Historical Evolution/Development of the British Constitution:

From an absolute monarchy to the present-day parliamentary democracy the UK has witnessed
important milestones in the development and evolution of its constitution

1. The Absolute Monarchy (Pre-1215)

In the early medieval period, England was ruled by an absolute monarchy, where the king or
queen had nearly total power. The monarch could make laws, levy taxes, and control the army
without needing approval from any other institution. This centralization of power is what we call
an "absolute monarchy." The king’s authority was considered to come from divine right,
meaning that the monarch was seen as appointed by God and could not be challenged.

What is the Magna Carta?

The Magna Carta, also known as the Great Charter, is a foundational document in English
history, signed by King John of England in 1215. It was created under pressure from his barons
(noblemen) after John’s rule became highly unpopular for several reasons.

The Context and Background

King John's reign was marked by:

 High Taxes: John heavily taxed his subjects to fund wars, especially in France, which strained his
relationship with his barons.
 Conflict with the Church: His disputes with the Pope weakened his authority and led to his
excommunication.
 Failed Military Campaigns: John's military failures in France made him even less popular,
causing unrest and rebellion.

Due to these issues, a group of barons forced King John to agree to the Magna Carta as a way to
limit his power.

Key Principles of the Magna Carta

The Magna Carta established important principles that would shape future legal systems,
especially concerning the relationship between the ruler and his subjects.

 The Rule of Law: One of the Magna Carta’s key provisions is that the king is not above
the law. It stated that the king could not take action against his subjects without
following legal procedures. This set the stage for modern ideas of due process and legal
fairness.
o Example: Clause 39 says, "No free man shall be imprisoned...except by the lawful
judgment of his peers or by the law of the land." This concept is an early version of the
right to a fair trial.
  Protection of Individual Liberties: The Magna Carta also highlighted the rights of “free
men” (at that time, mostly nobles). This included protections against unjust taxation and
unfair imprisonment.
o Example: Clause 12 stated that the king could not raise taxes without the consent of his
barons, making sure the king didn’t have unchecked power to impose financial burdens.

 Checks on Royal Power: The Magna Carta forced the king to acknowledge that his
decisions, especially those related to taxes and the legal system, required the approval of
his barons, thus limiting his absolute authority.

The Provisions of Oxford (1258) were a pivotal moment in English history. At this
time, England was under the rule of King Henry III, whose reign was seen by many as
ineffective. His rule was marked by frequent disputes with his barons and a lack of proper
governance, which led to growing discontent.

Key Aspects of the Provisions of Oxford:

1. Joint Rule: The Provisions of Oxford created a joint government, where the king shared
power with a baronial council. This council was made up of 15 barons who were
chosen to advise the king on important matters. Essentially, the king's absolute power
was limited, and governance was shared between the monarchy and the nobility.
o Example: Before this, kings like Henry III ruled without much consultation from the
barons. The Provisions forced Henry III to work with them. Today, the UK has a
constitutional monarchy where the monarch’s role is largely ceremonial, and the
government is run by elected officials, like the Prime Minister and Parliament.

2. Parliamentary Meetings: The Provisions also stipulated that Parliament should meet
three times a year. This was a significant shift, as it allowed more frequent opportunities
for the king and his council to address important issues and make reforms. This laid the
groundwork for the development of the British Parliament.
o Example: This is one of the earliest instances of a structured, regular meeting of
Parliament, which over time became an institution that meets annually and regularly
debates national issues. Today, the UK Parliament meets regularly, and its members are
elected by the public to represent them.

3. The Role of the Common People: One of the Provisions’ significant impacts was the
inclusion of common people in the governance process. The first Parliament under
Simon de Montfort was made up of knights, lords, and common men from towns and
cities. This is seen as an early step in the creation of what we now recognize as the House
of Commons.
o Example: This is a significant shift from a system where only the wealthy and noble had
a say in governance. Over time, this led to the development of the modern House of
Commons, where elected members of the public participate in decision-making. Today,
 members of the House of Commons represent the population, and their debates shape
national laws and policies.

