It is extremely common for politicians, journalists and the establishment to claim Britain (the United Kingdom – UK) has no written, codified constitution. In Part 1 we explored why they might want to do this.

Yep! This just about sums it up.

The idea that Britain has no codified Constitution is not true. Britain has a single, written constitutional document. The Great Charter of England, referred to simply as the Magna Carta since 1217.

To be ‘codified’ a written Constitution must be ‘authoratative,’representing a higher law than mere legislation. It must be ‘entrenched,’ virtually impossible to amend or abolish, and it must be ‘judiciable,’ meaning other laws can be judged against it to determine if they are constitutional. The Magna Carta meets all of these criteria.

On the 15th June 1215, at Runnymede on the banks of the Thames, King John gave his seal to sign the Magna Carta. It was a contract (compact) between the Crown (head of State) and the people. It was a constitutional inscription of the people’s Common Law. A declaration of liberty which limits the power of the state under the Rule of Law, through the mechanism of [judicium parium] Trial by Jury.

John had been acting unlawfully for a number of years. Feudal monarchs, contrary to popular myth, were bound by the terms of their coronation oath to uphold the Law of the Land, the customs and rights of the people. The widespread theft, fraud and violence, meted out by John and his lunatic fringe of homicidal rapists, clearly placed him in breach of his oath.

His equals, the noblemen, made him sign the Magna Carta to compel him to honour his coronation oath and restore the Rule of Law. Magna Carta did not create the Law of the Land but rather created a Constitution which codified it as the Common Law.

Nobles at Runnymede reinstated the Rule of Law.

It laid down, in law, the peoples customs and rights including no taxation without representation, the right to justice [habeas corpus,] the right of redress and remedy, the outlawing of usury and the right to lawful rebellion etc. It also defined the Rule of Law (Common Law) as the ‘will and custom’ of the people. It is important to understand that the original Magna Carta decreed that the Crown could never breach its coronation oath to uphold the laws of the land.

The Head of State was compelled to uphold the Rule of Law at all times. They could neither violate nor alter Common Law, as stipulated by the 1215 document, absent a renegotiation between the signatories. The signatories were the Crown and the common people.

By 1225 there had already been three attempts to change Magna Carta (1216, 1217 & 1225.) They all breached of the Crown’s oath, were unconstitutional, and therefore had no effect in law. Modern interpretations, which claim the 1215 Magna Carta only lasted a few months, fundamentally misunderstand that is was an inviolable Constitution. It’s principles cannot just be changed by anyone without a renegotiation of the British Constitution. Not then and not now.

‘Various versions of the Constitution have no standing in law. No matter when they were written.

We often see commentary stating that the Magna Carta meant this, or it didn’t mean that. Nearly all of these commentaries focus upon the subsequent, unconstitutional reiterations of the original 1215 Constitution. None of these rehashes of the true Magna Carta are legitimate. Commentary upon them has no relevance to the British Constitution.

Magna Carta rendered dictatorship impossible because the absolute Rule of Law was established. It restated the rights and customs of the people in its Articles of Common Law. All constitutional power is invested in the Crown only by virtue of the Crowns unbreakable contract with the people (Common Law.) The Crown is sovereign over Parliament but has no sovereignty over the people, under the Rule of Law (Magna Carta 1215 – Articles 24, 36, 39, 40, 61 etc.)





Magna Carta predates Parliament. Only the signatories, the Crown and its subjects, the common people, can breach the terms of the compact (contract.) It is a mutual, binding agreement of indefinite duration. It is the Common Law Constitution Magna Carta of 1215.

Any breach merely has the effect of giving the offended party the right of redress (remedy.) Parliament were not signatories and they have never had any authority to amend or repeal any of it. Though that hasn’t stopped them claiming otherwise.

Magna Carta codified the following constitutional arrangement.

Common law (the Rule of Law) is the will and custom of the people.

Statute law is the will of Parliament. Statute can give expression to Common Law, but Common law cannot be disregarded or contravened by Parliament, nor can it be repealed.

No Briton is above the law. Including members of Parliament and the Monarch.

Parliament is made by the law, and is not above it.

Almost from the outset, attempts were made to place an amended Magna Carta on the Statute Books. The reason for this is pretty transparent. Parliamentarians can create or destroy legislation. They can’t destroy or amend a constitutional compact they weren’t party to. So all claims of repeal or suggestions that Magna Carta is a statute are wholly invalid. Over the centuries successive UK Parliaments have done what they can to wrestle the British peoples’ rights away from them; to fraudulently claim more power for themselves.

