The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1822-11-19 00:00:00

CH.ILICTZR OFSIR EDFCIRD.COEZ.

(Cordistmeilfross our Paper of Saturday'lost)

The King's displeasure un account of what the
Chief Justice said was not • hole brightened by
the famous di.uale concerning the jurisdiction of
the Court of Chancery, between Sir Edward Coke !
and the Lord Chancellor Ellesmere, and still more
by the business of the eommeiwitaws, in which bat 1
the King conceived his socced prerogative to have
Arco very,proftinely handled ; both of which bap.
;wiling nearly at the same time (1613, 1616) coo-
mimed, avowedly at least, to produce the disgrace
of Sir Edward Coke. For although Sir Edward's
activity in detecting the murderers of Overbary,
and his consequent knowledge of the facts, render-
ed his assistance nec y to the King in con-
vietiog Earl and Connives of Si meiset, yet no
sooner was this affair ended, than the cocoon's of the
Cbief Justice resolved upon his downfall.
The dispute concerning the jurisdiction of Chan-
cery wow chiefly out of a Statute of Edward 111.
which inflicted the penalties of a pereemuire upon
all persons who should question or impeach, in the
coed of another, any judgment given in the King's
Courts. Now the right interpretation of the words
" in the court of another," or,. its the origisial has it,
ea salmi coati, is, that they were designed to pro.
habit appeals froth the• King's Courts to the Lege-
tine or other Coorts•of Rome. The reason of the
thing, as well as blowiest record., confirms this in-
t. emetation ; but a doubt was started iii the reign
of James I. whether theie words, or some others
equally general in different Statutes, did not pre.
treat appeals from the CommonLiew Court, to airy
other tribunal esceptiog tire high Court of Perlis.
went. Sir Edward Colte, who was very jealous of
his authority, and his associates on the bench,
thought it did ; and therefore Justice Crooke gave
-kilt charge to the Grand Jury of Middlesex, among
other things, that they should present any man,
who, after • judgment rendered, had drown that
judgment to a new examination in arty other court.
Accordingly, on the last day of the Term. indict.
wants were preferred against suitors, solicitors,
counsel, masters, and assessors in Chancery, charged
with • prornmaire for making, conducting, and de-
ciding an appeal in two cams adjudged in the
King's Bench. These cases, as there adjudged,
Iteppened unfortunately to be cases of foul and nos-
rifest injustice. The first was that of Courtney
against Glanville, w here Courtney, who was a young
gentleman. -bought of Glanville a jewel, represent-
ed by the latter to be worth 3601. aril as security
for the payment of the purchase-money, agreed to
confess judgment in an action of debt on bond iii
the Court of King's Bench. Afterwards it appear-
ing that the real value of the jewel was 201., and,
es a writ of error being brought to reverse this
judgment, the Court affi,ining it, Courtney exhi-
bited hie bi'l in Chancery fur relief against the
bond : whereupon a release was decreed, and the
defendant in Chancery imprisoned for non-perform-
&ace of the decree, but immediately discharged by
a writ of habeas corpus, returnable in the Court of
King's Bench. The other case, of Bowles and Al-
len, was still more iniquitous. The defendant had
prevailed upon the plaintiff's most material witness
to withhold hie testimony, provided he could be ex-
cused. An agent of the defendunt'n, who under-
took 9 manage this, carried this whored to a tavern,
called for a gallon of wick in • pot, mod, bidding
him drink, as soon as the man had put the flagon
to his I ps, quitted the room. When the witness
~coiled, the Court was informed he was unable
to ese; to prove which the defendant's agent was
produced, who swore that he left him in such a con-
dition, that, if be continued its it but • quarter of an
hour, he was a dead man. The witness air therefore
excused by the Court. and for want of I.is testimony
the cause was low. gull a verdict given kr the de-
fendant. Upon this • bill was brought in Chancery
for relief, to which the defendants refusing to make
'newer, were committed for contempt of Court.
Such being the facts in evidence before the Grand
Jou, when the defeat:Jaunt in Chancery preferred
their indictments, the Jury, consisting, as it seems,
of mhatointiel and intelligent persons, refused to
Pad the bills, and, although twice sent back by
the Court. resolutely persisted in their refusal. The
matter excited the more notice from the circum•
stance that Lord Ellesmere wag et this time dais-
werothily ill. and, although he afterwards recover-
ed, was generally believed to be dying oil this very
day; and it tow made so much noise, that it was
brought before the King in Council. It was refer.
red lay him to Sir Francis Bacon, Sir Henry Vet-
verbal), Sir Henry Montague, Sir Ranulph Crewe,
mod Sir John Walter, and, after an examinatiou of
precedents. they supported the jurisdiction of the
l'hancellor in an elaborate decision, which put the
question at rest, and seems to have been at least
acquiesced in by the Chief Justice himself, as well
we toe rouodest lawyers of the kingdom*.
Sir Edward Coke is generally allowed to have
'brat much in the wrong for endesiouring to niain-
loin the jurisdiction of his Court by such violet,t
nryainmes, sod was afterwards accused at the Coun-
cil-Board of uttering very reprehensible laiiguage
on tie subject from the Bench. But iu the busi-
ness of the eantiraendams he seems to have demeaned
biawelf with • spirited dignity, firmiwys, and inde-
peodence, which redound• as mach to his honour
as the pusillanimity of the other Judges does to
their disgrace.
This celebrated case of the cosamendams, even
more carious iii its connexion with the history of
the administration of justice in England than that
wnich we have just detailed, was the following :
Jahn Clifton and William Glover brought a writ
of pare impedit *grime Richard, Bishop of Co-
motry sod Lichfield, of a presentation to the
church of Clifton Camsille. The plaintiffs' de-
claration made out a gi,od title to the adsowson in
them; but the Bishop's plea recited, among other
matters of defence, that his metropolitan having
granted him a dispensation from the stature of plu-
ralities, the King, to whom it accrued by lapse to
present to the benefice in question, did according-
ly petite the defendant to hold the same in eons-
orestdowt. Various important questions grew out of

• Altbougb Lc Edward, as he could cot avoid doing,
queened is tbe Kings decision, yet be was nut convinced
abet be bad done wrong. In big Pleas of the Crown, C. 64,
Omar air', pp. 122-125, he maintains that a judgment fen;
derid is des line's Bench could sot be lawfully examined
tr Chaucery, and after citing preeedeats to that effect, says
tbst the Prisy Seal was" obtained by the importunity of the
the airs Lord Cbseceller Willi vehemently afraid."