Letters to The Speaker

Letter No 1

The Declaration of the Convention of Parliament The 12th of February 1688

This document records the Rights and Liberties of the people which the convention felt absolutely necessary to state in a written document for the settlement of the kingdom. Prince William and Mary were given no choices, these were the demands of the convention and the were accepted by William and Mary.

“And they do claim, demand and insist upon all and singular the premises as their undoubted rights and liberties,”

The Declaration was a peaceful settlement of an invasion and was effectively the terms of ‘employment’ of the new Monarchy.
Is the Declaration document not a written part of our Constitution?

Comment on Letter No 1

This letter is specifically about the status of the Declaration as opposed to the Bill of Rights.

The Speaker’s Reply to Letter No 1

Speaker’s Office House of Commons London SWIA OAA
Richard Edwards Office Manager.
23 November, 1999

Madam Speaker has asked me to thank you for your letter of 19th November and to reply on her behalf.

Historians are fond of claiming that the United Kingdom does not have a written constitution. In a literal sense this is true because there is no single document codifying the laws of the land which can be claimed to be ‘The Constitution’ as exists in other countries like the United States.

Instead, what is sometimes referred to as ‘our unwritten constitution’ is in fact a collection of important historical legislation including the Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights. However, as a matter of constitutional principle, Parliament is sovereign and may pass legislation that undoes or amends what an earlier Act has done.

Scrutiny of The Reply to Letter No 1

The reply does not answer the question posed. It declares the importance of Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights as constitutional and refers to them being historical legislation and infers that they are subject to the will of Parliament as ordinary statutes.

Letter No 2

The Status of The Bill of Rights 1689

You made this statement in a recent reply to me:-

“Instead, what is sometimes referred to as ‘our unwritten constitution’ is in fact a collection of important historical legislation including the Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights. However, as a matter of constitutional principle, Parliament is sovereign and may pass legislation that undoes or amends what an earlier Act has done”.

The clear implication of your statement is that Parliament may repeal the Bill of Rights. I am at a loss to understand how this can be. I believe the Bill of Rights to be clearly entrenched by its own terms and those of the Coronation Oath. My explanation is as follows:-

The Declaration of Rights was read to the Prince and Princess on the 13th of February 1688. The last few lines of the Declaration state “And the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons do pray the said Prince and Princess to accept the same accordingly.”

William and Mary accepted what was offered which was the crown and the insistence that the requirements of the Declaration would be met. They were offered the Crown entirely because they were expected, and agreed to deliver the ends of the Declaration. William and Mary confirm this with their answer which is written and engrossed with the Declaration.

The Bill of Rights acknowledges the Prince and Princess’ acceptance by quoting this:-

“Upon which their said Majesties did accept the crown and royal dignity of the kingdoms of England, France and Ireland, and the dominions thereunto belonging according to the resolution and desire of the said Lords and Commons contained in the said Declaration.”

and this:-

“Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons do in the name of all the people aforesaid most humbly and faithfully submit themselves their heirs and posterities for ever and do faithfully promise that they will stand to maintain and defend their said Majesties and also the limitation and succession of the crown herein specified and contained to the utmost of their powers with their lives and estates against all persons whatsoever that shall attempt anything to the contrary”

Now the Declarations terms, laid down by the elected Convention, include this:-

“And they do claim, demand and insist upon all and singular the premises as their undoubted rights and liberties and that no declarations judgements doings or proceedings to the prejudice of the people in any of the said premises ought in any wise to be drawn hereafter into consequence or example”

Obviously the Monarchy and Parliament accepted these limitations. The Bill then goes further by stating :-

“that all and singular the rights and liberties asserted and claimed in the said declaration are the true, ancient and indubitable rights and liberties of the people of this kingdom, and so shall be esteemed, allowed, adjudged, deemed and taken to be; and that all and every the particulars aforesaid shall be firmly and strictly holden and observed as they are expressed in the said declaration, and all officers and ministers whatsoever shall serve their Majesties and their successors according to the same in all times to come.”

Now the Monarch came to the throne on the 13th of February 1688 (Julian calendar) as a result of the Revolution and accepted the terms of the Declaration, which insisted that its demand were met. The Convention Parliament meeting from the 13th of February created a new Coronation Oath in order to clarify, that the Monarch should govern the Kingdom “according to the Statutes in Parliament agreed on”. This was sworn on the 11th of April 1689 at William and Mary’s Coronation.

The logical explanation of the above statements is that nothing can break this without breaching the law or faith. The Crown servants are bound to uphold the Bill of Rights because its own terms dictate:-

“and that all and every the particulars aforesaid shall be firmly and strictly holden and observed as they are expressed in the said declaration, and all officers and ministers whatsoever shall serve their Majesties and their successors according to the same in all times to come.”

And the Monarchy has to govern according to the Statutes in Parliament agreed on. The agreement, the Royal assent to the Bill of Rights. was given on the 16th December 1689.

For you to be correct, I must be mistaken. I should be most grateful If you could point out the fault in my logic.

Comment on Letter No 2

This letter embodies the whole thrust of the arguments presented in this study. That the Coronation Oath, Declaration and Bill of Rights are a limitation to the power of Parliament as much as the Monarch and the Executive.

The modern Executive has accepted many treaties that interfere with the Judiciary and the way in which we are governed. Thus our Rights, Freedoms and Liberties have been unconstitutionally infringed and contrary to these contractual and lawful arrangements.

