and to the great griev-

ance and vexation of the people:—And whereas, also, by authority of par-

liament, in the 25th year of the reign of king Edw. 3. it is declared and enacted,

that no man shall be fore-judged of life or limb against the form of the Great

Charter, and other the laws and statutes of this realm; and by the said Great

Charter, and other the laws and statutes of this your realm, no man ought to

be adjudged to death, but by the laws established in this your realm, either

Speeches in Parliament 16281290

by the customs of the same realm, or by acts of parliament: and, whereas, no

offender of what kind soever is exempted from the proceedings to be used,

and punishments to be inﬂicted by the laws and statutes of this your realm:

nevertheless, of late, divers commissions, under your Majesty’s great seal, have

issued forth, by which, certain persons have been assigned and appointed

commissioners with power and authority to proceed, within the land, ac-

cording to the justice of martial law against such soldiers and mariners, or

other dissolute persons joining with them, as should commit any murder,

robbery, felony, mutiny, or other outrage or misdemeanor whatsoever; and by

such summary course and order, as is agreeable to martial law, and is used in

armies in time of war, to proceed to the trial and condemnation of such of-

fenders, and them to cause to be executed and put to death, according to the

martial law: by pretext whereof, some of your majesty’s subjects have been,

by some of the said commissioners, put to death; when and where, if by the

laws and statutes of the land they had deserved death, by the same laws and

statutes also they might, and by no other ought to have been adjudged and

executed: and, also, sundry grievous offenders by colour thereof, claiming an

exemption, have escaped the punishment due to them by the laws and statutes

of this your realm, by reason that divers of your ofﬁcers and ministers of justice

have unjustly refused, or forborn to proceed against such offenders, according

to the same laws and statutes, upon pretence that the said offenders were

punishable only by martial law, and by authority of such commissions as

aforesaid; which commissions, and all others of like nature, are wholly and

directly contrary to the said laws and statutes of this your realm:—They do

therefore, humbly, pray your most excellent maj. That no man hereafter be

compelled to make or yield, any gift, loan, benevolence, tax or such like charge,

without common consent by act of parliament; and that none be called to

make answer, or take such oath, or to give attendance, or be conﬁned, or

otherwise molested or disquieted concerning the same or for refusal thereof:

and that no freeman, in any such manner as is before-mentioned, be so im-

prisoned or detained: and that your maj. will be pleased to remove the said

soldiers and mariners; and that your people may not be so burdened in time

to come: and that the aforesaid commissions for proceeding by martial law,

may be revoked and annulled; and that hereafter no commissions of like nature

may issue forth to any person or persons whatsoever, to be executed as afore-

said, lest, by colour of them, any of your majesty’s subjects be destroyed or

put to death, contrary to the laws and franchise of the land.—All which they

Petition of Right 1291

most humbly pray of your most excellent maj. as their Rights and Liberties,

according to the laws and statutes of this realm: and that your maj. would

also vouchsafe to declare, That the awards, doings and proceedings, to the

prejudice of your people, in any of the premisses, shall not be drawn hereafter

into consequence or example: and that your maj. would be also graciously

pleased for the further comfort and safety of your people, to declare your royal

will and pleasure, that, in the things aforesaid, all your ofﬁcers and ministers

shall serve you, according to the laws and statutes of this realm, as they tender

the honour of your maj. and the prosperity of this kingdom.”

The King’s Answer.

“The king willeth, that Right be done according to the laws and customs of

the realm; and that the statutes be put in due execution, that his subjects may

have no cause to complain of any wrongs or oppressions, contrary to their

just Rights and Liberties, to the preservation whereof, he holds himself, in

conscience, as well obliged, as of his own prerogative.”

June 3, 1628.

228

Ed.: Debating Sir John Elliot’s proposition that the House must address

continuing dangers to the Kingdom from religious controversy, foreign

policy, military regulation, and taxes for the supply, suggesting a remon-

strance.

Sir Edward Coke. I have had no conference with any, yet we may do it,

collatio peperit artem et conﬁrmat artem.

229

If I did think in my conscience that

the King was truly informed of our dishonors and disasters, I would leave

them to his wisdom. Let us join in an humble remonstrance, leaving all to

his wisdom. Let us ﬂy to him as our refuge; we are now in a miserable condition.

Another thing is to be considered of: no king but must be able to live on

himself, and to supply his allies. Who will aid him if he be not able to aid

them? The King, I hope, shall never want that that is necessary; but it is our

228. [Ed.: Proceedings and Debates, f. 166, in CD, 1628, IV, 67.]

229. [Ed.: conference begets and strengthens professional skills.]

Speeches in Parliament 16281292

duty to look that his ordinary revenues may defray his ordinary charges that

he may live on his own else he must live on us. I will not say how much his

ordinary expenses are more than the ordinary revenue. But if things were

restored as they were, all the hang-bys and encroachments, all must away. Let

there be a restitution of his wardrobe and tables. If he would feed no more

than he ought, he might yet subsist. And I think this would give wings to the

parliament, and I hope we shall have a better answer than yet we have. I well

like of this motion so as it be with all duty and humility, without restriction.

June 5, 1628.

230

In the Committee of the Whole House

Ed.: Considering a message from the King, warning the House he would

not extend the parliament, and, in effect ordering them to consider no new

business, especially nothing that would criticize him or his ministers. Coke’s

words here do not convey the shock and grief apparent in him and noted

in various records, nor the acclaim with which other members greeted his

attack on Buckingham.

Sir Edward Coke. We have dealt with that duty and moderation that never

was the like, rebus sic stantibus,

231

after such a violation of the liberties of the

subject. Quicunque ausus est violare leges, non aliquos laedit cives, sed totam rem

publicam evertere conatus est.

232

Let us take this to heart. In 50 Edw. 3 they

were then in doubt in parliament to name men that misled the King. They

accused John of Gaunt, the King’s son, and Lord Latimer, and Lord Neville

for misadvising the King, and they went to the Tower for it. Now, when there

is such a downfall of the state, shall we hold our tongues? How shall we answer

our duties to God and man? 7 Hen. 4, parliament roll, num. 31 et 32; 11 Hen.

4, num. 13: there the Council are complained of, and were removed from the

King. They mewed up the King and dissuaded him from the common good.

230. [Ed.: Proceedings and Debates, f. 196v, in CD, 1628, IV, 115.]

231. [Ed.: matters standing thus.]

232. [Ed.: He who dares to break the laws does not only hurt other citizens but attempts to overthrow

the entire common weal.]

Petition of Right 1293

And why are we now required from that way we were in? Why may we not

now name those that are the cause of all our evils? In 4 Edw. 3, and 27 Edw.

3, and 13 R. 2, the parliament moderated the King’s prerogative. Nothing grows

to abuse but this House has power to treat of it. What shall we now do? Let

us palliate no longer; if we do, God will not prosper us. I think the Duke of

Buckingham is the cause of all our miseries, and till the King be informed

thereof we shall never go out with honor, nor sit with honor here. That man

is the grievance of grievances. Let us set down the cause of all our disasters,

and all will reﬂect upon him. As for going to the Lords, that is not regia via.

233

Our liberties are now impeached, we are required. It is not vox regis.

234

The

Lords are not participant with our liberties.

June 6, 1628.

235

In the Committee of the Whole House

Ed.: Following a conciliatory note from the King, in considering the causes

for the remonstrance begun on June 3.

Sir Edward Coke. We shall never know the commonwealth ﬂourish but

when the church ﬂourishes. They live and die together. 1 Hen. 5, men were

bold to speak in good and true causes, and they put up a petition and prayed

execution of laws and prayed performance of promises. It is not credible to

tell you of the increase of papists. If you have laws and they be not executed,

it will patronize wicked doers. When Queen Elizabeth, in ’88, had repelled

the Spaniards, there was a conspiracy to poison our Queen, and no three years

but some attempt was threatened. In the end of her time, one Wright went

into Spain, and the King said the Catholics of England were as dear to him

as his Castilians. And they promise him aid if he come hither, and they never

left working till the powder treason. Popham told me of one Winchley, a

papist, that was taken and carried into Spain and there was a counsel to invade

England by reason of the papists. And one said that cannot be, papists are

233. [Ed.: the royal [high]way.]

234. [Ed.: the king’s voice.]

235. [Ed.: Proceedings and Debates, ff. 173v–174, in CD, 1628, IV, 143–44.]

Speeches in Parliament 16281294

laid in jails. If there be so many recusants now we are not safe. They intend

to make Spain a monarchy. If we proceed against these weapons, I fear no

invasions. Let the laws be executed against papists. I saw a commission for a

toleration. I dare say Queen Elizabeth would never have consented to the like.

June 7, 1628.

236

In the Committee of the Whole House

Ed.: Considering a commission of excises, directing all the Lords of the

Council to levy money, but not enrolled as required.

Sir Edward Coke. This is a cause of great consequence. I commend them

that revealed more per lachrimas quam per risum.

237

See now how these ex-

cises are disguised; nothing is unjust but is ashamed of light. All monopolies

have fair pretenses but they are like apothecaries’ boxes, plus in titulo quam

in .

238

These excises are under the name of impositions, and sure

to come to this commission. Usually the signature and the Great Seal go

together. This came by immediate warrant from the King. Where is the war-

rant?

The Clerk of the Crown was called in again, and he said that Mr. Attorney’s

hand was to it and he drew it.

...

Ed.: A further petition, accepting the King’s answer to the Petition of Right,

after which he granted his assent to the Petition as a statute.

The King came to the Lords House, and the House of Commons were sent

for thither to the King, and then the Lord Keeper presented the humble pe-

tition of both Houses and said:

May it please your most excellent Majesty, the Lords spiritual and temporal

236. [Ed.: Proceedings and Debates, ff. 177–177v, in CD, 1628, IV, 181–82.]

237. [Ed.: by tears than by smiles.]

238. [Ed.: more on the label than in [the results].]

Petition of Right 1295

and Commons in parliament assembled, taking into their considerations that

the good intelligence between your Majesty and your people does much de-

pend upon your Majesty’s answer unto their petition of right, formerly pre-

sented with an unanimous consent unto your Majesty, do now become most

humble suitors unto your Majesty that you will be pleased to give a clear and

satisfactory answer thereunto in full parliament.

The King’s speech: The answer I have already given you was made with so

good deliberation, and approved by the judgment of so many wise men, that

I could not have imagined but it should have given you full satisfaction. But

to avoid all ambiguous interpretations, and to show you there is no doubleness

in my meaning, I am willing to pleasure you in words as well as in substance.

Read your petition and you shall have an answer that I am sure will please

you.

The petition was read and this answer: Soit droit fait comme il est desire par

le petition. C. R.

239

The King’s speech: This I am sure is full, yet no more than I granted you

in my ﬁrst answer, for the meaning of that was to conﬁrm all your liberties,

knowing (according to your own protestations) that you neither mean nor

can hurt my prerogative. And I assure you my maxim is that the people’s

liberties strengthen the King’s prerogative, and the King’s prerogative is to

defend the people’s liberties.

You see now how ready I have showed myself to satisfy your demands, so

that I have done my part. Wherefore, if this parliament have not a happy

conclusion, the sin is yours, I am free from it.

...

Ed.: Upon returning to the House, considering the King’s answer.

Sir Edward Coke. Let us consider what is done. We have made a petition

of right that is divided into many branches, and I am persuaded his Majesty’s

meaning was at ﬁrst to give us as absolute and real an answer as now, and

now it is: Soit droit fait comme il desire.

240

If this had been a private bill it is:

Soit fait comme il desire; if a public: Le Roy veult.

241

But the King now says:

239. [Ed.: Let right be done as is desired by the petition. Charles, King.]

240. [Ed.: Let right be done as he desires.]

241. [Ed.: The king approves (lit., wills) it.]

Speeches in Parliament 16281296

Soit droit fait comme ils desire[nt]. We could never have had a better answer.

If we have desired good things, it is granted. Let us so proceed as we may

express our thankfulness, and let us all say amen, and communicate this joy

to others.

June 11, 1628.

242

In the Committee of the Whole House

Ed.: Still considering the content of the remonstrance, whether concern

over the forced loans should be in it.

Sir Edward Coke. This head is the fear of alteration of government. Now

what greater fear can there be than when a general law is made for Lent and

this is altered by proclamations? Proclamations come too high. For the loans,

I have little reason to speak of them. I lent none, but it was said in my hearing

that I had lent as much as any, and his Majesty was informed I did it with

great alacrity. I was pressed to lend privately, but I denied. It was said that as

wise and as learned as I had lent.

Ed.: Considering whether to name Buckingham in the remonstrance, Coke

is here responding to an argument by Sir Henry Marten, arguing from an

idiosyncratic view of motion, divided between natural and violent, in which

violent motion speeds up. Coke’s response is nearer to Aristotle’s view.

Sir Edward Coke.

243

I differ in the ground of him that spoke last. Natural

motions go swiftest in the end. For the application, I say let us now be quicker

in the end. I owe no duty to fear any but God and the King. I speak not out

of malice, but out of duty. I will never palliate. I free my gracious Sovereign;

he sees with other men’s eyes and proceeds with other men’s hands. This great

Duke has monopolized many great ofﬁces. We free our Sovereign and lay all

on his ministers, and the way to free him is to lay it where it is. If the judges

242. [Ed.: Proceedings and Debates, f. 184, in CD, 1628, IV, 243.]

243. [Ed.: Proceedings and Debates, f. 186, in CD, 1628, IV, 248.]

Petition of Right 1297

do not their duty it is their fault. We now go with a lamentable complaint

as never was the like. Do not we know that Spain looks for a monarchy in

temporalibus?

244

I see the weakness that is in the kingdom. Whose fault is it?

They that misguide him. So we must name the Duke lest the aspersion lie

on his Majesty.

June 13, 1628.

245

Ed.: Reporting on delivering, enrolling, and printing the Petition of Right.

Sir Edward Coke reports that he delivered the message yesterday to the Lords.

And it was answered that the King’s message shall be entered on record, and

that the petition be in the parliament roll, and that it be sent to the courts

and printed, and so they all agreed to what he desired. The question is how

this shall be done. The petition ought of right to be entered. As for the entering

of it, the King must send a writ, and recite the petition, and so send it to the

courts, for so it was done in former times.

20. Edw. 3, lunae post festum Epiphaniae magnum placitum inter Bohun, et

le Count de Gloucester,

246

when judgment was given there between them, both

were ﬁned, and by the King’s writ this judgment was sent to the King’s court

to be enrolled.

28. Edw. 1, rot. clauso membran. 2, there is a writ to enroll Magna Carta

and to see it observed, and so it has been used in all times.

This petition is a branch of Magna Carta. Let a committee consider on a

writ to be drawn for the making of the writ.

My other message was about Maynwaring, his venemous book, and them

that gave a warrant for that book, and to demand justice against him. To this

was answered that their Lordships would take it into due consideration.

...

244. [Ed.: in temporal things.]

245. [Ed.: Proceedings and Debates, ff. 188–189, in CD, 1628, IV, 293.]

246. [Ed.: 20 Edw. III, on the Monday after the feast of the Epiphany, a great plea between Bohun

and the earl of Gloucester.]

Speeches in Parliament 16281298

Ed.: Considering the commission for impositions and excises.

Sir Edward Coke. I observe some circumstances in this commission. It was

the summons to the parliament. Sure some thought the parliament would not

be. Let us go up to the Lords, they cannot but comply with us. I would be

glad to hear of the projector, else we would never be quiet. There is a pudor

247

about it. Some great Lord[s] never knew it. The end of it was excises, for they

are impositions, and to be sure he would have the word otherwise. Let us go

up to the Lords and desire a conference, and let us complain of this commission

and desire it may be cancelled, and if there be any enrollment of it, cancel it

also. And that the projector may be punished and found out, let us vote it

and pass our judgment.

...

Ed.: After adopting Coke’s proposal to punish the author of the commission

on excise, the house considered what topics, or heads, to include in the

customary royal pardon for parliamentarians’ actions.

Sir Edward Coke.

248

It is true if the King will grant a pardon, who can

question what can be left out? But if he will have our consent to have it enacted

the heads must be brought to us. When I was Attorney myself it was then

questioned. I denied to send it, but I did after yield.

I would never refuse

a pardon from God and the King, but let us require the heads of the Attorney.

...

Sir Edward Coke. 40 Edw. 3, the Commons did then send up a form of a

pardon and desired it might be granted. And 21

Jac. the heads were produced.

[Ordered that Mr. Solicitor acquaint Mr. Attorney with the pleasure of the

House that the heads be brought in.]

In Conference with the Lords

Ed.: Concerning the commission on excises.

247. [Ed.: shame.]

248. [Ed.: Proceedings and Debates, ff. 189v–190, in CD, 1628, IV, 295–96.]

Petition of Right 1299

Sir Edward Coke at the conference with the Lords about the commission

for excises:

The concurrence between your Lordships and us in the urgent affairs of

the commonwealth have invited us often to your Lordships, and conferences

have produced trust, and trust, conﬁdence. Though counsels be not to be

judged by events, yet (blessed be God) our counsels and conferences have

brought forth good effects. But, my Lords, I must contract myself. The subject

of this conference is a commission; therefore we shall desire your Lordships

to hear it read.

Which was done accordingly.

That that I shall say is of two parts. First, the observations out of the patent:

1, the persons to whom it was directed; 2, the authority that is committed; 3,

the great penalty laid on them if they do it not; 4, the time.

First, the persons to whom it is directed are 33 Lords and others of his

Majesty’s honourable Privy Councils. 2dly, the authority committed to them

is to consider how money may be levied by impositions or otherwise. It is

true it is but a power to levy money by imposition. We do not ﬁnd any thing

raised (that is left to your Lordships); but to have a commission to levy money

by imposition or otherwise, give us leave to fear that excises and whatever is

comprehended in it was intended. Sure I am it is against the law. It is a very

high breach of your Lordships’ and our, the poor Commons’, liberties. And

yet this being ill in itself may produce a happy effect. The King and both

Houses have given a judgment (the greatest that ever was) against this in the

petition of right. And when this judgment is given, see how God’s goodness

has brought it to pass that this patent should be part of the execution of that

judgment to damn it.

For the punishment, I do utterly dislike that clause “as you tender the King’s

honor” that that must come to a thing of this nature; and it is strange to me—

I cannot dive into it—I leave it to your Lordships. For the time, it came out

27 days after the summons of parliament. All knew the parliament would

descry this, but I hope it will now turn to good. I will not say it was kept

secret.

That which I am to demand of your Lordships: ﬁrst is that we have con-

sidered of the commission. We ﬁnd it ex diametro

249

against the late judgment

249. [Ed.: in an exact line.]

Speeches in Parliament 16281300

in the petition of right; now, as we have condemned it, so your Lordships

would concur with us as hitherto you have done.

Secondly, that this commission, as a thing directly against law, may be

canceled: that if it be enrolled, a vacat

250

may be made of it, and if not, that

order may be taken that it be not enrolled. 4thly, that the warrant may be

damned and destroyed. 5thly, that it would please your Lordships in your

wisdoms to take into consideration who is the projector of this device. And,

if he could be found out, that some exemplary punishment may be according

to justice inﬂicted upon him.

June 16, 1628.

251

Ed.: Preparing to present the remonstrance to the King, in response to Sir

John Elliot that the King ﬁrst be told the parliament had voted him his

subsidy.

Sir Edward Coke. Let there be no other introduction but to say the business

is of that weight that it will admit no introduction.

June 18, 1628.

252

Ed.: Concerning a petition from the executor of William Bowdler, who

had died intestate leaving a sizable estate, but the Crown alleged Bowdler

was a bastard, so his estate would be seized by the King rather than ad-

ministered by the church; the petition, by Bowdler’s son-in-law, was to

determine whether the estate of bastards intestate was forfeit.

Sir Edward Coke. When I was sworn Attorney to Queen Elizabeth she said:

Do not inform against any pro domina regina sed pro domina veritate,

253

I charge

you do not oppress my subjects. And this then was a project in her time: an

old man dying, a projector would pretend he was a bastard and so entitle the

250. [Ed.: a judgment vacating any order of record.]

251. [Ed.: Proceedings and Debates, f. 205v, in CD, 1628, IV, 334.]

252. [Ed.: Proceedings and Debates, f. 207v, in CD, 1628, IV, 362–63.]

253. [Ed.: on behalf of our lady the queen, but on behalf of our lady the truth.]

Petition of Right 1301

Queen; but when I was Attorney I ever did disclaim it. When he dies, the

property without question is in the ordinary to dispose of, but the crown

cannot claim it; and though the bastard have no kindred, yet he has friends

that are de carne

254

who are to have it.

...

Sir Edward Coke had leave to speak again, who said: shall the King have

title as supreme ordinary, shall the King be quasi an ordinary, as owner? He

cannot, it is clear. When a bishop dies, his goods are called multura episcopi.

255

The King shall have his best horse and cup and his best cloak, et mutam

canum,

256

that is his kennel of hounds; for they get their goods by the church

and should leave them to the church. Now to have license to make their wills,

the King had this. I know it cannot be put out of any book or record that

the King should have this prerogative.

June 21, 1628.

257

Ed.: Debating a motion to ask the King for an adjournment.

Sir Edward Coke. Let us not send to the King to know how long we shall

sit. Let us show the causes and the reasons why we desire to know the time.

The bill of subsidy is very difﬁcult, unless you will double it and make 1s.,

2s., non sic itur ad astra.

258

No King is safe that is not able to defend himself,

and to aid his allies, and to reward his well-deserving servants. Our great King

cannot be able to subsist as things now stand if his ordinary revenue do not

discharge his ordinary expenses. His house, as now it is, is igni se dare.

259

The

King has want of money, what need superﬂuous expenses? Why should the

Duchy of Lancaster continue? There is a Council of York. When Scotland

was severed from us, it was then of some use, but now men’s inheritances are

carried by discretion. So for Wales (it is a marvelous thing) the subject’s right

254. [Ed.: of the body.]

255. [Ed.: the bishop’s mounter.]

256. [Ed.: and a pack of hounds.]

257. [Ed.: Proceedings and Debates, f. 211v, in CD, 1628, IV, 405.]

258. [Ed.: he does not in this way achieve immortality (lit. is gone to the stars).]

259. [Ed.: gives itself to the ﬁre.]

Speeches in Parliament 16281302

is tried by aliud examen

260

—by witnesses, and not by juries. As for the house-

hold, you will say: will you talk of that without the King’s leave? But thus the

parliament did in old time. 6 Edw. 3, num. 4; 50 Edw. 3, num. 5 and 160

especially in 7 Edw. 4 the subject took into consideration the revenue of the

King, and how to regulate it. I will abate never a dish. Some have negative

wits, I like them not.

For the forests, I hope to see men live where wild beasts do. Queen Eliz-

abeth’s pensions were all due, she had but 1,700 l. in voluntary pensions. I

will not say what is now. I would take away all your new fees and new ofﬁces.

I spoke of this at Oxford, I spoke of [medicina] removens; I will spare that

now. I do not like we should go to the King in a heat.

...

In the Committee of the Whole House

Ed.: Considering the impeachment and censure of a member for conspiring

to alter the book of rates, in other words to raise the fees royal tenants paid.

Sir Edward Coke.

261

Here is sufﬁcient to convict Sir Edmund Sawyer. Before,

he said he never meddled with the book of rates and wished that he were

hanged if he did, but now he confesses it. I love not that men should lay

wagers that cannot be taken. Part of the words he confesses, the rest he does

not remember. This is a great offense. This poisons the fountain. It is true

we examine not upon oath, but usually in their discretion they that come here

speak the truth, or else we can punish them. We will teach men to equivocate

here. He is a member of this House, and therefore greater is the wrong to this

House. I will parallel it with Longe’s case in 8 Eliz. 4 l. was given to the mayor

to be a burgess, and he was turned out of the House. Let Sir Edmund Sawyer

be turned out of the House and go to the Tower.

260. [Ed.: a different jurisdiction.]

261. [Ed.: Proceedings and Debates, f. 213v, in CD, 1628, IV, 409.]

Petition of Right 1303

June 24, 1628.

262

In the Committee of the Whole House

Ed.: Debating a bill against royal imposts.

Sir Edward Coke. The King has no manner of custom but by act of par-

liament. The ancient custom is upon wools and leather, but this came by

parliament. And the subsidy on cloth, these impositions came by a pretended

power in the King to impose in a time of necessity: rot. ﬁnium, 3 Edw. 1, there

is the demi-mark granted by the commonalty to the King; rot. pat., 3 Edw. 1,

memb. 1, this custom was granted by the Lords and Commons. In 26 Edw. 1,

returnum brevium, salvis nobis custumam lanae per communitatem concessam.

263

25 Edw. 1 there is a saving of the customs granted to the King by the com-

monalty.

The bill of tonnage and poundage excepts cloth but it was pretended that

wool was pretermitted.

13 Hen. 4, num. 18, there can be no imposition, without an act of parliament,

for the defense of the realm.

Also, every king has accepted poundage by act of parliament and, therefore,

could not do it without a parliament. If the King now, in the face of the

parliament, will take it without our grant, I fear to see it. We cannot now in

this short time make a book of rates. We can do nothing; let us give him

thanks for his answer to our petition, and let us humbly desire that no more

be taken by him till it be granted by parliament.

...

Sir Edward Coke. Before 3 Hen. 5 it was never granted for life but then, he

being a victorious prince, his Commons gave it to him; and he said that it

should never be drawn into example, for it was thought that never king should

have the like occasion as he then had. In Hen. 6 his time it went but for years,

H. 7 got it for life. It is a good warning for us to look what we do. Without

a book of rates we cannot grant it, and never had king impositions granted

him.

262. [Ed.: Proceedings and Debates, ff. 216v–217v, in CD, 1628, IV, 447–49.]

263. [Ed.: the return of writs, saving to us the custom of wool granted by the commonalty.]

Appendix I:

Ofﬁcial Acts Related to

Sir Edward Coke’s

Career



A. The High Commission

(Coke refuses to appear), 1611

Ed.: Coke, the great critic of the High Commission, was ordered to sit as

its member, with this result. Coke’s notes of this conference were ﬁrst

printed in volume 12 of the Reports, at 88.

High Commission.

(1611) Michaelmas Term, 9 James I.

Memorandum, that upon Thursday, in this term, a High Commission in

Causes Ecclesiasticall was published in the Great Chamber of the Arch-bishop

at Lambeth, in which I, with the chief Justice, chief Baron, Justice Williams,

Justice Crook, Baron Altham, and Baron Bromley, were named Commis-

sioners, amongst all the Lords of the Councill, divers Bishops, Attorney and

Solicitor, and divers Deans and Doctors of the Cannon and Civil Lawes; and

I was commanded to sit by force of the said Commission, which I refused for

these causes:

1. For this, that I, nor any of my Brethren of the Common Pleas, were

acquainted with the Commission, but the Judges of the Kings Bench were.

2. That I did not know what was contained in the new Commission, and

no Judge can execute any Commission with a good conscience without knowl-

edge; and that alwaies the gravity of the Judges hath been to know their Com-

mission, for Tantum sibi est permissum, quantum commissum:

and if the Com-

mission be against Law, they ought not to sit by vertue of it.

3. That there was not any necessity that I should sit, whounderstoodnothing

of it, so long as the other Judges were there, the advice of whom had been

had in this new Commission.

4. That I have endeavoured to inform my self of it, and have sent to the

Rolls to have a Copy of it, but it was not enrolled.

5. None can sit by force of any Commission, until he hath took the Oath

of Supremacy, according to the statute of 1 Eliz. And for this, if they will read

the Commission so that we may hear it, and have a Copy to advise upon it,

then I will either sit or shew cause to the contrary. But the Lord Treasurer

would for divers reasons perswade me to sit, which I utterly denied.

1. [Ed.: Only so much is permitted as was committed to them:]

The High Commission 1309

And to this the chief Justice, chief Baron, and some others of the Judges,

seemed to incline; upon which the Lord Treasurer conferred in private with

the Arch-bishop Bancroft, who said to him, that he had appointed divers causes

of Heresie, Incest, and enormous Crimes to be heard upon this day, and for

that he would proceed; but at last he was content that the Commission should

be solemnly read, and so it was, which contained three great Skins of parch-

ment, and contained divers points against the Laws and Statutes of England:

and when this was read, all the Judges rejoyced that they did not sit by force

of it: And then the Lords of the Council, Viz. The Arch-bishop, the Lord

Treasurer, the Lord privy Seal, the Lord Admiral, the Lord Chamberlain, the

Earl of Shrewsbury, the Earl of Worcester with the Bishops, took the Oath

of Supremacy and Allegeance; and then we as Commissioners were required

to take the Oath, which I refused until I had considered of it: But, as the

Subject of the King, I and the other Judges also took the oaths of Supremacy

and Allegeance.

