Lord Chief Justice Sir Edward Coke: The Greatest Defender of the Common Law - Essay Example

? Lord Chief Justice Sir Edward Coke: The Greatest Defender of the Common Law Essay 3,245 words of Introduction Generally, research on the life and works of Lord Chief Justice Sir Edward Coke has highlighted rhetoric, controversy, and disputes. They give emphasis on fierce orations in court, tense altercations with King James I, and nationalistic speeches on the house of the Commons. He should also be viewed as an icon in a particular cultural setting. With his declarations that the common law was predetermined and perpetual, and of the same status with the civil law of the land, he was one of the Elizabethans who greatly contributed to the formation and growth of an English kingdom.1 Based on the Elizabethan era are Coke’s description of law as the judges’ shared knowledge, a perspective which supports his judgment in Bonham’s Case, and his professional capacity to re-evaluate the historical background of the common law, which allowed him to transform medieval England’s law into principles tailored to a growing economy and evolving society.2 This research report critically assesses the background biography of Lord Chief Justice Sir Edward Coke. More particularly, this paper focuses on the following topics: his contribution to common law; his influence to law in England; and, his decisions to cases and law and his quotes. Sir Edward Coke was a highly regarded member of the English privileged class, and for two hundred years after his demise, his works wielded great influence on English law. He was not able to take over English politics, but he successfully became the most prominent personality of the Elizabethan and Stuart eras due to his flexibility, his remarkable ability to thrive, and his strong impact on his colleagues and on succeeding generations.3 Coke was dynamically involved in the legal system for more than four decades. He worked in all parliaments that existed between 1589 and 1628 either as a counsel to the Lords or an associate of the Commons. He also took part in the fragmented political environment of the Elizabethan and Stuart eras while amassing wealth that became the object of resentment of his colleagues.4 Ultimately, in the concluding phases of the Elizabethan period, he started publishing a variety of legal writings that showed a broad understanding of past English legal references and an unmatched capacity to consolidate the multiple components of English common law; and, alongside his extensive legal experience and his politically powerful status, they finally recognised him as the most important legal expert of his time.5 None of his opponents and colleagues, except for Bacon, equalled his success in a broad array of literary, political, and legal endeavours. And none wielded such a strong impact on the later progress of English law. Coke’s Contribution to Common Law Sir Edward Coke fervently defended the Common Law. As chief justice of the King’s Bench in the 17th century, Coke explained the duty of the courts and the common law in regulating political authority. On the 13th of November 1608, in reaction to the declaration of the king that he could resolve legal cases on his own, Coke argued that “the King in his own person cannot adjudge any case... but that this ought to be determined and adjudged in some Court of Justice, according to the law and custom of England.”6 James I was severely frustrated and enraged that a senior barrister considered the common law superior to the king. James warned Coke. But the chief justice remained undaunted. He kept on declaring that Common Law was superior to the king’s discretion. Coke, in Bonham’s Case, emphasised that “It appears in our books, that… when an Act of Parliament is against common right and reason… the common law will control it, and adjudge such Act to be void.”7 He further claims that the Common Law was ‘beyond definition’, and with ‘an infinity of sources and guises.’8 Common Law was basically long-established customs. Coke viewed these customs as fundamentally fixed or predetermined. It was understood that Parliament may modify problematic customs, but a number of common lawyers believed that even parliamentary measures must be disregarded by judges if it challenged custom on important matters.9 Common law was superior to rulings because various English generations had discovered it valuable. In addition, common law was basically based on reason. Its guardians claimed that common law represented fundamentally rational judgments.10 Given that common law merged reason and custom, particular guidance was required to make sense of its dictums or premises, what Coke referred to as ‘artificial reason’: Then the king said that he thought the law was founded upon reason, and that he and others had reason as well as the judges. To which it was answered by me that true it was that God had endowed His