A Layman's Guide to the English Constitution

  • 0 Replies
  • 1092 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

*

Offline the leveller

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • 4119
  • +75/-0
A Layman's Guide to the English Constitution
« on: April 08, 2016, 11:12:30 AM »
 Layman’s Guide to the

               English Constitution

By Albert Burgess
 
 

Dedicated to all those who have given their lives or suffered injury in the service of England from the earliest times.

 
Copyright © 2011

 
“Government has no right to make itself a party in any debate respecting the principles or modes of forming, or of changing, constitutions. It is not for the benefit of those who exercise the powers of government, that constitution, and the governments issuing from them, are established. In all those matters, then rights of judging and acting are in those who pay, and not those who receive”.

“A constitution is the property of a nation, and not those who exercise government”

 
 
Thomas Paine
  CONTENTS

Introduction                                                                                                                         

The origins of our Constitution                                   

William I                                                                                         

William II                                                                           

John                                                                                                   

The Great Charta 1215                                                     

Important Constitutional Rulings               

Henry III

Edward II

Edward III                                                                               

Richard II                                                                                         

The Tudors                                                                   

The Petition of Rights                                                           

The Grand Remonstrance                                   

Declaration of Rights                                     

The Bill of Rights 1689                                             

Treason and Sedition                                       

Finance Bill 1910, Parliament Act 1911             

Hereditary Peerage                                                 

The Dispensing Power                                   

 Treason Act 1695                                                William Joyce                                                   

Henry VIII Powers                                        History of the Royal Assent                           

Nationality                                                         

Allegiance                                                         

Parliament, Stockdale vs. Hansard                                     

Parliament is Supreme

Conclusion Bibliography and further reading


 
Introduction

Know your Constitution or lose your ancient freedoms

I believe that there is a need for a layman’s guide

to the English Constitution because the Government’s sponsored guide to our Constitution: ‘Inside Britain – A Guide to the UK Constitution’, is a work designed to mislead the ordinary man, woman and child in this country.  It allows them to enslave the subjects of her Majesty, undermine our culture and way of life and destroy a thousand years of history.

You should remember one thing; England is ruled, not by the Queen or by Parliament and not by the Queen in Parliament, England is ruled by the law of the very good Constitution left to us by our forefathers.

In every man and woman’s

life, there comes a time

when their character is called into question;  will they go with the flow no matter what, or will they say “No, this is not right” and “I will not have it?”  The same is true of countries. 

 

Our Constitution (simply meaning: higher law) is determined by the overriding will of the people.  English people and their integrity can make a difference to matters seemingly beyond their control. This guide looks at moments in history which show how people have created the Constitution we have today.  It also shows that all good monarchs recognise the importance of respecting the collective wishes of laymen to maintaining power.  In other words, power truly is with the people, if only they would implement it.

The Origins of our Constitution

King Alfred the Great

Every work on the Constitution needs a starting point and I have chosen the year 841 because that was when King Alfred the Great was born.  Alfred was the youngest son of King Ethelwulf by his first wife Osburh. He was sent to Rome at an early age to study.  We can trace the formation of his character and

love of learning to this early time in his life.   

Alfred’s life was not easy, and he spent most of his early life fighting the Danes. Each of his brothers became King in turn, and to each Alfred gave unswerving loyalty, until he inherited the Crown in 871.  He became King of Wessex. 

The Vikings were attacking and Alfred had to take control of his army at the same time as he was mourning the loss of his brother King Aethelred. Alfred was also affected by an illness. He could hardly have picked a worse time to become King; he was ill and a Viking army was at his door banging to get in. 

In figure 1, we see Alfred hiding from the Vikings in the home of a peasant woman.  He was asked to watch the cakes, but his troubled mind wandered and he forgot all about them.  The cakes were all burnt and Alfred was scolded

by the peasant woman when she returned.  After this event his fortune began to change….

Description: Description: Richard II

 

Figure 10: Richard II insisting on his supremacy

The Tudors

Under King Henry VIII we see the final parting of the ways between the Roman Church and England. The 1351 Treason Act remained the predominant Treason Act. King Henry issued his Act of Supremacy 1534 making him supreme governor of England in all things Ecclesiastical. 

 

Description: Description: Henry VIII

Figure 11: Henry VIII

During the reign of Queen Elizabeth I, the Pope attempted to have Queen Elizabeth murdered. He

said that whoever killed her would not suffer, but would receive both earthly and heavenly rewards.  Queen Elizabeth was understandably far from amused by this and she reissued her father’s Act of Supremacy in 1559.  This Act contained an Oath, part of which states:

“No Foreign Prince, Person. State or Potentate. Hath or ought to have any Power, Jurisdiction, Superiority, Supremacy, or Authority Ecclesiastical or Spiritual in this Realm.”

Description: Description: Elizabeth I

Figure 12: Bishops acknowledge Elizabeth I

The Tudors on the whole

ruled according to the prerogatives given to them by law.

