Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-5nwft Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-30T16:17:02.765Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Coke's Note-Books and the Sources of his Reports

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 January 2009

J. H. Baker
Get access

Extract

Four hundred years ago this April, Edward Coke of Trinity College, Cambridge, was admitted to the Inner Temple, an event momentous not merely in the history of the Inn but also in the history of the common law. For it was in 1572 that young Coke began to attend the courts and to observe the decisions there, to listen to Bendlowes and Plowden and Dyer as they opened for him the secrets of jurisprudence. He was to continue his attendance at Westminster Hall for forty-four years, and from 1579 to record all the important cases which came to his notice, It is, therefore, an auspicious moment to remember Coke's achievement as a reporter of cases, a matter of particular interest in “that famous University of Cambridge, alma mea mater,” to whose legal offspring Coke's literary works were especially addressed.

Type
Articles
Information
The Cambridge Law Journal , Volume 30 , Issue 1 , April 1972 , pp. 59 - 86
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge Law Journal and Contributors 1972

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 In Co.Litt. 384, 385, is cited a Common Pleas case of 1572 which Coke himself “heard and observed.” The earliest case he reports at length in print is Vernon's Case (1572) 4 Rep. 1. For other observations between 1572 and 1579, see note 49, infra. Coke was twenty years old in 1572.

2 Co.Litt., preface. Coke was admitted to Trinity College in September 1567, and went down at the end of 1570. He was admitted to Clifford's Inn on 21 January 1571, and to the Inner Temple on 24 April 1572. (Memoranda in MS.Harl. 6687.) There is no record of his taking the B.A. degree. An Edward Coke of the Inner Temple graduated B.A. in 1600 from St. Catharine's Hall, but this was Sir Edward's eldest son. Sir Edward proceeded M.A. in 1597 by special grace, and was elected High Steward of the University in 1614. (Ibid.; Venn.)

3 T. Fuller, History of the Worthies of England (1662), p. 251.

4 By J. H. Thomas and J. F. Fraser, in six volumes. Citations below are from this edition, always referring to the old foliation.

5 “The Genesis of Coke's Reports” (1942)Google Scholar 27 Cornell Law Quarterly 190.

6 Ibid., esp. pp. 200, 203, 208, 212.

7 See Hassall, W. O., A Catalogue of the Library of Sir Edward Coke (1950), pp. vi–viiGoogle Scholar: “The manuscripts of Coke's own Reports apparently already were lost in 1634, for they do not appear.” It can now be shown that they do appear, but anonymously. The MSS. were probably confiscated in 1634, and they never returned to Holkham: see pp. 78–80, infra

8 See “The Common Lawyers and the Chancery” (1969)Google Scholar 4 Irish Jurist (N.S.) 368 at pp. 371–372; “New Light on Slade's Case” [1971] C.L.J. 51 at p. 52.Google Scholar

9 For its provenance, see p. 80, infra.

10 Catalogue of the Harleian Manuscripts, Vol. III (1808), p. 384.

11 Report from the Commissioners etc., 8 June 1812, p. 78.

12 Fuller, op. cit., note 1, supra, p. 251; copied verbatim in D. Lloyd, State-Worthies (1670 ed.). p. 824; Penny Cyclopaedia, Vol. VII, p. 332. Isaac Disraeli had hoped that the Vade Mecum might be recovered (Curiosities of Literature (1st ed., 1817), Vol. III, p. 170), but either he was unaware of or unconvinced by this identification when he wrote in 1849 that “this precious memorial may still be disinterred”: Curiosities etc. (14th ed.), Vol. II, p. 576. For Fuller's description, see p. 77, infra.

13 J.B., “Sir Edward Coke's Vade Mecum” (1840) VI Collectanea Topographica et Genealogica, 108–122. For the identification of J.B. as Bruce, see E. Foss, Judges of England (1870), p. 179.

14 Sir Thomas Phillips owned a manuscript (MS.Phill. 2628) described as “Coke's comments on Lyttleton.” This was sold at Sotheby's in 1903 for one shilling (Phillips sale, 29 April, lot 599). It is not described in the catalogue, and the purchaser, Dobell, was a bookseller. The present Mr. Dobell has no record of its resale. I am grateful to Dr. A. L. Munby, Librarian of King's College, for tracing this sale for me.