Majesty with excellent science and great endowments of nature; but His Majesty was not learned in the laws of his realm of England, and causes which concern the life or inheritance or goods or fortunes of his subjects are not to be decided by natural reason, but by the artificial reason and judgment of law—which law is an act which requires long study and experience, before that a man can attain to the cognizance of it.11 Coke also asserted that common law formed a basis for citizenship, property, and individual rights, alongside royal authority and parliamentary ruling. Such historical pattern of judges’ resolutions, together with important legal texts like the Magna Carta, represented a shared knowledge higher than any individual reasoning.12 This principle in effect place the rule of law above royal power. This infuriated King James I, who took away the chief justice position of Coke in 1616. Nevertheless, Coke’s argument about the common law tradition and the restrictions on royal authority by Parliament were cited by the British parliament against the monarchy in the 1640s and 1680s.13 Coke’s consideration for previous judgments in English common law became the foundation for the constitutional law of the United States, which looks at earlier court resolutions when dealing with new cases. Coke extolled the common law as the outcome of extensive experience and knowledge as accumulated over time: If all the reason that is dispersed into so many several heads were united into one, yet he could not make such a law as the Law of England is, because by many succession of ages it has been fined and refined by an infinite number of grave and learned men, and by long experience grown to such a perfection.14 Coke believes that the foundations of the common law were ‘beyond the memory or register of any beginning’.15 In clarifying this, it should be remembered that Coke was writing as a lawyer, not as an historian. Coke’s objective in the preambles was not only to extol the English law, but to establish that the common law had lived on unchanged by any conqueror. In proving this, he made use of historical proofs to support his arguments, rather than to confirm historical knowledge.16 Hence, Coke aimed to establish his argument that the common law lived before the conquest by verifying whether instances of the application of four common law principles may be uncovered from that period.17 By confirming these specific arguments, he thought he would gain substantiation for his bigger proposition. However, the arguments of Coke were not simply those of an apologist who concealed his fundamentally evolutionary perception of law to advance political arguments. He did believe that there were ground rules which were fixed. The earliest common law was the “birth-right and the most ancient and best inheritance” which the people had.18 It was the law that guaranteed their pleasure, their lives, and certainly their society. According to Coke: For any fundamental point of the ancient common laws and customs of the realm, it is a maxim in policy, and a trial by experience, that the alteration of any of them is most dangerous; for that which hath been refined and perfected by all the wisest men in former succession of ages and proved and approved by continual experience to be good and profitable for the common wealth, cannot without great hazard and danger be altered or changed.19 He obviously did not view the law as unchanging. In fact, he portrayed his collection of appeals in his Book of Entries as a “greater authority and use, and fitter for the modern practice of the law,”20 for they were new. Coke did not view the common law as a collection of policies which may be described, or a collection of traditions which may be defined. He argued that the law was the professional wisdom of lawyers. Coke’s Influence on English Law The influence of Coke on the law of England is evident upon the form of law, upon private law, upon constitutional and criminal law, and upon commercial law.21 The 16th century had witnessed numerous developments in all areas of private law. Hence much interpretation and translation was required to reconcile the medieval and the modern components of private law. The way Coke initiated this task of adaptation and translation can be described along these lines. First, he worked out from the strewn and largely incoherent maxims in the Year Books rules of law consistent with the rules specified by the modern documents; and he carried out his task expertly that succeeding lawyers were glad to recognise his interpretations of the Year Books.22 Likewise, he reconciled the medieval writings on common law with modern writings. The knowledge which his reports presented about the activities of the courts beyond the domain of the common law introduced common lawyers to the new thoughts arising from those courts, which were creating new legal improvements.23 Hence his reports helped