The Speaker’s Reply to Letter No 2

Speaker’s Office House of Commons London SWIA OAA
Nicolas Bevan CB Speaker’s Secretary
10 February 2000

Madam Speaker has asked me to respond to your letter of 7 February about the status of the Bill of Rights.

Your argument is that the Bill of Rights is “entrenched” 1 by its own terms and by the Coronation Oath. Let me take these propositions in turn.

The extracts from the Declaration which you quote encapsulate the basis on which the Crown was offered to the Prince and Princess of Orange 2. The Declaration goes on to condemn political actions before the Revolution, usually in broad and partisan terms — history written by the winners — and to make equally general statements about what ought to happen in future.

In considering the significance of these facts, it is clear that, while the authors of the Declaration clothed their deeds in legal forms, 3 what they were about was a political settlement. They were thus no doubt reluctant to give the impression that the basis of that settlement was open to amendment. Hence the absolute terms of the Declaration itself. Nevertheless, in the Crown and Parliament Recognition Act 1689, all the Acts of the previous Parliament — the authority of which had been doubted — became “laws and statutes of this kingdom”. The Declaration of Rights, whatever it had been before, then became unequivocally a statute4.

Whether the Bill of Rights may be amended as any other statute is beyond all doubt 5, because amendments have in fact been made. The Promissory Oaths Act 1868 altered the form of the oath of allegiance; the Accession to the Crown Act 1910 changed the form of declaration by a new monarch; and Statute Law Repeal Acts of 1888 and 1948 took words out of that part dealing with dispensation with statute.

Finally, you argue that there would be a breach of faith were the Bill of Rights to be regarded as amendable. This is because it rests on a compact between Crown and Parliament made explicit in the Coronation Oath and in Parliament’s undertaking to defend the succession specified in the Bill of Rights. Subsequent events proved however that the line of succession prescribed in the Bill of Rights lasted only 25 years, The Act of Settlement 6 had to step in and lay down a new line of succession, chosen not because it had the best hereditary right but because it met certain religious conditions politically agreed on at the time. In other words, the “contract” about the succession – if that is what it was- between Parliament and the Crown soon became void, and a new choice had to be made: there was nothing sacrosanct about this central element of the Bill of Rights.

7 There is no chain of judicial decisions which even suggests that the Bill of Rights is uniquely protected from amendment by the authorities Crown and Parliament to which it owes its origin. By argument and by lack of precedent it is safe to conclude, as previously, that the Bill of Rights is not an exception to that parliamentary sovereignty which was successfully asserted at the Revolution.

Scrutiny of The Speaker’s Reply to Letter No 2

The Bill is clearly entrenched by its own terms all without the support of the Coronation Oath and the Declaration, it plainly says so. It is to remain in force for all time and states that anything to the contrary is void. The agreement to the terms of the Declaration are the reason that William and Mary got the Crown. From the records there is very little doubt that had this not been acceptable William would have returned home leaving England to its own devices.

2. The Declaration list the worst of King James’ illegal actions and states categorically how they are now permanently rectified. The words do indeed “ encapsulate the basis on which the Crown was offered”. The unequivocal acceptance of these conditions is recorded. The Rights of the people were entrenched. This is the settlement that the winners required and made! To suggest that it is just a history lesson is to wholly misconceive its significance.

Parliamentarians are always pleased to point out that the significance of the revolution was to tame the power of the Monarchy—they forget, or more probably do not consider, or realise, how this also applies to them. The words of the law and constitution are clear and must mean what they say. One simply cannot get away from this fundamental point. For the Speaker to be correct the words of the law have to be so tempered by History as to have virtually no meaning save where it is convenient.

3. As far as the convention were concerned they had won and a new constitutional legality was their prize. They wrote the rules. This entrenched legality has been upheld by statute law and force of arms, to current times. They did indeed use legal terms of plain language and certainly did not want to give any impression that it was open to amendment. The terms were quite definitely intended to be absolute. This was not negotiable.

The Speaker is right to say that the position of the revolutionaries was doubted. There were detractors, (a measure of William’s tolerance). One can hardly imagine a more magnanimous victory than this incredible feat. They had taken control almost without bloodshed; a truly remarkable achievement. James had fled and was preparing with the aid of the French and Irish, to reclaim his throne. This culminated in James’s defeat in Ireland on the 1st of July 1690 at the battle of the Boyne.

The period of the Parliament which constitutes William and Mary’s 1st year of reign starts from the 13th of February 1688. The First Act of their reign as recorded in the chronological tables of the Acts of Parliament is listed ‘Anno 1 Gulielme et Marie Chapter 1’. This Title is explicit, Year 1 (in the reign of) William and Mary, Chapter 1. Royal Assent was given on the 25 of February 1688.

The first year of the parliament 1688/9 was jittery James might forcibly recover his throne: What then? The fate of the revolutionaries would likely have been just as bloody as that of the put down of Duke of Monmouth’s rebellion. by James’ judge, Judge Jefferys in the bloody assizes of 1685. 320 were hanged and many ferociously punished. It was not long past and very much in peoples minds.