15 R. Nares, op. cit., note 10, supra. The embroidered covers were thrown away when the volume was rebound.

16 Catalogue of the Library of Sir Edward Coke (Hassall, W. O., ed., 1950), p. 29Google Scholar, no. 369. (Hereinafter cited as the Holkham Catalogue.) The original is Holkham MS. 748B, and is signed by Coke in several places.

17 References are to the modern foliation in red.

18 1 Rep., preface, p. xxviii.

19 Wanley, the librarian, noted the receipt of the gift on 6 August 1715, and said “Those three which are in covers of velvet etc. are supposed to be of the Hand of the Lord Chief Justice Sir Edward Coke”: The Diary of Humfrey Wanley (, C. E. and Wright, R. C., eds., 1966), p. 13.Google Scholar (My italics.) The third book ought to be MS.B, unless either MS.Harl. 6686 or 6687 was then in two parts; but there is no other reference to their being divided in this way.

20 MS.C, f. 567v: “vide fort bone case in mes reportes Mich. 30 et 31 Eliz. regine fol. 1 in le petit livre de reportes.” This does not refer to MS.A, so Michaelmas Term must have been divided between MSS.A and B.

21 Holkham Catalogue, p. 27, no. 336. It is there listed separately from MSS.C–G.

22 Cited in MS.C, f. 99. There should also be a report of Herlakenden's case under Trin. 31 Eliz. (cited MS.C, f. 22v); of Thetford's case on f. 22v (cited MS.C, f. 20); of Daubeney v. Gore on f. 25 (cited MS.A, f. 306v); and a case of slander on f. 27 (cited MS.A, f. 325v).

23 There was a case of Pas. 33 Eliz. on f. 44 (cited MS.A, f. 331), and there was only one later term (Trin. 33 Eliz.).

24 Loc. cit., note 10, supra. “5” is an error for “4.”

25 Holkham Catalogue, p. 22, no. 293. The volume begins with a single case entered in Easter Term 33 Eliz. I (Elmer v. Thacker: see Co.Litt. 355b), and this would account for the date here. The “liber primus” commences, however, on f. 7 (originally f. 1), in Michaelmas Term.

26 See p. 71, infra.

27 Holkham Catalogue, p. 22, no. 294.

28 Ibid., no. 295.

29 See p. 82, infra.

30 It was described by Bernard as “Reports in the reign of King James 1. fol.”: Librorum MSS. D.D. Johannis Mori Episcopi Norvicensis Catalogus, p. 375, no. 542, in E. Bernard, Catalogi MSS. Angliae (1697).

31 Catalogue of Manuscripts in the Library of the University of Cambridge, Vol. III (1858), p. 486. The shelf-mark is Ii.v.212.

32 At ff. 9v–10, 42, 90v–95v.

33 The Case of Monopolies, MS.C, ff. 571v–574; Auditor Curle's Case, MS.E, f. 84; Earl of Devonshire's Case, which was probably in MS.D.

34 Holkham Catalogue, p. 22, nos. 296 and 297.

35 MS.A, f. 292: Ex libro Bendlowes servientis ad legem. It is not known how widely these circulated before the serjeant's death in 1584. Coke later had two copies at Holkham: Holkham Catalogue, p. 26, no. 330, and p. 28, no. 349.

36 MS.A, f. 327v: “Nota in mesme cestui terme [M. 1583] Plowden dit a moy.…” Plowden died the following year. Cf. 3 Rep. 79.

37 MS.A, f. 318 (H. 1583): “Egerton Sollicitor dit a moy.…”

38 Ibid., ff. 317v (“Nota que Gawdy serieant dit a moy veniendo de Westminster…”), 725 (“Nota Serieant Walmesley dit a moy …”).

39 Ibid., f. 712 (M. 1585).

40 MS.C, ff. 34–35 (appointed Solicitor-General), ff. 86–87v (appointed Attorney-General). On the flyleaf of MS.A is a note, presumably scribbled when Coke was made Chief Justice: “Choller of SS. con' 53 SS. and knotes, foure percullis & two roses.”

41 MS.C, f. 54 (Manwood, different from 3 Rep. 26): cf. 6 Rep. 75 (Popham); 9 Rep. 14–15 (Dyer), 121–122 (Lord Sanchar); 10 Rep. 34 (Fleming).

