Talk:Bill of Rights 1689

message: Wouldn't a better title be English Bill of Rights? --mav  — Preceding undated comment added 23:25, December 22, 2002
:I think so - I'll move it. Simple job to move it back for anybody who disagrees. --Camembert  — Preceding undated comment added 23:37, December 22, 2002
:Ah... except that English Bill of Rights already exists with history. Now Brion told me a while ago that you can delete a page called X, move page Y to where X was, then undelete X and the history will be dropped onto the end of the moved page's history. I know this works when all the deleted history predates the moved page (as would happen with a cut-and-paste page move), but I'm not sure if it works when the deleted history is in the midst of the moved page's history (as is the case here). Does that make sense? Anyway, I'm not quite confident enough to try and move the page. --Camembert  — Preceding undated comment added 23:42, December 22, 2002
It worked! Makes for a rather odd transiton inbetween the two histories though. --mav  — Preceding undated comment added 00:33, December 23, 2002
:Marvellous! Looks a bit odd, as you say, but it's really very clever, I think. --Camembert  — Preceding undated comment added 08:10, December 23, 2002
::The English Bill of Rights was also the Bill of Rights in the American Colonies in 1689. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.11.126.123 (talk • contribs) 07:59, June 27, 2006
  
The landowners in England didn't think the bill affected the Colonies. They left them outCorpus1 (talk) 01:02, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Early discussion

message: There are a series of articles here that begin with the so-called English Bill of Rights and continue through the Glorious Revolution and which end up with Henry Sydney, 1st Earl of Romney that are at present as clear as mud. There is one tell-tale line in the Glorious Revolution article on Wikipedia which explains that it was a "conspiracy" although that word is not linked nor defined. Unfortunately these articles are typical of twaddle that relate information that can only confuse the reader and leave that person scratching their head about what they have been reading. A clear cut understanding needs to be shown that the Bill of Rights is not a bill of rights and that the Glorious Revolution was indeed a conspiracy because the real power was held by the Privy Council (not Parliament) ever since the end of the Cromwellian republic. I am not suggesting that I wade in and begin a firestorm of rewriting which others might term a form of revisionist history, but someone needs to take up this challenge. These related articles are typical of history texts that bore readers to death because they fail to educate, only confuse. This is 2004 and a clear cut statement needs to be made about the subject material to show that it was conspiracy by the few for the benefit of the few who held real power while pretending to be the exact opposite. MPLX/MH 17:48, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clear as mud 

message: Since this section is empty, I'll try this here. I'd like to take issue with:
"Englishmen, as embodied by Parliament, possessed certain immutable civil and political rights. These included:"
The original text on wiki source makes no references to "English" and only 3 to "England", all of which are immediately followed by ", France and Ireland". Could I therefore suggest that the word Englishmen be replaced in the above sentence?
beano 00:12, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "English" bill of rights 

message: The Wikimedia Help Desk received the following feedback from a reader.
Hey, you guys are really great!  I'm a history professor and I really
have enjoyed your information about the most historic Bill of Rights,
from which many other great documents drew their inspiration.  One
question remains: where is the original document kept now?  The Tower of
London?  The British Museum?  The Houses of Parliament?  Any help you can
give me on this would be greatly appreciated!  
Well done to all of those involved in developing the article. I will also pass on the question on the Reference Desk. Capitalistroadster 00:19, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: (Copied from the reference desk:) Since the image shown on the page on the Bill of Rights 1689 comes from the UK National Archives, I would think that they have the original document, too. The BBC says it was held at the Parliamentary Archive, in the House of Lords Record Office in the Victoria Tower at Westminster. This is confirmed by searching A2A for "bill of rights", which yields it as the last search result with reference number HL/PO/JO/10/1/417/174, dated November 23, 1689. Lupo 08:09, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Which obviously raises the question where the December 16, 1689 date the article mentions comes from. The article could do with more precise sources! Lupo 08:15, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Congratulations and Question about location of document

message: "For example, like the Bill of Rights, the U.S. Constitution requires jury trials..."
That's not correct--not all trials in 18th-Century Britain were by jury. A great number, perhaps even a majority were not permitted to be (unless I suppose the judge willed it for some reason or another). See, for instance, the Libel Act of 1792, which indicates that libel trials must be performed by jury (an attempt by Fox to stem the ability of the Parliament, Crown and upper crust to restrict the presses). Fearwig 00:51, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The right to trial by jury applied to cases tried under criminal law, and not to civil law cases such as personal actions, libel, slander, etc.,  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.172.203 (talk) 09:57, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trial by jury? 

message: This clearly is a "bill or rights".  See how many provisions of the US version at least in part echo the English one:
*1st right of petition: it is the right of the subjects to petition the king, and all commitments and prosecutions for such petitioning are illegal
*2nd right to bear arms: the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law;
*3rd quartering soldiers in private homes: raising and keeping a standing army within this kingdom in time of peace without consent of Parliament, and quartering soldiers contrary to law;
*5th, 6th, 7th due process, rights of accused, juries: all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and void; the commission for erecting the late Court of Commissioners for Ecclesiastical Causes, and all other commissions and courts of like nature, are illegal and pernicious; jurors ought to be duly impanelled and returned, and jurors which pass upon men in trials for high treason ought to be freeholders;
*8th bail and punishments: excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted; 
So I have rewritten the second paragraph.--Henrygb 23:03, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Strictly a bill is simply a list.  It is also the word given to a proposed Act.  So it was a bill.  The article explains what happened: first the Declaration was presented to William and Mary in February 1689.  Then it was proposed in the Convention parliament and (with minor changes) passed into an Act in December 1689 with the short title of "Bill of Rights".  Then it was confirmed as valid by the Crown and Parliament Recognition Act 1689. --Henrygb 10:10, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "not a bill of rights"

message: {Agree} - Some parts relate to the bill of right 1688 or U.S. history. They belong in seperate acticles. 87.194.35.230 03:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split 

message: After being led to this article  from the Selected Anniversary page today, I am surprised that this article is not categorized under :Category:National human rights instruments. Why is this the case? What are the conditions which would have caused students of political science to view this as precursor to the category, and not member of the category? --Ancheta Wis 03:07, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess the article answers my question. Even though some rights are granted by the Bill, some exclusions are clearly stated, and some conditions on who can be monarch are imposed. Thus the rights are not treated as universals, and the Bill grants rights as bargaining chips, almost. So it was an important step, but the Bill was about a political situation in the 1600s, and not a statement of principle.  --Ancheta Wis 11:11, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Category 

message: It seems somewhat misleading to describe this document as "largely a statement of certain positive rights" and then to list a set of predominantly negative rights. For those who don't know the distinction, a negative right is a right not to be subjected to something -- such as the right not to be punished for one's speech, the right against cruel and unusual punishment, or the right not to be deprived of arms. A positive right is a right to receive some benefit from the social system, such as the right to vote or the right to an education at the public expense.
Of the "immutable civil and political rights" listed in the article, they break down as follows:
* freedom from royal interference with the law (the Sovereign was forbidden to establish his own courts or to act as a judge himself) -- negative; the subject has the right not to be tried by the King
* freedom from taxation by royal prerogative, without agreement by Parliament -- negative; the subject has the right not to pay such taxes
* freedom to petition the King -- positive; the King would have to listen
* freedom from a peace-time standing army, without agreement by Parliament -- negative; the subject has the right not to be drafted by the King
* freedom [for Protestants] to have arms for defence, as allowed by law -- negative; the subject has the right not have his guns grabbed (so to speak)
* freedom to elect members of Parliament without interference from the Sovereign -- mixed; positive right to vote + negative right to be free from interference 
* the freedom of speech in Parliament, in that proceedings in Parliament were not to be questioned in the courts or in any body outside Parliament itself (the basis of modern parliamentary privilege) -- negative; the MPs have the right not to be punished for their speech
* freedom from cruel and unusual punishments, and excessive bail -- negative; the subject has the right not to have such things inflicted
* freedom from fines and forfeitures without trial -- negative; likewise.
Any other thoughts on this? Even if some of what I've listed as negative might be considered mixed, enough of them are definitely negative that i don't think this should be all in all considered a list of positive rights. --FOo 17:54, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not obvious that such a distinction can be made in the UK.  Freedom of petition are and freedom of speech can be seen both ways: the positive right to make a public statement and the negative right not to be punsished for so doing. Similarly taxation by consent: the positive right for parliamentary consent to be given (which has since turned into Parliament in effect deciding who the executive is and being able to change that decision) or the negative right not to be taxed without consent.  In the British system, positive and negative rights are two sides of the same coin of parliamentary sovereignty. --Henrygb 17:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Positive rights? 

