Bill of Rights 1688
Full title: “An Act declareing the Rights and Liberties of the Subject and Setleing the Succession of the Crowne”
The Bill of Rights is one of the foundational constitutional statutes of the United Kingdom. It was enacted following the Glorious Revolution, when William III and Mary II accepted the Crown on terms set by Parliament. It established that the Crown rules under law, not above it.
Of the 13 original articles, 12 remain in force today. Article 7 (the right of Protestant subjects to bear arms “suitable to their conditions”) was repealed by the Statute Law Revision Act 2007.
The so-called “prejudice” clause was also repealed by the Statute Law Revision Act 2007. Section II (dispensing power) remains active.
The 13 Articles
| Art. | Subject | Status |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Suspending power | In force |
| 2 | Dispensing power | In force |
| 3 | Ecclesiastical commission | In force |
| 4 | Levying money | In force |
| 5 | Right to petition | In force |
| 6 | Standing armies | In force |
| 7 | Subjects' arms | RepealedRepealed by Statute Law Revision Act 2007 |
| 8 | Freedom of election | In force |
| 9 | Freedom of speech (Parliamentary privilege) | In force |
| 10 | Excessive bail | In force |
| 11 | Jury trial | In force |
| 12 | Grants of fines/forfeitures | In force |
| 13 | Frequent Parliaments | In force |
Constitutional Statute Status
In Thoburn v Sunderland City Council [2002], Laws LJ established the category of “constitutional statutes” — legislation of such fundamental importance that it cannot be impliedly repealed. The Bill of Rights 1688 falls squarely within this category. Only express words or necessary implication can amend or repeal it.
Case Law
Key judgments invoking or interpreting the 1688 settlement. These are real cases, verified against official law reports.
R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the EU
2017Article 1 invoked. Crown cannot use prerogative to nullify rights granted by Parliament. Triggering Article 50 required an Act of Parliament.
R (Miller) v The Prime Minister
2019Prorogation of Parliament held unlawful and void. Parliamentary sovereignty and executive accountability are fundamental constitutional principles.
Pepper v Hart
1993Article 9 described as being of the “highest constitutional importance.” Established that Hansard can be used to interpret ambiguous legislation.
Prebble v Television New Zealand
1994Parliamentary privilege under Article 9 belongs to Parliament as an institution, not to individual members. Cannot be waived by a member.
Hamilton v Al Fayed
1995Article 9 prevented questioning of parliamentary proceedings in defamation case. Privilege held absolute — even where an MP wished to waive it.
Jackson v Attorney General
2005Upheld the validity of the Parliament Acts 1911/1949. Significant obiter dicta from Lords Steyn, Hope, and Hale questioning whether Parliamentary sovereignty is truly unlimited.
Coronation Oath Act 1688
Still unrepealed. Full legal force. No amendments since enactment.
The Act prescribes three questions to be put to the Monarch at their coronation:
“Will You solemnely Promise and Sweare to Governe the People of this Kingdome of England... According to the Statutes in Parlyament Agreed on and the Laws and Customs of the same?”
Govern by statutes AND laws/customs — the Act treats these as distinct sources of authority.
“Will You to Your power cause Law and Justice in Mercy to be Executed in all Your Judgements?”
Law and justice tempered by mercy — an obligation on the Crown.
“Will You to the utmost of Your Power Maintain the Laws of God the true Profession of the Gospell and the Protestant Reformed Religion Established by Law?”
“Laws of God” is explicitly in the statutory text. This is not interpretation — it is what the Act says.
Charles III took a modified version of this oath in May 2023. The oath has been modified at every coronation without formally amending the Act itself — a constitutional convention rather than a legal process.
Critically, there is no enforcement mechanism. Courts have no jurisdiction over the Monarch's personal oath. No court has ever ruled that a breach of the Coronation Oath renders any act of government unlawful. The oath is constitutionally significant but judicially unenforceable.
Assessment
An honest evaluation of what is legally sound and what is on weaker ground.
Legally Sound
12 of 13 original articles remain in force. Regularly cited and applied by the highest courts.
Thoburn v Sunderland City Council [2002] EWHC 195 (Laws LJ): constitutional statutes cannot be impliedly repealed. Only express words or necessary implication suffice.
Miller I (2017) and Miller II (2019) both confirm: the executive cannot use prerogative powers to override statutory rights or frustrate Parliament.
The Coronation Oath Act 1688 expressly prescribes: “Will You to the utmost of Your Power Maintain the Laws of God the true Profession of the Gospell.” This is in the statutory text.
Legally Vulnerable
Diceyan orthodoxy remains dominant: Parliament can legislate on any matter, including amending or repealing the Bill of Rights (by express words). Jackson obiter dicta are intellectually significant but not binding.
No enforcement mechanism exists. Courts have no jurisdiction over the Monarch’s personal oath. The oath has been modified at every coronation without amending the Act — most recently for Charles III (May 2023).
Courts consistently reject this. The Bill of Rights constrains the Crown/executive, not Parliament. Individuals cannot use it to set aside valid Acts of Parliament.
No court has ever treated “Laws of God” as a legal test that can override statute. It remains a ceremonial and constitutional principle with no judicial enforcement mechanism.
Sources
- R (Miller) v Secretary of State [2017] UKSC 5
- R (Miller) v The Prime Minister [2019] UKSC 41
- Pepper v Hart [1993] AC 593
- Prebble v Television New Zealand [1995] 1 AC 321
- Hamilton v Al Fayed [2001] 1 AC 395
- Jackson v Attorney General [2005] UKHL 56
- Thoburn v Sunderland City Council [2002] EWHC 195 (Admin)
- A.V. Dicey, Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution (1885)
- Coronation of Charles III, 6 May 2023 — modified oath as administered