42 See MS.C, ff. 57v–58 (tithes), 69v (fees of the Clerk of the Market, 1 July 1593), 88v (letters patent), 112 (debt to the Crown), 257v (“Concerning the mynte”), 261 (“Concerning the stalling of debts due to her majestie”), 327v (forests), 461v (fines on original writs), 503v (Green Wax). Notes on Parliament: ibid., ff. 56, 209–210, 576v. Notes on purveyance: ibid., ff. 606v–609, 649v–651v, 682v–686, 688–694v.

43 See MS.C, ff. 69v (fine before eight justices, 1453), 118v (ancient Welsh custom that females did not inherit, 1430), 119 (Rolls Chapel, and attorneys), 123 (grant of swan-mark), 123v (Priory of St. John's, 1352), 124 (London customs concerning widows), 124v (record of 1229 showing that younger sons inherited before daughters of elder sons), 143–144 and 147–148v (record of 1298 proving that lands held by grand serjeanty were forfeited for alienation without licence), 207v (Cobb v. Nore, 1465), 271v (degradation of duke, 1477), 373 (creation of Prince of Wales by Edward 1), 446 (removal of Swillington A.-G. for misdemeanours, c. 1526). Some of the records were copied by a secretary.

44 See MS.C, ff. 57, 65, 81, 89, 145v, 255, 284v, 320v, 403v, 418, 459v–461v, 505, 554v, 562, 609v.

45 See MS.C, ff. 68v, 81v–82, 84v–85, 99, 125v.

46 e.g., MS.C, ff. 93, 109, 135v, 158, 159, 171, 203, 274, 306, 307, 308, 317v, 396v, 446, 563. Cf. ff. 81, 82v (Egerton), 135 (Anderson).

47 Ibid., f. 300v. See 2 Rep. 1–16.

48 e.g., MS.A, f. 732v (T. 1584, seen M. 1587); MS.C, ff. 29v (M. 1588, seen H. 1592), 40v (H. 1591, seen M. 1592), 68 (H. 1590, seen P. 1593), 112 (M. 1576, seen H. 1595), 133v (1583, seen H. 1596), 192 (T. 1562, seen P. 1597), 230 (H. 1593, seen M. 1597), 266 (T. 1585, seen H. 1598), 268 (M. 1588, seen H. 1598), 300 (T. 1584, seen T. 1598), 348 (M. 1594, seen T. 1599), 355v (M. 1590, seen T. 1599), 558v (M. 1574, seen P. 1603). Several of these appear in the printed Reports without any indication that they were second-hand. Most of them were decided in Coke's own time.

49 MS.C, f. 21; 11 Rep. 48, 60; Co.Litt. 31v, 59v, 77, 210, 211, 221v, 249, 269, 270v, 311, 317, 318v, 365v, 384, 385; 2 Inst. 313 (“in my time”), 502. Only two of these fall outside the period 14–21 Eliz., and they are both in the notebooks (Co.Litt. 210 = MS.A, f. 308; Co.Litt. 270v = MS.C, f. 239v).

50 27 Cornell Law Quarterly at p. 212; 4 Rep. 63.

51 4 Inst. 324. Apparently Wray did compile reports, which appear to be cited in MS.Lansd. 1084, ff. 36v, 81 (cf. f. 93: “come Wrai dit a moy”).

52 Note 35, supra; cited in MS.A, f. 292, MS.C, ff. 38, 177, 192v, 1 Rep. 26, 96, 176, 2 Rep. 49, 3 Rep. 91, 4 Rep. 51, 88, 95. (Later citations may be from the printed edition of 1602.) Many MS. versions are known.

53 Holkham Catalogue, p. 26, no. 326; cited in MS.C, f. 568, 6 Rep. 62, 63, Co.Litt. 130, 146, 229v, 2 Inst. 49, 50, 493, 636, 3 Inst. 9, 17, 30, 126, 4 Inst. 59, Cro.Jac. 152. Spilman's original MS. was still in the possession of his family in Coke's time, but it is now lost; the best copy, though it contains many errors, is in MS.Hargr. 388.

54 See MS.C, ff. 138 (“extra librum Keylwey”), 245v (“ex libro Kelywaye”). John Croke, who published the reports in 1602, was a bencher of the Inner Temple; it is likely that Coke saw his manuscript.

