Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T05:14:22.195Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

St. German on Reason and Parliamentary Sovereignty

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 August 2003

Mark D. Walters
Mark D. Walters*
Affiliation:
Queen’s University
Get access

Extract

In the late-nineteenth century, Dicey defined with clarity the modern doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty, identifying both its positive aspect, that Parliament is legally empowered to make any law, and its negative aspect, that no court, institution or person is legally empowered to set Acts of Parliament aside. The historical genesis of this modern understanding of parliamentary sovereignty was, and continues to be, controversial. In his recent study of parliamentary sovereignty, Jeffrey Goldsworthy suggests that the sixteenth-century lawyer Christopher St. German, author of Doctor and Student as well as a series of publications relating to the Henrician Reformation, was likely “the first English writer to propound a comprehensive theory of parliamentary sovereignty”— a controversial claim given St. German's insistence that any “statute” made against the law of nature or reason is “voyd”.4 However, Goldsworthy appears to be supported by an impressive list of historians.

Type
Articles
Information
The Cambridge Law Journal , Volume 62 , Issue 2 , 01 July 2003 , pp. 335 - 370
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge Law Journal and Contributors 2003

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Dicey, A.V., Introduction To The Study Of The Law Of The Constitution, 7th edn. (London 1908), pp. 37–38, 66-67Google Scholar.

2 See for example McIlwain, C.H., The High Court of Parliament And Its Supremacy (New Haven 1910)Google Scholar; SirJennings, Ivor, The Law and the Constitution 5th edn. (London 1959), pp. 318–329Google Scholar; Allan, T.R.S., Law, Liberty and Justice (Oxford 1993), p. 269Google Scholar; Goldsworthy, Jeffrey, The Sovereignty of Parliament: History and Philosophy (Oxford 1998)Google Scholar.

3 Goldsworthy ibid., at p. 72.

4 See note 45 below.

5 Historians say that St. German advocated the “sovereignty of the king-in-parliament” and “statutory omnicompetence” (Guy, John, “Thomas More and Christopher St. German” in Fox, Alistair and Guy, John (eds.), Reassessing the Henrician Age: Humanism, Politics and Reform, 1500-1550 (Oxford 1986), pp. 101–102Google Scholar and Christopher St. German on Chancery and Statute (London: Selden Society, Supp. Series, vol. VI, 1985), p. 32), that he denied that a “gap” could exist between “parliamentary enactment and higher law” (Hanson, Donald W., From Kingdom to Commonwealth (Cambridge, Mass. 1970), pp. 261–262Google Scholar), that he attributed to Parliament “a quite unlimited authority” (Allen, J.W., A History of Political ‘Thought in the Sixteenth Century (London 1957), p. 167Google Scholar), that he was a “champion of the sovereignty of parliament” and the “doctrine of parliamentary infallibility” (Baumer, Franklin Le Van, The Early Tudor Theory of Kingship (New Haven 1940), pp. 59, 76Google Scholar), that the “theory of Parliamentary power owes much” to his work (Schoeck, R.J., “Strategies of Rhetoric in St. German's Doctor and Student” in Eales, Richard and Sullivan, David (eds.), The Political Context of Law: Proceedings of the Seventh British Legal History Conference Canterbury 1985 (London 1987), at p. 86Google Scholar), and that he was among those scholars who sought to “remove positive law from the control of any higher law and its interpreters” (Burgess, Glenn, The Politics of the Ancient Constitution (Basingstoke 1992), p. 42, in general pp. 30-43Google Scholar).

6 D.E.C. Yale, “St. German's Little Treatise Concerning Writs of Subpoena” (1975) 10 Irish Jurist (NS) 324, 333.

7 E.g., Chrimes, S.B., English Constitutional Ideas in the Fifteenth Century (Cambridge 1936), pp. 203–214Google Scholar; Franklin Le Van Baumer, “Christopher St. German: The Political Philosophy of a Tudor Lawyer” (1937) 42 American Hist. Rev. 631, 643, 651; Baumer, Early Tudor Theory note 5 above at pp. 79, 162; Guy, St. German on Chancery note 5 above at p. 42.

