THE, “ORIGINAL
CONTRACT”
The existing, yet unwritten contract, betwixt King and People fully
entrenched and established in, English, LAW.
In a vote taken by the House of Commons on the 28th day of
January 1688 the Commons determined and declared that King James the Second had “Broken the Original Contract betwixt
King and People” and that thereby he had abdicated the throne. The, Commons
declared, the throne was vacant.
In
February 1688, there then followed a “Special Free Conference” held in the Painted
Chamber of the Commons entitled, “The
Debate at Large”.
This conference was between both, Lords and Commons, to
debate the words, “ABDICATED” and, “VACANCY OF THE THRONE”.
These
excerpts from the "Speeches” of this conference”, fully establishes the
true existence and the legal validity of the "Original Contract", in
English Law.
The
“Original Contract” is founded upon the principle that, “Allegiance is given to the Liege
Lord for the protection of the Liege Lord”.
This is
what HENRY POWLE, ‘The Speaker’ of that CONVENTION (Parliament), said in that
debate. He is referring to King James the Second, breaking this contract and
abdicating the throne:
“ 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."
Here, Sir George Treby, is explaining in his
speech why, KING JAMES the Second, had "broken the original contract"
and, why he had abdicated the throne.
Sir George Treby
“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, declared this:
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, further declared,
“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 this ‘Convention’ debate:
Lord Clarendon
“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”.
Note: There are two very important things to
properly understand about the actual creation of, Constitutional Monarchy; and,
the, “Original Contract”.
1.
As
will already have been seen above the “Original Contract” provides the
‘protection of the people’, and,
2.
Constitutional
Monarchy, takes that, ‘protection of the people’, away.
CONSTITUTIONAL
MONARCHY did not just evolve. It was specifically created by both Monarchy and
Parliament. Prior to its creation all, “Subjects of the Crown”, were entitled
to the ‘protection’ of the “Original Contract” which protected them from the
tyranny of the abuses and prejudice of parliament.
Yet,
when both Monarchy and Parliament, entered into the conspiracy, to create
“Constitutional Monarchy”; it was assumed by both the Monarchy and Parliament;
that the Monarchy was then relieved from the responsibility of honouring
“Original Contract”, (Which required the protection of the people). But, both
Parliament and the Monarchy had assumed that, incorrectly:
To
the contrary, the essential criterion here is this, that, parliament had no
rightful power at all, to overrule, supplant, or abolish the “Original
Contract”; or, to take this, ‘protection of the people’, away. Parliament had
no ‘legality’ whatsoever to amend or interfere with the, “Original Contract”,
in any way.
The
“Bill of Rights 1689”, in the paragraph, “The Said Rights Claimed”; prevents
parliament from the ‘prejudice of the
people’. Parliament, removing or interfering, with the “Original Contract”,
in any way; which does provide for the ‘protection of the people’; flouts and
breaches, “The Said Rights Claimed”. Because, removing this, ‘protection of the
people’, this does, “Prejudice the
People”
CONCLUSION:
Every “Reigning Monarch” that sits upon the English throne is therefore, always
bound to honour and to comply with the “Original Contract” protecting all
“Subjects of the Crown”; irrespective of any present, arrangements, for
“Constitutional Monarchy”. For, as long as a “Reigning Monarch” sits upon that
English throne; they will always be required to honour the “Original Contract”,
requiring, the ‘protection of the people’.
ELIZABETH
THE SECOND has not ‘honoured’ that “Original Contract” once, in all the sixty
years she has sat upon that throne. She has repeatedly granted the "Royal Assent" to Bills and Acts that have been passed by parliament, under the influence of the political party WHIPS; and, the WHIPS in parliament, has no legality at all.
The WHIPS instructing 'elected' Members of Parliament on they must or should vote, is entirely unlawful, creating the 'prejudice of the people', thereby, flouting and breaching the, "Statute in Force/Bill of Rights 1689/The Said Rights Claimed"
It is my contention, for the reasons, as set
out above, that, “Constitutional Monarchy’, does not relieve or excuse
the ‘Reigning Monarch’ of England from ‘honouring’ the “Original Contract” and,
protecting the people. Therefore, when, ELIZABETH THE SECOND, fails to protect
her ‘Subjects’ in this way, she fails to carry out her duty. Thereby, she ‘Abdicates’,
the throne.
The
‘Reigning Monarch’ is provided with two ‘legal instruments’ in order to assist
in carrying out that role. They, are, ‘The Royal Assent’ and ‘The Royal
Prerogative’. And, they have both been specifically designed, for the
‘protection of the people’.
