Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-5g6vh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-30T06:07:51.569Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Regulatory law: some lessons from the past

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2018

A. I. Ogus
A. I. Ogus*
Affiliation:
University of Manchester
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Regulation as a legal form of social engineering has been subjected to much analysis in the last decade or so. The importance of the topic to contemporary law cannot be overstated: on the one hand, it has been the avowed aim of government to ‘deregulate’ industry; on the other hand, and paradoxically, both the concomitant policy of privatisation and the evolution towards a Single European Market have increased the need for regulation in appropriate areas. The efforts to explore the strengths and weaknesses of different regulatory forms have brought together scholars from a wide range of disciplines. Administrative lawyers have been concerned with how the power of decision-making is allocated between institutions and the general problems of accountability and control of discretion to which this gives rise. Socio-legal researchers have critically examined the practices of regulatory agencies as regards rule formulation and enforcement.

Type
Research Article
Information
Legal Studies , Volume 12 , Issue 1 , March 1992 , pp. 1 - 19
Copyright
Copyright © Society of Legal Scholars 1992

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. S. Breyer, Regulation and its Reform (1982); R. Baldwin and C. McCrudden, Regulation and Public Law (1987); K. Button and D. Swann (eds), The Age of Regulatory Reform (1989); C. Sunstein, After the Rights Revolution: Reconceiving the Regulatory State (1990).

2. White Papers, ‘Lifting the Burden’ (1985, Cmnd 9571), ‘Building Businesses…Not Barriers’ (1986, Cmnd 9794), ‘Releasing Enterprise’ (1988, Cm 512).

3. J. Kay, C. Mayer and D. Thompson (eds), Privatisation and Regulation: The UK Experience (1986).

4. McGee, A. and Weatherill, S., ‘The Evolution of the Single Market - Harmonisation or Liberalisation’ (1990) 53 MLR 578 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

5. Baldwin and McCrudden, supra, n 1.

6. J. Rowan-Robinson, P. Q. Watchman and C. R. Barber, Crime and Regulation: A Study of the Enforcement of Regulatory Codes (1990) provides a useful overview of this work.

7. J. Q. Wilson (ed), The Politics of Regulation (1980).

8. Posner, R. A., ‘The “Economic Theory” of Regulation’ (1974) 5 Bell J Econ 335 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; M. A. Utton, The Economics of Regulating Industry (1986).

9. See A. I. Ogus and C. G. Veljanovski, Readings in the Economics of Law and Regulation(1984) ch 6.

10. Bartrip, P. J., ‘State Intervention in Mid-Nineteenth Century Britain- Fact or Fiction’ [1983] J Brit Stud 63 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; H. W. Arthurs, Without the Law: Administrative Justice and Legal Pluralism in Nineteenth Century England (1985).

11. Clay, C. G. A., Economic Expansion and Social Change: England 150 & 1700 (Vol 2, 1984 chs 9-10Google Scholar; Lipson, E., The Economic History of England, Vol III : The Age of Mercantilism (6th edn, 1956) chs 4-5Google Scholar; P. Williams, The Tudor Regime (1979) ch 5.

12. A. R. Bridbury, ‘Markets and Freedom in the Middle Ages’ in B. L. Anderson and A. J. H. Latham (eds), The Market in History (1986) ch 4.

13. See generally Simpson, A. B. W., A History of the Common Law of Contract (1975) pp 510–518 Google Scholar.

14. Clay, supra, n 11, ch 11.

15. Ibid, pp 203-5.

16. E. F. Heckscher, Mercantilism (1935).

17. Wealth of Nations (1921, ed W. R., Scott) Book IV.

18. Kerridge, E., ‘Early Modern English Markets’ in Anderson and Latham, Supra, n 12, p 136. Google Scholar

19. Clay, , Supra, n 11, p 206 Google Scholar.

20. Williams, , Supra, n 11, p 144 Google Scholar. See also North, D. C. and Thomas, R. P., The Rise of the Western World: A New Economic History (1973) p 147 Google Scholar.

21. Stone, L., ‘State Control in Sixteenth-Century England’ (1947) 17 Econ Hist Rev 103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

22. L. A. Harper, The English Navigation Laws: A Seventeenth Century Experiment in Social Engineering (1939).

23. W. E. Minchinton (ed), Wage Regulation in Pre-Industrial England (1972).

24. Harper, supra, n 22.

25. 5 Eliz, c 7 (1562)

26. 3 Hen VIII, c 7 (1511).