8 Dworkin, R., Law's Empire (Cambridge, Mass. 1986), pp. 31–44Google Scholar.

9 Guy, St. German on Chancery note 5 above at pp. 3-15; Guy, “Thomas More and Christopher St. German” note 5 above at p. 99.

10 For a summary of St. German's works, see Guy, St. German on Chancery above note 5 at pp. 16-18. References to Doctor and Student, below, are to Plucknett, T.F.T. and Barton, J.F. (eds.), St. German's Doctor and Student (Fondon: Selden Society, vol. 91, 1974)Google Scholar.

11 Here after foloweth a lyttell treatise called the newe additions (1531). References hereinafter are to the text of New Additions in Plucknett and Barton, ibid. A fourth Doctor-Student dialogue on religious matters was written in 1537 but not published: Guy, St. German on Chancery note 5 above at pp. 48-50.

12 A Litle Treatise concerning writs of Subpoena [c. 1532] written in response to Replication of a Serjaunte at the Lawes of England, to certaine Pointes alleaged by a Student of the said Lawes of England, in a Dialogue in Englishe between a Doctor of Divinitye and the said Student, in F. Hargrave (ed.), A Collection of Tracts Relative to the Law of England, From Manuscripts (1787), pp. 323-355. See Yale note 6 above; R.J. Schoeck, “The Date of the Replication of a Serjeant-At-Law” (1960) 76 L.Q.R. 500; Guy, St. German on Chancery note 5 above at pp. 56-62.

13 “Parliamentary Draft of 1531” printed in Guy, St. German on Chancery note 5 above at pp. 127-135; A Treatise concernynge the diuision betwene the spiritualitie and temporaltie ([1532]), printed in Trapp, J.B. (ed.), Complete Works of St. Thomas More, IX, (New Haven 1979), app. A, pp. 173–212Google Scholar; Salem and Bizance (1533), printed in Guy, J.A., Keen, R., Miller, C.H., & McGugan, R. (eds.), Complete Works of St. Thomas More, X, (New Haven 1987), app. B, pp. 325–392Google Scholar; The Additions of Salem and Byzance (1534; facsimile, New York: 1973). On the propagandist nature of this work and the St. German-More debate see Guy, “Thomas More and Christopher St. German” note 5 above.

14 26 Hen VIII c. 1.

15 A treatyse concernige the power of the clergye and the lawes of the Realme (London: Thomas Godfray, [1535]); An Answere to a letter ([1535]; facsimile, New York 1973). See Guy, St. German on Chancery note 5 above at pp. 38-39, 54-55.

16 Cf. Holdsworth, W.S., A History of English Law (London 1924), vol. V, pp. 268–269Google Scholar (St. German's work is the “basis and starting point” of English equity) with Allen note 5 above at p. 165, n. 1 (St. German “is now chiefly known through his controversy with Sir Thomas More”).

17 Rodgers, C.P., “Humanism, History and the Common Law” (1985) 6 J. Legal Hist. 129, 132–133Google Scholar.

18 Doctor and Student note 10 above at p. 3.

19 Ibid.

20 Ibid.

21 Ibid.

22 Burgess, Ancient Constitution note 5 above at p. 86.

23 Doctor and Student note 10 above at Dial. I, ch. I-IV. Cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, I-II, qq. 90-95.

24 Doctor and Student, at pp. 31-33.

25 Ibid., at Dial I, ch. XII-XIV.

26 Ibid., at Dial I, ch. V-XI.

27 Ibid., at p. 33.

28 Ibid.

29 Ibid.

30 Ibid., at p. 35.

31 Ibid., at p. 183.

32 McIlwain note 2 above at pp. 105-106.

33 Summa Theologiae I-II q. 94 aa. 2, 4, 5.

34 Chrimes note 7 above at p. 209; Hanson note 5 above at pp. 256-260; Burgess, Ancient Constitution note 5 above at pp. 30-31. The argument is at least implicit in Guy, St. German on Chancery note 5 above at p. 20 and Guy, “Law, Equity and Conscience in Henrician Juristic Thought” in Reassessing the Henrician Age note 5 above at p. 181.