The authority of the state? No, not at all.

By looking at these attempts, we can see they have consistently been unable to do so. The Rule of Law (the Common Law) is unquestionably above the legislation of Parliament and, try as they might, they cannot undo any aspect of it. So they have instead operated centuries of obfuscation, misdirection and outright lying to try and hide the fact that the people are sovereign, not Parliament. It is truly a conspiracy.

Edward I passed the 1297 Confirmation of the Great Charter Act which supposedly passed the (illegitimately amended) Magna Carta onto the statute books. In reality, all it did was copy parts of it into legislation. The original 1215 British Constitution remained unaffected. As it has ever since. However the only interesting aspect of the Confirmation Act is that it revealed the core problem for those who want to take power for themselves. It stated:

“And we will that if any judgement be given henceforth contrary to the points aforesaid by the justices or by any other (of) our ministers that hold plea before them against the points of the charters it shall be undone and holden for nought.”

Meaning the customs and rights enshrined in the Magna Carta cannot be breached by any Parliament. If they try, their legislation means nothing.

The key to Parliamentarians desperation to repeal the British Constitution is found Clause 39 of the Magna Carta, which states:

NO freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or be desseised of his Freehold, or Liberties, or free Customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any other wise destroyed; nor will We not pass upon him, nor [condemn him,] but by lawful judgement of his Peers, or by the Law of the Land. We will sell to no man, we will not deny or defer to any man either Justice or Right.

In other words any person who is accused of breaking ‘any law,’ including Acts of Parliament, has an absolute, inalienable right to a trial by a jury of their peers. Income cannot be an impediment to accessing justice and all are born with a Common Law right to justice .

As we discussed in Part 1 ‘Annulment by Jury’ empowers the peoples’ jury to repeal Acts of Parliament if they find the legislation to be unjust. It is this element of the British Constitution which Parliament has consistently tried to seize or deny.

The real Rule of Law

Parliament does not have unlimited power. There are means of redress and remedy for the people under the British Constitution. These rights were first codified in the Magna Carta and subsequently reaffirmed by every attempt to undermine it with Statute Law.

For example, following the Glorious Revolution of 1688, two constitutional documents emerged which incidentally reinforced the rights enshrined in the Magna Carta. The Declaration of Rights 1688 and the subsequent statutory Bill of Rights in 1689. William III refused to sign the Declaration of Rights, rendering it meaningless in law, but agreed to give Royal assent to the Bill in exchange for the Crown.

On the 26th January 1688 (at the time, the year changed on the 25th of March, so we view this as January 1689 today) the victorious William of Orange (William III) held a convention to address the abuses of power wrongly assumed by his vanquished predecessor. James II of England (James VII of Scotland) had usurped the Rule of Law in 13 distinct ways. William agreed to remedy this upon his own coronation.

The 13 constitutional changes were written into the Declaration of Rights, which effectively represented the settlement terms for the Glorious Revolution. This brought an end to the Divine Right of Kings (absolute power of the Monarchy,) an unconstitutional authority assumed by James VI of Scotland. The concept of the Divine Right of Kings had been removed by Magna Carta but had reemerged over the centuries, as a succession of monarchs tried to usurp the constitution. However, as the Crown is the Head of State, the Bill of Rights forced the state’s compliance with the principles defined by Magna Carta. Much to Parliamentarians annoyance.

James fled leaving the crown vacant. William was offered it in a coronation ceremony on the February 13th 1688 (1689) where he agreed to accept the Crown on the understanding he would protect the principles within the Declaration of Rights. Parliament then took the Declaration and incorporated it into the Bill of Rights and, as agreed, William gave it Royal assent.

Again, the politicians objective was to give the ‘Estates of England’ (Parliament) control of the ‘legislation.’ The Bill of Rights was another attempted power grab. Fearing ‘Annulment by Jury’ the Bill limited who could be selected for jury service. Ensuring the power elite could rig the jury to protect their unconstitutional power.

The 1689 (1688) Bill of Rights has been interpreted by Parliament, over the years, to mean Parliament is sovereign. This is not the case. Not only does the text itself make no such claim, but the attempt to usurp the Articles of Common Law and limit Trial by Jury was unconstitutional. Try as they might, The Rule of Law remained authoritative above the legislation of Parliament.