Petition of Right (1628) was a key document in British history that aimed to limit the
powers of King Charles I, particularly his actions that bypassed Parliament and the law. It was
created as a response to the King's attempts to raise money through taxes and other means
without the consent of Parliament, along with his actions that many saw as abuses of power. The
Petition laid out four main principles to protect the rights of subjects and curb the monarchy’s
arbitrary power:

Four Key Principles in the Petition of Right:

1. No taxation without the consent of Parliament

o Context: King Charles I had levied taxes (like the forced loan and ship money) without
Parliament’s approval, which was seen as unconstitutional. This principle reaffirmed that
only Parliament could approve taxes.
o Example: Today, taxes in the UK must still be approved by Parliament, which reflects a
fundamental aspect of representative democracy. The power to tax remains firmly with
the elected body, not the monarchy or government alone.

2. No imprisonment without cause

o Context: King Charles I imprisoned people without trial, using a system called "arbitrary
detention." The Petition demanded that a person could not be imprisoned without
being formally charged and given a chance to defend themselves.
o Example: This principle is still relevant today as it underpins the Habeas Corpus Act
1679, which ensures that no one can be held in custody without being charged with a
crime. This concept also contributes to the modern practice of fair trials and individual
rights protection.

3. No quartering of soldiers on subjects

o Context: The King had, at times, required ordinary citizens to house soldiers, a practice
known as "quartering." This was seen as an infringement on people’s privacy and
property rights.
o Example: While less common today, this principle is still reflected in modern law (for
instance, the Human Rights Act 1998, which protects individuals from arbitrary
interference with their home). In times of war or national emergency, governments still
cannot arbitrarily use citizens' homes for military purposes without compensation or
legal procedures.

4. No martial law in peacetime

o Context: The Petition insisted that military law should only apply during wartime and
not in times of peace, when civilian courts should handle legal matters.
o Example: The principle remains fundamental today, as martial law cannot be declared in
the UK without extreme justification, and it would have to be done under strict legal
oversight. In modern Britain, this reflects the civilian nature of government and the rule
of law.
Bill of Rights (1689) is a key document in British history that marked a significant shift
in the balance of power between the monarchy and Parliament. It was passed after the Glorious
Revolution (1688-1689), which saw the overthrow of King James II, a Catholic monarch, in
favor of his Protestant daughter Mary II and her husband William III of Orange. This event
was driven by concerns over religious conflicts, as many Protestants feared the return of
Catholicism under James II.

Here’s a breakdown of the Bill of Rights (1689), its key points, and how they shaped both
historical and modern Britain:

Key Provisions of the Bill of Rights (1689):

1. Monarchy’s Power is Limited:

o The Bill of Rights made it clear that the monarchy could not rule without the consent of
Parliament. This was a crucial moment in history because, prior to this, monarchs like
James II had tried to rule without parliamentary approval. The Bill laid down the
foundation for constitutional monarchy, where the monarch's powers are limited by
law, and Parliament plays a key role in governance.

Example: In the past, monarchs like King James I and King Charles I believed in the
"divine right of kings," which meant they thought their power came directly from God
and was unquestionable. The Bill of Rights overturned this idea.

2. Parliamentary Elections:
o The Bill ensured freedom to elect members of Parliament without the monarch’s
interference. This meant that the king or queen could not interfere with elections or
force Parliament to elect specific individuals. This laid the groundwork for the
democratic process in Britain, as citizens gained more power to elect their
representatives.

Example: Before this, monarchs could influence or even control who was elected, but
after 1689, Parliament had more independence in its decision-making.

3. Freedom of Speech in Parliament:

o The Bill of Rights granted freedom of speech in Parliament. Members of Parliament
(MPs) could now speak openly about issues without fear of punishment from the
monarch. This was a major step in the evolution of parliamentary democracy and
accountability.

Example: MPs can now speak freely in debates without being censored or punished by
the king. This allowed for more open discussions about government policies, leading to a
more transparent political system.

