| Act of Parliament | |
 | |
| Long title | An Act Declaring the Rights and Liberties of the Subject and Settling the Succession of the Crown. |
|---|---|
| Citation | 1 Will. & Mar. Sess. 2. c. 2 |
| Territorial extent | England and Wales |
| Dates | |
| Royal assent | 16 December 1689 |
| Commencement | 13 February 1689[nb 2] |
| Other legislation | |
| Amended by | |
| Relates to | Absence of King William Act 1689 |
Status: Amended | |
| Text of statute as originally enacted | |
| Revised text of statute as amended | |
| Text of the Bill of Rights as in force today (including any amendments) within the United Kingdom, fromlegislation.gov.uk. | |
| The Bill of Rights | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Created | 1689 |
| Location | Parliamentary Archives |
| Author | Parliament of England |
| Purpose | Assert the rights of Parliament and the individual, and ensure a Protestant political supremacy |
| Full text | |
 Bill of Rights 1689 atWikisource | |
TheBill of Rights 1689 (1 Will. & Mar. Sess. 2. c. 2) (sometimes known as theBill of Rights 1688)[1] is anact of theParliament of England that set out certain basiccivil rights and changed the succession to theEnglish Crown. It remains a crucialstatute inEnglish constitutional law.
Largely based on the ideas of political theoristJohn Locke,[3] the Bill sets out a constitutional requirement for the Crown to seek the consent of the people as represented inParliament.[4][5] As well as setting limits on the powers of themonarch, it established the rights of Parliament, including regular parliaments, free elections, andparliamentary privilege.[6] It also listed individual rights, including the prohibition ofcruel and unusual punishment and the right not to pay taxes levied without the approval of Parliament. Finally, it described and condemned several misdeeds ofJames II of England.[4] The Bill of Rights receivedroyal assent on 16 December 1689. It is a restatement in statutory form of theDeclaration of Right presented by theConvention Parliament toWilliam III andMary II in February 1689, inviting them to become joint sovereigns ofEngland, displacingJames II, who was stated to have abdicated and left the throne vacant.
In theUnited Kingdom, the Bill is considered a basic document of the uncodifiedBritish constitution, along withMagna Carta, thePetition of Right, theHabeas Corpus Act 1679 and theParliament Acts 1911 and 1949. A separate but similar document, theClaim of Right Act 1689, applies inScotland. The Bill was one of the models used to draft theUnited States Bill of Rights, theUnited Nations Declaration of Human Rights and theEuropean Convention on Human Rights.[6] Along with theAct of Settlement 1701, it remains in effect within allCommonwealth realms, as amended by thePerth Agreement.
During the 17th century, there wasrenewed interest in Magna Carta.[7][8] TheParliament of England passed thePetition of Right in 1628 which established certain liberties for subjects. TheEnglish Civil War (1642–1651) was fought between the King and an oligarchic but elected Parliament,[9][10] during which the notion of long-term political parties took form with theNew Model Army Grandees and humble,leveller-influenced figures debating a new constitution in thePutney Debates of 1647.[11] Parliament was largely cowed by the executive duringthe Protectorate (1653–1659) and most of the twenty-five years of Charles II'sEnglish Restoration from 1660. However, it, with the advantage of the growth in printed pamphlets and support of theCity of London, was able to temper some of the executive excess, intrigue and largesse of the government, especially theCabal ministry who signed aSecret Treaty of Dover that alliedEngland toFrance in a prospective war against oft-allies theDutch Republic.[12] It had already passed theHabeas Corpus Act 1679, which strengthened the convention that forbade detention lacking sufficient cause or evidence.