Then the Lord Arch-bishop made an Oration in commendation of the care

and providence of the King, for the peace and quiet of the Church; Also he

commended the Commissioners, also the necessity of the Commission to

proceed summarily in these days, wherein sins of detestable nature, and fac-

tions, and Schisms did abound, and protested to proceed sincerely by force

of it; and then he caused to be called a most blasphemous Heretick, and after

him another, who was brought thither by his appointment, to shew to the

Lords and the Auditory the necessity of that Commission.

And after, the Arch-bishop came to the chief Justice and to me, and prom-

ised us, that we should have a Copy of the Commission, and then I should

observe the diversity between the old Commission and this: and all the time

that the long Commission was in reading, the Oath in taking, and the Oration

made, I stood, and would not sit, as I was requested by the Arch-bishop and

the Lords; and so by my example did all the rest of the Justices.

And the Arch-bishop said, that the King had commanded him to sit by

vertue of this new Commission, in some open place, and at certain days: and

for that cause he appointed the great Chamber at Lambeth in Winter, and

the Hall in the Summer; and every Thursday in the Term time, at two of the

Clock in the after-noon, and in the fore noon he would have a Sermon for

the better informing of the Commissioners of their duty, in the true and sincere

execution of their duties.

B. Commendams and the

King’s Displeasure

Ed.: In a case concerning the powers of the King, or others, to grant a

commendam, or temporary church ofﬁce, the King sought to delay the court

until he could appear. When Coke did not wait or consult, the King was

displeased, but Coke stood his ground, promising “to do what should be

ﬁt for a judge to do.” These notes were printed in the Acts of the Privy

Council, 1616.

| At Whitehall, the 6 of June, 1616.

Present: The Kinges Majestie, Lord Archbishop of Canterburie, Lord Chan-

cellor, Lord Treasurer, Lord Privie Seale, Lord Stewarde, Lord Chamberlein,

Lord Viscount Fenton, Lord Bishop of Winchester, Lord Zouch, Lord Knollis,

Lord Wotton, Lord Stanhope, Mr. Vice-Chamberlein, Mr. Secretary Win-

woode, Mr. Secretary Lake, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchecquer, Master of the

Roles.

His Majestie, having this day given order for meeting of the Councell, and

that all the Judges (being twelve in nomber) should bee sent for to bee present;

when the Lordes were sett, and the Judges readie attendinge, his Majestie came

himself in person to Councell, and openned unto them the cause of that

assembly; which was, that hee had called them together concerninge a question

that had relacion to noe private person, but concerned God and the Kinge,

the power of his Crowne, and the state of his Church, whereof hee was Pro-

tector; and that there was noe ﬁtter place to handle it then at the head of his

Councell Table; that there had ben a question pleaded and argued concerninge

[303]

Commendams and the King’s Displeasure 1311

commendams,

the proceedinges wherein had either ben misreported, or mis-

handled; for his Majestie a yeare since had receaved advertizement concerning

that case in twoe extreames: by some, that it did trench farr into his Prerogative

Royall, in the generall power of grauntinge commendams; and by others, that

the doubt rested only upon a special nature of a commendam, such as in

respect of the incongruitie and exorbitant forme thereof might bee questioned,

without impeachinge or weakeninge the generall power at all.

Whereupon his Majestie, willinge to knowe the true state thereof, co-

maunded the Lord Bishop of Winchester and Mr. Secretarie Winwoode to

bee present at the next argument, and to reporte the state of the question and

proceedinges unto his Majestie; but Mr. Secretary Winwoode, being absent

by occasion, the Lord [Bishop] of Winchester only was present, and gave

information to his Majestie of the particulars thereof; which his Majestie com-

maunded him to report to the Boarde. Whereupon the Lord [Bishop] of Win-

chester stoode up and reported: That Sergeant Chibborne (who argued the

case against the commendams) had maintayned divers assertions and positions

very prejudiciall to his Majesty’s Prerogative Royall:

As ﬁrst, that the translacion of bishopps was against the cannon lawe, and,

for authoritie, vouched the cannons of the Councell of Sardis.

| That the Kinge had noe power to graunt commendams, but in case of

necessitie.

That there could bee noe necessitie, because there was noe neede of aug-

mentacion of livinges, for noe man was bounde to keepe hospitallitie above

his meanes.

Besydes manie other partes of his argument tending to the overthrowe of

his Majesty’s prerogative in cases of commendam.

The Lord [Bishop] of Winchester havinge made this reporte, his Majestie

resumed his former narrative, lettinge the lordes knowe that after the Lord

[Bishop] of Winchester had made unto his Majestie a reporte of that which

passed at the argument of the case, like in substaunce to that which hee had

now made, his Majestie, apprehendinge the matter to bee of soe hiegh a nature,

commaunded his Attorney Generall to signiﬁe his Majesty’s pleasure to the

Lord Chiefe Justice; that in regarde of his Majesty’s other most waighty oc-

1. [Ed.: Commitment, an order granting temporary possession of a vacant ecclesiastical living or beneﬁce,

including its revenues until the ofﬁce is permanently ﬁlled.]

[304]

Ofﬁcial Acts 16161312

casions, and for that his Majestie helde it necessary (upon the Lord [Bishop]

of Winchester’s reporte), that his Majestie bee ﬁrst consulted with, before the

Judges proceeded to argument; therefore the day appointed for the Judges’

arguments should bee putt of, till they might speake with his Majestie. And

this letter of his Majesty’s Attorney was by his Majesty’s comandment openly

read, which followeth in haec verba.

My Lord,

It is the Kinges expresse pleasure that, because his Majesty’s times would not

serve to conferr with your lordship and his Judges, touchinge the case of

the commendams, at his last beinge in towne, in regarde of his Majestie’s

other most waightie occasions; and for that his Majestie holdeth it ne-

cessarie, upon the reporte which my Lord of Winchester (who was present

at the last argument, by his Majesty’s royall commandement) made to his

Majestie that his Majestie bee ﬁrst consulted with, ere there bee anie further

proceedinge by argument of anie of the Judges, or otherwise; therefore that

the day appointed for the further proceedinge of argument by the Judges

in that case, bee putt of, till his Majesty’s further pleasure bee knowne upon

consultinge with him. And, to that ende, that your lordship forthwith

signiﬁe his commaundement to the rest of the Judges; whereof your lord-

ship may not faile. And soe I leave your lordship to God’s goodness.

Your lordship’s lovinge freinde to comaunde.

Fr. Bacon.

This Thursday, at afternoone,

the 25th day of Aprill, 1616.

That upon this letter receaved, the Lord Chiefe Justice retorned worde to

his Majesty’s said Attorney by his servaunt, that it was ﬁtt the rest of his

bretheren should understaunde his Majesty’s pleasure ymediately by letter

from his said Attorney to the Judges of the severall Benches, and accordingly

it was donn.

Whereupon all the said Judges assembled, and by their letter under their

haundes certefyed his Majestie that they helde those letters (importinge the

signiﬁcacion aforesaid) to bee contrary to lawe, and such as they could not

yeild to the same by their oath; and that thereupon they had proceeded at

2. [Ed.: in these words.]

Commendams and the King’s Displeasure 1313

the day, | and did nowe certeﬁe his Majesty thereof; which letter of the Judges

his Majestie alsoe commaunded to bee openly read, the tenor whereof fol-

loweth, in haec verba—

Most dread and most gracious Soveraigne.

It may please your most excellent Majestie to bee advertized that this letter

inclosed was delivered to mee, your Chiefe Justice, on Thursday last in

the afternoon, by a servaunt of your Majesty’s Attorney Generall, and letters

of like effect were, on the day followinge, sent from him by his servaunt

to us, your Majesty’s other Justices of every of your Courtes at Westminster.

Wee are and ever wilbe readie with all faithfull and true hartes, accordinge

to our bounden duties to serve and obey your Majestie, and thinke ourselves

most happie to spende our lives and abillities to doe your Majestie faithfull

and true service. In this present case, mencioned in this letter, what in-

formacion hath ben made unto yow (whereupon Mr. Attorney doth ground

his letter), from the report of the Bishop of Winchester, wee knowe not.

This wee knowe, that the true substance of the case summarily is thus. It

consisteth principally upon the construccion of twoe Acts of Parliament,

the one of the 25 yeare of King Edward 3, and the other of the 25 yeare

of King Henry 8; whereof your Majesty’s Judges, upon their oathes, and

accordinge to their best knowledge and learninge, are bounde to deliver

the true understaundinge faithfully and uprightly. And the case is betweene

subjects for private interrest and inheritaunce, earnestly called on for justice

and expedition. Wee holde it our duties to informe your Majestie that our

oathe is in theis expresse wordes: That in case anie letters come unto us

contrary to lawe, that wee doe nothinge by such letters, but certeﬁe your

Majestie thereof, and goe forth to doe the lawe, notwithstaundinge the

same letters. Wee have advisedly considered of the said letters of Mr. At-

torney, and with one consent doe holde the same to bee contrary to lawe,

and that wee could not yeild to the same by our oath; assuredly persuadinge

ourselves that your Majestie, beinge truly informed that it staundeth not

with your royall and just pleasure to give way to them, and therefore know-

inge your Majesty’s zeale to justice, and to bee most renowned therefore,

wee have, accordinge to our oathes, and duties (at the day openly preﬁxed

the last tearme) proceeded, and thereof certefyed your Majestie, and shall

ever pray to the Almightie for your Majestie in all honor, health, and hap-

piness longe to raigne over us.

Your Majesty’s most humble and faithfull

subjects and servaunts,

[305]

Ofﬁcial Acts 16161314

Edw. Coke, Henry Hobart, Laur. Tanfeilde, P. Warburton, Geo. Snigge,

James Altham, Edw. Bromley, Jo. Croke, H. Winche, John Doddridge,

Augustine Nicolls, Rob. Houghton.

Serjants’ Inne, 27 Aprill.

His Majestie, havinge considered of this letter, did by his princely letters

retorne aunsweare, reportinge himself to their owne knowledge and experi-

ence, what princely care hee had ever had, since his comeinge to the Crowne,

to have justice duly administred to his subjects with all possible expedicion,

and | how farr hee was from crossinge or delayinge of justice, where the interrest

of anie private partie was questioned; but, on the other syde, expressinge him-

self that where the case concerned the hiegh powers and prerogatives of his

Crowne, hee would not endure to have them wounded through the sydes of

a private person, admonishinge them alsoe of a custome lately entertayned,

of a greater boldnes to dispute the hiegh pointes of his Majesty’s prerogative,

in a popular and unlawfull libertie of argument, more then in former times,

and makeinge them perceave alsoe howe weake and impertinent the pretence

or allegacion of their oath was in a case of this nature, and howe well it might

have ben spared; with manie other waightie pointes in the said letter con-

tayned; which letter alsoe, by his Majesty’s commaundment, was publickely

read, and followeth in haec verba:—

Trustie and well-beloved Councellor, and trustie and wel-beloved; wee greete

yow well. Wee perceave by your letter that you conceave the commaun-

dement given yow by our Attorney Generall, in our name, to have pro-

ceeded upon wronge informacion. But if yee list to remember, what

princely care wee have ever had, since our comeinge to this Crowne, to

see justice duly administred to our subjects with all possible expedicion,

and howe farr wee have ever benn from urginge the delay thereof in anie

sorte, yee may easely persuade yourselves that it was noe smale reason which

moved us to send yow that direccion. Yee might very well have spared your

labor in informeinge us of the nature of your oath, for, although wee never

studied the common lawe of Englaunde, yet are wee not ignoraunt of anie

pointes which belonnge to a kinge to knowe. Wee are therefore to enforme

yow hereby, that wee are farr from crossinge or delayinge anie thinge which

may belonnge to the interrest of anie private partie in this case. But wee

cannot bee contented to suffer the prerogative royall of our Crowne to be

wounded, though the sydes of a private person. Wee have noe care at all

which of the parties shall wynn his processe in this case, soe the right

[306]

Commendams and the King’s Displeasure 1315

prevaile, and that justice bee duly administered. But upon the other parte,

wee have reason to foresee, that nothinge be donn in this case which may

wound our prerogative in generall; and, therefore, soe that wee may be

sure that nothinge shalbe debated amongst yow, which may concerne our

generall power of givinge commendams, wee desire not the parties to have

an hower’s delay of justice. But, that our prerogative should not bee

wounded in that regarde for all times hereafter, upon pretext of a private

partie’s interrest, wee sent yow that direccion; which wee accounte to be

wounded aswell, if it bee publickly disputed upon, as if anie sentence were

given against it. Wee are therefore to admonish yow that, since the pre-

rogative of our Crowne hath ben more boldly dealte withall in Westminster

Hall duringe the time of our raigne then ever it was before in the raignes

of divers princes ymediatly precedinge us, that wee will noe longer endure

that popular and unlawfull libertie; and, therefore, were wee justly moved

to sende yow that direccion to | forbeare to meddle anie further in a case

of soe tender a nature, till wee had further thought upon it. Wee have

cause inded to rejoyce of your zeale for the speedie execution of justice;

but wee would bee gladd that all our good subjects might soe ﬁnde the

fruites thereof, as that noe pleas before yow were of older date then this

is. But as to your argument which yow found upon your oath, yow give

our predecessors, who ﬁrst founded that oath, a very uncharitable meetinge,

in pervertinge their intention and zeale to justice, to make a weapon of it

to use against their successors. For, although your oath bee, that yow shall

not delay justice betwixt anie private parties, yet was it not meant that the

Kinge should thereby receave harme, before hee bee forewarned thereof.

Neither can yee denye but that every tearme yee will, out of your owne

discretions, for reasons knowne unto yow, put of either the hearinge or

determininge of an ordinary cause amongst private persons, till the next

tearme followinge. Our pleasure therefore is, who are the heade and foun-

taine of justice under God, in our dominions, and wee, out of our absolute

authoritie royall, doe commaunde yow, that yow forbeare to meedle anie

further in this plea, till our comeinge to the towne, and that out of our

owne mouth yow may heare our pleasure in this busines; which wee doe

only out of the care wee have that our perogative may not receave an

unwittinge and indirect blowe, and not to hinder justice to bee ministred

to anie private parties; which noe importunitie shall persuade us to move

yow in, like as only for avoydinge the unreasonnable importunitie of suitors

in their owne particular, that oath was by our predecessors ordayned to be

ministred unto yow. Soe wee hartely wish yow well to fare.

[307]

Ofﬁcial Acts 16161316

Postscript.—Yow shall upon the receipt of this our letter call our Attorney

Generall unto yow, who will informe yow of the particular pointes which

wee are unwillinge should bee publickly disputed in this case.

This letter beinge read, his Majestie resorted to take into his consideration

the partes of the Judges’ letter, and other their proceedinges in that cause, and

the errors therein comitted and contayned: which errors his Majestie did sett

forth to bee both in matter and manner: in matter, as well by way of omission

as comission; for omission, that it was a faulte in the Judges that when they

hearde a Councellor at the barr presume to argue against his Majesty’s pre-

rogative (which in this case was in effect his supremacy), they did not interrupt

him, and reprove sharply that loose and bold course of disafﬁrmeinge and

impeachinge thinges of soe hiegh a nature, by discourse; especially since his

Majestie had observed, that ever since his comeinge to this Crowne the popular

sorte of lawiers have ben the men that most affrontedly in all Parlaments have

troden upon his prerogative; which beinge most contrary to their vocation of

anie men, since the lawe, nor lawyers, can never bee respected if the Kinge

bee not reverenced, it therefore best became the Judges of anie to cheque and

brydle such impudent lawyers, and in their severall Benches to disgrace them

that beare soe litle respect to the King’s authoritie and prerogative. That his

Majestie had a doble prerogative, whereof the one was ordinary, and had re-

lacion to his private interrest, which mought bee, and was, every day disputed

in Westminster Hall. The other was of a hiegher nature, referringe to his

supreame and imperiall power and soveragnitie, which ought not to bee dis-

puted or handled in vulgar argument; but that of late the Courtes of the |

Common Lawe were growne soe vaste and transcendent, as they did both

meddle with the King’s prerogative, and had incroached upon all other Courtes

of Justice, as the High Commission, the Councells established in Wales and

Yorke, the Courte of Requests. Concerninge that which might be tearmed

Commission, his Majestie tooke exception to the Judges’ letter, both in matter

and forme. For matter, his Majestie did plainely demonstrate that, whereas it

was contayned in the Judges’ letter, that the signiﬁcacion of his Majesty’s

pleasure as aforesaid was contrary to lawe and not agreeable to the oath of a

Judge, that could not bee.

First, for that the puttinge of hearinge, or proceedinge upon, just and nec-

essary cause is no denyinge or delay of justice, but a wisedome and maturitie

of proceedinge, and that there cannot bee a more just and necessary cause of

[308]

Commendams and the King’s Displeasure 1317

stay then the consultinge with the Kinge, when the cause concernes the

Crowne, and that the Judges did dayly put of causes upon lighter occasions.

And likewise his Majestie did desire to knowe of the Judges how his callinge

them to consulte with him was contrary to lawe, which they never could

aunsweare unto.

Secondly, that it was noe bare supposition or surmize that this case con-

cerned the Kinges prerogative, for that it had ben directed and largly disputed

at the barr, and the very disputinge thereof in a publicke audience is both

daingerous and dishonorable to his Majestie.

Thirdly, that the manner of puttinge of which the Kinge required, was not

inﬁnite, nor for lounge time, but grounded upon his Majesty’s waighty oc-

casions, which were notorious; by reason whereof hee could not speake with

the Judges before the argument, and that there was a certaine expectation of

his Majesty’s speedie retorne at Whitsuntide, and likewise that the case had

ben soe lately argued, and could not receave judgment till Easter tearme next,

as the Judges themselves afterwardes confessed.

And lastlie, because there was another just cause of absence for the twoe

Cheife Justices, for that they ought to have assisted the Lord Chancellor the

same day in a great cause of the Kinges, followed by the Lord Hunsdon against

the Lord William Howarde in Chancerie; which cause of the Kinges (specially

beinge soe waightie) ought to have had precedence before anie cause betweene

partie and partie.

Also, whereas it was contayned in the Judges’ letter that the case of the

commendams was but a case of private interrest betweene partie and partie,

his Majestie shewed plainely the contrary, not only by the argument of Serjaunt

Chibborne, which was before his commaundement, but by the argument of

the Judges themselves (namely Justice Nicholls), which was after; but especially

since one of the parties is a Bishopp, who pleads for the commendam, only

by the virtue of his Majesty’s prerogative.

Also, whereas it was contayned in the Judges’ letter that the parties called

upon them earnestly for justice, his Majestie conceaves it to bee but pretence,

urgeing them to prove that there | was anie sollicitation by the parties for

expedicion, otherwise then in an ordinary course of attendaunce, which they

could never prove.

As for the forme of the letter, his Majestie noated that it was a newe thinge

and very undecent, and unﬁtt for subjects to disobey the Kinges commaun-

dement, but most of all to proceede in the meanetime, and to retorne unto

[309]

Ofﬁcial Acts 16161318

him a bare certiﬁcate: whereas they ought to have concluded with the layinge

downe and representinge of their reasons modestly unto his Majestie, why

they should proceede, and soe to have submitted the same to his princely

judgment, expectinge to knowe from him wheather they had given him sa-

tisfaccion.

After this his Majesty’s declaration, all the Judges fell downe upon their

knees, and acknowledged their error, for matter of forme, humbly cravinge

his Majesty’s gracious favour and pardon for the same.

But for the matter of the letter, the Lord Cheife Justice of the Kinges Bench

entred into a defence thereof, the effect whereof was, that the stay required

by his Majestie was a delay of justice, and, therefore, contrary to lawe and the

Judges’ oath; and that the Judges knewe well amongst themselves, that the

case (as they meant to handle it) did not concerne his Majesty’s prerogative

of graunt of commendams, and that if the day had not helde by the not-

comeinge of the Judges, the suite had ben discontinewed; which had ben a

faylinge in justice, and that they could not adjourne it, because Mr. Attornei’s

letter mencioned noe day certaine, and that an adjornment must alwaies bee

to a day certaine.

Unto which aunsweare of the Chiefe Justice, his Majestie did replye, that

for the last conceipt, it was meere sophistrie, for that they might in their

discretions have preﬁxed a convenient day, such as there might have ben time

for them to consult with his Majestie before the same, and that his Majestie

leafte that pointe of forme to themselves.

And for that other pointe, that they should take upon them peremptorily

to discerne whether the case concerned the Kinges prerogative, without con-

sultinge with his Majestie ﬁrst, and informeinge his princely judgment, was

a thing preposterous, for that they ought ﬁrst to have made that appeare to

his Majestie, and soe to have given him assurance thereof, upon consultacion

with him.

And as for the mayne matter, that it should bee against the lawe, and against

their oath, his Majestie sayde hee had sayed enough before; unto which the

Lord Chiefe Justice in effect had made noe aunsweare, but only insisted upon

the former opinion; and therefore the Kinge required the Lord Chancellor to

deliver his opinion upon that pointe, whether the stay that had ben required

by his Majestie were contrary to lawe, or against the Judges’ oath.

The Lord Chancellor stoode up, and moved his Majestie that, because this

question had relacion to matter of lawe, his Majestie would bee informed by

Commendams and the King’s Displeasure 1319

his learned councell ﬁrst, and they ﬁrst to deliver their opinion, which his

Majestie commaunded them to doe.

Thereupon his Majesty’s Attorney Generall gave his opinion that the put-

tinge of the day in manner as was required by | his Majestie (to his under-

staundinge) was without all scruple noe delay of justice, nor dainger of the

Judges’ oath, insistinge upon some of the reasons which his Majestie had

formerly openned, and addinge that the letter hee had writt in his Majesty’s

name was noe imperious letter, as to say: That his Majestie, for certaine causes,

or for causes knowne to himself, would have them put of the day, but plainely

and fairely expressed the causes unto them; for that the Kinge conceaved,

upon the Lord [Bishop] of Winchester’s reporte, that the cause concerned

him, and that his Majestie would willingly have spoken to them before, but

by reason of his important busines could not, and therefore required a staye

till they might conveniently speake with him, which they knewe could not

bee lounge; and in the conclusion of his speech wished the Judges seriously

to consider with themselves whether they were not in greater dainger of breach

of their oath by their proceedinge, then they could have ben by their stay. For

that it is parte of their oath to counsell his Majestie when they are called; and

if they will proceede in a busines ﬁrst, whereupon they are called to councell,

and will councell him when the matter is past, it is more then a simple refusall

to give him councell; and soe concluded his speech, and the rest of the learned

councell consented to his opinion.

Whereupon the Lord Chiefe Justice of the King’s Bench (aunswearinge

nothing to the matter) tooke exceptions that the Kinges councell learned

should pleade or dispute with the Judges, for (hee sayde) they were to pleade

before the Judges, and not to dispute with them. Whereunto the Kinges At-

torney replyed, that hee found that exception strainge, for that the King’s

learned councell were by oath and ofﬁce (and much more when they had the

Kinges expresse commaundement), without feare of anie man’s face, to pro-

ceede or declare against anie, the greatest peere or subject of the kingdome,

and not only anie subject in particular, but any boddie of subjects, or persons,

were the[y] Judges, or were they an upper or lower house of Parlament, in

case that they exceede the limitts of their authoritie, or take anie thinge from

his Majesty’s royall power, or prerogative. And soe concluded that his chal-

lendge, and that in his Majesty’s presence, was a wronge to their places, for

which hee and his fellowes did appeale to his Majestie for reparacion. And

thereupon his Majestie did afﬁrme that it was their dutie soe to doe, and that

[310]

Ofﬁcial Acts 16161320

hee would mayntaine them therein, and tooke occasion afterwardes againe to

speake of it. For when the Lord Chiefe Justice sayde hee would not dispute

with his Majestie, the Kinge replyed, that the Judges would not dispute with

him, nor his learned councell might not dispute with them; soe, whether they

did well, or ill, it must not bee disputed.

After this the Lord Chancellor delivered his opinion, cleerely and plainely,

that the stay which had beene by his Majestie required was not against lawe,

nor any breach of a Judge’s oath, and required that the oath itself might bee

read out of the statute, which was donn by the Kinges Sollicitor, and all the

wordes thereof waighed and considered.

| Thereupon his Majestie and the Lordes thought good to aske the Judges

severally their opinion; the question beinge put in this manner: Whether if

at anie time in a case dependinge before the Judges, which his Majestie con-

ceaved to concerne him, either in power or proﬁtt, and thereupon required

to consult with him, and that they should stay proceedings in the meanetime,

they ought not to stay accordingly. They all (the Lord Chiefe Justice only

excepted) yeilded that they would, and acknowledged it to bee their dutie soe

to doe; only the Lord Chiefe Justice of the King’s Bench sayd for aunsweare

that when that case should bee, hee would doe that should bee ﬁtt for a Judge

to doe, and the Lord Chiefe Justice of the Common Pleas, who had assented

with the rest, added, that hee would ever trust the justnes of his Majesty’s

comaundement.

After this was put to a pointe, his Majestie thought ﬁtt, in respect of the

further day of argument appointed the Saturday followeinge for the com-

mendams, to knowe from his Judges what hee might expect from them con-

cerninge the same. Whereupon the Lord of Canterburie breakeinge the case

into some questions, his Majestie did require his Judges to deale plainely with

him, whether they meant in their argument to touch the generall power of

grauntinge commendams, yea or noe. Whereupon all his said Judges did prom-

isse and assure his Majestie that, in the argument of the said case of com-

mendams, they would speake nothinge which should weaken, or drawe into

doubte, his Majesty’s prerogative for the graunting of them, but intended

particularly to insist upon the pointe of the laps, and other individuall pointes

of this case, which they conceaved to bee of a forme differringe from all other

commendams which have ben practized.

The Judges alsoe went further, and did promise his Majestie that they would

not only abstaine from speakeinge anie thinge to weaken his Majesty’s pre-

[311]

Commendams and the King’s Displeasure 1321

rogative of commendams, but would directly and in plaine tearmes afﬁrme

the same, and correct the erronious and bold speeches which had ben used

at the barr in derogation thereof.

Alsoe, all the Judges did in generall acknowledge and professe, with greate

forwardnes that it was their dutie, if anie councellor at the barr presumed at

anie time to call in question his Majesty’s hiegh prerogatives and regallities,

that they ought to reprehende them and silence them; and all promised soe

to doe hereafter.

Lastly, the twoe Judges, which were then next to argue, Mr. Justice Dodridge

and Mr. Justice Winche, openned themselves unto his Majestie thus farr, that

they would insist chiefely upon the laps, and some pointes of uncertaintie,

repugnancy and absurditie, beinge peculiar to this commendam, and that they

would shewe their dislike of that which had ben sayde at the barr for the

weakeninge of the generall power; and Mr. Justice Doddridge sayde that he

would conclude for the Kinge that the Church was voyde, and in his Majesty’s

guifte; and alsoe sayde | that the Kinge might give a commendam to a Bishop,

either before or after his consecration, and that hee might either give it him

duringe his life, or for a certaine nomber of yeares.

The Judges havinge thus farr submitted and declared themselves, his Ma-

jestie admonished them to keepe the boundes and lymitts of their severall

Courtes, not to suffer his prerogative to bee wounded by rash and unadvised

pleadinge before them, or by newe inventions of lawe. For as hee well knewe

that the true and ancient common lawe is the most favourable for kinges of

anie lawe in the worlde; soe hee advised them to apply themselves to the studie

and practize of that ancient and best lawe, and not to extende the power of

anie of their Courtes beyounde their due lymitts, followinge the president of

the best ancient Judges, in the times of best Govermentes, and that then they

might assure themselves that hee for his parte in the proteccion of them and

expediting of justice, would walke in the stepps of the ancient and best kinges.

And thereupon gave them leave to proceede in their argument.

When the Judges were removed, his Majestie, that had forborne to aske

the votes and opinions of his councell before the Judges, because hee would

not prejudicate the freedome of the Judges’ opinions concerninge the point;

whether the stay of proceedinges that had been by his Majestie required, could

by anie construccion bee thought to bee within the compasse of the Judges’

oath (which they had hearde reade unto them), did then put the question to

his Councell, who all with one consent did give opinion that it was farr from

[312]

Ofﬁcial Acts 16161322

anie colour or shadowe of such interpretacion, and that it was against common

sence to thinke the contrary, especially since there is noe mention made in

their oath of the delay of justice, but only that they shall not deny justice,

nor bee moved by anie of the Kinges letters to doe any thinge contrary to

lawe, or justice.

G. Cant., T. Ellesmere, Canc., T. Suffolke, E. Worcester, Lenox, Not-

tingham, Pembroke, W. Knollis, John Digbye, Raphe Winwoode,

Tho. Lake, Fulk Grevill, Jul. Caesar, Fr. Bacon.

C. Coke’s Hearing, June 26, 1616.

Ed.: Following the commendams argument, effectively staged by Francis

Bacon, Coke’s dismissal was but a matter of time. These notes were printed

in the Acts of the Privy Council, 1616.