27. Supra, n 11, p 34.

28. Supra, n 17, p 163.

29. Eg 22 Chas 11, c 13 (1670).

30. A. Everitt, ‘The Marketing of Agricultural Produce’ in Finberg, H. P. R., The Agrarian History of England and Wales, Vol IV (1967) ch 8. Google Scholar

31. Kerridge, supra, n 18, ch 5.

32. Especially 5 & 6 Ed VI, c 14 (1551).

33. Eg 4 Hen VII c 8-9 (1487), cloth, caps and hats; 24 Hen VIII c 3 (1532).

34. Heinze, R. W., ‘The pricing of meat: a study in the use of royal proclamations in the reign of Henry VIII’ (1969) 12 Historical J 583 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

35. 8 Eliz, c 9 (1566).

36. 2 & 3 Ed VI, c 15 (1548).

37. Smith, , Supra, n 17, p 35. Google ScholarPubMed

38. Everitt, , Supra, n 30, p 580 Google Scholar

39. 5 & 6 Ed VI, c 14, ss 7, 16 (1551). See also 5 Eliz c 12, c 12 (1562).

40. Gras, N. S. B., The Evolution of the English Corn Market (1915) pp 236–240 Google Scholar.

41. Everitt, , Supra, n 30, p 585. Google Scholar

42. Lipson, , Supra, n 11, pp 332–333.Google Scholar See, eg 3 Jas I, c 9 (1605), the preamble of which deplored the fact that merchants had been able to deprive artisan skinners of their trade.

43. Quoted in Lipson, , Supra, n 11, p 336. Google Scholar

44. Eg 3 & 4 Chas 11, c 5, 32 (textiles in Norfolk and Norwich and York and the West Riding, respectively).

45. 5 & 6 Ed VI, c 6, CI VIII (1551).

46. W. R. Cornish, Intellectual Property (2nd edn, 1989) §3-003.

47. Hulme, E. W., ‘History of the Patent System under the Prerogative and the Common Law’ (1896) 12 Law Q Rev 144.Google Scholar

48. (1602) 11 Co Rep 84b.

49. They might be justified if (a) the grantee had invented a new process, or (b) trade could not be maintained without government control, or (c) the security of the state was involved.

50. 20 Jas I, c 3.

51. 23 Edw. III, cc 1-5 (1349).

52. Eg 25 Edw. III, Stat 1 (1351).

53. 13 Ric II, Stat 1, c 3 (1390).

54. 5 Eliz c 4 (1563).

55. See especially Minchinton, supra, n 23 and the literature there referred to.

56. Lipson, , Supra, n 11, p 292. Google Scholar

57. Clay, , Supra, n 11, p 250 Google Scholar.

58. See Tolley's Case (1615) 80 ER 651 (Statute of Apprentices held not to override custom in City of London allowing a person apprenticed in one trade to serve in another) and R v Turnith (1676) 1 Mod 26 (provision does not apply to country villages- ‘I have heard all the judges say, that they will not extend that statute farther than they needs must’, per Twisden J).

59. J. E. T. Rogers, Six Centuries of Work and Wages (1884).

60. In Minchinton, , Supra, n 23, p 65. Google Scholar

61. 1 Jas I, c 6, which in its Preamble indicated that the 1561 Act had not been duly put into execution as regards ‘the rate of wages for poor artificers, labourers and other persons’ (my italics).

62. Minchinton, , Supra, n 23, pp 27 and 192-194.Google Scholar

63. R. H. Tawney, The Agrarian Problem in the Sixteenth Century (1912); J. Thirsk, ‘Enclosing and Engrossing’ in Finberg, supra, n 30, ch 4.

64. 4 Hen VII, c 19 (1489); 7 Hen VIII, c 1 (1515).

65. 25 Hen VIII, c 13 (1533).

66. Thirsk, , Supra, n 63, p 217. Google Scholar

67. 27 Hen VIII, c 22 (1535).

68. 2 & 3 Philip and Mary, c 2 (1555).

69. 39 Eliz c 2 (1597).

70. 21 Jas I. c 28.

71. B. Mitnick, The Political Economy of Regulation (1980) ch 1.

72. Allen, C., Law in the Making (7th edn, 1964) pp 438–443 Google Scholar.

73. R v Bishop of Chichester YB 59 Ed 111, 7.

74. R v Thurston (1662) 1 Lev 91.

75. Supra, n 58.

76. Clay, , Supra, n 11, pp 203–4.Google Scholar

77. Ibid, p 204.

78. C. R. Munro, Studies in Constitutional Law (1987) ch 8.

79. See, eg the market controls issued under the ‘Book of Orders’, supra, n 40 and associated text, and the Proclamation governing the price of sugar reproduced in Tawney, R. H. and Power, E. (eds), Tudor Economic Documents (1924) vol 1, pp 146-8Google Scholar. For general discussion of the scope and use of proclamations, see Hughes, P. C. and Larkin, J. F., Tudor Royal Proclamations (1964) pp xxi–xxxviii Google Scholar.

