HARVARD COLLEGE OCT 26 1892 LIBRARY SHAKESPEARIANA. Published Quarterly under the Auspices of the Shakespeare Society of New York. No. LXXXIV. OCTOBER, 1892. VOL. IX. THE BIRTHPLACE IN HENLEY STREET, STRATFORD-ON-AVON, AS IT I. FALSTAFF AND EQUITY. Frontispiece. Second Paper. Hon. Charles E. II. THE SUPERNATURAL IN SHAKESPEARE. H. M. Doak, THE HOUSE KNOWN AS SHAKESPEARE'S BIRTHPLACE, V. 195 . 213 235 · 238. 244 B. Rush 248 254 . 255 EDITIONS OF SHAKESPEARE-ELEMENTARY AND CLASSICAL, VI. FIELDING'S UNCONSCIOUS USE OF SHAKESPEARE. Aavertising Department. CHOLERA CURABLE. The Causes, Non-Contagiousness and A timely and valuable treatise that should be in the hands of every intelligent person. In 1863 Dr. Chapman discovered that the circulation of the blood in the spinal cord, as well as in that large aggregate of nervous centres called collectively the "Great Sympathetic," and, through them, the circulation in the brain and in all other parts of the body, can be increased or lessened by modifying the temperature of the spinal region. "Dr. Chapman's book is very able, and is destined to throw much light upon the complex subject of which it treats. The way he marshals his witnesses and facts against the germ theory evinces very unusual ability. He is the first writer who has taken a comprehensive view of the subject. Dr. Chapman has lifted the veil of contradictions and mysteries, and exhibits a consistent whole, where every symptom is accounted for and is in harmony with a theory thoroughly philosophical. The work is full of suggestion, admirably written, strictly logical, and has the merit of great originality."-ROBERT JONES, L.R.C.P., M.R.C.S., in the National Reformer. FOR SALE BY ALL BOOKSELLERS. GOLD MEDAL, PARIS, 1878. W. BAKER & Co.'s Cocoa from which the excess of oil has been removed, Is Absolutely Pure and it is Soluble. No Chemicals are used in its preparation. It has more than three times the strength of Cocoa mixed with Starch, Arrowroot or Sugar, and is therefore far more economical, costing less than one cent a cup. It is delicious, nourishing, strengthening, EASILY DIGESTED and admirably adapted for invalids as well as for persons in health. SOLD BY GROCERS EVERYWHERE. W. BAKER & CO., DORCHESTER, MASS. INCORPORATED 1847. Penn Mutual Life OF PHILADELPHIA, PA. $18,551,388.00 2,465,689.00 The Policy Contracts of this Company embrace all the liberal features of every ther They become INCONTESTABLE two years from date. They are absolutely NON-FORFEITABLE, the entire "reserve " at lapse being applied either to the EXTENSION of the original sum insured, or to the purchase of PAID-UP insurance. CASH VALUES GUARANTEED, EDWARD M. NEEDLES, President. HORATIO 8. STEPHENS, Vice-Pres. JOHN W. HAMER, Manager of Loan Dept. VOL. IX. SHAKESPEARIANA. No. 4. OCTOBER, 1892. FALSTAFF AND EQUITY. "And the Prince and Poines bee not two arrant cowardes theres no equitie stirring, theres no more valour in that Poynes than in a wilde ducke." (1 Henry IV., Act II., Scene 2. First Quarto, 1598.) SECOND PAPER. IN the previous paper, occasional reference was made, and further reference will be made in this, to a synoptic note, for a condensed view of the historic war between the courts of law and equity, giving the dates of its successive stages and material incidents.* Omitted before for want of space, the note referred to is now brought to the front, leave being asked to repeat an explanatory sentence:-"The genesis. of the controversy is traced to the great struggle between the laws of England and Rome, from the twelfth century to the fourteenth, when *THE WAR BETWEEN THE COURTS.-Temp. Henry II., 1154-1189. Violent struggle for jurisdiction between the laws of England and Rome, resulting in clipping the wings of the ecclesiastical courts by the Constitutions of Clarendon, followed by the assassination of Archbishop and ex-Chancellor Thomas à Becket. (4 Bl. Com., 422; Hallam, M. A. Ch., 7; Lord Camp., Life of Becket.)- —John, 1204-1215. The barons declare for trial by jury and the law of the land. (Magna Charta.)—Henry III., 1217-1272. The barons reply to the prelates “quod nolunt leges Angliæ mutare." They are unwilling to change the common for the civil law. (Stat. of Merton.)--Edward I., 1272-1307. Stubborn opposition to continued encroachment of ecclesiastical courts. Vigorous measures taken to repress it. (4 Bl. Com., 425.)