[3] Draft copies discovered in the Public Record Office indicate that the statute was originally only meant to repeal the Ordinances of 1311, with no additional provisions.

[5] As a result of the statute, the Ordinances were repealed, and no attempt was ever made to reintroduce them; this has been seen as "the end of a period of revolutionary experiments in English government".

[6] Henry Hallam concluded that, although seeming to advance the rights of the people by confirming previous custom (which included requiring the monarch to consult the House of Commons when passing a statute), the enactment "seems rather to limit than to enhance the supreme power of parliament, if it were meant to prohibit any future enactment of the kind by its sole authority", since the Lords Ordainers had been elected by the people; nonetheless, most historians believe it extended the Commons' rights.

As stated, "the matters to be established for the estate of the king and of his heirs, and for the estate of the realm and of the people, should be treated, accorded, and established in parliament, by the king, and by the assent of the prelates, earls, and barons, and the commonalty of the realm, according as had been before accustomed"[10] While the Ordinances themselves had been repealed, many of the administrative points they had contained – regarding in particular sheriffs, the Statute of Merchants, and two grievances over legal appeals (Ordinances 17, 33, 35 and 36) – were taken over almost word for word in the new legislation,[11] being known collectively as the six "Good Clauses".

[12] Over time these clauses would later be repealed, eventually leaving just the introductory prohibition on such ordinances being made except by the king, Lords and Commons in Parliament.