Case of Proclamations [1610]
Share
The Case of Proclamations [1610] EWHC KB J22 is a significant English constitutional law case that occurred during the reign of King James I (1603–1625). The case played a pivotal role in defining limitations on the royal prerogative and asserting that the monarch could only make laws through Parliament.
During the Tudor period, monarchs believed they had the authority to regulate through royal proclamations without Parliament's consent. However, this absolute power of the monarch to make law began to face challenges from the English judiciary and raised concerns in Parliament. The case emerged in 1610 when James I and Parliament were in conflict over impositions—Parliament opposed the King's power to impose additional duties on imports beyond what Parliament had authorised. James sought to use proclamations to raise funds outside of Parliament.
The Privy Council sought a legal opinion on whether the King, through proclamation, could prohibit new buildings in London or the making of wheat starch. Chief Justice Sir Edward Coke and other judges were asked for their views. Coke, in his judgment, declared that the King could not create new offences or extend the royal prerogative into areas not sanctioned by law. He stated, "the King cannot change any part of the common law, nor create any offence, by his proclamation, which was not an offence before, without parliament."
Coke emphasised that the King had no prerogative except that which the law allowed, reinforcing the principle that the monarch had no power to declare new offences through proclamations. This decision had significant implications, as it limited the scope of the royal prerogative and underscored the importance of parliamentary authority.
Despite the judgment, James I attempted to place his proclamations on a constitutional footing, treating them as if they were statutes. He argued that proclamations were necessary for addressing matters not covered by law. However, this attempt was not fully accepted.
The Case of Proclamations continued to influence English history, becoming a part of the grievances between subsequent monarchs and parliaments, leading up to the English Civil War. Members of Parliament referenced Coke's judgment to challenge the arbitrary use of royal power. Although the issue of the royal prerogative persisted, it was not conclusively resolved until the Bill of Rights in 1689, which established that the Crown's powers were subject to law and could be controlled by statute.
In contemporary times, the Case of Proclamations remains relevant. In the 2017 judicial review decision, R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union [2017], the Divisional Court cited principles from the Case of Proclamations to determine the government's power to trigger Brexit. The court affirmed that the King, by proclamation, cannot change any part of the common law, statute law, or customs of the realm.
Furthermore, the Case of Proclamations was cited in the 2019 Supreme Court case R (Miller) v The Prime Minister and Cherry v Advocate General for Scotland [2019], which dealt with the prorogation of Parliament. The case's enduring influence demonstrates its lasting impact on the constitutional law of the United Kingdom.
During the Tudor period, monarchs believed they had the authority to regulate through royal proclamations without Parliament's consent. However, this absolute power of the monarch to make law began to face challenges from the English judiciary and raised concerns in Parliament. The case emerged in 1610 when James I and Parliament were in conflict over impositions—Parliament opposed the King's power to impose additional duties on imports beyond what Parliament had authorised. James sought to use proclamations to raise funds outside of Parliament.
The Privy Council sought a legal opinion on whether the King, through proclamation, could prohibit new buildings in London or the making of wheat starch. Chief Justice Sir Edward Coke and other judges were asked for their views. Coke, in his judgment, declared that the King could not create new offences or extend the royal prerogative into areas not sanctioned by law. He stated, "the King cannot change any part of the common law, nor create any offence, by his proclamation, which was not an offence before, without parliament."
Coke emphasised that the King had no prerogative except that which the law allowed, reinforcing the principle that the monarch had no power to declare new offences through proclamations. This decision had significant implications, as it limited the scope of the royal prerogative and underscored the importance of parliamentary authority.
Despite the judgment, James I attempted to place his proclamations on a constitutional footing, treating them as if they were statutes. He argued that proclamations were necessary for addressing matters not covered by law. However, this attempt was not fully accepted.
The Case of Proclamations continued to influence English history, becoming a part of the grievances between subsequent monarchs and parliaments, leading up to the English Civil War. Members of Parliament referenced Coke's judgment to challenge the arbitrary use of royal power. Although the issue of the royal prerogative persisted, it was not conclusively resolved until the Bill of Rights in 1689, which established that the Crown's powers were subject to law and could be controlled by statute.
In contemporary times, the Case of Proclamations remains relevant. In the 2017 judicial review decision, R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union [2017], the Divisional Court cited principles from the Case of Proclamations to determine the government's power to trigger Brexit. The court affirmed that the King, by proclamation, cannot change any part of the common law, statute law, or customs of the realm.
Furthermore, the Case of Proclamations was cited in the 2019 Supreme Court case R (Miller) v The Prime Minister and Cherry v Advocate General for Scotland [2019], which dealt with the prorogation of Parliament. The case's enduring influence demonstrates its lasting impact on the constitutional law of the United Kingdom.
