BILLS OF RIGHTS,1689: A

COMPREHENSIVE STUDY

HIDAYATULLAH NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

SESSION 2019-2020

Submitted To: Submitted By:

Mr. Aashutosh Kumar Aahire Muskan Khatri

Faculty of Political Science Roll no.87, Semester-IV, section B

HNLU, Raipur Batch-XVII, B.A. LL.B.(Hons.)

 Declaration

I hereby declare that this research work titled “Bills of Rights, 1689: A comprehensive study”
is my own work and represents my own ideas, and where others’ ideas or words have been
included, I have adequately cited and referenced the original sources. I also declare that I have
adhered to all principles of academic honesty and integrity and have not misrepresented or
fabricated or falsified any idea, data, fact or source in my submission.

Muskan Khatri
 Acknowledgement

Every project big or small is successful largely due to the effort of a number of wonderful people
who have always given their valuable advice or lent a helping hand. I sincerely appreciate the
inspiration; support and guidance of all those people who have been instrumental in making this
project a success.

I, Muskan Khatri, a student of Hidayatullah National Law University, Raipur, am extremely

grateful to Mr. Aashutosh Kumar Aahire for the confidence bestowed in me and entrusting my
project titled “Bills of Rights, 1689: A comprehensive study”.

At this juncture I feel deeply honoured in expressing my sincere thanks to Mr. Aashutosh Kumar
Aahire for providing valuable insights leading to the successful completion of my project.

I would also like to thank all the faculty members of Hidayatullah National Law University,
Raipur, for their critical advice and guidance without which this project would not have been
possible.

Last but not the least I place a deep sense of gratitude to my family members and my friends who
have been constant source of inspiration during the preparation of this project work.

Thank You

Page| I
 Table Of Contents

Declaration............................................................................................I
Acknowledgement...............................................................................II
Introduction..........................................................................................1
Research Question................................................................................4
Objectives..............................................................................................4
Hypothesis.......................................................................................4
Method......................................................................................4
Scope And Limitation...................................................................
A Glorious Revolution
The provision of bill of rights,1689
Constitutional status of Bill of rights
Augmentation and Effect.....................................................................15
Conclusion...........................................................................................18
Bibliography.........................................................................................20
 INTRODUCTION
The 1689 Bill of Rights does not constitute what is generally understood as a modern “bill of
rights”, if by that term one means a document which defines and guarantees the basic human rights
of individual citizens. Nor is it, on its own, the equivalent of a written constitution, although it can
be viewed as a watershed in the development of the British constitution and especially with regard
to the role of parliament. It is one of the four great historic documents which regulate the relations
between the Crown and the people, the others being: the Magna Carta (as confirmed by Edward I,
1297), the Petition of Right (1627) and the Act of Settlement (1700). To this list of fundamental
constitutional documents should be added the recent Human Rights Act 1998.

The Bill of Rights was an historic statute that emerged from the “Glorious Revolution” of 1688-89,
which culminated in the exile of King James II and the accession to the throne of William of
Orange and Mary. Its intentions were: to depose James II for misgovernment; to determine the
succession to the Throne; to curb future arbitrary behaviour of the monarch; and to guarantee
parliament’s powers vis a vis the Crown, thereby establishing a constitutional monarchy.

The English Bill of Rights was an act signed into law on December 16, 1689 by William III and
Mary II, who became co-rulers in England after the overthrow of King James II. It was a
restatement in statutory form of the Declaration of Right presented by the Convention
Parliament to William and Mary in March 1689 (or 1688 by Old Style dating), inviting them to
become joint sovereigns of England. The bill outlined specific constitutional and civil rights and
ultimately gave Parliament power over the monarchy, The Bill creates separation of powers, limits
the powers of the king and queen, enhances the democratic election and bolsters freedom of speech
and the right to petition the monarch without fear of retribution. It reestablished the liberty
of Protestants to have arms for their defence within the rule of law, and condemned James II of
England for "causing several good subjects being Protestants to be disarmed at the same time
when papists were both armed and employed contrary to law".