35 Summa Theologiae I-II, q. 94 a. 5; q. 95 a. 4. This point being subject, of course, to the fact that Aquinas was stating a general jurisprudential point rather than articulating a rule of law for a particular legal system. See in general Finnis, J., Aquinas: Moral, Political, and Legal Theory (Oxford 1998), pp. 266–274Google Scholar.

36 J.L. Barton, “Introduction” in T.F.T. Plucknett and J.L. Barton (eds.), St. German's Doctor and Student, p. xlvi; H.L.A. Hart, “Blackstone's Use of the Law of Nature” [1956] Butterworth's S. African L. Rev. 169; Guy, St. German on Chancery note 5 above at p. 89.

37 On Gerson's approach to law, see Pascoe, Louis B., Jean Gerson: Principles of Church Reform (Leiden 1973), pp. 49–79Google Scholar and Posthumus Meyjes, G.H.M., Jean Gerson, Apostle of Unity: His Church Politics and Ecclesiology, (Grayson, J.C., trans., Leiden 1999), pp. 232–246Google Scholar. Gerson's works are published in Gerson, Jean, Oeuvres Complètes (Glorieux, P., ed., Paris 1960-73)Google Scholar, 10 volumes. Among Gerson's works that St. German relied upon are: Regulae Morales (IX, 94103), Definitiones terminorum ad theologiam moralem pertinentium (IX, 133-141), and De vita animae (III). On Gerson's influence on St. German generally: Sir Paul Vinogradoff, “Reason and Conscience in Sixteenth Century Jurisprudence” (1908) 24 L.Q.R. 373; Barton note 36 above at pp. xxiii-xxiv. On Gerson's influence on St. German's approach to equity: Zofia Rueger, “Gerson's Concept of Equity and Christopher St. German” (1982) 3 Hist, of Political Thought 1. On St. German and Gerson on sindéresis: Schoeck note 5 above.

38 The Latin versions from St. German and Gerson, with letters added to indicate the three parts of the definition of the law of reason/nature, are: “Et secundum lohannem gerson: est [(a)] signum naturaliter [(b)] habitum notificatiuum recte rationis diuine volentis creaturam rationalem humanam teneri seu ligari ad aliquid agendum vel non agendum [(c)] pro consecutione finis sui naturalis/qui est felicitas humana siue monastica siue yconomica siue politica” [Doctor and Student note 10 above at p. 12] and “Lex vero naturalis praeceptiva appropriate talem habet rationem quod est [(a)] signum inditum cuilibet homini non impedito in usu debit rationis, [(b)] notificativum voluntatis divinae volentis creaturam rationalem humanam teneri seu obligari ad aliquid agendum vel non agendum [(c)] pro consecutione finis sui naturalis, qui finis est felicitas humana et in multis debita conversado domestica et etiam politica; homo enim natura animal civile est” [Gerson, De vita note 37 above at p. 135].

39 Doctor and Student note 10 above at p. 27.

40 Cf. St. German's Latin text with Gerson's definition (with letters inserted to identify the three parts): “Lex quoque humana sic describitur lex humana est [(a)] signum verum humana traditione & auctoritate immediate constitutum [(b)] notificatiuum recte rationis volentis rationalem creaturam ad aliquid agendum vel non agendum [(c)] propter finem aliquem rationi consonum spiritualem vel temporalem obligare” [Doctor and Student note 10 above at p. 26] and “Lex humana sive positiva praeceptiva pure et appropriate describitur quod est [(a)] signum verum humana traditione et auctoritate immediate constitutum, [(b)] aut quod non infertur necessaria deductione ex lege divina et naturali, ligans ad adliquid agendum vel non agendum [(c)] pro consecutione finis alicujus humani” [Gerson, De vita note 37 above at p. 135]. Just a few sentences earlier in Doctor and Student, p. 27, St. German states that human law is derived by reason as something that necessarily and probably follows from the law of reason and god. Again, Gerson was not cited but the Latin text is taken almost verbatim from Gerson. Cf. “Lex humana siue positiva est lex per rationem ex lege rationis et diuina deducta in consequents probabilibus necessariisque [ad finem debitum humane nature.] dicitur autem proabile quod pluribus & maxime sapientibus apparet verum [Doctor and Student p. 26] with “Lex humana seu positiva est lex per ratiocinationem ex lege naturali deducta in consequents probabilibus ad finem debitum humanae creaturae. Probabile dicitur quod pluribus et maxime sapientibus apparet verum” [Gerson Definitiones note 37 above at p. 136].