55 See Golds. 153.

56 MS.C, f. 170; “Nota in mesme cestui terme ieo viewe le case … report per mounsieur Plowden.” It is not in the printed book. Coke cites the same case in 7 Rep. 8 “as I myself have seen.”

57 Exeter Coll. Oxford MS. 128, f. 149v (cited by G. D. G. Hall, 69 L.Q.R. 208n): “This cause is found in a manuscript written altogether with the hand of my Lord Dyer remayninge in the Custody of my lord Cooke.” Cf. 10 Rep.pref., p. xxxiv: “the very original whereof, written with his own hand, I have.” See Holkham Catalogue, p. 23, no. 302: “Foure bookes of the Collection of cases by the Lord Dier in fol: whereof two are written with his owne proper hand.” See also 9 Rep. 15, 11 Rep. 77, 3 Buls. 49. The MSS. are no longer at Holkham. Cf. Inner Temple MS.Petyt 511.13, ff. 34–70; MS.Hargr. 26, ff. 166v–174.

58 See Co.Litt. 9, 13, 58v, 148v; 2 Inst. 61, 657, 682; 3 Inst. 17, 24, 61, 112, 126, 127, 172, 182; 4 Inst. 61, 240.

59 MS.C, ff. 81, 124. Peryam was alive at the time of the citations, so Coke must have borrowed them from the author.

60 MS.A, ff. 305v, 711v, 722, 741v.

61 Holkham Catalogue, p. 28, nos. 347–348: “Thurstone 3 books of reports in fol: and one other … Two other Ms: of reports in fol:” Thurston is probably John Thurston, Reader of the Inner Temple in 1560. Coke may have been referring to his reports when he showed in court a report of the Serjeants' case of 1555 “reported by an ancient and learned bencher of the Inner Temple” (10 Rep. 128).

62 Lost MS. report of Lloyd v. Gregory, cited by Ellis J. in 1 Mod. 205, in which: “Jones … denied the case of Hunt v. Singleton [3 Rep. 60]. He said, that himself and Sir Rowland Wainscott [Wandesford] reported it, and that nothing was said of that point, but that Lord Coke followed the report of Bridgeman, who was three or four years their puisne, and that he mistook the case.” There is no reference to Bridgeman's reports in Coke's manuscript: MS.C, f. 349v.

63 See “New Light on Slade's Case” [1971] C.L.J. 51 at pp. 52–53.

64 Bacon and Ellesmere. See J. Spedding (ed.), Letters and Life of Bacon, Vol. V (1869), pp. 86 (“too much de proprio”), 399 (“many exorbitant and extravagant opinions”); Vol. VI (1872), pp. 65 (“some peremptory and extrajudicial resolutions more than are warranted”), 87 (“scattering and sowing his own conceits”). See also Brit.Mus.MS.Add. 14030, f. 91; MS.Harg. 254. Anderson C.J. said of the report of Shelley's Case: “rien de ceo fuit parle en le Court ne la monstre” (1 And. 71).

65 MS.A, f. 327. Cf. ibid., f. 714v: “come fuit dit a moy.”

66 Ibid., f. 732 (1587).

67 See 1 Rep.pref., p. xxvii: “I allow not of those that make memory their storehouse, for at their greatest need they shall want of their store.…” See also 7 Rep.pref., p. iv, quoted below.

68 Ibid., p. xxviii. In MS.Lansd. 1084, f. 42v, are two cases “report per Cooke,” which must refer to the MS; one is in MS.A, f. 308, the other in MS.C, f. 119v. The most extensive copy discovered so far is Camb.U.L.MS.Gg.v. 4, ff. 37–50, 63v–68v, which begins “Cases escrie ex Libro Cooke que il mesme collect 22 et 23 Eliz. in Bancke le roy.” It contains a selection of over fifty cases from MS.A, ff. 305–332 (1580–84). The copy was certainly made in Coke”s lifetime, but it cannot be accurately dated since the Cambridge MS. is itself a copy of the copy.

69 A Report of the Judgment and Part of the Arguments of Shelleys Case (2 Jan. 1581/82), Holkham MS. 251; MS.Lansd. 1072, ff. 107–120; MS.Harl. 443, ff. 1–9; MS.Hargr. 373, f. 53; Camb.U.L.MS.Dd.xiii. 24, ff. 52v–58; Lincoln's Inn MS. Misc. 361, ff. (i), 1–11; MS. at Longleat House. The dedication is signed by Coke, and the signature is copied in each case by the transcriber.