 

The Stuarts

The Stuarts, on the other hand, believed they ruled by ‘Divine

 



Figure 13: King Charles I summoned to execution

Right’ and were answerable only to God. As a result, two out of the four Stuarts lost their crown; Charles I lost his crown and his head, then

James II was forced to flee the Country to safety.



The Petition of Rights 1628

In 1628, Charles I was presented with the Petition of Rights, a restatement of Alfred’s Law.



The Grand Remonstrance 1641 

Later, in 1641, the Grand Remonstrance was a request by Parliament for Charles to rule according to the law (yet another restatement of Alfred’s Law) but Charles refused. He was then put on trial for treason against the people, found guilty and executed.  After the restoration King Charles II put on trial for treason all those who had signed his father’s death warrant. They were tried and Executed Even Oliver Cromwell who was already dead was dug up and hanged.  In 1667 the House of Commons told the Upper House they could not start or amend a money bill that roll was the commons, there is nothing in our constitution to support this argument. The Lords gave way in 1677. This was the beginning of the restriction of the authority of the House of Lords

.

James II was told by Parliament that by attempting to catholicise the country he was acting illegally. James retaliated, dissolved Parliament, and carried on as before until he was forced to flea to France.

 

Description: Description: Charles I

Figure 13: King Charles I summoned to execution

Declaration of Rights

William III of Orange

Prince William of Orange was asked by the now out of work politicians, if he would like the Crown, as his wife Mary was next in line to the throne. William and Mary would rule as joint sovereigns, because Mary said she would not be over her husband, and William said he would not be a servant of his wife. 

William landed at Torbay with an army much smaller than that commanded by King



Figure 14: James II receiving the French bribe

James II. When James saw his army deserting in droves, he sent his wife and son to France and followed them a short while later.

William was asked to take on the administration of the country. However, William despised the English, and replaced a number of our senior military and civil servants with Dutchmen.  The politicians (thinking they had just got rid of one bad King and it looked like they were about to get another), went and spoke to the Alderman and fifty of the Common Council of the City of London. William hearing of this issued instructions for writs to be sent to every borough in England. The boroughs were to send representatives to Westminster to tell the politicians and William how we, the English, wished to be ruled. 

The representatives came to Westminster and met the Lords, the politicians, the Aldermen and Common Council of the City of London at a Convention. It was not a parliament because only a King or Queen may call a parliament. King James II was in France and had no desire to call a parliament. After much discussion they produced the Declaration of Rights, which was a further restatement of Alfred’s laws.  The Declaration was shown to William and Mary, who were told by the representatives of the people that, if they wanted the Crown, they had to accept the terms of the Declaration of Rights (these were the minimum rights and freedoms the people would tolerate). William and Mary accepted the Crown under these terms.

Now he was King, William called a parliament. William did not have an election but,

Description: Description: William & Mary

Figure 15: The Crown being offered to William and Mary

instead, said the people’s representatives would be his Parliament.  The first thing Parliament did was to pass the Declaration of Rights into law as the Bill of Rights 1689.  Two codicils were added to the Bill, first any amendments after the 23rd September 1689 were void and not lawful, and second, that this Bill was for all time. 



The Bill of Rights 1689

Now it is a convention that no parliament can bind another. So how could this Parliament bind every successive Parliament for ever? The answer is simple. This Parliament was made up of the people’s representatives. The will of the people is supreme over both Parliament and the Sovereign.  Until such time as the representatives of the people meet and change the 1689 Bill of Rights, this Bill remains the law. In 1695 in order to avoid the fate of those who had deposed Charles I the people who had deposed James II passed the 1695 Treason Act placing a 3 years time limit on bringing a prosecution for treason, some 6 years after they had deposed James II.

The 1695 Treason Act is ultra vires because it grants a partial dispensation from the penalty for your crime of treason, because we all suffer if treason occurs and is successful we all have a right and a duty to prosecute treason.

In his Commentaries on the Laws of England, Chief Justice Blackstone in 1765 said that he was writing about the laws of Alfred. This makes it clear that Alfred’s Laws were still in place during the life of Chief Justice Blackstone.

Since the time of King Alfred, our law has developed for over a thousand years.  It was developed by our forefathers because, from time to time, bad (or frankly useless) Kings have needed to have their ways corrected. Kings who would not listen were removed. As mentioned above:

Ÿ  Edward II was such a King and was removed in favour of his son.  He was subsequently killed at Berkeley castle Gloucestershire.

Ÿ  Charles I had his head removed for treason against the people, as did his Lord Strafford.

Ÿ  James II was forced to flee to France. 

 

Each and every time a king has been removed or had his ways changed, the reason has been because he has tried to rule outside the law - Alfred’s Laws of England. 

Treason and Sedition

We have dealt with English Constitutional law as it is written. The law does indeed give us protection from despotic government.  Our forefathers, however, did not just trust the law. They built into our system of government extra safeguards, specifically in the way Parliament itself is required to work.

Parliament consists of three parts; the Commons, the Lords, Spiritual and Temporal, and the Sovereign, over all three parts. Individually none of these parts can make or repeal law.  Our forefathers foresaw that if any one part was able to claim supremacy in the system, we would suffer from oppressive government.

