liament, Lord Coke delivered the following unanimous resolution of himself and brethren. "The king by his proclamation cannot create any offence which was not an offence before; for then he may alter the law of the land by his proclamation in a high point. The law of England is divided into three parts; common law, statute law, and custom; but the king's proclamation is none of them. The king has no prerogative but that which the law of the land allows him. But the king, for prevention of offences, may, by proclamation, admonish his subjects that they keep the laws and do not offend them upon punishment to be inflicted by the law &c. Lastly, if the offence be not punishable in the Star Chamber, the prohibition of it by proclamation cannot make it punishable there :" 12 Coke, 76. After this resolution, proclamations were abandoned; but the king still claimed the prerogative in his next speech to parliament.

His majesty was further offended at Sir Edward's obstinate perseverance in doubts concerning the royal prerogative in granting commendams. At this time a power was claimed by the crown of granting vacant benefices. falling into its hands by lapse or otherwise in commendam, as it was called, or in augmentation of poor livings. This prerogative had been generally exercised in favour of poor bishopricks; and now it occurred that a living in Norfolk which had lapsed to the crown, was granted in commendam to the bishop of Lichfield and Coventry. The patron of the advowson sued his writ against the bishop; and, among other important points of law which were involved in the discussion of the case, the right of the sovereign to grant commendams was called in question. The king, who perhaps anticipated what would happen, had ordered Secretary Winwood, and the Bishop of Winchester, Dr. Bilson, to attend in court

b

during the trial, and make a report to him of the proceedings. However the bishop alone was present at the hearing of the cause, and he gave his majesty to understand that Serjeant Chiborne, who argued against the commendams, had maintained several positions prejudicial to the royal prerogative; among others, that the king had only power to grant commendams in case of necessity, which necessity could never, in fact, exist, since no clerk was bound to keep hospitality above his means. On the receipt of this information, the AttorneyGeneral, Bacon, was directed to acquaint Sir Edward Coke that it was the king's pleasure that all further proceedings in the cause should be stayed till the judges could have an opportunity of conferring with His Majesty on the subject. At Coke's desire a similar intimation was officially sent to all the other judges, and they assembled together for the purpose of consulting as to the course they should pursue. The result of their deliberation was a resolution to act in every respect as though they had received no notice to suspend the proceedings and a letter was despatched to James, who was then absent from London, containing a firm but respectful remonstrance against the command that had been addressed to them, together with their reasons for not obeying it.

Shortly after this correspondence the king returned to London, and the twelve judges were immediately summoned before the council at Whitehall (June 6th, 1616) to answer for their conduct. His Majesty himself recapitulated the principal circumstances that had occurred, and commented with much asperity on the liberties that had been taken with his prerogative; observing that it was a new thing, and very indecent and unfit for subjects to disobey the king's commandment, but most of all to proceed

in the mean time and to return to him a bare certificate; whereas they ought to have concluded with the laying down and representing their reasons modestly to His Majesty why they should proceed, and so to have submitted the same to his princely judgment, expecting to hear from him whether they had given him satisfaction." Immediately upon this declaration, the twelve judges fell on their knees and acknowledged their error as to the form of the letter, for which they craved His Majesty's gracious favour and pardon; but Sir Edward Coke entered into a defence of the matter of it, showing that the delay required would have been a delay of justice; and therefore contrary to law and the judge's oath. After some little altercation between the Attorney-General and the Lord-Chief Justice, this point was referred to the decision of Lord Ellesmere, who gave it as his opinion that the stay which had been required by His Majesty was not against the law, nor the judge's oath. The judges were then severally asked, "Whether if, at any time, in a case depending before them, His Majesty conceived it to concern him either in power or profit, and thereupon required to consult with them and that they should stay proceedings in the mean time, they ought not to stay accordingly?" and they all, with the exception of the Lord-Chief-Justice, declared that they would. But Sir Edward Coke contented himself with answering that "when the case should be he would do that which should be fit for a judge to do." They were then permitted to proceed in the cause, which was finally decided against the Bishop of Litchfield and Coventry.

This firm and resolute conduct of the Lord-ChiefJustice gave great offence to his Majesty, and it is supposed that this weak monarch, in addition to his other reasons for being displeased with Coke, had conceived a mean jealousy of his popularity. It was evident,

indeed, that the fearless integrity which had thwarted the King's views was the principal cause of that popularity; and the circumstance did not escape the attention of James, who afterwards remarked that Sir Edward Coke had obtained it without "having in his nature one particle of those things which are popular in men, being neither civil, nor affable, nor magnificent." He had, however, taken the surest means to acquire the lasting and deserved esteem of his countrymen.

One of the last judicial acts of the Chief Justice was the trial of Mrs. Turner for the murder of Sir Thomas Overbury, and what would be rather a novelty in the present day, the whole conduct of the prosecution was committed to his especial charge by the King—so enormous appeared the crime, and so established was the Judge's fame for tracking the crooked course of villany. The labyrinth of guilt he carefully unravelled, and pursued his scrutiny with great industry and severity; even his great rival Bacon, then Attorney general, paid him many high compliments on the efficacy of his searching examinations. It is, however, lamentable to relate the unbecoming language which the Chief Justice still thought proper to indulge in against the prisoner. He told her that she was guilty of the seven deadly sins, that she was a whore, a bawd, a sorcerer, a witch, a papist, a felon, and a murderer. It is scarcely necessary to add that she was condemned and executed, though the prime movers of the murder, the Earl and Countess of Somerset, escaped with their lives.

The declining health of the venerable Lord Chancellor Ellesmere, now made it apparent that the woolsack would soon be without an occupant. The sharp-sighted Bacon saw in the profound legal attainments of his rival, the only competitors. The credit of the Chief Justice was by this

time completely undermined at court, and his thwarting the favourite Villiers in his endeavours to procure the reversion of a lucrative situation in the Court of King's Bench, may be considered as completing the full measure of his iniquity. It was not therefore, difficult to procure his removal. Some slight pretext was however necessary. He was accused of concealing a statute of 12,000l. due to the king from the son of the late Lord Chancellor Hatton, of speaking irreverently of His Majesty in court, of opposing the Attorney-General (Bacon), in the discharge of his duty, of assuming the style of Chief Justicier of England, and of presuming to allow his coachman to drive him bareheaded. Upon these charges, he was in November 1616 displaced, but no impeachment followed. In the ensuing March, Lord Ellesmere died, and Bacon was made Lord Keeper.

At the time of his discharge Sir Edward Coke was 67 years of age, but by great temperance and regularity he preserved his health unimpaired, and lived afterwards to the advanced age of 83. He had been ten years on the bench, and by his opposition to court measures had rendered himself a great favourite with the people; a popularity which his successor Montagu was admonished to forego. The remaining sixteen years of his life were actively spent, and his patriotic exertions in the cause of freedom, still further secured to him the love and esteem of his countrymen.

Sir Edward was anxious for a renewal of the king's favour, and therefore projected a marriage between his youngest daughter by Lady Hatton, and John Villiers, brother of the favourite Duke of Buckingham. At this proposal Lady Hatton was highly offended, and refused her consent altogether until it was wrung from her by an