Proclamations
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1616 |
| Date | 01 January 1616 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 77 E.R. 1352
King's Bench Division
[74] proclamationh. Mich. 8 Jac. 1. S. C. 2. Howel's State Trials 723. Com. Dig. Prser. D 2. D 3. Vin. Ab. Prer. S d. Gibson's Codex * 989. *991. Memorandum, that upon Thursday, 20 Sept. 8 Regis Jacobi, I was sent for to attend the Lord Chancellor, Lord Treasurer, Lord Privy Seal, and the Chancellor of the Duchy; there being present the attorney, the solicitor, and recorder: and two questions were moved to me by the Lord Treasurer; the one if the King by his proclamation may prohibit new buildings in and about London, &c.; the other, if the King may prohibit the making of starch of wheat; and the Lord Treasurer said, that these were preferred to the King as grievances, and against the law and justice: and the King hath answered, that he will confer with hia Privy Couucil, and his Judges, and then he will do right to them. To which I answered, that these questions were of great importance. 2. That they concerned the answer of the King to the body, viz. to the Commons of the House of Parliament. 3. That I did not hear of these questions until this morning at nine of the clock: for the grievances were preferred, and the answer made when I was in my circuit. And, lastly, both the proclamations, which now were shewed, were promulgated, anno 5 Jac. after my time of attorneyship: and for these reasons I did humbly desire them that I might have conference with my brethren the Judges about the answer of the King, and (a) If the property be sold by the pirates, the proceeds belong to the Grown. Case of The, Eden, 1 Hagg. Admr. Rep; 142. But the owners of the goods io that case petitioned the Treasury, who directed the proceeds to be paid over to them ; the law expenses being first deducted. t Ace. Parker 70. 12 CO. REP. 75. PROCLAMATIONS 1353 then to make an advised answer according to law and reason. To which the Lord Chancellor said, that every precedent had first a commencement, and that ho would advise the Judges to maintain the power and prerogative of the King; and in cases in which there ia no authority and precedent, to leave it to the King to order in it, according to his wisdom, and for the good of his subjects, or otherwise the King would be no more than the Duke of Venice: and that the King was so much restrained in his prerogative, that it was to be feared the bonds would be broken: and the Lord Privy Seal said, that the physician was not always bound to a precedent...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mikisew Cree First Nation v. Canada (Governor General in Council), 2018 SCC 40
...1 S.C.R. 1075; Tsilhqot’in Nation v. British Columbia, 2014 SCC 44, [2014] 2 S.C.R. 257; Case of Proclamations (1611), 12 Co. Rep. 74, 77 E.R. 1352; Reference re Secession of Quebec, [1998] 2 S.C.R. 217; Reference re Remuneration of Judges of the Provincial Court of Prince Edward Island, [1......
-
Hamed v R
...50 (CA) at 62, citing RFV Heuston Essays in Constitutional Law (2nd ed, Stevens & Sons, London, 1964) at 34. 58 Proclamations' Case (1611) 12 Co Rep 74, 77 ER 1352. See also Entick v Carrington (1765) 19 St Tr 59 AV Dicey Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution (10th ed, Ma......
-
Sanatan Charma Maha Sabha of Trinidad and Tobago Inc. and Others v Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago
...the Lords of the Privy Council, that the King had no prerogative but that which the law of the land allowed him: Proclamations' Case (1611) 12 Co Rep 74, 75. It is now well established that the courts have jurisdiction under the common law to inquire into the existence or extent of any alle......
-
R (Miller and Another) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union; Re McCord's application
...statutes — or primary legislation as it is also known — and not in any other way. 44 In the early 17th century Case of Proclamations (1610) 12 Co Rep 74, Sir Edward Coke CJ said that "the King by his proclamation or other ways cannot change any part of the common law, or statute law, or the......
-
Judicial Review of Non-Statutory Executive Powers
...151 CLR 170, 218; see also Re Ditfort; Ex parte Deputy Commissioner of Taxation (1988) 19 FCR 347, 368 (Gummow J). 31 Proclamations (1611) 12 Co Rep 74; 77 ER 1352, 1354 (Sir Edward Coke). 32 Victorian Council for Civil Liberties Inc v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (200......
-
Table of Cases
...98 ER 1045 250, 252 Carlton v Goodman [2002] EWCA Civ 545, [2002] 2 FLR 259 215 Case of Fines Coke 3 Inst 84 254 Case of Proclamations (1611) 12 Co Rep 74 252 Cassell v Broome [1972] AC 1027, [1972] 2 WLR 645, [1972] 1 All ER 801, HL 65, 69 Chadwick v British Railways Board [1967] 1 WLR 912......
-
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE ROYAL PREROGATIVE AND STATUTE IN AUSTRALIA.
...63 CLR 73, 83 (Latham CJ), 91 (Starke J), 98-9 (Dixon J), cited in Tampa Case (n 5) 501 [31] (Black CJ). (18) Case of Proclamations (1610) 12 Co Rep 74; 77 ER 1352, 1353 (Coke CJ). See Bill of Rights 1688, 1 Wm & M sess 2, c 2. See also R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the Eu......
-
?No Politics Please, We're British': R (Miller) v The Prime Minister; Cherry and Others v Advocate General for Scotland [2019] UKSC 41
...the Crown-in-Parliament. Since the Crown now has a functionally negligible say in the matter, 76 this model gives the Houses 70 ibid. 71 12 Co Rep 74, 77 ER 1352. 72 [1920] AC 508; Fire Brigades Union (n 47). 73 David Feldman, ‘Pulling a Trigger or Starting a Journey? Brexit in the Supreme ......