Definition
Pleas of the crown (Latin: placita coronæ) is an English legal term referring to criminal prosecutions brought in the name of the sovereign. The phrase reflects the foundational common law principle that wrongs against the community are understood as wrongs against the Crown itself, making the monarch — rather than a private injured party — the nominal complainant in criminal causes.
The term carried two related but historically distinct meanings:
1. In its original and narrower sense: The pleas of the crown were a category of serious criminal offenses — including treason, murder, robbery, rape, and arson — reserved for royal jurisdiction and tried in the king's courts rather than local or manorial courts. These were distinguished from lesser offenses that could be handled at lower levels of the feudal court system.
2. In its broader and later sense: The phrase came to signify all criminal causes in which the Crown appears as a party — that is, essentially all criminal prosecutions under English law. This is the sense in which the term is used in the historical dictionaries and in most treatise literature.
The term survives today primarily as a bibliographic and historical marker, most recognizable through the titles of foundational English criminal law treatises: Sir Matthew Hale's Historia Placitorum Coronæ (History of the Pleas of the Crown) and William Hawkins' A Treatise of the Pleas of the Crown.
---
Common Confusion
Researchers encountering "pleas of the crown" in historical sources should not confuse this term with "plea" in the modern procedural sense — a defendant's response of guilty, not guilty, or no contest at arraignment. The two uses share a root (Latin placitum, a pleading or legal proceeding) but diverge in meaning. "Pleas of the crown" identifies a category of jurisdiction and prosecution type; it says nothing about how a defendant responds to charges. Modern usage of "plea" in criminal procedure is addressed separately under PLEA.
Similarly, the term should not be confused with "crown plea" as occasionally used in Scottish law, which has its own jurisdictional history distinct from the English doctrine.
---
Why It Matters in Research
This term is primarily a historical research marker rather than an operative legal concept in modern practice. Researchers will encounter it in three distinct contexts, each requiring different handling:
First, as a jurisdictional category in medieval and early modern English legal history. Understanding which offenses qualified as pleas of the crown matters for researching the development of royal courts, the decline of manorial jurisdiction, and the historical separation between civil and criminal proceedings. Sources from this period treat the category as genuinely operative and contested.
Second, as a bibliographic shorthand. When historical sources — including cases, later treatises, and encyclopedias — cite "Hale's Pleas of the Crown" or "Hawkins' Pleas of the Crown," they are citing specific, enormously influential treatises. Hale's work, though not published until after his death (1736), was composed in the seventeenth century and remains a primary source for common law criminal doctrine. Hawkins published his treatise in 1716–1721. Both works are part of the Law Mind historical corpus and are frequently cited in early American as well as English sources. A researcher encountering a bare citation to "Hale P.C." or "Hawk. P.C." in a nineteenth-century American case is being directed to these English treatise authorities, not to a domestic source.
Third, as a general synonym for criminal law in older texts. Bouvier and Black both note that by their time the phrase was used broadly to mean any criminal cause with the Crown as party — effectively, all prosecutions. Researchers reading pre-twentieth-century English materials should treat "pleas of the crown" in this generic sense unless context signals the narrower historical meaning.
The phrase does not appear in modern American practice as an operative term. American criminal law absorbed the underlying principle — that prosecutions run in the name of the people or state — but shed the English Crown-specific terminology following independence. References to the term in American sources are almost always historical or bibliographic.
---
Historical Dictionary Support
The three source dictionaries agree on the core definition but illuminate different facets of the term.
Black's and Bouvier's track closely, both noting the evolution from a narrower category of serious royal offenses to a broader designation for all criminal causes. Bouvier adds the theoretical grounding — that the sovereign is "supposed by law to be the person injured by every wrong done to the community" — citing Blackstone's Commentaries, volume 4. This formulation is the standard Blackstonian account and remains the clearest statement of the philosophical basis for Crown prosecution.
Burrill's takes a somewhat different angle, foregrounding the prosecutorial dimension ("criminal prosecutions conducted at the suit of the crown") and giving equal emphasis to the term's function as a bibliographic category — noting Hale and Hawkins by name. This is practically useful: Burrill acknowledges that by the time of his dictionary, "pleas of the crown" was as much a library term as a legal one.
None of the three dictionaries addresses the term's American reception or non-reception, which is the most practically significant gap for Law Mind corpus researchers. The historical English sources treat it as self-evidently English; the analytical work of tracing its influence into early American criminal law — through treatise citation rather than direct adoption — is left to the researcher.
---
Encyclopedia Cross-Reference
The Law Mind Criminal Law Encyclopedia:
- Arraignment and Entry of Plea (criminal_198) — for the modern procedural plea context, which researchers may conflate with this term
- Guilty Pleas — Voluntariness, Collateral Consequences, and Withdrawal (criminal_203) — for contemporary guilty plea doctrine, useful for contrast with the historical Crown-prosecution framework
---