70 S.T.C. 5493. The publisher was Thomas Wight.

71 The references in MS.C are: f. 271v (Buckhurst's Case), ff. 42v–45 (Porter's Case), ff. 384–400 (Alton Woods' Case), ff. 41–42 (Capel's Case), ff. 236v–237 (Archer's Case), f. 237 (Bredon's Case), f. 90v (Mayowe's Case), ff. 323v–327 (Rector of Chedington's Case), ff. 400v–402 (Digges's Case), ff. 298–300 (Mildmay's Case). There is not the space to give references to the cases in the later parts discussed below.

72 Germin v. Arscot (ff. 128v–133), Cholmley v. Humble (ff. 228v–230).

73 1 Rep. 121. See Wallace's comment: The Reporters (1882 ed.), p. 176.

74 1 Rep. 132. Coke's version may profitably be compared with other good MS. reports: e.g. MS.Harg. 26, ff. 176v–186, MS.Lansd. 1072, f. 201, Camb.U.L. MS.Hh.ii. 1, ff. 102v–106, MS.Ii.v. 12, ff. 81–85. Coke's must have been one of the best, for a contemporary collector wrote “Icy fuit le case Chudley que ieo aie interlesse quia est report per Mr. Attorney coment soit icy excellment report” (MS.Ee.iii. 2, f. 34v). And another wrote “Vide cest case in Mounser Cokes Reportes en print en un excellent manner” (MS.Harg. 26, f. 176v). See also 1 And. 309, Poph. 70.

75 From MS.C, ff. 486v–489.

76 7 Rep.pref., p. iv.

77 Ibid., pp. iv–v. There is a short note in MS.C, f. 570v (H. 1603) on the status of post-nati.

78 8 Rep.pref., p. xxxi.

79 11 Rep.pref., p. x. He “therefore could not polish them as [he] desired”: ibid., p. xi.

80 See 10 Rep.pref., pp. iv, xxii; 11 Rep.pref., p. xi.

81 8 Rep.pref., p. xxxii. The fear was perhaps aroused by the posthumous publication of Dyer's notebook in 1585: see 10 Rep.pref., p. xxxiv.

82 9 Rep.pref., p. xi. See also the apologies in 10 Rep.pref.

83 Case of Sutton's Hospital, 10 Rep. at p. 24.

84 Calvin's Case, 8 Rep. at p. 4.

85 Le necessarie vse & fruit de les Pleadings conteine en le lieur de le tresreuerend Edward Coke (1601): S.T.C. 4719. Cary did the work in the “last sommers vacation” and dedicated it to Anderson C.J.

86 Preface, sig. Av: “Here shall you find Presidents adjudged upon Demurrer … which being never reported, here is for thy better Light (Studious Reader) a short touch given of the reasons and causes whereupon they were adjudged.” There are about 22 such reports.

87 Imber v. Wilking, op. cit., ff. 380–381, 383–384v.

88 Case of Market-Overt (1596) 5 Rep. 83, MS.C, f. 35. Anderson reported the case himself: 1 And. 344.

89 e.g., Wild's Case (1599) 6 Rep. 16, MS.C, f. 328; Vaughan's Case (1596) 10 Rep. 114, MS.C, f. 157v. Cf. 4 Inst. 240, 297: “Of the report of Popham” written report?).

90 e.g., Thoroughgood's Case, 2 Rep. 9, MS.C, f. 300v; Beckwith's Case, 2 Rep. 56, MS.C, f. 266; Henstead's Case, 5 Rep. 10, MS.C, f. 348; Knight's Case, 5 Rep. 54, MS.C, f. 268; Chamberlain of London's Case, 5 Rep. 62, MS.C, f. 355v.

91 See [1971] C.L.J. at p. 216.

92 1 Rep. 132.

93 5 Rep. 117, MS.C, f. 548v. Coke also omits to mention that Walmsley J. dissented in Calvin's Case.

94 MS.A, f. 333 (translated). Cf. 3 Rep. 7, 11 Rep. 73. The sentiment was not entirely new: see Camb.U.L.MS.Gg.v. 2, f. 132, per Periam J. (1582): “Cest statute coment que soit penal serra prise liberally pur restrain' le mischief que les fesors intend de restrainer.”