- -Edw. III., 1327-1377. Struggle over jurisdiction renewed. Wyclif and the Lollards-Chaucer-Statute of Premunire 27 Ed. III. (so called from the leading word in the writ by which sheriff is charged to summon delinquents), denouncing with severe penalties those "which do sue in any other court to defeat or impeach the judgments given in the King's Court." This is the statute mainly relied on by the common-law judges in their opposition to the equity jurisdiction of restraining judgments by injunction. (3 Inst., 119, 122.) -The Roman law, heretofore in favor with the courts, now becomes an object of aversion. (1 Spence, Eq., 346.)——Rich. II., 1381-1399. Increase of Lollardry. The barons protest that they will never suffer the kingdom to be governed by the Roman law. The judges prohibit the citation of the civil law. Effect of the exclusion of the civil law from the common-law courts, to throw the exclusive administration of trusts into the Court of Chancery. Waltham supposed to devise the writ of subpana, 1386. Jealousy of Parliament toward the growing power of chancery. Repeated efforts to restrain and limit its authority. Its jurisdiction supported by the crown. Parliament will not admit of an equity of redemp it merges into the long contest with the constantly developing jurisdiction of chancery, settled finally by the intervention of King James. the First on the side of chancery in 1616." tion. (2 Fon., Eq., III., 1, sec. 2, note; I Spence, Eq., 346; 3 Bl. Com., 52; 4 Inst., 82; 3 Reeves' Hist. C. L., 188, 274, 379; Parkes' Hist. Chan., 39-48; Gilb., For. Rom., 17; 1 Sto. Eq. Jur., sec. 46; 1 Pom., Eq., sec. 20; Ld. Camp., Lives Ch. of R., II.)--Henry IV., 1399-1413. Lollards persecuted and Sir John Oldcastle executed. Continued struggle against the growing jurisdiction of equity. The commons renew their petitions complaining of the Court of Chancery, particularly of its interference with matters remediable at law. Statute of Prohibition, 4 H. IV., declaring that judgments at law should not be annulled excepting by attaint or for error, one of the statutes afterwards relied on by the judges to support their opposition to common injunctions. (4 Inst., 83; 3 Bl. Com., 52; 1 Spence, Eq., 348; and authorities cited supra.)—Henry V., 1413-1422. The same struggle continues. The commons renew their remonstrances against the Court of Chancery, which is again supported by the crown. (Lord Camp., Life of Beaufort, and same authorities.)——Henry VI., 1422-1461. The struggle continues. In this feeble reign, the chanceliors fail of their accustomed support from the crown. The opposition to chancery scores a point in securing the passage of an act requiring that no subpœna should issue in matters determinable by the common law, and requiring a certificate by two justices, and bond to be given by all plaintiffs in equity. (15 H. VI., C. 4.) This statute appears to have been neglected by the chancellors, since it was again distinctly provided that “no matter determinable by the law of this realm " shall be "determined in other form than after the course of the same law in the King's Courts" (31 H. IV., C. 2; 4 Inst., 83, 84; 1 Spence, Eq., 370.)—-Edward IV., 1461-1483. In this despotic reign the Court of Chancery is firmly in the saddle. No further opposition is made in Parliament, and the struggle is transferred to the courts of law. The right of the chancellor to restrain judgments by injunction "vehemently opposed," as appears by the Year Books. In 5 Ed. IV., 35, it was resolved that after judgment at common law the party could not be relieved in equity. In 22 Ed. IV., 37, the same was again resolved, with the declaration by the judges that they would release on habeas corpus any suitor who should be imprisoned by the chancellor for breach of such an injunction. (3 Inst., 123; Cro. Jac., 344.)