Caudry's Case (5 Coke 5) was a 16th-century case concerning a Tudor era statute under which the Archbishop of Canterbury was expected to confirm and consecrate without the authority of Rome, as an ancient common law right of the Archbishop, not needing Papal authority to exercise. An Archbishop or Bishop who refused to confirm and consecrate was guilty of praemunire, under the statute.[1]
There was an increase in litigation in 16th century England and jurisdictional uncertainty. Courts were operating in an environment of competing jurisdictions. There was jurisdiction shopping among litigants. When the High Commission for Ecclesiastical Causes extended its jurisdiction to become an ecclesiastical appeals court, common law judges ruled in their favour in Caudry's Case. Even so, widespread opposition persisted.[2] This case confirmed the High Commission's legitimacy to act as a court; not only over religious practices but also many aspects of marriages and marriage related offenses of all kinds like adultery and not paying alimony.[3]
For Beale and Morice the ecclesiastical jurisdiction and courts were in opposition to the native legal traditions and guarantees of English law under Magna Carta which they said called for outlawing "oaths and subscriptions". The ecclesiastical courts were in violation of the Great Charter. These attempts to assert the authority of the Crown as the highest legal authority under Magna Carta were challenged in Caudry's Case. In his report on the case, Edward Coke followed Morice. Coke's report was attacked by Robert Persons.[4]
According to Christopher Brooks: "In the long run the historical gloss Coke put on Caudry's Case was as significant as the decision itself." Coke's arguments circulated among the society at court as the idea of the jurisdictional superiority of the common law over the eccleasiastical jurisdiction gained more supporters. As religious tensions escalated after the Gunpowder Plot, Jesuit priest Robert Persons published his response to Coke, attacking the premises of his report of Caudry's Case and questioning Coke's claim that the Elizabethan Acts of Supremacy and Uniformity had not created or vested new powers but simply relied upon the existing ancient laws of England. Persons strongly criticized the idea of continuity of the common law reaching into the pre-Conquest period as asserted by Coke.[5]