95 1 Leo. 4, 4 Leo. 117, Sav. 66, Moo. 128.

96 Anyone who wishes to find the original of the renowned statement on judicial review in Dr. Bonham's Case will find it in MS.E, f. 93v. But he will be disappointed. Being printed posthumously, no alterations were made except translation.

97 See note 64, supra. Even in 1633 the Council had the Reports under scrutiny: see memoranda of Council business, S.P.16/248/15, f. 52v: “In March 1632/33 Mr. Attor: was ordered to examin Sr Edw: Cokes reportes.” Dr. Louis Knafla of the University of Calgary is editing Ellesmere's criticisms of the Reports for publication.

98 T. Fuller, The Worthies of England (1662), p. 251.

99 This is confirmed by Tourneur, who copied reports from “Lo. Cokes vade mecum”: Univ.Coll. London, MS.Ogden 29, f. 569. See note 25, infra.

1 See note 12, supra.

2 MSS.A, C, D, E and F contained 1,241 leaves. MS.B probably contained about 50 leaves: note 23, supra. Only one term (T. 1593) is intermitted in the extant MSS.

3 Concise History of the Common Law (5th ed., 1956), p. 282.Google Scholar

4 Co.Litt. (1st ed., 1628), preface. In 3 Inst. 47 is reference to a case of 1630 “since these Institutes.” The last part was completed between 1631, when it was in progress (see note 6, infra), and April 1633, when the MS. had been seized and the original notes sent to Pepys for safe keeping (see note 8, infra). It was suppressed by the King.

5 Cf. 4 Inst. proeme: “I have published nothing herein but that which is grounded … especially upon the resolution of the Judges of later times upon mature deliberation in many cases never published before; wherewith I was well acquainted, and which I observed and set down in writing, while it was fresh in memory.”

6 S.P.16/183/18, f. 29: letter from the Earl of Holland to Lord Dorchester, the King's Principal Secretary, 24 Jan. 1630/31. The recipient was to write to the Lord Keeper that the book which Coke was working on should not “come forth.” Cf. letter of Thomas Barrington (1631 ?), cited H.M.C. VII Rep., p. 548: “Sir Edw. Coke hath his papers seized by reason of a report that he is about a book concerning Magna Charta, and is likely to incur some trouble.”

7 S.P.16/272/62, f. 121: 26 July.

8 “A note of such thinges as were found in a Trunk of Sr. Edw: Coke taken from Pepys his servant. This trunk was brought to Bagshot by his Majesties comandment, & there broken up by his Majesty: 9: Septem: 1634:” Lambeth Palace MS. 943, ff. 369, 375. Most of the papers were of little consequence. The quotation is from Bowen, C. D., The Lion and the Throne (1957), p. 461.Google Scholar

9 Ibid., f. 371: “A catalogue of Sr. Edward Cookes papers that by warrant from the Councell were brought to Whitehall. …” They included “a great buckrom bagg of the pouder treason.” Miss Bowen presumed these came from the Temple: The Lion and the Throne (1957), p. 460.Google Scholar

10 S.P. 16/278/10: 4 December. The study had apparently been sealed on Windebank's orders. The same study had been ransacked 14 years earlier by Sir Robert Cotton and Sir Thomas Wilson, while Coke was in the Tower: Holkham MS. 727, Biography of Coke, cited H.M.C. IX Rep., p. 373.

11 S.P. 16/278/28: 9 December.

12 “A Note of the bookes & papers brought out of Sr. Edward Coke study from ye Temple remayning in ye Box”: S.P. 16/278/35 (my italics). The books were delivered to Windebank on 10 December. The only other reports were “A Manuscript in folio intitled Le Case de Proxis” and “Another Manuscript in folio intitled Reports of Cases in Ireland” (Davies ?).

13 A Detection of the Court and State of England (1697 ed.), p. 253.

14 H.C.J., Vol. II, p. 85: 13 February 1640/41.

15 Ibid., p. 69: 18 January 1640/41. In C.U.L.MS.Ee.iv. 7, a commonplace book of Parliamentary matters apparently written by Finch, there are several references to “Coke MS. pl Cor.” (ff. 13–15), and a reference to “Coke MS. jurisdn. of Courtes” (f. 9).

16 Ibid., pp. 45, 80, 470, 554; 2 Inst. (1642), f. 745v; Roger Coke, op. cit., pp. 253, 279.

17 The history of the printing of the Third Institute in 1644 is now known from an important document discovered by Atkinson, W. A.: “The Printing of Coke's Institutes” (1926) 162 Law Times 435.Google Scholar

18 The Diary of Humfrey Wanley (, C. E. & Wright, R. C., eds., 1966), Vol. I, pp. 13–14.Google Scholar The identification of the donor, Madam Thynne, seems beyond dispute. She was by 1715 the widow of Thomas Thynne, Viscount Weymouth, the owner of Longleat; but it is unlikely that the volumes were removed from Serjeant Thynne's collection, which is still preserved at Longleat. She was, however, the heir of Serjeant Strode, who died in 1701: see H. W. Woolrych, Lives of Eminent Serjeants at Law (1869), Vol. I, pp. 436–440.

19 MS.Harg. 34, ff. 108–130: “Ceux Reportes et cases ensuant sont escrie hors del Reportes Sir Edw: Cooke que sont escrie ove son maine demesne.” It is 12 Rep. 69–110, with omissions.

20 MS.Ll.iv. 9, ff. 1–111: “Lo. Cookes Reportes” It is 12 Rep. 6–64, with some variations. See also the four small leaves bound in MS.Ll.iii. 10, ff. 178–181, with copies of the Case of Prohibitions (12 Rep. 76), Ashley's Case (12 Rep. 90), and the Case of Proclamations (12 Rep. 74). These seem to be from an early copy, and are bound with readings given in the summer of 1634.

21 (1) Brit.Mus.MS.Add. 35956: “Decisiones Judiciales.” Corresponds roughly with 12 Rep. 71–84, 88-end, with omissions. (2) Lincoln's Inn, MS.Misc. 162. Corresponds with 12 Rep. 69-end, 1–15, 65–68.

22 MS.Lansd. 601, signed “Math.Hale” on f. 3. Umfreville said that Hale had entitled the volume “Collectanea Edwardi Coke.” He noted that the last ten cases were not in Part XII, but did not look as far as Part XIII, where they are all to be found. The cases from MS.D correspond with 12 Rep. 6–35.

23 This information is deduced from a knowledge of the contents of MS.E, and of the periods covered by MSS.D and F. It is not possible to take MS.G into account since it overlapped with MS.F. There are probably more MS. copies which we have overlooked. The Harvard Law School has a copy, apparently from MSS.D, E and F, corresponding to 12 Rep. 6 et seq.

24 Lincoln's Inn, MS.Mayn. 80: “The Lord Cookes 12th Reportes,” 103 ff. Note at f. (97): “Le Senr. Coke eit reporte que cest terme il veyast … ceux recordes.” The volume also contains eight cases of prohibition from the “Reporte del Mr. Rolls” (Rolle ?).

25 Univ.Coll. London, MS.Ogden 29, ff. 439–569. Note at f. 569. “Soe farre of Lo. Cokes vade mecum hoc libro: le residue vous troveres al fine de mes Reports del Eschequer in auter liver commenceant ove Widdrington Reports et finiant ove Reports del Eschequer 5 Car.” Tourneur's is probably a direct copy, including the “Poyntes dangerous et absurd …” from MS.E, f. 47v.

26 MS.Add. 21, presented in 1898 by H. D. Greene K.C. The marginal notes refer to “Le Snr. Coke” whereas Coke himself used the first person. On f. 140 is a note dated 1635, and on ff. 104v-105 are notes from a parchment register in the Tower lent to the writer by Mr. Collett on 30 January 1635/36. The annotator was probably Bradshaw, who was called to the Bar in 1627; his signature appears near the front of the book. The dates seem to indicate an early copy. Dr. Conway Davies attributed the notes to Coke himself: see Cope, Esther S., “Sir Edward Coke and Proclamations: a New Manuscript” (1971) 15 A.J.L.H. 317.Google Scholar This cannot be accepted.

27 MS.Lansd. 1079, ff. 1–123: “Reports per Snr. Coke. 12a. pars. Liber Justice Phesant.” Corresponds roughly to 13 Rep. 1–71, 12 Rep. 69–135, 1–63. At the end the copyist wrote: “Touts les cases devant fueront de Reports Snr. Coke, et jeo eux ay hors de un copy, que Sir John Brampstone, jades Cheif Justice d'Bank le Roy, lende a moy. Anno 1644. Pet: Phesaunt.”

