Sovereign Authority
We have already
argued that the ultimate powers of sovereignty remain in the sole possession of
the monarch. Indeed, it is the unique
covenant between sovereign and people that stands as the bulwark supporting our
constitution and rights.
The sovereign is
the court of last resort, the only person who can stand finally between the
people and renegade politicians.
Indeed, we would go further. It
is the sovereign’s sworn duty, as laid down in Magna Carta (see above).
The Coronation Oath is a
contract for life between the sovereign and the nation. The original form of the Oath was stated
earlier in this document, and still has the force of statute law. However, at the coronations of both The Queen
and her father George VI, the words of the Oath were changed to meet the needs
of the Statute of Westminster, 1931, which granted autonomy to the
dominions. The words used at these
coronations did not have the force of statute law behind them, having been
merely agreed between the leaders of the Church of England and the government
of the day in each case. Both oaths were
illegal, as The Times newspaper
pointed out on both occasions. In any
case, Parliament has no power under the Bill of Rights to interfere with the Coronation
Oath as first enacted during the reign of Charles II.
Despite the huge
constitutional issues raised by these events of 1937 and 1953, the essential
words in the Oath sworn by The Queen were:
“…to govern the peoples of the
She also swore to preserve
for the people…
“all rights and privileges as by law do or shall
appertain to any of them.”
The Coronation
Oath is not a contract between the sovereign and parliament. It is a contract between the sovereign and
each individual subject. It cannot be
broken by a vote in parliament. It can
be broken only by the sovereign or by the individual.
Like all
contracts, if one party to the contract believes the terms are at risk, the
other party can be called to account.
As we have
indicated already, today just as for nearly a thousand years, if an individual
believes his freedoms, rights and liberties are at risk, the sovereign can be
called upon to protect those rights as promised in the contract.
Likewise, the
sovereign can call individuals to arms to protect the realm.
We know of two occasions in
modern times when the covenant between sovereign and subjects first established
in Magna Carta, and renewed in every Coronation Oath since, has been put to the
test by one party to the contract or the other.
Conveniently, the two examples come from opposite sides of the covenant.
1975 -
1982 -
Actions of this
kind enhance the status and strength of the monarchy, and re-affirm to the
nation’s subjects that their rights and freedoms are being preserved. They also demonstrate in a modern context
that Magna Carta and the Declaration of Rights are alive and well.
The sovereign is
the ultimate protector of the nation and guarantor of the rights of each
individual, and those responsibilities are the sovereign’s, and the sovereign’s
alone.
At least one
constitutional commentator agrees with us:
"For parliament to
develop or improve on a fundamental right is one thing. But to enact
legislation which expressly removes an already existing fundamental right, and
to have that enactment blindly upheld by a court, is quite another.
“If there is one thread
which runs through the whole turbulent history of British constitutional
development, it is the belief that we (parliament and the courts) are the
servants of fundamental constitutional rules which were there before us and
will be there after we are gone.”
Allott, The Courts and
Parliament, 1979.
The
Ultimate Test
Despite all those rights,
freedoms and protections, established over centuries, today our common laws,
rights, freedoms, liberties and customs are being demolished with the speed and
thoroughness of a team of statutory bulldozers.
Long ago, Magna Carta dealt
with the problem of a sovereign acting above the law. Later, the Declaration of Rights confirmed
the estates of the realm and their relationship to one another - a series of
checks and balances. Today, that
relationship has been seriously undermined.
We now have a House of Commons acting above the law, plainly
contemptuous of the (remaining) powers of The Queen and the House of
Lords.
Such an overwhelming
concentration of power in the hands of the executive, especially one with a
huge parliamentary majority, means that we are currently faced with an extreme
example of what Lord Hailsham famously called “an elective dictatorship”.
Writing in The Sunday Times, in July 1970, he said:
"It is the
parliamentary majority that has the potential for tyranny. The thing that the Courts cannot protect you
against is parliament - the traditional protector of our liberties. But parliament is constantly making mistakes
and could in theory become the most oppressive instrument in the
world"
Others had agreed
with him in the past.
"A political system resting
on professional party politicians is clearly fatal to all liberty and national
well-being. It represents a total
destruction of our historic Parliamentary constitution behind whose forms,
institutions and ceremonies it has disguised itself whilst at the same time
rendering them meaningless. The full
meaning of Parliamentary supremacy is now lost to us by the constitutional
corruptions which the professional politician has fomented by their appeals to
an alien and fraudulent political ideology.
By clearly identifying and correcting these corruptions we can recover
the enduring qualities of strength and freedom of our parliamentary
constitution for which generations of Englishmen have for centuries been ready
to sacrifice their lives and their possessions"
Richard
Crossman (1907-74) Introduction to
Bagehot's "The English Constitution",
1867.
Ben Greene
pointed out in his book The Restoration
of the English Constitution that Bagehot was quite open about the deception
by which the English people were deprived of their great constitutional
heritage. The English monarchy had been
reduced to an ‘act of disguise’ for a de
facto republic. Its role enabled the
executive to effect change without people realising it. This ‘ancient show’, as the monarchy was
called, covered the clandestine introduction of ‘a new reality’.
John Locke once more. He had no doubts. The people remain sovereign:
“…there remains still in the people the supreme power
to remove or alter the legislative when they find the legislative act contrary
to the trust reposed in them.”
Winston Churchill expressed
clear views about our relationship with
"We are with
Churchill was confident of
the safeguards contained in Magna Carta.
Writing in his History of The
English-Speaking Peoples, he said:
“…and when in subsequent ages the state, swollen with
its own authority, has attempted to ride roughshod over the rights and
liberties of the subject it is to this doctrine that appeal has again and again
been made, and never, as yet, without success.”
The Magna Carta Society, and
tens of thousands like us, believe the time has come - indeed, is overdue - to
put the great principles and rights enshrined in Magna Carta and the
Declaration of Rights to the test once again.
Eventually, the
issue of the EU's right to rule over the UK must be tested in the highest court
in the land and - given the speed and comprehensiveness of present EU
legislation and its destructiveness - that test must be made as a matter of the
highest priority.
Already faced with the most
fundamental concerns for the structure and protection of this nation’s
constitution it now appears that the battle over the EU has developed a second
front - the dismantling of our parliamentary institutions and the most cavalier
disregard for our constitution and rights.
Given the extracts above,
there is good reason to believe that, under Magna Carta, 25 hereditary peers
can convene themselves as a quorum, and sit as a House of Lords, despite the
recent passage of a bill purporting to restrict its hereditary numbers.
We have reason to believe
that such a quorum can be assembled.
Furthermore, under the terms
of Magna Carta, that House has an obligation to hear petitions brought by free
men, and take them to The Queen, who - equally - has an obligation to hear
them.
That is the
ultimate consequence of the unique contract first established with Magna Carta
and renewed at each coronation.
To those in
government and the judiciary who might try to argue that we no longer have the
right of petition and appeal to The Queen, there are serious questions to
answer:
When do they
claim that right was taken away? By
whom? And how? On whose authority? And by what right?
(We believe the
last monarch to receive and act on a petition was Queen
In any case, the
sovereign cannot be absolved from her obligations, responsibilities and duties
to her subjects, and certainly not on the mere advice of ministers. Otherwise the Coronation Oath would be
meaningless.
Which is why we
are preparing a petition to be submitted to the hereditary House of Lords for
presentation to The Queen, based on the following terms:
“We the undersigned seek to draw attention to and
seek redress from the imposition of foreign laws, directives, regulations and
judicial decisions by and from the European Union and its institutions, to the
detriment and prejudice of your sovereignty and to our rights and freedoms as
defined in Magna Carta, the Declaration of Rights, and by the customs of your
people, and which you, our sovereign, swore to uphold and preserve inviolate in
your Coronation Oath of 1953.”
If Magna Carta stands, we
have a right to enter such a petition.
If it does not, this kingdom
stands in dire peril, the executive have some momentous questions to answer, and
all free men of this kingdom should hear the call.
Whether Magna Carta stands
or not, action is needed, and we intend to take it.