ABSOLUTISM AND PARLIAMENTARY SOVEREIGNTY The struggle

for supremacy between various kings and the Parliament continued for a
long time and finally settled by the Bill of Rights and the Act of
Settlement where the then King accepted some limitations on his powers
and this situation is valid till today i. The Bill of Rights (1689) After the
death of Charles II in 1685, his brother, the Duke of York, became King
and he undertook to bring Catholicism back to the country. He
suspended the anti-Catholic laws, and nominated Catholics in the
universities, the courts, and the army; and he enacted “a declaration of
indulgence”—all these measures were strongly opposed by a large
majority of the people. There were some political crises and a chain of
events which lead to abolishing Parliament, few parliamentarian coming
together and declaring themselves as a Parliament and accepting new
King and Queen and finally this new King and Queen signed a document
accepting some limitations on the powers of Crown and the document
was declared as a Bill of Rights. The exact title of the Bill of Rights is ‘‘An
Act for declaring the rights and liberties of the subjects and settling the
succession of the Crown.’’ Through this document Crown accepted that
----- “any exercise of powers without consent of the Parliament will be
illegal”. Many rights of the Parliament and public were recognised by this
document and in England, this Bill of Rights, along with the Magna Carta
(1215) is treated as the Constitution. The Magna Carta is a declaration
of the King which in summary says that ‘‘No free man shall be seized or
imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or
exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed
with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful
judgment of his equals or by law of the land.’’

ii. The Act of Settlement (1700) In 1700 the Parliament resolved that
the Crown and the government shall be enjoyed by such person or
persons who are Protestant. It was to prohibit possibility of inheritance of
Crown by a Catholic person. The Act also established the independence
of Judiciary saying that the Judge shall hold office “during good
behavior” and can be removed by the Parliament. This was with intention
to decrease the discretion of the King in appointments and removal of
Judges. This was done with intention that a judge can act independently,
without fear of removal, and act as per “his judicial mind” even contrary
to the personal opinions of the King.

iii. Political and Social conditions The Lords and the Commons,
through the Bill of Rights and the Act of Settlement made it clear that the
king held his power from them and from them alone. However, the king
at that time was still a powerful actor. He had not lost all the powers
exercised by prerogative, and some of them were important powers. For
example, the king had governmental power, the power to inspire and
lead governmental action. Major decisions still depended on him, and he
had exclusive power to nominate his ministers from persons who are
loyal to him. The governmental policy as it was then undertaken was still
“his policy”, and the ministers were still “his ministers”. After the Bill of
Rights and the Act of Settlement, it’s true that the Parliament exercised
legal sovereignty; however, the political sovereignty was still in the
hands of the monarch. In the twelfth century, even before the granting of
Magna Carta, it became established custom that, before deciding certain
issues or making important decisions, the king had to put them on the
agenda of a concilium (i.e., a council of the Crown). In the thirteenth
century, there existed two such councils, one helping the King in
administration of justice and another in taxation. In the course of time
these bodies were found not functioning properly. So gradually
representatives of different territories were added to this council and till
the end of thirteenth Century this body was representing whole Kingdom.
This body started guiding and helping the King in administration of
Justice and in making laws governing different territories through
petitions signed by people who want such laws. Due to their
representation in the Council, the people in that territory followed laws
enacted by their representatives. Even at that time in English legal
system, the laws were enacted as per demands of people through their
representatives. This gave rise to the Parliament.

A.V. Dicey’s Parliamentary Sovereignty At the end of the nineteenth

century, a professor of law at Oxford, Albert V. Dicey, was engaged in a
research looking for an apt formula to capture the historical evolution of
the eighteenth century that made “the King in Parliament” as the heart of
English political institution. He found after research that it’s the
‘‘Parliamentary Sovereignty’’ which has created a mixed form of
Government and made “the King in Parliament” as a heart of the
Mechanism. According to Dicey’s definition: The principle of
Parliamentary sovereignty means neither more nor less than this,
namely, that Parliament [. . .] defined [as the King, the House of Lords,
and the House of Commons; these three bodies acting together] has,
under the English constitution, the right to make or unmake any law
whatever; and, further, that no person or body is recognized by the law
of England as having a right to override or set aside the legislation of
Parliament