By Spring 1689 William would need to go to Ireland to challenge James in battle and proposed to leave Queen Mary in charge of domestic affairs (see his speech to this effect). The parliament of this first year was understandably nervous. William needed solid support to raise tax (never popular) etc, for the coming Irish campaign. Fed up he dissolved the parliament on the 6th of February 1689. The new parliament was duly elected and, as William suggested in his speech, saw fit to make the Crown and Parliament Recognition Act. Chronologically it is listed as ‘Anno 2 Gulielme et Marie Chapter 1’ (year 2). This Act was for the purpose of further consolidating their joint rule.

The legitimacy can hardly be held to only have started from the second Year of their Reign (43 Acts Were made during year 1) as the Speaker implies with the statement “became laws and statutes of this kingdom”. This Act merely confirmed the loyalties at a very tense time. William was to take the Army to Ireland and leave Mary in charge. They could not afford any doubt about their authority.

4. The Speaker next asserts that the Declaration of Rights was made “unequivocally a statute” by the Crown and Parliament recognition act this is the subject of the next letter and is shown to be incorrect for it pre dates the period from the 13th of February covered by the Crown and Parliament Recognition Act and also defies the meaning of the words and the logic.

The Declaration was the contract by which the new regime were holding office; verbally agreed, witnessed and engrossed and the acceptance of its terms recorded. The new monarchy gave their Royal Assent to all the Statutes. The Crown and Parliament Recognition

Act entirely depended for its validity upon the success of the revolution, the hands that made it law were the hands of revolution. For the same reason the Declaration can only be confirmed by the Bill of Rights. The Declaration has much more than the force of an act, it is the power of a revolution to support authorization of the new terms of office for both Government and Monarchy. The Declaration was for “the preservation of their rights which they have here asserted”. It did not seek legal justification, it was itself the legality, it was the revolution, successfully enforced.

5. The speaker is right to say that amendments have been made. The underlines in the combination document show the repeals. These amendments may be proved unconstitutional. If so they are void.

The Bill of Rights cites the whole Declaration, to highlight the conditions and limitations for the future government of the Kingdom. It says so!

The order of words in the Declaration is important. The Monarchy were asked to “accept the same accordingly” i.e. the terms and conditions set out. The Oaths are listed after this request of acceptance and may therefore be held to be outside the entrenchment. This is supported by the fact that the first act of the new parliament enacts these Oaths and demands the use of the anti catholic Declaration of the 30th year of Charles the Second’s Reign and repealed in 1910.

The Statute Law Reform Acts are used to clear out obsolete legislation by repeal and to help simplify the language they are not for the purpose of weakening the effect of legislation and have clauses to that effect.

The 1825 and 1950 Juries Acts repealed part of the clause to impanel juries in order to create a broader base from which to choose jurors. This is omitted from the Speaker’s letter. They have not diminished the Right to Trial by Jury enshrined in the Declaration.

6. The act of Settlement 1701 was necessary because the succession, as laid down by the Bill of Rights, ran out of heirs. This was caused by the death of Queen Anne’s only surviving son Prince William Duke of Gloucester at just 11 years of age in July 1700. The Act was passed by William and was careful to continue the protestant line of succession through Sophia Electress of Hanover (protestant granddaughter of King James 1) and her son George. Sophia predeceased Anne and so George 1 came to the throne in 1714. The act of settlement did everything to keep faith with the Settlement of 1688 and the Bill of Rights. The last clause of the act states “all the laws and statutes of this realm for securing the established religion and the rights and liberties of the people thereof, and all other laws and statutes of the same now in force, may be ratified and confirmed, and the same are by his Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons, and by authority of the same, ratified and confirmed accordingly.” Far from breaching the contract, which had been fulfilled as far as it went, it extended it. Again the speaker would appear to be wrong! Irrespective of this George the First had a Coronation and clearly renewed his contract with the people through his Coronation Oath.

Goerge III upheld his Coronation Oath against fierce resistance from Pitt the younger in 1801 and flatly refused to breach it declaring “principle of duty must prevent him from discussing any proposition tending to destroy the groundwork of our happy constitution”. Pitt was forced to resign entirely because George III would not breach his Oath or his duty.

7. Not surprisingly the Bill of Rights has been upheld in court many times and is regarded as a particularly significant part of the constitution. Generally Parliament has respected its provisions. Not least because it protects the MP’s right to freedom of speech in Parliament i.e. Parliamentary privilege; reiterated in the commons by the Speaker in 1993.

Both the bill of Rights and Magna Carta have been upheld ( e.g. Chester v Bateson). There would appear to be NO test cases based upon the arguments put forward here. There can be absolutely no doubt that they should be immune to implied repeal or contrary precedence.

The Coronation Oath is the subjects guarantee of protection from abuse of power. The Oath defies Tyranny.

Letter No 3

Thank you for your prompt response to my letter. Your reply raises a number of issues about the Declaration.

We are agreed that the Declaration was a settlement of revolutionary Action and that its terms were absolute in nature. Next you state that the Crown and Parliament Recognition Act 1689 made the Declaration a statute, this I cannot comprehend. The Crown and Parliament Recognition Act does not appear to achieve this objective.

The Convention engrossed and enrolled the Declaration on the 12th of February 1688. This declared that the King had abdicated and the throne was thereby vacant.

The next day, the 13th, they read the Declaration and passed over the Crown with the agreement of William and Mary.

Now that there was a New Monarchy they considered that they had a full assembly of parliament. This Parliament was known as the Convention Parliament for the obvious reasons. The Convention Parliament was in power from the 13th of February 1688 until it was dissolved on the 6th of February 1689 after almost a year of government. This Parliament had not come into power in the normal way, but because they were the victors of the Revolution.

The first Act that they passed was entitled:-

“An Act for removeing and Preventing all Questions and Disputes Concerning the Assembling and Sitting of this present Parlyament.” (An. 1. Session 1. Chapter 1.)

It received Royal Assent on the 25th of February 1688.

This Act stated that the two Houses of Parliament convened on the 22nd of January were the legal Houses of the new Parliament meeting from the 13th of February irrespective of how they came to be. The Act continues saying that all the Acts to be made by this Parliament were to be adjudged in law, as if they had started on the 13th of February, the day the Crown was accepted. It then took steps to activate the Oaths of the Declaration. In Total the Convention Parliament passed 43 Acts and was then dissolved. (6th of February 1689)

As we know, the Convention Parliament came into power through the Revolution and were in the business of settling the Religion Laws and Liberties of the Kingdom forever. They achieved this objective through the Declaration, the Coronation Oath and the Bill of Rights. Having completed this they were dissolved and William and Mary then called a new Parliament in the usual manner by issuing Writts in due form of Law.The 20th of March 1689 (the very end of the Julian calendar year) saw the beginning of the new Parliament and its first Act was the Crown and Parliament Recognition Act (short title).

The full title of the Act was:-

“An ACT for Recognising King William and Queene Mary and for avoiding all Questions touching the Acts made In the Parliament assembled at Westminster the thirteenth day of February one thousand six hundred eighty eight.“ (An. 2. Session 1. Chapter 1.)

It received Royal Assent on the 14th of April 1690

Here is the full text:-

We your Majestyes most humble and loyall Subjects the Lords Spirituall and Temporall and Commons in this present Parliament assembled doe beseech your most excellent Majestyes that it may be published and declared in this High Court of Parlyament and enActed by authoritie of the same That we doe recognise and acknowledge your Majestyes were are and of Right ought to be by the Laws of this Realme our Soveraigne Liege Lord and Lady King and Queene of England France and Ireland and the Dominions thereunto belonging in and to whose Princely Persons the Royal State Crowne and Dignity of the said Realms with all Honours Stiles Titles Regalities Prerogatives Powers Jurisdictions and Authority to the same belonging and appertaining are most fully rightfully and intirely invested and incorporated united and annexed. And for the avoiding of all Disputes and Questions concerning the Being and Authority of the late Parliament assembled at Westminster the thirteenth day of February one thousand six hundred eighty [eight2 ] Wee doe most humbly beseech your Majestyes that it may be enActed And bee it enActed by the King and Queenes most excellent Majestyes by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spirituall and Temporall and Cornmons in this present Parlyament assembled and by authoritie of the same That all and singular the Acts made and enActed in the said Parlyament were and are laws and Statutes of this Kingdome and as such ought to be reputed taken and obeyed by all the People of this Kingdome.

The title of the Act determines that it was for the purpose of “avoiding all Questions touching the Acts made In the Parliament assembled at Westminster the thirteenth day of February” The text which I have emboldened says that the “Acts made and enActed” “were and are laws and Statutes” . This Act merely confirms recognition by the new Parliament meeting from the 20th of March of the legality of the Convention Parliament.

“The late Parliament assembled at Westminster” passed 43 Acts all of which are listed in the ‘Chronological tables of all the Acts of Parliament passed in the Reign of William and Mary.’ The Declaration is not amongst them as it was not considered an Act of the late Parliament. The Declaration was the settlement, that declared the throne vacant. In effect it created the Monarch and was engrossed and enrolled in chancery on the 12th of February 1688. How on earth can the Crown and Parliament Recognition Act convert it?

I was so busy drafting this reply that I did not at first realise the date was the exAct anniversary! What an incredible and appropriate coincidence.

Letter No 3 Comment

The acceptance of the Declaration’s terms were the justification for William and Mary to be given the Crown. This created their legitimacy and so any Acts of Parliament given Royal Assent by them was founded on the authority of the Declaration and subsequent Coronation Oath once sworn. Which was an Act with their Royal Assent.

The Speaker’s Reply to Letter No 3

Speaker’s Office House of Commons London SWIA OAA
Nicolas Bevan CB Speaker’s Secretary
16 February 2000

The Speaker has asked me to reply to your further letter of 12 February, about legislation en-Acted just after the Revolution.

You are not convinced that the Crown and Parliament Recognition Act 1689 made a statute of the Declaration of Rights. For my part, I believe that this came about because the Declaration was cited at length as a preamble to the Bill of Rights, which was validated as a statute by the Recognition Act. These are however undeniably circular arguments. It is the nature of a Revolution to break constitutional continuity, and therefore to give rise to awkward questions of legitimacy. What is perfectly clear to me is that the Bill of Rights is an amendable statute and has indeed been amended, which was where our correspondence began.

Scrutiny of The Speaker’s Reply to Letter No 3

The Speaker had previously asserted that the Declaration had “unequivocally become a statute”. Clearly the Speaker is now less confident in this assertion. Note the change in language used: “For my part, I believe that this came about” then it is stated that these are “undeniably circular arguments” Which have given rise to “awkward questions of legitimacy”.

If it is accepted that we had a revolution which forced the Monarchy to govern according to the Statue law as it has been taken to be, then these arguments are perfectly linear. There was a Revolution, in order to “break constitutional continuity”. In legal parlance this has become known as a breach of Grundnorm (the point to which a modern state, may logically trace its legal birth, by a majority acceptance of the legality of some revolutionary, armed, or forceful Action).

My next letter changes the subject to examination of the Coronation Oath.

Letter No 4

Once again many thanks for your prompt reply. I would be most grateful if you would explain the legality of the method by which changes were made to the Coronation Oath Act of 1688. I have difficulty in understanding how these lawfully came about. The Act states:-

“To the end therefore that One Uniforme Oath may be in all Times to come taken by the Kings and Queens of this Realme and to Them respectively Administred at the times of Their and every of Their Coronation.”

This statute was made by the Convention Parliament of 1688 and received royal assent on the 9th of April 1689 (Julian calendar). William and Mary had a Coronation on the 11th of April and using this Act swore the following Oath:-

The Arch-Bishop or Bishop shall say,

WILL You solemnely Promise and Sweare to Governe the People of this Kingdome of England and the Dominions thereto belonging according to the Statutes in Parlyament Agreed on and the Laws and Customs of the same?

The King and Queene shall say,

I solemnly Promise soe to doe.

This Act of Parliament appears to me to be self entrenching. The Monarch plainly promises to govern according to the statutes in Parliament agreed on. This statute was enActed, this wording was ‘Agreed on’

“To the end therefore that One Uniforme Oath may be in all Times to come taken by the Kings and Queens of this Realme”

The Monarch is duty bound to govern

“according to the Statutes in Parlyament Agreed on and the Laws and Customs of the same?”

By what legal mechanism may this be altered?

Comment on Letter No 4

The logic of this letter is undeniable. However the Oath is specifeid in an Act of Parliament. This letter leads to the major question, How strong are the words of the Oath in having binding force? At Common law, Statute law, religiously, and morally there is no doubt that they are binding.

The Speaker’s Reply to Letter No 4

Speaker’s Office House of Commons London SWIA OAA
Nicolas Bevan CB Speaker’s Secretary
21 February 2000

Madam Speaker has asked me to thank you for your further letter of 17 February and to reply on her behalf.

You ask by what legal mechanism the Coronation Oath prescribed by the 1688 Act may be altered. The answer is by a subsequent Act of Parliament in this case the Accession Declaration Act 1910 (wrongly cited in my letter of 10 February as the Accession to the Crown Act my apologies). I enclose a copy of this Act for your information.

I hope you will now be able to accept that, whatever the language that was used at the time, the Bill of Rights and related Acts are subject to subsequent amendment as determined by Parliament. If you wish to argue against this proposition and that, therefore, the Accession Declaration Act 1910 was in some way illegal, I am afraid that I cannot help you — and I do not think that you will find a constitutional lawyer to support you.

Comment on Speaker’s Reply to Letter No 4

The Speaker had made a mistake. The Coronation Oath Act is current. The Accession Declaration Act 1910 did not alter it. I did not need the services of a Constitutional lawyer. Read on! Phew!

Letter No 5

Thank you for your letter and copy of the Accession Declaration Act, 1910. This Act was not the subject of my enquiry. My enquiry was about the Act entitled “An Act for Establishing the Coronation Oath” (An. 1 Session 1. Ch 6.) of 1688/9. This received Royal assent on the 9th of April 1689 (Julian Calendar).

Here is the full text:-

CHAPTER VI.

AN ACT for Establishing the Coronation Oath.

WHEREAS by the Law and Ancient Usage of this Realme the Kings and Queens thereof have taken a Solemne Oath upon the Evangelists at Their respective Coronations to maintaine the Statutes Laws and Customs of the said Realme and all the People and Inhabitants thereof in their Spirituall and Civill Rights and Properties. But forasmuch as the Oath itselfe on such Occasion Administred hath heretofore beene framed in doubtfull Words and Expressions with relation to ancient Laws and Constitutions at this time unknowne To the end therefore that One Uniforme Oath may be in all Times to come taken by the Kings and Queens of this Realme and to Them respectively Administred at the times of Their and every of Their Coronation.

MAY it please Your Majesties That it may be EnActed And bee it EnActed by the King and Queens most Excellent Majestyes by and with the Advice and Consent of the Lords Spirituall and Temporall and the Commons in this psent Parlyament Assembled and by the Authoritie of the same That the Oath herein Mentioned and hereafter Expressed shall and may be Administred to their most Excellent Majestyes King William and Queene Mary (whome God long preserve) at the time of Their Coronation in the presence of all Persons that shall be then and there present at the Solemnizeing thereof by the Archbishop of Canterbury or the Archbishop of Yorke or either of them or any other Bishop of this Realme whome the King’s Majesty shall thereunto appoint and who shall be hereby thereunto respectively Authorized which Oath followeth and shall be Administred in this Manner That is to say,

The Arch-Bishop or Bishop shall say,

WILL You solemnely Promise and Sweare to Governe the People of this Kingdome of England and the Dominions thereto belonging according to the Statutes in Parlyament Agreed on and the Laws and Customs of the same?

The King and Queene shall say,
I solemnly Promise soe to doe.

Arch Bishop or Bishop,
Will you to your power cause Law and Justice in Mercy to be Executed in all Your Judgements.

King and Queene,
I will.

Arch Bishop or Bishop.
Will You to the utmost of Your power Mäintaine the Laws of God the true Profession of the Gospell and the Protestant Reformed Religion Established by Law? And will You Preserve unto the Bishops and Clergy of this Realme and to the Churches committed to their Charge all such Rights and Priviledges as by Law doe or shall appertaine unto them or any of them. King and Queene.

All this I Promise to doe.

After this. the King and Queene laying His and Her Hand upon the Holy Gospells, shall say, King and Queene

The things which I have here before promised I will performe and Keepe Soe help me God.

Then the King and Queene shall kisse the Booke.

And bee it further EnActed That the said Oath shall be in like manner Administred to every King or Queene who shall Succeede to the Imperiall Crowne of this Realme at their respective Coronations by one of the Archbishops or Bishops of this Realme of England for the time being to be thereunto appointed by such King or Queene respectively and in the Presence of all Persons that shall be Attending Assisting or otherwise present at such their respective Coronations. Any Law Statute or Usage to the contrary notwithstanding.

The Coronation Oath clearly states that the Monarch Will Govern “according to the statutes in Parlyament agreed on”. The words of this Act show that the purpose was:-

“To the end therefore that One Uniforme Oath may be in all Times to come taken by the Kings and Queens of this Realme and to Them respectively Administred at the times of Their and every of Their Coronation.”

These words were “agreed on” and the Monarch has sworn on oath:-

“to Governe the People of this Kingdome of England and the Dominions thereto belonging according to the Statutes in Parlyament Agreed on”

as upheld by this:- “I solemnly Promise soe to doe.”

Surely this Oath is beyond Parliament’s power to repeal, simply because the Oath is self entrenching. Do you agree that this Oath is entrenched and may never be altered or repealed? The Monarch has agreed to govern according to the Statute which was agreed (Royal assent 9th April 1689). It states that this Oath will always be used. The last paragraph of the Act also confirms this and seeks to protect it.

Once again thank you for you prompt response. I hope that I have clarified my question, a good one I think you will agree!

Comment on Letter No 5

Now there should be no confusion!

The Speaker’s Reply to Letter No 5

Speaker’s Office House of Commons London SWIA OAA
Nicolas Bevan CB Speaker’s Secretary
3 March 2000

Madam Speaker has asked me to thank you for your further letter of 23 February and to reply on her behalf.

You are quite right to draw to the Speaker’s attention the distinction between the declaration of the Sovereign required by the Bill of Rights and the coronation oath. I am sorry if my earlier correspondence appeared to confuse the two.

So far as the declaration is concerned, the Bill of Rights 1688 (and subsequently the Act of

Settlement 1700) required that “every King and Queene of this realme who at any time hereafter shall come to and succeede in the imperial crowne of this kingdome shall … make subscribe and audibly repeate the declaration . . .“. The terms of the declaration were set out in an “Act for the more effectual preserveing the Kings person and government by disableing papists from sitting in either House of Parlyament”, passed in the reign of Charles II. These terms were, however, altered by the Accession Declaration Act 1910 which substituted an entirely new text.

The coronation oath was, as you rightly observe, established by the Coronation Oath Act 1688. It has not been substantively amended but I note that Halsbury’s Laws of England states that “the form of the oath as at present administered differs from that provided by the 1688 Act owing to the disestablishment of the Irish Church (by the Irish Church Act 1869) and to the provisions of the Union with Scotland Act 1706 art XXV”.

As to your specific question, whether the Coronation Oath is entrenched and may never be altered or repealed, my answer remains that all Acts of Parliament are amendable. I am fortified in this view by the fAct that, although the Bill of Rights used similar “self entrenching” language to that used in the Coronation Oath Act when it established the declaration required of the Sovereign, the text of the declaration was subsequently altered by Parliament (as described above). Moreover the Act of Settlement combines the two requirements (oath and declaration) into a single sentence, as follows “every King and Queen of this realm who shall come to and succeed in the imperiall crown of this kingdom by vertue of this Act shall have the coronation oath administered to him her or them at their respective coronations according to the Act of Parliament made in the first year of the reign of his Majesty and the said late Queen Mary intituled An Act for establishing the coronation oath and shall make subscribe and repeat the declaration in the Act first above recited mentioned or referred to in the manner and form thereby prescribed”. If the declaration has been altered (as it has), it would seem to follow that the oath can also be altered.

I hope this analysis will convince you. If not, then I am afraid we shall just have to agree to differ. However that may be, I have much enjoyed this correspondence which has taken me down unfamiliar but important by-ways.

Scrutiny of the Speaker’s reply to letter no 5

The declaration for disabling papists was intended to be entrenched as the Speaker rightly points out by both the Bill of Rights and the Act of Settlement 1700. However this was not a stipulation of the Declaration of Rights and may therefore be regarded as that part of the Bill of Rights which is only cited as Statute law. The Bill of Rights has historically always been know as a ‘Bill’ although it was enActed. It is I believe no coincidence that this is so. It is comprised part Declaration and part Statute. It lists the Rights of the people that the convention sought to put beyond the reach of King or Parliament, outwith their grasp. These may be moot points but the central intention of entrenching for all time the Rights, freedoms, liberties, and the Protestant faith are beyond doubt and perfectly clear.

The status of the declaration against papistry the 2nd Act of the thirtieth year of the Reign of King Charles the Second was that of normal statute and as such subject to the usual rules that apply to Statutes. The amendments to the Coronation Oath are the subject of full discussion see page

The final part of this reply raises the following observations:-

The Speaker appears uncertain stating “it would seem to follow” .

The Act of 1910 has replaced the declaration of the Act of Charles the Second.

There can be no dispute that Parliament is fully entitled to amend or repeal unentrenched Acts of Parliament.

The Coronation Oath Act is logically entrenched by its own obligation.

The Oath is a boundary of Parliamentary power as is proved shortly.

To alter the Oath would be a logical contradiction of the terms of the Act.

Of course all this assumes that honesty of principle, duty and the law are adhered to.

The two possible principled means of altering the obligations are:-

1. Alterations before the oath is taken by an new Monarch, provided that it does not conflict with the oaths of office already sworn.
2. If the oath is formally renounced and replaced before enacting new, otherwise conflicting, legislation.

The 1910 Act received Royal Assent on the 3rd of August 1910 this was by George the V before his Coronation on 22 June 1911.

Letter No 6

I am glad that you have enjoyed the recent correspondence between us. I should like to clarify your use of the word “amendable” as an ambiguity could be implied. It is clear that to amend is not necessarily to “repeal”. Do you maintain that Parliament may legitimately repeal the whole Act and/or the words of the Oath entirely, or in part, as per the 1688 Coronation Oath Act in particular? And secondly any part of, or the whole Bill of Rights 1689?

This is a most important difference to the word amend, I know you will agree.

Comment on Letter No 6

This is of paramount importance. The status of the common law and custom are of equal constitutional importance. They are enshrined in the Coronation Oath as equal parts of the way in which we shall be governed. It is arguable that repeal may only be applied to Statute Law. This, whilst not the current practice, is of immense significance. Does Parliament’s power extend to abolishing the Custom? Does our constitution offer inbuilt protection for minorities? If the word Custom is observed then customary minorities are protected.

If this is not binding there is nothing that cannot be made lawful by Parliament, on the down side:- murder, torture, no freedom of speech, arbitrary imprisonment, the abolition of elections, unfair funding of political parties etc to name but a few abuses of power routinely carried out by other countries!

If I am right then these potential abuses are constitutionally excluded.

The Speaker’s Reply to Letter No 6

Speaker’s Office House of Commons London SWIA OAA
Nicolas Bevan CB Speaker’s Secretary
10 March 2000

Madam Speaker has asked me to thank you for your letter of 9 March and to reply on her behalf.

The answer to your question is that Parliament has the authority to amend or repeal any Act. Clearly, some such proposals would be more controversial and keenly fought than others.

Comment on The Speaker’s Reply to Letter No 6

Letter No 7

Once again many thanks for your prompt and clear reply. You recently upheld that members who wish to sit in the house must take the oath of allegiance. Could Parliament remove this requirement, if it so wished? If it is technically possible, how can this be, without treason and/or a breach of faith?

I am sorry to belabour these points but I am trying to establish their fundamental importance. I believe that they may have bearing upon the right to trial by Jury. I thank you for the trouble that you have taken, in answering my queries to date.

The Speaker’s Reply to Letter No 7

Speaker’s Office House of Commons London SWIA OAA
Nicolas Bevan CB Speaker’s Secretary
14 March 2000

Madam Speaker has asked me to thank you for your further letter of 13 March and to reply on her behalf. It is our view that the statutory requirement for Members of Parliament to swear the oath of allegiance (or to make the affirmation) could be repealed by Parliament. Indeed the form of the oath has been altered by Parliament in the past.

Comment on Both Letter No 7 and The Speaker’s Reply to Letter No 7

To amend the requirement is one thing to remove it is another. Irrespective, the Houses are bound by the Coronation Oath to govern accordingly, for the people.

Letter No 8

I thank you for your prompt reply to my previous Letter. You say that Parliament may repeal the “statutory requirement” for the oath of allegiance if it so wishes.

The Coronation service embodies the principle that the Monarch agrees to ‘Govern the People’. Now this is a compact before God and it is secular. It binds the Monarch to the subjects of the Kingdom, the Monarch signs the oath. Conversely it is the individual subjects’ contract with the Monarch to be ‘governed accordingly’. This is not an agreement which Parliament has any power to breach, for it is clearly beyond Parliament’s reach, and is sworn most solemnly to be upheld. The agreement is not between the Monarch and Parliament but between the Monarch and all the people.

Now the oath of allegiance, uses the words “bear true allegiance”; do you accept that alteration that dilutes the strength of this wording amounts to treason? All members of both houses have sworn these words to bear ‘true’ (exact) ‘allegiance’ (loyalty, the duty of a subject). To weaken the oath or lessen its scope would be an obvious breach of duty. This duty is both a duty to the Monarch and all the subjects of the Kingdom, and determines the manner in which they the people may be governed. Do you accept that it is not Parliament’s to give away?

This principle is exceptionally important. The subjects’ right, to be ‘governed accordingly’ depends upon it.

If the oath of allegiance were abandoned, what would be the meaning of treason? Subversion of the constitution becomes possible.

This is a truly constitutional thing for it is the point at which duty, faith and law combine.

Comment on Letter No 8

This letter is all important for it defines the Duty expected of Government, Executive and the Monarch from the obligation of the Oaths.

The Speaker’s Reply to Letter No 8

Nicolas Bevan Speaker’s Secretary
Speaker’s Office House of Commons London SW1A OAA
21 March 2000

Madam Speaker has asked me to thank you for your further letter of 18 March and to reply on her behalf.

It is clear that we are not going to see eye to eye on fundamental constitutional issues. The basis of your argument appears to be to seek to deny the sovereignty of Parliament by reference to a compact between monarch and people. But in our system of government Parliament represents the people and may, on the people’s behalf, pass any legislation that it wishes, including major constitutional changes. To suggest that an alteration by Parliament of the terms of the oath of allegiance would amount to treason is a constitutional absurdity.

It does not seem to me that a continuation of this correspondence would be fruitful.

Comment on The Speaker’s Reply to Letter No 8

Ah! I think I have found the ticklish spot! Is it a constitutional absurdity to suggest that Parliament does not have the Right to give away the government, defence and birthright of the Kingdom to Europe, for example?

Letter No 9

Once again many thanks for your replies to my letters. I am still unclear as to the exact position over Oaths. Does Parliament posses the power to alter any obligation that may exist under the terms of an oath, at any time, most particularly the existing coronation oath, during the reign of the Monarch?

Comment on Letter No 9

Do the obligations of all the Oaths have lawful meaning? They certainly do to the people who are governed! Society relies upon honesty — perjury is a serious crime.

The Speaker’s Reply to Letter No 9

Nicolas Bevan Speaker’s Secretary
Speaker’s Office House of Commons London SW1A OAA
4 April 2000

Madam Speaker has asked me to thank you for your further letter of 29 March and to reply on her behalf.

Your latest question takes us on to highly hypothetical ground but in constitutional theory the answer to it must be yes.

Comment on The Reply to Letter No 9

Surely if the obligation of an Oath is to be contradicted it is logically and morally incumbent upon those that desire the change to explain the necessity for the new undertaking and ensure that all parties are fully agreed to the differing Oath before the new obligation is agreed. Such changes would only be justified if there was total agreement from all concerned.

Such changes would require the highest formality and the renouncing of the previous obligations. Anything less than the most formal and public acceptance must amount to a betrayal of trust.

Letter No 10

Thank you for your recent reply. I understand that ‘Sovereignty’ lies with the three estates of the realm, The House of Commons, The House of Lords and The Monarch, ‘The Monarch in Parliament’. Am I right to assume that this is so?

The Coronation Oath has been sworn. Presumably this was more than mere pageantry. Do you agree that the Coronation Oath is central to the constitution and that until such time that it is plainly altered, by a replacement oath, or it is renounced, the Monarch must be absolutely bound by its obligations? Further do you agree that all Crown servants who have sworn the Oath of Allegiance, must comply with their oath until such time as these obligations are plainly changed or universally renounced? Do you agree that this is such a fundamental part of the constitution that the doctrine of implied repeal could not possibly undo the obligation of these oaths, which are of course contractual, in both the spiritual and secular sense?

Comment on Letter No 10

Finally we seem to have cornered this most important issue!

The Speaker’s Reply to Letter No 10

Nicolas Bevan CB
Speaker’s Secretary
20 April 2000

Madam Speaker has asked me to thank you for your letter of 10 April and to reply on her behalf.

I am afraid that I am not willing to engage in the process of dialectic examination on which you appear to wish to embark. I have responded in as helpful a way as I can to your previous enquiries and I propose to leave it at that.

Comment on The Reply to Letter No 10

This cut off was a shame as logical examination had finally cornered the issue!

Letter No 11

You will be interested in the following quote which was confirmed in the House on the 15. 10. 1996. by John Major Prime Minister.

“The Coronation Oath is indeed regarded as a solemn undertaking by the Sovereign which is binding throughout Her reign. Ministers would not advise Her Majesty to sign into law any provision which contradicted Her Oath.”

I wrote to my MP Howard Flight and asked if he might table the same question to the current Prime Minister. The Prime Minister delegated the task to the Home Secretary who has replied in Person and states:

“I am replying in light of my constitutional responsibilities. I can confirm that the Coronation Oath is a solemn undertaking by the Sovereign and is regarded as binding throughout Her reign. Her Majesty would not be advised to give Her Assent to a provision which contradicted that Oath.” 20/7/2000 Jack Straw

Her Majesty took the Coronation Oath not only as a solemn undertaking between the Monarch and People but most importantly, as head of the Executive with a promise to govern the people accordingly.

The Home secretary has replied that it is his Constitutional responsibility to confirm this view of the Coronation Oath, which clearly defines the boundary to Parliaments power.

Are you also able to confirm this view? I note that the quote of 1996 is during your term of office and no query was raised at that time?

I look forward to your reply and would like to take this Opportunity to wish you a very happy retirement.

Comment on Letter No 11

THE ANSWER! Reply to Letter No 11

Speaker’s Office House of Commons London SWIA OAA
Nicolas Bevan CB
Speaker’s Secretary
1 August 2000

Madam Speaker has asked me to thank you for your letter of 25 July and to reply on her behalf.

The Speaker sees no reason to dissent from the opinion which you have received from the Home Secretary, although constitutionally this is not a matter for which she has responsibility.

Comment on The Reply to Letter No 10

This cut off was a shame as logical examination had finally cornered the issue!