June 26.

It may please your most excellent Majestie.

The Lorde Chiefe Justice, presentinge himself on his knee at the Boarde,

your Sollicitor signifyed: That hee was by your commaundement to charge

him for certaine acts and speeches, wherein your Majestie was much unsa-

tisfyed; which were in number three.

1. First, an act donn.

2. Secoundly, speeches of hiegh contempt utterred in a seate of justice.

3. Thirdly, uncomely and undutifull carryage in the presence of your Ma-

jestie, your Privie Councell, and your Judges.

Concerninge the ﬁrst, which was the act. It was donn when hee was in

place of trust, and concerned a statute of 12,000li. taken of Sir Christopher

Hatton, to the use of Sir Edward Coke, when hee was your Majesty’s Attorney-

Generall; not to pay a debte of good value, due unto your Majestie, nor to

accept of a discharge for the same, and for the better streingtheninge of that

statute there was likewise a bond taken of 6,000li., with suerties to the same

effect; soe that Sir Christopher Hatton lay charged under the penaltie of

18,000li. not to pay the debte, to agree to noe surrender, discharge, or release,

nor anie way to assent thereunto. That this offence was aggravated by denyall

and protestacion made of late by the Lord Chiefe Justice, that hee was not

privie to the condicion of the defeasaunce; whereas the statute was taken to

his use, the defeasaunce by indenture, whereof Sir Christopher Hatton’s part

was founde, but the other parte was not founde. That he was privie to the

Ofﬁcial Acts 16161324

peninge of it, inserted wordes with his owne haunde, and that Mr. Walter

and Mr. Bridgman, his owne councell, were witnesses to it.

The secounde pointe was, wordes spoken in the Kinges Bench, the last day

of Hillary tearme last, in a case of Glanvile and Allen, whereof your Sollicitor

made a narrative relacion, and charged the Lord Chiefe Justice to have given

too much harte and incoragement to that cause. That hee had too constauntly

directed the jury, turned them thrice from the barr, threatenned to comitt

them, examined them by the pole, and tolde them that they had ben tamperred

withall. That hee had given warneinge to the councellors at the barr that, if

they sett their haundes to a Bill after judgement, hee would | foreclose them

the Courte; and further in another case the same day sayde, that the Common

Lawe of Englaunde would bee overthrowen, and that the light of the lawe

would bee obscured, and that all this was conﬁrmed by good wittnes.

The thirde and last pointe was, his undecent behaviour before your Majestie,

your Councell, and your Judges; and that consisted of twoe partes. First, the

exception hee tooke at your learned councell in your presence for speakinge

by your commaundement.

The secound, that your Majestie havinge openned yourself in the case of

commendams, and satisfyed the Judges, that your Majestie sendinge unto them

had noe intent to delay justice; and question beinge putt to the rest of the

Judges, whether they did hold it for a delay of justice, that your Majestie had

sent in that cause, or if you shoulde send hereafter in a like case, wherein your

Majesty’s prerogative were interressed, the rest of the Judges submittingethem-

selves, hee alone dissented from all the rest.

This beinge the effect of your Sollicitor’s charge, the Lord Chiefe Justice

made aunsweare: That hee would, by their lordships’ favours, beginn with

the last, and sayde, that for the pointe of challendginge and takeinge exception

at your Majesty’s councell learned speakinge in the case of comendams by

your Majesty’s commaundement, hee acknowledged it for an error, and hum-

bly submitted himself.

To the pointe, that upon the question asked the Judges touchinge stay of

proceedinges, hee did deny, when all the rest of the Judges did yeild, his

aunsweare was: that the question included a multitude of particulars, which

suddenly occurringe to his minde, caused him to make that aunsweare, that

when that time should bee, hee would doe that which should become an honest

and just Judge.

[338]

Coke’s Hearing 1325

For the bonde, he sayeth that that assuraunce was in hammeringe a yeare

and a half. They were elephantini libri;

and nowe, twelve yeares beinge past,

it was noe marvaile if his memorie were shorte, specially since about that time

hee was imployed, ﬁrst in the greate services of the priests’ treason, and Cob-

ham’s treason, and the next yeare in the powder treason; and that, if anie

thinge have slipped him in that multitude of businesses, lett theis services blott

out his errors.

Secoundly, hee did use an argument ab impossibili,

which was, that the

debte remayneinge at that time was 33,000li., and that younge Mr. Hatton’s

meanes were very meane, not above 100 markes a yeare; and therefore im-

possible for him to redeeme it; and that, as soone as it came to a possibillitie,

when hee ﬁrst heard of Sir Robert Rich his offer, hee then submitted it, before

such time as hee remembred the statute or defeasaunce.

Thirdly, cui bono:

Hee sayd hee never had anie proﬁtt by it, but the pre-

sentacion to a beneﬁce; and all the rest was his wive’s.

Fowerthly, the Crowne was content with the installment, and hee did but

take bondes to continewe it; and throughout all this, hee submitted himself

to your Majestie and the Boarde, sayinge Actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit

rea.

| For his speeches in the Kinges Bench, etc., hee sayeth ﬁrst, that whatsoever

was donn, was donn by common consent, and for those speeches, manie of

them were spoken, and hee knewe by whom they were spoken, but not by

himself: and then offerred fower consideracions.

1. That the commission (unto which nevertheles hee did in noe wise except)

was ad informandum non ad convincendum.

2. That there were but witnesses on one syde.

3. That the interrogatories might bee drawne too shorte.

4. That it was concerninge wordes spoken fower moneths agoe, which be-

inge spoken amongst manie might bee reported diversly, and thereupon pro-

duced a paper writen by himself, contayneinge (as hee sayeth) the true passages

1. [Ed.: elephantine books;]

2. [Ed.: of impossibility,]

3. [Ed.: to whose beneﬁt?]

4. [Ed.: An act does not make someone guilty unless his mind is guilty.]

5. [Ed.: to inform, not to convict.]

[339]

Ofﬁcial Acts 16161326

of that day; which paper wee present to your Majestie herewithall, beinge, as

hee sayd, sett downe by himself the next after, sedato animo.

And touchinge the wordes: that the common lawe would bee overthrowen,

and that the Judges would have but little to doe at Assizes, because the light

of the lawe would bee obscured, hee confesseth the wordes, but sayth they

were not spoken the same day, but another time in a cause of Sir Anthonie

Mildmaies; and added, that hee will not maintaine the differrence betweene

the twoe Courtes, nor bringe it into question; yet, if it were an error, hee may

say Erravimus cum patribus;

and thereupon alleadged three examples: ﬁrst,

the articles against Cardinall Wolsey, 21 Henry 8, wherein the same wordes

are used that such proceedinges in Chancery tended to the subversion of the

common lawe; secoundly, the booke called the Doctor and Student; and thirdly,

an opinion of the Judges in Throgmorton’s case in Queen Elizabeth’s time;

addinge further that for the time to come there was noe dainger; for that the

Judges, havinge receaved your Majesty’s commaundement by your Attorney

Generall, that noe Bills of that nature should hereafter bee receaved, hee and

his bretheren have caused the same to bee entred as an order in the same

Courte, which shalbe observed.

Which beinge the effect of his aunsweare, wee have thought good withall

to add that before us, as well in speech as in action, hee behaved himself very

modestly and submissively.

This certiﬁcate was made the 26 day of this present June.

...

| At the Court at Greenewich, Sonday morneineinge (sic), the 30th of June,

1616.

Present: Lord Archbishop of Canterburie, Lord Treasurer, Lord Privie Seale,

Lord Zouch, Lord Knollis, Lord Wotton, Mr. Vice-Chamberlein, Mr. Sec-

retary Winwoode, Mr. Secretary Lake, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchecquer,

Master of the Roles, Mr. Attorney Generall.

Sir Edward Coke, knight, Chiefe Justice of the King’s Bench, presentinge

himself this day at thes Boarde, upon his knees, Mr. Secretary Winwoode

signifyed unto him that their lordships had made reporte to his Majestie of

that which passed on Wednesday last at Whithall, where hee was charged by

6. [Ed.: in a calm frame of mind.]

7. [Ed.: we have erred with our fathers;]

[340]

Coke’s Hearing 1327

his Majesty’s Sollicitor with certaine thinges, wherein his Majesty was much

unsatisfyed: which report contayned a true and just relacion, aswell of those

thinges which were then objected against him, as of his aunsweares thereunto

in particular, and that, rather to his advantage then otherwise; which beinge

delivered in writinge, and in his princely judgement duly waighed and con-

sidered of, his Majestie was noe way satisfyed with his aunsweares to anie of

those three pointes, wherewith he stood charged, vizt.: neither in that which

hee made concerninge the bonde and defeasaunce upon the installment of a

debte of Sir Christopher Hatton, late Lord Chancellor of Englaund; nor yet

in that which hee maketh concerninge his speeches of hiegh contempt, utterred

as he sate in the seate of justice, concerninge the overthrowe of the common

law; nor lastly, in the aunsweare hee offereth to excuse his uncivill and in-

discreete carryage before his Majestie, assisted with his Privie Councell and

his Judges: but that the charge lyeth still upon him, notwithstandinge anie

thinge contayned in his said aunsweares.

Nevertheles, such is his Majesty’s clemencie and goodnes, as hee is pleased

not to proceede heavely against him, but rather to looke upon the meritt of

his former services; and accordingly hath decreed.

First: that hee bee sequestred from the Councell Table, untill his Majesty’s

pleasure be further knowne.

Secoundly: that hee doe forbeare to ryde this sommer’s circuit as Justice of

Assize.

Lastly: that duringe this vacacion, while hee hath time to live privately and

dispose himself at home, hee take into his consideracion and review his bookes

of Reportes, wherein (as his Majestie is informed) there bee manie exorbitaunt

and extravagant opinions sett downe and published for positive and good lawe;

and if, in the review and reading thereof, hee ﬁnde anie thinge ﬁtt to be altred

or amended, the correctinge thereof is leaft to his discretion. Amongst other

thinges, his Majestie was not well pleased with the tytle of those bookes, |

wherein hee styled himself Lord Chiefe Justice of Englaunde, whereas hee

could challendge noe more then Chiefe Justice of the Kinges Bench. And

havinge corrected what in his discretion hee found meete in those Reportes,

his Majesty’s pleasure was, that hee should bringe the same privately to himself,

that hee might consider thereof, as in his princely judgement should bee found

expedient. Hereunto the Secretary advised him to conforme himself in all

dutie and obeydience, as hee ought, whereby hee might hope that his Majestie

in time would receave him againe to his gracious and princely favour.

[341]

Ofﬁcial Acts 16161328

Hereunto the Lord Chiefe Justice made aunsweare; that hee did in all hu-

millitie prostrate himself to his Majesty’s good pleasure: that hee acknowledged

the decree to bee just, and proceeded rather from his Majesty’s exceedinge

mercie, then from his justice; gave humble thankes to their lordships for their

favour and goodnes towards him, and hoped that his behaviour for the future

should bee such as should deserve their lordships’ favour.

My lordes havinge thus farr proceeded, the Lorde Treasurer told him that

hee had one thinge more to lett him knowe, which belounged to the Erles

Marshall’s to take notice of, and was, that his coachman used of late to ryde

bareheaded before him, which was more then hee could anie way challendge

or assume to himself, and required him to forbeare it for the future. To which

the Lord Chiefe Justice aunsweared: that the coachman did it for his owne

ease, and not by his commaundement. And soe, with the like submission and

acknowledgment of favour, departed.

D. Coke’s Arrest after Parliament, 1621.

Ed.: Through the Parliament of 1621, Coke’s opposition to the King had

grown. Eventually he opposed the King on matters not only of parlia-

mentary privilege but also of foreign policy. James ordered the arrest of

Coke, Selden, Prynne, and other members of the opposition, but ultimately

no evidence was found against them. These notes were printed in the Acts

of the Privy Council, 1621–22.

December 27, 1621.

| A letter to the Lieutennaunt of the Tower requireinge him to receave into

his custodie the person of Sir Edward Coke, knight, and to keepe him closse

prisonner there untill further order, sufferinge him to make choice of twoe

of his owne servaunts to wayte upon him soe as they be kept closse with him.

Lord Archbishop, Lord Keeper, Lord Treasurer, Lord President, Lord

Privy Seale, Lord Steward, Lord Marquis Hamilton, Earl Marshall,

Lord Chamberlen, Earl of Kellie, LordViscount Falkland, LordCarew,

Lord Digbie, Lord Brooke, Mr. Treasurer, Mr. Secretary Calvert, Mr.

Chancellor [of the Exchequer], Master of the Rolles.

...

December 27, 1621.

A warraunt to Sir Thomas Wilson, knight, requireing him to make his yme-

diate repare to Sir Edward Coke’s house in Broad Streete, London, and to

seale up all such locks and doores of anie roomes, chambers or studies in the

said house, that hee should probably understaund or conceave to hold or

contayne anie writeings or papers belonginge to Sir Edward Coke and the

same beinge soe sealed to charge and commaund the housekeeper or anie

[217]

Ofﬁcial Acts 16211330

others who are put in trust therewith upon their allegeance that they suffer

not the said doores to bee opened untill further order etc.

Lord Archbishop, Lord Keeper, Lord Treasurer, Lord President, Lord

Privy Seale, Lord Steward, Earl Marshall, Lord Chamberlen, Earl of

Kellie, Lord Falkland, Lord Carew, Mr. Treasurer, Mr. Secretary Cal-

vert.

The like warraunt to Francis Gall, esquire, one of the clerkes of the Signett

to his Majestie, to seale up the doores of Sir Edward Coke’s chambers in the

Temple etc.

...

December 30, 1621.

A warraunt to Sir Robert Cotton, knight and barronet, Sir Thomas Wilson,

knight, and John Dickenson, esquire, to repare to Sir Edward Coke’s house

in Broad Streete, London, and takeing unto you such of his servaunts as have

the charge of the said house to make dilligent search for all such papers and

writeings as doe anie way concerne his Majestie’s service and the same to seale

up and bringe forthwith unto us, to which purpose you are to breake of such

seales as were lately sett upon the doores in the said house by order from this

Board and in the presence of his said servaunts to open all such studies, clos-

setts, chests, trunkes, deskes or boxes, where you shall understaund or probably

conceave anie such papers doe remaine, for which etc.

Lord Archbishop, Lord Keeper, Lord President, Lord Privy Seale, Lord

Steward, Lord Marquis Hamilton, Earl Marshall, Lord Chamberlen,

Earl of Kellie, Lord Viscount Falkland, Lord Carew, Lord Digbie, Mr.

Treasurer, Mr. Secretary Calvert, Mr. Chancellor [of the Exchequer].

Another of the same tenor to the same persons to make the like search in

Sir Edward Coke’s chambers in the Temple.

...

August 6, 1622.

| Att the Court att Windsor, the 6th of August 1622.

His Majestie’s pleasure was this day signiﬁed by Mr. Secretarie Calvert for

the inlargement of Sir Edward Coke, knight, out of the Tower of London and

his conﬁnement to his house att Stocke in the county of Buckingham and

[463]

Coke’s Arrest after Parliament 1331

within six miles compasse of the same until further order from his Majestie,

provided that att what time his Majestie shalbe within the limittes of his

conﬁnement the said Sir Edward Coke doe not repaire to the Court without

speciall licence from his Majestie, whereof this memoriall was commaunded

to be entred in the register of Councell causes and a copie thereof sent unto

the said Sir Edward Coke.

...

August 7, 1622.

Letters to the Lieutenant of the Tower.

That whereas his Majestie’s pleasure was signiﬁed that Sir Edward Coke

and Sir Robert Phillipps, knightes, and William Mallorey, esquire, should be

discharged out of the Tower of London, the said Lieutenant should accordingly

inlarge them etc.

Lord Steward, Lord Admirall, Earl Kellie, Lord Viscount Falkland, Mr.

Treasurer, Mr. Secretary Calvart, Sir Edward Conway.

E. Sir Edward Coke’s Case

The Sheriff’s Oath, 1626

Ed.: As Coke became more obstreperous in parliment, Charles had him

and four other opposition leaders appointed as sheriffs, who could not

attend parliament but had to remain in their counties. This hearing fol-

lowed. This report was ﬁrst published in Croke’s Reports of Cases in Charles’s

Reign at page 26.

Sir Edward Coke’s Case

Sir Edward Coke, late Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, and afterwards of

the King’s Bench, and removed from his places, being made Sheriff of the

county of Buckingham, had a dedimus potestatem

to take his oath annexed

to a schedule; to which he took exceptions, for that there were more additions

to the said oath than were in the ancient oath which is in the register, and

afterwards conﬁrmed and appointed by the statute of 18 Edw. 3. c. 4.: he

therefore conceived there ought not to be such additions unless by Parliament.

The additions were,

First, “that he should seek to suppress all errors and heresies commonly

called lollories,

and should be assistant to the commissaries and Ordinary in

church matters:” which part of the oath was added by reason of the statute

of 5 Ric. 2. st. 2. c. 5. and 2 Hen. 4. c. 15. whereby it is appointed that the

1. [Ed.: Writ granting a privilege to one before court, such as the right of nonappearance.]

2. [Ed.: “Lollories,” a corruption of “Lollardries,” was an anti-clerical heresy popular in Richard’s time,

and which became the basis of English Protestantism.]

Sir Edward Coke’s Case 1333

same should be taken by the sheriff, especially for those two causes. But he

thereto certiﬁed, that those statutes are repealed by the 1 Edw. 6. c. 1. and 1

Eliz. c. 2. and therefore ought not to be taken.

The second addition was, “that he should return reasonable issues:” whereto

he excepted, because it is appointed by the statute, and penalties imposed for

not performing it; and it ought not to be upon oath.

The third addition was, “that he should return all juries of the nearest and

sufﬁcientest persons:” whereto he excepted, because that part of the oath is

not appointed by any statute; and it is against common practice that he himself

should return juries, it being commonly done by the under sheriff, who is

also appointed by the statute to be sworn.

The fourth addition was, “that he should cause the Statute of Winton, and

the statutes against rogues and vagabonds, to be put in execution:” whereto

he excepted, because the Statute of Winton is altered, and the statutes against

rogues and vagabonds are appointed to be executed by the justices of the peace,

and not by the sheriff.

Upon these exceptions the Lord Keeper assembled all the justices to confer

with them about the same. And as touching.

The ﬁrst point, they conceived it was ﬁt to be omitted out of the oath,

because it is appointed by statutes which are repealed, and were intended

against the religion now professed and established, which before was con-

demned for heresy, and is now held for the true religion.

For the second addition, they conceived it convenient and for the service

of the King and subjects, and the greater part of them were of opinion, that

an oath in this and the other points may be well enjoined by the King and

order of State without Parliament, and it may be well imposed upon the sheriff

to take, being for public beneﬁt and execution of the laws.

For the third addition, it is not so strictly to be intended that he himself

should return juries, but it ought to be intended according to the construction

of law, that he himself, by himself or under-sheriff, should return juries; which

is a sufﬁcient performance; for the law saith, qui per alium facit, per seipsum

facit.

For the fourth addition, it rests upon the former reasons, that this oath

3. [Ed.: he who does something through another, does it himself.]

Ofﬁcial Acts 16261334

being appointed and continued divers years by direction of the State, although

without the express authority of any statute law, yet may he well be continued

for the public beneﬁt in repressing such persons: and although authority be

given to the justices of the peace to put those statutes in execution, yet it doth

not take away the sheriff’s right, who is the public conservator. And so they

delivered their opinions to the Lord Keeper at his house at Reading.

vii

Appendix II:

The Epitaph of

Sir Edward Coke



1336

The body of Sir Edward Coke lies entombed where he directed it to be,

near his ﬁrst wife, Bridget. His is a magniﬁcent tomb on the north wall of

the chancel within the sanctuary, near the high altar of St. Mary’s Church at

Tittleshall, Norfolk, England.

The monument, created by Nicholas Stone, includes a full-size efﬁgy carved

by Haydon. Besides the inscription of Coke’s abbreviated motto, on the cor-

nice, below his heraldric achievement, there are three inscribed panels, one

in Latin and two in English.

Deo Optimo Maximo.

Æ Ex

viÆ hvmanÆ expectant resvrrectionem

Piorvm.

Hic sitvs est.

Non peritvri nominis,Edvardvs Coke, eqves avrat,

Legvm anima, interpres, oracvlvm non dvbivm,

arcanorvm promi-condvs mysteriorvm,

Cvivs fere` vnivs beneficio,

Ivrisperiti nostri svnt ivrisperiti.

Eloqventi

Æ flvmen, torrens, fvlmen,

Svad

Æ sacerdos vnicvs.

Divinvs heros.

Pro rostris ita dixit,

Vt literis insvdasse crederes, non nisi hvmanis

Ita vixit vt non nisi divinis.

Sacerrimvs intim

Æ pietatis indagator.

Integritas Ipsa

Ver

Æ semper cavsÆ constantissimvs assertor

Nec favore nec mvneribvs violandvs.

Eximı`e misericors

Charior erat HVIC revs qvam sibi.

cv (miracvli instar est)

Siccolvs s

Æpe` ille avdiit sententiam in se prolatam

Nvnqvam HIC nisi madidocvlvs protvlit.

Scienti

Æ oceanvs

QVIqve dvm vixit, bibliotheca viva,

mort

vs dici mervit bibliotecÆ parens.

Dvodecim liberorvm tredecim librorvm pater.

Facessant hinc Monvmenta,

Facessant Marmora,

1337

(nisi qvo` d pios fvisse denotarint posteros)

IPSE sibi svvm est Monvmentvm,

Marmore perrennivs,

IPSE sibi sva est

Æternitas.

1. [Ed.:

To God, the Highest and Greatest,

These Mortal Remains Await the Resurrection of the Faithful.

Here Lies

Edward Coke, Knight of Gold, of Imperishable Fame,

Spirit, Interpreter, and Inerrant Oracle of the Laws,

Discloser of its Secrets—Concealer of its Mysteries,

Thanks Almost Alone to Whose Good Ofﬁce,

Our Lawyers Are Learned in the Law.

A River, Torrent, and Flood of Eloquence,

Singular Priest of Persuasion.

Divine Master.

In Courts, He Spoke

In Such a Way That One Would Believe Him To Have Studied Only the Secular,

But He Lived as One Who Had Studied Nothing but the Divine.

Most Devoted Investigator of Profound Faithfulness.

Integrity Itself,

Always the Most Constant Advocate of the Cause of Truth

Corrupted Neither by Favor Nor by Gifts

Exceptionally Merciful,

The Defendant was Dearer to Him than he was to Himself

(Which is a Miracle)

He Often Heard Sentence Pronounced Against Himself with Dry Eyes

Though Sentence Was Never Pronounced by this Man without Tears.

An Ocean of Knowledge

Who Alive, was a Living Library,

Deceased, Deserves the Name of Father of a Library.

Father of Twelve Children and Thirteen Books.

These Monuments May Crumble,

The Marble Decay,

(Except that they Show that his Children were Pious)

He Is His Own Monument to Himself.

More Lasting than Marble

He Himself Is His Own Immortality.

1338

Dedicated to the

Memory of

Sr.Edward Coke Knight, a late Reverend

Ivdge borne at Mileham in this County of Norf.

Excellent in all learning Divine &Hvmane, that for

His owne, this for His covntries good, Especially in

the knowledge & practise of the mvnicipall lawes

of this Kingdome,

A famovs pleader, a sovnd Covnseller.

In His younger yeares recorder of the Cities of Norwich

&London, next Sollicitor generall to Qvene Eliza:

and Speaker of the Parliament,inyexxxv yeare of hir

Raigne. Afterwards Attornye generall to the same

Qveene, as also to her successor King Iames.

To both, a faithfull servant, for their MA:

for theire

safetyes. By Kinge Iames constituted Cheife Iustice of

both Benches successiuely. In both A ivst, in both An

Exemplary Ivdge. One of his MA:

ties

Most Honorable Privie

Covnsell. As also of Covncell to Qvene Anne &Cheife

Ivstice In Eire of all Hir Forrests, Chases, and Parkes.

Recorder of ye Cittie of Coventrye,&High Steward of

the Vniversity of Cambridge, whereof he was sometime

AMember in Trinitye Colledge.

He had two Wives,

By Bridget,His ﬁrst Wife (one of the Daughters &

Coheires of Iohn Paston esq.) He had Issue sevean

Sonnes and three Daughters.

And by the Lady Elizabeth His second Wife (one

of the Daughters of the R:

Hon:

BLE

Thomas late Earle

of Exeter)He had Issue two Daughters.

A chast Hvsband: a provident Father.

1339

He Crowned HIS PIOVS LIFE, with as PIOVS and

Christian departvre at STOKE POGES in the

Covnty of BVCKINGHAM on WEDNESDAYE

the third day of SEPTEMBER in ye year of ovr

LORD MDCXXXIIII.

And of HIS AGE LXXXIII.

His last wordes

Thy kingdome come, thy will be done

Learne READER to live so,

that thov may’st so dye.

Photograph courtesy of

Brian and Marjorie Gill

Photographs courtesy of

Brian and Marjorie Gill

1340

Selected Readings Concerning of the Life,

Career, and Legacy of Sir Edward Coke

I. Coke’s Life and Career

Alward, Silas. “Coke: The Great Oracle of the Common Law.” The Canadian Law

Times 32 (1912): 929.

Aubrey, John. “Sir Edward Coke.” In “Brief Lives,” Chieﬂy of Contemporaries, set down

by John Aubrey, between the Years 1669 & 1696, edited by Andrew Clark. Oxford:

Clarendon Press, 1898. (Three lines relating to the false allegations of Lady Hatton’s

pregnancy at the time of her marriage to Coke have been suppressed in this edition.)

Birkenhead, Earl of [Frederick E. Smith]. “Sir Edward Coke.” In Fourteen English

Judges. New York: Cassell, 1926.

Barnes, Thomas G. “Notes from the Editors.” Two Companion Pamphlets to The

First Part of the Institutes of the Laws of England. Delran, N.J.: Legal Classics, 1995.

(A facsimile reprint of the 18th edition of 1823.)

Bowen, Catherine Drinker. “Coke and the Carson Collection.” In Four Talks for

Bibliophiles. Philadelphia: Free Library of Philadelphia, 1958.

———. “Five against the Odds: How do Great Men Cope with Old Age? By Starting

Over.” 16 Horizons (1974): 78

———. The Lion and the Throne: The Life and Times of Sir Edward Coke (1552–1634).

Boston: Little, Brown & Co., 1957.

———. “The Lord of the Law.” American Heritage 8 (1957): 4.

Boyer, Allen D. Law, Liberty, and Parliament: Selected Essays on the Writings of Sir

Edward Coke. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 2004.

Burke, Edmund Plunkett, Sir Edward Coke. London: Baldwin and Cradock, 1833.

Campbell, Lord John. “Life of Sir Edward Coke.” In The Lives of the Chief Justices

of England: From the Norman Conquest till the Death of Lord Mansﬁeld. London:

John Murray, 1849–57.

Clark, Walter, Coke, Blackstone, and the Common Law. Rochester, N.Y.: The Lawyers

Co-operative Publishing Co., 1918.

1. N.B.: Works are not repeated in each of the various categories to which they pertain.

Selected Readings1342

Coke, Edward. Vade Mecum. In Collectanea Topographica et Geneologica. London: J.

B. Nichols and Son, 1834–43. Taken by John Bruce from Coke’s introductory leaves

in his private manual. (The reader is cautioned to ignore dates Anno Domini in

this edition which may have been mistakenly converted from regnal years. The

manuscript is in the British Museum, Harleian MS. 6687, and is admirably de-

scribed in John Baker’s article “Coke’s Note-Books,” listed below in section H. 1.

Further autobiographical notes by Coke are in the Holkham mss.)

Foss, Edward. “Edward Coke.” In The Judges of England: With Sketches of Their Lives,

and Miscellaneous Notices Connected with the Courts at Westminster, from the Time

of the Conquest. London: Longman, Brown, Green, and Longmans, 1848–64.

Hahn, Edgar Aaron. Edward Coke. Rowfantia, no. 14. Cleveland: The Rowfant Club,

1949. Hill, Christopher. “Sir Edward Coke-Myth-Maker.” In Intellectual Origins

of the English Revolution. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1965.

Holdsworth, Sir William. “The Inﬂuence of Sir Edward Coke on the Development

of English Law.” In Essays in Legal History Read before the International Congress

Held in London in 1913, edited by Paul Vinogradoff. London, New York: Oxford

University Press, 1913; In A History of English Law. 2d ed. Boston: Little, Brown,

1937.

———. “Sir Edward Coke.” Cambridge Law Journal 5 (1935): 332.

———. Some Makers of English Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1966.

Hostettler, John. Sir Edward Coke: A Force for Freedom. Chichester: Barry Rose, 1998.

