ORIGINAL CONTRACT
For the British, the “Original Contract” is of vital interest, because
it is the very legal authority by which each 'Reigning Monarch' in the line of
succession, sits on the British throne. The Original Contract is the contract
that the Subject has, with the King. And, it is designed for the Subjects
protection. All born to the shores of Great Britain are bound, in law, to give
allegiance to each 'Reigning Monarch’ for as a Monarch shall reign’. In,
return, for this allegiance, that they give, the Reigning Monarch' is required
and obliged to provide their protection. The prime duty and responsibility of
each 'Reigning Monarch in the line of Succession’ is to act as 'Head of
Government' protecting the Subject. And, this is done by ‘monitoring’
Parliament in the country’s and the Subjects best interests, and, in the use of
the power of the “Royal Assent”. The ‘Reigning Monarch’ always has the power to
approve or reject law’s created by Parliament, through the granting or, the
refusal to grant, the “Royal Assent”.
The, 'Original Contract', although, 'unwritten' is nevertheless, fully
established in English Law. For, it was the 'breaking of the original contract'
that provided the 'legal instrument’’, by which, King James the Second was
removed from the throne.
On 28th day of January 1688 the ‘House of Commons’ resolved: 'That King
James the Second, Having Endeavoured to Subvert the Constitution of the
Kingdom, by Breaking the Original Contract between King and People; and by the
advice of Jesuits, and other Wicked Persons, having violated the Fundamental
Laws, and Withdrawn himself out of the Kingdom, hath Abdicated the Government.
and that the Throne is thereby Vacant.'
The CONVENTION Debate:
The CONVENTION (Parliament) of 1688, mounted a special debate held in
the 'Painted Chamber' of the House of Commons on the 4th, 5th, and 6th days of
February 1688, held between both Lords and Commons, where, they debated the
words, “Abdicated" and "That the Throne is thereby Vacant".
At,the conclusion of this debate, both Lords and Commons accepted and resolved
that, King James II had indeed abdicated the throne. It was then determined and
ruled, that, "The Throne was Vacant".
Speeches from this debate:
(These speeches can be seen in the book “The Parliamentary History of
the Glorious Revolution” by the author David Lewis Jones. Published by H.M.
Stationery Office)
The Notes: are my own notes.
‘The Speaker’, Henry Powle
“It is from those that are upon the Throne of England (when there are
any such) from whom the People of England ought to receive Protection, and to
whom, for that Cause, they owe the Allegiance of Subjects; but there being none
now from whom they expect Regal Protection, and to whom, for that Cause they
owe the Allegiance of Subjects, the Commons conceive, The Throne is Vacant”.
Bishop Ely,
"So, that all that I conceive ought to be meant by our Vote is, But
a setting aside the Person that broke the Contract : And, in a Successive
Kingdom an Abdication can only be a Forfeiture, as to the Person himself. I
hope, and am persuaded, that both Lords and Commons do agree in this, Not to
break the Line of Succession, so as to make the Crown Elective."
NOTE. This contribution by Bishop ELY, is interesting, because, although a persuasive argument in respect to not breaking the Line of Succession the eventual concurring resolution of the Lords, (and, of the whole Parliament), of 7th February 1688, went against that opinion, and, did, in fact, break that line of succession: offering the Throne to William, Prince of Orange. However, it will be noted, that Bishop ELY, also agrees, with the concept, of the Original Contract, and stresses, that he accepts: "that it was most Fundamental, That King, Lords, and Commons, in Parliament assembled, should have the Power of making New Laws" That, the King, acting as ‘Head of Government’, participating ‘in Parliament assembled’, should have the Power of making New Laws. Bishop ELY, also makes it clear that the reigning Monarch must participate in Parliament. And, must participate in the ‘making of New Laws’.
Mr. Sergeant, Maynard
"When the whole Kingdom, and the Protestant Religion, our Laws and
Liberties, have been in Danger of being Subverted, an Enquiry must be made into
the Authors and Instruments of this Attempt; and if he, who had the
Administration entrusted to him, be found the Author and Actor in it, What can
that be, but a Renuntiation of his Trust, and consequently his Place thereby
Vacant.If Two of us make a mutual Agreement, to Help and Defend each other from
any one that should Assault us in a Journey, and he that is with me turns upon
me and Breaks my Head, he hath, undoubtedly, Abdicated my Assistance and
Revoked."
Earl of CLARENDON.
"Mr Sergent Maynard says, That it is not indeed to make the Government perpetually Elective. I would know what he means by Perpetually:
Our breaking through the Line now, by a Choice out of the Lineal Course, is an
Alteration and a Precedent : And why may not others take the same Liberty we do
? And will not that make It Perpetually Elective; But truly, I think, no Act of
ours can alter the Lineal Succession; for, by all the Laws we have now in
Being, our Government appears to be Hereditary In a Right Line of Descent : And
upon any Descent, when any one ceaseth to be King, Allegiance is by Law due to
his Legal Heir, as Successor, as well before Coronation, as after."