These ideas about rights reflected those of the political thinker John Locke and they quickly

Page | 3
became popular in England. It also sets out—or, in the view of its drafters, restates—certain
constitutional requirements of the Crown to seek the consent of the people, as represented in
Parliament. Many experts regard the English Bill of Rights as the primary law that set the stage for
a constitutional monarchy in England. It’s also credited as being an inspiration for the U.S. Bill of
Rights.
In the United Kingdom, the Bill of Rights is further accompanied by the Magna Carta, thePetition
of Right, Habeas Corpus Act 1679 and Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949 as some of the basic
documents of the uncodified British constitution. A separate but similar document, theClaim of
Right Act, applies in Scotland. The Bill of Rights (1688 or 1689) was one of the inspirations for
the United States Bill of Rights.

Page | 4
 Research Question

1. Brief the Glorious revolution of England?

2. What are Provisions and Constitutional status of Bills of Rights, 1689?
3. What are effects of Bills of Rights,1689?

Objectives

Set in the above perspective or background, the broad objective of the study is to understand the
history, augmentation, effect and constitutionality status of Bill of Rights, 1689.

Hypothesis

The Bill of Rights 1689 is an iron gall ink manuscript on parchment. It is an original Act of the
English Parliament and has been in the custody of Parliament since its creation. The Bill firmly
established the principles of frequent parliaments, free elections and freedom of speech within
Parliament – known today as Parliamentary Privilege. It also includes no right of taxation without
Parliament’s agreement, freedom from government interference, the right of petition and just
treatment of people by courts. The main principles of the Bill of Rights are still in force today -
particularly being cited in legal cases – and was used as a model for the US Bill of Rights 1789. Its
influence can also be seen in other documents establishing the rights of humans, such as the United
Nations Declaration of Human Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights.

Page | 5
 Methodology

The following study is a descriptive in approach. It is largely based on secondary sources of data
due to its originality been already settled. Books & other references have been primarily helpful
for the completion of this project.

Scope of Study

Scope of study focuses on limitation of study. It mainly describes the selected area of the title and
its statistics. The comprehensive study of Bill of Rights, 1689 is limited to its nearby elements of
this constitutional act. The study limits itself to its background, present scenario and its effects.

Page | 6
 A GLORIOUS REVOLUTION

In 1685, following the death of Charles II, James II (of England, VII of Scotland) acceded to the
throne. James II was a Roman Catholic and during his short reign, in a period in which there was
widespread fear of Catholicism, he set about trying to repeal the penal laws against Catholics. This,
and his requests for more money for the maintenance of his standing army, brought him into
conflict with Parliament, culminating in James proroguing Parliament on 20 November 1685.

For the next two years James II pursued the appointment of Roman Catholics to various public
offices amid growing unease. He also attempted to secure a Roman Catholic House of Commons.
On 5 April 1687 he published a Declaration of Indulgence, which suspended all the religious penal
laws and included the sentiment - “We cannot but heartily wish, as it will easily be believed, that all
the people of our Dominions, were members of the Catholic Church …”. The heavy-handed use of
the Royal Prerogative without parliamentary approval fuelled the growing fear among the majority
of his subjects. This was brought to a head with the re-issue of the Declaration of Indulgence the
following year accompanied by an instruction to Anglican clergy that it be read out to their
congregations. This led to the petition from the “Seven Bishops” requesting that the order be
withdrawn on the grounds that the declaration was illegal. While the bishops awaited trial in the
Tower of London, a son was born to the Queen, thereby seemingly securing the Roman Catholic
succession. At this point, a group of noblemen wrote to Prince William of Orange, Protestant son-
in-law of James, inviting him to intervene. William landed in November 1688 and James, seeing
the effect on his own standing army, was allowed to escape to France.

After the flight of James II, all those who had been members of the Parliaments of Charles II,
together with the Court of Aldermen and members of the Common Council of the City of London,
assembled on 26 December 1688 in the presence of Prince William. The assembly requested of
William that he take charge of the administration of government and that he 2 summon a
Convention Parliament1 , which met on 21 January 1688 (or 1689 2 ), was therefore irregularly

1
Commons Journal 26 December 1688.
2
a note on dates following the change of calendar from the old style (Julian calendar) to the new style appears in
Halsbury’s Laws of England Vol 8(2) Constitutional law and human rights, 4th ed reissue, para 35, note 3.
convened. The Commons resolved –
"That King James II having endeavoured to subvert the constitution of the kingdom by breaking the
original contract between the King and people and by the advice of Jesuits and other wicked
persons having violated the fundamental laws; and having withdrawn himself out of this kingdom;
has abdicated the government; and that the throne is thereby vacant."3

