|
''Thomas Bonham v College of Physicians'', commonly known as ''Dr. Bonham's Case'' or simply ''Bonham's Case'', was decided in 1610 by the Court of Common Pleas in England under Sir Edward Coke, the court's Chief Justice. Coke said that "in many cases, the common law will control Acts of Parliament", and explained why he thought so.〔Pollard (2007) p.51〕 Coke's meaning has been disputed over the years; according to one interpretation, Coke intended the kind of judicial review that would later develop in the United States, whereas other scholars contend that Coke only meant to construe a statute without challenging Parliamentary sovereignty.〔Edlin (2008) p.7〕 If Coke intended the former, then he may have eventually changed his view.〔〔Martin (2007) p.42〕 This statement by Coke is sometimes considered obiter dicta, rather than part of the rationale of the case.〔 Whatever Coke's meaning, after an initial period when his decision enjoyed some support (but during which no statutes were declared void), ''Bonham's Case'' was thrown aside in favour of the growing doctrine of Parliamentary sovereignty. In one of the most prominent early treatises supporting that doctrine, William Blackstone wrote that Parliament is the sovereign law-maker, preventing the common law courts from throwing aside or reviewing statutes in the fashion Coke suggested. Parliamentary sovereignty is now the accepted judicial doctrine in the legal system of England and Wales. ''Bonham's Case'' was met with mixed reactions at the time, with King James I and the Lord Chancellor, Lord Ellesmere, both deeply unhappy with it; it has been suggested as one of the reasons for Coke's dismissal from the Common Pleas in 1613. Academics in the 19th and 20th centuries have been scarcely more favourable, calling it "a foolish doctrine alleged to have been laid down extra-judicially",〔 and simply an "abortion".〔 In the United States, Coke's decision met with a better reaction. During the legal and public campaigns against the writs of assistance and Stamp Act of 1765, ''Bonham's Case'' was given as a justification for nullifying the legislation, although by 1772 Blackstone's views gained acceptance.〔Hamburger (2008) p.278〕 ''Marbury v. Madison'', the American case which in 1803 formed the basis for the exercise of judicial review in the United States under Article III of the Constitution, used the words "void" and "repugnant", although ''Marbury's'' usage was somewhat different from Coke's usage. Academics have argued that Coke's work in ''Bonham's Case'' forms the basis of judicial review in the United States; other academics disagree, with one scholar calling this "one of the most enduring myths of American constitutional law and theory, to say nothing of history".〔 ==Background== The College of Physicians (renamed in 1674 the Royal College of Physicians) was historically an elite organisation. Created by royal charter in 1518, the college was founded by six English academic doctors trained in English universities. It only admitted British men who had trained at a university and passed a three-part Latin exam in medical theory. Only 24 Fellows were allowed, and if an entrant came at a time when all 24 Fellowships were full, he would instead become a Candidate, with the most senior Candidate admitted to the first vacant Fellowship.〔Cook (2004) p.129〕 An Act of Parliament confirming their royal charter also gave the college the ability to act as a court, judging other practitioners and punishing those acting badly or practising without a licence. A second Act, the College of Physicians Act 1553, amended the charter and gave them the right to imprison, indefinitely, those they judged.〔Gray (1972) p.37〕 This "flew in the face of the common law assumption that to practice medicine one needed only the consent of the patient";〔Cook (2004) p.130〕 Despite this, on 8 April 1602, John Popham, the Chief Justice, upheld the college's authority to imprison and fine, saying "That no man, though never so learned a Phisition, or doctor may Practise in London, or within seaven myles, without the Colledge Lycense" and "That a free man of London, may lawfully be imprysoned by the Colledge".〔Cook (2004) p.133〕 Thomas Bonham had been admitted to St John's College, Cambridge, in 1581. Earning a Bachelor's degree in 1584, he completed a Master's by 1588 and studied for a medical doctorate at Cambridge, later granted by the University of Oxford. By 1602 he had completed his studies and moved to London, where he practised medicine and associated himself with the Barber-Surgeons' Company, campaigning for it to be allowed to authorise medical practitioners in a similar way to the College of Physicians. Apparently giving up after a failed petition to Parliament in 1605, Bonham petitioned to join the college on 6 December 1605, but was rejected and told to return after further study.〔Cook (2004) p.134〕 Returning on 14 April 1606, he was again told he could not join, and fined £5 and threatened with imprisonment for continuing to practise. Bonham ignored this, and kept working as a doctor; on 3 October it was announced he was to be arrested and fined £10. Bonham again appeared before the college, this time with a lawyer, on 7 November.〔Plucknett (2004) p.152〕 He announced that he would continue to practise without seeking the college's permission, since he claimed they had no power over graduates of Oxford or Cambridge. On this he was imprisoned – some say at Fleet Prison,〔Hamburger (2008) p.624〕 some at Newgate Prison — for contempt, but his lawyer had a writ of ''habeas corpus'' issued by the Court of Common Pleas which freed him on 13 November.〔Cook (2004) p.135〕 Bonham's successful writ worried the college, whose previous success with Popham and "keen cultivation" of Popham, Lord Ellesmere (the Lord Chancellor) and other Crown officials had left them assured that their jurisdiction would be maintained. As such, the college appealed directly to the Crown officers, and on 1 May met with a committee of judges at Ellesmere's house. This committee was composed of Ellesmere, Popham, Thomas Fleming, two judges from the Court of Common Pleas and two from the Court of King's Bench. These judges all agreed that "for not well doeing useing or practicing the facultie or arte of physike or for disobedience or contempte donne and committed against anye ordynaunce made by the colledge...they may committ the offenders without bayle or mayneprise".〔Cook (2004) p.136〕 This success spurred the college to move against Bonham yet again, this time by suing him in the King's Bench for £60 for maintaining an illicit practice. In a counterattack, Bonham brought a suit in the Common Pleas requesting £100 damages,〔Gray (1972) p.36〕 alleging that they had trespassed against his person and wrongfully imprisoned him "against the law and custom of this kingdom of England".〔Cook (2004) p.137〕 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Dr. Bonham's Case」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|