Case of Proclamations [1610]
Court: King’s Bench
Facts: The case took place during the reign of King James I, at a time when the monarch sought to extend the royal prerogative by issuing proclamations to regulate matters without the consent of Parliament. The case arose from King James I's attempt to use royal proclamations to prohibit the construction of new buildings in London and the production of wheat starch, in an effort to raise funds and impose control. The Privy Council requested a legal opinion on whether the King had the authority to make such proclamations without Parliamentary approval.
Issue: Whether the King, by royal proclamation, could create new laws or offences, and whether such proclamations could extend the royal prerogative beyond what the law permitted.
Held: The court, led by Chief Justice Sir Edward Coke, held that the King did not have the authority to create new offences or alter the law through proclamations without the consent of Parliament. Coke ruled that the monarch had no prerogative except what the law allowed, and the King could not change any part of the common law or create new offences by proclamation. The judgment reinforced the principle that only Parliament had the power to make or change laws.
Key Judicial Statements: Sir Edward Coke: "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."
💡 Leveluplaw: The Case of Proclamations established a crucial constitutional principle: the royal prerogative cannot be used to make new laws or create offences without Parliament. This case played a significant role in limiting the scope of monarchical power and laid the groundwork for parliamentary supremacy in English constitutional law. The principle that the Crown's powers are subject to law has continued relevance, as seen in modern cases like R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (2017) and R (Miller) v The Prime Minister (2019), which both cited this case to uphold the importance of limiting executive power.