Parliament works by the Commons originating legislation, which is then passed to the Lords for scrutiny. It is the function of the Lords to amend or refuse the legislation if they believe it to be oppressive, or in any other way not good legislation.  If the Lords approve the legislation, it then goes before the Sovereign who may refuse the Royal Assent if he or she considers the legislation not to be in the best interests of their subjects. Any attempt to subvert the make-up of Parliament is the major crime of sedition, and at this level, sedition is High Treason. Any attempt to damage the Sovereign’s powers or authority is High Treason.



Finance Bill 1910 & the Parliament Act 1911

Such a situation occurred in 1910. The Asquith government attempted to put through a Finance Bill. The Lords rejected the Bill because it imposed too high a tax burden on the Subjects, and they believed that they had no right to amend a money bill after the seditious and illegal 1667 ruling by the House of Commons. Asquith went to the Lords and told them he was putting forward a Bill which would limit their authority to reject bills. If they did not pass this Bill, he proposed to put 500 new peers into the Lords, and they would vote for the closure of the Lords.  The Lords gave their consent to the Parliament Act 1911, but under duress. 

The Bill was presented to King Edward VII who refused Royal Assent, on the grounds that it removed a protection given to his Subjects by the Constitution. King Edward told Asquith he would have to ask the Country.

But shortly thereafter King Edward VII died and King George V came to the throne. He was told by a government minister that, as King, he retained all his prerogatives.  However, he could not use any of the Royal Prerogatives without the backing of a government minister.

This ministerial advice has no basis in our Constitution and amounts to a clear act of Treason. Furthermore, since it imagines the death of the King as a Sovereign King it is an act of High Treason under the terms of the Treason Act 1351.



Hereditary Peerage

Meanwhile, Asquith travelled around the country telling everyone about the Lords refusal of consent to the Bill. He told the public this Bill would give them a pension, but failed to mention the tax burden it would impose upon them. 

In one fell swoop, Asquith had neutered the power of the Lords to protect the Subject from bad law, and removed the right of sovereigns to refuse the Royal Assent to parliamentary bills.   

Asquith was a Fabian. Arguably, the undeclared policy of the Fabians was the destruction of the Constitution and our way of life. Consequently, Asquith’s actions amounted to a clear act of sedition, which, at this level, amounts to High Treason.

Subsequent Acts have continued to restrict the authority of the House of Lords. Finally, the plan to remove all but ninety two hereditary Peers was passed by Parliament in 1999. Currently, the Government plans to remove all hereditary Peers from the House of Lords.

Constitutionally a peer can only be removed by a bill after committing a serious crime. A separate bill is required for each peer before he can be removed.  It is unconstitutional (and therefore illegal) to remove every hereditary peer in a General Bill. Baroness Ashton said in the House of Lords that a General Bill cannot be used to remove the hereditary peers.

Why do we want the hereditary peerage? Well, on the whole, they were honest and honourable. They had large estates and money so they were most unlikely to take a bribe; they were also very protective of the family reputation. The Hereditary Peers are the traditional advisors to the Sovereign.

Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II was taught Constitutional Law by a Fabian, Henry Marten, and the Fabians, I believe, want to destroy our way of life. Her Majesty will always do what her ministers say she must.  We are now governed by an elected dictatorship. What has this treacherous dictatorship illegally achieved?

(1) Magna Charta and the Bill of Rights state that we cannot suffer any fine or forfeiture unless we have been found guilty of an offence in a court of law. Fines should not be excessive and no cruel or unusual punishments inflicted.  We now have a whole range of fixed penalty fines, for which we are not permitted to appeal in one of Her Majesty’s Courts of Law.

(2) The Bill of Rights  says that any threat of a fine or forfeiture voids the offence.  Yet we are told that if we drop litter or don’t have a TV licence we will be fined £1000. We are told that if we do not insure or tax our car it will be seized and crushed.

(3) The Bill of Rights also states that we may not be imprisoned unless we have been found guilty of an offence in one of Her Majesty’s Courts of Law. Yet we now have 28 days detention under the anti- terrorism laws.  In other words, detention without any evidence being produced to anyone, let alone one of Her Majesty’s Courts of Law. 

 

These Constitutionally illegal laws are subverting the Constitution by the major crime of sedition, which, at this level, amounts to high treason against Her Majesty’s subjects.

(4) Edward Heath set up a conspiracy to subvert our ancient Constitution, the major crime of Sedition. Sedition at this level is High Treason. Heath also conspired with others to hand over this Country to a foreign power, the EEC/EU - the major crime of High Treason. Every succeeding government has signed treaties with the EU surrendering our rights to govern ourselves under laws passed by the Queen in Parliament. In doing so, every government since the Heath government has committed the major crime of High Treason.

(5) The restrictions of the ability of the hereditary peerage to play their proper part in government, as defined by the Constitution, constitute the major crime of Sedition which at this level is High Treason.

(6) The removal of the hereditary peerage from the Lords constitutes an act of Sedition amounting to High Treason.