4. Liberties and Rights:

o The Bill of Rights also outlined several specific liberties:
  The right to bear arms for self-defense, but this was granted only to Protestants
and not Catholics.
 No taxes could be levied without the consent of Parliament, ensuring that the
monarchy could no longer impose taxes arbitrarily.
 Freedom from cruel and unusual punishment, which laid the foundation for
modern human rights protections.

Example: In today’s world, these protections are fundamental in the Human Rights Act
1998, which incorporates the European Convention on Human Rights into British law.
The prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment remains a key part of the UK’s justice
system.

The Act of Settlement (1701)

The Act of Settlement was passed after a period of political instability in England and aimed to
ensure the Protestant succession to the throne. Here are the key points:

1. Secured Protestant Accession:

o The Act of Settlement was designed to prevent a Catholic monarch from taking the
throne, ensuring that only Protestants could ascend to the throne of England. It was
passed in response to the fears that the Catholic James II (who had been deposed in the
Glorious Revolution of 1688) or his Catholic descendants might regain power.
o The Act confirmed that only Protestants could inherit the throne, and the line of
succession was explicitly laid out.

Example: In 1701, the electress Sophia of Hanover, a Protestant, was declared the next
in line to the throne. Her son, George I, became the first Hanoverian king of Great
Britain in 1714, starting a new royal dynasty that still exists today.

2. Reaffirmed the Bill of Rights (1689):

o The Act of Settlement reinforced the principles of the Bill of Rights (1689), which limited
the monarch's power and asserted that Parliament had the ultimate authority,
particularly regarding taxation, laws, and royal powers.
o The monarch could not act without Parliament's consent, such as engaging in war or
leaving the country, which ensured parliamentary control over important decisions.

Example: Today, the Queen or King cannot engage in military action or sign
international treaties without approval from Parliament.

3. Strengthened Parliamentary Government:

o The Act made it clear that the British government would be run by Parliament, with
ministers (not the monarch's personal advisers) playing the key role in governance.
o The monarch’s role became largely ceremonial, and the Prime Minister and Cabinet
ministers were responsible for decision-making.

Example: This system continues today, where the Prime Minister leads the government,
not the monarch.
 4. Judicial Independence:
o The Act of Settlement established that judges in the British legal system would be
appointed for good behavior rather than serving at the monarch's pleasure. This
ensured that judges could make independent decisions without fear of royal
interference.
o This principle is still upheld today and is an essential part of the rule of law.

Example: In modern Britain, judges are appointed for life, and their decisions cannot be
influenced by the monarchy or political pressures.

The Succession to the Crown Act (2013)

The Succession to the Crown Act was a more recent piece of legislation that made an important
change to the rules of royal succession:

1. Ending Male Primogeniture:

o Before the Act, the old system of male primogeniture meant that the eldest son of the
monarch would inherit the throne, even if the monarch had an older daughter.
o The Succession to the Crown Act (2013) ended this system, allowing the first-born
child, regardless of gender, to succeed to the throne. This was a major step toward
gender equality in the royal family.

Example: Under the new law, Princess Charlotte (born in 2015) is now ahead of her
younger brother, Prince Louis, in the line of succession because of her birth order, not
because of her gender.

2. Global Impact:
o This change to the succession law applied not only to Britain but also to other
Commonwealth countries where the British monarch is still the head of state (e.g.,
Canada, Australia, New Zealand). All these nations agreed to the change, which was a
significant move towards modernization and equality.

Example: In the past, if Queen Elizabeth II had had more sons than daughters, her eldest
son would have inherited the throne over her daughter. Today, gender does not impact
succession.

