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

this ettee, is ar,Teliag wta:ch in the Court of Cont-
mon Hess, the King was ieforrned by &Non,
Bishop of Wiiicheitee, who attended the trial at the
King's de•ire, that the Counsel for the plaintiffs
had maintained several positions highly injurious
to his royal prerogative, namely, that the transla-
tion of Bishopa was cositeary to the Common Law,
and that the King had no power to grant cosmos-
dams but in c..ses of necessity, which siecessity
could never happen, because no clerk was bound to
hospitably beyond his means, sod therefore in no
case cosilil there be need of augmentation of liv-
ings. .1 one. took alarm at these dangerous doc-
trines, and, determined not to suffer any more dis-
cussion of points so nearly concerning his royal dig-
nity, commanded the Attorney-General, Sir FM.=
Odeon, to signify his plesnoie to the Lord
Chief Jii•tice, that he 1104 it necessary himself
should he entioulted before soy further proceedings
were hail in the cause.

Been'. who seems to h.tve acted 99 the chief ad- I
wiser of the King in all these measures, accordingly
wrote a letter to the Chief Justice (April 25,1616),
imparting the King's wish that the day for hearing
the argument might be deferred. Sir Edward
Coke, not receiving this letter, requested of the At-
torney-General that the like should be tent to his
brethren ; which being done, all the Judges assem-
bled and unanimously came to the resolution of do-
ing their duty exactly as if the letters had not been
written. Afterwards they sent a letter under their
hands to the King in justification of their conduct,
certifying that they conceived obedience to the let-
ters of the Attorney-General to be inconsistent with
their oaths, inasmuch as they were expressly sworn
to pay no regard to any letters that should come to
them contrary to law, and that the case in question
being a titivate difference between subjects, and es
such earnestly calling for expedition. they consider-
ed it would be an unlawful delay and denial of jus-
tice to defer the cause: wherefore they had proceed.
ed, according to their duty, following what to the
best of their judgment they understood to be the
meaning of the Acts of Parliament provided in ibis
behalf. The King immediately replied that. as he
would not have his royal prerogative wounded
tl rough the side of a subject, and es he held
the alleging their oaths only an impertinent pre-
tence, therefore' he peremptorily commanded them
to meddle no more with the matter until they were
apprized of his pleasure from his own mouth. No
sooner was the King rewired in the city, than all
the Judges were sent fur to the Council-tabk (June
6th, 1616). After the King had narrated the
above facts, he began by reprimanding the Judges
for their remissness in suffering • counsellor at the
bar to irapeach his prerogative, telling them it was
their duty to check and bridle these impudent law-
yers, who bore so little respect t• the suthority of
the Crown. Next, as to their letter. be acquainted
them that to defer the hearing of a cause upon suf.
ficient reasons, was neither a denial nor a delay of
justice; it rather indicated wi.dota sod sasturene.•
of proceeding ; and there could never be a better
reason for staying • cause shun a desire to consult
the King in a matter concerning his prerogative.
Then he denied that the case involved merely •
private interest betwixt party sad party, since the
royal prerogative was openly, directly. and largely
disputed at the bar ; nay, by virtue of that
very prerogative alone did the Defendant claim
to hold his benefice in con madam. Lastly, he
observed that it was a new thing for subjects to
disobey the King's express command, and most
of all for them to justify their disobedience by
returning a bare certificate. instead of modestly
laying down their reasons, and then submitting the
whole to his princely judgment. When the King
had made this declarastion, all the Judges acknow-
ledged the faultiness of their letter to respect to
the/urea, and on their knees begged pardon of the
liing for their errus. But Sir Edward Coke enter-
ed into a defence of the mailer of the letter, main-
tai&ng twat the delay required would hive been a
denial of justice, and adding that the Judges
meant the ease should be handled so that the royal
prerogative should in nu wise be questioned. The
King answered that it was preposterous for them to
take on themselves peremptorily to disceru whe-
ther his prerogative was concerned, without asking
his advice tisi the subject ; and, as to the rest, he
called upon the Lord Chancellor to deliver his opi-
oiou the legality of the delay. Lord Elea.
I mere, excusing himself from declaring his senti-
ments at present, desired that his Majesty's counsel
might first deliver theirs : upon which the Attor-
ney-General, of course, defended the King, and
the other Counsel concurred, for the reasons al-
ready advanced by the King. This widened the
breach still more ; for Sir Edward Coke complain-
ed of the King's counsel fur disputiug with the
Judges, saying they were to plesd before theludges,
not to dispute with them ; to which Sir Fraucis
Bacon returned. that by his oath of office, he was
explicitly bound to proceed against soy person
whatever. should he be the greatest peer in the
realm, who exceeded the limits of his authority or
invaded the rights of the Crown ; and therefore he
deemed the challenge of the Chief Justice to be an
affront, for which lie and his fellows appealed to
the King for reparation. To this appeal the King
replied. that his counsel had done their duty, and '
he would maintain them in it, which ended the
controversy ; fur Sir Edward immediately said lie
would not dispute with his Majesty, and the Lord
Chancellor then pronouticed the King's requisi-
tion to have been no violation of the Judges' oath
or of the laws. All the Lords of the Council then
put the question to the Judges. commending
them to say whether if, in any case depending
before them, the King conceived his interest to be
coucerned, and therefore desired to be consulted.
they would accordingly stay the proceedings The
Judges all answered in the affirmative, excepting
Sir Edward Coke, who merely said. " Wheu the
case shall be. I will do what is fit fur a Judge to
du." Sir Henry Hobart was so complying as to
say, that fur his part he would ever trust the jai-
tice of his Majesty's command. After all this dis-
cussion was over the King made the Judges pro-
mise, that in the farther argument of the coalmen-
dams they would carefully abstaiu from whoever
tended to weaken or draw into doubt his preroga-
tive; nay, would in plain terms correct the bold
speeches already made in derogation thereof, and
never spin permit them to recur. Satisfied with
the recantation and ample asauraiiers of the eleveo
Judges, the King allowed the cause to proceed,
gad judrieut was nosily entered for the plaintiffs.