Historic evolution of Government
To turn to the historic evolution of our system of
Government it is essential to remember that, save for the one revolutionary
period already referred to, [Part 1] there have never been a complete break in
its continuity. It is still in a sense
true, as Hearn states in his Government of England [Not so
today in 2005] that ours is ‘the very constitution under which the [Edward
the] Confessor ruled and which William [the Conqueror] swore to obey’.
It has, at any rate,
through all the changes in its working, retained certain main features and been
inspired by certain vital principles which have remained constant, and which
have continued to assert or reassert themselves according to circumstances. It is not so much flexible as elastic,
tending to revert to form as the material or ideological influences which have
deflected it in one direction or another have weakened or been superseded.
It is to these main and vital features that I wish to draw
attention, because they may not only help to explain some of the changes of
recent years, [pre-1952] but also afford some guidance as to the nature
of the even greater changes which may follow the political and economic
development of the years immediately ahead of us. [Again to remind you that this was written in
There are as Dicey points out in The Law of the
Constitution two main features from which all our constitutional
development has proceeded. The one is
‘the Rule or Supremacy of Law’
and the other ‘the omnipotence or undisputed
supremacy throughout the whole country of the central government’. The former feature was one deep-seated not
only in Saxon, but in all medieval thinking, until superseded elsewhere by the
influence of Roman Law.
The latter owes everything to the insight and masterful
personality of William the Conqueror.
With a clean slate to write upon he took care so as to distribute the
spoils of the conquest among his followers as to prevent the building up of
large territorial fiefs, which might in course of time dispute the royal
supremacy. In this way he laid the
foundation of a strong centralised government, which had no parallel in
In the long run, indeed, the clear gap thus created
between the King and his subjects, great and small, tended to draw the
latter together in resistance to arbitrary royal power and in defence of the
recognized law and custom of the land.
The barons and citizens who met together at Runnymede
represent the obverse of William’s policy when the royal power he created fell
into tyrannous but weaker hands. At the
same time William utilised the existing Saxon shire as the means of by-passing
feudal authority through his sheriff, who, sitting in its court of freeholders
as the King’s representative and at the same time bringing the King’s
government in touch with local needs, foreshadowed the centralized parley
between the Crown and the Commons or ‘communities’ of later days.
From William’s day onwards the key to our constitutional
evolution is to be found in the interaction between the Crown i.e. the central
governing, directing, and initiating element in the national life, and the
nation in its various ‘estates’, i.e. classes and communities, as the guardian
of its written and unwritten laws and customs.
The ambitions or needs of the Crown continually demanded
changes in the law, which the nation was only prepared to accept after
discussion or parley with its representatives and on terms. Out of that parley, progressively more
continuous and more intimate as needs increased, and out of those terms grew
our system, as we know it, of Government in and with Parliament, subject to the
ever-increasing influence of public opinion and to periodic review by the
nation as a whole.
The story of that evolution is so familiar that I need
only touch on a few of its salient features.
The financial needs of the Crown long furnished the main lever by which
Parliament increased its power. At the
same time, the provision of actual money freed the Crown from dependence on
feudal services and reinforced its effectively centralized authority.
The same process of discussion and bargaining led to other
changes or reinstatements of the law - at first suggested to the Crown by the
way of petitions, but from the fifteenth century onwards embodied in detailed
Bills. These, whether initiated by or
on behalf of the Crown or by Parliament itself, were then in their final form
submitted to the King for his personal approval.
No less important was the development by which the occasional
parliamentary disapproval of the executive action of individual servants of the
Crown, expressed in impeachment or attainder, grew into that milder but
constant day-by-day questioning and criticism of Ministers with which we are
familiar. [Written in 1952- Today in 2005 we have a Prime Minister who has
in general ignored the House by reducing his appearances in the Commons to the
absolute minimum permitted by the now subordinate Representatives of the
Nation. The Executive rules Supreme in a subservient Legislature - a gross
insult to the People of this once Free Country.]
-Out of that development, helped by the doctrine that the King can do no wrong,
sprang that division between the personal and the official powers of the Crown
which is one of the most characteristic features of our Constitution. Of this I
shall have something to say presently.
But to continue the main thread of my story. The Restoration of 1660 was, as I have
already said, a true restoration of our national approach to the problem of
government. It accepted both the
Monarchy as the indispensable directing and initiating element in the national
life, and Parliament as representing the no less indispensable element of
national assent. It also unhesitatingly
dropped into limbo, for good and all, those ideas of a formal written
constitution, which had figured so prominently. And proved so ineffective, in
the troubled years over which we were resolved to wipe the slate.