80. 31 Hen VIII, c 8. For a discussion of its constitutional significance, see Carr, C., Delegated Legislation (1921) pp 51–53 Google Scholar.

81. 1 Ed VI, c 12.

82. Holdsworth, W., A History of English Law vol 10 (1938) p 234 Google Scholar.

83. Webb, S., The History of Liquor Licensing in England (1903) pp 4–14 Google Scholar.

84. Redlich, J. and Hirst, F. W., The History of Local Government in England (2nd edn, 1970) pp 28–29 Google Scholar.

85. Harper, , supra, n 22, p 33 Google Scholar.

86. Supra, n 35; and on wages, pp 9-10.

87. Eg the ban on the export of corn and victuals did not apply to foodstuffs required during a ship's voyage: 1 & 2 Phil & Mary, c 5, CI VIII (1555).

88. Eg the Statute of Artificers contained reservations for the town of Godalming and for the company of worstedmakers in Norwich: 5 Eliz c 4, ClS XXVII and XXXVI (1563).

89. 5 & 6 Ed VI, c 14, cl VII (1551).

90. Ibid, licensing of badgers, kidders, laders and carriers.

91. Everitt, , Supra, n 30, p 580 Google Scholar.

92. Formally created normally as an exercise of royal prerogative (see eg Tawney, and Power, , Supra, n 79, vol 2, p 254 Google Scholar) though equivalent parliamentary measures were not unknown: see eg Statutes of the Realm, vol IV, pp 523-524.

93. 18 Chas 11, c 4 (1667).

94. Eg 4 Hen VII, c 19 (1489); 5 & 6 Ed VI, c 5 (1552); 39 Eliz, c 2 (1597).

95. See, especially 5 & 6 Ed VI, c 6 (1552).

96. Supra, n 54 and associated text.

97. Harper, , Supra, n 22, p 277.Google Scholar

98. See eg 12 chas 11, c 4.

99. Lipson, , Supra, n 11, pp 185–186. Google Scholar

100. Holdsworth, , Supra, n 82, p 163.Google Scholar

101. Williams, , Supra, n 11, p 156 Google Scholar; Tawney, , Supra, n 63, p 352.Google Scholar

102. Eg 1 & 2 Phil & Mary, c 5 (1555).

103. 5 & 6 Ed VI, c 6 (1552).

104. Ibid, cl VI.

105. 5 Eliz, c 7 (1562).

106. See Tawney, and Power, , Supra, n 79, vol 1, p 41.Google Scholar

107. 20 Chas 11, c 7 (1668).

108. Supra, n 65 and associated text.

109. See eg 5 & 6 Ed VI, c 6, CI XXXI: a piece of cloth found to be in contravention of the regulations was to be cut into three pieces, one being forfeit to the Crown, one to the person making the presentment, and one to the mayor, bailiff or justice of the peace receiving the presentment.

110. Williams, , Supra, n 11, p 154. Google Scholar

111. M. G. Davies, The Enforcement of English Apprenticeship (1956).

112. Beresford, M. W., ‘The Common Informer, the Penal Statute and Economic Regulation’ (1957-8) 10 Econ Hist Rev (2nd ser) 221 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Williams, , Supra, n 11, pp 149–153.Google Scholar

113. Although their importance waned in the eighteenth century the practice was not rendered illegal until the Common Informers Act 1951.

114. 7 Co Rep 36.

115. 21 Jas I, c 4.

116. Chartres, J. A., ‘The Marketing of Agricultural Products’ in Thirsk, J., The Agrarian History of England and Wales vol V(2) (1985) p 496 Google Scholar; Beresford, , Supra, n 112, p 237.Google Scholar

117. Rowan-Robinson, et al, Supra, n 6, p 8.Google Scholar

118. Ehrlich, I. and Posner, R. A., ‘An Economic Analysis of Legal Rulemaking’ (1974) 3 J Legal Stud 257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

119. Commission v Germany (Re Beer Purity Laws) [19881] 1 CMLR 780.

120. Ogus, and Veljanovski, , Supra, n 9 pp 267–275 Google Scholar; White Paper, ‘Opening Markets: New Policy on Restrictive Trade Practices’ (1989, Cm 727).