The Origins, Rights and Authority of Parliament

The Origins, Rights and Authority of Parliament


The origins of parliament are shrouded in the midst of time.  We can go back only so far in time and know for certain how ancient people governed themselves.  However it seems sensible to assume that the family unit was governed by the will of the father of that family unit.  Where several family units lived together it is reasonable to assume that they would select one of their number to run the small community of family’s working together for their mutual benefit.  Sometimes this leader would be leader not by choice but because he was bigger and stronger than the others so he took what he wanted and the rest served him.  In a pride of lions, the strongest male runs the pride.  He is the one who fathers all the lion cubs born to the pride, the lionesses choosing to have the biggest and strongest lion to mate with.


Humans are no different.  Genghis Khan fought and defeated his father and promptly had sex with his mother.  The Norman French maintained the practice.  When a couple on the Baron’s estate wanted to get married, the Baron claimed the right to sleep with the bride on her wedding night.  This is the rule, “might is right”.


We know that the ancient people of these islands elected their Kings and that the King, who could rule on his own, only rarely did so preferring instead to discuss policy with the wise men of the Kingdom.  I believe it was common for women to be included in these councils.  The Anglo Saxon kings called these meetings ‘Witan’ which was simply a meeting of the wisest men the King could find to help him govern.


The Norman kings sought advice from their barons.  It was our early Norman kings who included the Knights and Burgesses in these meetings.  At Runny Mede the common man was included in the meeting with King John, which was a meeting of the Estates of England  –  the highest law-giving body in the land with authority to fire and hire kings.  The Estates of England comprise the Lords Spiritual ( the Bishops), the Lords Temporal ( the Barons ) and the commonality of England (as many of the freemen of England as can attend).  The Bishops represent God, the Barons as our natural leaders and the commonality as the people of England.  At Runny Mede the Barons were in full  armour and the common man was armed with weapons to suit his need.  King John was left in no doubt that if he did not agree to rule us according to our ancient laws, he would not leave the field alive.  Magna Charta was not new law. It was a restatement of our ancient law given to us by King Alfred and reissued as the Charter of Liberties in 1100 by King Henry I.


King Edward I included the Knights and Burgesses as full time members of Parliament in 1297, since when the common man in Parliament has been on a power grab.  A properly constituted Parliament consists of the House of Commons who originate legislation, the House of Peers (Lords) who scrutinise this legislation and send it back for amendment, reject it or accept it in accordance with their collective conscience.  If the House of Peers accepts it, it goes before the King who will ask for amendments, accept it or reject it in accordance with his conscience.  It is not until the King accepts it that it becomes law.


Chief Justice of the Common Pleas William Beresford 1306-1326 ruled, “there is no such thing as a bad law for if it is bad it is not law”.  Chief Justice Stonor of the Common Pleas 1329-1331 ruled, “law is that which is right”.  Chief Justice Sir Edward Coke of the Kings Bench 1616-1628 ruled, “Parliament may pass a law which is beyond common right and reason, is repugnant or impossible to perform ; in which case, the common law will intercede and strike it down”.  I would like you to remember these rulings of these Chief Justices.  It will become clear shortly.


Parliament was formed at first informally by the King seeking advice from whichever wise men were available.  Later it was put on a more formal basis with the Witan and finally by Edward I in 1297 in its finished form as it should be today.  I said should be, because from the outset the House of Commons has been on a power grab.  In 1420 in exchange for voting-in a tax, they were granted the right to originate all legislation.  In 1609 they wrote to the House of Peers claiming to be the Knights, Burgesses and Barons of the high court of Parliament.  The House of Peers (Lords) correctly replied that they would never accept them as barons and that without the House of Peers, they were no court at all.  In 1667 the Commons told the Peers that they cannot amend a money bill.  A ten year argument followed when, in 1677 the Peers for some reason not based on reason, agreed not to amend any money bills.  In 1909 Asquith the Prime Minister (a Fabian), put forward a budget part of which gave the working man a pension.  The Peers, knowing how little a working man earned, knew that the extra 3 pence in the pound tax to be imposed upon what was already being taken, was more than the working man could afford.  Believing they could not amend it, the Peers rejected the bill.  Asquith told them he was putting forward a bill to stop them rejecting any bill.


