Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Common European Legal Thinking pp 1–26Cite as

James Otis and The Writs of Assistance Case (1761)

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

  • 851 Accesses

Abstract

The dictum pronounced by Chief Justice Edward Coke in Bonham’s Case (1610) is well known by any constitutional law specialist. Nevertheless, I would like to discuss the basis upon which Coke formulated the constitutional theory of judicial review of legislation.

On April 30, 1606 Thomas Bonham was cited before the president and censors of the Royal College on a charge of practising medicine in London without a certificate to practise from the Royal College. Bonham was a Doctor of Philosophy and Physic, having graduated from Cambridge University. He did not, however, hold any degree or certificate from the Royal College. He was fined one hundred shillings and further forbidden – under pain of imprisonment – to practise medicine until he was first properly admitted to the Royal College.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Cook 2004, p. 129.

  2. 2.

    Cook 2004, p. 130.

  3. 3.

    Smith 1966, p. 302.

  4. 4.

    Bonham’s Case may be seen in Sheppard 2003, p. 270.

  5. 5.

    Sheppard 2013, p. 272.

  6. 6.

    E. g. Bowen 1957, p. 315.

  7. 7.

    Fleta had already written in this respect: “Est autem iudicium trinus actum trium personarum ad minus, actoris, iudicis et rei, sine quibus legitime consistere non potest”, cf. Yale 1974, p. 80.

  8. 8.

    Yale 1974, p. 81.

  9. 9.

    Sheppard 2013, p. 275.

  10. 10.

    Plucknett 1926–1927, p. 31.

  11. 11.

    Plucknett 1926–1927, p. 34.

  12. 12.

    Thorne 1938, p. 547 et seq.

  13. 13.

    Sherry 1992–1993, p. 174.

  14. 14.

    Schwartz 1993, p. 5.

  15. 15.

    Michael 1990–1991, p. 427 et seqq.

  16. 16.

    “(H)is learning, antiquarian to the core, opened up vistas and past crises as history scarcely could.” Mullet 1932, p. 471.

  17. 17.

    Most scholars agree that the three more important Abridgments were those of Bacon 1736, Viner 1741–1756 and Comyn’s Digest 1762, cf. McGovney 1944–1945, p. 7.

  18. 18.

    Goebel, Jr. 1954, p. 455.

  19. 19.

    Kramer 2001–2002, p. 24 et seq.

  20. 20.

    Mullet 1932, p. 458.

  21. 21.

    Schwartz 1993, p. 5.

  22. 22.

    Mullet 1932, p. 468.

  23. 23.

    Mullet 1932, p. 470.

  24. 24.

    Hall 1985, p. 4.

  25. 25.

    Smith 1966, p. 313; Boudin 1928–1929, p. 223. The only disagreement between both scholars is the date; whereas Boudin dates the report to 1915, Smith dates it as 1917.

  26. 26.

    Corwin 1925, p. 515.

  27. 27.

    Black 1987–1988, p. 694.

  28. 28.

    Wood 1999, p. 794.

  29. 29.

    Grant 1954, p. 189.

  30. 30.

    Vattel 1964/1758, p. 17 et seqq.

  31. 31.

    Vattel 1964/1758, p. 19.

  32. 32.

    Plucknett 1926–1927, p. 70.

  33. 33.

    Smith 1978, p. 312 et seq.

  34. 34.

    Tyler 1897, p. 37; cited by Smith 1978, p. 314.

  35. 35.

    Smith 1978, p. 323.

  36. 36.

    Sabine 1854, p. 154; cited by Smith 1978, p. 99.

  37. 37.

    Smith 1978, p. 100 et seq.

  38. 38.

    Berger 1974, p. 25.

  39. 39.

    Schwartz 1993, p. 5.

  40. 40.

    Smith 1978, p. 25.

  41. 41.

    Smith 1978, p. 26.

  42. 42.

    Section 6 of the Act of Frauds of 1696 reads as follows: “And for the more effectual preventing of Frauds, and regulating Abuses in the Plantation Trade in America, be it further enacted by the Authority aforesaid, That all Ships coming into, or going out of, any of the said Plantations, and lading or unlading any Goods or Commodities, whether the same be His Majesty’s Ships of War, or Merchants Ships, and the Masters and Commanders thereof, and their Ladings, shall be subject and liable to the same Rules, Visitations, Searches, Penalties and Forfeitures, as to the entering, lading or discharging their respective Ships and Ladings, as Ships and their Ladings, and the Commanders and Masters of Ships, are subject and liable unto in this Kingdom, by virtue of an Act of Parliament made in the fourteenth Year of the Reign of King Charles the Second, intituled, An Act for preventing Frauds, and regulating Abuses in His Majesty’s Customs”.

  43. 43.

    Smith 1978, p. 53.

  44. 44.

    For the facts cf. Grinnell 1917, p. 443 et seqq.

  45. 45.

    McLaughlin 1935, p. 25.

  46. 46.

