It will not be convenient by severe study or at the

It will not be convenient by severe study, or at the expense of the
best of your time, to pry into nice points of law; such matters may
be left to your judges and counsel ... ; furthermore, you
will
better pronounce judgments in the courts by others than in person,
it being not customary for Kings of England to sit in court or pro-
nounce judgment themselves. I know very well the quickness of
your apprehension and the forewardness of your facts; but for the
expertness in the laws the which is requisite for judges the studies
of twenty years barely suffice"
2
Here Sir John places the King in
the list of laymen and excludes him from the judicial function. In
other words, the interpretation of the law is the exclusive function
of the judges. They, therefore, can determine the scope of the au-
thority of the King under law.
(3) Sir Edward Coke (1552-1634), a great English Whig
jurist, one hundred and thirty years later on Sunday morning
November 10, 1608 as Chief justice of the King's Bench engaged
in a terrific battle with the King over this same issue. He, all
the judges of England, and the Barons of the Exchequer, met
James I at Hampton Court and refuted the idea that Archbishop
Bancroft had instilled.in him that in as much as the judges were
only his delegates he could decide
cases in person. "The judges,"
says Coke, "informed the King that no King after the conquest
assumed to himself to give any judgment in any cause whatsoever,
which concerned the administration of justice within this realm,
but these were solely determined in the courts of justice .... "
The King replied that "he thought the law was founded on
reason and that he and others had reason as well as the judges."
Coke practically repeated what Fortescue had said that "His
Majesty was not learned in the laws of his realm of England,...
and that it requires long study and experience before that a man
can attain to the cognizance of it." The King was offended and said
"then he should be under the law, which was treason to affirm."
Coke replied, in Bracton's words, "Quod Rex non debet esse sub
homine, sed sub Deo et lege."
23
In substance Coke's contention
22. Ibid., c. 8.
23. Prohibitions del Roy, 7 Co. 63-65 (1609). "That the King ought not
to be made under man, but under God and the Law."
[Vol. 32:427

EVOLUTION OF CONSTITUTIONALISM
was "that the King hath no prerogative, but that which the law of
the land allows,"
2
' and that the judges were the interpreters of this.
In the Dr. Bonham's
case, decided in the Common Pleas in
1610, Coke
said: "And it appears in our books, that in many cases,
the common law will control acts of Parliament, and sometimes
adjudge them to be utterly void; for when an act of Parliament is
against common right and reason, or repugnant, or impossible to
be performed, the common law will
control it and adjudge such an
act to be void." "Common right and reason" is something per-
manent and fundamental, and, therefore, higher law.