(7) A Minister from the

Asquith Government advised King George V: that he keeps all his Royal Prerogatives, but may not use them unless he has the backing of a minister. This is to usurp the Royal Prerogative, which is an act of high treason.

It is a fundamental part of our Constitution that Parliament may not surrender any of their rights to govern to a foreign power, unless we have been defeated in war.

It is a fundamental part of our Constitution that a statute law cannot repeal by implied repeal a Constitutional law.

It is a fundamental part of our Constitution that, when a law is against common right or reason or repugnant, or impossible to perform, the common law will intercede and strike it down.

Parliament is governing outside the rule of the Constitutional and Common Law of England and Wales. Scotland has its own Constitution.  I leave it to the people of Scotland to deal with government over breaches of the Scottish Constitution.

I do not want you to take my word for any of this. My teacher at school used to tell us to look it up, because then you will remember it, and I am saying to you look it up! In particular research: the Legal Codes of Alfred, the Charter of Liberties of Henry I (1100), the Magna Charta (1215), the Petition of Rights (1628), the Grand Remonstrance (1641), and the Bill of Rights (1689).

Then I want you to look out of the window and see just how thoroughly the Government is destroying the Constitutional Laws of England.

Now you understand how our ancient Constitution works… you have to choose whether you are going to roll over and become slaves or live as free born Englishmen like our forefathers; many of whom died to give us the rights and freedoms the world believes we enjoy.

I am not yet asking you to risk death. We are not there yet nearly but not there yet. I am asking you to fight back. England is ruled by law. Parliament is ignoring the best laws in the history of the world.  Let us use the law to get back that which is ours, our Constitution and our Country. Sedition is any act designed to subvert the Constitution.

High Treason is any act designed to betray the Sovereign, Constitution and People of England.

Can you recognise these acts of betrayal by Parliament today?



On the dispensing power of the king to dispense with a penalty for an offence:

In 1674, Chief Justice Vaughn of the Common Pleas ruled that the king cannot dispense with a penalty for a common law offence. The king can dispense with a penalty for a statute offence, but he cannot dispense with a penalty for all statute offences. The king cannot for example allow someone to commit murder. The king can dispense with a penalty when he is the victim, but he cannot dispense with a penalty when it affects a third party who could claim for damages in a court of law. The King cannot, for example, allow someone who has a duty to repair a bridge, avoid liability to anyone using the bridge. Because that would remove the right of anyone injured by walking over the bridge, due to its lack of repair, from claiming for damages against those whose duty it was to keep the bridge in good repair.

Queen Elizabeth I forgave the Earl of Essex for his personal treason against her, when he went to strike her with his sword. But she removed his head when his treason was against the state and her subjects.



The Treason Act 1695

This act puts a three year time limit on bringing trials for treason. Bearing in mind the preceding explanation of the powers of dispensation available to the King, and the actions of Queen Elizabeth I, we can clearly see that this time limit is nonsensical in allowing someone who has committed treason to get away with it just because they are able to avoid arrest for three years. It is also ultra vires because the King cannot give the assent for what is a partial dispensation for an act of treason. When we all suffer a loss, should treason succeed?

We all of us have a right and a clear duty to prosecute those who commit this most serious crime. As such it is clearly constitutionally impossible for such a dispensation to be given.



William Joyce

William Joyce was an American citizen of Irish descent, who obtained a United Kingdom Passport, before running off to Nazi Germany on the outbreak of the Second World War. Joyce and his wife both made broadcasts in aid of the German war machine between 1939 and 1940 when his passport expired. Joyce was arrested by British Forces personnel in 1945, Winston Churchill brought in the 1945 Treason Act for Joyce and others so that they were put on trial and Joyce was found guilty and executed for treason in 1946, some six years after his last act of treason under the 1945 Treason Act. It was specifically brought in to try him and other known traitors.



Henry VIII Powers

King Henry VIII was an arrogant bully who ruled

by dictate. The Bishop of Rochester upset his cook, one Richard Rose, who poisoned the meal and seventeen people died.    King Henry VIII ordered the cook to be taken to Smithfield and boiled to death. Richard was duly boiled to death. This became known as a Henry VIII power. Parliament today claim to rule by Henry VIII powers. They evidence this by the blue eyed baby rule. Parliament say that they could pass a law saying all blue eyed baby boys born in July were to be killed, that would be the law and the babies would be killed. Chief Justice Sir Edward Coke in 1628 said that “Parliament may sometimes pass a law which is against common right and reason, or repugnant or impossible to perform, and the Common Law would intercede and strike it down”. I would hope we would all feel that any law which said we should kill anyone, let alone babies, was repugnant; because the families of these babies would fight, as would everybody else, to prevent the deaths of these children. It would be impossible to perform because the common man would enforce the Common Law of England by armed resistance if necessary.     

 

        ※

The History of the Royal Assent

In the beginning there was no parliament but British Kings were not dictators, they all used advisors. These advisors made sure that the King did not rule outside the law. The Anglo Saxon kings had the Witan, made up of the Ealdormen and Thanes.