At the same time, it was much more than a mere restoration. Taken together with the Bill of Rights of
1689 and the Act of Settlement of 1700 it set the course of the development of
our constitutional system for the future.
The theory of Divine Right and Prerogative was superseded
by that of Constitutional Monarchy and the Prerogative as a defined branch of
the Common law, which was now definitely accepted as governing the whole
constitution and not merely the mutual rights of subjects.
The control of Parliament over the granting of revenue
became complete. Meanwhile other
elements of the future system of government began to emerge. Departmental
ministers were found more useful to the Crown than a large and amorphous Privy
Council, no longer itself a rival to Parliament as a partner in the sphere of
government, and the happy repeal of a clause in the Act of Settlement which
forbad their seating in the House of commons paved the way to the eventual
interlocking of Government and Parliament.
For most of the eighteenth century the fluctuating balance
between the Crown and parliament was maintained by personal management, first
by the great Whig lords through their hold over the grossly over-represented
boroughs and with non-conformist support, later by George III’s placemen. This was the system glorified by
Montesquieu, followed by Blackstone:
“Herein consists the true
excellence of the English government that all parts of it form a natural check
on each other.”
[Unfortunately this is not the case in Blairdom in 2005
and unless the People shift themselves soon it will surely be the end of our
To Continue. - As based on the clear separation and equipoise of the different
powers in the State. Contrasting the
English give and take between equal political forces and the independence of
our judges [Now
under threat because they comply with the Human Rights Act which the Government
itself foolishly introduced and now find a hindrance in stopping the flood of
immigration into our already crowded Island]
To Continue. - The natural and logical consequences
of the reign of law- with the rigid centralization of all powers in the French
monarchy, Montesquieu rightly emphasized the true secret of English
freedom. But in doing so he
tended to ignore the extent to which the separate powers were increasingly
interlocking in Parliament itself.
Where he went more seriously astray was in treating the
division as one between the executive and legislative functions, abstractions
bearing no relation to the reality of our political life. Parliament is not, and never has been, a
legislature, in the sense of a body specially and primarily empowered to make
laws. The factions of the legislature,
while shared between’ kings, lords and Commons in Parliament assembled’, has
always been predominately exercised by Government which indeed, has never
allowed Parliament, as such, to take any initiative in one of its most
important fields, that of finance.
The main task of Parliament is still what it was when
first summoned, not to legislate or govern, but to secure full discussion and
ventilation of all matters, legislative or administrative, as the condition of giving assent to Bills,
whether introduced by the Government or by private Members, or its support in the
executive action of Ministers.
But Montesquieu error was destined to exercise no small
influence on the shaping of the American Constitution, and even to affect our
own thinking about the function of Parliament, and still more that of other
nations which have followed the outward forms of the British parliamentary
It was not, however, until discontent with royal
corruption and resentment at the loss of the American colonies stirred men’s
minds to the need for constitutional improvement, that the informal business of
the individual management of members of Parliament finally gave way to the
conception of a government with some basis of political principle to support
[Edmund] Burke’s definition of Party as ‘a
body of men united for promoting by their joint endeavours the national interest
upon some particular principle upon which they all agreed’, expressed a
felt want. The existing Whig and
Tory factions with their established clientele in the country furnished the
natural working nucleus, and their old traditions, brought up to date by such
critical issues as India and the French Revolution, provided a no less natural
division of principle.
The younger Pitt’s ministry of 1784 is generally regarded
as marking the definite inauguration of our government by a Party Ministry able
to guarantee a parliamentary majority for the business of the Crown, without
recourse to the old methods of personal influence or corruption.
The cabinet system itself had meanwhile been steadily
developing. I need not go into detail into the well-known story, whether
correct or apocryphal, of the origins of the Cabinet as the outcome, in part,
of Harley’s informal Saturday dinners, and, in part, of George I’s reluctance
to attend ministerial councils at which, as he knew no English and his
Ministers no German, discussion had to be confined to such Latin as they could
muster between them.
essential is that the growth of the system of collective responsibility, based
on previous private discussion, strengthened the hands of the Ministry, not
only as against the monarch, but also as against Parliament.
To single an individual for dismissal or denunciation is
far easier than to denounce or urge the dismissal of A TEAM, especially if the
only alternative is another even less welcome team. All this naturally became more effective after 1784.
[We experience the same
problem with Blair and his cronies and the majority of Labour members in the
House in 2005].