On 12 February a declaration was drawn up affirming the rights and liberties of the people and
conferring the crown upon William and Mary, then Mary's children, and failing any heirs Princess
Anne and her heirs; and failing also that, William’s heirs. Once the declaration had been accepted
by William and Mary, it was published as a proclamation. The declaration was subsequently
enacted with some additions in the form of the Bill of Rights 1688, and the Acts of the Convention
Parliament were subsequently ratified and confirmed by the Crown and Parliament Recognition Act
1689 which also acknowledged the King and Queen. In this way the Bill of Rights was confirmed
by a Parliament summoned in a constitutional manner and thereby acquired the force of a legal
statute and appears as such on the statute book.

This note confines consideration to the position of the Bill of Rights in England and Wales. The
Bill was passed before the Act of Union with Scotland, and Scotland has its own corresponding
legislation – the Claim of Right Act 1689. As regards Northern Ireland, there are doubts on
whether, or to what extent, the Bill applies there. Geoffrey Lock, in an article on the significance
and application of the Bill of Rights, looks briefly at its relevance in Scotland and Northern
Ireland.4

3
Commons Journal 28 January 1688 (or 1689).
4
Geoffrey Lock, “The 1688 Bill of Rights”, Political Studies XXXVII (4), Dec 1989, p 541.
 THE PROVISIONS OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS

The Bill of Rights incorporated the Declaration of Rights and consisted of:
 A declaration by the Commons and the Lords commencing with a list of the misdeeds of
James II.
 13 “articles” defining the limitations of the Crown and confirming the rights of Parliament
and the individual.
 A lengthy passage confirming the accession of William and Mary to the Throne and
providing for the succession on their decease.
 A short section on non-obstante dispensations5.

There is some difference of opinion as to how revolutionary the events of 1688-89 actually were
and several commentators make the point that the provisions of the Bill of Rights did not represent
new laws, but rather stated existing rights. Thompson wrote that, apart from determining the
succession, the Bill of Rights did “little more than set forth certain points of existing laws and
simply secured to Englishmen the rights of which they were already posessed” 6 . Geoffrey Lock, in
an article on the significance of the Bill of Rights, states that the articles of the Bill of Rights were,
in effect, a programme for future legislation. “It was never intended that the Articles should stand
on their own as substantive law but rather that Parliament should return to these topics, elaborate on
the summary texts and work them up into full-scale statutes” 7 . This view is based on an entry in
the Commons Journal:

And towards the making a more firm and perfect Settlement of the said Religion, Laws and
Liberties; and for Remedy of several Defect and Inconveniences; it is proposed and advised by the
said Commons, that there be provision, by new Laws, made in such manner and with such
Limitations as, by the wisdom and Justice of Parliament, shall be considered and ordained in the
Particulars, and to the Purposes, following …8

5
“notwithstanding” – Crown licences to do something non obstante any law to the contrary. See Jowitt’s dictionary of
English Law, 2nd ed, 1977, vol 2, p 12446.
6
Mark Thompson Constitutional History of England 1938.
7
Geoffrey Lock, op cit, p 541.
8
Commons Journal 7 February 1688[1689].
Whatever the intention at the time, some of the main articles are still regarded as of considerable
relevance today, particularly those affecting parliament which required that:

 Parliament should be frequently summoned and that there should be free elections (articles
13 and 8);
 Members and Peers should be able to speak and act freely in Parliament (article 9);
 No armies should be raised in peacetime and no taxes levied, without the authority of
parliament (articles 4 and 6);
 Laws should not be dispensed with or suspended without the consent of parliament (articles
1 and 2). One further article is also considered as having modern significance:
 That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and
unusual punishments inflicted (article 10).
 THE CONSTITUTIONAL STATUS OF THE
BILL OF RIGHTS
Because there is no single document comprising the rules of constitutional practice in the United
Kingdom, it is sometimes said that the UK has an “unwritten” constitution. In fact, in the UK the
fundamental rules of constitutional practice are enshrined in many individual documents: in various
acts of parliament, in the common law, in judicial decisions, in parliamentary law and customs and
in constitutional conventions. It is therefore more correct to say that the constitution is
“uncodified”, rather than “unwritten”. One implication of the absence of a single codified
constitutional document is that there are no unambiguously constitutional “higher” laws. With a
written constitution it is generally easier to distinguish constitutional laws from the rest of the law,
while in the UK there is no strict distinction. However, there are certain laws which are generally
regarded as being “core” constitutional laws that deserve and receive particular respect and special
consideration, and the 1689 Bill of Rights falls into this category. For example, the courts would
generally be unwilling to accept that the provisions of such legislation have been overridden by
later statutes except in very clear language.