Parliament Act of 1911 was a pivotal moment in British constitutional history, as it

marked a significant shift in the balance of power between the House of Commons (elected
MPs) and the House of Lords (appointed or hereditary members). Here’s an explanation of the
Act and its impact, both historically and in relation to today’s British system:

1. Background: The Constitutional Crisis

 The Constitutional Crisis of 1909-1910 was sparked by a disagreement between the House of
Commons and the House of Lords over a proposed budget (the People’s Budget), which was
introduced by the Liberal government led by David Lloyd George. The budget aimed to raise
 taxes, particularly on the wealthy, to fund social welfare programs. However, the House of
Lords, which was dominated by Conservative and aristocratic peers, rejected it.
 The House of Lords had long had the power to veto or block any legislation, including money
bills (such as the budget), which led to a standoff between the two Houses. The House of
Commons, which was democratically elected, believed the Lords should not have the power to
block legislation passed by the elected representatives of the people.
 To resolve the deadlock, two general elections were held in 1910. The first election resulted in a
hung Parliament, where no party had an outright majority. The second election, held later that
same year, resulted in a victory for the Liberals with a stronger mandate, thereby giving the
government the authority to push through reforms regarding the House of Lords.

2. Key Provisions of the Parliament Act 1911

The Parliament Act 1911 was a direct response to the crisis and aimed to reduce the power of
the House of Lords, ensuring that Parliament (specifically the House of Commons) would be
the dominant force in the legislative process. Here’s what it changed:

 House of Lords Could No Longer Reject Money Bills:

o The House of Lords was removed of its power to veto money bills, such as the annual
budget or taxation laws. Previously, the Lords had the power to reject any money bill,
which could prevent the government from carrying out its financial plans. Now, the
House of Commons had the final say on money matters, as they are directly elected by
the people and represent the nation’s interests more directly.
o Example: If the government wanted to introduce a new tax or pass a budget, the House
of Lords could no longer block it. The House of Commons could pass it without the
Lords' approval.

 Power of Delay for Other Bills:

o The House of Lords was left with the ability to delay other types of legislation (such as
social or criminal law bills) but could no longer completely block them. If the House of
Lords rejected a bill, the House of Commons could pass the same bill again in the next
session, and after another delay of only one year, the bill would become law even
without the Lords' consent.
o Example: If the Lords rejected a bill on healthcare reform, the Commons could pass the
same bill again in the next parliamentary session, and it would automatically become
law after the Lords’ delay period.

 Reduction of Maximum Parliamentary Term:

o The Parliament Act 1911 reduced the maximum term of a Parliament from seven years
to five years, ensuring more regular elections and more frequent opportunities for the
people to influence the government’s direction.
o Example: Before the Act, a Parliament could last for up to seven years, but with the new
Act, the government had to call for general elections every five years, ensuring that MPs
remained more accountable to the voters.

3. The Impact on the British System Then

  Parliamentary Supremacy: The Parliament Act reinforced the principle of parliamentary
supremacy, meaning that the House of Commons (elected by the people) held more power
than the House of Lords (which was unelected and hereditary). This shift was crucial in the
democratic evolution of the United Kingdom.
 House of Lords Reduced to a Revising Chamber: The House of Lords became a revising chamber
rather than a decision-making body with veto power. Its role became more focused on
debating, scrutinizing legislation, and suggesting amendments, rather than blocking bills
outright.
 The Act marked a clear break from a time when the aristocracy and landed gentry had a strong
influence on national governance, making the system more representative of the common
people’s needs.

Why would the House of Lords agree to pass such a bill?

The Political Crisis and the Role of King George V

 Prime Minister Herbert Henry Asquith and the Liberal government had been facing
major resistance from the House of Lords, especially in relation to the People’s Budget
(a budget designed to fund social reforms) that the House of Lords rejected. This
rejection was a direct challenge to the authority of the elected House of Commons.
 The House of Lords at the time had a conservative majority, which meant that they
were able to block or delay bills, particularly those proposed by the Liberal government.
Asquith’s government was at a standstill with the Lords, and it was clear that a
constitutional crisis was brewing.
 In response, Asquith and his government discussed the possibility of asking King
George V to create a large number of Liberal peers to secure the passage of the budget
and to end the Lords' power of veto over financial matters.

The King’s Role in the Crisis

 King George V played a pivotal role in this crisis. Asquith asked the King to intervene
by agreeing to create several hundred new Liberal peers. This would have allowed the
government to break the Conservative majority in the House of Lords and ensure that
Liberal bills could be passed without obstruction.
 George V’s agreement to the proposal put a tremendous amount of pressure on the
House of Lords. The prospect of the Lords being "packed" with new Liberal peers
would have severely diminished the influence of the conservative members in the
chamber. This was a significant threat to the Lords, who were aware that such an act
would fundamentally alter their power.