Objecting to the policies ofKingJames II of England (James VII ofScotland and James II of Ireland), a group of English Parliamentarians invited theDutchstadtholderWilliam III ofOrange-Nassau (William of Orange) to overthrow the King. William's successful invasion with a Dutch fleet and army led to James' fleeing to France. In December 1688, peers of the realm appointed William as provisional governor. It was widely acknowledged that such action was constitutional if the monarch were incapacitated. The peers summoned an assembly of many members of parliament. This assembly called for anEnglish Convention Parliament to be elected, which convened on 22 January 1689.[13][14]
.jpg)
The proposal to draw up a statement of rights and liberties and James's violation of them was first made on 29 January 1689 in theHouse of Commons, with members arguing that the House "cannot answer it to the nation or Prince of Orange till we declare what are the rights invaded" and that William "cannot take it ill if we make conditions to secure ourselves for the future" in order to "do justice to those who sent us hither". On 2 February a committee specially convened reported to the Commons 23 Heads of Grievances, which the Commons approved and added some of their own. However, on 4 February the Commons decided to instruct the committee to differentiate between "such of the general heads, as are introductory of new laws, from those that are declaratory of ancient rights". On 7 February the Commons approved this revised Declaration of Right, and on 8 February instructed the committee to put into a single text the Declaration (with the heads which were "introductory of new laws" removed), the resolution of 29 January and the Lords' proposal for a revised oath of allegiance. It passed the Commons without division.[15]
On 13 February the clerk of the House of Lords read the Declaration of Right, and theMarquess of Halifax, in the name of all the estates of the realm, asked William and Mary to accept the throne. William replied for his wife and himself: "We thankfully accept what you have offered us". They then went in procession to theGreat Gate at Whitehall. In a ceremony in theBanqueting House,Garter King of Arms proclaimed them King and Queen of England, France, and Ireland, whereupon they adjourned to theChapel Royal, with theBishop of London preaching the sermon.[16] They were crowned on 11 April, swearing an oath to uphold the laws made by Parliament. TheCoronation Oath Act 1688 had provided a new coronation oath, whereby the monarchs were to "solemnly promise and swear to govern the people of this kingdom of England, and the dominions thereunto belonging, according to the statutes in parliament agreed on, and the laws and customs of the same". They were also to maintain the laws of God, the true profession of the Gospel, and the Protestant Reformed faith established by law.[17] This replaced an oath which had deferred more to the monarch. The previous oath required the monarch to rule based on "the laws and customs ... granted by the Kings of England".[18]
The Declaration of Right was enacted in an Act of Parliament, the Bill of Rights 1689, which receivedroyal assent in December 1689.[19]
The Act asserted "certain ancient rights and liberties" by declaring that:[20]
The Act declared James's flight from England following theGlorious Revolution to be anabdication of the throne. It listed twelve of James's policies by which James designed to "endeavour to subvert and extirpate the protestant religion, and the laws and liberties of this kingdom".[21] These were:[22]
all of which were declared to be utterly and directly contrary to the known laws and statutes and freedom of the realm.
In a prelude to theAct of Settlement to come twelve years later, the Bill of Rights barredRoman Catholics from the throne of England as "it hath been found by experience that it is inconsistent with the safety and welfare of this Protestant kingdom to be governed by a papist prince"; thusWilliam III andMary II were named as the successors of James II and that the throne would pass from them first to Mary's heirs, then to her sister,Princess Anne of Denmark and her heirs (and, thereafter, to any heirs of William by a later marriage).
The Bill of Rights was later supplemented by theAct of Settlement 1701, which was agreed to by theParliament of Scotland as part of theTreaty of Union. The Act of Settlement altered the line of succession to the throne laid out in the Bill of Rights.[23] However, both the Bill of Rights and theClaim of Right contributed a great deal to the establishment of the concept ofparliamentary sovereignty and the curtailment of the powers of the monarch.[24][25][26] These have been held to have established theconstitutional monarchy,[27] and, along with thepenal laws, settled much of the political and religious turmoil that had convulsed Scotland, England and Ireland in the 17th century.
The Act reinforced thePetition of Right and theHabeas Corpus Act 1679 by codifying certain rights and liberties. Described byWilliam Blackstone asFundamental Laws of England, the rights expressed in these Acts became associated with the idea of therights of Englishmen.[28] The Bill of Rights directly influenced the 1776Virginia Declaration of Rights,[29][nb 3] which in turn influenced theDeclaration of Independence.[30]
Although not a comprehensive statement of civil and political liberties, the Bill of Rights stands as one of the landmark documents in the development ofcivil liberties in the United Kingdom and a model for later, more general, statements of rights;[31][18][26] these include theUnited States Bill of Rights, the FrenchDeclaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, theUnited Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and theEuropean Convention on Human Rights.[32][33] For example, as with the Bill of Rights 1689, theUS Constitution prohibits excessive bail and "cruel and unusual punishment"; in fact, theEighth Amendment to the United States Constitution which imposes this prohibition is a near-verbatim reproduction of the corresponding article in the Bill of Rights 1689. Similarly, "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment" is banned under Article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The Bill of Rights remains in statute and continues to be cited in legal proceedings in the United Kingdom and otherCommonwealth realms, particularly Article 9 onparliamentary freedom of speech.[34][35] Following thePerth Agreement in 2011, legislation amending the Bill of Rights and the Act of Settlement 1701 came into effect across the Commonwealth realms on 26 March 2015 which changed the laws of succession to the British throne.