message: Hi.  Just thought you all might like to know that this act forms part of Australian law (and even though most of it is irrelevant) some sections have, what's termed, a "quasi-constitutional" effect.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.245.144.95 (talk) 12:30, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing we would like to comprehend about. Please note the top, for we would like to know how to improve our articles. Thank you. Cheers!-- Allied Rangoon‧talk   21:53, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Australia 

message: By the article doctrine of reception, the concept is applicable only to colonies and crown protectorates. Now, that definition may well be incomplete, and the concept does apply to the Bill of Rights in Australia, but, I'd just like to be sure that's the case; and then the article on the concept can be corrected accordingly. --G2bambino (talk) 14:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If you are not sure, then do not change the article. Australia was six colonies. This objection is absurd. --Lawe (talk) 12:02, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Was is not the same as is. I was quite polite in raising my concerns, you have not been in response. Now, support your claims or leave them out. --G2bambino (talk) 14:06, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: But you have been blocked twice this month. Obviously, somesome disagrees that you've been polite. Anyway, the above is clearly impolite. --Lawe (talk) 13:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So you have no support for your claims? --G2bambino (talk) 17:07, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: For the original wording of "willing deference" there is no evidence. For evidence read any textbook on Australian constitutional law, and the first chapter will be about the reception of English Law. --Lawe (talk) 12:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not a matter of my wanting the evidence for my own personal edification, it's a matter of you having to support your claim. I don't believe there's anything to dispute that most constitutional laws in Australia exist because of the doctorine of reception, but that is a matter of legal history in Australia (as it is in every other non-UK Commonwealth realm); it became impossible to apply the term "colony" to Australia in any way after 1986. As for "willing deference," it's a phrase used to describe something; Wikipedia is not a collection of verbatim quotes about narrow, specific topics. This point was already raised for you by User:PrinceOfCanada in the discussion at Talk:Commonwealth realm#Personal Union. --G2bambino (talk) 15:47, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This argument represents your own view. It is not shared in the legal literature. --Lawe (talk) 08:20, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So, you've finally answered the question first put to you: the article Doctrine of reception is wrong. Perhaps, then, you could bring forward some of the legal literature you mention so that we might make the appropriate corrections. --G2bambino (talk) 02:36, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Based on your edits, the 'doctrine of reception' is not in dispute. We are arguing over the rest of your edits eg "willing deference."  --Lawe (talk) 03:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

text: Do not add anything like this. This is part of Australian law as a result of reception. Nothing more has happened since. It is as simple as that. --Lawe (talk) 03:52, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing has happened since? Are you serious? Let me remind you: Balfour Declaration, Royal Titles and Styles Act, Statute of Westminster, Australia Act. Things most certainly have happened since. --G2bambino (talk) 03:54, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doctrine of reception 

message: The text in this section seems to have got corrupted, with an incomplete sentence and a repeated chunk of text. Looks like sloppy editing rather than vandalism, but it needs fixing --Pfold (talk) 15:46, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right; I believe that was my fault. I've fixed it. --G2bambino (talk) 16:02, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Augmentation and effect

message: British Bill of Rights has been suggested that this article or section be merged into Bill of Rights 1689. -- WonRyong (talk) 04:58, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  I suggest merge 

message: Should the text of the document be included in this article, as it is for the US Bill of Rights? I found an online copy at:
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/17th_century/england.asp  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbessey (talk • contribs) 21:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should this article include the text? 

message: Does the wording "The bill continues to constantly change" bother anyone else? It seems to me that the Bill cannot change. It is 300+ years old, and has not changed since being enacted. I think the aim of the phrase is that bill is continually changing case or common law. Perhaps someone else can come up with a better wording.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donmcc (talk • contribs) 14:42, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I don’t concur with you, you must have misunderstood; when it says "The bill continues to constantly change"; it means that there are minor changes too; it doesn’t have to be announced to the world. Unless there’s a major change that would be like, an additional amendment, or a removed amendment. Cheers!-- Allied Rangoon‧talk   22:49, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Odd wording 

message: The article makes reference to two dates 1689 and 1688, because of Old and New style dating. While I am not an expert on the Bill of Rights, I think the difference between Old and New Style dating is a matter of 13 days, while would not alter the year.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rupertjames (talk • contribs) 13:01, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date mix-up 

message: Just a small suggestion, to help French not to ignore, at least on "Wikipédia", the importance of the Bill of Rights, and of British culture as well, like they do whenever possible. And my suggestion is to lay stress on the key "protestant", especially in this article, for a better awareness of Britishness facing the history of Europe, over the past millenary, with continuity of her parliamentory system, whereas in France, this specificity is either set aside (e.g. "bicamerism") or ignored (e.g. "mixed government") or misappropriated (e.g. french article "Bill of Rights", refering to french history / "Déclaration des droits de l'homme", ever and ever, instead of that of British constitution, and of U.K. Crocy (talk) 06:08, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Protestant identity of British Constitution facing the ECHR

