Maitland: “Arms Suitable to their condition”.

“Arms Suitable to their condition”. Maitland on the Revolution of 1688. The Constitutional History of England. Cambridge University Press 1909. “Let us now recount the limitations which are set in this country to the development of what can properly be called a feudal system. (i) First and foremost, it never becomes law that there is no political bond between men save the bond of tenure. William himself seems to have seen the danger. We read that in 1086 he came to Salisbury, *and there came to him his witan and all the landowning men that were worth aught from over all England, whosesoever men they were, and all bowed themselves down to him and became his men, and swore oaths of fealty to him that they would be faithful to him against all other men.' He exacted an oath of fealty not merely from his own tenants, but from all the possessors of land, no matter whose men they were; they were to be faithful to him against all other men, even against their lords. This became fundamental law: we have before this seen its result; whenever homage or fealty was done to any mesne lord, the tenant expressly saved the faith that he owed to his lord the king. The oath of allegiance we find is exacted from all men; this exaction becomes part of the regular business of the local courts. (2) English law never recognizes that any man is bound to fight against his lord. The sub-tenant who holds by military service is bound by his tenure to fight for the king; he is bound to follow his lord's banner, but only in the national army:—he is in nowise bound to espouse his lord's quarrels, least of all his quarrels with the king. Private war never becomes legal; it is a crime and a breach of the peace. Certainly, there was a great deal of private war; certainly men felt it their duty to follow their lord against his enemies, even ^ Select Chartersy p. 163. M. II against the king; but this duty never succeeds in getting itself acknowledged as a legal duty. If that seems to you too natural to be worth mentioning, you should look at the history of France; there it was definitely regarded as law that in a just quarrel the vassal must follow his immediate lord, even against the king. (3) Though the military tenures supply the king with an army, it never becomes law that those who are not bound by tenure need not fight. The old national force, officered by the sheriffs, does not cease to exist. Rufus had called it out for compulsory service; more than once it was called out against the Scots; in 1181 Henry II reorganized it by his Assize of Arms; it was reorganized again under Edward I by the Statute of Winchester in 1285 ; it is the militia of later days. Every man is bound to have arms suitable to his degree, down to the man who need but have bow and arrows. In this organization of the common folk under royal officers, there is all along a counterpoise to the military system of feudalism, and it serves the king well. The great families of the Conquest are at length pulverized between the hammer of the king and the anvil of the people…”. Note: Page numbers are not included because they vary according to the programme that it being used to view the text. The reader before relying on this information should take steps to verify it by cross checking with other sources.

Maitland: Administration of Justice, Ecclesiastical Courts and the Star Chamber.