NOTE: Here again, Parliament did not agree with this; as is seen in
their concurring declaration of 7th of February in agreeing to the Commons
Vote. And, in the subsequent offering of the Throne to William of Orange.
However, the Earl of Clarendon’s speech is immensely valuable: in the sense
that he has realized, that, by their decision that day, they were creating
Legal precedent; and that what THEY may do under the precedent then, so also,
might Subject’s do, generations later. (As I do now). There is another
interesting point that should be drawn: the Earl of Clarendon insists on the Lineal Descent. "When one ceaseth to be King, Allegiance is by Law due to his Legal Heir", (and yet, that was also rejected by Parliaments resolution of the 7th February), But I say, irrespective of that analysis of the Law from the standpoint of the Divine Right of Kings upholding the Lineal Descent and it's Authority : 'The Protection of the Subject" would be as binding on the Successor, as it was, on the Deposed. And if the Successor "Breached the
Contract" as well; he also, could be deposed.
Sir GEORGE TREBY.
"I beg leave to say something to what this Noble Lord has last
spoken unto : When I call this Point of the Vacancy of the Throne a Conclusion,
I did not mean altogether to exclude Abdication from being a Conclusion from
the Particulars enumerated before; for, indeed, it is in the nature of a double
Conclusion : One, from the particular Facts mentioned, That thereby King James
has Abdicated the Government. The other, from the Abdication, That thereby the
Throne is Vacant: By the Instanced Acts, he hath Abdicated the Government; and
by his Abdicating the Government, the Throne is Vacant."
"He therein in faith,"
"I will no more keep within my limited Authority, nor hold my
Kingly Office upon such Terms. This title I had by the Original Contract
between King and People; I Renounce that, and will Assume another Title to
myself; That is, such a Title, as by which I may Act, as if there was no such
Law to circumscribe my Authority."
At the conclusion of this Debate the matter was finally resolved by the
Lords vote of 7th February 1688; in a message sent to the ‘Commons’ by Sir
Robert Atkins and Sir Edward Nevill: "Mr.Speaker, The Lords have Commanded us to tell you, That they have agreed to the Vote sent them up of the 28th of January last, (touching which there was a free Conference yesterday) without any Alterations.”
By these votes of both Commons and Lords, the existence of the ‘Original
Contract’ betwixt Monarch and Subject, is fully established in English Law.
King James the Second, was removed from the throne.
With respect to Monarchy’s position with regard to “Constitutional
Monarchy” and, how Monarchy’s responsibilities are affected in respect to the “Original Contract”; particular attention should be noted as to what the Earl of Clarendon says in this ‘CONVENTION’ debate:
“Irrespective of that analysis of the Law from the standpoint of the
Divine Right of Kings upholding the Lineal Descent and its Authority: “The
protection of the Subject” would be as binding on the Successor, as it was, on
the Deposed. And if the Successor “Breached the Contract” as well; he also
could be deposed.”
Note: Monarchy failed to understand that; or, simply did not care about that; when it breached the “Original Contract” and became a “Constitutional Monarchy”.
CONCLUSIONS:
The current ‘Reigning Monarch’ ELIZABETH THE SECOND has not acted as
‘Head of Government’ and ‘protected’ Her Subjects, since the very first day she occupied the British Throne. She was unable to carry out that responsibility. “Constitutional Monarchy” prevented her, from being able to carry out that role. Every Monarch in the line of succession that has sat on the British Throne since the British Monarchy became a “Constitutional Monarchy” has renounced the ‘Original Contract’ and the responsibilities of Monarchy. And, in consequence, each in turn, has abdicated the Throne. (As, Earl Clarendon says,with reference to Lineal descent; in the CONVENTION debate.)
Note: And, they have each done this; so contemptuously; in exactly the same manner that Sir George Treby, explains, in this debate.
CONSTITUTIONAL MONARCHY.
When the British Monarchy, of its own volition gave up being an
‘absolute monarchy’ and, became a “Constitutional Monarchy”; no one bothered to re-negotiate a new arrangement or ‘contract’ with its Subjects. For their
protection.
The Monarchy gave up the protection of its Subjects; but, the Subject was not released from the statutory and legal obligation of Subjugationand “Allegiance”, that the Subject was required to give to the Reigning Monarch
for as long as a Monarch shall reign. Even today, in this 21st Century,
British Subjects, are not Citizens. With, true, Citizenship recognized in Law.
Furthermore, Parliament, in making these new arrangements for “Constitutional
Monarchy”; and depriving the Subject of the rightful protection of Monarchy;
made no provision whatsoever for a new interpretation or ammendments of "Article 9 of the Bill of Rights of 1689"; in order to allow Subjects to ‘challenge the‘abuses’ of parliament’ from within Law.
Parliament arrogantly took all the protection of the Subject away; Monarchy, threw it away; and, the Subject ended up with no protection of law at all.
Social Contract
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia: ”Thomas Hobbes (1651), John Locke (1689), and Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1762) are the most famous social contract thinkers. Each drew quite different conclusions about the nature of political authority. Hobbes advocated absolute monarchy, Locke advocated natural rights,and Rousseau advocated collective sovereignty in the name of "the general
will".[citation needed] The Lockean concept of the social contract was
invoked in the United States Declaration of Independence, and social contract
notions have recently been invoked, in a quite different sense, by thinkers
such as John Rawls.”
These great and famous ‘social contract thinkers’ all treat the ‘social contract’ as theory.
Yet, I treat the "Original Contract” (As it applies to the British)
as both ‘legal precedent’ and, current British LAW. It is the, lawful and legal contract existing “Betwixt the ‘Reigning Monarch’ and Subject"; and, it is created and designed, for the ‘protection’ of the Subject; in return, for the
‘Allegiance’ that the Subject gives. Thus, the “Original Contract” (in Britain)is not theory at all; it is solidly and fully entrenched and established in the country, as, LAW.
“Allegiance is given to the Liege Lord, for the protection of the Liege Lord”
It was the ‘breaking of’ the “Original Contract”, that provided the actual ‘legal instrument’ used and utilized by the CONVENTION (Parliament) of 1688, in order, for them, to remove, KING JAMES the Second, from the Throne,
ORIGINAL CONTRACT
There is a very interesting footnote to all that is written above; that will demonstrate the true value and relevance of the, ‘precedent’ in British law; of the “Original Contract” for the British People:
Although, “Constitutional Monarchy”, prevents, the‘Reigning Monarch’, QUEEN ELIZABETH THE SECOND, from her responsibility, of acting as ‘Head of Government’ and protecting Her Subjects; As, the Subject,is still bound in subjugation, and, by law, is still required, in the giving of ‘Allegiance’ to the ‘Reigning Monarch’ for as long as Monarch shall reign; irrespective, of the ‘legal prevention’ imposed upon Her, that responsibility upon Her, still remains. Therefore, if the Subject of the Crown requests, or, requires, Her protection; She is then bound by the terms of the “Original Contract”, to comply.
The British Subject of the Crown has no other protection, of LAW.
The British have no “Written constitution”;
The British have no proper ‘Bill of Rights’;
The British have no access to the Courts; In, order to challenge the
‘abuses’ of Parliament, from within LAW.
The interesting thing is that both the “Original Contract” requiring the protection of the Subject by the ‘Reigning Monarch’; and, the “Supremacy of Parliament” protecting Parliament from interference from a King; both, derive the authority, in law, from the “Bill of Rights 1689”.
Therefore, in respect to the Subject’s protection from the ‘abuses’ of Parliament; and, although, the ‘Reigning Monarch’ is prevented from directly protecting the Subject, (by the terms of “Constitutional Monarchy”); the,Subject, nevertheless, can request that protection of the ‘Reigning Monarch’;through, the ‘special provisions’ of the Bill of Rights 1689. Because, the,‘protection’ of the People against the ‘abuse’ of Parliament, is specifically,
set out in that Bill. In, the paragraph: “Statute in Force/Bill of Rights
1689/The Said Rights Claimed”.
Parliament’s “Supremacy” in law is provided by “Article 9” of the Bill. This reads:
“That the Freedome of Speech Debates and Proceedings of Parlyament ought
not to be Impeached or Questioned in any Place out of Parlyament"
Both Parliament and the British Judiciary has always interpreted
that as being a ‘stand-alone’ piece of legislation requiring no other
considerations at all. In consequence of this interpretation, the Judiciary has
denied all questioning or challenging of Parliament in their courts for the
last 322 years. But, both Parliament and the Judiciary, for all this time, has
been interpreting the “Bill of Rights” incorrectly. “Article 9” of that Bill,is not a ‘stand-alone’ piece of legislation at all; Parliament’s ‘application’ of “Article 9”, has always been dependent upon, the, conditions prevailing, in
another paragraph of that Bill: the, “Statute in Force/The Said Rights
Claimed”.This, determines, that in Parliament’s ‘application’ of “Article 9”,(And, all the other ‘Premises’ of that Bill); that, NOTHING SHOULD PREJUDICE THE PEOPLE.
If, and, whenever, Parliament ‘prejudice’ The People; the “Statute in Force/The Said Rights Claimed”, over-rules and supplants “Article 9”. And,Parliament then loses all its legality, to, its claim, for the “Supremacy”.
This “Statute” in the “Bill of Rights 1689” reads as follows:
“The said Rights Claimed”:
“And they do Claime Demand and Insist upon all and singular The Premises
as their undoubted Rights and Liberties and that noe Declarations Judgements
Doeings or Proceedings to the Prejudice of the People, in any of the said
Premises, ought in any wise to be drawne hereafter, into Consequence or
Example”
Gordon J Sheppard