the common law fulfil the important responsibility which it obtained as the outcome of the constitutional disputes of the 17th century. Therefore, Coke’s reports guaranteed the progress of the English law in the midst of all the major developments during the acceptance of Roman law, Reformation, and the Renaissance. This value of Coke’s reports was acknowledged by Bacon: “had it not been for Sir Edward Coke’s reports, the law by this time had almost been like a ship without ballast; for that the cases of modern experience are fled from those that are adjudged and ruled in former times”.24 Thus, it is evident that Charles Butler, the renowned conveyancer of the 18th century, was correct when he declared that, “the most proper point of view in which the merit and ability of Sir Edward Coke’s writings can be placed, is by considering him the centre of modern and ancient law”.25 The 16th century was a period where in numerous sets of law, conducted in different courts, and challenging the common law, were emerging.26 The English legal system would have been fragmented if all these other competing courts had been similarly successful. Coke made sure this would not happen. His triumph in affirming the primacy of the common law, and his triumph in reinterpreting and modifying its rules to address modern demands, protected the consistency of the English legal system. Ultimately, the influence of Coke on constitutional and criminal law has been enormous. In essence, Coke’s influence on English Law was based on his learning. His thoughts about English law was mostly medieval; he believed that the law is the overarching force by which Parliament and monarchy were evenly governed. His entire intellectual realm was to be located in the Year Books. The publication of the original Year Books demonstrates some kind of fascination in the earlier English law. Coke specifically would quote experts from them on any ideas from any period in the history of English law.27 Obviously, this does not imply that Coke was a historian; in contrast, all his historical knowledge was intended to be of practical importance. Nevertheless, even though he was very committed to and interested in ancient English law, he was still progressive, and there is actually only a slight hint of any noticeable conservatism in his decisions.28 Indeed, the tremendous importance of his Reports rests in this, that even though they sum up medieval wisdom, they also form the groundwork of a modern principle. In other words Coke was fundamentally progressive despite his archaic interests. Coke’s Decisions to Cases and Law and Quotes The individuals or groups whose cases were handled by Coke included church custodians, gentlemen, merchants, wealthy yeomen, Roman Catholic leaders, and Puritan ministers. Numerous of Coke’s cases concerned land law.29 In fact, Coke resolved a string of cases of enormous constitutional value. In Bonham’s Case, he essentially defended the superiority of common law over rulings, claiming that the judges may at times declare rulings to be invalid: “… when an Act of Parliament is against common right and reason, or repugnant, or impossible to be performed, the common law will control it, and adjudge such as Act to be void.”30. In Peacham’s Case, Edmund Peacham, a Somerset minister, was charged of treason. Moreover, documents containing information against the government were discovered in his private office. Sir Francis Bacon and King James were convinced that the documents must be deemed an act of treason and tried to confer with the Judges personally.31 Coke criticised the individual discussion because it endowed the monarchy with too much authority to manipulate the Judges. He also refuted the treason allegations against Peacham: “… no words of scandal or defamation, importing that the King is utterly unworthy to govern, were treason, except they disabled his title.”32 In addition, Coke also occupied a major position in a disagreement over De non procedendo rege inconsulto. This decree instructed judges to discontinue a case which may offend the king until his side is presented.33 Bacon argued that the decree should be exercised by the king in this manner, but Coke disapproved. In 1616, in the Commendams case, King James had awarded to Richard Neile, the Bishop of Lichfield, an ecclesiastical benefice in commendam—by authorisation given by the king, and freeing the possessor of the benefice from rules against occupying several positions in the church.34 The right of the king to perform this, as well as his right to award commendams, was disputed. The king tried to consult the case with the jury prior to making a decision and instructed Bacon to inform them about it. Coke argued that the directives of Bacon were unlawful, and declined to give his approval to the individual consultation with the king.35 Evidently, Coke views the judge as a talented individual, a person whose legal decisions comes