The Bill of Rights 1689 remains a part of Australian law, however in some states the Bill has been re-enacted in local legislation.[36]
The ninth article, regarding parliamentary freedom of speech, was inherited byFederal Parliament in 1901 under section 49 of theAustralian Constitution. It was incorporated into theParliamentary Privileges Act 1987 which "preserves the application of the traditional expression of this privilege, but spells out in some detail just what may be covered by the term 'proceedings in Parliament'".[37]
In Canada, the Bill of Rights remains in statute,[38][39] although it has been largely superseded by domestic constitutional legislation. The ninth article on parliamentary freedom of speech remains in active use.[34]
The application of the Bill of Rights to theKingdom of Ireland was uncertain. While the English Parliament sometimes passed acts relating to Ireland, theIrish Patriot Party regarded this as illegitimate, and others felt that English acts only extended to Ireland when explicitly stated to do so, which was not the case for the Bill of Rights. TheCrown of Ireland Act 1542 meant the Bill's changes to the royal succession extended to Ireland.Bills modelled on the Bill of Rights were introduced in theParliament of Ireland in 1695 and 1697 but not enacted. After theActs of Union 1800, provisions relating to the rights of Parliament implicitly extended to Ireland, but provisions relating to the rights of the individual were a grey area. Some jurists regarded the bill not aspositive law but asdeclaratory of thecommon law, and as such applicable to Ireland.[40]
TheConstitution of the Irish Free State, and the subsequentConstitution of Ireland, carry over laws in force in the formerUnited Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland to the extent they were not repugnant to those constitutions. The Bill of Rights was not referred to in subsequent Irish legislation[41] until theStatute Law Revision Act 2007, which retained it,[42] changed its short title to "Bill of Rights 1688"[nb 1] and repealed most of section 1 (the preamble) as being religiously discriminatory, which included:[43][44] all words down to "Upon which Letters Elections having been accordingly made"; Article 7, which allowed Protestants to bear arms; and all words from "And they doe Claime Demand and Insist".
TheHouses of the Oireachtas (Inquiries, Privileges and Procedures) Act 2013 repealed Article 9 on "freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament" as part of a consolidation of the law onparliamentary privilege.[45]
The Bill of Rights is part of the laws of New Zealand.[46] The Act was invoked in the 1976 case ofFitzgerald v Muldoon and Others,[47] which centred on the purporting of newly appointed Prime MinisterRobert Muldoon that he would advise theGovernor-General to abolish asuperannuation scheme established by the New Zealand Superannuation Act 1974, without new legislation. Muldoon felt that the dissolution would be immediate and he would later introduce a bill in parliament to retroactively make the abolition legal. This claim was challenged in court and theChief Justice declared that Muldoon's actions were illegal as they had violated Article 1 of the Bill of Rights, which provides "that the pretended power of dispensing with laws or the execution of laws by regal authority ... is illegal."[48]
The Bill of Rights applies in England and Wales; it was enacted in theKingdom of England which at the time included Wales. Scotland has its own legislation, theClaim of Right Act 1689, passed before theActs of Union between England and Scotland. There are doubts as to whether, or to what extent, the Bill of Rights applies inNorthern Ireland, reflectingearlier doubts as regards Ireland.[34][nb 4]
The requirement that jurors be freeholders in cases of high treason was abolished in England and Wales by theJuries Act 1825, and in Northern Ireland (to the extent it applied) by theStatute Law Revision Act 1950.
Natural justice, the right to a fair trial, is in constitutional law held to temper unfair exploitation of parliamentary privilege. On 21 July 1995 alibel case,Neil Hamilton, MP vThe Guardian, collapsed as the High Court ruled that the Bill of Rights' total bar on bringing into question anything said or done in the House preventedThe Guardian from obtaining afair hearing. Hamilton could otherwise have carte blanche to allege any background or meaning to his words, and no contradicting direct evidence, inference, extra submission or cross-examination of his words could take place due to the tight strictures of the Bill of Rights. Equally, the House of Lords decided that, absent a 1996 statutory provision, the Bill of Rights' entrenched parliamentary privilege would have prevented a fair trial for Hamilton in the 2001 defamation action ofHamilton v Al-Fayed which went through the two tiers of appeal to like effect.[51] That provision was section 13 of theDefamation Act 1996, which permitsMPs to waive theirparliamentary privilege and thus cite and have examined their own speeches if relevant to litigation.[52]
Following theUnited Kingdom European Union membership referendum in 2016, the Bill of Rights was cited by the Supreme Court in theMiller case, in which the court ruled that triggering EU exit must first be authorised by an act of Parliament, because not doing so would abrogate rights secured by an Act of Parliament (namely, rights of EU citizens arising from the EU treaties given effect in UK law by theEuropean Communities Act 1972, as amended).[53][54] It was cited again by the Supreme Court in its2019 ruling that the prorogation of parliament was unlawful. The Court disagreed with the Government's assertion that prorogation could not be questioned under the Bill of Rights 1689 as a "proceeding of Parliament"; it ruled the opposite assertion, that prorogation "cannot sensibly be described as a 'proceeding in Parliament'", as it was imposed upon and not debatable by Parliament, and could bring "core or essential business of Parliament" to an end without debate.[55]
Two special designs of commemorativetwo pound coins were issued in the United Kingdom in 1989 to celebrate thetercentenary of the Glorious Revolution. One referred to the Bill of Rights and the other to the Claim of Right. Both depict theRoyal Cypher of William and Mary and themace of theHouse of Commons, one also shows a representation of theSt Edward's Crown and the other theCrown of Scotland.[56]
In May 2011, the Bill of Rights was inscribed inUNESCO'sUK Memory of the World Register recognising that:[57]
All the main principles of the Bill of Rights are still in force today, and the Bill of Rights continues to be cited in legal cases in the UK and in Commonwealth countries. It has a primary place in a wider national historical narrative of documents which established the rights of Parliament and set out universal civil liberties, starting with Magna Carta in 1215. It also has international significance, as it was a model for the US Bill of Rights 1789, and its influence can be seen in other documents which establish rights of human beings, such as the Declaration of the Rights of Man, the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights.[32]
As part of theParliament in the Making programme, the Bill of Rights was on display at theHouses of Parliament in February 2015 and at theBritish Library from March to September 2015.[58][59]
That all power of suspending laws, or the execution of laws, by any authority, without consent of the representatives of the people, is injurious to their rights and ought not to be exercised.
which strongly echoes the first two "ancient rights and liberties" asserted in the Bill of Rights 1689:
That the pretended power of suspending the laws or the execution of laws by regal authority without consent of Parliament is illegal;
That the pretended power of dispensing with laws or the execution of laws by regal authority, as it hath been assumed and exercised of late, is illegal;
And the Virginia Declaration's Section Nine,
That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
is borrowed word for word from the Bill of Rights 1689.
The Bill of Rights 1689 is an iron gall ink manuscript on parchment.
The key landmark is the Bill of Rights (1689), which established the supremacy of Parliament over the Crown. ... The Bill of Rights (1689) then settled the primacy of Parliament over the monarch's prerogatives, providing for the regular meeting of Parliament, free elections to the Commons, free speech in parliamentary debates, and some basic human rights, most famously freedom from 'cruel or unusual punishment'.
The Bill of Rights 1688 (1 Will and Mar Sess 2, c 2) continues to be part of the laws of New Zealand... The Act of Settlement 1700 (12 and 13 Will 3, c 2) continues to be part of the laws of New Zealand... On the changeover, the Royal Marriages Act 1772 ceases to be part of the laws of New Zealand.
This subordination of the Crown (i.e. the executive government) to law is the foundation of therule of law in the United Kingdom. It has its roots well before the war between the Crown and Parliament in the seventeenth century but was decisively confirmed in the settlement arrived at with the Glorious Revolution in 1688 and has been recognised ever since. Sir Edward Coke reports the considered view of himself and the senior judges of the time in TheCase of Proclamations (1610) 12 Co. Rep. 74, that:
the King by his proclamation or other ways cannot change any part of the common law, or statute law, or the customs of the realm
and that:
the King hath no prerogative, but that which the law of the land allows him.
The position was confirmed in the first two parts of Section 1 of the Bill of Rights 1688:
Suspending power – That the pretended power of suspending of laws or the execution of laws by regall authority without consent of Parlyament is illegall.
Late dispensing power – That the pretended power of dispensing with laws or the execution of laws by regall authoritie as it hath beene assumed and exercised of late is illegall.
It must therefore follow, as a concomitant of Parliamentary sovereignty, that the power to prorogue cannot be unlimited. Statutory requirements as to sittings of Parliament have indeed been enacted from time to time, for example by the Statute of 1362 (36 Edward III c 10), the Triennial Acts of 1640 and 1664, the Bill of Rights 1688, the Scottish Claim of Right 1689, the Meeting of Parliament Act 1694, and most recently the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act 2019, section 3. Their existence confirms the necessity of a legal limit on the power to prorogue, but they do not address the situation with which the present appeals are concerned. ... The prorogation itself takes place in the House of Lords and in the presence of Members of both Houses. But it cannot sensibly be described as a 'proceeding in Parliament'. It is not a decision of either House of Parliament. Quite the contrary: it is something which is imposed upon them from outside. It is not something upon which the Members of Parliament can speak or vote. The Commissioners [when performing the prorogation] are not acting in their capacity as members of the House of Lords but in their capacity as Royal Commissioners carrying out the Queen's bidding. They have no freedom of speech. This is not the core or essential business of Parliament. Quite the contrary: it brings that core or essential business of Parliament to an end.
Bill of Rights 1689 december 16.
| |||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||
.svg)