The principle of none being above the Law (including monarchs and Parliament,) as stated in the Magna Carta, was firmly reaffirmed in the 1670 trial of Penn and Mead, less than a year later.

Quaker preachers Penn, who went on to found the American State of Pennsylvania, and fellow preacher Mead, had drawn a large crowd in Cracechurch Street, London. They were arrested and charged with ‘unlawful and tumultuous assembly.’ At the trial, the jury refused to find either men guilty as charged.

Acting completely unlawfully, the bench tried a variety of strong arm tactics, including imprisonment, to force the jury to find the defendants guilty. They refused and the court, who were simply bullying and intimidating the jury, unlawfully fined Penn, Mead and the Jury for contempt of court, sending all to prison until the fines were paid. This was nothing short of attempted extortion.

However, upon release, the foreman of the jury Edward Bushel, who had refused to pay the contempt fine, pursued common law justice. The case was heard by Chief Justice John Vaughan at the Court of Common Pleas. Vaughan initially tried to claim Bushel’s case could not be heard, but was ignored by other judges who issued the writ. of habeas corpus. Vaughan’s ruling reaffirmed the absolute Common Law right of free Trial by Jury, famously stating:

“The jury must be independently and indisputably responsible for its verdict free from any threats from the court.”

This plaque, commemorating Penn & Mead (Bushel,) used to be prominently displayed in the Old Bailey. Unsurprisingly, it has now been relegated to a siding.

Just like the Magna Carta, the Declaration (copied into the Bill) invested power in the Crown, under the Rule of Law, over and above the rule of Parliament. In reference to the monarch, to be afforded the authority of Head of State, it stated:

“whose princely persons the royal state, crown and dignity of the said realms with all honours, styles, titles, regalities, prerogatives, powers, jurisdictions and authorities to the same belonging and appertaining are most fully, rightfully and entirely invested and incorporated, united and annexed.”

This confirmed that all constitutional power is entirely invested in the Crown and cannot be repealed or otherwise violated by Parliament. The 1688 Coronation Act laid down the responsibility of the Crown to uphold both the Rule of Law and the statutes passed by Parliament. However, no one, including Parliament, is above the Common Law of the people.

Before accepting the Crown the monarch must swear their oath to the following:

“Will you solemnly promise and swear to govern the people of this Kingdom of England, and the dominions thereto belonging, according to the statutes in Parliament agreed on, and the laws and customs of the same?”

This is an unavoidable, direct reference to the Magna Carta which recognised that rights and customs were of equal importance to the people, and both were equally protected. Article 13 states:

“And the city of London shall have all its ancient liberties and free customs…furthermore, we decree and grant that all other cities, boroughs, towns, and ports shall have all their liberties and free customs.”

Sir William Blackstone

The free custom of the British people is the Rule of Law (Common Law.) Therefore the power of the Crown was strictly limited by their oath to uphold these customs and rights. This contract, between the people and the Crown, was described in 1753 by Sir William Blackstone who wrote:

“However, in what form it so ever be conceived, this [the Coronation Oath] is most indisputably a fundamental and original express contract…….So that whatever doubts might be formerly raised by weak and scrupulous minds about the existence of such an original contract, they must now entirely cease; especially with regard to every prince, who has reigned since the year 1688.”

The Crowns contractual responsibilities were further defined in the 1688 Coronation Act as follows:

“…….by the Law and Ancient Usage of this Realme the Kings and Queens thereof have taken a Solemne Oath upon the Evangelists at Their respective Coronations to maintaine the Statutes Laws and Customs of the said Realme and all the People and Inhabitants thereof in their Spirituall and Civill Rights and Properties.”

In other words the Crown (Head of state) is compelled, not only to uphold the law, but also to protect the spiritual, civil and property rights of the people. This means Parliament is required, under Common Law, to do the same.

Parliament doesn’t exist to rule us or ‘allow’ our rights. Parliament exists to uphold our inalienable human and civil rights, protect our property and ensure the laws it creates serve those same objectives.

Furthermore, the Crown is also required to ensure all judgments are just and merciful. The Coronation Oath asks the monarch to commit to the equitable exercise of that lawful power:

“Will you to your power cause law and justice in mercy to be executed in all your judgements?”

Injustice is unconstitutional. This is why Trial by Jury, another constitutional right, is vital. Regardless of any breach of the letter of the law, no jury can ever lawfully be directed to give a guilty verdict, as the Penn & Mead cased proved. The power of ‘Annulment by Jury’ is entirely invested and incorporated, united and annexed through the peoples’ constitutional contract with the Head of State.