James, Charles Warburton. Chief Justice Coke, His Family & Descendants at Holkham.

London: Country Life Ltd.; New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1929.

Johnson, Cuthbert William. The Life of Sir Edward Coke, Lord Chief Justice of England,

with Memoirs of His Contemporaries. London: Henry Colburn, 1837.

Jones, Martin David. “Sir Edward Coke and the Interpretation of Lawful Allegiance

in Seventeenth Century England.” History of Political Thought 7 (1986): 321.

Kippis, Andrew. Biographia Britannica; Or, the Lives of the Most Eminent Persons Who

Have Flourished in Great Britain and Ireland, from the Earliest Ages, Down to the

Present Times: Collected from the Best Authorities, Printed and Manuscript, and Di-

gested in the Manner of Mr. Bayle’s Historical and Critical Dictionary. London: W.

and A. Strahan, for C. Bathurst, W. Strahan, etc., 1778–93.

“Letter . . . to sir Thomas Lake, relating to the proceedings of sir Edward Coke at

Oatland and ii. Documents relating to sir Walter Raleigh’s last voyage. Commu-

nicated to the Camden miscellany by S.R. Gardiner.” Camden Miscellany. 5 (1864).

Lyon, Walter Hastings, and Herman Block. Edward Coke, Oracle of the Law: Con-

taining the Story of His Long Rivalry with Francis Bacon; Some Account of Their Times

and Contemporaries; Famous Trials in Which Coke Participated; His Stand Against

King James I to Maintain the Supremacy of the Common Law. Boston: Houghton

Mifﬂin Co., 1929.

Life, Career, and Legacy 1343

MacKinnon, Sir Frank Douglas. Record of a Tercentenary Commemoration of Sir Ed-

ward Coke (1551–1634). London, 1934. Reprinted in “Sir Edward Coke: I. Inner

Temple.” Law Quarterly Review 51 (1935): 289; Inner Temple Papers. London: Ste-

vens, 1948.

McDonnell, George P. “Sir Edward Coke.” In Dictionary of National Biography: From

the Earliest Times to 1900. Edited by Sir Leslie Stephen and Sir Sidney Lee. London:

Oxford University Press, 1921–1922.

Record of Honor and Virtue: The Noble Memorial of the Right Honorable Sir Edward

Coke, Knight, Sometimes Lord Chief Justice of England and Attorney General to Queen

Elizabeth, Who Departed This Transitory Life at His Manor of Stoke in Bucking-

hamshireThis September 1634. (Eulogy, dedicated to his daughter, Mrs. Anne Sadlier)

(HLS MS 4125, Harvard Law School Library.)

Roscoe, Henry. Eminent British Lawyers. London: Longman, Rees, Orme, Brown,

and Green, 1830.

Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge. Lives of Eminent Persons, Consisting

of Galileo, Kepler, Newton, Mahomet, Wolsey, Sir E. Coke, Lord Somers, Caxton, Blake,

Adam Smith, Niebuhr, Sir C. Wren, and Michael Angelo. London: R. Baldwin, 1833.

Thorne, Samuel E. Sir Edward Coke, 1552–1952. The Selden Society Lecture, 1952.

London: Brenard Quaritch, 1957.

——— Essays in Legal History. London: Hambledon Press, 1985.

Usher, Ronald G. “Sir Edward Coke.” St. Louis Law Review 15 (1930): 325.

Windeyer, W. J. V. “Sir Edward Coke.” In Lectures on Legal History. Sydney: Law

Book of Australasia Pt. Ltd., 1949.

Woolrych, Humphry W. The Life of the Right Honourable Sir Edward Coke, Knt., Lord

Chief Justice of the King’s Bench. London: J. & W. T. Clarke, 1826.

Wrangham, Francis. “Sir Edward Coke.” In The British Plutarch Containing the Lives

of the Most Eminent Divines, Patriots, Statesmen, Warriors, Philosophers, Poets, and

Artists, of Great Britain and Ireland from the Accession of Henry VIII to the Present

Time. 6 vols. London: J. Mawman, and Baldwin, Cradock, and Joy, 1816.

II. Topical Commentaries

A. Coke’s Tools

1. Language

Boyer, Allen D. “Sir Edward Coke, Ciceronianus: Classical Rhetoric and the Common

Law Tradition.” International Journal for the Semiotics of Law/Revue Internationale

de Se´miotique Juridique 10 (1997): 3.

Disraeli, Isaac. “Of Coke’s Style, and His Conduct.” In Curiosities of Literature. New

York: J. Widdleton, 1872.

Selected Readings1344

Hornstein, L. H. “Some Chaucer Allusions by Sir Edward Coke.” Modern Language

Notes 60 (1945): 483.

Howell, W. S. Rhetoric and Logic in England 1500–1700. Princeton: Princeton Uni-

versity Press, 1956.

Shoeck, R. J. “Rhetoric and Law in Fifteenth-Century England.” Studies in Philology

50 (1953): 110.

2. Books

Abbot, L. W. Law Reporting in England, 1485–1585. London: Athlone Press, 1973.

Hassal, W. O., ed. A Catalogue of the Library of Sir Edward Coke. Preface by Samuel

Thorne. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1950.

James, C. W. “Some Notes on the Library of Printed Books at Holkham.” Transactions

of the Bibliographical Society, n.s., 11 (1931): 435.

———. “Some Notes upon the Manuscript Library at Holkham.” The Library, 4th

ser., 2 (1922): 213.

Lewis, Clive S. [C. S.] English Literature in the Sixteenth Century Excluding Drama.

Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1954.

Stebbings, Chantal, ed. Law Reporting in England. London: Hambledon Press, 1995.

Topulos, Katherine. “A Common Lawyer’s Bookshelf Recreated: An Annotated Bib-

liography of a Collection of Sixteenth-Century English Law Books.” Law Library

Journal 84 (1992): 641.

3. History

Fussner, F. Smith. The Historical Revolution: English Historical Writing and Thought,

1580–1640. London: Routledge and Paul, 1962.

Goodrich, Peter. “Doctor Duxbury’s Cure: Or, a Note on Legal Historiography.”

Cardozo Law Review 15 (1994): 1567.

———. “Poor Illiterate Reason: History, Nationalism and Common Law.” Social &

Legal Studies 1 (1992): 7.

Ross, Richard J. “The Memorial Culture of Early Modern English Lawyers: Memory

as Keyword, Shelter, and Identity, 1560–1640.” Yale Journal of Law & the Humanities

10 (1998): 229.

Woolf, D. R. The Idea of History in Early Stuart England: Erudition, Ideology, and

“The Light of Truth” from the Accession of James I to the Civil War. Toronto: University

of Toronto Press, 1990.

4. Law

Aumann, Francis Robert. “Lord Coke: The Compleat Student of the Common Law.”

Kentucky Law Journal 17 (1930): 64.

Life, Career, and Legacy 1345

Jamieson, David F. “Custom, Reason and Legislation in the Thought of Sir Edward

Coke.” Ph.D. diss., University of Utah, 1978.

McQuade, J. Stanley. “Medieval ‘Ratio’ and Modern Formal Studies: A Reconsid-

eration of Coke’s Dictum That Law Is the Perfection of Reason.” American Journal

of Jurisprudence 38 (1993): 359.

Singer, Barbara A. “The Reason of the Common Law.” University of Miami Law Review

37 (1983): 797.

Thorne, Samuel E. “Courts of Record and Sir Edward Coke.” University of Toronto

Law Journal 2 (1937): 24.

———. Essays in Legal History. London: Hambledon Press, 1985.

B. Judges and the Common Law

Baker, J. H. “The Structure of a Court.” In The Legal Profession and the Common

Law: Historical Essays. London: Hambledon Press, 1986.

Berman, Harold. “The Origins of Historical Jurisprudence: Coke, Selden, and Hale.”

Yale Law Journal 103 (1994): 1651.

Cantor, Norman F. Imagining the Law. New York: Harper Collins, 1997.

Clark, Walter. “Coke, Blackstone, and the Common Law.” Case and Comment 24

(1918): 861.

Coquillette, Daniel R. The Anglo-American Legal Heritage: Introductory Materials.

Durham, North Carolina: Carolina Academic Press, 1999.

Francis, Clinton W. “The Structure of Judicial Administration and the Development

of Contract Law in Seventeenth-Century England.” Columbia Law Review 83

(1983): 35.

Glen, Garrard. “Edward Coke and Law Restatement.” Virginia Law Review 17 (1931):

447.

Goedecke, W. Robert. “Edward Coke, Francis Bacon, and the Foundations of Law.”

In Change and the Law. Tallahassee: Florida State University Press, 1969.

Goldberg, Ronnie Lee. “Sir Edward Coke and the Common Law.” Ph.D. diss., Uni-

versity of Chicago, 1978.

Gray, Charles. “Reason, Authority, and Imagination: The Jurisprudence of Sir Edward

Coke.” In Culture and Politics from Puritanism to the Enlightenment, edited by Perez

Zagorin. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1980.

Hale, Sir Matthew. Introduction to The History of the Common Law of England, by

Charles M. Gray. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1971.

Holdsworth, William S. “The Inﬂuence of Coke on the Development of English

Law.” In Essays in Legal History, edited by Paul Vinogradoff. Oxford: Oxford Uni-

versity Press, 1914.

Ives, E. W. “Social Change and the Law.” In The English Revolution, 1600–1660. New

York: Barnes & Noble, 1969.

Selected Readings1346

Kenyon, J. P. “The Judiciary.” In The Stuart Constitution, 1603–1688: Documents and

Commentary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1966.

Lewis, John Underwood. “Sir Edward Coke (1552–1633): His Theory of ‘Artiﬁcial

Reason’ as a Context for Modern Basic Legal Theory.” Law Quarterly Review 84

(1968): 330.

Milsom, S. F. C. Historical Foundations of the Common Law. London: Butterworths,

1969.

Powell, Jim. “An Independent Judiciary.” In The Triumph of Liberty: A 2,000-year

History Told Through the Lives of Freedom’s Greatest Champions. New York: Free

Press, 2000.

Prest, Wilfrid R. The Inns of Court under Elizabeth I and the Early Stuarts, 1590–1640.

London: Longman, 1972.

———. The Rise of the Barristers: A Social History of the English Bar, 1590–1640.Oxford:

Clarendon Press, 1991.

Simpson, A. W. B. The History of the Common Law of Contract: The Rise of the Action

of Assumpsit. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1975.

———. A History of the Land Law. 2d ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1986.

Stumpf, Samuel Enoch. “Sir Edward Coke: Advocate of the Supremacy of the Law.”

Vanderbilt Studies in the Humanities 1 (1951): 34.

Thorne, Samuel E. “Tudor Social Transformation and Legal Change.” New York Uni-

versity Law Review 26 (1951): 10.

———. Essays in Legal History. London: Hambledon Press, 1985.

C. Competition with Other Benches

Baker, John H. “The Common Lawyers and the Chancery: 1616.” Irish Jurist, n.s. 4

(1969): 368.

———. The Legal Profession and the Common Law: Historical Essays. London: Ham-

bledon Press, 1986.

Cumming, Charles S. “The English High Court of Admiralty.” The Maritime Lawyer

17 (1992): 209.

De Smith, S. A. “The Prerogative Writs.” Cambridge Law Journal 11 (1951): 40.

Fortier, Mark. “Equity and Ideas: Coke, Ellesmere, and James I.” Renaissance Quarterly

51 (1998): 1255.

Gray, Charles M. “The Boundaries of the Equitable Function.” American Journal of

Legal History 20 (1976): 192.

———. “Prohibitions and the Privilege Against Self-Incrimination.” In Tudor Rule

and Revolution: Essays for G. R. Elton from His American Friends, edited by DeLloyd

J. Guth and John W. McKenna. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982.

———. The Writ of Prohibition: Jurisdiction in Early Modern English Law. New York:

Oceana Publications, 1994.

Life, Career, and Legacy 1347

Greene, Douglas G. “The Court of the Marshalsea in Late Tudor and Stuart England.”

American Journal of Legal History (1976): 267.

Harrington, Matthew P. “The Legacy of the Colonial Vice-Admiralty Courts (Part

I).” Journal of Maritime Law & Commerce 26 (1995): 581.

Jones, W. J. The Elizabethan Court of Chancery. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1967.

Levy, Leonard W. “Origins of the Fifth Amendment and Its Critics.” Cardozo Law

Review 19 (1997): 821.

MaGuire, M. H. “The Attack of the Common Lawyers on the Oath Ex Ofﬁcio.” In

Essays in Honor of C. H. McIlwaind. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1936.

Usher, Roland G. The Rise and Fall of the High Commission. Oxford: OxfordUniversity

Press, 1968.

D. Administrative Law and Management of the Bench and Bar

Cohen, Maxwell. “Some Considerations on the Origins of Habeas Corpus.” Canadian

Bar Review 16 (1938): 92.

———. “Habeas Corpus cum Causa—The Emergence of the Modern Writ.” Ca-

nadian Bar Review 18 (1940): 10.

De Smith, S. A. “Wrongs and Remedies in Administrative Law.” Modern Law Review

15 (1952): 189.

Henderson, Edith G. Foundations of English Administrative Law: Certiorari and Man-

damus in the Seventeenth Century. Cambridge: Ames Foundations, 1963.

Milsom, S. F. C. “The Origins and Early History of Judicial Review in England.”

Ph.D. diss. University of Cambridge, 1957.

Pollack, Malla. “Purveyance and Power, or Over-Priced Free Lunch: The Intellectual

Property Clause as an Ally of the Takings Clause in the Public’s Control of Gov-

ernment.” Southwestern University Law Review 30 (2000): 1.

Rose, Jonathan. “The Legal Profession in Medieval England: A History of Regula-

tion.” Syracuse Law Review 48 (1998): 1.

Schwartz Bernard. Lions over the Throne: The Judicial Revolution in English Admin-

istrative Law. New York: New York University Press, 1987.

Winﬁeld, Percy Henry. The History of Conspiracy and Abuse of Legal Procedure. Cam-

bridge: Cambridge University Press, 1921.

E. Judicial Review

Boudin, Louis B. “Lord Coke and the American Doctrine of Judicial Power.” New

York University Law Review 6 (1928–29): 233.

Boyer, Allen Dillard. “Undersanding, Authority, and Will: Sir Edward Coke and the

Elizabethan Origins of Judicial Review.” Boston College Law Review 39 (1997): 43.

Easterbrook Frank. “Substance and Due Process.” Supreme Court Review (1982): 85.

Selected Readings1348

Hamburger, Philip A. “Revolution and Judicial Review: Chief Justice Holt’s Opinion

in City of London v. Wood.” Columbia Law Review 94 (1994): 2091.

Jaffe Louis L., and Edith G. Henderson. “Judicial Review and the Rule of Law: His-

torical Origins.” Law Quarterly Review 72 (1956): 345.

Lloyd, Aaron. “Lord Cooke’s Fundamental Rights, and the Institution of Substantive

Judicial Review.” Auckland University Law Review 8 (1999): 1172.

Nelson, William E. Marbury v. Madison: The Origins and Legacy of Judicial Review.

Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2000.

Orth, John V. “Did Sir Edward Coke Mean What He Said?” Constitutional Com-

mentary 33 (1999): 16.

F. Judicial Independence

Black, Barbara A. “Massachusetts and the Judges: Judicial Independence in Perspec-

tive.” Law & History Review 3 (1985): 101.

Cox, Archibald. “The Independence of the Judiciary: History And Purposes.” Uni-

versity of Dayton Law Review 21 (1996): 565.

Hoffman, Jonathan M. “By the Course of the Law: The Origins of the Open Courts

Clause of State Constitutions.” Oregon Law Review 74 (1995): 1279.

Lederman, William R. “The Independence of the Judiciary.” Parts 1, 2. Canadian Bar

Review 34 (1956): 769, 1139.

Lemmings, David. “The Independence of the Judiciary in Eighteenth-Century En-

gland.” In The Life of the Law: Proceedings of the Tenth British Legal History Con-

ference, edited by Peter Birks, 126. London: Hambledon Press, 1993.

Noonan, John T. “The John Dewey Memorial Lecture: Education, Intelligence, and

Character in Judges.” Minnesota Law Review 71 (1987): 1119.

Redish, Martin H., and Lawrence C. Marshall. “Adjudicatory Independence and the

Values of Procedural Due Process.” Yale Law Journal 95 (1986): 455.

Riggs, Burkeley N., and Tamera D. Westerberg. “Judicial Independence: An Historical

Perspective.” Denver University Law Review 74 (1997): 337.

Roth, Philip J. “The Dangerous Erosion of Judicial Immunity.” Brief 18 (1989): 26.

Ziskind, Martha A. “Judicial Tenure in the American Constitution: English and Amer-

ican Precedents.” Supreme Court Review (1969): 135.

G. The English Constitution

Allen, J. W. English Political Thought, 1603–1660. 2 vols. London: Methuen & Co.

Ltd., 1938.

Beaute, Jean. Un Grand Juriste Anglais, Sir Edward Coke, 1552–1634: Ses Ide´esPolitiques

et Constitutionnelles: Ou, Aux Origines De La Democratie Occidentale Moderne. Paris:

Presses Universitaires de France, 1975.

Burgess, Glenn. The Politics of the Ancient Constitution: An Introduction to English

Life, Career, and Legacy 1349

Political Thought, 1603–1642. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press,

1992.

———. “The Political Thought of Edward Coke.” In Absolute Monarchy and the

Stuart Constitution. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1996.

Eusden, John Dykstra. Puritans, Lawyers, and Politics. New Haven: Yale University

Press, 1958.

Freidrich, Carl J. “Common Law against Natural Law: James I, Edward Coke, and

Francis Bacon.” In The Philosophy of Law in Historical Perspective. Chicago: Uni-

versity of Chicago Press, 1957.

Hill, Christopher. The Century of Revolution, 1603–1714. Edinburgh: T. Nelson, 1961.

Jones, William J. “The Crown and the Courts in England, 1603–1625.” In The Reign

of James VI and I, edited by Alan G. R. Smith. London: St. Martin’s Press, 1973.

Kelley, Donald R. “Elizabethan Political Thought.” In The Varieties of British Political

Thought, 1500–1800, edited by J. G. A. Pocock. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press, 1993.

Klein, William. “The Ancient Constitution Revisited.” In Political Discourse in Early

Modern Britain, edited by Nicholas Phillipson and Quentin Skinner. Cambridge:

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993.

Maitland, Frederic William. The Constitutional History of England. Cambridge: Cam-

bridge University Press, 1908.

Montague, F. C. The Political History of England from the Accession of James I to the

Restoration (1603–1660). 2d ed. New York: Longmans, Green & Co., 1911.

Ogilvie, Sir Charles. King’s Government and the Common Law, 1471–1641. Oxford:

Blackwell, 1958.

Pocock, J. G. A. The Ancient Constitution and the Feudal Law: A Study of English

Historical Thought in the Seventeenth Century. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press, 1957 (new ed. 1987).

Russell, Conrad. “Divine Rights in the Early Seventeenth Century.” In Public Duty

and Private Conscience in Seventeenth Century England: Essays Presented to G. E.

Aylmer, edited by John Morrill, Paul Slack, and Daniel Woolf. Oxford: Clarendon

Press, 1993.

Sourzh, Gerald. “Constitution: Changing Meanings of the Term from the Early Sev-

enteenth to the Late Eighteenth Century.” In Conceptual Change and the Consti-

tution, edited by Terence Ball and J. G. A. Pocock. Lawrence: University Press of

Kansas, 1988.

Tanner, J. R. “Constitutional Questions in the Parliaments of James I.” In English

Constitutional Conﬂicts of the Seventeenth Century, 1603–1689. Cambridge: Cam-

bridge University Press, 1928.

Wormuth, Francis D. The Royal Prerogative, 1603–1649: A Study in English Political

and Constitutional Ideas. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1939.

Selected Readings1350

H. Coke’s Writings and Cases

Bridgman, Richard Whalley. A Short View of Legal Bibliography: Containing Some

Critical Observations on the Authority of the Reporters and Other Law Writers; Col-

lected from the Best Authorities . . . London: W. Reed, 1807.

Gest, John Marshall. “The Writings of Sir Edward Coke.” Yale Law Journal 18 (1909):

504.

———. The Lawyer in Literature. Boston: Boston Book Co., 1913.

Gray, Charles M. Copyhold, Equity, and the Common Law. Harvard Historical Mono-

graphs, vol. 53. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1963.

Hicks, Frederick Charles. Men and Books Famous in the Law. Rochester, N.Y.: The

Lawyers Co-operative Publishing Co., 1921.

Holdsworth, W. S. Sources and Literature of English Law. Oxford: Clarendon Press,

1928.

Ross, Richard J. “The Commoning of the Common Law: The Renaissance Debate

over Printing English Law, 1520–1640.” University of Pennsylvania Law Review 146

(1998): 323.

Siegel, Stephen A. “The Aristotelian Basis of English Law, 1450–1800.” New York

University Law Review 56 (1981): 18.

1. The Reports, Generally

Baker, J. H. “Coke’s Notebooks and the Sources of His Reports.” Cambridge Law

Journal 30 (1972): 59.

———. The Legal Profession and the Common Law: Historical Essays. London: Ham-

bledon Press, 1986.

Dawson, John P. “The Named Reporters (1535–1790).” In Oracles of the Law. Ann

Arbor: University of Michigan Law School, 1968.

Jenkins, David. Eight Centuries of Reports; Or, Eight Hundred Cases Solemnly Adjudged

in the Exchequer Chamber, Or, upon Writs of Error. 4th ed. Edited by Charles Francis

Morrell. Translated by Theodore Barlow. London: H. Sweet & Sons, 1885.

Plucknett, T. F. T. “The Genesis of Coke’s Reports.” In Studies in English Legal History

15 (1985): 190. (First published in Cornell Law Review 17 (1942): 190.)

Sheppard, Steve, “Introduction to the 1826 Edition.” In Edward Coke, The Reports

of Sir Edward Coke in Thirteen Parts. Union, N.J.: Lawbook Exchange, 2002 (re-

print of 1826 edition).

Veerder, Van Vechten. “The English Reports, 1292–1865.” Harvard Law Review 15

(1901): 11.

Worrall, John, ed. The Reports of Sir Edward Coke, Kt., in Verse. Wherein the Name

of Each Case, and the Principal Points, Are Contained in Two Lines. To Which Are

Added, References in the Margin to All the Editions of the Said Reports; and Two Tables,

One of the Names of the Cases, and the Other of the Principal Matters. London: H.

Life, Career, and Legacy 1351

Lintot, 1742. Third edition, edited by J. Wesley Miller, published by William S.

Hein, 1999. (It is not certain, but it is possible that the original verse renderings,

likely enlarged in this edition, are the poetry written by Coke for his children, as

recorded in the Lambeth mss inventory of items seized from Coke’s servant Pepys.

This theory is propounded by Lord Campbell. Campbell Lives of the Chief Justices

I:336 n. The verses are bad enough, and Coke’s ambivalence toward rhyming poets

was strong enough, that it might be true. J. Wesley Miller, the recent editor of the

Reports in Verse, hypothesizes authorship by poet Giles Jacob (1688–1744).)

2. Particular Cases

William Aldred’s Case (9 Reports 57b), p. 308

Coquillette, Daniel R. “Mosses from an Old Manse: Another Look at Some Historic

Property Cases about the Environment.” Cornell Law Review 64 (1979): 761.

Smith, George P. “Nuisance Law: The Morphogenesis of an Historical Revisionist

Theory of Contemporary Economic Jurisprudence.” Nebraska Law Review 74

(1995): 658.

Christianson v. Snohomish Health Dist., 946 P. 2d 768 (Wash. 1997).

Prawner v. Battle Creek Co-op Creamery, 113 N. W. 2d 518 (Neb. 1962).

James Bagg’s Case (11 Reports 93a), p. 404

Gilmore, Michael S. “Standing Law in Idaho: A Constitutional Wrong Turn.” Idaho

Law Review 31 (1995): 509.

Case of the Bankrupts (2 Reports 25a), p. 45

Weisberg, Robert. “Commercial Morality, the Merchant Character, and the History

of the Voidable Preference.” Stanford Law Review 39 (1986): 3.

(Bates’s Case) Customs, Subsidies, and Impositions (12 Reports 33), p. 441

Elkins, Jeremy. “Constitutions and ‘Survivor Stories’: Declarations of Rights.” Uni-

versity of Chicago Law School Roundtable 3 (1996): 243.

Oakley, Francis. “Jacobean Political Theology: The Absolute and Ordinary Powers

of the King.” Journal of the History of Ideas 29 (1968): 323.

Doctor Bonham’s Case (8 Co. Rep. 114), p. 264

Berger, Raoul. “Doctor Bonham’s Case: Statutory Construction or Constitutional

Theory?” University of Pennsylvania Law Review 117 (1969): 521.

Cascarelli, Joseph C. “Is Judicial Review Grounded in and Limited by Natural Law?”

Cumberland Law Review 30 (2000): 373.

Cook, Harold J. “Against Common Right and Reason: The Royal College of Phy-

sicians versus Doctor Thomas Bonham.” American Journal of Legal History 29 (1985):

301.

Selected Readings1352

Gray, Charles M. “Bonham’s Case Reviewed.” Proceedings of the American Philosophical

Society 116 (1972): 35.

Grey, Thomas C. “Origins of the Unwritten Constitution: Fundamental Law in Amer-

ican Revolutionary Thought.” Stanford Law Review 30 (1978): 843.

Michael, Helen K. “The Role of Natural Law in Early American Constitutionalism:

Did the Founders Contemplate Judicial Enforcement of ‘Unwritten’ Individual

Rights?” North Carolina Law Review 69 (1991): 421.

Plucknett, Theodore. “Bonham’s Case and Judicial Review.” Harvard Law Review 40

(1926): 30.

Smith, George P. “Dr. Bonham’s Case and the Modern Signiﬁcance of Lord Coke’s

Inﬂuence.” Washington Law Review 41 (1966): 297.

Thorne, S. E. “Dr. Bonham’s Case.” Law Quarterly Review 54 (1938): 543.

California v. Green, 399 U.S. 149 (1970) (White, J., majority) (Harlan, J., concurring).

Collins v. Dixie Transport, Inc., 543 So. 2d 160 (Miss. 1989).

Dutton v. Evans, 400 U.S. 74 (1970).

McGowan v. Mississippi State Oil & Gas Bd., 604 So. 2d 312 (Miss. 1992).

Calvin’s Case, (7 Reports 1), p. 166

Bogen, David S. “The Individual Liberties Within the Body of the Constitution: A

Symposium: The Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV.” Case Western

Reserve Law Review 37 (1987): 794.

Carey, George W. “Liberty and the Fifth Amendment: Original Intent.” Benchmark

4 (1990): 301.

Flaherty, Martin Stephen. “Note: The Empire Strikes Back: Annesley v. Sherlock and

the Triumph of Imperial Parliamentary Supremacy.” Columbia Law Review 87

(1987): 593.

Heyman, Steven J. “Constitutional Perspectives: The First Duty of Government:

Protection, Liberty, and the Fourteenth Amendment.” Duke Law Journal 41 (1991):

507.

Houston, Michael Robert W. “Note: Birthright Citizenship in the United Kingdom

and the United States: A Comparative Analysis of the Common Law Basis for

Granting Citizenship to Children Born of Illegal Immigrants.” Vanderbilt Journal

of Transnational Law 33 (2000): 693.

Jones, David Martin. “Sir Edward Coke and the Interpretation of Lawful Allegiance

in Seventeenth Century England.” History of Political Thought 7 (1986): 321.

Kettner, James H. The Development of American Citizenship, 1608–1870. Chapel Hill:

University of North Carolina Press, 1978.

McHugh, P. G. “The Common-Law Status of Colonies and Aboriginal ‘Rights’: How

Lawyers and Historians Treat the Past.” Saskatchewan Law Review 61 (1998): 393.

Life, Career, and Legacy 1353

O’Melinn, Liam Seamus. “Note: The American Revolution and Constitutionalism

in the Seventeenth-Century West Indies.” Columbia Law Review 95 (1995): 104.

Price, Polly J. “Natural Law and Birthright Citizenship in Calvin’s Case.” Yale Journal

of Law and the Humanities 9 (1997): 73.

Wheeler, Harvey. “Calvin’s Case (1608) and the McIlwain-Schuyler Debate.” American

Historical Review 61 (1956): 587.

Wilson, James. “Considerations on the Nature and Extent of the Legislative Authority

of the British Parliament.” In James Wilson, The Works of James Wilson. Edited

by Robert McCloskey, vol. 2, p. 726. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1967.

Wroth, L. Kinvin. “Symposium—Law and Civil Society: Part II: Traditional Forms

of Sub-Federal Institutions: Article: Notes for a Comparative Study of the Origins

of Federalism in the United States and Canada.” Arizona Journal of International

and Comparative Law 15 (1998): 93.