The Bill of Rights contains an interesting sentence apparently attempting to entrench its provisions
and make them immune from subsequent amendment or repeal:

“All which their Majestyes are contented and pleased shall be declared enacted and established by
authoritie of this present parliament and shall stand remaine and be the law of this realme forever”

Consequently it is sometimes mistakenly believed that the Bill of Rights cannot be amended. This
is not the case. It is a fundamental principle of British constitutional law that no parliament can
bind its successors and that any statute can be repealed; this doctrine was already established by the
late 17th century. The principle of parliamentary sovereignty means that the UK Parliament can
enact any law whatsoever on any subject whatsoever, (although there are now considerations of
compatibility with European Union law, and it is arguable that the European Communities Act of
1972 is “semi-entrenched”. For as long as the UK remains a member of European Union that Act
cannot be repealed.) Furthermore, changes in rules of UK constitutional law can be effected by
ordinary legislation, (unlike the situation, for example, in the United States of America, where
Page |
11
changes can only be made by a complicated process of constitutional amendment).
The statement in the Bill of Rights that it shall remain the law forever cannot, then, be taken at face
value. Lock expresses the view that the sentence was included “to add solemnity and weight”.9
Although the greater part of the historic Bill of Rights remains on the statute book unchanged, a
few sections have, in fact, been repealed or amended, as set out in Halsbury’s Laws10, example –

 the declaration against transubstantiation, by the Juries Act 1825

 the declaration on accession to the throne, by the Accession Declaration Act 1910

 various other sections by the Statute Law Revision Acts of 1888, 1948, 1950

It is also worth noting that the line of succession laid out in the Bill of Rights was, in fact, altered
just over a decade later by the Act of Settlement 1700.

The Bill of Rights is still in operation today, as recent debate on parliamentary privilege for
example, has demonstrated. Article 9 protects Members’ rights of free speech in Parliament. 11
However, many of the Bill’s original articles, while never formally repealed, are generally regarded
as having been superseded by subsequent legislation. Laws may be obsolete but still unrepealed.
For example, the article covering the right of protestant subjects to bear arms is generally
considered to fall into this category, although there have been attempts to challenge this from time
to time (most recently during the passage of the Firearms (Amendment) Bill of 1996-97. 12) The Bill
of Rights was essentially a political settlement concerned with resolving the particular political
issues of the day. The relevance of some of its provisions to the political life of today is
questionable. It is generally thought that, in relation to the provisions in the Bill of Rights on the
bearing of arms, for example, and to other unrepealed articles, the courts would have difficulty in
trying to apply some the provisions to modern conditions, particularly given the brief and often
imprecise wording used in the Bill.
The text of the Bill of Rights as it now stands, bearing in mind the points above, is set out in
Halsbury’s Statutes.13.
9
Geoffrey Lock, op cit, p 555.
10
Halsbury’s Laws of England, Vol 8(2): Constitutional Law and Human Rights, 4th ed reissue, para 1, footnote 13
11
See Library Standard Note Parliamentary Privilege and individual Members, and Report of the Joint Committee on
Parliamentary Privilege, HC 214 1998-99.
12
See Library Research Paper 96/102 Controls on Firearms: The Firearms (Amendment) Bill, 8.11.96.
13
Halsbury’s Statutes, 4th ed, 1995 reissue, Vol 10: Constitutional Law, pp 32-38.
Page |
12
 AUGMENTATION AND EFFECT

The Bill of Rights was later supplemented by the Act of Settlement in 1701 (while the Claim of
Right Act in Scotland was supplemented by the Act of Union, 1707). Both the Bill of Rights and
the Claim of Right contributed a great deal to the establishment of the concept of parliamentary
sovereignty and the curtailment of the powers of the monarch. Leading, ultimately, to the
establishment of constitutional monarchy, while also (along with the Penal Laws) settling the
political and religious turmoil that had convulsed Scotland, England and Ireland in the 17th
century.

It was a predecessor of the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, the United
States Bill of Rights, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the United Nations Universal
Declaration of Human Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights. For example, as
with the Bill of Rights, the US constitution prohibits excessive bail and "cruel and unusual
punishments."