41 Barton's translation at Doctor and Student note 10 above at p. 27 [italics removed].

42 The theoretical basis of Gerson's argument is summarised in the following ways: “[s]ince positive law rests primarily upon human authority, it is not deduced from divine or natural law” (Pascoe note 37 above at p. 64), and because positive law is based on “tradition” it is “a law which cannot possibly be related to the divine or natural law” (Meyjes note 37 above at p. 236).

43 Rueger note 37 above at p. 9 concludes that Gerson's work represents a “condemnation of legal positivism and the separation of law and morals”.

44 Doctor and Student note 10 above at p. 11.

45 Ibid., at p. 15.

46 Ibid. The Latin version of St. German's passage is: “Et contra earn non est prescriptio vel ad oppositum statutum siue consuetudo. Et si aliqua fiant non sunt statuta siue consuetudines sed corruptele” [Doctor and Student p. 14], Cf. Gerson: “Secus de divina atque naturali diceretur, contra quas non est praescriptio vel ad oppositum consuetudo, sed tantum corruptela” [Gerson, Regulae Morales note 37 above at p. 100], and also Aquinas, Summa Theologiae I–II, q. 95 a. 2: “Si vero in aliquo a lege naturali discordet, jam non erit lex, sed legis corruptio”.

47 Doctor and Student note 10 above at p. 29.

48 Ibid., at p. 41.

49 Ibid., at pp. 57, 45-47.

50 Ibid., at p. 57.

51 Ibid., at p. 75 [italics in Barton and Plucknett edition removed].

52 Ibid.

53 Thorne, Samuel E., “Preface” in Hake, Edward, Epieikeia: A Dialogue on Equity in Three Parts [c 1597-98], ed. Yale, D.E.C. (Oxford: Oxford and Yale University Presses, 1953), p. viGoogle Scholar.

54 Nicomachean Ethics, bk. V, ch. 9, sec. 10, in McKeon, Richard (ed.), The Basic Works of Aristotle (New York 1941), pp. 1019–1020Google Scholar. See Rueger note 37 above; Barton note 36 above at p. xliv; Behrens, Georg, “An Early Tudor Debate on the Relation Between Law and Equity” (1998) 19 J. Legal Hist. 143Google Scholar.

55 Doctor and Student note 10 above at p. 97.

56 Ibid.

57 Rueger note 37 above.

58 Doctor and Student note 10 above at pp. 99-101.

59 Ibid., at p. 101.

60 Ibid., at pp. 101, 103.

61 Hanson note 5 above at pp. 256-263; Burgess, Ancient Constitution note 5 above at pp. 30-31. The argument seems to underlie Guy's reading of St. German's chapter on equity: Guy, St. German on Chancery note 5 above at pp. 19-21.

62 Doctor and Student note 10 above at p. 117.

63 Ibid., at p. 111.

64 Ibid.

65 Ibid.

66 Ibid., at pp. 111-113.

67 Ibid.

68 Guy, “Law, Equity and Conscience” note 34 above at p. 181.

69 Barton note 36 above at p. xlviii.

70 Doctor and Student note 10 above at p. 147; for this general argument see also pp. 135, 158, 183.

71 Ibid., at p. 147 [italics in Barton and Plucknett ed. removed].

72 Ibid.

73 Ibid., at pp. 159-160.

74 Ibid., at p. 158.

75 Goldsworthy note 2 above at p. 71.

76 Finnis, J., “Blackstone's Theoretical Intentions” (1967) 12 Natural L. Forum 163Google Scholar; Austin, J., The Province of Jurisprudence Determined (London 1954), pp. 184–185Google Scholar.

77 Baumer, Early Tudor Theory note 5 above at p. 76 n. 135, p. 156.

78 On this difference see Eccleshall, Robert, Order and Reason in Politics (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1978), pp. 100–102Google Scholar.

79 Doctor and Student note 10 above at p. 300. Baumer, Early Tudor Theory note 5 above at p. 76; Hanson note 5 above at pp. 261-262; Goldsworthy note 2 above at p. 71.

80 45 Ed. III c. 3.

81 Doctor and Student note 10 above at p. 300.

82 Ibid., at p. 300.

83 Ibid., at p. 303.

84 Guy, St. German on Chancery note 5 above at p. 89; Guy, “Thomas Cromwell and the Intellectual Origins of the Henrician Revolution” in Reassessing the Henrician Age note 5 above at p. 170.

85 J.B. Trapp, “Introduction” in Complete Works of Sir Thomas More note 13 above at vol. IX, p. 1.

86 Baumer, Early Tudor Theory note 5 above at p. 37.

87 New Additions note 11 above at pp. 327-329.

88 Guy, St. German on Chancery note 5 above at p. 24; Guy, “The King's Council and Political Participation” in Reassessing the Henrician Age note 5 above at p. 129; Baumer, Early Tudor Theory note 5 above at p. 64.

89 New Additions note 11 above at pp. 332-333.

90 Ibid.

91 Ibid., at pp. 320-321.

92 Ibid., at p. 321.

93 Ibid., at p. 331.

94 Ibid.

95 Ibid., at p. 334.

96 Ibid., at p. 331.

97 “Parliamentary Draft of 1531” note 13 above at p. 128.

98 Guy, St. German on Chancery note 5 above at p. 32.

99 Answer to a Letter note 15 above at ch. II.

100 Division note 13 above at p. 194.

101 Allen note 5 above at p. 167. Also Goldsworthy note 2 above at p. 71.

102 Baumer, “Political Philosophy of a Tudor Lawyer” note 7 above at p. 646, says that in this passage it is “doubtful whether St. German really means all he says”.

103 Power of the Clergy note 15 above at ch. IV.

104 Ibid.

105 Power of the Clergy note 15 above at ch. VI, which is cited by Goldsworthy note 2 above at p. 71 (parliamentary sovereignty) and Baumer, Early Tudor Theory note 5 above at pp. 7677, n. 135 (parliamentary infallibility).

106 Power of the Clergy note 15 above at ch. VI.

107 Answer to a Letter note 15 above at ch. VII.

108 Allen note 2 above at p. 167. Chapter VII of Answer to a Letter is cited by Baumer, Early Tudor Theory note 5 above at p. 59 as showing St. German as “champion of the sovereignty of Parliament” and Goldsworthy note 2 above at pp. 70-71 to show Parliament as “omnicompetent”.

109 Answer to a Letter note 15 above at ch. VII.

110 Ibid.

111 Ibid., at ch. II.

112 Ibid.

113 Ibid.

114 Salem and Bizance note 13 above at p. 369.

115 Ibid.

116 Ibid.

117 Little Treatise note 12 above at p. 116 [italics removed].

118 Ibid., at p. 117.

119 Goldsworthy note 2 above at p. 72.

120 Yale note 6 above at p. 333; Guy, “Law. Equity and Conscience” note 34 above at p. 190.

121 35 Edw I stat. I cap. IV.

122 The report of the case is reproduced at Chrimes note 7 above at app., p. 359. See also Gough, J.W., Fundamental Law in English Constitutional History (Oxford 1955), pp. 17, 33Google Scholar.

123 Dr. Bonham's Case (1610) 8 Co. Rep. 114. On Coke's authorities, see Gough, ibid., at p. 33, and Plucknett, T.F.T., “Bonham's Case and Judicial Review” (1926) 40 Harv. L. Rev. 30Google Scholar.

124 Power of the Clergy note 15 above at ch. VIII.

125 Ibid.

126 New Additions note 11 above at pp. 332-333.

127 Doctor and Student note 10 above at pp. 15, 303; New Additions note 11 above at p. 331; Power of the Clergy note 15 above at ch. VIII; Answer to a Letter note 15 above at ch. II.

128 Doctor and Student ibid., at pp. 111-113.

129 Ibid., at p. 147.

130 Ibid., at p. 158.

131 Ibid., at p. 57; also, New Additions note 11 above at p. 331.

132 Power of the Clergy note 15 above at ch. XIX.

133 New Additions note 11 above at p. 317.

134 Guy, St. German on Chancery note 5 above at p. 24; Guy, “Thomas Cromwell and the Intellectual Origins of the Henrician Revolution” note 84 above at p. 169; Goldsworthy note 2 above at p. 71.

135 Above notes 89-96.

136 New Additions note 11 above at pp. 332-333.

137 Sir Frederick Pollock, “A Plea for Historical Interpretation” (1923) 39 L.Q.R. 163, 165.

138 Wroth v. Countess of Sussex (1586) 3 Leo. 130, 135; Wentworth v. Wright (1596) Cro. Eliz. 526, 527; Parker v. Combleford (1599) Cro. Eliz. 725; Sir Christopher Hatton, A Treatise Concerning Statutes, Or Acts of Parliament: And the Exposition thereof [c. 1580-1590] (1677). Hake, Edward, Epieikeia: A Dialogue on Equity in Three Parts [c. 1597-98] (ed. Yale, D.E.C., Oxford 1953)Google Scholar; R. Crompton, L’Avthoritie et ivrisdiction des covrts de la Maiestie de la Roygne (1594), pp. 49-51, 60.

139 1 Equity Cases Ab. 129, and Bishop of London v. Attorney-General (1694) Shower 164, 168. On Coke's influence, see e.g. Murray v. Eyton (1680) Raym. T. 338, 349: “St Germin in his book called Doctor & Stud” is “commended by the Lord Coke in his Epistle to his 9th Rep’. For favourable citations by Coke himself see: Whittingham's Case (1603) 8 Co. Rep. 42b, 44b and The First Part Of The Institutes of the Laws of England. Or, A Commenlarie upon Littleton (1628), Preface [n.p.]. Coke's First Part of the Institutes and the subsequent three parts, being The Second Part of the Institutes of the Laws of England, Containing The Exposition of Many Ancient and Other Statutes, The Third Part of the Institutes of the Laws of England, Concerning High Treason and Other Pleas of the Crown and Criminal Cases and The Fourth Part of the Institutes of the Laws of England, Concerning the Jurisdiction of Courts, are hereinafter referred to as Co. Inst. I, II, III and IV respectively.

140 The first judicial reference to St. German's other work I have found is Crowley's Case (1818) 2 Swans. 1, 91 (reference to Hargraves’ 1787 publication of St. German's Little Treatise note 12 above).

141 E.g. Wickham v. Wood (1611) Lane 113, 114; Godfrey v. Dixon (1619) Cro. Jac. 539; Southern v. How (1618) Pop. 143; Secheverel v. Dale (1626) Pop. 193; Williams v. Hide (1628) Palm. 548, 550; Bolton v. Canham (1674) Pollex. 125, 128; Kempe v. Crews (1697) 1 Raym. Ld. 167, 167-168; Earl of Stafford v. Buckley (1750) 2 Ves. Sen. 170, 179; Menetone v. Athawes (1764) 3 Burr. 1592, 1593. A complete list of cases citing Doctor and Student is too long to include here.

142 Hatton note 138 above. See also Hake note 138 above.

143 Hatton, ibid., at pp. 20-21.

144 (1615) 1 Ch. Rep. 1.

145 Coke's references to St. German on technical points of law include: Case of Heresy (1601) 12 Co. Rep. 56; Six Carpenters Case (1610) 8 Co. Rep. 146a, 147b; Leyfield's Case (1611) 10 Co. Rep. 88a, 90a; Pinchon's Case (1611) 9 Co. Rep. 86b, 88b; Porter and Rochester's Case (1608) 13 Co. Rep. 4, 9; Co. Inst., I: 3b, 11b, 33a, 47b, 53b, 104b, 118b, 120a, 144b, 365b; Co. Inst., II: 273, 298-99, 302, 645, 623; Co. Inst., III: 58, 109, 122, 124; Co. Inst., IV: 83.