Miller v. U.S., 357 U.S. 301 (1958) (Clark, J., dissenting).

Schneider v. Rusk, 377 U.S. 163 (1964) (Clark, J., dissenting).

U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark., 169 U.S. 649 (1898).

Archbishop of Canterbury’s Case (2 Reports 46a), p. 49

Foy, H. Miles. “Some Reﬂections on Legislation, Adjudication, and Implied Private

Actions in the State and Federal Courts.” Cornell Law Review 71 (1986): 501.

Chudleigh’s Case (1 Reports 113b).

Reid, Charles J., Jr. “The Seventeenth-Century Revolution in the English Land Law.”

Cleveland State Law Review 43 (1995): 221.

Cutler v. Dixon (4 Reports 14b), p. 111

Hayden, Paul T. “Reconsidering the Litigator’s Absolute Privilege to Defame.” Ohio

State Law Journal 54 (1993): 985.

Schnapper, Eric. “‘Libelous’ Petitions for Redress of Grievances—BadHistoriography

Makes Worse Law.” Iowa Law Review 74 (1989): 74.

Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (1967).

Murphy v. AA. Matthews, a Div. of CRS Group Engineers, Inc., 841 S.W. 2d 671 (Mo.

1992).

Bruce v. Byrne-Stevens & Associates Engineers, Inc., 776 P. 2d 666 (Wash. 1989).

Floyd and Baker (12 Reports 23), p. 427

State Attorney v. Parrotino, 628 So. 2d 1097 (Fla. 1993).

Selected Readings1354

Fuller’s Case (12 Reports 41), p. 454

Herman, Lawrence. “The Unexplored Relationship Between the Privilege Against

Compulsory Self-Incrimination and the Involuntary Confession Rule (Part I).”

Ohio State Law Journal 53 (1992): 101.

O’Reilly, Gregory W. “England Limits the Right to Silence and Moves Towards an

Inquisitorial System of Justice.” Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 85 (1994):

402.

Randall, Charles H. “Sir Edward Coke and the Privilege Against Self-Incrimination.”

South Carolina Law Quarterly 8 (1955): 417.

Usher, Roland G. “Nicholas Fuller: A Forgotten Exponent of English Liberty.” The

American Historical Review 12 (1907): 743.

Heydon’s Case (3 Reports 7a), p. 78

Larue, L. H. “Special Issue on Legislation: Statutory and Constitutional Interpre-

tation: Statutory Interpretation: Lord Coke Revisited.” University of Pittsburgh Law

Review 48 (1987): 733.

Sinclair, M. B. W. “Statutory Reasoning.” Drake Law Review 46 (1997): 299.

Strauss, Peter L. “The Courts and the Congress: Should Judges Disdain Political

History?” Columbia Law Review 98 (1998): 242.

Thorne, S. E. “The Equity of a Statute and Heydon’s Case.” University of Illinois Law

Review 31 (1936): 202.

Board of Sup’rs of King and Queen County v. King Land Corp., 380 S.E. 2d 895 (Va.

1989).

Conley v. Sousa, 554 S.W. 2d 87 (Ky. 1977).

Northern X-Ray Co., Inc. v. State By and Through Hanson, 542 N.W. 2d 733 (N.D.

1996).

Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (1967) (Douglas, J., dissenting).

Stattner v. City of Caldwell, 727 P. 2d 1142 (Idaho 1986).

Truesdale v. South Carolina Highway Dept., 213 S.E. 2d 740 (S.C. 1975).

Case of the Isle of Ely (10 Reports 141a), p. 378

Bosselman, Fred P. “Limitations Inherent in the Title to Wetlands at Common Law.”

Stanford Environmental Law Journal 15 (1996): 247.

Case De Libellis Famosa (5 Reports 125), p. 145

Mayton, William T. “Seditious Libel and the Lost Guarantee of a Freedom of Ex-

pression.” Columbia Law Review 84 (1984): 91.

Post, Robert C. “Symposium: New Perspectives in the Law of Defamation: The Social

Foundations of Defamation Law: Reputation and the Constitution.” California

Law Review 74 (1986): 691.

Life, Career, and Legacy 1355

Lutrell’s Case (4 Reports 86a).

Bernards v. Link, 248 P. 2d 341 (Or. 1952).

MacKalley’s Case (9 Reports 61b), p. 314

Ker v. State of California, 374 U.S. 23 (1963) (Brennan, J., dissenting).

Marshalsea (10 Reports 68b), p. 314

Noto, Thomas J. “Pulliam v. Allen: Delineating the Immunity of Judges from Pro-

spective Relief.” Catholic University Law Review 34 (1985): 829.

Wladis, John D. “Common Law and Uncommon Events: The Development of the

Doctrine of Impossibility of Performance in English Contract Law.” Georgetown

Law Journal 75 (1987): 1575.

Burnham v. Superior Court of California, County of Marin, 495 U.S. 604 (1990).

Pulliam v. Allen, 466 U.S. 522 (1984) (Powell, J., dissenting).

Ofﬁce of State Attorney, Fourth Judicial Circuit of Florida v. Parrotino, 628 So. 2d 1097

(Fla. 1993).

Case of the Monopolies (11 Reports 84b), p. 394

Corre´, Jacob I. “The Argument, Decision, and Reports of Darcy v. Allen.” Emory

Law Journal 45 (1996): 1261.

Davies, D. Seaborne. “Further Light on the Case of Monopolies.” Law Quarterly

Review 48 (1932): 394.

Miller, Sidney T. “The Case of the Monopolies—Some of Its Results and Sugges-

tions.” Michigan Law Review 6 (1907): 1.

Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Stiffel Co., 376 U.S. 225 (1964).

U.S. v. Line Material Co., 333 U.S. 287 (1948).

Pinnel’s Case (5 Reports 117), p. 144

Teeven, Kevin M. “Development of Reform of the Preexisting Duty Rule and Its

Persistent Survival.” Alabama Law Review 47 (1996): 387.

Premunire (12 Reports 37), p. 447

Raack, David W. “A History of Injunctions in England Before 1700.” Indiana Law

Journal 61 (1986): 539.

Thorne, Samuel E. “Praemunire and Sir Edward Coke.” Huntington Library Quarterly

462 (1938): 85.

The King’s Prerogative in Saltpetre (12 Reports 12).

Novak, William J. “Common Regulation: Legal Origins of State Power in America.”

Hastings Law Journal 45 (1994): 1061.

Selected Readings1356

Proclamations (12 Reports 74), p. 486

Cope, Esther. “Sir Edward Coke and the Proclamations.” American Journal of Legal

History 15 (1971): 215.

McConnell, Michael W. “Tradition and Constitutionalism Before the Constitution.”

University of Illinois Law Review (1998): 173.

Sir Stephen Proctor’s Case (12 Reports 118), p. 494

Barnes, Thomas G. “A Cheshire Seductress, Precedent, and a ‘Sore Blow’ to Star

Chamber.” In On the Laws and Customs of England: Essays in Honor of Samuel E.

Thorne, edited by Morris S. Arnold, et al. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina

Press, 1981.

Prohibitions del Roy (12 Reports 63), p. 478

State ex. rel. Village of Los Ranchos de Albuquerque v. City of Albuquerque, 889 P. 2d

185 (N.M. 1994).

Cincinnati & M.V.R. Co. v. Village of Roseville, 81 N.E. 178 (Ohio 1907).

Rooke’s Case (5 Reports 99), p. 141

Wade, Sir William. Administrative Law. 6th ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988.

Lonner v. Ricks, 212 S.W. 2d 552 (Ark. 1948).

Countess of Rutland’s Case (5 Reports 25b).

Powell, H. Jefferson. “The Original Understanding of Original Intent.” Harvard Law

Review 98 (1985): 885.

Semayne’s Case (5 Reports 91), p. 135

Cuddihy, William J. “The Fourth Amendment: Origins and Original Meaning, 602–

1791.” Ph.D. diss. Claremont Graduate School, 1957.

Cuddihy, William, and B. Carmon Hardy. “A Man’s House Was Not His Castle:

Origins of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.” William

and Mary Quarterly, 3rd. Ser., 37 (1980): 371.

Davies, Thomas Y. “Recovering the Original Fourth Amendment.” Michigan Law

Review 98 (1999): 547.

Goddard, Jennifer M. “Note: The Destruction of Evidence Exception to the Knock

and Announce Rule: A Call for Protection of Fourth Amendment Rights.” Boston

University Law Review 75 (1995): 449.

Sklansky, David A. “The Fourth Amendment and Common Law.” Columbia Law

Review 100 (2000): 1739

Witten, Todd. “Note: Wilson v. Arkansas: Thirty Years After the Supreme Court Ad-

dresses the Knock and Announce Issue.” Akron Law Review 29 (1996): 447.

Life, Career, and Legacy 1357

Com. v. Carlton, 701 A. 2d 148 (Pa. 1997).

Green v. U.S., 355 U.S. 184 (1957) (Scalia, J., concurring).

Johnson v. Com., 189 S.E. 2d 678 (Va. 1972).

Lee v. State, 489 So. 2d 1382 (Miss. 1986).

Miller v. U.S., 357 U.S. 301 (1958).

Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980).

State v. Attaway, 870 P. 2d 103 (N.M. 1994).

State v. Dixon, 924 P. 2d 181 (Haw. 1996).

State v. Ford, 801 P. 2d 754 (Or. 1990).

State v. Thompson, 571 A. 2d 266 (N.H. 1990).

Steagald v. U.S., 451 U.S. 204 (1981).

Wilson v. Arkansas, 514 U.S. 927 (1995).

Shelley’s Case (1 Reports 88b), p. 6

Orth, John V. “Observation: Requiem for the Rule in Shelley’s Case.” North Carolina

Law Review 67 (1989): 681.

Reppy, William A. “Judicial Overkill in Applying the Rule in Shelley’s Case.” Notre

Dame Law Review 73 (1997): 83.

Simpson, A. W. B. “Politics and Law in Elizabethan England, Shelley’s Case (1581).”

In Leading Cases in the Common Law. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995.

Countess of Shrewsbury’s Case (12 Reports 94).

Dutton v. Evans, 400 U.S. 74 (1970).

Blair v. United States, 250 U.S. 273, 279 (1919).

Moss Point Lumber Co. v. Board of Sup’rs of Harrison County, 42 So. 290 (Miss. 1906).

Slade’s Case (4 Reports 91a), p. 116

Baker, J. H. “New Light on Slade’s Case.” Cambridge Law Journal 29 (1971): 51.

Lucke, H. K. “Slade’s Case and the Origin of the Common Counts.” Parts 1–3. Law

Quarterly Review 81, 82 (1965–1966): 422, 539, 81.

Ricks, Val D. “In Defense of Mutuality of Obligation: Why ‘Both Should Be Bound,

or Neither.’” Nebraska Law Review 78 (1999):491.

Simpson, A. W. B. A History of the Common Law of Contract: The Rise of the Action

of Assumpsit. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1975.

———. “The Place of Slade’s Case in the History of Contract.” Law Quarterly Review

74 (1958): 381.

Holt v. Feigenbaum, 419 N.E. 2d 332 (N.Y. 1981).

Town of Westport v. Bossert Corp., 335 A. 2d 297 (Conn. 1973).

In re Traub’s Estate, 92 N.W. 2d 480 (Mich. 1958).

Selected Readings1358

Spencer’s Case (5 Reports 16).

French, Susan F. “Toward a Modern Law of Servitudes: Reweaving the Ancient

Strands.” Southern California Law Review 55 (1982): 55.

Reichman, Uriel. “Symposium Issue: Article: Toward a Uniﬁed Concept of Servi-

tudes.” Southern California Law Review 55 (1982): 1179.

Sutton’s Hospital (10 Reports 1), p. 347

Yeazell, Stephen C. Digging for the Missing Link: From Medieval Group Litigation to

the Modern Class Action. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1987.

Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727 (1972) (Douglas, J., dissenting).

Case of Swans (7 Reports 15), p. 232

Wise, Steven M. “The Legal Thinghood of Nonhuman Animals.” Boston College En-

vironmental Affairs Law Review 23 (1996): 471.

Twyne’s Case (3 Reports 80b).

Clark, Robert. “The Duties of the Corporate Debtor to Its Creditors.” Harvard Law

Review 90 (1977): 505.

Vaux’s Case (4 Reports 44a), p. 112

U.S. v. Scott, 437 U.S. 82 (1978).

Green v. U.S., 355 U.S. 184 (1957) (Frankfurter, J., dissenting).

Vynior’s Case (4 Reports 81).

von Mehren, Robert. “From Vynior’s Case to Mitsubushi: The Future of Arbitration

and Public Law.” Brooklyn International Law Journal (1986): 585.

3. Particular Trials

Sir Walter Raleigh’s Case.

Coote, Stephen. A Play of Passion: The Life of Sir Walter Raleigh. London: Macmillan,

1993.

Graham, Kenneth W. “The Right of Confrontation and the Hearsay Rule: Sir Walter

Raleigh Loses Another One.” Criminal Law Bulletin 8 (1972): 99.

Raleigh, Sir Walter, The Works of Sir Walter Raleigh, Kt., Now First Collected: To Which

Are Preﬁxed the Lives of the Author. Edited by William Oldys and Thomas Birch.

8 vols. Oxford: The University Press, 1829.

State v. Lanam, 459 N.W. 2d 656 (Minn. 1990) (Kelley, J., dissenting).

State v. Smith, 323 S.E. 2d 316 (N.C. 1984) (Martin, J., dissenting).

State v. Faaﬁti, 513 P. 2d 697 (Haw. 1973).

State v. Bailey, 110 S.E. 2d 165 (N.C. 1961).

Life, Career, and Legacy 1359

Essex’s Case.

Hammer, Paul E. J. The Polarisation of Elizabethan Politics: The Political Career of

Robert Devereux, 2nd Earl of Essex, 1585–1597. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press, 1999.

Strachey, Lytton. Elizabeth and Essex: A Tragic History. New York: Harcourt Brace,

1996.

The Gunpowder Plot.

Caraman, Philip. Henry Garnet, 1555–1606 and the Gunpowder Plot. New York: Farrar,

Strauss, & Giroux, 1964.

Fraser, Antonia. Faith and Treason: The Story of the Gunpowder Plot. New York: Dou-

bleday, 1996.

Nicholls, Mark. Investigating the Gunpowder Plot. New York: University of Manchester

Press, 1991 (distributed by St. Martin’s Press).

Ross, Williamson H. The Gunpowder Plot. London: Faber and Faber, 1951.

Somerset’s Case (Overbury murders).

Amos, Andrew. Great Oyer of Poisoning: The Trial of the Earl of Somerset for the Poisoning

of Sir Thomas Overbury, in the Tower of London, and Various Matters Connected

Therewith, etc. London: R. Bentley, 1846.

McElwee, William. The Murder of Sir Thomas Overbury. London: Faber and Faber,

1952.

“Truth Brought to Light by Time.” In Walter Scott, ed., A Collection of Scarce and

Valuable Tracts, on the Most Interesting and Entertaining Subjects: But Chieﬂy Such

as Relate to the History and Constitution of These Kingdoms. (Somers Tracts). 2d ed.

rev., 13 vol., London: T. Cadell, W. Davies, 1809–15.

White, Beatrice. Cast of Ravens: The Strange Case of Sir Thomas Overbury. New York:

George Braziller, Inc., 1965.

Articuli Cleri.

Clanton, Bradley S. “Standing and the English Prerogative Writs: The Original Un-

derstanding.” Brooklyn Law Review 63 (1997): 1001.

Peacham’s Case.

Patterson, D. L. Jr., “Chief Justice Jeffreys and the Law of Treason,” Political Science

Quarterly 20 (1905): 493.

Stewart, Jay. “Servants of Monarchs and Lords: The Advisory Role of Early English

Judges.” American Journal of Legal History 38 (April 1994): 117.

Selected Readings1360

4. The Institutes, Generally

Atkinson, W. A. “The Printing of Coke’s Institutes.” Law Times 162 (1926): 435.

Sheppard, Steve. “Casebooks, Commentaries, and Curmudgeons: An Introductory

History of Law in the Lecture Hall.” Iowa Law Review 78 (1997): 547.

Simpson, A. W. B. “The Rise and Fall of the Legal Treatise: Legal Principles and the

Forms of Legal Literature.” University of Chicago Law Review 48 (1981): 632.

5. Particular Doctrines in The Institutes

Abram, Suzanne L. “Note: Problems of Contemporaneous Construction in State

Constitutional Interpretation.” Brandeis Law Journal 38 (2000): 613.

Arnold, Richard S. “Trial by Jury: The Constitutional Right to a Jury of Twelve in

Civil Trials.” Hofstra Law Review 22 (1993): 1.

Burkhart, Ann M. “Freeing Mortgages of Merger.” Vanderbilt Law Review 40 (1987):

283.

Bush, Jonathan A. “‘You’re Gonna Miss Me When I’m Gone’: Early Modern Com-

mon Law Discourse and the Case of the Jews.” Wisconsin Law Review (1993): 1225.

Christie, George C. “The Uneasy Place of Principle in Tort Law.” SMU Law Review

49 (1996): 525.

Dripps, Donald A. “The Constitutional Status of the Reasonable Doubt Rule.” Cali-

fornia Law Review 75 (1987): 1665.

Fisher, George. “The Jury’s Rise as Lie Detector.” Yale Law Journal 107 (1997): 575.

Gardner, Martin R. “The Mens Rea Enigma: Observations on the Role of Motive

in the Criminal Law Past and Present.” Utah Law Review (1993): 635.

Hafetz, Jonathan L. “Note: The Untold Story of Noncriminal Habeas Corpus and

the 1996 Immigration Acts.” Yale Law Journal 107 (1998): 2509.

Harrison, Jack B. “How Open Is Open? The Development of the Public Access

Doctrine Under State Open Court Provisions.” University of Cincinnati Law Review

60 (1992): 1307.

Lindgren, James. “Blackmail: Morals: The Theory, History, and Practice of the Brib-

ery-Extortion Distinction.” University of Pennsylvania Law Review 141 (1993): 1695.

———. “The Elusive Distinction Between Bribery and Extortion: From the Com-

mon Law to the Hobbs Act.” UCLA Law Review 35 (1988): 815.

Oldham, James C. “The Origins of the Special Jury.” University of Chicago Law Review

50 (1983): 137.

Orth, John V. “Taking from A and Giving to B: Substantive Due Process and the

Case of the Shifting Paradigm.” Constitutional Commentary 14 (1997): 337.

Stephen, Sir James Fitzjames. A History of the Criminal Law of England. 3 vols. London:

MacMillan & Co., 1883.

Tomkovicz, James J. “The Endurance of the Felony-Murder Rule: A Study of the

Forces That Shape Our Criminal Law.” Washington & Lee Law Review 51 (1994):

1429.

Life, Career, and Legacy 1361

Wang, Janice Sue. “Comment: State Constitutional Remedy Provisions and Article

I, Section 10 of the Washington State Constitution: The Possibility of Greater

Judicial Protection of Established Tort Causes of Action and Remedies.” Washington

Law Review 64 (1989): 203.

I. Coke’s Service in Parliament

Christianson, Paul. “Political Thought in Early Stuart England.” Historical Journal

30 (1987): 960.

Cust, Richard. “Charles I, the Privy Council, and the Forced Loan.” Journal of British

Studies 24 (1985): 208.

———. The Forced Loan and English Politics, 1626–1628. Oxford: Oxford University

Press, 1987.

Flemion, J. S. “The Struggle for the Petition of Right in the House of Lords: The

Study of an Opposition Victory.” Journal of Modern History 45 (1973): 193.

Foster, Elizabeth Read. “The Procedure of the House of Commons Against Patents

and Monopolies, 1621–1624.” In Conﬂict in Stuart England: Essays in Honor of

Wallace Notestein, edited by A. W. Aiken and B. D. Henning. New York: Archon

Books, 1960.

———, ed. Proceedings in Parliament 1610. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1966.

Hexter, J. H. “Power Struggle, Parliament, and Liberty in Early Stuart England.”

Journal of Modern History 50 (1978): 1.

Hinton, R. W. K. “The Decline of Parliamentary Government under Elizabeth I and

the Early Stuarts.” Cambridge Historical Journal 13 (1957): 116.

Hirst, Derek. “Elections and the Privileges of the House of Commons in the Early

Seventeenth Century: Confrontation or Compromise?” Historical Journal 18

(1975): 851.

———. The Representative of the People?: Voters and Voting in England Under the Early

Stuarts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975.

Hulme, Harold. “The Winning of Freedom of Speech by the House of Commons.”

The American Historical Review 61 (1956): 825.

Jansson, Maija, and William B. Bidwell. Proceedings in Parliament 1625. New Haven:

Yale University Press, 1987.

Johnson, Robert C., Mary Frear Keeler, Maija Jansson Cole, and William B. Bidwell,

eds. Commons Debates 1628. Yale Center for Parliamentary History. New Haven:

Yale University Press, 1977.

Judson, Margaret Atwood. The Crisis of the Constitution: An Essay in Constitutional

and Political Thought in England, 1603–1645. New Brunswick: Rutgers University

Press, 1949.

Lake, Peter. “Anti-Popery: The Structure of a Prejudice.” In Conﬂict in Early Stuart

England: Studies in Religion and Politics, 1603–1642, edited by Richard Cust and

Ann Hughes. London: Longman, 1989.

Selected Readings1362

Merz, Ruth. “Sir Edward Coke in the Parliament of 1621.” Master’s thesis, Washington

University, 1942.

Mitchell, Williams M. The Rise of the Revolutionary Party in the English House of

Commons, 1603–1629. New York: Columbia University Press, 1957.

Notestein, Wallace, Frances Helen Relf, and Hartley Simpson. Commons Debates,

1621. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1935.

Pocock, J. G. A. “The Commons Debates of 1628.” Journal of the History of Ideas 39

(1978): 329.

Ruigh, Robert E. The Parliament of 1624: Politics and Foreign Policy. HarvardHistorical

Studies, vol. 87. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1971.

Russell, Conrad. Parliaments and English Politics, 1621–1629. Oxford: Clarendon Press,

1979.

———. “Parliamentary History in Perspective, 1604–1629.” In Unrevolutionary En-

gland, 1603–1642. London: Hambledon Press, 1990.

White, Steven D. Sir Edward Coke and “The Grievances of the Commonwealth,” 1621–

1628. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1979.

Willson, David Harris. The Privy Councillors in the House of Commons, 1604–1629.

Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1940.

Zaller, Robert. The Parliament of 1621: A Study in Constitutional Conﬂict. Berkeley:

University of California Press, 1971.

J. Coke’s Views on Parliament and Statutes

Baade, Hans W. “The Casus Omissus: A Pre-History of Statutory Analogy.” Syracuse

Journal of International Law and Commerce 20 (1994): 45.

McIlwain, Charles H. The High Court of Parliament and Its Supremacy. New Haven:

Yale University Press, 1910.

McKay, R. A. “Coke—Parliamentary Supremacy or the Supremacy of the Law?”

Michigan Law Review 22 (1924): 215.

K. Impeachments

Cecil, Henry. Tipping the Scales. London: Hutchinson, 1964.

Hurstﬁeld, Joel. Freedom, Corruption and Government in Elizabethan England. Cam-

bridge: Harvard University Press, 1973.

Marcus, Richard L. “English Common Law: Studies in the Sources: The Tudor Trea-

son Trials: Some Observations on the Emergence of Forensic Themes.” University

of Illinois Law Review (1984): 675.

Noonan, John T. Bribes: The Intellectual History of a Moral Idea. New York: Macmillan,

1984.

Powell, Damian X. “Why Was Sir Francis Bacon Impeached? The Common Lawyers

and the Chancery Revisited: 1621.” History 81 (1996): 511.

Life, Career, and Legacy 1363

Roberts, Clayton. The Growth of Responsible Government in Stuart England. Cam-

bridge: Cambridge University Press, 1966.

Smith, Lacey Baldwin. Treason in Tudor England: Politics and Paranoia. Princeton:

Princeton University Press, 1986.

Snapp, Harry F. “The Impeachment of Roger Maynwaring.” Huntington Library

Quarterly 30 (1966–67): 217.

Tite, Colin G. C. Impeachment and Parliamentary Judicature in Early Stuart England.

London: Athlone Press, 1974.

L. Magna Carta

Ashley, Maurice. Magna Carta in the Seventeenth Century. Charlottesville: University

Press of Virginia, 1965.

Blackstone, William. The Great Charter and Charter of the Forest, with Other Authentic

Instruments, to Which Is Afﬁxed an Introductory Discourse Containing the History of

the Charters. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1759. Reprinted in—.Tracts, Chieﬂy Relating

to the Antiquities and Laws of England. 3d ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1781.

Butterﬁeld, Sir Herbert. The Englishman and His History. Cambridge: The University

Press, 1944.

———. Magna Carta in the Historiography of the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries.

Reading: University of Reading, 1969.

———. The Whig Interpretation of History. New York: W. W. Norton, 1965.

Ely, James W., Jr. “The Oxymoron Reconsidered: Myth and Reality in the Origins

of Substantive Due Process.” Constitutional Commentary 16 (1999): 315.

Goodhart, Arthur L. Law of the Land. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press,

1966.

Hazeltine, H. D. “The Inﬂuence of Magna Carta on American Constitutional De-

velopment.” In Magna Carta Commemoration Essays, edited by Henry Elliot Mal-

den. London: Royal Historical Society, 1917.

Helmholz, R. H. “Magna Carta and the ius commune.” University of Chicago Law

Review 66 (1999): 297.

Holt, J. C. Magna Carta. 2d ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992.

Howard, A. E. Dick. The Road from Runnymede: Magna Carta and Constitutionalism

in America. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1968.

Jennings, Sir Ivor. Magna Carta and Its Inﬂuence in the World Today. London: Central

Ofﬁce of Information, 1965.

Johnson, Samuel. A History and Defence of Magna Charta: Containing a Copy of the

Original Charter at Large, with an English Translation; the Manner of Its Being Ob-

tained from King John, with Its Preservation and Final Establishment in the Succeeding

Reigns. With an Introductory Discourse, Containing a Short Account of the Rise and

Progress of National Freedom, from the Invasion of Caesar to the Present Times. Lon-

don: J. Bell, 1769.

Selected Readings1364

McKencie, W. S. Magna Carta. Glasgow: Malehose & Sons, 1914.

Pallister, Anne. Magna Carta: The Heritage of Liberty. New York: Oxford University

Press, 1971.

Radin, Max. “The Myth of Magna Carta.” Harvard Law Review 60 (1947): 1060.

Sandoz, Ellis, ed. The Roots of Liberty: Magna Carta, the Ancient Constitution, and the

Anglo-American Tradition of Rule of Law. Columbia: University of Missouri Press,

1993. (Including essays by Ellis Sandoz, J. C. Holt, Christopher W. Brooks, Paul

Christianson, John Phillip Reid, and Corrine Comstock Weston.)

Swindler, William F. Magna Carta. New York: Grosset and Dunlap, 1968.

Thompson, Faith. Magna Carta: Its Role in the Making of the English Constitution,

1300–1629. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1948.

Thorne, Samuel, William H. Dunham, Philip B. Kurland, and Sir Ivor Jennings. The

Great Charter: Four Essays on Magna Carta and the History of Our Liberty. New

York: Pantheon, 1965.

M. The Petition of Right

Boynton, Lindsay. “Martial Law and the Petition of Right.” English Historical Review

74 (1959): 23.

Creasy, Sir Edward Shepherd. The Textbook of the Constitution: Magna Charta, the

Petition of Right, and the Bill of Rights. London: Richard Bentley, 1848.

Forster, John. Sir John Eliot: A Biography 1590–1632. London: Longman, Roberts, &

Green, 1864.

Foster, Elizabeth Read. “Printing the Petition of Right.” Huntington Library Quarterly

28 (1974): 81.

Guy, J. A. “The Origins of the Petition of Right Reconsidered.” Historical Journal 25

(1982): 289.

Mosse, George Lachmann. The Struggle for Sovereignty in England, from the Reign of

Queen Elizabeth to the Petition of Right. East Lansing: Michigan State College Press,

1950.

Popofsky, Linda. “Habeas Corpus and ‘Liberty of the Subject’: Legal Arguments for

the Petition of Right in the Parliament of 1628.” The Historian 41 (1979): 257.

Reeve, L. J. “The Legal Status of the Petition of Right.” Historical Journal 29 (1986):

257.

Relf, Frances Helen. “The Petition of Right: Bibliographical Notes for the Parliament

of 1628.” Ph.D. diss., University of Minnesota, 1917.

Schnapper, Eric. “The Parliament of Wonders (Review essay of Johnson, Kealer, Cole,

and Bidwell, eds., Commons Debates 1628).” Columbia Law Review 84 (1984): 1665.

Thompson, Christopher. “The Origins of the Politics of the Parliamentary Middle

Group, 1625–1629.” Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 5th ser., 22 (1972).