from professional knowledge, intuition, and personal capabilities. From a different point of view, he views the judge as an efficient, sensible overseer, highly capable of adapting resolution and principles to the demands of the commonwealth. Coke’s image of judicial legislation embraces an assumption that the talented judge will operate within the traditional principles of the law, recognising the field’s traditions and valuing the task itself. Coke consistently places emphasis on the individual case: the exact information which are under consideration, the legal points which could be founded on those information. Coke stated in 1607, “Generalities never bring anything to a conclusion”.36 Without a doubt, Coke admires the law’s certainty: “Certainty is the mother of quietness and repose,”37 he stated, and “It is a miserable bondage and slavery when the law is wandering or uncertain.”38 Coke views the judicial resolution as a mechanism by which law is created. What was important was the argumentation procedure which underlie the reports of the intellectual judges. Coke believes that to adhere to a legal principle was not to follow a rule so much as it was to comply to the reasoning of judges who had handled related case in the past. The law may be accurately followed only in instances where the real details of the case were completely known or understood.39 Coke reiterated the situations upon which the judge takes steps, relating decisions to the actual details. He associates the appropriate exercise of the law with the careful and just use of good judgment by the judge. Conclusions Without a doubt, Coke’s grand ambition was to bring together the modern and medieval law. The importance of such a mission can barely be overrated. For a time it had been unsure whether common law would continue to exist in its traditional form. Numerous recommendations were given, some for an unstructured justice, others for a categorisation of the common law. If either of these proposals had prevailed, the law of England would have formulated another set of instruments, new ways of tackling them, and, therefore, a very distinct will. It was Coke’s efforts and influence, alongside the political circumstances of the Stuart period, which thwarted all this. The historic partnership between the common lawyers and the Parliament clarified the question between the medieval perspective, the common law, and tradition, and the more modern concepts of discretion and royal power. In addressing this subject matter, Coke’s effort was of tremendous importance to the Parliament and to the English law in general. References Books Bacon, F., The Works of Francis Bacon (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2011). Blackstone, W. et al., Commentaries on the Laws of England: in Four Books, with an Analysis of the Work (UK: Harper & Brothers, 1852). Boyer, A., Sir Edward Coke and the Elizabethan Age (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2003). Coke, E. et al., The reports of Sir Edward Coke, knt: in thirteen parts (New York: Oxford University, 1826). Coke, E. et al., The first part of the institutes of the laws of England, or, a commentary upon Littleton: not the name of the author only, but of the law itself (New York: Harvard University, 1853). Coke, E., Thomas, J., & Fraser, J., The Reports of Sir Edward Coke, Knt. [1527-1617]: In Thirteen Parts. A New Ed., with Additional Notes and References, and with Abstracts of the Principal Points (Clark, New Jersey: The Lawbook Exchange, Ltd., 2002). Garrison, A., Supreme Court Jurisprudence in Times of National Crisis, Terrorism, and War: A Historical Perspective (UK: Lexington Books, 2011). Helgerson, R., Forms of Nationhood: The Elizabethan Writing of England (UK: University of Chicago Press, 1994). Lobban, M., The common law and English jurisprudence, 1760-1850 (Thousand Oaks, CA: Clarendon Press, 1991). Lobban, M., A Treatise of Legal Philosophy and General Jurisprudence (The Netherlands: Springer, 2007). Lyon, H. & Block, H., Edward Coke, Oracle of the Law (UK: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1929). Pollard, D., Parpworth, N., & Hughes, D., Constitutional and Administrative Law: Text with Materials (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007). White, S., Sir Edward Coke and “the Grievances of the Commonwealth,” 1621-1628 (Oxford Road, Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1979). Journals Berman, H., ‘The Origins of Historical Jurisprudence: Coke, Selden, Hale’, The Yale Law Journal, 103/7 (1994), 1651+ Burgess, G., ‘Common Law and Political Theory in Early Stuart England’, Political Science, 40/1, 4-17. Orth, J., ‘Did Sir Edward Coke Mean What He Said?’ Constitutional Commentary, 16/1, 33. Sharpe, A., ‘England’s Legal Monsters’, Law, Culture and the Humanities, 5/1, 100-130. Cases Case of Commendams (1616) Peacham’s Case (1614) Thomas Bonham v College of Physicians (1610) Read More