The Peers said they would not pass it.  So Asquith said he would put 500 new Peers into the House and who would vote for its abolition.  The Peers gave way and passed Asquith’s Parliament Act.  King Edward VII refused to grant the Royal Assent on the grounds that the Act was unconstitutional and removed a protection from his subjects.  The King ordered Asquith to go to the country.  Asquith and his ministers went around the country telling the people that those bastard Peers on their big estates would not let the working man have a pension.  The Peers felt it was beneath them to go round the country too, to explain their reasoning.  Asquith was returned by the people and King Edward VII in his speech opening Parliament said when referring to the Parliament Act, that by removing the authority of the House of Peers to reject a bill, Parliament had become constitutionally, an unlawful assembly.  Before the bill could be re-presented to King Edward VII who may well have refused the Assent again, he fell ill and died.  I did write to the Police Commissioner saying I would be interested in the post mortem results on King Edward VII but he did not reply.


On coming to the throne, the following King George V was told by a minister that he keeps all his prerogatives but may not use any of them unless he has the backing of a minister.  This of course means that he has no prerogative powers at all.  King George V gave the Royal Assent to the 1911 Parliament Act  –  or did he ?  According to a report put out by the House of Commons library, the Royal Assent has not been granted in person by the Sovereign since 1854.  King George V after a long reign fell ill and was murdered by his doctor who gave him a massive overdose of drugs with the intention of his death being announced in The Times the following morning.  Ask yourselves, who has the authority to kill the King.  Queen Mary his wife would never have agreed.  Prince Edward, a spoilt brat, might have by being the next in line to the throne.  But only a high ranking minister could pose the question “Doctor, will you murder the King for us ?”  According to the Government, the last time the Royal Assent was refused was by Queen Anne over the Scottish Militia Act in 1707.  But that is a lie.  Queen Victoria refused the Assent to a bill on homosexuality because it mentioned Lesbians.  She did not believe women could do those things to each other and the bill had to be rewritten removing all reference to women.  We have dealt with King Edwards’s refusal of the Assent.


Now I want you to remember those ancient rulings above, of our Chief Justices.  Parliament today say that they are omnipotent and can do anything they like.  They evidence this with the “Blue eyed baby rule”.  They say they can pass a law saying that all blue eyed baby boys born in June must be killed and that they would have to be killed.  Remember, Chief Justice Stonor ruled that “Law is that which is right”.  No one in his right mind would say this law was right.  Chief Justice Beresford ruled that there is no such thing as a bad law for if it is bad, it is not law.  No one in their right mind would think such a “law” was in any way good law as it is clearly bad  –  so it cannot be law.  Chief Justice Sir Edward Coke ruled that Parliament may sometimes pass a law which is repugnant, against common right and reason or impossible to perform in which case the common law will intercede and strike it down.  No one in their right mind would find this law anything but repugnant.  Every one would find it was against common right and reason.  And it would be impossible to perform because when they came for your son you will fight to keep him.  Your family, friends and neighbours will fight with you.  Soon the entire country will be at open war with Parliament  –  and Parliament will loose.  So it is impossible to perform.


You have all heard about the ‘new Bill of Rights’.  What you might not know, is that it will include a clause stating that by simply passing a bill, Parliament will be able to remove any or all of our normal rights and freedoms.  It is being stealthily included because you are no longer to speak the evidence of your eyes, for example by saying that Islam is an evil cult which encourages rape and murder.  There, I wonder how many ‘new laws’ I have just broken.  Parliament have also been having what they refer to as “an interesting discussion” on whether by passing a bill they could remove the rule of law.  Let us look at that.  If they remove the rule of law, your 12 year old daughter or son could be dragged off the street into Parliament and gang raped  –  and it won’t be a crime. Your old mum can have her door kicked-in, be beaten black and blue and gang raped then murdered and all her property stolen  –  and it wont be a crime.  THIS, ladies and gentlemen, is what the House of Commons have in store for us.  Why else would they want to disarm us ?  Why else would they dress our police in black, arm them to the hilt and reduce the entry standards to employ only those people who are prone to thuggery ?  These are still only a very small proportion of officers at the moment.  The bulk of our police are good men and women.


Look after yourselves, boys and girls.


Albert Burgess