Later the Norman French kings had a parliament made up of barons and the knights from the shires. For a long time Parliament met where the king was in the country, before it became settled at the Palace of Westminster. All our early kings and queens were in Parliament when it met, and were able to exert considerable influence on the actions of Parliament. The Stuarts believed they ruled by divine right. We know what happened to them.

King William III attended Cabinet meetings and the House of Lords. Queen Anne, like William, attended Cabinet meetings and the House of Lords; as a result, they both had a very clear idea of what was happening, both with government, and in the Country. Following the death of Queen Anne we had King George I. He spoke only German, and because he had no idea what was being said, he attended neither Cabinet meetings nor the House of Lords. This allowed the politicians to govern in his name, with the King having no say about what was done in his name. Description: Description: Queen Anne

Figure 16: Queen Anne           

His son, King George II, spoke English, but was discouraged by the politicians from attending Cabinet meetings and the Lords. Indeed he complained that his ministers were kings in his Kingdom. He

 

Description: Description: George I

Figure 17: George I   

was effectively prevented from carrying out his role as King. King George III was badly educated, as a young man he was given by the government tutors who tried to see that he imbibed Whig principles, Yet we see in a letter he wrote to his friend the Earl of Bute on 25 September 1758 that he was in spite of his drawbacks and having a melancholy mind that he did not want to be just a figure head and a cipher for his ministers he determined he would be King.  His main interest being farming about which he was knowledgeable. He also suffered from mental ill health and, for a large part of his reign, was not competent to govern.

 

Description: Description: George II

Figure 18: George II

This gave the politicians, purely by accident the idea that they could assume power without the sovereign having any say, or at most, not much, in what government did. Yet when he became King he kept up a 20 year fight for sovereignty to remain with him, and not the House of Commons. After a heated debate in the House of Commons King George III won the debate and established that he was sovereign and not the Commons by one vote. If Her Majesty did the same thing today she would be lucky to get one vote. George III took to appointing his own ministers and those he appointed ran the House of Commons by doing this he was able to stave off the power of the commons and retain sovereignty in his own hands as King.  It is this political power, taken without permission, not authority granted under the law that encourages

 

Description: Description: George III

Figure 19: George III

Governments to believe that those in the House of Commons can do anything they like, whether the Sovereign or the people like it or not. This is the situation we have today (see more below).



Nationality

The best description of nationality was given by King Edward III in his statute 25 E.3 de natis ultra mare. 

Edward ruled that everyone born under an English King is English, if you were born overseas of an English father you are English, if you are born of an English mother and an alien father you are alien. If an Englishman goes into the country of an enemy, or into a friendly country, and refuses to return to England on command of the King, the children born there are alien.



Allegiance

Who owes allegiance to the king? First, everyone who is born under the King, or who is born outside England to an English father. Second, those who accept English nationality. Third, anyone who comes to England to trade or otherwise, comes under the protection of the King whilst they are here.

So, for instance, a French merchant trading in England would owe allegiance to the King as long as he is in England. A French soldier here as an invader, would owe no duty of allegiance to the King. A foreign prince who came to visit England, would owe no allegiance to the King, but would require the King’s permission to land in England. Everyone over the age of 12 was required to swear an oath of allegiance to the King. It is believed this oath-taking was started by King Arthur, and goes back into the mists of time. The later Acts of Supremacy, add to this, but do not replace the Oath of Allegiance. It is English common law that the king cannot resign his Crown, nor can those estates in Parliament withdraw their homage. If the king was no king because he resigned, then those in Parliament were no Parliament if they withdraw their homage. If the throne were usurped, the rightful heir would still become king, though the usurper would be king in fact. Parliament has no right to take the Crown from the next in line and appoint another as king; to do that would be to usurp the Crown. The 1689 Declaration of Rights, made up of the representatives of the people, was able to remove the Stuart line because the will of the People is supreme over Parliament and the King.



Parliament, Stockdale vs. Hansard

In Stockdale vs. Hansard 1837, Stockdale, a book publisher, was slandered in the House of Commons, and that slander was published in Hansard. Chief Justice Denman found in favour of Stockdale and awarded him £600 damages. Judge Patterson, giving the opinion of the other eight judges in the case, ruled that:

‘In the beginning, Parliament met under one roof with the Lords one side and the Commons the other, with the King at the head. At that time, Parliament was the highest court in the land and could not be sued in any other court. But, for their own reasons, the Houses chose to sit under different roofs. The House of Lords is where the law lords and the king sit, and it is the highest court in the land. But the House of Commons is in no way a court of law, and the common man must be able to sue the House of Commons in any of the courts in the land, for wrongs done to him by the actions of the House of Commons.’

Now that the Law Lords have been removed from the House of Lords, The House of Lords is no longer the highest court in the land; that role now falls to the Supreme Court.

Following the spirit of Judge Patterson’s ruling, it means, in my opinion that the common man may now sue Parliament for wrongs done to him by the actions of Parliament as a whole.



Parliament is Supreme

(Parliament is Sovereign)

Or is it? If true, this would amount to surrendering to the Crown (in Parliament), all the rights and liberties of the people.

