From: streater@unixhub.SLAC.Stanford.EDU (Tim Streater)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: English Bill of Rights
Date: 17 Apr 92 06:37:49 GMT


Once again we have the spectacle of people making statements
like "there is no British Bill of Rights", and others even
agreeing. Why is it that we go through this business with
such monotonous regularity? It seems to pop up about
about every three months. Ordinarily I wouldn't bother
but at this particular time, with people
discussing constutional matters it is quite relevant.

There is at least an English Bill of Rights. Let me quote
from the 1980 edition of Brittanica:

(Start of quote)

Bill of Rights, English, the name by which "An Act
declaring the Rights and Liberties of the Subject and
Settling the Succession of the Crown", 1689, is commonly
known. It incorporates the provisions of the Declaration
of Rights, acceptance of which had been the condition
upon which the throne, held to have been vacated by
James II, was offered to the Prince and Princess of Orange,
afterward Willian III and Mary II. With the Toleration Act
(1689) granting religious toleration to all Protestants,
the Triennial Act (1694), ordering general elections to be 
held every three years, and the Act of Settlement (1701),
providing for the Hanoverian succession, the Bill of Rights
provided the foundation on which the government rested 
after the Revolution of 1688. It purported to introduce
no new principles but merely to declare explicitly the
existing law. The revolution settlement, however, made
monarchy clearly conditional on the will of Parliament
and provided freedom from arbitrary government.

The main purpose of the act was unequivocally to declare
illegal various practices of James II. Among such
practices proscribed were the royal prerogative of
dispensing with the law in certain cases, the complete
suspension of laws without the consent of Parliament,
and the levying of taxes and the maintenance of a standing
army in peactime without specific parliamentary 
authorisation. A number of clauses sought to eliminate
royal interference in parliamentary matters, stressing that
elections must be free and that members must have complete
freedom of speech. Certain forms of interference in the
course of justice were also proscribed. The act also dealt
with the proximate succession to the throne, settling it on
Mary's heirs, then on those of her sister, afterwards
Queen Anne, and then on those of William, provided they
were Protestants.

(End of quote)

It is also worth quoting one or two clauses from the Act
itself:

(Begin quote)

[Parliament complains that:]

[And] excessive bail hath been required of persons committed
in criminal cases to elude the benefit of the laws made for
the liberty of the subjects;

And excessive fines have been imposed;

And illegal and cruel punishments imposed;

And several grants and promises made of fines and
forfeitures before any conviction or judgement against the
persons upon whom the same were to be levied;

All of which are utterly and directly contrary to the known
laws and statutes and freedom of this realm;

[Parliament declares:]

That the election of Members of Parliament ought to be free;

That the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in
Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any
court or place out of Parliament.

That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive
fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted;

(End of quote)


Americans may recognise that last phrase.

Tim.