146 Darcy v. Allin (1602) Noy 173, 180.

147 Ibid., at p. 180. Coke's report is at The Case of Monopolies (1602) 11 Co. Rep. 84b.

148 (1608) 7 Co. Rep. la.

149 Ibid., at pp. 13b-14a.

150 Ibid.

151 Ibid.

152 Ibid.

153 Dr. Bonham's Case (1610) 8 Co. Rep. 113b, 118a. Coke made similar statements in Rowles v. Mason (1612) 2 Brownl. 192 and Case of Proclamations (1610) 12 Co. Rep. 74, 76.

154 Prohibitions Del Roy (1607) 12 Co. Rep. 63, 65.

155 Case of Modus Decimandi (1608) 13 Co. Rep. 12, 16-17.

156 Day v. Savadge (1614) Hob. 85, 87: “an Act of Parliament, made against natural equity, as to make a man Judge in his own case [an apparent reference to Dr Bonham's Case], is void in it self, for jura naturalia sunt immutabilia [an apparent reference to Calvin's Case]” John Underwood Lewis, “Sir Edward Coke (1552-1633): Theory of ‘Artificial Reason’ as a Context for Modern Basic Legal Theory” (1968), 84 L.Q.R. 330, 338 argues that “common right and reason” represented a development of the “medieval” natural law approach of writers like St. German.

157 Co. Inst. I, 109b-110a.

158 Edmund Plowden, Les commentaries, ou reportes de Edmunde Plowden vn apprentice de le comen ley (1578), f. 398b.

159 Co. Inst. IV, 36.

160 24 Hen VIII c. 12.

161 Co. Inst. IV, 342.

162 Co. Inst. IV, 343.

163 (160 8) 13 Co. Rep. 12.

164 For recent accounts of this old debate see Stoner, J., Common Law and Liberal Theory (Lawrence, Kansas 1992), pp. 48–68Google Scholar; Burgess, G., Absolute Monarchy and the Stuart Constitution (New Haven 1996)Google Scholar, ch. 6.

165 Goldsworthy note 2 above at p. 112; Baker, J.H., An Introduction to English Legal History 4th edn. (London 2002), pp. 210–211Google Scholar.

166 Holdsworth, W.S., “Central Courts of Law and Representative Assemblies in the Sixteenth Century” (1912) 12 Columbia L. Rev. 1, 28Google Scholar.

167 Calvin's Case is cited for its passage on the immutability of natural law at Co. Inst. II, 234, 564, and Co. Inst. III, 126, and on other points at Co. Inst. II, 374 and Co. Inst. IV, 283. Bonham's Case is cited in support of the view that statutes may be “void” at Co. Inst. II, 587-588, for rule that an Act of Parliament must be interpreted so that it is not “contrary to itselfe” at Co. Inst. II, 402, and for more general points at Co. Inst. II, 381 and 560.

168 Co. Inst. IV, 251. See Jennings note 2 above at p. 328; Stoner note 164 above at p. 48.

169 Boyer, A.D., “‘Understanding, Authority, and Will’: Sir Edward Coke and the Elizabethan Origins of Judicial Review” (1997) 39 Boston Coll. L. Rev. 43, 86–89Google Scholar.

170 Holdsworth, “Central Courts” note 166 above at p. 28.

171 Burgess, Absolute Monarchy note 164 above at pp. 165-208; Walters, Mark, “Common Law, Reason and Sovereign Will” (2003) 53 U. Toronto L.J. 77Google Scholar.

172 Nomotexnia’, Cestascavoir, Un Description Del Common Leys Dangleterre Solnque les Rules de Art (1613); Law, Or a Discourse thereof, In foure Bookes (1627); A Description of the Common Laws of England (1759).

173 W. Blackstone, An Analysis of the Laws of England; To Which is Prefixed An Introductory Discourse on the Study of The Law 3rd edn. (1758), p. v. See in general W Prest, “The Dialectical Origins of Finch's Law” [1977] C.L.J. 326.

