COKE 37 associate judges declared it to be an indictable offence to question a judgment of the king's bench or common pleas; and an effort was made to get an indictment against the parties, solicitors, and officers of the court of chancery, in two cases in which injunctions had been granted by the chancellor against judgments at law. But as it appeared that gross fraud had been committed in the obtaining of these judgments, the grand jury could not be per- suaded to bring in a bill. The proceeding hav- ing attracted public attention, the king ap- pointed commissioners to inquire into the sub- ject of dispute. The report of the commis- sioners sustained the proceeding of the chan- cellor. Proceedings were thereupon instituted in the star chamber against the private parties concerned in resisting the authority of the chancellor. The conduct of Coke on this oc- casion has been generally censured ; but there can be no doubt that it had the effect of estab- lishing with more precision the rule by which the interposition of the court of chancery should be regulated. The case as to the com- mendams was this : In a suit against the bish- op of Lichfield and Coventry respecting a bene- fice, the defendant pleaded that he held it in commendam, which was an appointment by the king in certain cases until a new incumbent could be regularly appointed. The question was involved as to the right of the king to make such grants. Upon being advised of the discussion, the king sent a message to Coke signifying his pleasure that all proceedings should be stayed till the judges should have a conference with his majesty on the subject. A meeting of all the judges having been held for consultation, it was resolved by them that the court ought to proceed as though they had received no notice, which was accordingly done, and a memorial signed by the 12 judges was sent to the king, in which they say : " We hold it our duty to inform your majesty that our oat-h is in these express words, * that in case any letter come to us contrary to law, we do nothing therefore but certify your majesty thereof, and go forth to do the law notwith- standing the same.' We have advisedly con- sidered the said letter of Mr. Attorney, and with one consent do hold the same to be con- trary to law, and such as we could not yield to the same by oath." A sharp response followed from the king, ordering the judges to proceed no further till his coming in town. He then called them before him, and commented se- verely upon their course of proceeding and the form of their letter; upon which the judges kneeled and craved pardon. But Coke, though he expressed sorrow for any error of form, still persisted in defending the substantial right of what he had done. The king himself seems to have been impressed by the noble bearing of the chief justice, for the court was permitted to proceed in the cause of the bishop, which was finally decided against him. The active measures taken by Coke for the conviction of the murderers of Sir Thomas Overbury gave further offence to James, and he probably in- tended the removal of Coke upon the first fa- vorable opportunity. This intention was no doubt precipitated by the enmity of the new favorite Villiers, who had been thwarted by the chief justice in a corrupt attempt at the dispo- sition of a lucrative clerkship in the king's bench. The removal was, however, put upon very different grounds. Among the charges which he was required to answer before the council were : 1, the alleged concealment of a bond belonging to the crown ; 2, his miscon- duct in the dispute with the chancellor respect- ing injunctions; 3, his disrespectful conduct to the king in the matter of the cornmendams. A few days afterward he was again called before the council, when sentence was pronounced that he be suspended from the council and from his judicial functions till the king's pleasure should be further known, and in the mean time that he should revise his books of reports, wherein it was alleged that " many extravagant and exorbitant opinions were set down for good law." After the summer vacation he was again cited before the privy council to answer as to revision of errors in his reports, when he made aspecification,showingthat there were not more errors in his 11 books of reports, contain- ing 500 cases, than could be found in a few cases in Plowden. The whole charge was indeed frivolous ; but a supersedeas nevertheless issued, removing him from his office (1616), and Mon- tague was appointed in his place. Not long after his disgrace Coke offered his daughter in marriage to Sir John Villiers, brother of the duke of Buckingham, the royal favorite. She was only 14 years of age, but was a rich heir- ess, as the estate of her mother, Lady Hatton, was entailed upon her, and she also had an ex- pectancy from her father's immense wealth. The match had been sought by Villiers, who was poor, and had been rejected by Coke while chief justice. He determined on availing himself of it now for the purpose of recovering from his disgrace and humbling Bacon, who was now his open enemy. Lady Hatton, who was not on good terms with her husband, and had not been consulted, refused consent, and carried off her daughter to a place of concealment. Coke, hav- ing ascertained where they had fled, pursued, broke open the house, and took his daughter away. The mother appealed to the privy coun- cil. Bacon, who had been appointed lord keep- er, warmly supported her, and proceedings were instituted in the star chamber against Coke. The king, however, who was then in Scot- land, sharply reproved the lord keeper, and on his return the parties were so far reconciled that the marriage took place. Coke was re- stored to his place in the privy council (1617), but received no other appointment, except temporarily as one of the commissioners of the treasury while the office of lord treasurer was vacant. Bacon, on the other hand, entirely recovered a good understanding with the king,
