The
British Monarchy
&
“The
Original Contract”
The
Contract betwixt King and Subject
Throughout British history
and even now today in this 21st Century, there are those that
believe the British Monarchy originates from the divine right of Kings. But there
are others in the Kingdom, by far in the majority, who contend that Man created
the institution. The British Monarchy, deriving only from the consent of the
People. In the long dim distant past of British history it is difficult now, if
not impossible, to determine the exact moment when the British Monarchy was
created and how it all came about. One thing certain is that it originated from
the poor, the weak and the defenceless, seeking protection from the rich and
the powerful. “Allegiance was given to
the Liege Lord for the protection of the Liege
Lord.” That, Allegiance, is
determined in Old English Law as a
contract. The contract betwixt King and Subject is known in English Law as the Original Contract. Disputes have always raged over its lawful validity;
as to whether it exists in law or not. Yet none may dispute it, because the
true evidence of its existence in English
Law is overwhelming. A living and
lawful King was removed from his Throne for failing to honour it. The Convention (parliament) of 1688 declared that King James the Second
had “broken the original contract between
King and People”. The Convention
determined that he had failed to protect the people. That he had abdicated from
Government and that thereby, “The Throne was Vacant”.
There can be no doubt whatsoever that the Original Contract exists in English Law.
The following, are extracts
from the speeches of Members of the Convention of 1688 that took part in the
Special Conference known as "The Debate At Large" held in the Painted
Chamber of the Commons on 4th, 5th and 6th day of February 1688. The
Conference, between Lords and Commons, was at the request of the Commons, and
was to determine the words:
"ABDICATED"
and "THAT THE THRONE IS THEREBY VACANT”
In consideration of the Commons Vote;
and Resolution, of 28th
day of
January 1688:
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Persons, having violated the Fundamental Laws, and Withdrawn himself out of the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.
Ordered.
These
speeches, irrefutably, make it clear, and the Commons resolution and Lords
concurrence "without
Alteration," of 7th February 1688, make it even clearer in law: that
when the Monarch fails to provide that, Protection
of the People, then the Monarch maladministrates
Monarchy; and the Throne is thereby
Vacant.
There
are none that can dispute this, whether the date is 1688, or today in 2016; The
Statute in Force: “Bill of Right”, of
1688" has never been amended. In English
Law, it is as valid today, as it was then.
It
is the "Speeches of this Special Conference" that provides evidence
in support of this; but it is the concurrence of the Lords conclusions of 7th February 1688 , "Without Alterations”; that ensures
the precedent in English Law.
The
Speeches
(Extracts)
The Speaker of the Commons, HENRY POWLE ------------------------
"To
the First Amendment, proposed by the Lords to be made to the Vote of the
Commons, of the 28th January, Instead of the Word Abdicated, to insert the Word Deserted,
the Commons do not agree; because the Word Deserted doth not fully express the Conclusion necessarily infer'd
from the Premises, to which your Lordships have agreed; for your Lordships have
agreed, That King James the Second hath
Endeavoured to Subvert the Constitution of the Kingdom, by breaking the
Original Contract between King and People, and hath violated the Fundamental
Laws, and Withdrawn himself out of the Kingdom.
Now the Word Deserted respects only the Withdrawing, but the Word Abdicated respects the Whole; for which
purpose the Commons made Choice of it. The Commons do not agree to the Second
Amendment, to leave out the Words, And
the Throne is thereby Vacant.
1st. Because they conceive, that, as
they may well infer from so much of their own Vote as your Lordships have
agreed unto, That King James the Second has Abdicated the Government and that the Throne is
thereby Vacant; so that if they should admit your Lordships Amendment, That he hath only Deserted the Government; yet
even thence, it would follow that the Throne
is Vacant as to King James the
Second, Deserting the Government,
being, in true Construction, Deserting
the Throne.
2dly. The Commons conceive they need
not Prove unto your Lordships, That, as to any other Person, the Throne is also Vacant; your Lordships
(as they conceive) having already admitted so by your Addressing to the Prince
of Orange the 25th of December last, To take upon him? The Administration of
Publick Affairs, both Civil and Military; and to take into his Care the Kingdom of Ireland
3dly. 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."
Mr. Serjeant HOLT. --------------------
"Your Lordships Second Reason, for
your First Amendment, in changing the Word Abdicated
for the Word Deserted is, Because in
the most most common Acceptation of the Civil Law, Abdication is a Voluntary Express Act of
Renuntiation. That is the general Acceptation of the Word, and, I think, the
Commons do use the Word in this Case, because
it hath that Signification: But I do not know, whether your Lordships mean a
Voluntary express Act or Formal Deed of Renuntiation:
If you do so, I confess I know of none in this Case: But my Lords, both in the Common Law of England, and the Civil Law, and in common Understanding, there are
Express Acts of Renuntiation that are
not by Deed, for if your Lordships please to observe, the Government and
Magistracy is under a Trust, and any Acting contrary to that Trust is a Renouncing of the Trust, though it be
not a Renouncing by Formal Deed : For
it is a plain Declaration, by Act and Deed, though not in Writing, that he who
hath the Trust, Acting contrary, is a Disclaimer of the Trust; especially my
Lords, if the Actings be such as are Inconsistent with, and Subversive of this
Trust : For, how can a Man, in Reason, or Sense, express a greater Renuntiation of a Trust, than by the
constant Declarations of his Actions to be quite contrary to that Trust ?
This my Lords, Is so plain, both in
Understanding and Practice, that I need do no more but Repeat it again, and
leave it with your Lordships, That the
Doing an Act Inconsistent with the Being and End of a Thing, or that shall not
Answer the End of that Thing, but quite the contrary, that shall be Construed
an Abdication, and Formal Renuntiation
of that Thing."
Mr. Serjeant MAYNARD ---------------------
"My Lords, when there is a present
Defect of One to Exercise the Administration of the Government, I conceive, the
Declaring a Vacancy, and Provision of a Supply for it, can never make the Crown
Elective.
The Commons apprehended there is such a
Defect now; and, by consequence. a present Necessity for the Supply of
Government, and that will be next for your Lordships Consideration, and theirs
afterwards.
If the attempting the utter Destruction
of the Subject, and Subvertion of the Constitution, be not as much as an Abdication as the attempting of a Father
to Cut his Son's Throat, I know not what is.
My Lords, the Constitution,
notwithstanding the Vacancy is the same;
the Laws that are the Foundations and
Rules of that Constitution are the same : But if there be, in any particular
Instance, a Breach of that Constitution, that will be an Abdication; and that Abdication
will Infer a Vacancy."
Continuing
further in his speech:
"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 intrusted 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?
My Lords, Abdication (under Favour) is an English
Word; and, your Lordships have told us, the true Signification of it is a Renuntiation. We have indeed, for your
Lordships Satisfaction, shewn its Meaning in Foreign Authors; it is more than a
Deserting the Government, or Leaving
it with a Purpose of Returning. But, we are not, I hope, to go to learn English from Foreign Authors, we can,
without their Aid, tell the Meaning of our own Tongue.
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."
Lord Bishop of
ELY. -------------------
"But
here is one thing that is mentioned In this Vote, which I would have well
considered, for the Preservation of the Succession,
and that is the Original Compact : We
must think sure that meant of the Compact,
that was made at the first Time, when the Government was first instituted,
and the Conditions that each Part of the Government should observe on their
Part, of which this was the most Fundamental, That King, Lords, and Commons, in Parliament assembled, should have the
Power of making New Laws, and altering Old Ones. : And that being one Law
which settles the Succession, it is
as much a Part of the Original Compact as
any : Then if such a Case happens, as an Abdication
in a Successive Kingdom, without
doubt, the Compact being made to the King, his Heires, and Successors, the
Disposition of the Crown cannot fall to us, till all the Heirs do Abdicate too.
There are indeed many Examples, and too
many Interruptions in the Lineal
Succession of the Crown of England : I
think, I can instance in Seven since the Conquest, wherein the Right Heir hath been put by : But that
doth not follow, that every Breach of the First Original Contract, gives us Power to Dispose of the Lineal
Succession; especially, I think, since the Statutes of Queen Elizabeth, and King James the First, that have Established the Oath of Allegiance to the King, his Heires, and Successors, the Law is stronger against such a Disposition
: I grant that from King William the
First, to King Henry the Eighth,
there has been Seven Interruptions of the Legal
Line of Hereditary Succession; but, I say, those Statutes are made since
that Time, and the making of New Laws being as much a Part of the Original Compact, as the observing Old
Ones, or any thing else, we are obliged to pursue those Laws, till altered by
the Legislative Power, which singly,
or joyntly, without the Royal Assent, I suppose, we do not pretend to; and
these Laws being made since the last Interruption, we are not to go to any
Precedent that was made before making those Laws.
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
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.
NOTES. 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"
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
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."
NOTES: 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
realised, 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.
The Earl of NOTTINGHAM . -----------------------
"The
Learned Gentleman that spoke last, says, It is
necessary to prefer the Premises before the Conclusion, as being the Foundation
of the Superstructure. Truly, I apprehend, that this Word Abdicated was part of the Conclusion, and not of the Premises; the Vote runs thus, That by Breaking the Original Contract,
having edeavoured to subvert the Constitution of the Kingdom, and having
withdrawn himself out of the Kingdom, he has Abdicated the Government, and the
Throne is thereby Vacant.
I take it to be (as I say) part of the Conclusion, the other part being joynd
by a Copulative; therefore that which is but the other part of the Conclusion, is not to be inferred from
the other part of the Premises.
The Earl of NOTTINGHAM , continued: -----------------------
But take it to be (as you say) that The Vacancy of the Throne is another Distinct Conclusion from all that
preceded as the Premises, and therefore it is to be considered last; I
would then beg the Favour of You Gentlemen of the House of Commons, to answer me one Question about this Point of Abdication, Whether you mean by Abdication, a Renouncing for Himself, or
for Himself and his Heirs?
If you mean only Abdication for Himself, it will have a different Influence upon the
Debate and Resolution of the Case, as to the meaning of that You call the Conclusion ; for then, How can the Throne be Vacant ?
But if It be meant for Himself and his
Heirs, then I apprehend It is no more than what you say at the End, That the Throne is indeed Vacant; and
then this Abdication cannot be part
of the Premises, but must be the same
Thing with, or part of, the Conclusion. I
will not undertake to dispute, Whether a King of England
For a King to say, He will not Govern according to Law; and for a King to Act contrary to Law, and do that
which would subvert the Constitution, is (I
think) the same thing.
But then I must say also, That I think
there is a Difference between Saying so,
and Doing something inconsistent with what the Laws require; for every
Deviation from the Law, is a kind of Breach of the Fundamental Laws; for I know
no Law, as Laws, but what are Fundamental Constitutions; as the Laws are
necessary, so far as to support the Foundation."
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. As to the rest of that which his Lordship is pleased to
say, I perceive he does (as he must) agree to me, That a King may Renounce by Acts, as well as Wards or
Writings"..."when he doth Violate,
not a particular Law, but all the Fundamentals; not Injure a particular
Person in Religion, Liberty, or Property, but falls upon the whole Constitution
it self, What doth all this Speak?
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.
Where shall any Man come to have
Redress in such a Case as this, when the Malefactor comes to be Party, unto
whom all Applications for Relief and Redress from Injuries should be made, and
so he himself shall be a Judge of his own Breaches of Law."..."It is
because the King hath thus violated
the Constitution, by which the Law
stands, as the Rule both of the King's
Government, and the Peoples Obedience, that we say, He hath Abdicated and
Renounced the Government; for all other particular Breaches of Law, the Subject
may have Remedy in the ordinary Courts of Justice, or the extraordinary Court
of Parliamentary Proceedings : But where such an Attempt as this is made on the
"Essence of the Constitution", it
is not We that have brought ourselves into this state of Nature, but Those who
have reduced our Legal well-established Frame of Government into such a state
of Confusion, as we are now seeking a Redress unto."
No more needs be said; the ‘Commons’ vote of 28th January 1688
declaring:
Resolved,
That King James the Second, having
endeavoured to subvert the Constitution of the Kingdom, breaking the original
Contract between King and People, and, by the advice of Jesuits, and other wicked Persons, having violated the fundamental
Laws, and having withdrawn himself out of this Kingdom, has abdicated the
Government, and that the Throne is thereby vacant.
And 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.
Gordon J
Sheppard
No comments:
Post a Comment