Legal Case Summary
The Case of Proclamations (1610) 12 Co Rep 74; 77 ER 1352
Royal prerogative; statutory limitation of prerogatives
Facts
In what turned out to be a landmark case concerning the Royal Prerogative, Sir Edward Coke (the Chief Justice of Common Pleas) was asked to express his opinion as to whether the monarch could prohibit new buildings or the making of wheat. The King (James I) wished to outlaw these activities as he found them to be against the law.
Issues
The case raised the question whether the monarch could by his proclamation change existing laws without consent from Parliament.
Decision / Outcome
The Chief Justice of Common Pleas (following consultations with other judges) held that the King did not have the legal power to create new offences or prohibit the erection of new buildings. In other words, the Royal Prerogative did not allow the outlawing of previously legal actions without Parliament’s consent. Sir Coke argued that the introduction of new laws required a lot of consideration and thus should be left at the hands of Parliament, instead of just one person. The judgment also confirmed that English law consisted of the common law, statutory rules and custom only and did not include proclamations by the monarch. Sir Coke famously said that “the King hath no prerogative but that which the law of the land allows him”.
Updated 20 March 2026
This summary accurately describes the Case of Proclamations (1610) and its legal significance. The core constitutional principle established by Coke CJ — that the Crown cannot by proclamation create new offences or alter the existing law without Parliament’s consent — remains a foundational principle of UK constitutional law and has not been altered by statute or subsequent case law. It continues to be cited in academic and judicial discussions of the royal prerogative. The article is legally accurate and current. Students should note that the broader law of royal prerogative has been further developed by cases such as Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service [1985] AC 374 (the GCHQ case), which confirmed that prerogative powers are subject to judicial review, and by R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union [2017] UKSC 5, which reaffirmed that prerogative cannot be used to alter domestic legal rights established by statute. These later developments complement rather than undermine the principle in the Case of Proclamations.
