Page:The American Cyclopædia (1879) Volume V.djvu/40

36 COKE for reference to the original cases, but insists upon the study of the cases themselves. The trial of the earls of Essex and Southampton for high treason, which occurred early in 1601, brought out harsh traits in the character of Coke. His statement of facts in opening the case was exaggerated, and his manner abu- sive, and this was continued throughout the trial. In the first year of King James, the trial of Sir Walter Raleigh upon a charge of high treason for a conspiracy to place the lady Arabella Stuart on the throne again exhibited Coke (who still remained attorney general) as a public prosecutor, and on this occasion to arrogance and vituperation he added an unfair attempt to convict the prisoner upon evidence which he knew to be insufficient, and in fact inadmissible. The advancing favor of Bacon with King James now exasperated the former enmity of Coke against him. The literary re- nown of Bacon, and the personal regard shown for him by Elizabeth, although it had not pro- cured him official station other than the hon- orary one of queen's counsel, had excited the jealousy of Coke, and sharp encounters had taken place between him and Bacon. As at- torney general Coke rendered efficient service in the unravelling of the gunpowder plot and the prosecution of the parties concerned. On the trial Coke opened the case to the jury at enormous length, interlarding his diatribe against the prisoners with quaint conceits. To Sir Everard Digby, one of the prisoners, who confessed the charge, but prayed the mercy of the king as to the mode of death, and also in behalf of his family, Coke answered that he must not look to the king to be honored in the manner of his death, but was rather to admire the moderation of the king in that for so im- portant a crime no new torture answerable thereto had been devised to be inflicted on him. The trial of Garnett, the superior of the Jesuits, who was implicated in the same plot, called forth still greater effort on the part of Coke to show his zeal for the king and se- verity to the prisoner. In 1606 Coke was appointed chief justice of the common pleas, and Bacon in 1607 solicitor general. From the time he entered upon his office he exhib- ited an integrity and independence in striking contrast with his former violation of private rights in his zeal to serve the crown. Indeed, the difference is so great that we hardly rec- ognize Coke the chief justice as the same per- son with Coke the attorney general. Thus he granted writs of prohibition to restrain the court of high commission from issuing process for the arrest of parties complained against, which practice, recently introduced in place of citation, Coke maintained to be contrary to Magna Charta. He resisted the pretension of King James to the right of sitting in person to hear causes, which was a device suggested for the purpose of getting rid of prohibition and appeal. Prohibitions were also issued from the common pleas to check the arbi- trary proceedings of the lord president of Wales, and of the lord president of the North. Complaint having been made to the king of these prohibitions, and the judges having been summoned before the council, Coke justified the judges ; and in like manner, when the ques- tion came up as to the king's prerogative to impose penalties and otherwise alter laws by proclamation, and the opinions of the judges were demanded by the king for the purpose of enforcing the power claimed, Coke resisted, and finally got the rest of the judges to concur in an answer that a proclamation was no law. The effect of this bold opposition to arbitrary power can hardly be overestimated. It at least checked abuses, and it led to in- vestigation as to the limit imposed by law. Although Coke had but little turn for abstract reasoning about natural rights, he was in- flexible in maintaining such rights as had been recognized by law. In 1613 Coke was remov- ed from the office of chief justice of the com- mon pleas to the chief justiceship of the king's bench. The change was intended partly as a penalty for his conduct in the matters before referred to, but chiefly to favor the advance- ment of Bacon, who wished the place of attor- ney general, and Hobart, who then held the office, was willing to exchange for the chief justiceship of the common pleas, but not of the king's bench. The reluctance of Coke to leave the common pleas may be explained by the fact that far the larger part of the civil business of the kingdom was transacted in that court, it having exclusive jurisdiction of all ca- ses relating to real property. It appears from a letter of Bacon to the king that it was de- signed to put Coke upon his good behavior, and to prepare the way for his final dismissal from office if he should fail to become conform- able to the views of the court. He was in fact dismissed three years afterward, but in the mean time, with the certainty of losing his place by persistence in the course of judicial in- dependence which he had heretofore pursued, he fearlessly resisted the encroachment of royal prerogative, and the corrupt attempts of court minions to pervert his administration of the law to improper purposes. Two memorable instances occurred of Coke's inflexibility in maintaining what he believed to be right, al- though exceedingly obnoxious to the king : his contest with the court of chancery, and his re- sistance of the interference of the king in the matter of the commendams. The court of chancery had exercised the power of correct- ing judgments of other courts. The limit of this power had not been well defined. There were many cases where, by the rigid practice at common law, great injustice was done, and relief could be had only by the equitable ad- ministration of chancery; but some of the chancellors had proceeded as if they had a general right to review the judgments of all other courts. Coke wholly denied the author- ity of the court as thus claimed. He and his