Young, Michael B. “The Origins of the Petition of Right Reconsidered Further.”

Historical Journal 27 (1984): 449.

Life, Career, and Legacy 1365

N. Economics

Anderson, Gary M., and Robert D. Tollison. “Barristers and Barriers: Sir Edward

Coke and the Regulation of Trade.” Cato Journal 13 (1993): 49.

McCormack, Wayne. “Economic Substantive Due Process and the Right of Liveli-

hood.” Kentucky Law Journal 82 (1994): 397.

MacPherson, C. B. The Political Theory of Possessive Individualism: Hobbes to Locke.

Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1962.

Malamet, Barbara. “The ‘Economic Liberalism’ of Sir Edward Coke.” Yale Law Journal

76 (1967): 1321.

Reid, Charles J. “The Seventeenth-Century Revolution in the English Land Law.”

Cleveland State Law Review 43 (1995): 221.

Siegan, Bernard H. “Propter Honoris Respectum: Separation of Powers & Economic

Liberties.” Notre Dame Law Review 70 (1995): 415.

Wagner, Donald O. “Coke and the Rise of Economic Liberalism.” Economic History

Review 6 (1935): 30.

———. “The Common Law and Free Enterprise: An Early Case of Monopoly.”

Economic History Review 7, no. 1 (1937): 217.

O. Liberty

Carlyle, Alexander James. Political Liberty. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1941.

Hayek, Friedrich. The Constitution of Liberty. Chicago: University of Chicago Press,

1978.

Hinton, R. W. K. “Government and Liberty under James I.” Cambridge Historical

Journal 11 (1955): 48.

Palmer, Ben W. “Edward Coke: Champion of Liberty.” American Bar Association

Journal 32 (1946): 135.

P. Legacy in England

Berman, Harold J., and Charles J. Reid. “The Transformation of English Legal Sci-

ence: From Hale to Blackstone.” Emory Law Journal 45 (1996): 437.

Care, Henry. English Liberties: Or, The Free-born Subject’s Inheritance. London: G.

Larkin, 1680(?).

Coquillette, Daniel R. “Ideology and Incorporation III: Reason Regulated—The

Post-Restoration English Civilians, 1653–1735.” Boston University Law Review 67

(1987): 289.

Gough, J. W. “Sir Edward Coke.” In Fundamental Law in English History. Oxford:

Oxford University Press, 1955.

Hale, Sir Matthew. The History and Analysis of the Common Law of England: Written

by a Learned Hand. London: J. Nutt, 1713.

Haller, William. Liberty and Reformation in the Puritan Revolution. New York: Co-

lumbia University Press, 1955.

Selected Readings1366

Hanson, Donald W. From Kingdom to Commonwealth: The Development of Civic Con-

sciousness in English Political Thought. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1970.

Jones, William J. Politics and the Bench: The Judges and the Origins of the English Civil

War. London: Allen and Unwin, 1971.

Keeton, George W. Shakespeare’s Legal and Political Background. New York: Barnes

& Noble, 1968. (See chapter four.)

Landon, Michael. The Triumph of the Lawyers: 1678–1689. Tuscaloosa: University of

Alabama Press, 1970.

Levack, Brian P. “Possession, Witchcraft, and the Law in Jacobean England.” Wash-

ington and Lee Law Review 52 (1995): 1613.

Malcolm, Joyce Lee. “Introduction.” In The Struggle for Sovereignty: Eighteenth-

Century English Political Tracts. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 1999. (See also entries

throughout.)

Pocock, J. G. A. “Burke and the Ancient Constitution: A Problem in the History of

Ideas” in Pocock, Politics, Language and Time: Essays on Political Thought and His-

tory. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1989.

Pollard, A. F. The Evolution of Parliament. London: Longman, Green & Co., 1920.

Pollock, Sir Frederic. The Expansion of the Common Law. London: Stevens and Sons,

1904.

Stephenson, Carl, and Frederick George Marcham. Sources of English Constitutional

History: A Selection of Documents from

a.d.

600 to the Present. New York: Harper

& Row, 1937.

Stone, Lawrence. The Causes of the English Revolution, 1529–1642. New York: Harper

& Row, 1972.

Taswell, Langmead, and Thomas Pitt. English Constitutional History from the Teutonic

Conquest to the Present Time. 10th ed. London: Sweet & Maxwell, 1946.

Wood, Thomas. Institutes of the Laws of England. London: E. and R. Nutt and R.

Gosling, 1720.

———. “Some Thoughts Concerning the Study of the Laws of England in the Two

Universities.” In Michael H. Hoeﬂich, ed., The Gladsome Light of Jurisprudence:

Learning the Law in England and the United States in the 18th and 19th Centuries.

New York: Greenwood Press, 1988.

Q. Legacy in the United States

Baade, Hans W. “‘Original Intention’: Raoul Berger’s Fake Antique.” North Carolina

Law Review 70 (1992): 1523.

Baker, Fred A. The Fundamental Law of American Constitutions. Washington, D.C.:

J. Byrne & Co., 1916.

Berger, Raoul. “The Founders’ Views—According to Jefferson Powell.” Texas Law

Life, Career, and Legacy 1367

Review 67 (1989): 1033. (See “Powell” under the Countess of Rutland’s Case, ii.H.2,

above.)

———. “Perspectives on Natural Law: Natural Law and Judicial Review: Reﬂections

of an Earthbound Lawyer.” University of Cincinnati Law Review 61 (1992): 5.

———. “Response: Original Intent: The Rage of Hans Baade.” North Carolina Law

Review 71 (1993): 1151.

Bilder, Mary Sarah, “The Lost Lawyers: Early American Legal Literates and Trans-

atlantic Culture.” Yale Journal of Law and the Humanities 11 (1999): 47.

———. “The Origin of the Appeal in America.” Hastings Law Journal 48 (1997):

913.

Billings, Warren M. “Justices, Books, Laws, and Courts in Seventeenth-Century Vir-

ginia.” Law Library Journal 85 (1993): 277.

Black, Barbara Aronstein. “The Constitution of the Empire: The Case for the Col-

onists.” University of Pennsylvania Law Review 124 (1975–76): 1157.

———. “A Bicentennial Celebration of the Constitution: The Third Circuit Judicial

Conference in Philadelphia: Retrospective View. An Astonishing Political Inno-

vation: The Origins of Judicial Review.” University of Pittsburgh Law Review 49

(1988): 691.

Clark, J. C. D. The Language of Liberty 1660–1732: Political Discourse and Social Dy-

namics in the Anglo-American World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994.

Colburn, Trevor. The Lamp of Experience: Whig History and the Intellectual Origins of

the American Revolution. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 1998.

Coquillette, Daniel R. “First Flower—The Earliest American Law Reports and the

Extraordinary Josiah Quincy Jr. (1744–1775).” Suffolk University Law Review 30

(1996): 1.

———. “Legal Ideology and Incorporation IV: The Nature of Civilian Inﬂuence on

Modern Anglo-American Commercial Law.” Boston University Law Review 67

(1987): 877.

Corwin, Edward S. The Doctrine of Judicial Review: Its Legal and Historical Basis and

Other Essays. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1914.

———. “The Establishment of Judicial Review, I.” Michigan Law Review 11 (1910):

102.

———. “The Establishment of Judicial Review, II.” Michigan Law Review 9 (1911):

283.

———. “The ‘Higher Law’ Background of American Constitutional Law.” Parts 1,

2. Harvard Law Review 42 (1928): 149, 365.

———. The “Higher Law” Background of American Constitutional Law. Ithaca, N.Y.:

Great Seal Books, 1955.

———. Liberty Against Government: The Rise, Flowering and Decline of a Famous

Juridical Concept. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1948.

Selected Readings1368

Curtis, Michael Kent. “Historical Linguistics, Inkblots, and Life after Death: The

Privileges or Immunities of Citizens of the United States.” North Carolina Law

Review 78 (2000): 1071.

Dalzell, George W. Beneﬁt of Clergy in America and Related Matters. Winston-Salem,

N. C.: John F. Blair, 1955.

Ely, James W. Jr. “Comment: Comments on Clinton: Reconsidering the Role of

Natural Law in John Marshall’s Jurisprudence.” John Marshall Law Review 33

(2000): 1141.

Flint, George Lee, Jr. “Secured Transactions History: The Fraudulent Myth.” New

Mexico Law Review 29 (1999): 363.

Geller, Lawrence D., and Peter J. Gomes. The Books of the Pilgrims. New York: Garland

Publishing, 1975.

Greene, Jack P. Peripheries and Center: Constitutional Development in the Extended

Polities of the British Empire and the United States 1607–1788. New York: W. W.

Norton, 1986.

Grey, Thomas C. “Origins of the Unwritten Constitution: Fundamental Law and

American Revolutionary Thought.” Stanford Law Review 30 (1978): 843.

Haines, Charles G. The Revival of Natural Law Concepts: A Study of the Establishment

and of the Interpretation of Limits on Legislatures with Special Reference to the De-

velopment of Certain Phases of American Constitutional Law. Harvard Studies in

Jurisprudence, vol. 4. New York: Russell & Russell, 1965.

Haskins, George Lee. Law and Authority in Early Massachusetts; A Study in Tradition

and Design. New York, Macmillian, 1960.

Healy, Michael P. “Communis Opinio and the Methods of Statutory Interpretation:

Interpreting Law or Changing Law.” William and Mary Law Review 43 (2001) 539.

Hill, Alfred. “The Political Dimension of Constitutional Adjudication.” Southern

California Law Review 63 (1990): 1237.

Koch, William C. “Reopening Tennessee’s Open Courts Clause: A Historical Re-

consideration of Article I, Section 17 of the Tennessee Constitution.” Memphis State

University Law Review 27 (1997): 333.

Kurland, Philip B. “Magna Carta and Constitutionalism in the United States: The

Myth and the Noble Lie.” In The Great Charter: Four Essays on Magna Carta and

the History of Our Liberty, edited by Samuel Thorne, William H. Dunham, Philip

B. Kurland, and Sir Ivor Jennings. New York: Pantheon, 1965.

Lawson, Gary, and Guy Seidman. “Downsizing the Right to Petition.” Northwestern

University Law Review 93 (1999): 739.

Lovejoy, David. The Glorious Revolution in America. New York: Harper Torchbooks,

1974.

McCarthy, Finbarr. “Participatory Government and Communal Property: Two Rad-

Life, Career, and Legacy 1369

ical Concepts in the Virginia Charter of 1606.” University of Richmond Law Review

29 (1995): 327

McConnell, Michael W. “Tradition and Constitutionalism Before the Constitution.”

University of Illinois Law Review (1998): 173.

McDowell, Gary L. “Coke, Corwin, and the Constitution: The ‘Higher Law Back-

ground’ Reconsidered.” The Review of Politics 55 (1993): 393.

McIlwain, Charles H. The American Revolution. New York: Macmillan Co., 1923.

McManus, Edgar J. Law and Liberty in Early New England: Criminal Justice and Due

Process, 1620–1692. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1993.

Mandell, Joshua R. “Comment: Trees That Fall in the Forest: the Precedential Effect

of Unpublished Opinions.” Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review 34 (2000): 1255.

Manning, John F. “Textualism and the Equity of the Statute.” Columbia Law Review

101 (2001): 1.

Massey, Calvin R. “Symposium: Perspective on Natural Law: The Natural Law

Component of The Ninth Amendment,” University of Cincinnati Law Review 61

(1992): 49.

Morris, Richard B. “Massachusetts and the Common Law.” American Historical Re-

view 31 (1926): 443.

Mullett, Charles F. “Coke and the American Revolution.” Economica 12 (1932): 457.

———. Fundamental Law and the American Revolution, 1760–1776. New York: Co-

lumbia University Press, 1933.

———. “The Eighteenth-Century Background of John Marshall’s Constitutional

Jurisprudence.” Michigan Law Review 76 (1978): 893.

Notestein, Wallace. The English People on the Eve of Colonization, 1603–1630. New

York: Harper, 1954.

Penn, William. English Liberties: Or, The Freeborn Subject’s Inheritance. London: G.

Larkin or J. Howe, 1682. (Sometimes attributed to Henry Care.)

———. The Excellent Priviledge of Liberty & Property Being the Birth-Right of the Free-

Born Subjects of England. Philadelphia: William Bradford, 1687.

Pope, Herbert. “The Fundamental Law and the Power of the Courts.” Harvard Law

Review 27 (1913): 45.

Pound, Roscoe. “Common Law and Legislation.” Harvard Law Review 21 (1907): 386.

———. The Formative Era of American Law. Boston: Little, Brown, 1938.

Reid, John Philip. The Briefs of the American Revolution: Constitutional Arguments

Between Thomas Hutchinson, Governor of Massachusetts Bay, and James Bowdoin for

the Council and John Adams for the House of Representatives. New York: New York

University Press, 1981.

———. The Concept of Liberty in the Age of the American Revolution. Chicago: Uni-

versity of Chicago Press, 1988.

Selected Readings1370

———. Constitutional History of the American Revolution. 4 vols. Madison: University

of Wisconsin Press, 1986–1995. (1 vol. abridgment, 1995.)

Reinsch, Paul S. “The English Common Law in the Early American Colonies.” In

Select Essays in Anglo-American Legal History, edited by American Association of

Law Schools. Boston: Little, Brown & Co., 1907.

Riggs, Robert E. “Substantive Due Process in 1791.” Wisconsin Law Review (1990):

941.

Roesler, Shannon M. “Comment: The Kansas Remedy by Due Course of Law Pro-

vision: Deﬁning a Right to a Remedy.” Kansas Law Review 47 (1999): 655.

Rossiter, Clinton. Seedtime of the Republic: The Origin of the American Tradition of

Political Liberty. New York: Harcourt, Brace, 1953.

Schwartz, Paul, Barbara Kern, and R. B. Bernstein. Thomas Jefferson and Bolling v.

Bolling: Law and Legal Profession in Pre-Revolutionary America. San Marino, Calif.:

Huntington Library, 1999.

Schweber, Howard. “The ‘Science’ of Legal Science: The Model of the Natural Sci-

ences in Nineteenth-Century American Legal Education.” Law and History Review

17 (1999): 421.

Scott, Arthur P. “The Constitutional Aspects of the ‘Parson’s Cause.’” Political Science

Quarterly 31 (1916): 558.

Sheppard, Steve, ed. The History of Legal Education in the United States: Commentaries

and Primary Sources. Pasadena: Salem Press, 1998.

Sherry, Suzanna. “The Founders’ Unwritten Constitution.” University of Chicago Law

Review 54 (1987): 1127.

———. “Symposium: Perspective on Natural Law: Natural Law in the States.” Uni-

versity of Cincinnati Law Review 61 (1992): 171.

Stoner, James R. Common Law and Liberal Theory: Coke, Hobbes, and the Origins of

American Constitutionalism. Lawrence: University of Kansas Press, 1992.

Whitman, James Q. “Why Did the Revolutionary Lawyers Confuse Custom and

Reason?” University of Chicago Law Review 58 (1991): 1321.

Wright, Benjamin Fletcher. American Interpretations of Natural Law: A Study in the

History of Political Thought. London: Russell & Russell, 1962.

Zweiben, Beverly. How Blackstone Lost the Colonies: English Law, Colonial Lawyers

and the American Revolution. New York: Garland Publishing, 1990.

Anastasoff v. U. S., 223 F. 3d 898 (8th Cir., 2000) (Arnold, C. J.).

R. Legacy Elsewhere.

Aja Espil, Jorge A. En Los Orı´genes De La Tratadı´stica Constitucional. Buenos Aires:

Abeledo-Perrot, 1968.

Clark, David. “Legal History: The Icon of Liberty: The Status and Role of Magna

Life, Career, and Legacy 1371

Carta in Australian and New Zealand Law.” Melbourne University Law Review 24

(2000): 866.

Parent, Hugues. “Histoire de l’acte Volontaire En Droit Penal Anglais et Canadien.”

McGill Law Journal 45 (2000): 975.

III. Selected Commentaries on Related Matters

A. Coke’s Monarchs and Their Governance

Trevelyan, George Macaulay. England Under the Stuarts. London: Methuen & Co.,

1949.

1. Elizabeth I

Erickson, Carolly. The First Elizabeth. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1997.

Neale, Sir John Ernest. The Elizabethan House of Commons. New Haven: Yale Uni-

versity Press, 1950.

———. Elizabeth I and Her Parliaments, 1584–1601. New York: St. Martin’s Press,

1958.

Nichols, John. The Progresses and Public Processions of Queen Elizabeth. London: J.

Nichols and Son, 1823.

2. James VI and I

James I. “The Trew Law of Free Monarchies (The 1598 Text).” In The Political Works

of James I. 1616. Reprint. Edited by Charles H. McIlwain. Cambridge: Harvard

University Press, 1918. And in James VI and I. Political Writings. Edited by Johann

B. Sommerville. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994.

Nichols, J. B., ed. The Progresses, Processions, and Magniﬁcent Festivities of King James

the First, His Royal Consort, Family, and Court. London: J. B. Nichols, 1828.

Parent, Hugues. “Histoire de l’Acte Volontaire en Droit Penal Anglais et Canadien.”

McGill Law Journal 45 (2000): 975.

Smith, Alan G. R., ed. The Reign of James VI and I. New York: St. Martin’s Press,

1973.

Usher, Roland G. “James I and Sir Edward Coke.” English History Review 18 (1903):

664.

Willson, David Harris. King James VI and I. London: Jonathan Cape, 1956.

3. Charles I

Reeve, L. J. Charles I and the Road to Personal Rule. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press, 1989.

Sharpe, Kevin. The Personal Rule of Charles I. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1993.

Selected Readings1372

B. Rivals, Allies, and Sponsors

1. Sir Francis Bacon

Burch, Charles Nelson. “The Rivals [Coke and Bacon].” Virginia Law Review 14

(1928): 507.

Coquillette, Daniel R. Francis Bacon. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1992.

Du Maurier, Dame Daphne. The Winding Stair: Sir Francis Bacon, His Rise and Fall.

London: Gollancz, 1976.

Jardine, Lisa, and Alan Stewart. Hostage to Fortune: The Troubled Life of Francis Bacon.

New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux, 1999.

Marwil, Jonathan L. The Trials of Counsel: Francis Bacon in 1621. Detroit: Wayne State

University Press, 1976.

Matthews, Nieves. Francis Bacon: The History of a Character Assassination. New Haven:

Yale University Press, 1999.

Peltonen, Makku, ed. The Cambridge Companion to Bacon. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press, 1996.

Spedding, James. An Account of the Life of Francis Bacon, Extracted from the Edition

of His Occasional Writings. New York: Houghton Mifﬂin, 1878.

———. Robert Ellis, and Douglas Heath, eds. The Works of Francis Bacon. 14 vols.

London: Longman, 1857–1874.

Vickers, Brian, ed. Essential Articles for the Study of Francis Bacon. The Essential Article

Series. Hamden, Conn.: Archon Books, 1968.

Zagorin, Perez. Francis Bacon. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1999.

2. Thomas Egerton, Baron Ellesmere

Dawson, John P. “Coke and Ellesmere Disinterred: The Attack on the Chancery in

1616.” University of Illinois Law Review 36 (1936): 127.

Jones, W. J. “Ellesmere and Politics, 1603–1617.” In Early Stuart Studies: Essays in

Honor of David Harris Willson, edited by Howard S. Reinmuth. Minneapolis: Uni-

versity of Minnesota Press, 1970.

Knaﬂa, Louis A. Law and Politics in Jacobean England: The Tracts of Lord Chancellor

Ellesmere. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977.

Plucknett, T. F. T. “Ellesmere on Statutes.” Law Quarterly Review 60 (1944): 242.

3. William Cecil, Lord Burghley

Cecil, William. The Execution of Justice in England. Edited by Robert M. Kingdon.

Folger Shakespeare Library. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1965.

Dennis, George Ravenscroft. The Cecil Family. Boston: Houghton Mifﬂin, 1914.

Graves, Michael A. R. Burghley: William Cecil, Lord Burghley. New York: Longman,

1998.

Life, Career, and Legacy 1373

Hickes, Sir Michael. The “Anonymous Life” of William Cecil, Lord Burghley. Edited

by Alan G. R. Smith. Lewiston, N.Y.: E. Mellen Press, 1990.

Read, Conyers. Lord Burghley and Queen Elizabeth. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1960.

4. Robert Cecil, Earl of Salisbury

Cecil, Algernon. A Life of Robert Cecil, First Earl of Salisbury. London: J. Murray, 1915.

Handover, P. M. The Second Cecil: The Rise to Power, 1563–1604, of Sir Robert Cecil,

Later First Earl of Salisbury. London: Eyre & Spottiswoode, 1959.

Haynes, Alan Robert. Cecil, Earl of Salisbury, 1563–1612: Servant of Two Sovereigns.

London: P. Owen, 1989.

5. John Selden

Berkowitz, David Sandler. John Selden’s Formative Years: Politics and Society in Early

Seventeenth-Century England. Washington, D.C.: Folger Shakespeare Library, 1988.

Christianson, Paul. Discourse on History, Law, and Governance in the Public Career of

John Selden, 1610–1635. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1996.

———. “The Five Knights’ Case, and Discretionary Imprisonment in Early Stuart

England.” Criminal Justice History 6 (1985): 65.

———. “Young John Selden and the Ancient Constitution, ca. 1610–18.” Proceedings

of the American Philosophical Society 128 (1984): 271.

Selden, John. Opera Omnia, tam Edita quem Inedita. Collegit ac Recensuit VitaAuctoris,

Praefationes Indices Adjecit. Edited by David Wilkins. 6 vols. London: J. Walthoe

[and others], 1726.

6. Sir John Davies

Klemp, P. J. Fulke Greville and Sir John Davies: A Reference Guide. Boston: G. K. Hall,

1985.

Pawlisch, Hans S. “Sir John Davies, the Ancient Constitution, and Civil Law.” History

Journal 23 (1980): 689.

Sanderson, James L. Sir John Davies. Boston: Twayne Publishers, 1975.

7. Sir Christopher Hatton

Brooks, Eric St. John. Sir Christopher Hatton: Queen Elizabeth’s Favourite. London:

J. Cape, 1946.

Vines, Alice Gilmore. Neither Fire Nor Steel: Sir Christopher Hatton. Chicago: Nelson-

Hall, 1978.

8. Lady Elizabeth Hatton

Disraeli, Isaac. “Domestic History of Sir Edward Coke.” In Curiosities of Literature.

New York: J. Widdleton, 1872. (Contains transcripts of a defense of Lady Hatton

that may be the work of Francis Bacon.)

Selected Readings1374

Norsworthy, Laura. The Lady of Bleeding Heart Yard: Lady Elizabeth Hatton, 1578–

1646. New York: Harcourt, Brace & Co., 1936.

Turner, Jesse. “Concerning Divers Notable Stirs Between Sir Edward Coke and His

Lady.” American Law Review 51 (1917): 883.

9. Roger Williams

Carpenter, Edmund James. Roger Williams: A Study of the Life, Times and Character

of a Political Pioneer. New York: Grafton Press, 1909. Reprint. Freeport, N.Y.: Books

for Libraries Press, 1972.

Covey, Cyclone. The Gentle Radical: A Biography of Roger Williams. New York: Mac-

millan, 1966.

Eberle, Edward J. “Roger Williams’ Gift: Religious Freedom in America.” Roger Wil-

liams University Law Review 4 (1999): 425.

Felker, Christopher D. “Roger Williams’ Uses of Legal Discourse: Testing Authority

in Early New England.” The New England Quarterly 63 (1990): 624.

Hall, Timothy D. Separating Church and State: Roger Williams and Religious Liberty.

Bloomington: University of Illinois Press, 1998.

Miller, Perry. Roger Williams: His Contribution to the American Tradition.Indianapolis:

Bobbs-Merrill, 1953.

Williams, Roger. The Correspondence of Roger Williams. Edited by Glenn W. La-

Fantasie. Hanover: Brown University Press, 1988.

10. Coke’s Heirs

Coke, Roger. A Detection of the Court and State of England During the Four Last Reigns,

and the Inter-Regnum: Consisting of Private Memoirs, &c., with Observations and

Reﬂections: Also an Appendix Discovering the Present State of the Nation. in Two

Volumes London, 1694.

———. A Survey of the Politicks of Mr. Thomas White, Thomas Hobbs, and Hugo

Grotius Also, Elements of Power & Subjection, Or, the Causes of Humane, Christian,

and Legal Society. London: Printed for G. Bedell and T. Collins, 1662.

———. A Supplement to the First Edition of the Detection of the Court and State of

England During the Four Last Reigns and the Inter-regnum: Containing Many Secrets

Never Before Made Publick: as Also a More Impartial Account of the Civil Wars in

England than Has Yet Been Given. London: Printed for Andrew Bell, 1696.

———. Justice Vindicated from the False Focus Put upon it by Thomas White, Gent.,

Thomas Hobbs, and Hugo Grotius. And Also Elements of Power & Subjection Wherein

Is Demonstrated the Cause of All Humane, Christian and Legal Society, London: G.

Bedell and T. Collins, 1660.

Longueville, Thomas. The Curious Case of Lady Purbeck; A Scandal of the XVIIth

Life, Career, and Legacy 1375

Century. London: Longmans, Green, & Co., 1909. (The story of Coke’s daughter

Frances.)

Stirling, A. M. W. Coke of Norfolk, and His Friends: The Life of Thomas William Coke.

London: J. Lane, 1912.

C. Selected Early Criticism

Brooke, Sir Robert. The Reading of M. Robert Brook, Serjeant of the Law, and Recorder

of London, upon the Stat. of Magna Charta, Chap. 16. London: M. Flesher and R.

Young, 1641.

Egerton, Thomas (Baron Ellesmere and Viscount Brackley). The Lord Chancellor Eger-

ton’s Observations on the Lord Coke’s Reports: Particularly in the Debate of Causes

Relating to the Right of the Church; the Power of the King’s Prerogative; the Jurisdiction

of Courts; Or, the Interest of the Subject. London: B. Lintott, 1710(?). Reprinted in

Knaﬂa, Law and Politics in Jacobean England, listed above in section III.B.2.

Fulbecke, William. A Parallele or Conference of the Civil Law, the Canon Law, and the

Common Law of this Realme of England. London: Company of Stationers, 1618.

Hobart, Sir Henry. The Reports of that Reverend and Learned Judge, The Right Honorable

Sr. Henry Hobart Knight and Baronet, Lord Chief Justice of His Majesty’s Court of

Common Pleas; and Chancellor of both Their Highnesses Henry and Charles, Princes

of Wales, 1603–1625. 5th ed. Edited by Edward Chilton. London: E. and R. Nut

and R. Gosling, 1724. (Chief Justice Hobart’s ruling in the 1614 case, Day v. Savage,

holds, “Because even an Act of Parliament, made against natural equity, as to make

a man Judge in his own case, is void in itself, for Jura natura sunt immutabilia,

and they are leges legum.”)

Hobbes, Thomas. Dialogue Between a Philosopher and a Student of the Common Law

of England. Edited by Joseph Cropsey. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1971.

De Vere, Edward (Earl of Oxford). “Some Notes and Observations upon the Statute

of Magna Charta, Chapter 29, and Other Statutes Concerning the Proceedings in

the Chancery ...,1615–1616.” MS. 1031, Manuscript in Harvard Law School De-

partment of Special Collections, Cambridge.

Parsons, Robert. An Answere To The Fifth Part Of Reportes Lately set forth by Syr Edward

Cooke, Knight, the Kinge´s Attorney Generall. Concerning The Ancient & Moderne

Municipall lawes of England, which do Apperteyne to Spirituall Power & Iurisdiction.

By Occasion Whereof, & of the Principall Question set downe in the Sequent page,

there is laid forth an Evident, Plaine & Perspicuous. Demonstration of the Continuance

of Catholicke Religion in England, from our ﬁrst Kinges christened, Unto these dayes.

St. Omer, France: English College Press, 1606.

———. A Quiet and Sober Reckoning With M. Thomas Morton Somewhat Set in Choler

by His Aduersary P. R.: Concerning Certaine Imputations of Wilfull Falsities Obiected

to the Said T. m. in a Treatise of P. R. Intituled of Mitigation, Some Part Wherof He

Selected Readings1376

Hath Lately Attempted to Answere in a Large Preamble to a More Ample Reioynder

Promised by Him. But Here in the Meane Space the Said Imputations Are Iustiﬁed,

and Conﬁrmed, & with Much Increase of New Untruthes on His Part Returned Upon

Him Againe: So as Finally the Reckoning Being Made, the Verdict of the Angell, In-

terpreted by Daniel, Is Veriﬁed of Him. There Is Also Adioyned a Peece of a Reckoning

with Syr. Edward Cooke, Now L. Chief Iustice of the Comon Pleas, about a Nihil

Dicit, & Some Other Points Uttered by Him in Two Late Preambles, to His Sixt and

Seauenth Partes of Reports. St. Omer, France: English College Press, 1609.

