Talk:Statute of Monopolies

message: Does anyone know for certain whether this act was passed in 1623 or 1624? Both dates come up in a Google search. The UK Patent Office seems to think 1624 (See ) and I expect they would be as likely as anyone to know. The patent article (Early history of patents section) also has the date at 1624. 194.66.229.8
: It's a bit confusing. The citation is (21 Jac. 1, c.3), which means Chapter 3 of the statute books, in the 21st year of the reign of James I. (Jac. is short for Jacobus, a Latinised James; hence also "jacobean", or "jacobites", later). The practice of identifying laws by their calendar year didn't come until substantially later; it was common to just cite the statute number for a long time, and the problem is that all these Wikipedia titles use the modern style...
: The tricky part is that regnal years (as these are called) don't map very well to calendar years; they're counted from the date of the start of the reign. According to my Guide to Law Reports and Statutes, the regnal years of James I lasted from 24th March to 23rd March (Elizabeth had died on the 24th, you see, so logically he had become King the same day.). 21 Jac.1 is, therefore, the year from the 24th March 1623 to the 23rd March 1624.
: Still with me? Good. 21 Jac. 1 c.3 could have been passed at any time between those dates; however, some googling throws me up statutes up to and including 21 Jac. 1 c.16, or c.27. It seems likely that the third entry on the statute books in that year will have happened comparatively early, and be in 1623 - remember, they're entered consecutively.
: "...The Limitations Act 1623 (21 Jac 1, c 16)" is from a ruling by the Law Lords , but that's not conclusive. I guess it trumps the patent office, though ;-)
: A quick summary of the situation as I understand it -
::The correct way to give the year of the law is as 21 Jac. 1.
::The most accurate translation of this into "modern" usage is 1623/4, but it can be interpreted either as 1623 or 1624 depending on how you approach it.
::The calendar year during which this law was passed is probably unknown, without consulting original sources; it's not something that there would have been a pressing need to record correctly.
::However, it was - on the balance of probabilities - probably passed during calendar year 1623.
:Did I manage to make all that make sense? Shimgray 14:56, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You did, just about. I'll go with the Law Lords too, I think. ;-) I guess I should go and change the date in the patent article. 194.66.229.8 16:09, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Incidentally, I remembered I have access to the Lexis archives... they have it entered as 1623. (Pretty much all the text is missing, though, as having been repealed). Shimgray 00:18, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh. After all this... it seems the Statute Law Revision Act 1948 provided it with a short title, in this case as... [drumroll]... the Statute of Monopolies, 1623. So it's even a legally correct way to cite it, regardless of my bletherings :-) Shimgray 00:52, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Old

message: I have added some detail to the article but I am not a expert in the subject and am not confident that I have worded it accurately or covered the issues thoroughly. Input from an expert would be appreciated. PeterEastern (talk) 11:32, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expert knowledge