    Grinnell 1917, p. 445.

  47. 47.

    The London Magazine article was copied in full in the Boston Evening‐Post for 19 January 1761, in nice time for the public hearing on writs of assistance only four or five weeks ahead. But it would have been circulated privately long before that.

  48. 48.

    Smith 1978, p. 132.

  49. 49.

    Smith 1978, p. 133.

  50. 50.

    The extract of the London Magazine may be seen in Smith 1978, p. 537 et seqq.

  51. 51.

    Grinnell 1917, p. 445.

  52. 52.

    Grinnell 1917, p. 446.

  53. 53.

    Smith collects in an Appendix of his book (Appendix I) the Notes written by John Adams, under the following title: “John Adams’s contemporaneous notes of the writs of assistance hearing in February 1761”. Smith 1978, p. 543 et seqq. As “Appendix J” of the same book is collected which Smith letters as “John Adams’s Abstract”, p. 548 et seqq.

  54. 54.

    Schwartz 1993, p. 5 et seq.

  55. 55.

    Corwin 1910–1911, p. 106.

  56. 56.

    Schwartz 1993, p. 6.

  57. 57.

    “John Adams’s contemporaneous notes of the writs of assistance hearing in February 1761” in Smith 1978, p. 543 et seqq.; “John Adams’s Abstract” in Smith 1978, p. 548 et seqq.

  58. 58.

    Smith 1978, p. 545.

  59. 59.

    Smith 1978, p. 331.

  60. 60.

    Smith 1978, p. 332.

  61. 61.

    Smith 1978, p. 339, 544.

  62. 62.

    Smith 1978, p. 343.

  63. 63.

    Haines 1932, p. 59.

  64. 64.

    Corwin 1928–1929, p. 149 et seqq., 365 et seqq.

  65. 65.

    Letter from John Adams to William Tudor, dated March 29th, 1817, cf. Grinnell 1917, p. 446 et seq.

  66. 66.

    Smith 1978, p. 359.

  67. 67.

    Bailyn 1976, p. 176 et seq.

  68. 68.

    Additionally, Otis mentioned another no less known jurisprudential holding, that of Lord Holt in the case City of London v. Wood (1702): “What my Lord Coke says in Dr. Bonham’s case in his 8 Rep. is far from any extravagancy, for it is a very reasonable and true saying, that if an act of Parliament should ordain that the same person should be party and judge, or what is the same thing, judge in his own cause, it would be a void act of Parliament.”.

  69. 69.

    McLaughlin 1935, p. 26.

  70. 70.

    McLaughlin 1935, p. 27.

  71. 71.

    Bowen 1957.

  72. 72.

    Schwartz 1993, p. 6.

  73. 73.

    Berger 1974, p. 25.

  74. 74.

    Corwin 1910–1911, p. 106.

  75. 75.

    Plucknett 1926–1927, p. 63.

  76. 76.

    Nelson 2000, p. 36.

  77. 77.

    Kramer 2001–2002, p. 31.

  78. 78.

    Elliott 1890, p. 232.

  79. 79.

    Elliott 1890, p. 232 et seq.

  80. 80.

    The Massachusetts Constitution, 1780 may be seen in Chafee, Jr. 1963, p. 237 et seqq.

  81. 81.

    Smith 1978, p. 387.

  82. 82.

    Smith 1978, p. 386.

  83. 83.

    Smith 1978, p. 395.

  84. 84.

    “Report of the resumed writs of assistance hearing, 18 November 1761, by Josiah Quincy junior”, reprinted in Smith 1978, p. 556 et seqq.

  85. 85.

    Smith 1978, p. 402 et seq.

  86. 86.

    Smith 1978, p. 426.

  87. 87.

    Smith 1978, p. 427 et seq.

References

  • Bailyn, B. (1976). The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution (13th edn.). Cambridge (Massachusetts): The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berger, R. (1974). Congress v. the Supreme Court (2nd edn.). Cambridge (Massachusetts): Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Black, B. A. (1987–1988). An Astonishing Political Innovation: the Origins of Judicial Review. University of Pittsburgh Law Review, 49, 691–697.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boudin, L. B. (1928–1929). Lord Coke and the American Doctrine of Judicial Power. New York University Law Review, 6, 223–246.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowen, C. D. (1957). The Lion and the Throne. The Life and Times of Sir Edward Coke (pp. 1552–1634). London: Hamilton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chafee, Z. Jr. (Ed.). (1963). Documents on Fundamental Human Rights. The Anglo-American Tradition. New York: Atheneum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cook, H. J. (2004). Against Common Right and Reason: The College of Physicians v. Dr. Thomas Bonham. In A. D. Boyer (Ed.), Law, Liberty and Parliament. Selected Essays on the Writings of Sir Edward Coke (pp. 127–149). Indianapolis: Liberty Fund.

    Google Scholar 

  • Corwin, E. S. (1910–1911). The Establishment of Judicial Review (I). Michigan Law Review, 9(4), 102–125.