—— Henry VIII., 1509-1547. Lollardry merging into Puritanism. Impeachment of Wolsey, for (amongst other articles) assuming jurisdiction as chancellor after judgment at law. Continued opposition of the judges to injunctions granted by his successor, Sir Thomas More. He proposes to the judges that if they would "mitigate and reform the rigor of the law themselves, there would be no more injunctions." They refuse, and he announces his purpose to persevere. Stat. of Uses, 27, H. 8, designed to abolish equitable jurisdiction over landed property, but such effect defeated by narrow decisions. (2 Bl. Com., 336; 4 Reeves' Hist. C. L. 520; 370–376. Parkes' Hist. Chan., 63, 65. Roper, Life of More, 42; Ld. Camp., do.; 1 Sto. Eq. Jur., sec. 51; 3 Inst., 124; 4 Inst., 91.) Elizabeth, 1558-1603. "The warfare between the two sides of Westminster Hall" (in the language of Lord Campbell) continues throughout this reign, as shown by the following cases, cited 3 Inst., 124; Mich., 8 & 9, El. in K. B. Ralph Heydon, gent., was indicted of a premunire upon the stat. 27 E. III., for procuring of Sir Nicholas Bacon, Lord Keeper of the Great Seal, to grant an injunction in chancery after judgment given in ejectment, in subversion of the laws of the realm.—Trin. 21 El., in the common pleas. A writ of premunire The narrative will now be resumed at the point where it was adjourned by the fall of the editorial gavel, just at the interesting stage where Throckmorton filed a bill in chancery for relief against the judgment at law, rendered upon the technical forfeiture. There would of course be no difficulty in such a case at the present day. But juridical equity was at that time an undeveloped system, and its relief was sparingly granted even as against penalties and forfeitures. The plaintiff in equity was required to show special circumstances of extremity or accident to excuse the forfeiture.* Accordingly Throckmorton's bill alleged some such "apparent matter of equity" (not necessary to be here particularized), to show that the non-payment of rent was no wilful failure. On behalf of his client, Coke demurred to the bill, thus raising the simple issue that, after judgment at law, equity could not interfere. It was at this point that Queen Elizabeth interposed her authority. Ellesmere was then lord chancellor, and, in accordance with his well-known principles, had clearly manifested his inclination to overrule the demurrer, and sustain his jurisdiction. He certainly had a right to presume that Her Majesty, being an interested party, would keep her hands off, and that, at least, consistency would re upon the said stat. of 27 E. III. by Beans against Lloyd, for suing before the President and Council in Wales (a court of equity) after judgment in the common pleas, in subversion, etc.—Pasch, 27 El. in K. B. Peter Dewse was indicted for procuring an injunction in chancery after a judgment in ejectment.--Trin. 30 El. in K. B. John Heal, of the Inner Temple, Esquire, was indicted of a premunire for procuring a suit in chancery after a judgment at law, contrary to the stat. 27 Ed. III. On exceptions taken by counsel, the court resolved that the Court of Chancery was within the statute of premunire, but quashed the indictment for a variance in the name of a party.-Mich., 39 & 40 El. Thomas Throckmorton exhibited a bill in chancery against Sir Moyl Finch. (This case, as well as that of Heal, will be found fully stated in the text.)—James I., 1603-1616. The culminating crisis and final settlement of the controversy by the king in person in favor of the jurisdiction of equity, the issue being precipitated by the following cases: Heath vs. Ridley, Cro. Jac. 335; Courtney vs. Glanvil, Cro. Jac. 343; Goge's case, 1 Rolle, 277.——1616. A commission of crown lawyers, with Bacon at its head, is instructed to report as to the precedents of injunctions granted after judgments at law. The commission reports in favor of the jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery, that the chancery "does not assume to undo the judgment, but only to restrain the corrupt conscience of the party." Upon this report an order of the king is passed, 18th July, 1616, and enrolled in chancery, determining the question, by virtue of the royal prerogative, in favor of the chancellor. (1 Carey Rep., 163, etc.) 16th Nov. 1616. Lord Coke removed from office by royal supersedeas. Years afterwards, in his Institutes, he stubbornly repudiates the royal order as contrary to law. (3 Inst., 125.) * 1 Spence, Eq., 603, 629, notes. + When Lord Ellesmere was made Viscount Brackley, the wits of Westminster Hall, who objected to his interference with the judgments of common-law courts, converted the name into Break-Law. (Foss, Life of Bacon.) |