Prynne, William. Brief Animadversions On, Amendments Of, & Additional Explanatory

Records To, the Fourth Part of the Institutes of the Lawes of England, Concerning the

Jurisdiction of Courts: Compiled by the Late Famous Lawyer, Sir Edward Cooke,

Knight, Wherein the Misquotations, Mistakes of Records, Antiquities Cited in Them

Are Rectiﬁed, Some Doubtful Passages Explained, Many Defective Omissions of Usefull

Records Supplyed ...:theTranscripts of Which Records out of The Originals, Are at

Large Inserted, Many Others Chronologically and Brieﬂy Quoted: with Several Tables

Thereunto. . . . London: Thomas Ratcliffe and Thomas Daniel, 1669.

———. Irenarches redivivus, Or, A briefe collection of sundry usefull and necessary statutes

and petitions in Parliament (not hitherto published in print, but extant onely in the

Parliament Rolls) concerning the necessity, utility, institution, qualiﬁcation,jurisdiction,

ofﬁce, commission, oath, and against the causlesse, clandestine dis-commissioning of

Justices of Peac ﬁt to be publikely known and observed in these reforming times.: With

some short deductions and a touch of the antiquity and institution of assertors and

justices of peace in other forraign kingdomes. / Together with a full refutation of Sir

Edward Cooks assertion, and the commonly received erronious opinion, of a difference

between ordinances and Acts of Parliament in former age here cleerly manifested to be

then but one and the same in all respects, and in point of the threefold assent. Published

for the common good, by William Prynne of Lincolns-Inne. London: for Michael Spark

at the Bible in Green-Arbor, 1648.

Zouch, Richard. The Jurisdiction of the Admiralty of England Asserted, Against Sr. Ed-

ward Coke’s Articuli Admiralitatis, in XXII Chapter of His Jurisdiction of Courts.

London: F. Tyton and T. Dring, 1663.

IV. Noteworthy Mentions

Allen, Carleton Kemp. Law in the Making. 7th ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1964.

Baker, J. H. An Introduction to English Legal History. 3d ed. London: Butterworths,

1990.

Bendix, Reinhard. Kings or People: Power and the Mandate to Rule. Berkeley: University

of California Press, 1978.

Life, Career, and Legacy 1377

Friedrich, Carl Joachim. The Philosophy of Law in Historical Perspective. 2d. ed. Chi-

cago: University of Chicago Press, 1958.

Gardiner, Samuel R. History of England from the Accession of James I to the Outbreak

of the Civil War, 1603–1642. 10 vols. London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1884.

Helgerson, Richard. Forms of Nationhood: Elizabethan Writings of England. Chicago:

University of Chicago Press, 1992.

Hill, Christopher. Society and Puritanism in Pre-Revolutionary England. New York:

Schocken Books, 1964.

Hirst, Derek. Authority and Conﬂict: England, 1603–1625. Cambridge: Harvard Uni-

versity Press, 1986.

Kantorowicz, Ernst H. The King’s Two Bodies: A Study in Medieval Political Theology.

Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1957.

McWhirter, Darien A. The Legal 100: A Ranking of the Individuals Who Have Most

Inﬂuenced the Law. Secaucus, N.J.: The Citadel Press, 1998.

Plucknett, Theodore F. T. A Concise History of the Common Law. Rochester, N.Y.:

Lawyers Co-operative Publishing Company, 1929.

Pound, Roscoe, and Theodore F. T. Plucknett. Readings on the History and System of

the Common Law. Rochester: Lawyers Co-operative Publishing Company, 1927.

Radin, Max. Handbook of Anglo-American Legal History. St. Paul: West Publishing

Co., 1936.

Schwartz, Bernard. The American Heritage History of Law in America. New York:

McGraw Hill, 1974.

Smith, Alan G. R. The Emergence of a Nation State: The Commonwealth of England

1529–1660. London: Longman Group, 1984.

Sommerville, J. P. Politics and Ideology in England, 1603–1640. Harlow: Longmans,

1986.

Thatcher, Rt. Hon. Baroness Margaret. The Rule of Law in a Dangerous World. Wash-

ington, D.C.: National Legal Center for the Public Interest, 1994.

Turner, Edward Raymond. The Privy Council of England in the Seventeenth and Eigh-

teenth Centuries, 1603–1784. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1927.

Wootton, David, ed. Divine Right and Democracy: An Anthology of Political Writing

in Stuart England. London: Penguin, 1986.

Wormser, Rene A. The Story of the Law and the Men Who Made It—From the Earliest

Times to the Present. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1962.

Table of Regnal Years

Rulers in England Prior to the Conquest

Kings of Kent

Hencgest c. 455–488

Oeric (Oisc) c. 488–512

Eormenric c. 512–560

Æthelberht I c. 560 or 585–616

Eadbald 616–640

Earconberht 640–664

Ecgberht I 664–673

Hlothhere 673–685

Eadric 685–686

Oswine 689–690

Swæfheard & Wihtred 690–692

Wihtred 692–725

Kings of West Kent

Eadberht I 725–748

Eardwulf 748–762

Sigered 762–c. 764

Ecgberht II c. 764

Kings of East Kent

Æthelberht II 725–762

Eadberht II 762–c. 764

1. Dates are drawn from C. R. Cheney, A Handbook of Dates For Students of British History, (rev. M.

Jones) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000; E. B. Fryde et al., eds. Handbook of BritishChronology,

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996.

Table of Regnal Years1380

Eanmund c. 764

Heahberht 765

Kings of Kent

Æthelbald (Mercia) 716–757

Offa (Mercia) 757–776

Ecgberht II c. 779

Ealhmund c. 784

Offa (Mercia) (again) c. 784 or 785–796

Eadberht Præn 796–798

Cuthred 798–807

Baldred 821–825

Then ruled by Wessex.

Kings of Northumbria

Kings of Deira

Ælle c. 560–588 or 590

Æthelric (of Bernicia) 588 or 590–593

Edwin 616–633

Osric 633–634

Oswald 634–642

Oswine 642 or 643–651

Oswiu 651–670

Then ruled by Scandinavian York.

Kings of Bernicia

Ida c. 547–559 or 560

Glappa 559 or 560

Adda 560–568

Æthelric 568–572

Theodric 572–579

Frithuwald 579–585

Hussa 585–592

Æthelfrith 592–616

Eanfrith 633 or 634–634

Oswald 634–642

Oswiu 642–670

Then ruled by Northumbria.

Table of Regnal Years 1381

Kings of the Northumbrians

Ecgfrith 670–685

Aldfrith 686–705

Eadwulf 705 or 706

Osred I 706–716

Coenred (Cenred) 716–718

Osric ? 718–729

Ceolwulf 729–737

Eadberht 737–758

Oswulf 758–759

Æthelwald Moll 759–765

Alhred 765–774

Æthelred I 774–778 or 779

Ælfwald I 778 or 779–788

Osred II 778–790

Æthelred I (again) 790–796

Osbald 796

Eardwulf 796–806

Ælfwald II 806–808

Eardwulf (again) 808–810

Eanrad (Eanred) 810–840 or 841

Æthelred II 840 or 841–844

Rædwulf 844

Æthelred II (again) 844–848 or 849

Osberht 848 or 849–862 or 863

Ælle 862 or 863–867

Osberht (again) 867

Ecgberht I 867–872

Ricsige 873–876

Ecgberht II 876–878

Eadwulf of Bamburgh 878–913

Aldred 913–927

Then ruled by Scandinavian York.

Rulers of the Scandinavian Kingdom of York

Halfdan I 875 or 876–877

Guthfrith 883–895

Sigfrith (Sievert, Sigfred) 895

Table of Regnal Years1382

Cnut (Knutr) c. 895 or 901–unknown

Æthelwold c. 899–c. 903

Halfdan II unknown–910

Eowils (Ecwils) 910

Ragnald I (Ragnall I) c. 914–920

Sihtric II Caech (Sigtryggr

Caech)

c. 920–927

Olaf I (Anlaf I, Olafr I) Cuaran

(Guthfrithsson)

927 ?

Guthfrith II 927

Athelstan, k. of English 927–939

Olaf II Guthfrithson 939–941

Olaf I Cuaran (again) 941–944

Ragnald II Guthfrithson 943–944

(Edmund, k. of English 944–946)

(Eadred, k. of English 946–947)

Eric Bloodaxe 947–948

Eadred 948–950

Olaf I Cuaran (again) c. 949–952

Eric Bloodaxe (again) 952–954

Then ruled by Wessex.

Kings of Mercia

Cearl c. 600

Penda 626 or 623–655

Wulfhere c. 658–675

Æthelred 675–704

Coenred 704–c. 709

Ceolred 709–716

Æthelbald 716–757

Beornred 757

Offa 757–796

Ecgfrith 796

Coenwulf (Cenwulf) 796–821

Coelwulf I 821–823

Beornwulf 823–825

Ludeca 825–827

Wiglaf 827–840

Table of Regnal Years 1383

Berhtwulf 840–852

Burgred 852–873 or 874

Ceolwulf II 874–879

Æthelred (Ealdorman)

(Anglo-Saxon)

c. 880–911

Æthelﬂæd (Anglo-Saxon) 911–918

Ælfwyn (Anglo-Saxon) 918

Then ruled by Wessex.

Rulers of the Hwicce (Worcester)

Eanhere c. 660s

Eanfrith c. 660s

Osric c. 670s–680s

Oshere c. 690s–716

Æthelheard after 709

Æthelweard after 706–716

Æthelric c. 736

Eanberht c. 755–759

Uhtred c. 755–777 or 779

Ealdred (Aldred) c. 755–778

Then ruled partly by Wessex, partly by Angles, then by Mercia.

Kings of Lindsey

Aldfrith, son of Eata c. 786–796

Usually subject to Northumbria.

Kings of the East Angles

Rædwald c. 616 to 627

Earpwald c. 616 to 627 or 628

Richberht 627 or 628

Sigeberht 630 or 631

Ecgric c. 630

Anna before 654

Æthelhere 654

Æthelwald before 664

Aldwulf 663 or 664–713

Table of Regnal Years1384

Ælfwald 713–749

Hun, Beonna, & Æthelberht I after 749

Æthelberht II after 794

Eadwald c. 800

Æthelstan (Guthrum)

(Scandinavian)

c. 830 to 845

Æthelweard c. 845 to 855

Edmund c. 855–869

Æthelred c. 875

Oswald c. 875

Then ruled by Scandinavians, then Wessex from 917.

Scandinavian Kings of East Anglia

Guthrum (Æthelstan) c. 879 or 880–890

Eohric before 902

Kings of the South Saxons (Sussex)

Ælle c. 477–after 491

Æthelwalh c. 674–682

Nothhelm (Nunna) c. 692–714

Watt c. 692–700

Æthelstan c. 714

Æthelberht c. 714 to 733–747 to 770

Oswald ? before 772

Osmund ? c. 760–770 to 772

Oslac c. 760–780

Ealdwulf c. 760–790 to 798

Ælfwald c. 760–772

Then ruled by others, then by Wessex.

Kings of the East Saxons (Essex)

Sæberht (Saba) c. 604–616 or 617

Seaxred c. 616 or 617–c. 617

Sæweard c. 616 or 617–c. 617

Sigeberht I (parvus) c. 616 or 617–before? 635

Sigeberht II (sanctus) c. before? 653 to before 664

Table of Regnal Years 1385

Swithelm c. 653 to 664–c. 664

Swithfrith ? c. 664

Sigehere c. 664–690

Sebbi c. 664–c. 694

Sigeheard c. 694–c. 705

Swæfred c. 694–d. 704

Offa c. 694? to 709–709

Swæfberht c. 709–738

Selered c. 738–746

Swithred c. 746

Sigeric I before 798

Sigered c. 798–c. 823

Sigeric II ? c. 825

Then ruled by Wessex.

Kings of the West Saxons (Wessex)

Cerdic 519–534

Cynric 534–560

Ceawlin 560–593

Ceol 591–597

Ceolwulf 597–611

Cynegils 611–642

Cenwealh 642–672

Seaxburh (queen) 672–674

Æscwine 674–676

Centwine 676–685

Cædwalla 685–688

Ine 688–726

Æthelheard 726–740

Cuthred 740–756

Sigeberht 756–757

Cynewulf 757–786

Beorhtric 786–802

Ecgberht 802–839

Æthelwulf 839–858

Æthelberht 858–865

Æthelred I 865–871

Alfred the Great after 871–899

Table of Regnal Years1386

Edward the Elder after 899–924

Ælfwerd (Wessex) 924

Æthelstan after 924–939

A Note on Arthur, King of the Britons

Coke believed some of the legends of King Arthur as the historical truth, as did his

contemporaries such as Camden. In the ninth Reports, he notes Arthur’s reign as in

516, describing the scope of The Mirrour but perhaps relying on histories of William

of Malmesbury or Geoffrey de Monmouth, which he owned. Malory’s Le Morte

D’Arthur had been printed by Caxton in 1485, but Coke did not list it in his library.

For more on the origins of the Arthurian legends, see Thomas Malory, Le Morte

Darthur: The Winchester Manuscript, Helen Cooper, ed., Oxford: Oxford University

Press, 1998.

Kings of the English, 927–1066

Æthelstan 927–939

Edmund I 939–946

Eadred 946–955

Eadwig 955–959

Edgar I 959–July 975

Edward I the Martyr 975–978

Æthelred II the Unready 978–1013

Swein (Swegn) Forkbeard 1013–1014

Æthelred II (again) 1014–1016

Edmund II Ironside 1016

Cnut 1016–1035

Harthacnut & Harold 1035–1037

Harold I Harefoot 1037–1040

Harthacnut 1040–1042

Edward II the Confessor 1042–1066

Harold II Godwinesson 1066

Edgar II the Ætheling not crowned

Then ruled by Normans.

Table of Regnal Years 1387

Regnal Years, from the Conquest to 1154

William I of Normandy (the Conqueror)

Regnal Year Begins a.d.

1 Wil. 1 Dec. 25, 1066

2 Wil. 1 Dec. 25, 1067

3 Wil. 1 Dec. 25, 1068

4 Wil. 1 Dec. 25, 1069

5 Wil. 1 Dec. 25, 1070

6 Wil. 1 Dec. 25, 1071

7 Wil. 1 Dec. 25, 1072

8 Wil. 1 Dec. 25, 1073

9 Wil. 1 Dec. 25, 1074

10 Wil. 1 Dec. 25, 1075

11 Wil. 1 Dec. 25, 1076

12 Wil. 1 Dec. 25, 1077

13 Wil. 1 Dec. 25, 1078

14 Wil. 1 Dec. 25, 1079

15 Wil. 1 Dec. 25, 1080

16 Wil. 1 Dec. 25, 1081

17 Wil. 1 Dec. 25, 1082

18 Wil. 1 Dec. 25, 1083

19 Wil. 1 Dec. 25, 1084

20 Wil. 1 Dec. 25, 1085

21 Wil. 1 Dec. 25, 1086

William II (Rufus)

Regnal Year Begins a.d.

1 Wil. 2 Sep. 26, 1087

2 Wil. 2 Sep. 26, 1088

3 Wil. 2 Sep. 26, 1089

4 Wil. 2 Sep. 26, 1090

5 Wil. 2 Sep. 26, 1091

6 Wil. 2 Sep. 26, 1092

7 Wil. 2 Sep. 26, 1093

8 Wil. 2 Sep. 26, 1094

9 Wil. 2 Sep. 26, 1095

Table of Regnal Years1388

10 Wil. 2 Sep. 26, 1096

11 Wil. 2 Sep. 26, 1097

12 Wil. 2 Sep. 26, 1098

13 Wil. 2 Sep. 26, 1099

Henry I

Regnal Year Begins a.d.

1 Hen. 1 Aug. 5, 1100

2 Hen. 1 Aug. 5, 1101

3 Hen. 1 Aug. 5, 1102

4 Hen. 1 Aug. 5, 1103

5 Hen. 1 Aug. 5, 1104

6 Hen. 1 Aug. 5, 1105

7 Hen. 1 Aug. 5, 1106

8 Hen. 1 Aug. 5, 1107

9 Hen. 1 Aug. 5, 1108

10 Hen. 1 Aug. 5, 1109

11 Hen. 1 Aug. 5, 1110

12 Hen. 1 Aug. 5, 1111

13 Hen. 1 Aug. 5, 1112

14 Hen. 1 Aug. 5, 1113

15 Hen. 1 Aug. 5, 1114

16 Hen. 1 Aug. 5, 1115

17 Hen. 1 Aug. 5, 1116

18 Hen. 1 Aug. 5, 1117

19 Hen. 1 Aug. 5, 1118

20 Hen. 1 Aug. 5, 1119

21 Hen. 1 Aug. 5, 1120

22 Hen. 1 Aug. 5, 1121

23 Hen. 1 Aug. 5, 1122

24 Hen. 1 Aug. 5, 1123

25 Hen. 1 Aug. 5, 1124

26 Hen. 1 Aug. 5, 1125

27 Hen. 1 Aug. 5, 1126

28 Hen. 1 Aug. 5, 1127

29 Hen. 1 Aug. 5, 1128

30 Hen. 1 Aug. 5, 1129

31 Hen. 1 Aug. 5, 1130

32 Hen. 1 Aug. 5, 1131

Table of Regnal Years 1389

33 Hen. 1 Aug. 5, 1132

34 Hen. 1 Aug. 5, 1133

35 Hen. 1 Aug. 5, 1134

36 Hen. 1 Aug. 5, 1135

Stephen

Regnal Year Begins a.d.

1 Steph. Dec. 22, 1135

2 Steph. Dec. 22, 1136

3 Steph. Dec. 22, 1137

4 Steph. Dec. 22, 1138

5 Steph. Dec. 22, 1139

6 Steph. Dec. 22, 1140

7 Steph. Dec. 22, 1141

8 Steph. Dec. 22, 1142

9 Steph. Dec. 22, 1143

10 Steph. Dec. 22, 1144

11 Steph. Dec. 22, 1145

12 Steph. Dec. 22, 1146

13 Steph. Dec. 22, 1147

14 Steph. Dec. 22, 1148

15 Steph. Dec. 22, 1149

16 Steph. Dec. 22, 1150

17 Steph. Dec. 22, 1151

18 Steph. Dec. 22, 1152

19 Steph. Dec. 22, 1153

Regnal Years, from their Regularization,

Commencing 1154, to 1648

Henry II

Regnal Year Begins a.d.

1 Hen. 2 Dec. 19, 1154

2 Hen. 2 Dec. 19, 1155

3 Hen. 2 Dec. 19, 1156

4 Hen. 2 Dec. 19, 1157

Table of Regnal Years1390

5 Hen. 2 Dec. 19, 1158

6 Hen. 2 Dec. 19, 1159

7 Hen. 2 Dec. 19, 1160

8 Hen. 2 Dec. 19, 1161

9 Hen. 2 Dec. 19, 1162

10 Hen. 2 Dec. 19, 1163

11 Hen. 2 Dec. 19, 1164

12 Hen. 2 Dec. 19, 1165

13 Hen. 2 Dec. 19, 1166

14 Hen. 2 Dec. 19, 1167

15 Hen. 2 Dec. 19, 1168

16 Hen. 2 Dec. 19, 1169

17 Hen. 2 Dec. 19, 1170

18 Hen. 2 Dec. 19, 1171

19 Hen. 2 Dec. 19, 1172

20 Hen. 2 Dec. 19, 1173

21 Hen. 2 Dec. 19, 1174

22 Hen. 2 Dec. 19, 1175

23 Hen. 2 Dec. 19, 1176

24 Hen. 2 Dec. 19, 1177

25 Hen. 2 Dec. 19, 1178

26 Hen. 2 Dec. 19, 1179

27 Hen. 2 Dec. 19, 1180

28 Hen. 2 Dec. 19, 1181

29 Hen. 2 Dec. 19, 1182

30 Hen. 2 Dec. 19, 1183

31 Hen. 2 Dec. 19, 1184

32 Hen. 2 Dec. 19, 1185

33 Hen. 2 Dec. 19, 1186

34 Hen. 2 Dec. 19, 1187

35 Hen. 2 Dec. 19, 1188

Richard I

Regnal Year Begins a.d.

1 Ric. 1 Sep. 3, 1189

2 Ric. 1 Sep. 3, 1190

3 Ric. 1 Sep. 3, 1191

Table of Regnal Years 1391

4 Ric. 1 Sep. 3, 1192

5 Ric. 1 Sep. 3, 1193

6 Ric. 1 Sep. 3, 1194

7 Ric. 1 Sep. 3, 1195

8 Ric. 1 Sep. 3, 1196

9 Ric. 1 Sep. 3, 1197

10 Ric. 1 Sep. 3, 1198

John

Regnal Year Begins a.d.

1 John May 27, 1199

2 John May 18, 1200

3 John May 3, 1201

4 John May 23, 1202

5 John May 15, 1203

6 John June 3, 1204

7 John May 19, 1205

8 John May 11, 1206

9 John May 31, 1207

10 John May 15, 1208

11 John May 7, 1209

12 John May 27, 1210

13 John May 12, 1211

14 John May 3, 1212

15 John May 23, 1213

16 John May 8, 1214

17 John May 28, 1215

18 John May 19, 1216

Henry III

Regnal Year Begins a.d.

1 Hen. 3 Oct. 28, 1216

2 Hen. 3 Oct. 28, 1217

3 Hen. 3 Oct. 28, 1218

4 Hen. 3 Oct. 28, 1219

Table of Regnal Years1392

5 Hen. 3 Oct. 28, 1220

6 Hen. 3 Oct. 28, 1221

7 Hen. 3 Oct. 28, 1222

8 Hen. 3 Oct. 28, 1223

9 Hen. 3 Oct. 28, 1224

10 Hen. 3 Oct. 28, 1225

11 Hen. 3 Oct. 28, 1226

12 Hen. 3 Oct. 28, 1227

13 Hen. 3 Oct. 28, 1228

14 Hen. 3 Oct. 28, 1229

15 Hen. 3 Oct. 28, 1230

16 Hen. 3 Oct. 28, 1231

17 Hen. 3 Oct. 28, 1232

18 Hen. 3 Oct. 28, 1233

19 Hen. 3 Oct. 28, 1234

20 Hen. 3 Oct. 28, 1235

21 Hen. 3 Oct. 28, 1236

22 Hen. 3 Oct. 28, 1237

23 Hen. 3 Oct. 28, 1238

24 Hen. 3 Oct. 28, 1239

25 Hen. 3 Oct. 28, 1240

26 Hen. 3 Oct. 28, 1241

27 Hen. 3 Oct. 28, 1242

28 Hen. 3 Oct. 28, 1243

29 Hen. 3 Oct. 28, 1244

30 Hen. 3 Oct. 28, 1245

31 Hen. 3 Oct. 28, 1246

32 Hen. 3 Oct. 28, 1247

33 Hen. 3 Oct. 28, 1248

34 Hen. 3 Oct. 28, 1249

35 Hen. 3 Oct. 28, 1250

36 Hen. 3 Oct. 28, 1251

37 Hen. 3 Oct. 28, 1252

38 Hen. 3 Oct. 28, 1253

39 Hen. 3 Oct. 28, 1254

40 Hen. 3 Oct. 28, 1255

41 Hen. 3 Oct. 28, 1256

42 Hen. 3 Oct. 28, 1257

43 Hen. 3 Oct. 28, 1258

Table of Regnal Years 1393

44 Hen. 3 Oct. 28, 1259

45 Hen. 3 Oct. 28, 1260

46 Hen. 3 Oct. 28, 1261

47 Hen. 3 Oct. 28, 1262

48 Hen. 3 Oct. 28, 1263

49 Hen. 3 Oct. 28, 1264

50 Hen. 3 Oct. 28, 1265

51 Hen. 3 Oct. 28, 1266

52 Hen. 3 Oct. 28, 1267

53 Hen. 3 Oct. 28, 1268

54 Hen. 3 Oct. 28, 1269

55 Hen. 3 Oct. 28, 1270

56 Hen. 3 Oct. 28, 1271

57 Hen. 3 Oct. 28, 1272

Edward I

Regnal Year Begins a.d.

1 Edw. 1 Nov. 20, 1272

2 Edw. 1 Nov. 20, 1273

3 Edw. 1 Nov. 20, 1274

4 Edw. 1 Nov. 20, 1275

5 Edw. 1 Nov. 20, 1276

6 Edw. 1 Nov. 20, 1277

7 Edw. 1 Nov. 20, 1278

8 Edw. 1 Nov. 20, 1279

9 Edw. 1 Nov. 20, 1280

10 Edw. 1 Nov. 20, 1281

11 Edw. 1 Nov. 20, 1282

12 Edw. 1 Nov. 20, 1283

13 Edw. 1 Nov. 20, 1284

14 Edw. 1 Nov. 20, 1285

15 Edw. 1 Nov. 20, 1286

16 Edw. 1 Nov. 20, 1287

17 Edw. 1 Nov. 20, 1288

18 Edw. 1 Nov. 20, 1289

19 Edw. 1 Nov. 20, 1290

20 Edw. 1 Nov. 20, 1291

Table of Regnal Years1394

21 Edw. 1 Nov. 20, 1292

22 Edw. 1 Nov. 20, 1293

23 Edw. 1 Nov. 20, 1294

24 Edw. 1 Nov. 20, 1295

25 Edw. 1 Nov. 20, 1296

26 Edw. 1 Nov. 20, 1297

27 Edw. 1 Nov. 20, 1298

28 Edw. 1 Nov. 20, 1299

29 Edw. 1 Nov. 20, 1300

30 Edw. 1 Nov. 20, 1301

31 Edw. 1 Nov. 20, 1302

32 Edw. 1 Nov. 20, 1303

33 Edw. 1 Nov. 20, 1304

34 Edw. 1 Nov. 20, 1305

35 Edw. 1 Nov. 20, 1306

Edward II

Regnal Year Begins a.d.

1 Edw. 2 July 8, 1307

2 Edw. 2 July 8, 1308

3 Edw. 2 July 8, 1309

4 Edw. 2 July 8, 1310

5 Edw. 2 July 8, 1311

6 Edw. 2 July 8, 1312

7 Edw. 2 July 8, 1313

8 Edw. 2 July 8, 1314

9 Edw. 2 July 8, 1315

10 Edw. 2 July 8, 1316

11 Edw. 2 July 8, 1317

12 Edw. 2 July 8, 1318

13 Edw. 2 July 8, 1319

14 Edw. 2 July 8, 1320

15 Edw. 2 July 8, 1321

16 Edw. 2 July 8, 1322

17 Edw. 2 July 8, 1323

18 Edw. 2 July 8, 1324

19 Edw. 2 July 8, 1325

20 Edw. 2 July 8, 1326

Table of Regnal Years 1395

Edward III

Regnal Year Begins a.d.

1 Edw. 3 Jan. 25, 1327

2 Edw. 3 Jan. 25, 1328

3 Edw. 3 Jan. 25, 1329

4 Edw. 3 Jan. 25, 1330

5 Edw. 3 Jan. 25, 1331

6 Edw. 3 Jan. 25, 1332

7 Edw. 3 Jan. 25, 1333

8 Edw. 3 Jan. 25, 1334

9 Edw. 3 Jan. 25, 1335

10 Edw. 3 Jan. 25, 1336

11 Edw. 3 Jan. 25, 1337

12 Edw. 3 Jan. 25, 1338

13 Edw. 3 Jan. 25, 1339

14 Edw. 3 Jan. 25, 1340

15 Edw. 3 Jan. 25, 1341

16 Edw. 3 Jan. 25, 1342

17 Edw. 3 Jan. 25, 1343

18 Edw. 3 Jan. 25, 1344

19 Edw. 3 Jan. 25, 1345

20 Edw. 3 Jan. 25, 1346

21 Edw. 3 Jan. 25, 1347

22 Edw. 3 Jan. 25, 1348

23 Edw. 3 Jan. 25, 1349

24 Edw. 3 Jan. 25, 1350

25 Edw. 3 Jan. 25, 1351

26 Edw. 3 Jan. 25, 1352

27 Edw. 3 Jan. 25, 1353

28 Edw. 3 Jan. 25, 1354

29 Edw. 3 Jan. 25, 1355

30 Edw. 3 Jan. 25, 1356

31 Edw. 3 Jan. 25, 1357

32 Edw. 3 Jan. 25, 1358

33 Edw. 3 Jan. 25, 1359

34 Edw. 3 Jan. 25, 1360

35 Edw. 3 Jan. 25, 1361

36 Edw. 3 Jan. 25, 1362

Table of Regnal Years1396

37 Edw. 3 Jan. 25, 1363

38 Edw. 3 Jan. 25, 1364

39 Edw. 3 Jan. 25, 1365

40 Edw. 3 Jan. 25, 1366

41 Edw. 3 Jan. 25, 1367

42 Edw. 3 Jan. 25, 1368

43 Edw. 3 Jan. 25, 1369

44 Edw. 3 Jan. 25, 1370

45 Edw. 3 Jan. 25, 1371

46 Edw. 3 Jan. 25, 1372

47 Edw. 3 Jan. 25, 1373

48 Edw. 3 Jan. 25, 1374

49 Edw. 3 Jan. 25, 1375

50 Edw. 3 Jan. 25, 1376

51 Edw. 3 Jan. 25, 1377

Richard II

Regnal Year Begins a.d.