Administration of Justice, Ecclesiastical Courts and the Star Chamber. Maitland on the Revolution of 1688. The Constitutional History of England. Cambridge University Press 1909. “The greatest event that we have to notice under this heading is the abolition of the Star Chamber—accomplished by an act of the Long Parliament, to which the king gave assent on 5 July, 1641^ More and more the theory had grown, that it derived its only authority from the act of Henry VH, that all that it did beyond the authority of that statute was illegal. This theory was adopted by the act which abolished the court. It abolished the court commonly called the Star Chamber—it also forbad the council to meddle with civil causes—it abolished the jurisdiction of the Council of the Marches, and the Council of the North; it declared that no court should exercise the same or the like jurisdiction as had been exercised by the Star Chamber. On the same day, by ^ Macaulay, History of England, c. XXV. ^ Gardiner, Constitutional Docufnenis, pp. 179—86, another act, the Court of High Commission was abolished, and it was declared that no similar court should be erected for the future. This act used very large words as to the abolition of all ecclesiastical jurisdiction. During the commonwealth episcopacy disappeared. In 1661, after the Restoration, an act was passed, explaining that the old ecclesiastical courts were to retain their old powers—the act of 1641 was abolished save as far as related to the Court of High Commission. Loyal as was the parliament of 1661, it did not me^n to have either the Star Chamber or the High Commission back again. However, in 1686 James H, in the teeth of these statutes, entrusted the whole government of the church to seven commissioners with large powers of suspending, depriving and excommunicating the clergy. His hardly disguised object was to force the Roman religion on the national church. It is one of the offences reckoned up against him in the Declaration and the Bill of Rights that he has issued and caused to be executed a commission under the great seal for erecting a court of commissioners for ecclesiastical causes : this is ' illegal and pernicious.' ^ Macaulay, History of England, c. XXV. “The tribunals afforded no protection to the subject against the civil and ecclesiastical tyranny of that period. The judges of the common law, holding their situations during the pleasure of the King, were scandalously obsequious. Yet, obsequious as they were, they were less ready and less efficient instruments of arbitrary power than a class of courts, the memory of which is still, after the lapse of more than two centuries, held in deep abhorrence by the nation. Foremost among these courts in power and in infamy were the Star Chamber and the High Commission, the former a political, the latter a religious inquisition. Neither was a part of the old constitution of England. The Star Chamber had been remodelled, and the High Commission created, by the Tudors. The power which these boards had possessed before the accession of Charles had been extensive and formidable, but had been small indeed when compared with that which they now usurped. Guided chiefly by the violent spirit of the primate, and free from the control of Parliament, they displayed a rapacity, a violence, a malignant energy, which had been unknown to any former age. The government was able through their instrumentality, to fine, imprison, pillory, and mutilate without restraint. A separate council which sate at York, under the presidency of Wentworth, was armed, in defiance of law, by a pure act of prerogative, with almost boundless power over the northern counties. All these tribunals insulted and defied the authority of Westminster Hall, and daily committed excesses which the most distinguished Royalists have warmly condemned. We are informed by Clarendon that there was hardly a man of note in the realm who had not personal experience of the harshness and greediness of the Star Chamber, that the High Commission had so conducted itself that it had scarce a friend left in the kingdom, and that the tyranny of the Council of York had made the Great Charter a dead letter on the north of the Trent…”. In November, 1640, met that renowned Parliament which, in spite of many errors and disasters, is justly entitled to the reverence and gratitude of all who, in any part of the world. enjoy the blessings of constitutional government. During the year which followed, no very important division of opinion appeared in the Houses. The civil and ecclesiastical administration had, through a period of nearly twelve years, been so oppressive and so unconstitutional that even those classes of which the inclinations are generally on the side of order and authority were eager to promote popular reforms and to bring the instruments of tyranny to justice. It was enacted that no interval of more than three years should ever elapse between Parliament and Parliament, and that, if writs under the Great Seal were not issued at the proper time, the returning officers should, without such writs, call the constituent bodies together for the choice of representatives. The Star Chamber, the High Commission, the Council of York were swept away. Men who, after suffering cruel mutilations, had been confined in remote dungeons, regained their liberty. On the chief ministers of the crown the vengeance of the nation was unsparingly wreaked. The Lord Keeper, the Primate, the Lord Lieutenant were impeached. Finch saved himself by flight. Laud was flung into the Tower. Strafford was put to death by act of attainder. On the day on which this act passed, the King gave his assent to a law by which he bound himself not to adjourn, prorogue, or dissolve the existing Parliament without its own consent…”. The History of England from the Accession of James II, Vol. 1 by Thomas Babington Macaulay. Note: Page numbers are not included because they vary according to the programme that it being used to view the text. The reader before relying on this information should take steps to verify it by cross checking with other sources.

Judicial Review of the Bill of Rights June 2017. Mr. Graham Moore has commenced an application for a Judicial Review of the Home Office's policy to not accept Defence as a "Good Reason" for the issue of firearms certificates to fit persons. The Magna Carta Society is supporting him in this noble endeavour. The Court is the High Court of Justice in London, Queens Bench Division, Administrative Court. The Case Number is CO/3135/2017. It is currently assigned to LJ Supperstone. The Home Office is represented by the Treasury Solicitor. For the information of our supporters we present some of the material which will be used to prove the validity of Mr. Moore’s claim. John Bingley's introduction to the Constitution at the BCG Conference in 2015: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7K29Q1nthGk&t=1261s The following presentation at the British Constitution Group conference in 2014 gives an account of the History of Firearms related legislation in the UK: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWI7hGIjsAo&t=1630s Richard Laws presentation in writing: https://misesuk.org/2014/12/22/the-british-constitution-and-the-right-to-keep-and-bear-arms-for-defence/ More to follow.

Lawful Rebellion Assembly, Glastonbury 19th July 2014 - Part 2 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UtGLTb3NCJ8

The Magna Carta And Our Constitution - John Bingley https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pW9bpUMdzF4

Article 61 upheld: Treason? The trial of the Magna Carta barons: Westminster Hall, 31 July 2015 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8MU7tK6HM3Q

The Magna Carta And Article 61 (Lawful Rebellion) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1cKcCnOZSWA