The Case of Proclamations [1610] is an English constitutional law case during the reign of King James I (1603–1625) that established some of the Royal Prerogative’s limits at the time. It essentially said that the Monarch could only enact laws via Parliament. The judgement established the principle in English law (later developed by future parliaments and other members of the judiciary in subsequent cases, such as Dr Bonham’s Case), that when a case involving an alleged exercise of prerogative power was brought before the courts, the courts could determine:
If the declared prerogative existed in law and to what extent it extended; whether it had been restricted by legislation, and if so, how; and whether the Crown was required to pay compensation after the prerogative was used.
The Tudor kings thought they had the right to govern without the approval of Parliament by issuing royal proclamations. The monarch’s unlimited authority to “create” the law, on the other hand, was starting to be questioned by the English court, creating concerns in Parliament. When James I and Parliament were fighting over impositions in 1610, the question of the King’s authority to create legislation came before the judges. Parliament was opposed to the King’s authority to levy additional import taxes on top of those previously approved by Parliament. However, James intended to collect more funds outside of Parliament by issuing proclamations.
Sir Edward Coke, then Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, was summoned before the Privy Council of England on September 20, 1610, along with Lord Chief Justice Thomas Fleming, Lord Chief Baron Lawrence Tanfield, and Baron James Altham, to provide legal advice on whether the King could prohibit new buildings in London or the manufacture of starch or wheat after these had been refuted. Because the questions were “of considerable significance, because they affected the king’s response to the Commons,” Coke requested time to discuss them with other judges.
The King’s power to create new offences was outlawed, and the King could not prohibit new buildings in and around London by proclamation, i.e., the Royal Prerogative could not be extended into areas not previously sanctioned by law: the King could not change any part of the common law, nor create any offence by his proclamation which was not an offence…
Chief Justice Coke said in his decision that the King does not have the authority to proclaim new offences by proclamation: “The King has no prerogative save that which the law of the country permits him.”
As a result, the King lacked the authority to ban the construction of new buildings in London or the production of wheat starch without the permission of Parliament via royal proclamations, since Parliament had not previously given the King this power through the creation of statute law.
James, I refused to accept that he could not govern by prerogative and tried to constitutionalize all of his proclamations by having them published in a book as if they were laws. He went on to say that proclamations were needed to “apply quick, appropriate, and expedient remedies… in situations so changeable and irregular in nature, as are neither provided for by law nor can they fitly come under the certain regulation of a law.”
Before the English Civil War, the issue of proclamations would be one of many complaints and topics of contention between James I and Charles I, as well as their Parliaments. MPs would then utilise Coke’s decision in the Case of Impositions to back up their arguments against the arbitrary exercise of royal authority in the years leading up to 1641. While the case is controversial, some historians and jurists believe it had a significant influence on the development of the idea of judicial review in English common law. The question of the royal prerogative’s scope was not fully addressed until the Bill of Rights of 1689, which “confirmed that the Crown’s powers were subject to the law and that there were no powers of the Crown that could not be taken away or regulated by legislation.”
In the 2019 Supreme Court cases R (Miller) v The Prime Minister and Cherry v Advocate General for Scotland, the Case of Proclamations was referenced once again.
Aishwarya Says:
I have always been against Glorifying Over Work and therefore, in the year 2021, I have decided to launch this campaign “Balancing Life”and talk about this wrong practice, that we have been following since last few years. I will be talking to and interviewing around 1 lakh people in the coming 2021 and publish their interview regarding their opinion on glamourising Over Work.
If you are interested in participating in the same, do let me know.
Do follow me on Facebook, Twitter Youtube and Instagram.
The copyright of this Article belongs exclusively to Ms. Aishwarya Sandeep. Reproduction of the same, without permission will amount to Copyright Infringement. Appropriate Legal Action under the Indian Laws will be taken.
If you would also like to contribute to my website, then do share your articles or poems at adv.aishwaryasandeep@gmail.com
We also have a Facebook Group Restarter Moms for Mothers or Women who would like to rejoin their careers post a career break or women who are enterpreneurs.
We are also running a series Inspirational Women from January 2021 to March 31,2021, featuring around 1000 stories about Indian Women, who changed the world. #choosetochallenge