What is essential to keep in mind is that the new system
of Responsible Parliamentary Government, while in one sense subordinating the
policy of the Crown to Party exigencies, yet is another, meant an accession of
the actual power of Government, as such, in exercising control over Parliament.
It meant converting the majority in Parliament into
placemen, within at least the penumbra of office and influence, while at the
same time under constant threat of losing their places (and nowadays 
their member’s salaries) if their lack of support to the Government should
cause the later to dissolve Parliament
[Has this not been so for many years now?]
At the same time neither Ministers nor their supporters
have, in their individual capacity, ceased to remain representatives of the
nation or of their individual constituencies.
Nor have they entirely abandoned to the Opposition the original critical
and debating function of Parliament.
Subject to the varying strength of party discipline, government
supporters can still criticize this or that feature of the Government’s legislation
or administration in public- and even more freely behind the scenes to the
Whips or at Party meetings in committee rooms.
So, too, Ministers feel a kinship with other members, with
whom they share the responsibilities and problems with which they have to deal
in their constituencies. What is more,
they hope, even though they lose office, to remain in Parliament and so
continue to exercise their influence over affairs pending their return to
They are parliamentarians first and for the greater part
of their public life; Ministers of the Crown at intervals. It is as parliamentarians they are first
tested and judged, both for ability and for character, by their seniors and
their fellows; that they win and then keep or lose their right to office.
Above all, whether Ministers or backbenchers, in office or
in opposition, they are all subject to the firm and impartial control of Mr
Speaker, as the embodiment of the traditions of Parliament and the rights of
its humblest Member.
All these factors have combined to keep Parliament as the
centre and focus of the nation’s affairs, the conspicuous stage on which the
great drama is acted, the great game of politics played.
[Though Today in 2005 the game is looking decidedly
unpleasant and devious when we see how politicians over the last 32 years have
used it in order to deceive the British people - while they destroy all ‘checks
and balances ‘built up over hundreds of years - in order to have allowed Tony
Blair to sign away the Inherited Constitution of our Land. And what is the Leader of Her Majesty’s
Opposition doing about this -NOTHING-_NOTHING- NOTHING. Yes! Michael Howard is
the man who was so grateful in being given the opportunity in our once Free
Country. And what does he do he sells out his adopted Country knowing that the
very Country which gave him sanctuary and opportunity has been and is still
being forcible changed into a mirror image of the Continental model alien to
the majority of the People of this Island.
Lot- Mr Howard -I Don’t Think So- and the People need to tell him so at the
To Continue. -
It is this interlocking and interchangeability, which have maintained
the unity and harmony of our political life, and it is in that sense that we
rightly boast of our system as one of parliamentary government. (?) [Written
All the same, throughout the evolution of that system, the
two main elements of our political life have remained distinct, though
progressively harmonised and integrated.
Our constitution is still, at bottom, based on a continuous parley or
Conference in Parliament between Crown, i.e. the Government, as the directing
and energising element, and the representatives of the nation whose assent and acquiescence are
essential, and only to be secured by full discussion.
[Of course there are limits to what any citizen
considers open to assent -one issue certainly is not i.e.
to retain one’s citizenship of one’s Country and its inherited Constitution.
A citizen of New England-USA would have no fears on
this issue-having a written Constitution and a Supreme Court to protect that
Unfortunately with Prime Ministers with more power than a President
of the USA we are not so lucky-that is why it has been so easy for so many
traitorous politicians over the last 32 years to betray their Country.]
Click for Part 3
THE PEOPLE HAVE
SPOKEN-IS THE EU COMMISSION LISTENING?
Ditch the EU TREATY after IRISH REJECTION
[Daily Mail-Wednesday, June 18,2008]
MORE THAN HALF of voters believe Britain should drop the
controversial European Treaty in the wake of its rejection in last
The poll comes as the Tories launch a last-ditch bid in
HOUSE of LORDS
today to delay the
RATIFICATION OF THE
have signed a
DOWNING STREET- WEBSITE
within the past few days
, calling on the
NOT TO RATIFY THE BILL
[WHY DON'T YOU?]
Downing Street website is
The abolition of Britain
by The Reform Treaty
- Second Reading-Passed by majority of 138
21st January, 2008
So You Want Out Of The EU
THEN WHY NOT SIGN THE
RENUNCIATION of EU CITIZENSHIP
WHY WE ASK YOUR SUPPORT
When we first saw the petition we reasoned that it had no
chance of success from No 10 but we supported it in order to
gauge the number of Britons who would publicly put their
name to a list which stated that they wished to
RENUNCIATE EU CITIZENSHIP and retain only
BRITISH.-THAT IS WHAT THIS IS ABOUT. Some might say that
to hide behind a negative premise is both cowardly and
playing into the hands of the EU FEDERALISTS. DON'T LET
THEM GET AWAY WITH IT- Place your vote so ALL can see that
YOU CARE. about YOUR COUNTRY and YOUR FREEDOM.
Details from petition creator
With the signing of the Maastricht Treaty the
people of Britain were given
EUROPEAN and BRITISH
The extra tier of citizenship was thrust upon
the people without their consent -and in many cases knowledge.
The PEOPLE of GREAT BRITAIN should be allowed
the option of opting out of the EUROPEAN CITIZENSHIP if they so wish. The
GOVERNMENT will then be able to provide those who have opted out with
-only such as British (not EU) passports,
driving licences and other national documents.
EU laws will also NOT APPLY to those who
HAVE OPTED OUT OF EUROPEAN CITIZENSHIP
A BLUNT REPLY TO THE
QUEEN'S SPEECH ON CHRISTMAS DAY-25th
LEGACY-AUSTRALIA-CANADA-NEW ZEALAND-WHY THEY
The Act of
Settlement of 1701-WHY IT SHOULD CONCERN
The Common Law of
ENGLAND is the LAW of
Commonwealth Realms V The Constitution for
AUSTRALIA-SUPPORT THE CROWN
YOU CAN'T HAVE BOTH.
WILL THIS CHRISTMAS QUEEN'S SPEECH
LAST IN A
FREE INDEPENDENT ENGLAND -SCOTLAND AND WALES?
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN ASSURE YOU THAT YOU
HAVE NOTHING TO FEAR FROM BECOMING A
PROVINCE OF EUROPE.
THE QUEEN MAKE IT PLAIN THAT OUR FREE
INDEPENDENT NATION STATE IS SACROSANCT BUT
THAT IF THE PEOPLE WISH TO BECOME SLAVES
-THEN A REFERENDUM THERE MUST BE.
THAT NO ENGLISHMAN SHOULD BE ASKED WHETHER
HE WISHES TO BE A SLAVE OR FREE!
CHRISTMAS WE WILL FIND OUT IF OUR PROTECTOR
'Rights and Liberties'
by HER SACRED OATH
MONARCHY be nothing more than a
PARK in the future
THE TIME FOR BLUNT SPEAKING AS THE VERY
EXISTENCE OF OUR UNIQUE NATION STATE IS IN
We are told on the BBC (Brussels
Broadcasting Service) at 11.30 pm on
Saturday the 23rd December, 2007, that the
QUEEN now has a website which has footage of
the Royal Family in the past and that the
QUEEN is NOT
'Stuck in the past'
far as many patriotic subjects are concerned
we need to remain in the PAST when it
concerns the protection of our
have had and will continue to have but it
must not threaten our very WAY-OF-LIFE our
Common Law of England and all which makes
our country the most unique parliamentary
democracy in the world.
BE NO SURRENDER!
Should the Monarch fail to protect our
inherited RIGHTS and Liberties then we shall
have to fight for a REPUBLIC as
happened in the 17th century because the
Monarch of the day ignored those very
'Rights and Liberties of Englishmen' which
will still survive in the English Speaking
World today in December 2007. How can the
MOTHER of PARLIAMENTS give away what is
already our and our children's
INHERITANCE which cannot be taken away by
PARLIAMENT or the QUEEN.
If the above publicity
exercise is to be used to soften the impact to
the population of the BETRAYAL of their
CONSTITUTION and COUNTRY then it would be
the greatest TREASON by a Monarch since
James II who sold our COUNTRY to the FRENCH
for MONEY and RELIGION.
WE ASK WHAT PRICE ARE OUR RIGHTS AND
THEY ARE PRICELESS!
Choice is Yours!-but time is running out
6 months to be EXACT!
WE are to
THEY are not
WE have more to LOSE
more to GAIN
WE have been clear of dictators from EUROPE
for most of our HISTORY
been cursed with that abomination for most
of their HISTORY and NOW!
Our Queen and the EU Constitution
The Spirit of England
THE ENEMY IS EVERYWHERE
HER MAJESTY QUEEN ELIZABETH THE II
We now learn
from the Daily Mail COMMENT on Christmas Eve
that the Queen's Speech will cover the
catastrophic fall in Values and Moral
behaviour since the beginning of her 56
-year reign. This has been brought about by
the actions of HER MINISTERS and the greater
number of those in HER PARLIAMENT who have
placed THEIR CONCERNS before the INTERESTS
of THE PEOPLE and NATION STATE.
the fact that HER PEOPLE feel LOST that has
been the direct result of the actions of HER
SUCCESSIVE GOVERNMENTS and the TRAITOROUS
POLITICIANS including PRIME MINISTERS who
have stealthily over the 56 years of HER
MAJESTY'S REIGN have almost achieved their
aim of ENSLAVING the PEOPLE to a FOREIGN
for the marked drop in the number viewing
THE QUEEN'S SPEECH is no doubt because the
mass of people have realised years ago that
the MONARCH is powerless to PROTECT their
WAY-OF-LIFE and events up to now have PROVED
There is a well know saying
'Nero fiddled while Rome burned'
Is it the case on
Christmas Day 2007 while the Monarch
talks our Rights and Liberties are
being taken from us under our very
Of course the QUEEN
under HER CONSTITUTIONAL ROLE can only
'Advise and Warn' HER MINISTERS but when
the matter concerns the very LIFE of an
INDEPENDENT STATE we expect that HER MAJESTY
consider the arrangement to be AT AN END as
it would make a MOCKERY of the PRIME
IMPORTANCE of the MONARCH to protect our
inherited Rights and Liberties which HER
MINISTERS are endeavouring TO GIVE
We as loyal
subjects of the MONARCH who is the living
embodiment of OUR RIGHTS and LIBERTIES
ask at this late stage with only months to
the eradication of a FREE NATION STATE some
veiled comments that HER MAJESTY will
PROTECT our RIGHTS and LIBERTIES.
As for the
MORAL tone of the NATION STATE at this most
crucial time in ENGLISH CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY this matter
should be left to CHURCH LEADERS who's
responsibility it is to CARE for their
FLOCKS particularly at this FESTIVAL of
MAJESTY'S SPEECH has not been pre-recorded
we ask HER MAJESTY to give those MILLIONS of
HER subjects some hope that their PROTECTOR
has NOT FORGOTTEN THEM.
APPEAL not be answered we can at last
confirm that the MONARCHY is after all
nothing more than a talking shop suitable
for YouTube and therefore nothing more than
Benn's comments about the despotic and
need for a
politician with INTEGRITY and love of
country who has for decades witnessed the
growth of the monstrous creature soon to be
STATES OF EUROPE.
Liberties of Parliament-
Birthright of Subjects of England.
[All words/word underlined have a
WE WISH YOU ALL A
Xmas message to you all last year we find
that our sentiments remain the same with the
added emphasise on the coming danger to YOUR
COUNTRY from those many traitors in YOUR
HOUSE of COMMONS who intend to sell YOUR
COUNTRY to a FOREIGN POWER]
We Remember The
Spirit of England-Winston Churchill-1953
were warned in 1953 to beware of wreckers of
our Constitution and Way-of- Life but it had
taken Tony Blair just 10 years to do just
THAT while everyone had their minds they
thought on more important matters. Well! in
2007 his predessessor Gordon Brown is
leading you to SLAVERY and only awaits the
final signature of the present holder of the House of Wessex the over 1000 year
PROTECTOR of our inherited
RIGHTS and LIBERTIES of ENGLISHMEN
Of the House
of Wessex since King Alfred 'the Shepherd
and Darling of England' in the annals of 893
leave it to the work of
Alfred the Great
England was saved to become the first
individual nation -state which over 1100
years later a member of that same House of
Wessex has already signed away much of those
ancient Rights and Liberties and
fundamentals of justice and Rule of Law and
only awaits a final signature to enslave her
people into a despotic undemocratic godless
police state to call itself a
within the power of Her Majesty the Queen to
refuse to ratify the New EU TREATY because
whatever lies her ministers have given her
over her long reign the TRUTH is now clear
for ALL TO SEE.
Netherlands a number of years ago their
MONARCH resigned for a day rather than sign
the Bill put before him. The New EU TREATY
is the death of a NATION STATE of over 1200
years in the making. It is the treasonable
actions of HER MINISTERS which has placed
THE QUEEN in the forefront in the protection
of the Rights and Liberties of HER SUBJECTS
as on no one else can HER PEOPLE DEPEND.
WILL THIS CHRISTMAS QUEEN'S SPEECH
BE THE LAST IN A
FREE INDEPENDENT ENGLAND -SCOTLAND AND WALES?
WARNING MESSAGE TO THE FREEDOM LOVING PEOPLE OF ENGLAND
[Author of Germany's Four Reich's]
'There'll always Be an ENGLAND'
-NOT any MORE