message: This needs to be explained in the article so people don't change the dates. "The full title of the Act is 'An Act Declaring the Rights and Liberties of the Subject and Sett- ling the Succession of the Crown'. The familiar title of the 'Bill of Right* 168? comes from the Short Titles Act 18%. The Act is also sometimes called the Bill of Rights 1688. Parliament proposed the Declaration of Rights and presented it to William III and Mary II as joint monarchs on 13 February 1689. However, at that time, years were held to begin at Easter under the Julian Calendar. From this derives the use of Bill of Rights 1688. In 1752, Britain adopted the New Style Gregorian calendar and the beginning of the year was set as 1 January." [1+is+an+Act+of+the+Parliament+1689|1688&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Xnp3UYunLMir0QWyy4GoAQ&ved=0CD8Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=Bill%20of%20Rights[1]%20is%20an%20Act%20of%20the%20Parliament%201689|1688&f=false]. Dougweller (talk) 08:34, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  1688/1689 

message: Improvements made to the article include content, referencing, and MOS. Although there is still some expansion needed eg relating to the background and provisions, this is available in WP:Summary style via the links to the Glorious Revolution article, especially the section on the The Bill of Rights. The article is approaching B-class, if other editors have suggestions please add them. Whizz40 (talk) 06:44, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improvements 

message: I have deleted the nonsensical statement that 16 December 1689 was "1688 by Old Style dating", which demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of Old Style and New Style dates. The difference in the year between the OS and NS calendars arises from the fact that the OS year began on 25 March (Lady Day), and the NS year on 1 January. It is therefore only dates between 1 January and 25 March that are affected: the year element of a date in December remains unchanged. (The day and the month may change, because of the switch from the Julian to the Gregorian calendar, but that's not an issue here.) The passage quoted above by Dougweller is also pretty garbled: Easter day was never the start of the year in England (though it was occasionally in medieval France). However, the principal reason that the Bill of Rights is sometimes dated to 1688 is because of the legal fiction (pre-1793) that an Act of Parliament came into force on the first day of the session in which it was passed. I have added a short paragraph explaining this. GrindtXX (talk) 12:05, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: This may be found at this link. DuncanHill (talk) 12:34, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added a sentence on the short title, and cited legislation.gov.uk. GrindtXX (talk) 14:03, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  1688/1689 revisited 

message: The section Provisions of the Act  gives a summery interpretation of Bill of rights, but not the actual text.  Without the actual text, there is no way to determine the accuracy and neutrality of the statements.  Can anyone add the actual text?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:644:302:9340:1AF:8B85:DEF0:9EC8 (talk) 04:11, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: See annotations to official "Revised" version of 1689 linked at infobox, and explanatory text in article section "Declaration of Right". Qexigator (talk) 06:08, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

text: Reworded this section more consistently with the Yale text. Whizz40 (talk) 21:59, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Actual text is missing 

message: I'm really not too sure about this sentence. It gives the impression that the Bill of Rights is fully in effect in all Commonwealth realms, which gives the further impression that it is fully in effect in the UK. But the question of whether it applies in Northern Ireland is very murky because Ireland never had an equivalent to the Scottish Claim of Right (I believe one was introduced to the Irish Parliament in the 1690s but never got anywhere). Ireland in 1689 was a separate realm rather than a colonial possession, so the reception doctrine (I would have thought) doesn't apply. Any thoughts on better wording?--Codenamecuckoo (talk) 19:04, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Along with the Act of Settlement 1701, the Bill of Rights is still in effect in all Commonwealth realms." 

message: "On 13 February the clerk of the House of Lords read the Declaration of Right and Halifax, in the name of all the estates of the realm..." What does Halifax have to do with anything? Googling "Declaration of Right and Halifax" just comes up with the Halifax Resolves of 1766. Richerman   (talk) 15:37, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Halifax? 

message: States BILL of RIGHTS ACT 1689 was passed by the kingdom of Scotlands parliament after the BILL OF RIGHTS ACT 1688 was enacted by the kingdom of England's parliament... Link: legislation.gov, 2 weeks prior to Scottish referendum. I can get documents from FISCAL OFFICE and CROWN OFFICE SCOTLAND! The country identified in ACT OF UNION 1707, after kingdoms union as GREAT BRITAIN. Art0hur0moh (talk) 16:20, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ratified documentation 

message: What’s that? Until 2007, only the rights of Protestants to bear arms were guaranteed in the Republic of Ireland? Some mistake here. 86.176.80.60 (talk) 01:03, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Ireland

message: Wondered if other editors see potential or have ideas to bring this to GA standard? Whizz40 (talk) 06:12, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Potential for Good Article 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:40, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: No more freedom of religion 
Because it discriminates. Refer to Constitutional... 70.125.228.59 (talk) 14:49, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  To further questions  

message: The discrimination clause needs to be addressed. 70.125.228.59 (talk) 14:54, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update to modern times