It is, of course, natural for political animals to hanker after power, and it’s often stated: ‘power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely’.

It was, as we have seen above, the Declaration and Bill of Rights that left the authority of kings as it had always been under the law, contracted to us by the Coronation Oath. However, politicians have opportunistically awarded themselves unlimited powers in its place, to the extent that they claim that Parliament can do as it pleases - ‘blue eyed baby boy concept’ (see above).

The political classes have misused their skills and cunning to side-line the Constitution that limited their powers, so we now have an untenable situation where the public are faced with politicians who seem to subscribe to a new doctrine of the ‘Divine Rights of Politicians’.

A breach of the limitation of the Crown in Parliament would be contrary to the law of Parliament. The 1st Earl of Chatham, Pitt the Elder, was aware of the threat when he said:

“….. instead of the arbitrary power of a Stuart king, we must submit to the arbitrary power of the House of Commons. If this be true, what benefit do we derive

from the exchange? Tyranny my Lords, is detestable in every shape, but none so formidable as where it is assumed and exercised by a number of tyrants. My Lords, this is not the fact, this is not the Constitution, we have a law of Parliament. We have a Statute Book and the Bill of Rights”.

No doubt it was the French Revolution that encouraged this power grab, but also this idea was predated by William Prynne who postulated the sovereignty of Parliament.

It was then enthusiastically taken up by Professor Dicey in 1885 without lawful authority. It is this concept, more than any that has led to the widespread view that we now live in an elected dictatorship.

With the strangling of the House of Lords, the removal of Royal Assent by the Monarch, and general savage control of elected representatives, by the use of the whips. The executive is now virtually free to do as it wishes.

Parliament is not sovereign. It must abide by the rule of law, which includes the Bill of Rights. Betty Boothroyd, in the House of Commons in 1993, in reply to a matter of breach of privilege raised by Tony Benn stated:

“I am sure that the House is entitled to expect when the case referred to by the right hon. Gentleman begins to be heard on Monday, that the Bill of Rights will be required to be fully respected by all those appearing before the courts.”



Conclusions

In England we have a very good and ancient Constitution, built by the trials and tribulations of our forefathers, who experienced, on a number of occasions, despotic rule, which their desire to live as freemen gave them the strength to overcome. On each occasion they set in place protections to prevent despotic rule. Today we have despotic rule by the House of Commons, who claim authority even over Her Majesty the Queen. They have withdrawn their homage to Her Majesty and, under the Common Law of England, are no Parliament, but foul and base traitors. We must, like our Forefathers, find the strength to overcome this evil, and, make no mistake, it is Evil. They are destroying a legal system and Constitution built around the teachings of the Holy Bible.

In the House of Commons, according to the secretary of Andrew Dismore (MP), Dr Egan: “there has been an interesting discussion on whether by passing a law,

they (Parliament), can do away with the rule of law”. Why would anyone in their right mind even contemplate such a thing, let alone discuss it? What are we left with if they remove the rule of law? We are left with satanic law:

“Do what thou wilt, shall be the whole of the law”. So if your 12 year old child is raped it is not a crime! When your old mother is burgled and beaten to a pulp, it is not a crime. When a bank is robbed and a cashier shot to death it is

not a crime. Make no mistake this is what our politicians have in mind for us. If only so that

they can continue to ‘rob us

blind’ with their expenses.

Our forefathers protected

our freedoms, and in doing

so developed the most perfect constitution known to man.     

 
 
                                            _                                                                                     

 
 
Sir Winston Churchill that great Englishman said this country breeds a class of men, who are very intelligent and well educated who can’t help themselves they think they know best and always betray this country. Such a man was Edward Heath one time Prime Minster of the United Kingdom of Great Britain.

Just what did Heath do to betray us all? He asked for advice from Lord Kilmuir the Lord Chancellor on the effects of our joining the EEC, who told him it would mean surrendering powers to govern to a foreign power to govern and that this had never been done. Of course it has not because to do that is an act of High Treason. He went on to say that it would mean placing our courts under the dominium of foreign courts and this had never been done. Of course it had not because it is the ancient crime of Praemunire.

Norman Redaway who

worked in the information research department of the Foreign office. Redaway set up breakfast meetings in the Connaught Hotel in London, which were attended by Government ministers, MP’s the British council for the European movement, prominent people from all the national newspapers, ITV, BBC, and others. At these meetings the media people were asked to remove all their front line anti EEC reporters and replace them with pro EEC reporters. Not content with totally slanting the press in favour of the EEC, the Foreign office set up a department within a department of five people whose job it was, was to write thousands of letters in favour of our joining the EEC. They did not have the ability to distribute the letters so they sent them to the central offices of all three major parties the Conservative Labour and Liberal parties and the British Council for the European Movement who got them signed as though they came from people like you and I. Each of these letters was posted to the letters columns of the newspapers who dutifully published them, each letter saying what a wonderful idea this EEC is and we must join as soon as possible. The foreign office also wrote speeches for pro EEC members of parliament and government ministers and answered thousands of genuine letters from the public expressing concern about a perceived loss of

Sovereignty.  All this means just one thing, Edward Heath is the biggest traitor we have ever had,  since King John, William Rufus was killed to save England from despotic rule, Edward II was killed to remove bad government from England, Charles I was tried and executed because he ruled outside the law, James II was removed because he was ruling outside the law.

