Editing Edward Coke (section)

===Common Pleas===
On 20 June 1606, Coke was made a [[Serjeant-at-Law]], a requirement for his elevation to [[Chief Justice of the Common Pleas]],<ref>{{Harvnb|Johnson|1845|p=215}}</ref> which occurred on 30 June.<ref>{{Harvnb|Sainty|1993|p=49}}</ref> His conduct was noted by Johnson as "from the first, excellent; ever perfectly upright and fearlessly independent", although the convention of the day was that the judges held their positions only at the pleasure of the monarch.<ref>{{Harvnb|Johnson|1845|p=222}}</ref> A biographer of Francis Bacon noted that "[t]he most offensive of Attorney Generals[sic] transformed into the most admired and venerated of Judges".<ref>{{Harvnb|Bowen|1957|p=251}}</ref> Some assert that Coke became Chief Justice due to his prosecutions of Raleigh and the Gunpowder Plot conspirators, but there is no evidence to support this; instead, it was traditional at the time that a retiring Chief Justice would be replaced with the Attorney General.<ref>{{Harvnb|Woolrych|1826|p=74}}</ref>

====Court of High Commission====
[[File:Richard Bancroft from NPG.jpg|thumb|left|[[Richard Bancroft]], who led the Court of High Commission during Coke's attacks on it|alt=A head-and-shoulders portrait of Richard Bancroft. The portrait portrays Bancroft on a grey background, wearing a white shirt with a black vest. Bancroft is wearing a black cap and has collar-length brown hair. Over Bancroft's left shoulder is a red and brown family crest]]

Coke's changed position from Attorney General to Chief Justice allowed him to openly attack organisations he had previously supported. His first target was the Court of High Commission, an ecclesiastical court established by the monarch with nearly unlimited power; it administered a mandatory [[ex officio oath|''ex officio'' oath]] that deliberately trapped people.<ref>{{Harvnb|Bowen|1957|p=252}}</ref> The High Commission was vastly unpopular among both common lawyers and Members of Parliament, as the idea of "prerogative law" challenged both authorities. The appointment of [[Richard Bancroft]] as [[Archbishop of Canterbury]] in 1604 caused the issue to grow in importance; according to [[Peter Busby Waite|P.B. Waite]], a Canadian historian, Bancroft's zeal and strictness "could hardly fail to produce an atmosphere in which principles and issues would crystallize, in which logic would supplant reasonableness".<ref>{{Harvnb|Waite|1959|p=146}}</ref> The judges, particularly Coke, began to unite with Parliament in challenging the High Commission. In 1607 Parliament openly asked for Coke's opinion on the High Commission's practices; he replied that "No man ecclesiastical or temporal shall be examined upon secret thoughts of his heart or of his secret opinion".<ref>{{Harvnb|Bowen|1957|p=257}}</ref>

During this period a "notorious suit" ran through the courts, known as ''[[Fuller's Case]]'' after the defendant, [[Nicholas Fuller (lawyer)|Nicholas Fuller]]. A barrister, Fuller had several clients fined by the High Commission for [[Nonconformist (Protestantism)|non-conformity]], and stated that the High Commission's procedure was "popish, under jurisdiction not of Christ but of anti-Christ". For this, Fuller was held in custody for contempt of court. The Court of King's Bench argued that this was a lay matter, while the High Commission claimed it fell under their jurisdiction. Coke had no official role, other than acting as a mediator between the two, but in the end, Fuller was convicted by the High Commission. This was a defeat for the common law, and in response, Coke spent the summer issuing [[Writ of prohibition|writs of prohibition]] to again challenge Bancroft and the High Commission. On 6 November 1608, the common law judges and members of the High Commission were summoned before the king and told that they would argue and allow him to decide.<ref>{{Harvnb|Bowen|1957|p=260}}</ref> Finding themselves unable to even argue coherently, instead "[standing] sullen, merely denying each others' statements", the group was dismissed and reconvened a week later. Coke, speaking for the judges, argued that the jurisdiction of the ecclesiastical courts was limited to cases where no temporal matters were involved and the rest left to the common law.<ref>{{Harvnb|Bowen|1957|p=261}}</ref>

At this point, the King's own position in relation to the law, and his authority to decide this matter, was brought up, in what became known as the ''[[Case of Prohibitions]]''. James stated that "In cases where there is no express authority in law, the King may himself decide in his royal person; the Judges are but delegates of the King". Coke challenged this, saying "the King in his own person cannot adjudge any case, either criminal – as treason, felony etc, or betwixt party and party; but this ought to be determined and adjudged in some court of justice, according to the Law and Custom of England".<ref name = "loveland87"/> Coke further stated that "The common law protecteth the King", to which James replied "The King protecteth the law, and not the law the King! The King maketh judges and bishops. If the judges interpret the laws themselves and suffer none else to interpret, they may easily make, of the laws, shipmen's hose!". Coke rejected this, stating that while the monarch was not subject to any individual, he was subject to the law. Until he had gained sufficient knowledge of the law, he had no right to interpret it; he pointed out that such knowledge "demanded mastery of an artificial reason&nbsp;... which requires long study and experience, before that a man can attain to the cognizance of it".<ref name = "loveland87">{{Harvnb|Loveland|2009|p=87}}</ref> Coke was only saved from imprisonment by Cecil, who pleaded with the King to show leniency, which he granted. After the conclusion of this dispute, Coke freely left, and continued to issue writs of prohibition against the High Commission.<ref>{{Harvnb|Bowen|1957|p=263}}</ref>

====''Dr. Bonham's Case''====
{{main|Dr. Bonham's Case}}
[[File:Edward Coke LCJ.jpg|thumb|The meaning of Coke's ruling in ''Thomas Bonham v College of Physicians'' has been disputed over the years.]]

''Thomas Bonham v College of Physicians'', commonly known as ''Dr. Bonham's Case'' was a decision of the [[Court of Common Pleas (England)|Court of Common Pleas]] under Coke in which he ruled that

{{blockquote|in many cases, the common law will controul Acts of Parliament, and sometimes adjudge them to be utterly void: for when an Act of Parliament is against common right and reason, or repugnant, or impossible to be performed, the common law will controul it, and adjudge such Act to be void<ref name=wil>{{Harvnb|Williams|2006|p=111}}</ref>}}

Coke's meaning has been disputed over the years; some interpret his judgment as referring to judicial review of statutes to correct misunderstandings which would render them unfair,<ref>{{Harvnb|Gray|1972|p=36}}</ref> while others argue he meant that the common law courts have the power to completely strike down those statutes they deem to be repugnant.<ref>{{Harvnb|Berger|1969|p=527}}</ref><ref>{{Harvnb|Orth|1999|p=33}}</ref>

Whatever Coke's meaning, after an initial period of application, ''Bonham's Case'' was thrown aside in favour of the growing doctrine of [[Parliamentary sovereignty]]. Initially written down by [[William Blackstone]], this theory makes Parliament the sovereign law-maker, preventing the common law courts from not only throwing aside but also reviewing statutes in the fashion Coke suggested.<ref>{{Harvnb|Plucknett|1942|p=176}}</ref> Parliamentary sovereignty is now the universally-accepted judicial doctrine in England and Wales.<ref>{{Harvnb|Elliott|2004|p=546}}</ref> ''Bonham's Case'' met a mixed reaction at the time, with the King and [[Thomas Egerton, 1st Viscount Brackley|Lord Ellesmere]] both deeply unhappy with it.<ref>{{Harvnb|Bowen|1957|p=170}}</ref> Nineteenth and twentieth-century academics are scarcely more favourable, calling it "a foolish doctrine alleged to have been laid down extra-judicially",<ref>{{Harvnb|Orth|1999|p=37}}</ref> and an "abortion".<ref>{{Harvnb|Allott|1990|p=379}}</ref>

In the United States, Coke's decision met with a better reaction. During the legal and public campaigns against the [[Writ of assistance|writs of assistance]] and [[Stamp Act 1765]], ''Bonham's Case'' was given as a justification for nullifying the legislation.<ref name=mor429>{{Harvnb|Morris|1940|p=429}}</ref> ''[[Marbury v. Madison]]'', the American case which forms the basis for the exercise of [[judicial review in the United States]] under [[Article Three of the United States Constitution|Article III]] of the [[United States Constitution|Constitution]], uses the words "void" and "repugnant", seen as a direct reference to Coke.<ref>{{Harvnb|Feldman|2004|p=29}}</ref> Some academics, such as [[Edward Samuel Corwin]], have argued that Coke's work in ''Bonham's Case'' forms the basis of judicial review and the declaration of legislation as unconstitutional in the United States.<ref>{{Harvnb|Corwin|1929|p=371}}</ref> Gary L. McDowell calls this "one of the most enduring myths of American constitutional law and theory, to say nothing of history", pointing out that at no point during the [[Constitutional Convention (United States)|Constitutional Convention]] was ''Bonham's Case'' referenced.<ref>{{Harvnb|McDowell|1993|pp=395–397}}</ref>