Why the House of Lords Relented

 The threat of "packing" the House of Lords with Liberal peers was seen as an
existential threat to the traditional role and authority of the Lords. While the creation of
new peers wasn’t the same as outright abolishing the Lords, it would have dramatically
 shifted the balance of power in their favor and removed the Lords' ability to block
legislation.
 The House of Lords ultimately agreed to the Parliament Act of 1911 because they
recognized that defying the will of the Commons and King George V could lead to
even further reforms that would weaken or even abolish their role altogether. The threat
of liberal peer creation was enough to force a compromise.

The Parliament Act of 1911

 The Parliament Act was a compromise. The Lords lost their power to veto money bills
(budget-related bills) completely and were only allowed to delay non-financial legislation
for a maximum of two years. The Act also reduced the maximum length of Parliament
from seven years to five years.
 The Lords were now required to accept the supremacy of the House of Commons in
matters of finance and to limit their power to delay other legislation.

Statute of Westminster (1931)

 Context and Purpose: The Statute of Westminster was a major step in the gradual
move towards full legislative independence for the British Dominions. Prior to 1931,
countries like Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Ireland, and Newfoundland
(which later became part of Canada) were considered Dominions of the British Empire.
While they had self-government, Britain still had the final authority over many aspects of
their laws and governance.
 Main Provisions:
o The statute gave full legislative independence to these Dominions. They could now
make their own laws without needing British approval.
o It reaffirmed the British monarch as the head of state but allowed dominions to amend
their constitutions without needing British Parliament's consent.
o The statute also declared that no British law would apply to the Dominions unless the
Dominions agreed to it.

 Significance: This was a crucial step towards full autonomy for the Dominions, which
later evolved into fully independent countries. It marked a significant shift from the
British Empire to the British Commonwealth, with countries having more control over
their own affairs while still recognizing the British monarch as a symbol of unity.
 Example: After this statute, Canada passed the Constitution Act of 1982, which gave it
full control over its constitution without needing approval from Britain.

Ministers of the Crown Act (1937)

 Context: The Ministers of the Crown Act (1937) was part of the legal and
constitutional reforms that clarified and formalized the role of key governmental figures,
especially within the British parliamentary system.
 Main Provisions:
 o The act set salaries for ministers and recognized the formal roles of the Prime Minister,
the Cabinet, and the Leader of the Opposition.
o This act gave legal standing to these positions and ensured that they were officially
acknowledged in the parliamentary system.

 Significance: Prior to this act, while the Prime Minister and Cabinet had existed as
practical realities, their formal recognition in law ensured a more structured
governance system. The act provided a framework for the government and ensured
that these positions had a legal basis for their roles and powers.
 Example: The recognition of the Leader of the Opposition as a formal role allowed for
salaries and official duties to be assigned to this position, helping to institutionalize the
opposition in Parliament.

Crown Proceedings Act (1947)

 Context: Before the Crown Proceedings Act of 1947, the Crown (i.e., the monarchy
and the government acting in the name of the monarchy) was considered immune from
civil liability. This meant that no legal action could be taken against the government or
the monarch in civil courts. This created an imbalance, as individuals could be sued, but
the Crown could not be.
 Main Provisions:
o The Crown Proceedings Act (1947) changed the law by allowing civil actions against the
Crown, just like any other individual or organization.
o It clarified the liabilities of the Crown in civil matters, particularly in relation to the
government’s actions and property.
o The act also addressed situations in which other individuals, such as government
employees, could be held liable for acts carried out on behalf of the Crown.

 Significance: This was a major shift in British law because it allowed the government
(acting in the name of the Crown) to be held accountable in civil courts. It marked a
movement toward modernizing the legal system and establishing greater accountability
in government actions.
 Example: The Crown Proceedings Act allowed citizens to sue government departments
or the state in cases involving negligence or disputes related to public affairs, which was
previously not possible.