Disclaimer: This work was produced by one of our expert legal writers, as a learning aid to help you with your studies. We also have a number of samples, each written to a specific grade, to illustrate the work delivered by our academic services.
Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of LawTeacher.net.
The Case of Proclamations (1610) 12 Co Rep 74; 77 ER 1352
Royal prerogative; statutory limitation of prerogatives
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.
The case raised the question whether the monarch could by his proclamation change existing laws without consent from Parliament.
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”.
Cite This Work
To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below: