Correspondence With The Lord Chancellor

Dear Lord Chancellor,

The Queen’s speech seems to indicate that Ministers will be advising her Majesty to be in breach of the Coronation Oath. Is it not the confirmed constitutional position that no minister should seek any breach of the oath? Surely it is their constitutional responsibility to bear true allegiance?

Will you please therefore confirm that no power exists to breach the Coronation Oath?

Dear Mr Bingley,

Thank you for your letter dated Wednesday, 4 July 2001 to the Lord Chancellor. I apologise for the delay in forwarding your letter, which was received by The Lord Chancellors Department on Tuesday, 10 July 2001. I have been asked to reply.

As the matter you raise is the responsibility of the Cabinet Office, your letter and a copy of this one is being forwarded to that Department, so that they can consider the contents of your letter.

You can contact the Cabinet Office on the following phone number should you require any further information by calling 020 7210 3000 and asking for the Cabinet Office.

pp: Martha Adetula
Departmental Correspondence Unit
Lord Chancellor’s Department

Dear Lord Chancellor,

Judicial Oaths of Office

As keeper of the great seal and as chief officer responsible for the administration of letters patent will you please confirm that no legitimate power exists for you to breach your oath of office?

That you may exercise the powers of your office only in accordance with, and to maintain the law and constitution? Please would you also confirm that no judge or justice has any right or power to be in breach of his/her oath of office?

Am I right to assume that it is the Duty of the Judiciary to judge only in accordance with the law, the constitution, and at all times to bear true allegiance to the crown?

Dear Mr Bingley,

Thank you for your letter of July 16, which has been passed to this Office for attention.

Section 6 of the Promissory Oaths Act 1868 requires the Lord Chancellor to take the oath of allegiance and the judicial oath as defined by that Act upon appointment. I attach details of the form of both oaths for your information.

The Lord Chief Justice, the Master of the Rolls, and the Judges of the High Court and Court of Appeal are required to take the same oaths by virtue of section 10(4) of the Supreme Court Act, as are Circuit Judges and Recorders by virtue of section 22 of the Courts Act 1971.

M. Van der Meijen-Page

I, ALEXANDER ANDREW MACKAY BARON IRVINE OF LAIRG
do swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second Her Heirs and Successors according to Law

I, ALEXANDER ANDREW MACKAY BARON IRVINE
OF LAIRG
do swear by Almighty God that I will well and truly serve our Sovereign Lady Queen Elizabeth the Second in the Office of LORD HIGH CHANCELLOR OF GREAT BRITAIN and I will do right to all manner of people after the laws and usages of this Realm without fear or favour affection or ill will

I (John Smith)
do swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second Her Heirs and Successors according to Law

I (John Smith)
do swear by Almighty God that I will well and truly serve our Sovereign Lady Queen Elizabeth the Second in the Office of a Circuit Judge and I will do right to all manner of people after the laws and usages of this Realm without

Dear Lord Chancellor,

I wrote to you on the 4/7 the text as follows:-

The Queen’s speech seems to indicate that Ministers will be advising her Majesty to be in breach of the Coronation Oath. Is it not the confirmed constitutional position that no minister should seek any breach of the oath? Surely it is their constitutional responsibility to bear true allegiance?

Will you please therefore confirm that no power exists to breach the Coronation Oath?.

You claimed that it was the responsibility of the Cabinet office and so forwarded the letter to them. It is the clear public duty of all who have sworn “True allegiance” to have no hesitation in confirming the truth of the Oath which they have undertaken.

I have not received a reply from the cabinet office. In view of their tardy nature I would like once again to ask you to answer the original question?

Just to clarify it is not the content of the speech that I am asking you to comment on but the principle of the constitution and of ‘the rule of law.’ I trust this is not too onerous a task.

Thank you for your letter of 21 September to the Lord Chancellor about the Coronation Oath. This has been passed to me for reply.

Unfortunately, I received your letter just before I took some approved leave from the office, and it is therefore not possible to let you have a substantive reply at this time. However, it is hoped to do so within the next four weeks.

Miss L Henshaw

Thank you for your letter of 2l September to the Lord Chancellor about the Coronation Oath, which has been passed to the Constitutional Policy Division for reply. I am sorry that you did not receive a reply to your letter of 4 July; 1 have made enquires, but it cannot be traced.

You wanted an assurance that The Queen would not be advised by Ministers to breach Her Coronation Oath. I can give you that assurance. By way of background, the United Kingdom is governed by Ministers of the Crown in the name of the Sovereign, who is Head of the State and of the Government. In the strict sense of the term, a Monarchy is a State ruled by a single absolute hereditary rule*. However, in a constitutional Monarchy the State is headed by a Sovereign who rules according to the constitution (whether written or unwritten). A constitutional Monarchy such ours can therefore be defined as a State which is headed by a Sovereign who reigns, but does not rule. The powers of the Crown – that is, the Sovereign in Her constitutional capacity – are executed almost exclusively by Ministers.

The Coronation Oath is a solemn undertaking by the Sovereign which is regarded as binding throughout Her reign. Because, in a constitutional monarchy it is imperative that the Sovereign is politically impartial, The Queen acts on the advice of Her Ministers. They would not advise Her Majesty to take action which contradicted the Oath.

* ‘The Monarchy and the Constitution’ by Vernon Bogdanor

Miss L Henshaw

The Constitution and the rule of law.

Thank you for your letter of the 13th November. Can you confirm that it is therefore a duty of all who govern or hold office under the constitution, to uphold both the ‘constitution’ and ‘the rule of law’, ‘Be ye ever so high the law is above you’ and that this is therefore a certain duty, in perpetuity, through the coronation oath, to the people, for their governance?

I wrote to you on 13 December acknowledging your letter of 20 November 2001 to the Lord Chancellor about the Constitution and rule of law. I am sorry not to have been able to give you an earlier substantive reply.

In answer to your question, I am sure that it would generally be regarded as correct that there is a duty on all who govern or hold office under the Constitution, to uphold the Constitution and the rule of law.

Miss L Henshaw

The Constitution and Rule of Law

Thank you for your reply on the 31st of January from the Constitutional Policy Division of your department to my letter of the 20th of November. You kindly state that you are giving a substantive reply to my query about the Constitution and Rule of Law.

I have always believed the maxim that “no Man is above the law” to be ‘absolute’ in concept, “be he King or Commoner”. I note that the code of conduct for MPs reads:-

II Public duty

“By virtue of the oath, or affirmation, of allegiance taken by all Members when they are elected to the House, Members have a duty to be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty The Queen, Her heirs and successors, according to law. Members have a duty to uphold the law and to act on all occasions in accordance with the public trust placed in them.” (my emphasis)

It is clear that the ‘Public trust’ and ‘duty’ referred to in this code is the Constitution and Rule of Law, which is ‘absolutely’ guaranteed to the People through the Coronation Oath.

I note the Oxford English Dictionary definition of duty is:- “a. a moral or legal obli gation; a responsibility (his duty to report it). b. the binding force of what is right (strong sense of duty). c. what is required of one (do one’s duty).

Your reply states that it is “generally correct” thereby implying that there just might be some exception.

Can you confirm that under the constitution we are all subject to the rule of law at all times without exception. The Rule of Law is the fundamental and essential principle of democracy.

If on the other hand there are circumstances in which some may govern or be beyond the rule of law would you kindly detail them and by what authority they arise?

I would be grateful for your early response.

Thank you for your letter of 4 February 2002 to the Lord Chancellor about the constitution and rule of law. I have been asked to reply.

I would agree that we are all subject to the rule of law and that this is a fundamental and essential principle of democracy.

Miss L Henshaw