"Supposing that an Englishman felt himself hurt by the illegal action of a government official, what could he do? Could he challenge the official action in court with a view to stopping it or obtaining redress for his wrong? Could this be done promptly and easily? In the years 1600-1750, two new legal remedies - new modes of proceeding in the courts - were developed which gave the aggrieved subject quicker and easier relief from illegal action by officials", Miss Henderson writes. These two new remedies, the writs of mandamus and certiorari, are the basis for modern Anglo-American administrative law. Miss Henderson traces the development of mandamus and certiorari in England in the seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries. She gives us first a picture of the structure of local government, both in country and town, pointing out the areas where injustice might occur because of the citizen's inability to hold the local officials accountable. She describes in detail the development of the doctrine of limited judicial review, which was partly implicit in the older remedy of prohibition and common-law suits, and was made explicit in the new remedies of mandamus and certiorari.

“Hamburger argues persuasively that America has overlaid its constitutional system with a form of governance that is both alien and dangerous.” —Law and Politics Book Review While the federal government traditionally could constrain liberty only through acts of Congress and the courts, the executive branch has increasingly come to control Americans through its own administrative rules and adjudication, thus raising disturbing questions about the effect of this sort of state power on American government and society. With Is Administrative Law Unlawful?, Philip Hamburger answers this question in the affirmative, offering a revisionist account of administrative law. Rather than accepting it as a novel power necessitated by modern society, he locates its origins in the medieval and early modern English tradition of royal prerogative. Then he traces resistance to administrative law from the Middle Ages to the present. Medieval parliaments periodically tried to confine the Crown to governing through regular law, but the most effective response was the seventeenth-century development of English constitutional law, which concluded that the government could rule only through the law of the land and the courts, not through administrative edicts. Although the US Constitution pursued this conclusion even more vigorously, administrative power reemerged in the Progressive and New Deal Eras. Since then, Hamburger argues, administrative law has returned American government and society to precisely the sort of consolidated or absolute power that the US Constitution—and constitutions in general—were designed to prevent. With a clear yet many-layered argument that draws on history, law, and legal thought, Is Administrative Law Unlawful? reveals administrative law to be not a benign, natural outgrowth of contemporary government but a pernicious—and profoundly unlawful—return to dangerous pre-constitutional absolutism.

English Administrative Law from 1550 systematically elaborates and contextualizes the origins of administrative law. It upends conventional thinking, charting the development of administrative law from the mid-16th century with an in-depth examination of primary legal materials, statute, and case law.

Paul Daly develops a theory concerning the appropriate allocation of authority between courts and administrative bodies.

In this collection, leading figures in UK and EU public law address seismic changes the field and reflect upon the implications of these changes, the fundamentals of public law, and the interrelationship between them across six themes: legislation, case law, theory, institutions, process, and constitutions.

Based on author's thesis (doctoral - University of Oxford, 2017) issued under title: Against monism and in favour of an anatomical approach to administrative law.