Introduction
The Case of Proclamations ([1611] 77 ER 1352) is a foundational judgment concerning the limits of the royal prerogative in English law. The core principle established is that the Crown’s prerogative powers are not unlimited but are defined and constrained by the common law and statute. This case, decided in the Court of King’s Bench, directly addresses whether the monarch can alter existing law, or create new offenses, through royal proclamations alone, without Parliamentary consent. This case is significant because it clarifies the relationship between the Crown and the law, confirming that the King's power does not exist outside what is permitted by law. Specifically, it demonstrates that the monarch is subject to the law and cannot unilaterally change it. The key requirement, as set out by Sir Edward Coke, is that new offenses can only be created through legislation passed in Parliament.
The Facts of the Case and the Central Issue
King James I issued royal proclamations intended to prevent the construction of new buildings in London and the production of starch from wheat. These proclamations effectively sought to alter the existing legal landscape, making actions that were once lawful, unlawful. The House of Commons raised concerns, claiming that these actions of the King were grievances and directly contradicted the established law. The core issue presented to the Court was whether the King, acting alone through the royal prerogative, possessed the authority to modify the existing laws of the land, specifically by creating new offenses or prohibiting previously lawful conduct, without Parliament’s approval. The court was tasked to consider whether the scope of royal prerogative extended to the King unilaterally making lawful activities unlawful. This conflict between the executive power of the monarch and the existing common law framed the central legal argument.
The Ruling of the Court: Limits of Royal Prerogative
The Court of King’s Bench, with Sir Edward Coke, Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, leading the pronouncements, ruled against the King. The judges determined that the royal prerogative did not extend to the creation of new offenses or alterations to common law without Parliamentary consent. The court declared that King James I could not make a previously legal activity unlawful through proclamation alone. The core of this ruling is Coke's statement that "the King has no prerogative, but that which the law of the land allows him." This is a fundamental statement. The judgment established that the power of the monarch is limited and that the law, as interpreted and made by the courts and Parliament, prevails. The King, being subject to the law, could not circumvent Parliament’s role in the legislative process. The judgment specifically reinforced the idea that the creation of new law or the alteration of existing law was the domain of Parliament.
Significance of the Decision: Constitutional Principles
The Case of Proclamations holds profound significance within the British constitution for several reasons. First, it was an early enunciation of the principle of the separation of powers, assigning legislative authority primarily to Parliament. The judgement establishes that only Parliament has the authority to legislate and define the limits of lawful behaviour; and that power cannot be unilaterally wielded by the monarch. Second, it firmly established the judiciary’s authority to define the limits of royal prerogative power. By asserting that the King's prerogative was limited by the common law, the courts positioned themselves as guardians of the law, holding even the monarch accountable to legal standards. This ruling demonstrates the judiciary's ability to control executive power. The case serves as a foundational case in understanding the relationship between the Crown, Parliament, and the courts, and the separation of powers. It clarified the supremacy of common law and statute over executive action.
Contemporary Relevance and Subsequent Cases
The Case of Proclamations, while decided centuries ago, remains relevant in modern constitutional law. The principle of limited prerogative power has been re-asserted in later cases. For example, in R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union [2017] UKSC 5, the Supreme Court held that the royal prerogative could not be used to trigger Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union, which would have initiated the process of withdrawing from the EU. It stated that such a significant constitutional change required parliamentary approval, therefore limiting the exercise of executive prerogative. This case shows that the intention of Parliament cannot be circumvented by executive action under the Royal Prerogative, building on the Case of Proclamations. Similarly, in R (Miller) v Prime Minister; Cherry v Advocate General for Scotland [2019] UKSC 41, the Supreme Court ruled that the Prime Minister's prorogation of Parliament was unlawful, as it frustrated Parliament’s constitutional function. This demonstrates a judicial review of executive action, limiting the exercise of prerogative and thus demonstrating that executive powers have legal limitations.
Rule of Law and Judicial Review
The Case of Proclamations contributes to the concept of the rule of law, which requires that the government should be subject to and act in accordance with the law. This principle is affirmed by the courts who have the power of judicial review. The rule of law, in its narrow sense, requires the government to act within legal limits, something enforced by judicial scrutiny. The case demonstrates the function of the judiciary in ensuring that the executive, in the past the monarch and now the government, is accountable to the law and not above it. The ruling from Case of Proclamations provides a basis for judicial review. By declaring that the King could not create new law alone, the court asserted its authority to scrutinise executive actions and to ensure that all exercise of power is consistent with existing legal standards. The Case of Proclamations is therefore a historical marker in the development of the rule of law within the English legal system. It underscores the importance of the principle that no individual, including the head of state, is above the law.
Conclusion
The Case of Proclamations ([1611] 77 ER 1352) is a landmark case which articulated that the Crown’s prerogative powers are not limitless but constrained by the law. This case established that the monarch cannot create new law or offenses by proclamation alone, instead needing the consent of Parliament. This decision is a cornerstone of constitutional law and establishes that royal prerogative is subservient to both statute and common law. This case is crucial in establishing the limitations of executive power and the role of judicial oversight within a constitutional framework. It set a precedent for the separation of powers, the rule of law, and the concept that the government is subject to and accountable to the law. It has set a clear understanding of the relationship between the crown, the law and Parliament. This judgment remains essential in understanding the limits of prerogative power and the continued role of judicial review. By defining the scope of the royal prerogative, the Case of Proclamations established that the King’s power was not absolute, instead subject to law, and remains a pertinent judgment in the understanding of English constitutional law.