    Google Scholar 

  • Corwin, E. S. (1925). The Progress of Constitutional Theory between the Declaration of Independence and the Meeting of the Philadelphia Convention. The American Historical Review, 30(3), 511–536.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Corwin, E. S. (1928–1929). The “Higher Law” Background of American Constitutional Law (I and II). Harvard Law Review, 42(2 and 3), 149–185 and 365–409, respectively.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elliott, C. B. (1890). The Legislatures and the Courts: the Power to Declare Statutes Unconstitutional. Political Science Quarterly, 5(2), 224–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferguson, J. R. (1979). Reason in Madness: The Political Thought of James Otis. The William and Mary Quarterly, 36(2), 194–214. 3rd Series

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fernández Segado, F. (2013). La evolución de la justicia constitucional. Madrid: Dykinson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goebel Jr., J. (1954). Ex Parte Clio (Book Review). Columbia Law Review, 54, 450–483.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grant, J. A. C. (1954). Judicial Control of Legislation. The American Journal of Comparative Law, 3(2), 186–198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grey, T. C. (1977–1978). Origins of the Unwritten Constitution: Fundamental Law in American Revolutionary Thought. Stanford Law Review, 30(5), 843–893.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grinnell, F. W. (1917). The Constitutional History of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts from the Revolution to 1813 (chapter IV of “The Anti-Slavery Decisions of 1781 and 1783 and the History of the Duty of the Court in Regard to Unconstitutional Legislation”). Massachusetts Law Quarterly, 2(5), 437–456.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haines, C. G. (1932). The American Doctrine of Judicial Supremacy (2nd edn.). Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall, K. (1985). The Supreme Court and Judicial Review in American History. Bicentennial Essays on the Constitution. Washington, D.C: American Historical Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kramer, L. D. (2001–2002). We the Court (The Supreme Court 2000 Term. Foreword). Harvard Law Review, 115(1), 5–169.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGovney, D. O. (1944–1945). The British Origin of Judicial Review of Legislation. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 93(1), 1–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • McLaughlin, A. C. (1935). A Constitutional History of the United States. New York, London: D. Appleton Century Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Michael, H. K. (1990–1991). The Role of Natural Law in Early American Constitutionalism: Did the Founders Contemplate Judicial Enforcement of “Unwritten” Individual Rights? North Carolina Law Review, 69, 421–490.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mullet, C. F. (1932). Coke and the American Revolution. Economica, 38, 457–471.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, W. E. (2000). Marbury v. Madison. The Origins and Legacy of Judicial Review. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, W. E. (2002). Marbury v. Madison and the Establishment of Judicial Autonomy. Journal of Supreme Court History, 27(3), 240–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Plucknett, T. F. T. (1926–1927). Bonham’s Case and Judicial Review. Harvard Law Review, 40, 30–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, B. (1993). A History of the Supreme Court. New York, Oxford: OUP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sheppard, S. (Ed.). (2003). The Selected Writings and Speeches of Sir Edward Coke. Indianapolis (Indiana): Liberty Fund.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sherry, S. (1992–1993). Natural Law in the States. University of Cincinnati Law Review, 61, 171–222.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, G. P. I. I. (1966). Dr. Bonham’s Case and the Modern Significance of Lord Coke’s Influence. University of Washington Law Review, 41, 297–314.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, M. H. (1978). The Writs of Assistance Case. Berkeley, Los Angeles, London: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thorne, S. E. (1938). Dr. Bonham’s Case. Law Quarterly Review, 54, 543–542.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Vattel, E. (1964). The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law Applied to the Conduct and to the Affairs of Nations and of Sovereigns. New York, London: Oceana Publication Inc., Wildy & Sons Ltd. translation of the edition of 1758 by Charles G. Fenwick; reprinted

    Google Scholar 

  • Wood, G. S. (1999). The Origins of Judicial Review Revisited, or How the Marshall Court Made More out of Less. Washington and Lee Law Review, 56, 787–817.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yale, D. E. C. (1974). Iudex in propria causa: An Historical Excursus. The Cambridge Law Journal, 33, 80–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Complutense University, Madrid, Germany

    Dr. iur. Dr. h.c. mult. Francisco Fernández Segado

Authors
  1. Dr. iur. Dr. h.c. mult. Francisco Fernández Segado
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty for Economics, Law and Social Sc, University of Erfurt, Erfurt, Germany

    Hermann-Josef Blanke

  2. Court of Justice of the European Union, Luxembourg, Luxembourg

    Pedro Cruz Villalón

  3. University of Applied Sciences for Administration and Public Management in the State of Lower Saxony, Hannover, Germany

    Tonio Klein

  4. Università di Pavia, Pavia, Italy

    Jacques Ziller

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Fernández Segado, F. (2015). James Otis and The Writs of Assistance Case (1761). In: Blanke, HJ., Cruz Villalón, P., Klein, T., Ziller, J. (eds) Common European Legal Thinking. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-19300-7_1

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation