The State of the Nation (2008)
In respect of:
Monarchy
and
The Original Contract.
The Convention Speeches of 1688.
The Supremacy of Parliament
and
Article 9 of the ‘Bill of Rights’ 1689.
Lord Hailsham, a previous Lord Chancellor of England, frequently said that Britain is not a democracy. He said, “it is an elective dictatorship.”
But in the whole of our governing today: Monarchy, Parliament, and the Courts, (in the upholding of Parliaments ‘Supremacy’), is corrupt.
In the following pages I set out why.
Monarchy.
The Reigning Monarch sits on the English Throne claiming the right, by precedent of the line of succession, to rule.
Yet from the very ‘time and date’ that the British Monarchy became a “Constitutional Monarchy” all legal lawful and moral right to occupy that Throne and the title of ‘Monarch’ was swept aside.
From the very instant that the British Monarchy became a “Constitutional Monarchy”, the very institution itself, of its own volition, abandoned the responsibility and the legality for Monarchy; in Law. From that time and date all subsequent Reigning Monarch’s that have sat on the English Throne have had no legality whatsoever for occupying that Throne. From the time and date that Monarchy in Britain became a “Constitutional Monarchy”, Monarchy abandoned the ‘Throne’; and its principal responsibilities to,
- Act as ‘Head of Government.’
- Protect Subjects. As determined by the “Original Contract”.
Today, and from the time and date the British Monarchy became a “Constitutional Monarchy” reigning Monarch’s have not acted as ‘Head of Government’. And, each reigning Monarch, in turn, has abandoned completely the protection of its Subjects. They simply gave up and relinquished that role. In consequence the Original Contract is breached. Thereby; All subsequent Monarchs, have, Abdicated the Throne. The Throne is, VACANT.
The ‘Original Contract’ (an unwritten contract) but nevertheless ‘established and entrenched in British Law’, is the contract that a Subject has with the King. It provides for the Subject’s protection. Which each reigning Monarch is required to provide for the Subject, in return for the ‘Allegiance’ that they give. In British Law each Subject is bound in ‘Allegiance’ to the reigning Monarch, for as long as a Monarch shall reign.
The reigning Monarch acting as “Head of Government” and ‘protecting Subjects’ is required to ‘participate in both Government and parliament’ protecting the people. The reigning Monarch has the responsibility to monitor and oversee the business of both Government and Parliament; in the protection of Subjects.
The British People do not have a written constitution, a written bill of rights, nor access to a Supreme Court of Law; whereby they may challenge the bad laws and the business of Parliament, from within Law.
The reigning Monarch – in protecting Subjects – is required to carry out that role.
Each reigning Monarch – in protecting Subjects – is required to honor the “Original Contract”.
Failure to honor that contract, in the ‘breaking of that contract’, automatically activates abandonment of the Throne. Breaking the “Original Contract” brings about, abdication of the Throne. The Throne thereby is, VACANT.
The British Monarchy is now but mere myth; with no true legality at all.
ELIZABETH THE SECOND has sat on the Throne, without a jot of legality at all.
Because She has failed to protect Her Subjects throughout Her reign.
Precedent for all of this can be found in “The Glorious Revolution”.
King James the Second was ‘determined’ by the “Convention” (Parliament) of 1688, to “have broken the ‘Original Contract’ in ‘failing to protect’ the People”.
The “Convention” determined that thereby, he had abdicated his responsibilities as Monarch and had abdicated the Throne. The “Convention” determined that the throne was thereby, VACANT. William of Orange became King.
Nothing whatsoever has changed. The British People (all those born to these shores) remain Subject’s, in law, even now today. They are not true CITIZENS in the legal sense. They have no documents verifying ‘Citizenship’; neither do they have access to a written constitution, a written bill of rights, or a Supreme Court of Law. They remain, in law, Subject’s; bound in ‘Allegiance’ (and Subjugation) to the reigning monarch for as long as a Monarch shall reign.
Elizabeth the Second still sits on the English Throne; She has ‘broken’ the Original Contract; she fails to protect Her, Subjects.
In British law, I remain a Subject, bound in allegiance and subjugation, to the reigning Monarch for as long as a Monarch shall reign.
Yet I receive no protection, in law, at all.
IT IS CORRUPTION ON THE HIGHEST SCALE.
The “Convention” Speaker, Henry Powle determined thus:
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."
See Chapter 2, “The British Monarchy and the Original Contract”
The “Speeches of the Convention” here, makes it clear that the Original Contract exists in law, and establishes what the Convention’s intent was, when it determined that James the Second had broken the Original Contract: that he had failed to protect the people, and that thereby he had abdicated the throne.
King James the Second was removed from the Throne.
The Throne became, Vacant.
James the Second, the living and lawful King, was still alive.
Parliament, utilizing, “his breaking of the ‘Original Contract’,
Provided for the establishment of the ‘legality’ of that “Contract” in British law. Parliament (The Convention) by its ‘determination’ thereby, had the legal and lawful instrument in order to remove James the Second from the Throne.
Prince William of Orange, (out of the line of succession), became King.
It was the “Breaking of the Original Contract” that made all that possible.
There is no doubt whatsoever that the “Original Contract” is entrenched in British Law.
Why do the British people require or need the protection of the reigning Monarch?
Because they have no protection whatsoever in law. That have no protection to the bad legislation or bad practices of parliament. They have no access to a written constitution or, a written bill of rights; or access, to a “Supreme Court of Law”. Whereby the bad law and the bad practices of parliament can be challenged – by the people - from within law.
Parliament claims its “Supremacy”, denying all right of challenge of the people, by relying on “Article 9 of the bill of Rights of 1689” as the true legality for that claim. And the Courts uphold this “Supremacy”, denying any challenge to parliament in law. Yet, both parliament and the Courts uses and abuses “Article 9” and, misinterprets it, to their own ends. Without any true legality at all.
The “Supremacy of Parliament” has no true legality at all. The “Supremacy” as claimed by Parliament and the Courts is mere myth. And it is the greatest corruption of all.
See Chapter 3, “The Supremacy of Parliament”
Chapter 2
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 defenseless, 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 honor 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,
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 maladministers Monarchy; and the Throne is thereby Vacant.
There are none that can dispute this, whether the date is 1688, or today in 2008; 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, till the meeting of this Convention. In Pursuance of such Letters, and by your Lordships renewing the same Address to His Highness, (As to Publick Affairs: And the Kingdom of Ireland,') since you met, and by Appointing Days of Publick Thanksgivings to be Observed throughout the whole Kingdom, all which the Commons conceive do imply that it was your Lordships Opinion, That the Throne was Vacant, and to signify so much to the People of this Kingdom.
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 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.
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"
That, the King, acting as ‘Head of Government’, participating ‘in Parliament assembled’, should have the Power of making New Laws. Bishop ELY, makes it clear that the reigning Monarch must participate in Parliament. And must participate in the ‘making of 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 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."
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 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.
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 may, or may not, Renounce his Kingdom? For my own Part, I think he can, and I may go so far in Agreement with those that have spoken, to this Point, To yield that he may do it by implicit Acts, contrary to the Kingly Office.
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 endeavored 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.
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 the ‘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.”
Monarchy failed to understand that; Or simply did not care about that; when it breached the “Original Contract” and became a “Constitutional Monarchy”.
See also what Sir George Treby says about it in the same debate:
“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 fails upon the whole Constitution itself, 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.”
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.)
And they have each done so; so contemptuously; in exactly the same manner that Sir George Treby explains.
When the British Monarchy became a “Constitutional Monarchy” no one bothered to re-negotiate a new arrangement or ‘contract’ with its Subjects. The Monarchy gave up the protection of its Subjects; but the Subject was not released from the statutory and legal obligation of Subjugation and “Allegiance”, that the Subject was required to give to the Reigning Monarch. Even today, Subjects, are not Citizens. With true Citizenship recognized in Law.
Furthermore, Parliament in making the new arrangements for the “Constitutional Monarchy”; and depriving the Subject of the rightful protection of Monarchy; made no provision whatsoever for a new interpretation of Article 9 of the Bill of Rights of 1689; to allow ‘challenge to 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.
What greater corruption can there be?
Chapter 3
The British Parliament
For its Supremacy
Relies upon
Article 9
of the
Bill of Rights of 1689
British Courts
Uphold Parliaments claim.
Legality? or Myth?
ARTICLE 9 OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS 1689.
It is Governments and Parliaments reliance upon Article 9 of the Bill of Rights of 1689 and, their wrong interpretation of it; and, their use, misuse, and abuse of it. Whereby, both claim and derive the protection of law from any right of challenge - to the affairs and business of Parliament - from those that elect Parliament. Article 9 reads:
“That the Freedome of Speech and Debates or Proceedings of Parlyament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any Court or Place outside of Parlyament.”
Both Government and Parliament interpret that to determine that Parliament “CANNOT BE CHALLENGED”. The Judiciary and the Courts uphold that to the letter and, refuse to allow, in English law, any submissions or arguments to the contrary; in spite of an obvious contradiction both in language and, in intent, specific in the Act. That is totally at variance, with their ruling.
In Alice in Wonderland interpretation of both language and intellect, Parliament Government and the Courts determine that the words OUGHT NOT is a lawful command. Yet the words, OUGHT NOT, in both language and in law, are not a command. Furthermore, they have no rightful legal force as a command.
OUGHT NOT is but the mere giving of advice: “You ought not to do a thing, but nothing in language, or in law, can prevent you.”
Yet, in this Alice in Wonderland doublethink, and doublespeak, the Courts, and both Government and Parliament declare, that what they say is the true interpretation of Article 9. Is the true interpretation of Article 9. Standing truth on its head.
For the words are not declarative, but merely conditional.
The words used in Article 9 imply only advice, but do not, declare law.
For the true interpretation of Article 9 of the Bill of Rights of 1689, one must look, not only, at the actual words used in the Act.
It is also necessary to look at, and, examine, the original intent of the Parliament that created the Act. One must try to get inside the heads of those that created the Act.
Attempt, to discover, what they actually meant by it, and find out, what they said at the time. What was their circumstance and motivation?
What was the circumstance of England, at that time?
Well today we know the circumstances of England at that time.
We know that the lawful living King, James the Second, had attempted to re-introduce Catholicism into the kingdom again. He had appointed and promoted Catholics to the Administration of Government and the Army.
He had been thwarted, by an influential and powerful group of discontented men of Parliament and the Church, who had plotted against him. In, treason, they had communicated with Prince William of Orange in the Netherlands, and they had requested, that he come with an army and invade. Saving, England, its Peoples, and the Protestant religion from the tyranny of James.
Prince William of Orange did invade. He landed at Torbay in Devon with about 15,000 troops on November the 5th 1688. And, eventually, James the Second fled to France. William then created the Convention, a special parliament, set up by him specifically to debate “THE STATE OF THE NATION” and to find a legal and lawful way of getting rid of the living King. In order: that the Crown then could be taken up lawfully by the Prince of Orange, and Princess Mary.
We know that this Convention drew up two lists: The first, a list of grievances setting out the alleged crimes of James the Second. The second, a list of 13 Articles, setting out the conditions a new King should accept before being offered the Throne.
This entire determination of the Convention was set out in a document presented to William of Orange on the 13th February 1688. This document was the “Declaration of Rights“, which subsequently, after its passage through Parliament, became the Bill of Rights of 1689. Granted the Royal Assent on the 16th December 1689.
We know therefore without any doubt, the circumstance of England at that time.
We know, also, the principal criterion of the intentions of the Convention in the creation of that Bill. Essentially, it was to protect Parliament from a repeat, of the tyranny of a King.
Therefore, we can positively determine that Article 9 of the Bill of Rights of 1689 was intended for a King. The Convention wanted William of Orange as King, but they also wanted the protection of Parliament, from a repeat of the troubles that Parliament had, had, from the previous King. Consequently, here in Article 9, the Convention set out the protection that Parliament required, from the King.
Yet, today's Parliament and, the Courts, interpret ‘that’, as being the protection that Parliament requires from the People. The People; Who elect Parliament.
That is nonsense. For, we can be absolutely sure, that, that was never the original intention of the Convention. There is a very simple test that we can apply to the Bill of Rights and, specifically to Article 9, to arrive at that conclusion.
If, Parliaments and the Courts interpretation, is correct: That Article 9, is intended for the people and, to the prejudice of the people, in the sense that they “CANNOT” challenge Parliament, (yet they elect Parliament); then, there must be the evidence for that conclusion, written, within the Act.
Yet, there is no evidence, and nothing written within the Act, upon which it is possible to draw upon that conclusion. However, there is a great deal of evidence to verify, a contrary conclusion:
Firstly, there is all the evidence of the history of that time: “THE GLORIOUS REVOLUTION”; Parliament, getting rid of a King; and requiring protection from a new King; the very catalyst or cause of the origination of the Act.
Secondly, there are the words OUGHT NOT in Article 9, which are conditional, and not a command: If these words ‘ought not’ were intended for the people, the Convention, made up of very intelligent men (many of them lawyers as well), would have had no hesitation in making it a command.
They would have written MAY NOT or CANNOT and made sure that there was no possibility of misunderstanding or, of any other interpretation, of their true intentions. Yet, they didn't write that.
They wrote, OUGHT NOT, as advice, and not a command.
There is only one conclusion that one can come to from all of this. That is: that they intended OUGHT NOT as advice. Not as a command. Why?
Because it was directed at William of Orange who they wanted as their King;
Yet, they had to tell him, “hands off Parliament”, and, had to be polite.
Thirdly, there is the strange reference to the “Courts” in Article 9: “ought not to be impeached or questioned in any Court or Place outside of Parliament”.
That is strange advice, if it were intended for the people in 1688. For, in 1688, the people, 'the common people', had no access to the Courts to “impeach” Parliament.
No, 'Article 9', wasn't intended for the people at all. It was intended for the King.
Here, the Convention was referring to the special Courts that had been specifically set up by King, James the Second, to try Members of Parliament and Bishops of the Church: The very tyranny that they complained of and that they carefully set out in the Bill of Rights; as one of their grievances.
Fourthly: Parliament and the Courts claim 'parliament is supreme' and 'cannot be challenged in the Courts’, relying on Article 9, for the 'precedent' in English Law for the lawful validity. The Courts will entertain neither argument nor submissions in challenge to that ruling. In any instance where they deny 'challenge to parliament' in the Courts, the ruling always given is, The Privilege of Parliament.
That, Article 9 prohibits “the questioning or challenging of parliament in the Courts”; Reading Article 9 as follows:
“That the Freedome of Speech and Debates and Proceedings of Parlyament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any Court outside of Parlyament”.
Conveniently, leaving out the words, “or Place”.
Article 9 should read, “… in any Court or Place outside of Parlyament”.
Parliament and the Courts rely on “the letter of the law” specific in the language of Article 9, for the legality of their ruling; and, will not permit, any argument or submissions, challenging that ruling. Yet, “the letter of the law” determines no such thing. The true wording and intent is “Court or Place” irretrievably linked together. Thus, in law, they cannot be separated. In which circumstance, if we are to rely on “the letter of the law” (as parliament and the Courts do) then Article 9 prohibits any “questioning of parliament” in “any Place” as well.
It can be seen that this is nonsense. For: were that to be the true intent of Article 9, then that would determine in English Law, that no one may question parliament, outside of parliament, ANYWHERE.
If Parliament and the Courts interpretation are correct, Parliament could not be questioned in the streets or in our homes or in media. Nor, in, radio or television programmes or studios either.
That is absolutely ridiculous.
Parliament and the Courts cannot have it both ways.
If the “letter of the law” is to be relied upon, for the legal and lawful interpretation of Article 9; then it must read, “Court or Place” (linked together). There can be no other lawful interpretation. In which circumstance, parliament cannot be questioned outside of parliament, ANYWHERE. Yet, that cannot be policed or enforced;
Thereby determining that it is a complete nonsense: for that interpretation.
If Article 9, is intended as a command applicable to “The People”; it can be seen to be nonsense. As it cannot be lawfully enforced; Proving, that beyond all doubt, that Article 9 was never intended for “The People” at all.
However; if, we apply Article 9, as if it were a requirement of parliament, “upon a King”. Then, it can be seen that, that, was the true intent of Article 9.
Then, it makes sense and it can be enforced by parliament, “upon a King”.
It can therefore be seen, that, parliament’s and the Courts present day interpretation and rulings in respect to Article 9; has no rightful legality.
As, a command, upon and over, ‘The People’, it has no rightful lawful validity at all.
Article 9 must be abolished.
Parliament may be challenged by ‘The People’ lawfully at any time.
‘The People’ elect parliament.
Article 9, itself, may be challenged anywhere and at any time.
The original wording of Article 9, which has never been changed, was created by the Convention parliament in late January and early February 1688. It was widely disseminated in England, before it became Law. There is public record, that, (as part of the 13 Articles comprising the Bill of Rights of 1689), it was “pamphleted” throughout England; Before it became Law. It was also, widely debated, “in coffee houses”. It was presented, by the Convention to Prince William of Orange, on the 13th day of February 1688. Yet, it did not become law, until much later, when on the 16th day of December 1689, it received the Royal Assent.
In the intervening period, before it became law, it was fully in the public domain. Article 9 is now and has always been, in the public domain. Parliament, then and now, has no exclusive right of privilege of claim, to Article 9.
Fifthly, and the most convincing evidence of all: of the Convention's actions and true intent, in respect to all the 13 Articles of the Bill; But, specifically in respect to Article 9.
The Convention made absolutely sure that there should be no doubt about their true intent set out in the Bill of Rights, for they specifically made provision within it to ensure, that nothing within it, SHOULD PREJUDICE THE PEOPLE.
Today, Parliament and the Courts make great play, wielding Article 9, and upholding Article 9, as a lawful weapon of Parliament utilised against ‘the People.’
Preventing any challenge.
Both, Parliament and the Courts, use and uphold Article 9, to the ‘prejudice of the People.’
However, there is no play, or even any mention, of the true intent of the Bill, which is also set out within the Bill: Where, the Convention guaranteed, that nothing within the Act, should ‘prejudice the People.’ The Convention carefully set out that protection following the 13th Article in the Bill, in,
“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” (The “Premises” referred to above, are the 13 Articles.)
Yet, in spite of this, Parliament interprets Article 9, and uses it, and abuses its use, to the ‘prejudice of the People.’ And, the Courts uphold that interpretation in law.
Parliament uses and abuses Article 9 of the Bill of Rights of 1689, and creates corrupt law. And, denies, the people who elect Parliament, from any participation in the framing of laws; and, further denies them, any right of challenge, to those corrupt laws, from within law. In consequence, and in the reliance upon the Courts upholding of Parliaments corrupt and wrong interpretation of Article 9: Parliament, created The WHIPS.
THE WHIPS
The Office, function procedures and practices of the WHIPS in Parliament have no legality at all. The present day activities of the WHIPS have never received the consent of the people or even the consent of Parliament, through a lawful and democratic free vote assent. The activities of the WHIPS in Parliament today, have never, ever, been presented to Parliament, for the consent of Parliament. From, in earlier times in England; the simple and harmless practice of the King sending a messenger, (the whipper-in), to alert his friends to attend Parliament - over the passage of years - the WHIPS today have evolved, to where they corrupt Parliament itself. In developing, without consent, to where they have now become the “Principal Instrument of Government” in the framing of corrupt law.
It is this corrupt practice of Parliament today; whereby the WHIPS, supplant the very Rule of Law. Taking away all the rightful power from ‘the People,’ to influence their elected Member of Parliament, and to participate in the framing of their laws, and, to be faithfully represented; and handing that power over, lock stock and barrel, and without legality, to the political parties.
Yet, ‘The People’ have no “Contract”,
With these political parties.
Or, with Government,
Or, with Parliament.
The only legally enforceable ‘contract’ that the British People have is with Monarchy.
The, ‘Original Contract’.
CONCLUSIONS:
The British are governed by Myth. Not legality!
Gordon J Sheppard 30 January, 2008
Article 9 of the Bill of Rights 1689. Testing the lawful validity.
The true interpretation.
Either, Parliament's and the Courts interpretation of Article 9 are correct. Or, that, which I have laid out here, is correct. In which case: Parliament and the Courts are wrong. Only one interpretation can be the true interpretation. For, my claims, I rely entirely on the Act itself and, the intentions of those that created it.
Whose intentions, are clearly set out within the Act.
The Convention of 1688 created the Act.
It made absolutely clear, that nothing within the Act, should prejudice ‘the People.’
Parliament and the Courts interpretation, does prejudice ‘the People.’
On that alone, I rest my case.
If Parliament and the Courts intend to continue to rely on their interpretation and ignore these charges that it is unlawful. And, if Parliament continues to use misuse and abuse Article 9, in the manner it does now. Without answering these charges;
The world will then know, and will recognise, Parliaments Supremacy (denying right of challenge from within law) is without lawful foundation.
From the publication of this paper – setting out these charges - Parliament and the Courts cannot continue 'as before' as though nothing has happened. This paper is a clear challenge to Parliament and the Courts of England, to establish the legality. The present day legality, of their interpretation of Article 9
It is a very simple matter to establish the truth. The Convention of 1688, in their deliberations, setting out the 13 Articles a new King should agree to before being offered the Throne. Actually drew up 26 conditions for William of Orange to accept.
William's Court and advisors, however, objected to many of the conditions being proposed. To such an extent, that William (through his advisors) made it clear that unless the Convention was reasonable, William, (then fed up with all the delay), might well return to the Netherlands.
The Convention under pressure caved in and settled for just the 13 Articles.
Therefore, in order to establish the Conventions' true intent in respect to these 13 Articles. All that it is necessary to do is to publish the Conventions' deliberations.
It would then be easy to establish whether the Convention wanted protection of parliament from ‘The People’; or, protection from ‘The King.’
Publishing these documents: of the actual deliberations and arguments, back and forth, of the Convention. Will, establish once and for all, the true interpretation.
I am confident that my interpretation is correct. It is now up to Parliament and the Courts, to prove this wrong. Unless and until that is done, my interpretation set out here in this paper, is as valid, (if not more so), than their interpretation.
Or establishing, an absolute, (in Law); is of equal validity.
Gordon J. Sheppard
