St. german on reason and parliamentary sovereignty

Cambridge Law Journal

Volumn 62, Issue 2, 2003, Pages 335-370

  Walters, Mark D ^a  

^a QUEEN'S UNIVERSITY BELFAST   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85012527608     PISSN: 00081973     EISSN: 14692139     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0008197303006342     Document Type: Article

References (169)

1. A.V. Dicey, Introduction To The Study Of The Law Of The Constitution, 7th edn. (London 1908), pp. 37-38, 66-67.
2. See for example C.H. Mcllwain, The High Court of Parliament And Its Supremacy (New Haven 1910); Sir Ivor Jennings, The Law and the Constitution 5th edn. (London 1959), pp. 318-329; T.R.S. Allan, Law, Liberty and Justice (Oxford 1993), p. 269; Jeffrey Goldsworthy, The Sovereignty of Parliament: History and Philosophy (Oxford 1998).
3. Goldsworthy Introduction To The Study Of The Law Of The Constitution., 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” (John Guy, “Thomas More and Christopher St. German” in Alistair Fox and John Guy (eds.), Reassessing the Henrician Age: Humanism, Politics and Reform, 1500-1550 (Oxford 1986), pp. 101-102 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” (Donald W. Hanson, From Kingdom to Commonwealth (Cambridge, Mass. 1970), pp. 261-262), that he attributed to Parliament “a quite unlimited authority” (J.W. Allen, A History of Political Thought in the Sixteenth Century (London 1957), p. 167), that he was a “champion of the sovereignty of parliament” and the “doctrine of parliamentary infallibility” (Franklin Le Van Baumer, The Early Tudor Theory of Kingship (New Haven 1940), pp. 59, 76), that the “theory of Parliamentary power owes much” to his work (R.J. Schoeck, “Strategies of Rhetoric in St. German's Doctor and Student” in Richard Eales and David Sullivan (eds.), The Political Context of Law: Proceedings of the Seventh British Legal History Conference Canterbury 1985 (London 1987), at p. 86), and that he was among those scholars who sought to “remove positive law from the control of any higher law and its interpreters” (Glenn Burgess, The Politics of the Ancient Constitution (Basingstoke 1992), p. 42, in general pp. 30-43).
6. D.E.C. Yale, “St. German's Little Treatise Concerning Writs of Subpoena” (1975) 10 Irish Jurist (NS) 324, 333.
7. E.g., S.B. Chrimes, English Constitutional Ideas in the Fifteenth Century (Cambridge 1936), pp. 203-214; 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. R. Dworkin, Law's Empire (Cambridge, Mass. 1986), pp. 314.
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 T.F.T. Plucknett and J.L. Barton (eds.), St. German's Doctor and Student (London: Selden Society, vol. 91, 1974).
11. Here after foloweth a lyttell treatise called the newe addicions (1531). References hereinafter are to the text of New Additions in Plucknett and Barton, note 45 below. 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 J.B. Trapp (ed.), Complete Works of St. Thomas More, IX, (New Haven 1979), app. A, pp. 173-212; Salem and Bizance (1533), printed in J.A. Guy, R. Keen, C.H. Miller, & R. McGugan (eds.), Complete Works of St. Thomas More, X, (New Haven 1987), app. B, pp. 325-392; The Addicions 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. 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. W.S. Holdsworth, A History of English Law (London 1924), vol. V, pp. 268-269 (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. C.P. Rodgers, “Humanism, History and the Common Law” (1985) 6 J. Legal Hist. 129, 132-133.
18. Doctor and Student note 10 above at p. 3.
19. Doctor and Student note 10 above at.
20. Doctor and Student note 10 above at.
21. Doctor and Student note 10 above at.
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. Doctor and Student note 10 above at Dial., at Dial I, ch. XII-XIV.
26. Doctor and Student note 10 above at Dial., at Dial I, ch. V-XI.
27. Doctor and Student note 10 above at Dial., at p. 33.
28. Doctor and Student note 10 above at Dial.
29. Doctor and Student note 10 above at Dial.
30. Doctor and Student note 10 above at Dial., at p. 35.
31. Doctor and Student note 10 above at Dial., at p. 183.
32. Mcllwain 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 J. Finnis, Aquinas: Moral, Political, and Legal Theory (Oxford 1998), pp. 266-274.