This makes it abundantly clear, Parliaments claim to sovereignty is not valid. The only power Parliament has is to form legislation. The bills which eventually pass the house are then presented to the Crown for Royal assent.

Legislation does not become law until the Crown agrees, and the Crown is bound by its contract with the people. Parliament do not pass laws. They merely suggest legislation. This only becomes Statute law with the constitutional consent of the people, represented by the Crown.

Through constitutional Trial by Jury, if the people subsequently find that the legislation creates unjust law they can annul it. The people can demand that Parliament amend or remove legislation from the statute books.

This is why, since 1215, there has been an 800 yearlong attempt by mendacious individuals serving corrupt organisations, occult private member clubs and corporations to hide the truth about the Magna Carta and the British Constitution from the people. With great success, it has to be said.

The British Constitution actually invests all power in the people. The people then lend this power to the Crown via their constitutional contract with the Head of State. Parliament is only allowed to create its legislation with the active consent of the people. The people can annul legislation if they subsequently decide it is unjust.

Parliaments own handbook (Erskin May) spells this out to members of Parliament (MP’s.) It is so unequivocal one wonders if those who have falsely claimed the sovereignty of Parliament have ever read it. On the constitution, powers and privileges of Parliament it states:

“The Act of Settlement affirms that the laws of England are the birthright of the people thereof; and that all kings and queens who shall ascend the throne of this realm ought to administer the government of the same according to said laws; and all their officers and ministers ought to serve them respectively according to the same.”

MP’s are nothing more than public servants. Parliamentary power is constrained by the British Constitution and the Rule of Law. This law is formed exclusively by the people through Trial by Jury.

All UK MP’s swear an oath to the Crown.

The Common Law is the principle upon which UK governance is founded. Parliament cannot act unlawfully. When MP’s are elected, by the people, they are required to swear an oath to the Queen before they take office.

This does not mean they have to swear allegiance to the person acting as monarch. They swear their oath to the power invested in the Crown, by the people. This is defined in the Parliamentary code of conduct. In reference to MP’s duty, it states:

By virtue of the oath , or affirmation, of allegiance taken by all Members when they are elected to the House, Members have a duty to be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen, her heirs and successors, according to law .

, or affirmation, when they are elected to the House, be faithful and the Queen, her heirs and successors, . Members have a duty to uphold the law , including the general law against discrimination.

, including the general law against discrimination. Members have a general duty to act in the interests of the nation as a whole ; and a special duty to their constituents.

; and a special duty to their constituents. Members should act on all occasions in accordance with the public trust placed in them. They should always behave with probity and integrity, including in their use of public resources.

We all know that British democracy doesn’t function as it should. Powerful corporate interests are able to use their immense resources to lobby, bribe and blackmail politicians to do whatever they want. Parliament certainly does not serve the people. We only need look at the recent Brexit debacle to understand that voting only counts if you vote for the establishment.

If you vote against it, as 17.4million Britons did, the will of the people is ignored. The question is what do we do about it?

Recommended Reading

Firstly, arming yourself with knowledge is key. You can’t expect to learn any of this from the mainstream media, the political establishment or even most published academic opinion. All law students are wrongfully taught that Britain has no written codified constitution. Only the few legal professionals, who have done their own independent research, come to realise the truth. They risk their careers when they speak up about it.

This is no accident. All institutions of state are currently controlled by the same, corrupt corporate interests, and they don’t want the people to know about any of this.

Do some research yourself? Don’t believe anything you are told, especially by the likes of me, without first establishing the facts for yourself by considering the evidence.

I have linked to some important information resources throughout this article. The UK Column, The New Chartist Movement, The British Constitution Group, Democracy Defined and others. Take a look. See what you think.

If you come to the conclusion that we have been subject to a centuries old conspiracy to hide and deny the British peoples’ constitutional rights, the next step is to spread this information as widely as possible. Don’t allow anyone to say that Britain has no codified Constitution without question. Respectfully challenge them, and tell them why you don’t agree. More importantly, show them the evidence.

Support those who are trying to disseminate this information and speak up when the establishment try to censor or deny it. Demand to see the proof of their claims.

If more people are aware of what has been done to them, eventually their numbers will reach a critical mass, compelling the debate. At that point, for the first time in more than 800 years, we may stand a chance of forcing the political establishment to honour the written, codified British Constitution. The Magna Carta.