28 MS.Harl. 4815: “La Douzieme Part des Reports de Sir Edward Coke … Ne unques Publie in Printe.” This seems to derive from more than one copy, since there are several sequences and some duplication. For Paynell's ownership, see The Diary of Humfrey Wanley (, C. E. & Wright, R. C., eds., 1966), Vol. I, p. 122.Google Scholar

29 The Twelfth Part of the Reports of Sir Edward Coke, Kt., of drivers resolutions and judgments … most of them very famous, being of the King's especiall reference, from the Council Table, concerning the prerogative … (1658).

30 Certain Select Cases in Law, reported by Sir Edward Coke … Translated out of a Manuscript written with his own Hand (1659), sig. A.2.

31 Ibid., sig. A.2v: “If any should doubt of the truth of these reports of Sir Edward Coke, they may see the originall Manuscript in French, written with his own hand, at Henry Twyford's shop in Vine-Court Middle Temple.”

32 Chief Sources of English Legal History (1925), p. 189.Google Scholar

33 MS.E, f. 47v. Also occurs in the Tourneur and Bradshaw copies.

34 See Bodet, G. P., “Sir Edward Coke's Third Institute: A Primer for Treason Defendants” (1970) 20 Univ. Toronto L.J. 469.Google Scholar

35 MS.A, f. 336; MS.C, ff. 75v-78, 78v-79, 82v-85v, 127, 153, 194–195v, 246–248 (notes on treason), 562v-568v. There is also a brief note on Mary, Queen of Scots at ff. 82v-83, in margine.

36 MS.C, ff. 408v-410.

37 Ibid., ff. 438v-441v (translated).

38 Ibid., ff. 682, 686v-688.

39 Ibid., ff. 114–115v.

40 R. v. Cary and Doddington (1597), ibid., ff. 214v-222.

41 Ibid., ff. 274, 279–284. Cf. 4 Inst. 284.

42 Throckmorton v. Finch (1598) MS.C, ff. 222v-227. See 4 Inst. 86; “The Common Lawyers and the Chancery” (1969)Google Scholar 4 Irish Jurist (N.S.) 368 at pp. 371–372. See also Hyde v. Cormet (1594) MS.C, ff. 104v-105, on the jurisdiction of the Star Chamber.

43 MS.C, ff. 600–605, 617. Cf. 4 Inst. 242.

44 MS.C, ff. 47v-49. Cf. 2 Inst. 269; Vin.Abr. Rege Inconsulto (A) 9.

45 MS.C, ff. 55v-56v, 75, 95, 209–210, 376v, 629v.

46 MS.A, ff. 311v, 330. Cf. 3 Inst. 48.

47 MS.C, ff. 34–35.

48 Ibid., ff. 86–87v.

49 Ibid., ff. 102v-104, 186. For other reports, see Vin.Abr. Uses (O.2) 1.

50 MS.C, ff. 128v-133. Coke summarised the case at 1 Rep. 85, and it was fully reported in 1 And. 186. See also Vin.Abr. Condition (Z) 26.

51 MS.C, ff. 173v-178: “Nota cest case duit aver estre report.” Coke noted the case briefly in 3 Rep. 91. See also 2 And. 109; Poph. 61; Univ.Lib.Camb. MS.Ee.iii. 45, ff. 54v-68v.

52 MS.C, ff. 508v-525v. Coke noted the case at 9 Rep. 15. The only printed report is the brief note in Moo. 746.

53 MS.C, ff. 620–625v. The only printed reports are very brief: Moo. 934, Cro.Jac. 50.

54 So says Holdsworth, W. S., Some Makers of English Law (1938), p. 132.Google ScholarCf. Gest, J. M., “The Writings of Sir Edward Coke” (1909) 18 Yale Law Journal 504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

55 Librorum MSS. D.D. Johannis Mori Episcopi Norvicensis Catalogus, p. 373, no. 461 (not 462).

56 The Lion and the Throne (1957), p. 483.Google Scholar The reference further down the page to MS.Harl. 1572 should be to MS.Harl. 6687.

57 The writer is grateful to Mr. Howard J. Heaney, Librarian of the Rare Book Department, Free Library of Philadelphia, for the latter suggestion and for sending photocopies of specimen leaves.