Similarly, "cruel, inhuman or degrading punishments" are banned under Article 5 of the Universal

Declaration of Human Rights and Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The bill continues to constantly change and be cited in legal proceedings in the Commonwealth
realms. For instance, on 21 July 1995 a libel case brought by Neil Hamilton (then a member of
parliament) against The Guardian was stopped after Justice May ruled that the Bill of Rights'
prohibition on the courts' ability to question parliamentary proceedings would prevent The
Guardian from obtaining a fair hearing. Section 13 of the Defamation Act 1996, was subsequently
enacted to permit MPs to waive their parliamentary privilege and thus cite their own speeches if
relevant to litigation.
The Bill of Rights was also invoked in New Zealand in the 1976 case of Fitzgerald v. Muldoon and
Others, which centred on the purporting of newly appointed Prime Minister Robert Muldoon that
he would advise the Governor-General to abolish a superannuation 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 the Chief 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."

This Act was retained for the Republic of Ireland by section 2(2)(a) of, and Part 2 of Schedule 1 to,
the Statute Law Revision Act 2007. Section 2(3) of that Act repealed:

 all of the Preamble down to "Upon which Letters Elections haveing beene
accordingly made"

 the seventh paragraph after the words "for the Vindicating and Asserting their
auntient Rights and Liberties, Declare"

 all words from "And they doe Claime Demand and Insist" down to, but not including,
section 2.

Historical Recognition
Two special designs of the British commemorative two 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 the Royal Cypher of William and
Mary and the mace of the House of Commons, one also shows a representation of the St Edward's
Crown and another the Crown of Scotland.

In May 2011, the Bill of Rights was inscribed in UNESCO's UK Memory of the World
Register.
 Conclusion

To sum up, the bill of rights was employed as a frame for Great Britain. The bill of rights
permitted the Government and the people to gather under fair provisions, who were given rights
as freedom of speech, regulating the militia, privacy of their own home, right to a just trial. As
the Bill of Rights, the English people possess rights that other nations do not have.

To conclude, the English bill of rights were based on a considerable number of documents and
political thinkers doctrines 17 worth mentioning; Magna Carta 1215, the Petition of Rights 1628,
and the Habeas Corpus Act 1679,Further John Lock these documents and enlightenment thinkers
grasp much in the way of conviction on the makers in the drafting of the constitution that is to
say the government could be legitimate was for it to be based on the assent of the people
believing that the people consented to be governed by the government, in return the government
protected their rights. On one hand, the notion of the superiority of the law on the king and the
king could not take any action against the person or property of any of his subjects except by
process of law . Magna Carta would represent a major aspect of the constitution.

The notion that there are specific rights that cannot be taken away by any external force is an
underlying assumption behind the bill of rights. At the same time, the idea of the Petition of
Right announced a considerable number of important restraints on government by privileges as
exercised by the King in abuse of power on the individual liberties. After this came the so called
the great writ to defend the prisoner’s rights. Then moving to the enlightenment thinkers who
based on the notion of social contract. As regards Lock demonstrates that in a state of nature all
men are equal with the right to punish those who violate the human rights of life liberty and
property, those rights are granted to individuals by their god. What is mentioned before clarifies
that the English and the American societies were given reinforcement that when the new
government was created aimed at giving a new frame, this permitting them to control their
freedom, for instance the revolution versus England was to get the rights to the individuals
merited. Thus the bill of rights was made up so the government had a prerogative to give the
people what they wanted.
 Bibliography
 Horwitz, Henry (1977). Parliament, Policy and Politics in the Reign of William III.
Manchester University.
 Lock, Geoffrey (1989). "The 1689 Bill of Rights". Political Studies. 37 (4): 540–561. 
 Maier, Pauline (1997). American Scripture: Making the Declaration of Independence. New
York: Knopf. 
 Anon. (2010). "The Glorious Revolution". Factsheet General Series. G4. House of
Commons Information Office.
 Billias, George Athan (2011). American constitutionalism heard round the world, 1776-
1989: A global perspective. New York: New York University.

Websites

 Text of the Bill of Rights Yale Law School Law Library

 Text of the Bill of Rights 1689 as in force today (including any amendments) within the
United Kingdom, from legislation.gov.uk
 "The Parliamentary Archives". holds the original document.