Fundamental Laws of England
|
|
| Contents |
Blackstone's history
In the 1760s William Blackstone described the Fundamental Laws of England in Commentaries on the Laws of England, Book the First - Chapter the First : Of the Absolute Rights of Individuals [1] (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/blackstone/bk1ch1.htm) as "the absolute rights of every Englishman" and traced their basis and evolution as follows:
- Magna Carta between King John and his barons in 1215
- confirmation by King Henry III to parliament in 1216, 1217, and 1225 [2] (http://www.independentamericans.org/an_essay_on_the_trial_by_jury%20Chapter%2011.htm)
- Confirmatio Cartarum (Confirmation of the Charter) 1253 [3] (http://www.independentamericans.org/an_essay_on_the_trial_by_jury%20Chapter%2011.htm)
- a multitude of subsequent corroborating statutes, from King Edward I to King Henry IV
- the Petition of Right, a parliamentary declaration in 1628 of the liberties of the people, assented to by King Charles I
- more concessions made by King Charles I to his parliament
- many laws, particularly the habeas corpus act in 1679, passed under King Charles II
- the 1689 British Bill of Rights assented to by King William III and Queen Mary II.
- the Act of Settlement of 1701.
Blackstone's list was an 18th century constitutional view [4] (http://www.townhall.com/phillysoc/blackston.htm), and it should be noted that the Union of the Crowns had occurred in 1603 between England and Scotland, and the 1628 Petition of Right had already referred to the fundamental laws being violated [5] (http://history.wisc.edu/sommerville/361/361-24.htm).
See also: British constitution, British constitutional law, List of British monarchs, common law
Recorded usage
The phrase Fundamental Laws of England has often been used by those opposing particular legislative, royal or religious initiatives.
For example, in 1641 the House of Commons protested that the Roman Catholic Church was "... subverting the fundamental laws of England and Ireland ..." [6] (http://personal.pitnet.net/primarysources/protests.html), part of a campaign ending in 1649 with the beheading of King Charles I.
Subsequently, the phrase was used by the Leveller Lieut. Col. John Lilburne (later to become a Quaker) accusing the House of Lords and House of Commons of tyranny in The Just Defence of John Lilburne, Against Such as charge him with Turbulency of Spirit [7] (http://www.strecorsoc.org/docs/defence2.html). Lilburne also wrote a 1646 book called The Legal Fundamental Liberties of the People of England, asserted, revived and vindicated [8] (http://www.strecorsoc.org/docs/vindicated2.html).
Also in 1646, the General Court of Massachusetts referred to the Fundamental Laws of England in regard to the Magna Carta, while defending their representative and legislative autonomy in their address to the Long Parliament [9] (http://www.constitution.org/cmt/ces/cessc_1.htm).
In his 1670 trial, William Penn called upon the phrase many times, including "... However, this I leave upon your Consciences, who are of the Jury (and my sole Judges) that if these Ancient Fundamental Laws, which relate to Liberty and Property, and (are not limited to particular Persuasions in Matters of Religion) must not be indispensably maintained and observed, Who can say he hath Right to the Coat upon his Back? ..." [10] (http://www.worldpolicy.org/globalrights/religion/penn-trial.html). The aftermath of the trial established Bushell's Case, preventing a jury from being fined for its verdict [11] (http://elvis.rowan.edu/~kilroy/JEK/FOX/penn.txt).
In the 1774 pamphlet American Claim of Rights, South Carolina's Chief Justice William Drayton wrote "That the Americans being descended from the same ancestors with the people of England, and owing fealty to the same Crown, are therefore equally with them, entitled to the common law of England formed by their common ancestors; and to all and singular the benefits, rights, liberties and claims specified in Magna Charta, in the petition of Rights, in the Bill of Rights, and in the Act of Settlement. They being no more than principally declaratory of the grounds of the fundamental laws of England." [12] (http://www.schistory.org/displays/RevWar/archives-online/Gibbes__v__1__p__011b.html).
Other famous subscribers to the phrase include Lord Coke, Vatel, and Samuel Adams.
Unwritten history
Locke's view in ... Civil Government 1690 was "..., that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty or posessions; ...". This philosophy was in keeping with the view that the Fundamental Laws predated the Magna Carta in both custom and natural law. Influenced by Locke, the 1776 United States Declaration of Independence stated: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
For those who believed that the Fundamental Laws of England predated the Magna Carta, there was debate about whether they arose from time immemorial, were somehow immanent to society, from post-Roman Saxon times, or from various combinations of these and other origins [13] (http://www.vanderbilt.edu/rpw_center/pdfs/PARKER.PDF).
20th century
In MacCormick v. Lord Advocate (1953), an action over the legitimacy of the title Queen Elizabeth II, Lord President Cooper posited that because the fundamental law of Scotland merged with that of England into the law of Great Britain at the time of the Treaty of Union in 1707, the supremacy of Parliament was extinguished. He also raised the question of whether the fundamental laws could be judged by an English or Scottish court in the same manner as other countries consider constitutional cases. [14] (http://www.lawscot.org.uk/whatis/case8.html)
The doctrine of parliamentary supremacy was upheld by Lord Reid [Madzimbamuto v. Lardner-Burke; 1 AC 645, 723] in 1969:
It is often said that it would be unconstitutional for the United Kingdom Parliament to do certain things, meaning that the moral, political and other reasons against doing them are so strong that most people would regard it as highly improper if Parliament did these things. But that does not mean that it is beyond the power of Parliament to do such things. If Parliament chose to do any of them the courts would not hold the Act of Parliament invalid.
Under this view, Parliament has the legal authority to do anything, even though its acts might contradict common-law principles of natural justice. The classic rebuttal is expressed by Albert Venn Dicey, whose 1885 text An Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution argues that the will of the electorate must ultimately prevail over any attempt at tyranny: it is "a political, not a legal fact" that fundamental principles of natural justice cannot be denied.
See also: Royal Prerogative