Other traitors like Casement and William Joyse and Lord Haw Haw made war upon His Majesty’s subjects within the realm or gave aid and comfort to His Majesty’s enemies. Not one was in the position Heath was in of being able to betray this Kingdom, but Heath could not work alone, a good many people could have stopped him, Douglas Hurd was his private secretary everything which went over Heaths desk was seen by Hurd. Did Hurd walk into a police station and say you boys will be interested in what my boss is doing? No he did not he did his level best to assist Heath, as did Redaway, Tucker and a whole raft of others who could not line

be able to recognise for

 
 
Up fast enough to betray                  yourself the crimes of

The country of their birth                 government today.

Heath was told it was important       

our politicians attained                       Demise of the King 

positions of authority in the

European parliament ready                In the beginning when

For the day they assumed                   the King made some one

effective power, this can only             a Knight or a Baron he

be read in one way they were             gave them money from

talking about the surrender                his own purse and land

to a foreign  power of the United       from his estates, his                                                                   

Kingdom. He was also told we           advisors considered this

would not loose our last minute         and decided that this

ability to withdraw in less than           would cause his demise

three decades. Edward Heath              in the eyes of his

knew in 1971 that for the UK             subjects. So they decide

to Join the EEC would mean               if the King wanted to

surrendering the UK to a foreign        elevate anyone he must

power the EEC, whose two                 discuss it with them if

principle members France and            they agreed, the money

Germany who have through out          would come from the

history been our principle                   public purse and the

enemies. Knowing this Heath              land would be allocated

set about lying to the people,              from public land. This

Parliament, and Queen                        kept the King above his

Elizabeth II.                                          subjects. The Crown

                                                             Estates are held in trust

For full details of all the                       by the King but he can

Evidence of Heaths treason                  not dispose of them.

You will after reading this book.          He can spend the

 

Profits but since the reign of

King George III the King has

given the profits to the exchequer

in exchange for the Civil list.

Queen Elizabeth II gets £40, 000

000 the Profits from the Crown

Estates are £200, 000 000. So

Every year she gives us £160,000

000. So those people who call her

a benefit scrounger you could not

be more wrong.

 
 
 

Naturalisation Denisisation

When some one comes to England and applies for British nationality and it is granted, they place themselves in a difficult position because under the law their first loyalty is to the country of their birth. If this country went to war with the country of their birth they should in law return to that country if they remain here they commit an act of treason against the country of their birth. If they return home and support their original country they commit an act of treason against us.

If they have children here those children take the nationality of the father so if the father originally came from India the child is Indian. If an English man lives in Russia and marries a Russian

 

 

 

 

 

woman any child they have is English. If an English woman goes to Russia and marries a Russian man any children they have are Russian.

If a person comes here and is naturalised British they receive most though not all the rights of a natural born subject they can buy and sell inherit or leave property, what they may not do is sit in either House of Parliament, sit on the Privy Council. receive any order of Nobility or hold any office of public trust. ( in short they are never to be trusted ) The Sovereign is forbidden by the common law of Kingship from ever changing that law.

The object of that law is to keep England under the safe governorship of an English King and the indigenous people of England.

The oaths from the Act of Supremacy 1559 and the Bill of Rights 1689 both major constitutional law state.

No foreign prince, person, state or potentate, hath or ought to have any power, superiority, supremacy or authority ecclesiastical or spiritual within this land.

With this oath in mind it makes no sense to allow any naturalised subject to hold any public office, and most assuredly we must at all costs remove all Denizens from every office of public trust and do it now. We can start by not voting for anyone but a natural born subject at the next election and all other elections. Write to the chief Officer of your police force and ask him to arrest those natural born subjects who have placed denizens in offices of public trust for treason, write to your MP if he is a natural born subject demand he upholds the law, if he is a denizen order him gone in the name of the law.   

A General as the Sheriff of the nation

It may be that the actions of some members of Parliament who may consent to some treason or felony that it may be the duty of officers or others to detain or secure them, till the cause be heard in Parliament. and that species of treason which is against the Kingdom or the Kingdoms Army, may so much concern a General, that it cannot be wondered if he should be the accuser or attacher: who is the Kingdoms sheriff,  and intrusted with the posse regui which he ought to manage for the best advantage of the Kingdom. He can arrest and charge 100 MP’s with treason. 

 

 

THE LAYMAN’S GUIDE TO THE ENGLISH CONSTITUTION

THE LEGAL ADVERTISERS TO THE ALBION ALLIANCE HAVE STATED THAT THIS PUBLICATION IS AS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE PRINCIPLES OF OUR ANCIENT CONSTITUTION AS IS POSSIBLE TO OBTAIN.