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 Louis B. Pascoe, Jean Gerson: Principles of Church Reform (Leiden 1973), pp. 49-79 and G.H.M. Posthumus Meyjes, Jean Gerson, Apostle of Unity: His Church Politics and Ecclesiology, (J.C. Grayson, trans., Leiden 1999), pp. 232-246. Gerson's works are published in Jean Gerson, Oeuvres Completes (P. Glorieux, ed., Paris 1960-73), 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 sinderesis: 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 conversatio 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 consequentiis 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 consequentiis 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. Doctor and Student note 10 above at Dial., at p. 15.
46. Doctor and Student note 10 above at Dial. The Latin version of St. German's passage is: “Et contra eam 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. Doctor and Student note 10 above at Dial., at p, 41
49. Doctor and Student note 10 above at Dial., at pp, 57, 45-47.
50. Doctor and Student note 10 above at Dial., at p, 57.
51. Samuel E. Thorne, “Preface” in Edward Hake, Epieikeia: A Dialogue on Equity in Three Parts [c 1597-98], ed, D.E.C. Yale (Oxford: Oxford and Yale University Presses, 1953), p, vi.
52. Nicomachean Ethics, bk, V, ch, 9, sec, 10, in Richard McKeon (ed,), The Basic Works of Aristotle (New York 1941), pp, 1019-1020. See Rueger note 37 above; Barton note 36 above at p. xliv; Georg Behrens, “An Early Tudor Debate on the Relation Between Law and Equity” (1998) 19 J. Legal Hist, 143.
53. Doctor and Student note 10 above at p. 97.
54. Doctor and Student note 10 above at Dial.
55. Rueger note 37 above.
56. Doctor and Student note 10 above at pp. 99-101.
57. Rueger note 37 above., atp, 101.
58. Rueger note 37 above., at pp, 101, 103.
59. 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.
60. Doctor and Student note 10 above at p. 117.
61. Rueger note 37 above., at p, 111.
62. Rueger note 37 above.
63. Rueger note 37 above.
64. Rueger note 37 above., at pp, 111-113.
65. Rueger note 37 above.
66. Guy, “Law, Equity and Conscience” note 34 above at p, 181.
67. Barton note 36 above at p. xlviii.
68. Doctor and Student note 10 above at p. 147; for this general argument see also pp. 135, 158, 183.
69. Rueger note 37 above., at p. 147 [italics in Barton and Plucknett ed, removed].
70. Rueger note 37 above.
71. Rueger note 37 above., at pp, 159-160.
72. Rueger note 37 above., at p, 158.
73. J, Finnis, “Blackstone's Theoretical Intentions” (1967) 12 Natural L, Forum 163; J, Austin, The Province of Jurisprudence Determined (London 1954), pp. 184-185.
74. Baumer, Early Tudor Theory note 5 above at p. 76 n. 135, p. 156.
75. On this difference see Robert Eccleshall, Order and Reason in Politics (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1978), pp. 100-102.
76. 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.
77. Ed, III c. 3.
78. Doctor and Student note 10 above at p. 300.
79. 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.
80. J.B. Trapp, “Introduction” in Complete Works of Sir Thomas More note 13 above at vol. IX, p. l.
81. Baumer, Early Tudor Theory note 5 above at p. 37.
82. New Additions note 11 above at pp. 327-329.
83. 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.
84. New Additions note 11 above at pp. 332-333.
85. “Parliamentary Draft of 1531” note 13 above at p. 128.
86. Guy, St. German on Chancery note 5 above at p. 32.
87. Answer to a Letter note 15 above at ch. II.
88. Division note 13 above at p. 194.
89. Allen note 5 above at p. 167. Also Goldsworthy note 2 above at p. 71.
90. 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”.
91. Power of the Clergy note 15 above at ch, IV.
92. Power of the Clergy note 15 above at.
93. 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).
94. Answer to a Letter note 15 above at ch. VII.
95. 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”.
96. Answer to a Letter note 15 above at ch. VII.
97. Answer to a Letter note 15 above at.
98. Answer to a Letter note 15 above at.
99. Salem and Bizance note 13 above at p. 369.
100. Salem and Bizance note 13 above at.
101. Little Treatise note 12 above at p. 116 [italics removed].
102. Little Treatise note 12 above at [italics removed]., at p. 117.
103. Goldsworthy note 2 above at p. 72.
104. Yale note 6 above at p. 333; Guy, “Law. Equity and Conscience” note 34 above at p. 190.
105. Edw I stat. I cap. IV
106. The report of the case is reproduced at Chrimes note 7 above at app,, p, 359. See also J.W. Gough, Fundamental Law in English Constitutional History (Oxford 1955), pp. 17, 33.
107. Dr. Bonham's Case (1610) 8 Co, Rep, 114, On Coke's authorities, see Gough, The report of the case is reproduced at Chrimes note 7 above at app., at p, 33, and T.F.T. Plucknett, “Bonham's Case and Judicial Review” (1926) 40 Harv, L, Rev, 30.
108. Power of the Clergy note 15 above at ch. VIII.
109. Power of the Clergy note 15 above at
110. New Additions note 11 above at pp. 332-333.
111. 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.
112. Doctor and Student Power of the Clergy note 15 above at., at pp. 111-113.
113. Doctor and Student Power of the Clergy note 15 above at., at p. 147.
114. ‘3” Doctor and Student Power of the Clergy note 15 above at., at p. 158.
115. Doctor and Student Power of the Clergy note 15 above at., at p. 57; also, New Additions note 11 above at p. 331.
116. Power of the Clergy note 15 above at ch. XIX.
117. New Additions note 11 above at p. 317.
118. 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.
119. Above notes 89-96.
120. Sir Frederick Pollock, “A Plea for Historical Interpretation” (1923) 39 L.Q.R. 163, 165.
121. 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). Edward Hake, Epieikeia: A Dialogue on Equity in Three Parts [c. 1597-98] (ed. D.E.C. Yale, Oxford 1953); R. Crompton, L'Avthoritie et ivrisdiction des covrts de la Maiestie de la Roygne (1594), pp. 49-51, 60.
122. 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 Commentarie 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.
123. 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).
124. 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.
125. Hatton note 138 above. See also Hake note 138 above.
126. Hatton, Hatton note 138 above., at pp. 20-21.
127. (1615) 1 Ch. Rep. 1.
128. 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.
129. Darcy v. Allin (1602) Noy 173, 180.
130. Hatton note 138 above., at p. 180. Coke's report is at The Case of Monopolies (1602) 11 Co. Rep. 84b.
131. Hatton note 138 above., at pp. 13b-14a.
132. Hatton note 138 above.
133. Hatton note 138 above.
134. 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.
135. Prohibitions Del Roy (1607) 12 Co. Rep. 63, 65.
136. Case of Modus Decimandi (1608) 13 Co. Rep. 12, 16-17.
137. Edmund Plowden, Les commentaries, ou reportes de Edmunde Plowden vn apprentice de le comen ley (1578), f. 398b.
138. Hen VIII c, 12.
139. Co, Inst, IV, 342.
140. Co. Inst. IV, 343.
141. (1608) 13 Co. Rep. 12.
142. For recent accounts of this old debate see J. Stoner, Common Law and Liberal Theory (Lawrence, Kansas 1992), pp. 48-68; G. Burgess, Absolute Monarchy and the Stuart Constitution (New Haven 1996), ch. 6.
143. Goldsworthy note 2 above at p. 112; J.H. Baker, An Introduction to English Legal History 4th edn. (London 2002), pp. 210-211.
144. W.S. Holdsworth, “Central Courts of Law and Representative Assemblies in the Sixteenth Century” (1912) 12 Columbia L. Rev. 1, 28.
145. Co, Inst, IV, 251, See Jennings note 2 above at p, 328; Stoner note 164 above at p, 48.
146. A.D. Boyer,” ‘Understanding, Authority, and Will': Sir Edward Coke and the Elizabethan Origins of Judicial Review” (1997) 39 Boston Coll, L, Rev, 43, 86-89.
147. Holdsworth, “Central Courts” note 166 above at p. 28.
148. Burgess, Absolute Monarchy note 164 above at pp. 165-208; Mark Walters, “Common Law, Reason and Sovereign Will” (2003) 53 U, Toronto L.J. 77.
149. Nomotexnia; Cestascavoir, Un Description Del Common Leys Dangleterre Solnque les Rules de Art (1613); Law, Or a Discourse thereof, Infoure Bookes (1627); A Description of the Common Laws of England (1759)
150. 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.
151. 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.
152. 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.
153. 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.
154. 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.
155. 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.
156. 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, 180 p. 75.
157. 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.
158. 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.
159. 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.
160. Description of the Common Law note 172 above at lib. I, ch. VI, p. 53.
161. 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).
162. Blackstone note 173 above at p. v. See in general R.B. Robinson, “The Two Institutes of Thomas Wood: A Study in Eighteenth Century Legal Scholarship” (1991), 35 American J. Legal Hist. 432.
163. 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 Ecclesiasitical, 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”.
164. Wood note 184 above at p. 4.
165. E.g. Holdsworth, “Central Courts” note 166 above at p. 28; Gough note 122 above at p. 4; G.R. Elton, The Tudor Constitution (Cambridge 1962), pp. 232-234; M.A.R. Graves, The Tudor Parliaments: Crown, Lords, and Commons, 1485-1603 (London 1985), pp. 78, 157
166. Dworkin note 8 above.
167. 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.
168. 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”.
169. Gough, Dworkin note 8 above.