174 Nomotexnia note 172 above at lib. II, fol. 49, lib. III, fol. 60, lib. III, fol. 71, lib. IV, fol. 134, lib. IV, fol. 146.

175 Description of the Common Law note 172 above at lib. I, ch. I, p. 6; see also, Nomotexnia note 172 above at lib. I, fol. 4, citing Doctor and Student note 10 above at ch. VI.

176 Finch's Law note 172 above at lib. I, ch. I, p. 3, ch. II, pp. 4-5, and ch. IV, p. 74; see also Nomotexnia note 172 above at lib. I, ch. I, fol. 1-3; Description of the Common Law note 172 above at lib. I, ch. I, pp. 1-4.

177 But see Burgess, Ancient Constitution note 5 above at pp. 42-43 who argues that Finch and St. German followed the same approach to primary and secondary reason.

178 Finch's Law note 172 above at lib. I, ch. II, pp. 5-6; also, Nomotexnia note 172 above at lib. I, fol. 19-20; Description of the Common Law note 172 above at lib. I, ch. VI, p. 53.

179 Description of the Common Law note 172 above at lib. I, ch. VI, p. 53; see also, Nomotexnia note 172 above at lib. I, ch. VI, fol. 19-20; Finch's Law note 172 above at lib. I, ch. IV, p. 75.

180 Description of the Common Law note 172 above at lib. I, ch. VI, 53; see also, Nomotexnia note 172 above at lib. I, ch. VI, fol. 19-20; Finch's Law note 172 above at lib. I, ch. IV, p. 75.

181 Description of the Common Law note 172 above at lib. I, ch. VI, p. 53; see also, Nomotexnia note 172 above at lib. I, ch. VI, fol. 19-20; Finch's Law note 172 above at lib. I, ch. IV, p. 75.

182 Description of the Common Law note 172 above at lib. II, ch. I, p. 59; see also, Nomotexnia note 172 above at lib. II, ch. I, fol. 22.

183 Description of the Common Law note 172 above at lib. I, ch. VI, p. 53.

184 Thomas Wood, An Institute of the Laws of England; Or, The Laws of England in their Natural Order, according to Common Use 3rd edn. (1724).

185 Blackstone note 173 above at p. v. See in general Robinson, R.B., “The Two Institutes of Thomas Wood: A Study in Eighteenth Century Legal Scholarship” (1991), 35 American J. Legal Hist. 432Google Scholar.

186 Wood note 184 above at p. 4. Other authors to adopt St. German's six-part categorisation of English law include: George Dawson, Origo Legum: Or A Treatise Of The Origin of Laws (1694), pp. 84-85, who also adopted St. German's idea that positive law against the law of God “is ipso facto, void, and no Law at all”, H. Curson, A Compendium Of The Laws and Government Ecclesiastical, Civil and Military, of England, Scotland & Ireland (1699), pp. 419, 75, who also cites Coke's Bonham Case dictum with approval, and John Cowel, The Institutes of the Lawes of England, Digested into the Method of the Civill or Imperiall Institutions trans, into English by W.G. (1651), pp. 1-5, who also asserts that statutes may not “oppugne Reason, or the Law of Nature”.

187 Wood note 184 above at p. 4.

188 Ibid.

189 E.g. Holdsworth, “Central Courts” note 166 above at p. 28; Gough note 122 above at p. 4; Elton, G.R., The Tudor Constitution (Cambridge 1962), pp. 232–234Google Scholar; Graves, M.A.R., The Tudor Parliaments: Crown, Lords, and Commons, 1485-1603 (London 1985), pp. 78, 157Google Scholar.

190 Dworkin note 8 above.

191 Guy, “Thomas Cromwell and the Henrician Revolution” note 84 above at p. 169. See also Baumer, Early Tudor Theory note 5 above at pp. 160, 163; Hanson note 5 above at p. 256.

192 Goldsworthy note 2 above at p. 17. See also Gough note 122 above at pp. 44-45, who says that Coke's use of natural law in Calvin's Case looks “[o]n the face of it” like the assertion of limited parliamentary authority, but in fact Parliament was only “limited by what we should call moral rights and obligations”.

193 Gough, ibid.