1 Ric. 2 June 22, 1377

2 Ric. 2 June 22, 1378

3 Ric. 2 June 22, 1379

4 Ric. 2 June 22, 1380

5 Ric. 2 June 22, 1381

6 Ric. 2 June 22, 1382

7 Ric. 2 June 22, 1383

8 Ric. 2 June 22, 1384

9 Ric. 2 June 22, 1385

10 Ric. 2 June 22, 1386

11 Ric. 2 June 22, 1387

12 Ric. 2 June 22, 1388

13 Ric. 2 June 22, 1389

14 Ric. 2 June 22, 1390

15 Ric. 2 June 22, 1391

16 Ric. 2 June 22, 1392

17 Ric. 2 June 22, 1393

18 Ric. 2 June 22, 1394

19 Ric. 2 June 22, 1395

20 Ric. 2 June 22, 1396

21 Ric. 2 June 22, 1397

Table of Regnal Years 1397

22 Ric. 2 June 22, 1398

23 Ric. 2 June 22, 1399

Henry IV

Regnal Year Begins a.d.

1 Hen. 4 Sep. 30, 1399

2 Hen. 4 Sep. 30, 1400

3 Hen. 4 Sep. 30, 1401

4 Hen. 4 Sep. 30, 1402

5 Hen. 4 Sep. 30, 1403

6 Hen. 4 Sep. 30, 1404

7 Hen. 4 Sep. 30, 1405

8 Hen. 4 Sep. 30, 1406

9 Hen. 4 Sep. 30, 1407

10 Hen. 4 Sep. 30, 1408

11 Hen. 4 Sep. 30, 1409

12 Hen. 4 Sep. 30, 1410

13 Hen. 4 Sep. 30, 1411

14 Hen. 4 Sep. 30, 1412

Henry V

Regnal Year Begins a.d.

1 Hen. 5 March 21, 1413

2 Hen. 5 March 21, 1414

3 Hen. 5 March 21, 1415

4 Hen. 5 March 21, 1416

5 Hen. 5 March 21, 1417

6 Hen. 5 March 21, 1418

7 Hen. 5 March 21, 1419

8 Hen. 5 March 21, 1420

9 Hen. 5 March 21, 1421

10 Hen. 5 March 21, 1422

Henry VI

Regnal Year Begins a.d.

1 Hen. 6 Sep. 1, 1422

2 Hen. 6 Sep. 1, 1423

Table of Regnal Years1398

3 Hen. 6 Sep. 1, 1424

4 Hen. 6 Sep. 1, 1425

5 Hen. 6 Sep. 1, 1426

6 Hen. 6 Sep. 1, 1427

7 Hen. 6 Sep. 1, 1428

8 Hen. 6 Sep. 1, 1429

9 Hen. 6 Sep. 1, 1430

10 Hen. 6 Sep. 1, 1431

11 Hen. 6 Sep. 1, 1432

12 Hen. 6 Sep. 1, 1433

13 Hen. 6 Sep. 1, 1434

14 Hen. 6 Sep. 1, 1435

15 Hen. 6 Sep. 1, 1436

16 Hen. 6 Sep. 1, 1437

17 Hen. 6 Sep. 1, 1438

18 Hen. 6 Sep. 1, 1439

19 Hen. 6 Sep. 1, 1440

20 Hen. 6 Sep. 1, 1441

21 Hen. 6 Sep. 1, 1442

22 Hen. 6 Sep. 1, 1443

23 Hen. 6 Sep. 1, 1444

24 Hen. 6 Sep. 1, 1445

25 Hen. 6 Sep. 1, 1446

26 Hen. 6 Sep. 1, 1447

27 Hen. 6 Sep. 1, 1448

28 Hen. 6 Sep. 1, 1449

29 Hen. 6 Sep. 1, 1450

30 Hen. 6 Sep. 1, 1451

31 Hen. 6 Sep. 1, 1452

32 Hen. 6 Sep. 1, 1453

33 Hen. 6 Sep. 1, 1454

34 Hen. 6 Sep. 1, 1455

35 Hen. 6 Sep. 1, 1456

36 Hen. 6 Sep. 1, 1457

37 Hen. 6 Sep. 1, 1458

38 Hen. 6 Sep. 1, 1459

39 Hen. 6 Sep. 1, 1460

following his restoration:

49 Hen. 6 Sep.–Oct. 1470

Table of Regnal Years 1399

Edward IV

Regnal Year Begins a.d.

1 Edw. 4 March 4, 1461

2 Edw. 4 March 4, 1462

3 Edw. 4 March 4, 1463

4 Edw. 4 March 4, 1464

5 Edw. 4 March 4, 1465

6 Edw. 4 March 4, 1466

7 Edw. 4 March 4, 1467

8 Edw. 4 March 4, 1468

9 Edw. 4 March 4, 1469

10 Edw. 4 March 4, 1470

11 Edw. 4 March 4, 1471

12 Edw. 4 March 4, 1472

13 Edw. 4 March 4, 1473

14 Edw. 4 March 4, 1474

15 Edw. 4 March 4, 1475

16 Edw. 4 March 4, 1476

17 Edw. 4 March 4, 1477

18 Edw. 4 March 4, 1478

19 Edw. 4 March 4, 1479

20 Edw. 4 March 4, 1480

21 Edw. 4 March 4, 1481

22 Edw. 4 March 4, 1482

23 Edw. 4 March 4, 1483

Edward V

Regnal Year Begins a.d.

1 Edw. 5 April 9, 1483

Richard III

Regnal Year Begins a.d.

1 Ric. 3 June 26, 1483

2 Ric. 3 June 26, 1484

3 Ric. 3 June 26, 1485

Table of Regnal Years1400

Henry VII

Regnal Year Begins a.d.

1 Hen. 7 Aug. 21, 1485

2 Hen. 7 Aug. 22, 1486

3 Hen. 7 Aug. 22, 1487

4 Hen. 7 Aug. 22, 1488

5 Hen. 7 Aug. 22, 1489

6 Hen. 7 Aug. 22, 1490

7 Hen. 7 Aug. 22, 1491

8 Hen. 7 Aug. 22, 1492

9 Hen. 7 Aug. 22, 1493

10 Hen. 7 Aug. 22, 1494

11 Hen. 7 Aug. 22, 1495

12 Hen. 7 Aug. 22, 1496

13 Hen. 7 Aug. 22, 1497

14 Hen. 7 Aug. 22, 1498

15 Hen. 7 Aug. 22, 1499

16 Hen. 7 Aug. 22, 1500

17 Hen. 7 Aug. 22, 1501

18 Hen. 7 Aug. 22, 1502

19 Hen. 7 Aug. 22, 1503

20 Hen. 7 Aug. 22, 1504

21 Hen. 7 Aug. 22, 1505

22 Hen. 7 Aug. 22, 1506

23 Hen. 7 Aug. 22, 1507

24 Hen. 7 Aug. 22, 1508

Henry VIII

Regnal Year Begins a.d.

1 Hen. 8 Apr. 22, 1509

2 Hen. 8 Apr. 22, 1510

3 Hen. 8 Apr. 22, 1511

4 Hen. 8 Apr. 22, 1512

5 Hen. 8 Apr. 22, 1513

6 Hen. 8 Apr. 22, 1514

7 Hen. 8 Apr. 22, 1515

8 Hen. 8 Apr. 22, 1516

Table of Regnal Years 1401

9 Hen. 8 Apr. 22, 1517

10 Hen. 8 Apr. 22, 1518

11 Hen. 8 Apr. 22, 1519

12 Hen. 8 Apr. 22, 1520

13 Hen. 8 Apr. 22, 1521

14 Hen. 8 Apr. 22, 1522

15 Hen. 8 Apr. 22, 1523

16 Hen. 8 Apr. 22, 1524

17 Hen. 8 Apr. 22, 1525

18 Hen. 8 Apr. 22, 1526

19 Hen. 8 Apr. 22, 1527

20 Hen. 8 Apr. 22, 1528

21 Hen. 8 Apr. 22, 1529

22 Hen. 8 Apr. 22, 1530

23 Hen. 8 Apr. 22, 1531

24 Hen. 8 Apr. 22, 1532

25 Hen. 8 Apr. 22, 1533

26 Hen. 8 Apr. 22, 1534

27 Hen. 8 Apr. 22, 1535

28 Hen. 8 Apr. 22, 1536

29 Hen. 8 Apr. 22, 1537

30 Hen. 8 Apr. 22, 1538

31 Hen. 8 Apr. 22, 1539

32 Hen. 8 Apr. 22, 1540

33 Hen. 8 Apr. 22, 1541

34 Hen. 8 Apr. 22, 1542

35 Hen. 8 Apr. 22, 1543

36 Hen. 8 Apr. 22, 1544

37 Hen. 8 Apr. 22, 1545

38 Hen. 8 Apr. 22, 1546

Edward VI

Regnal Year Begins a.d.

1 Edw. 7 Jan. 28, 1547

2 Edw. 7 Jan. 28, 1548

3 Edw. 7 Jan. 28, 1549

4 Edw. 7 Jan. 28, 1550

5 Edw. 7 Jan. 28, 1551

Table of Regnal Years1402

6 Edw. 7 Jan. 28, 1552

7 Edw. 7 Jan. 28, 1553

Jane

Regnal Year Begins a.d.

1 Jane July 6, 1553

Mary

Regnal Year Begins a.d.

1 Mar. July 19, 1553

2 Mar. July 6, 1554

Philip and Mary

Regnal Year Begins a.d.

1&2 P.&M. July 25, 1554

1&3 P.&M. July 6, 1555

2&3 P.&M. July 25, 1555

2&4 P.&M. July 6, 1556

3&4 P.&M. July 25, 1556

3&5 P.&M. July 6, 1557

4&5 P.&M. July 25, 1557

4&6 P.&M. July 6, 1558

5&6 P.&M. July 25, 1558

Elizabeth I

Regnal Year Begins a.d.

1 Eliz. 1 Nov. 17, 1558

2 Eliz. 1 Nov. 17, 1559

3 Eliz. 1 Nov. 17, 1560

4 Eliz. 1 Nov. 17, 1561

5 Eliz. 1 Nov. 17, 1562

6 Eliz. 1 Nov. 17, 1563

7 Eliz. 1 Nov. 17, 1564

8 Eliz. 1 Nov. 17, 1565

9 Eliz. 1 Nov. 17, 1566

10 Eliz. 1 Nov. 17, 1567

Table of Regnal Years 1403

11 Eliz. 1 Nov. 17, 1568

12 Eliz. 1 Nov. 17, 1569

13 Eliz. 1 Nov. 17, 1570

14 Eliz. 1 Nov. 17, 1571

15 Eliz. 1 Nov. 17, 1572

16 Eliz. 1 Nov. 17, 1573

17 Eliz. 1 Nov. 17, 1574

18 Eliz. 1 Nov. 17, 1575

19 Eliz. 1 Nov. 17, 1576

20 Eliz. 1 Nov. 17, 1577

21 Eliz. 1 Nov. 17, 1578

22 Eliz. 1 Nov. 17, 1579

23 Eliz. 1 Nov. 17, 1580

24 Eliz. 1 Nov. 17, 1581

25 Eliz. 1 Nov. 17, 1582

26 Eliz. 1 Nov. 17, 1583

27 Eliz. 1 Nov. 17, 1584

28 Eliz. 1 Nov. 17, 1585

29 Eliz. 1 Nov. 17, 1586

30 Eliz. 1 Nov. 17, 1587

31 Eliz. 1 Nov. 17, 1588

32 Eliz. 1 Nov. 17, 1589

33 Eliz. 1 Nov. 17, 1590

34 Eliz. 1 Nov. 17, 1591

35 Eliz. 1 Nov. 17, 1592

36 Eliz. 1 Nov. 17, 1593

37 Eliz. 1 Nov. 17, 1594

38 Eliz. 1 Nov. 17, 1595

39 Eliz. 1 Nov. 17, 1596

40 Eliz. 1 Nov. 17, 1597

41 Eliz. 1 Nov. 17, 1598

42 Eliz. 1 Nov. 17, 1599

43 Eliz. 1 Nov. 17, 1600

44 Eliz. 1 Nov. 17, 1601

45 Eliz. 1 Nov. 17, 1602

James I

Regnal Year Begins a.d.

1 Jac. 1 March 24, 1603

2 Jac. 1 March 24, 1604

Table of Regnal Years1404

3 Jac. 1 March 24, 1605

4 Jac. 1 March 24, 1606

5 Jac. 1 March 24, 1607

6 Jac. 1 March 24, 1608

7 Jac. 1 March 24, 1609

8 Jac. 1 March 24, 1610

9 Jac. 1 March 24, 1611

10 Jac. 1 March 24, 1612

11 Jac. 1 March 24, 1613

12 Jac. 1 March 24, 1614

13 Jac. 1 March 24, 1615

14 Jac. 1 March 24, 1616

15 Jac. 1 March 24, 1617

16 Jac. 1 March 24, 1618

17 Jac. 1 March 24, 1619

18 Jac. 1 March 24, 1620

19 Jac. 1 March 24, 1621

20 Jac. 1 March 24, 1622

21 Jac. 1 March 24, 1623

22 Jac. 1 March 24, 1624

23 Jac. 1 March 24, 1625

Charles I

Regnal Year Begins a.d.

1 Caro. 1 March 27, 1625

2 Caro. 1 March 27, 1626

3 Caro. 1 March 27, 1627

4 Caro. 1 March 27, 1628

5 Caro. 1 March 27, 1629

6 Caro. 1 March 27, 1630

7 Caro. 1 March 27, 1631

8 Caro. 1 March 27, 1632

9 Caro. 1 March 27, 1633

10 Caro. 1 March 27, 1634

11 Caro. 1 March 27, 1635

12 Caro. 1 March 27, 1636

13 Caro. 1 March 27, 1637

14 Caro. 1 March 27, 1638

Table of Regnal Years 1405

15 Caro. 1 March 27, 1639

16 Caro. 1 March 27, 1640

17 Caro. 1 March 27, 1641

18 Caro. 1 March 27, 1642

19 Caro. 1 March 27, 1643

20 Caro. 1 March 27, 1644

21 Caro. 1 March 27, 1645

22 Caro. 1 March 27, 1646

23 Caro. 1 March 27, 1647

24 Caro. 1 March 27, 1648

Index

a fortiori argument, 1087

abbeys. See monasteries, dissolution of

Abbot, Archbishop of Canterbury, li

abridgments of law, 95, 97–99

absent persons, Parliamentary

proceedings against, 1138–44

absentee Parliamentary members, 1085,

1087, 1148–49

absolute monarchy/divine right of

kings, xxiv, 478–81, 1208, 1213,

1264

absurdities arising from counterfactual

interpretations, 24–25, 26, 73

Aburgaveney, Lord (the Lord

Aburgaveney’s Case), 481–84

accord and satisfaction, 144–45

accuracy, Coke’s sense of importance of

references for case law, importance of

full apparatus for, 561–62

Reports, Coke’s desire for accuracy

of, 151, 163–65, 307–8

acquired ligeance, 177–79

Act of Settlement (barring Roman

Catholics from the crown), lxviii

acts of God, 16–17

Acts of Parliament. See statutes

Adams, John, xxxi, lxix

“Addled Parliament” (1614), lii

adjournment/suspension/dissolution/

prorogation of Parliament, xlix,

l–li, lix–lxi, lxiv, 1114–17, 1194,

1218, 1253–54

administrative law, 141–44, 1347

Admiralty, Court of, xxxvi, 290,

490–91

adultery, 1265

advowsons, 675–78, 811–12, 894

Aeschylus, 66

Aesop’s crow, 1237

Aethelswith (queen of the Mercians),

152

agency or commission, powers of,

378–83. See also commissions

Agricola, 1080

air, hindrance of access to, 310–12

Albany’s Case, 73

Albion, 66

alchemists, 551, 1045, 1201

Alcock, John, 581

alcohol, abuse of, 553

Aldred, William (William Aldred’s

Case), 308–13, 1351

alehouses and inns, 552–53, 1199–1200

Alexander III (pope), 916

Alexander the Great, 99, 747

Alford, Edward, lxii

Alfred the Great (king), 67, 249, 288,

291, 292, 752–53, 873, 962, 1205

alienation

freehold lands, 889–94

giving of lands to religious houses

and receipt back again,

908–10

use, alienation of, xxxvi, 739–42

Index1408

aliens

consideration paid by, 1119–20

inheritance/holding of land by,

436–37, 597, 629–30. See also

Calvin’s Case

king’s right to control entry of,

441–45

land and goods, amounts levied on,

1127

merchants, 874, 876–87

registration, king’s power to create

ofﬁce for, 491–94

treason, 958, 1008

writs of protection, 720

alimony, 471–77

allegiance due to monarch and holding

of land by alien. See Calvin’s Case

Allenson, William de Roell of, 76–77

alodium/alodarii, 591, 613

Altham, Baron James, l, 1314

Alton Woods Case, xli, 592

ambassadors, 966–67, 1088

amercement of free men, 812–16

America, inﬂuence of Coke in, xxiii,

xxiv, xxx, xxxi, lxvi, lxix–lxxi,

1366–70

The Anatomy of Melancholy (Robert

Burton), lx

ancient Britain, laws of, 64–68

Anderson, Lord (Book of Writs

compiled by), 1241

Anderson, Sir Edmund, 580

androgynes (hermaphrodites), 599–600,

629, 896

Anjou, status of natives of, 215

Annales, 61

Anne (queen, daughter of James II),

lxviii

Anne (queen, wife of James I), xliii

annuities, 598

antenati, 178, 229

antiquity

law/common law, 59–78, 149–57,

244–60, 291, 302, 1189

Parliament, 1133

rights of Parliament, 1191

Serjeants at Law, 337, 343–47

“Apollo pulled me by the ear,” 1208

apparel. See clothing

appeal of death by woman, arrest or

imprisonment on, 895–96

Aquitaine, status of natives of, 210–13

arbitration, power to enter into binding

agreement of, 260–63

Arcadius, 97

Archbishop of Canterbury’s Case, xl,

49–57, 73, 1353

archbishops. See bishops/archbishops;

Canterbury, archbishops of

Arden (Popish plotter), 537

Arderne, Sir Pierce, 579

aristocracy. See House of Lords;

nobility

Aristotle, xxxi, 369, 584, 1296

arrests. See also habeas corpus; impris-

onment

capias (arrest warrant), 138–39, 321,

761

Coke’s arrest after Parliament

of 1621, lx–lxi, 1195, 1271,

1329–31

general warrant, constable’s right to

present captive to any justice

arrested under (Foster’s Case),

128–30

Little Treatise on Baile and Maine-

prize (Coke), xxi, lxv, lxxxv,

569–71

Magna Carta, 861–68

nighttime, 316

Index 1409

objections to lawfulness or form of,

316–24

Parliamentary members’ freedom

from arrest, 1187, 1190, 1237

remedies, 868–70

Sabbath, 317

woman’s appeal of death, 895–96

arson by cleric, 386–87

Arthur (king), 181, 288, 291, 302

Articuli Cleri, Argument of, xliv,

1359

Ascough, William, 579

assassinations

Duke of Buckingham, lxiv

Elizabeth I, plots against, xl, 533–38

assessments

castle, keeping of, 825–26

Coke’s preference for, over taxes,

1250–51

Commission of Sewers, 141–44,

378–83

public structures, maintenance of,

441, 445

subsidies assessed for Charles I

(Parliament of 1625), 1219–24

assigns in fee simple, 634–37

assistants, Parliamentary, 1069–70,

1161

Assizes, Book of, 61, 62

assumpsit, 116–24

Aston, Sir John, 581

attainder, 345, 598, 719, 975, 1047–48

Attorney General

Coke as, xxiii, xxv, xxvii,

xxxviii–xxxix, xl, lii, 395

degrees in law, 74

ineligibility to sit in House of

Commons, 1158

attorneys. See counselors at law

attornment, 32

Augustine of Hippo (saint), 746

auncients (benchers), xxxvii, 74

Australia, discovery of, xlv

Auterfoits acquit, 115

authority of and sources for writings,

xxvii–xxviii, 226–27, 332, 336–43,

584, 1238, 1344

avowry, 799

Ayraye, Dr. (Doctor Ayraye’s Case),

386

Bacon, Sir Francis, xxviii, xxix, xxxix,

xl, xlii, lii, liii, lv, lvi, lviii, lix

bibliographical materials, 1372

commendams dispute, role in, 1312,

1319–20, 1323

death of, lxii

impeachment of, 1195

Slade’s case, 116

Sutton’s Hospital, 348

Bacon, Sir Nicholas, 580

Bacon, Nathaniel (Foster’s Case),

128–30

Bacon, Roger, 247

Bagg, James (James Bagg’s Case), 166,

388, 404–17, 1351

Baggot’s Case, 178

bail

Coke’s Little Treatise on Baile and

Maineprize, xxi, lxv, lxxxv,

569–71

Magna Carta, 869

Parliamentary debates of 1628,

1238–40

bailiffs, 290, 846

Baker, Floyd and, 1353

Baleus, 67

Balser, Green v., 49–57

Bancroft, Archbishop, xliv

banishment or exile, 852–53

Index1410

bankruptcy

Case of Bankrupts (Smith v. Mills),

45–49, 73, 1351

Parliamentary member’s power to

protect bankrupt, 1206

banks (earthworks), requirement to

make or defend, 816–18

Baptismal name

Parliamentary summons in, 1071

purchasing in fee simple, 601–2

Barnard’s Inn, 75

Baron Courts, 290, 342

barons. See nobility

Barretry, Case of, 256

bastardy, 96, 542, 547, 602–3, 916–21,

1300–1301

Bates’s Case, xlv, 441–45, 1351

Beaufage’s Case, 334

beauty of the law, 307

Beddingﬁeld (Popish plotter), 534

Bedingﬁeld v. Feak, xxxix

Belknap, Sir Robert, 999

benchers (auncients), xxxvii, 74

Bendloes, Serjeant, 13

beneﬁces, 816

benevolences, king’s exaction of, lii,

496–98

Bennet, Dr., 519

Bentham’s Case, 387

Benton, Thomas (William Aldred’s

Case), 308–13

Beresford, Sir William, 959

Beriford, George (Semayne’s Case),

135–41

Berkeley, Lady Theophila, lii

Best, William, xxviii

bias and favoritism, avoidance of, xxiv,

xxx

biblical allusions

Acts of the Apostles, 1027, 1234

1 Chronicles, 1043, 1066

2 Chronicles, 1066

Deuteronomy, 1042

Ecclesiastes, 5, 37, 312, 944

Esther, 1026

Exodus, 1042

Judges, 1066

1 Kings, 1026, 1027, 1042, 1043

law delivered to Moses, 156

law warranted by scripture, 288

Luke, 221–24, 746

marriage with strange (foreign)

women, 1214

Matthew, 1027

Numbers, 1042

Parliament and High Court of

Parliament, 1066–67

Proverbs, 94, 949–50, 1027, 1053

Psalms, 40, 58, 94, 578, 606, 1257

2 Samuel, 1026, 1027

Wisdom, 587, 950

bibliography, 1341–77

life and career of Coke, 1341–43

noteworthy mentions of Coke,

1376–77

related matters and persons,

commentaries on, 1371–76

topical commentaries, 1343–71

writings of Coke, 1350–61

Bill for Supply tied to Petition of

Grievances, lix, 1194, 1195–96

bill, power of Parliament for making of

laws in proceeding by, 1133–38

billeting of soldiers in private houses,

1251–52, 1255–56, 1278

Billing, Sir Thomas, 579

Bills of Rights (England and United

States), Petition of Right as

forerunner of, xxiii, lxiv

Bingham’s Case, 73

Index 1411

bishops/archbishops. See also

Canterbury, archbishops of

barons, holding posts from the kin

as, 759

Brownings (recusant group unable to

endure bishops), 546

importance to law of, 546–47

Black Book of the Exchequer, 1167

Blackamore’s Case, 256

Blacklow, Herring v., xxxvi

Blackstone, William (Commentaries on

the Laws of England), xxx,

lxix–lxxi

blood circulation via heart, discovery

of, lviii

Bodley, Thomas, xliii

The Body of Liberties, lxvi

bombast, importance of avoiding, 77

Bonham, Thomas (Dr. Bonham’s

Case), l, lvi, lxix, 264–83, 1351–52

Boniface (pope), 919

Book of Common Prayer (the Lord

Cromwell’s case), xxxiv, 73,

105–11

Book of Entries (Coke), xxi, liii, lxvi,

lxxxiv–lxxxv, 61, 76, 370, 557–62

book of rates, conspiring to alter, 1302

Bootme (Futter and Bootme’s Case),

xxxvi

Botreux, John, 581

Bowles, Lewes (Lewes Bowles’ Case),

388

Bracton, Henry, xxix

case law in Reports citing, 22, 55, 61,

62, 76, 176, 182, 190, 197, 198,

204–5, 230, 254–56, 339, 479,

481

criminal law (Institutes Part Three),

951, 958, 959, 960, 985, 1023,

1040

King’s Bench (Institutes Part Four),

1166–68

liberty of the subject, 1257

Magna Carta (Institutes Part Two),

752, 788, 801, 802, 806–7, 825,

830, 836, 861

necessity, argument from, 1220

breach of the peace

bail and mainprize, 571

recognizance to keep peace, 441

Brett’s and Rigden’s Case, 32

Brian, Sir Thomas, 579

bribery and corruption, lvii, 432, 531,

5489, 1210

bridges, requirement to make, 816–17

Britannia (William Camden), 370, 578

Briton/Britton, John

case law in Reports citing, 61, 337, 339

criminal law (Institutes Part Three),

951, 964, 1040

King’s Bench (Institutes Part Four),

1167, 1168

Magna Carta (Institutes Part Two),

752, 801, 802, 830

property law (Institutes Part One),

717

Bromley, Sir Nicholas, 580

Bromley, Sir Thomas, 34, 36, 954

Bromley, Edward, 1314

Brook, Sir D., 954

Brooke, Sir Robert, 28, 61, 342

Brownings (recusant group), 546

Brutus (as king of Britain), 64

Buckhurst, Lord (the Lord Buckhurst’s

Case), 73

Buckingham, George Villiers, Duke of,

liii, lvi, lvii, lxii, lxiv, 1217, 1225,

1292–93

Buckinghamshire, Coke appointed as

Sheriff of, lxii

Index1412

buggery, 446–47

Bull, Calder v., lxxi

Bulstrode, Edward, 418

Burbry, Gallys and, 282

burgage, tenure in, 701–11, 844–46

Burghley, Thomas Cecil, Lord, xl–xli,

xlii, xlviii

Burghley, William Cecil, Lord,

xxiv–xxv, xxxvi, xxxviii, xxxix,

580, 1372–73

burghs as most ancient towns of

England, 297–98. See also munici-

palities

Burgo, Hubert de, 749–50

Burke, Edmund, xxx

Burley, William, 580–81

Burrowes, Cox, Dyton, and Other v. the

High Commission, xlvii

Burton, Robert, lx, 970

butlerage (customs on wine), 1121–22

bylaws, municipal. See municipalities

Byrd, William, li

Cade, Jack, 976

Caesar

Commentaries, 153

Gallic Wars, 64–66

Cafﬁe, Sir John, 954

Calais, status of natives of, 217–18

Calder v. Bull, lxxi

Calvin’s Case, xlvii–xlviii, 161,

166–232

acquired ligeance, 177–79

alienigena, 172, 175, 204–27. See also

more speciﬁc subheadings

under this entry

arguments in the case, 170–74

authority and sources for writings,

226–27

bibliographical material, 1352–53

colonies/United States, importance

for, 161, 166

conclusions drawn regarding

alienigena, 224–26

deﬁnition of alien, 202–6

deﬁnition of ligeance, 175–77

feudal law, alien holding of land in

two kingdoms under, 166–68

importance and inﬂuence of, 161–66,

231–32

incidents of subjects and aliens,

208–9

inheritance or freehold not available

to aliens born, reasons for, 209

judgment of case as entered on

record, 232

kingdoms (regna), 171, 175, 201–3

law (leges), 171–72, 174–75,

195–201

legal consequences of conclusions

drawn in, 175, 227–32

legal ligeance, 178, 180–82

ligeance, 166–68, 170–71, 174–95.