Layman’s Guide to the English Constitution

By Albert Burgess

Produced by David Barnby, Whitney

ISBN 9780956981509

Albert Burgess has produced a delightful and highly informative booklet on the English Constitution. Written in a warm and readable style this is not any ‘dry as dust’ account. Quite clearly the author loves, knows and understands his subject and wants the reader to do so as well.

In light of the astonishing ignorance regarding the history the Constitution under which we are governed this is a timely work and deserves to be widely circulated. Hopefully this review and others will encourage Christians to get a copy for themselves and another for others.

Burgess gives two reasons for this booklet.

First, to expose the misleading information given by the State in its ‘Inside Britain’ book.

Second, to show the contribution made by people of integrity in shaping the Constitution.

Over 28 pages some 29 topics are covered from ‘the Origins of the Constitution’ to ‘Parliament’ itself. Beginning with Alfred the Great we are taken on a journey through the lives of William the Conqueror, king John to the Magna Carta in 1215. On through the Tudors, Stuarts, William of Orange and the Bill of Rights. The History of the Royal Assent, Nationality and Allegiance.

While much territory is covered it never comes across as boring, rather we see in concrete terms how and why each topic matters.

In short it is an impressive description of our history in constructional terms. If only we learned history at school in the same manner and fashion. Here is a book needed in every home and school in the nation.

Significantly, Burgess shows how successive administrations have actually undermined the Constitution. Politicians such as Asquith, Heath and Major all subverted the Constitution. Burgess also examines the removal of civil liberties by numerous acts of Parliament.

The final page drives home the sobering reality of what we may expect in the  future given the anarchistic ideology that now exists in the politicians sitting in Parliament. Anyone who is ignorant or indifferent must give heed to what Politicians are actually espousing. You ignore it at your peril.

The booklet is concluded with a bibliography for further reading.

With such an interesting work one hates to make any criticisms at all. However there are a few things that may raise questions.

First, the booklet begins with a quotation from Thomas Paine. Hardly a standard or example any Christian could turn to. There are others who are far more worthy who could have been quoted.

Second, is the will of the people supreme over Parliament and King?

Third, is our Constitution the most perfect known to man?

That apart, it remains a valuable booklet.

Rev E T Kirkland

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
Bibliography and further reading

Adams, G.B., and Stevens, H.M. eds., (1921), ‘Select Documents of English Constitutional History’. London: Macmillan and Co. Ltd.

Ashworth, P.A. ed., (1896), ‘English constitutional history: From the Teutonic conquest to the present time’.  London: Stevens and Haynes.

Bede, (731), ‘A History of the Church and the English people’. Translated by L. Sherley-Price, and revised by R.E. Latham, 1974. Middlesex: Penguin Books Ltd.

Blackies, ‘Blackie’s comprehensive history of England’. (Vol.5) London: Blackie and Son Ltd. Figure 12.

Cassell, ‘Illustrated History of England’ (Vol.1), London: Cassell, Petter and Galpin. Figures 1-11.

Elton, G.R. ed., (1972), ‘The Tudor Constitution: documents and commentary’. Cambridge: University Press.

Feiling, K., (1959), ‘A History of England: From the coming of the English to 1918’.London: Macmillan and Co.

Green, J.R, (1902), ‘A short history of the English people’. (Vol.1-4), London: Macmillan and Co. Ltd.

Department of Constitutional Affairs, ‘Inside Britain – A Guide to the UK Constitution’.

Keynes, S., Lapidge, M., (2004), ‘Alfred the Great: Asser’s Life of King Alfred and other contemporary sources’.  London: Penguin books.

Macaulay, Lord., (1895), ‘The History of England: From the accession of  James II’. (Vol.1), London: Longman’s, Green and Co. 

Maitland, F.W., (1908), ‘The Constitutional History of England’. Cambridge: University Press.

Robertson, C.G. Sir., (1947), ‘Select Statutes, Cases and Documents to illustrate English constitutional history, 1660-1832’. 8th Ed. London: Methuen and Co. Ltd.

Trevelyan, G.M., (1934), ‘History of England’.  London: Longman’s, Green and Co.

Stubbs, W., (1873), ‘The Constitutional History of England: in its origin and development’. 5th Ed. (Vo1.1-3), Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Sturdy, D., (1995), ‘Alfred the Great’. London: Constable.

Hale, M. Sir the Prerogatives of the King. Seldom Society 1976

Chitty Joseph 1820 A Treatise on the law of the Prerogatives of the Crown.

Fortescue Sir John 1420 On the Laws and Governance of England

Sadler John 1682 Rights of the Kingdom, or Customs of our Ancestors. 

John Bingley, ‘Unlawful Governance’.

David Barnby, ‘Shoe-horned into the EU’ - CD

Statutes

Act of Supremacy 1559

The Criminal Law Revision Act 1948

Criminal Law Act 1967

The Statute of Treason, Provisors and Praemunire 1351

The Statute of Praemunire 1392

The Treason Act 1351

The Parliament Act 1911
               
 
Reprinted here with the kind permission of Albert Burgess

« Last Edit: April 08, 2016, 11:16:14 AM by the leveller »

 
Share this topic...
In a forum
(BBCode)
In a site/blog
(HTML)


SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk