Edited by Sonya Jay Porter, extracted from a booklet by Albert Burgess


A Constitution is the property of a nation, and not those who exercise government.”     Thomas Paine.



As stated in Part 1, the Estates of England comprise the Commons, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and the Sovereign.   Individually none of these parts can make or repeal law.   Our forefathers foresaw that if any one part was able to claim supremacy in the system, we would suffer from oppressive government.

Parliament works by the Commons originating legislation, which is then passed to the Lords for scrutiny.   It is the function of the Lords to refuse the legislation if they believe it to be oppressive, or in any other way not good legislation.   If the Lords approve the legislation, it then goes before the Sovereign who may refuse the Royal Assent if he or she considers the legislation not to be in the best interest of their subjects.

Any attempt to subvert the make-up of Parliament is the major crime of sedition and at this level, sedition is High Treason.   Any attempt to damage the Sovereign’s powers or authority is High Treason.


Even the early English kings were not dictators; there was no actual parliament at that time but all used advisors.   For instance, King Alfred had the Witan (wise men) made up of the Ealdormen and Thanes and later the Norman French kings were advised by their Barons and Knights from the shires.   All our early kings and queens were in Parliament when it met and most (although not the Stuarts) were able to exert considerable influence on the actions of the Lords and Commons.   King William III and later, Queen Anne, attended Cabinet meetings and the House of Lords and as a result they both had a very clear idea of what was happening both with the government and in the country.

However, the ‘German Georges’ I and II spoke only German and consequently attended neither Cabinet meetings nor the House of Lords.   This allowed the politicians to govern in the king’s name, with the king having no say about what was being done in his name.  Thus began the slow erosion of the sovereign’s power.

At the beginning of the 20th century, the Asquith Government attempted to put through a Finance Bill.   The Lords rejected the Bill because it imposed too high a tax burden on the subjects.   Asquith then threatened the Lords with filling the House with 500 new peers who would vote for the closure of the House of Lords.   Under duress, the Lords then gave their consent to the Parliament Act of 1911.   The Bill was presented to King Edward VII who refused Royal Assent on the grounds that it removed a protection give to English subjects by the Constitution.   King Edward told Asquith he would have to ask the Country.

But shortly thereafter King Edward VII died and King George V came to the throne.   He was told by a Government minister that, as King, he retained all his prerogatives.   However, he could not use any of the Royal Prerogatives without the backing of a Government Minister.

Now, our Queen, Elizabeth II, must always do what her ministers say she must.

This ministerial advice had no basis in our Constitution and amounts to a clear act of Treason.   Furthermore, since it imagines the death of the King as a Sovereign King it is an act of High Treason under the terms of the Treason Act 1351.


With this ministerial advice to the king and the passing of the Parliament Act of 1911, Asquith had neutered the power of the Lords to protect the subject from bad law and removed the right of sovereigns to refuse the Royal Assent to parliamentary bills.

Subsequent Acts have continued to restrict the authority of the House of Lords and finally, the plan to remove all but 92 hereditary peers was passed by Parliament in 1998.

Currently, the Government plans to remove all hereditary Peers from the House of Lords.

But this is against the Constitution and constitutes an act of sedition amounting to High Treason.   A peer can only be removed by a bill after committing a serious crime and a separate bill is required for each peer before he can be removed.  Baroness Ashton said in the House of Lords that a General Bill cannot be used to remove the hereditary peers.

Why do we still need hereditary peers in our revising chamber?   On the whole, they were honest and honourable; they were wealthy and so, like well-paid judges, were less likely to accept a bribe; they also had lands to pass on to their families; they were very protective of their reputations.


With the withdrawal of powers from the Sovereign and from the hereditary Peers, Parliament –  the House of Commons –  is left supreme.

But it should not be.

It was the Declaration and Bill of Rights that left the authority of kings as it had always been under the law, contracted to us by the Coronation Oath.  However, politicians have opportunistically awarded themselves unlimited powers in its place to the extent that we are now governed by an elected dictatorship. Where in the past some kings felt they could rule by Divine Right, it now seems that the public are faced with a new doctrine of the ‘Divine Rights of Politicians’.  And they are not bound by the 1534 Act of Supremacy which, to reiterate what has been said above, contained the Oath, part of which states –

 “No Foreign Prince, Person, State or Potentate hath or ought to have any Power, Jurisdiction, Superiority, Supremacy or Authority Ecclesiastical or Spiritual in this Realm.”

Edward Heath set up a conspiracy to subvert our ancient Constitution and hand over this country to a foreign power, the European Economic Community (EEC), which has since become the European Union (EU).   This was the major crime of sedition, which at this level is High Treason.   Every succeeding government has signed treaties with the EU, surrendering our rights to govern ourselves under laws passed by the Queen in Parliament.

But it is a fundamental part of our Constitution that Parliament may not surrender any of their rights to govern to a foreign power, unless we have been defeated in war.

Therefore, in doing so, every government since that of Edward Heath has also committed the major crime of High Treason

However, The Treason Act of 1695 puts a three year time limit on bringing trials for treason, but we can clearly see that this time limit is nonsensical in allowing someone who has committed treason to get away with it just because they are able to avoid arrest for three years.

When we all suffer a loss, should treason succeed?


In Stockdale vs Hansard 1837, Stockdale a book publisher, was libelled in the House of Commons and that libel was published in Hansard.   Chief Justice Denman found in favour of Stockdale and awarded him £600 damages. Judge Patterson, giving the opinion of the other eight judges in the case, ruled that:

“…The House of Lords is where the law lords and the king sit, and it is the highest court in the land.   But the House of Commons is in no way a court of law, and the common man must be able to sue the House of Commons in any courts in the land for wrongs done to him by the actions of the House of Commons.”

Now that the Law Lords have been removed from the House of Lords, the House of Lords is no longer the highest court in the land; that role now falls to the Supreme Court.  But following the spirit of Judge Patterson’s ruling, it means, in my opinion, that the common man may now sue Parliament for wrongs done to him by the actions of Parliament as a whole.


In England we have a very good and ancient Constitution, built by the trials and tribulations of our forefathers, who experienced, on a number of occasions, despotic rule, which their desire to live as freemen gave them the strength to overcome.   On each occasion they set in place protections to prevent despotic rule.   Today we have despotic rule by Members of Parliament in the House of Commons, who claim authority even over Her Majesty the Queen.   They have withdrawn their homage to Her Majesty and under the Common Law of England, are no Parliament but base traitors.   We must like our forefathers, find the strength to overcome this evil and, make no mistake, it is evil.   They are destroying a legal system and Constitution built around the teachings of the Holy Bible.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email