The Petition of Right, passed on 7 June 1628, is an English constitutional document setting out specific individual protections against the state, reportedly of equal value to Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights 1689. It was part of a wider conflict between Parliament and the Stuart monarchy that led to the 1638 to 1651 Wars of the Three Kingdoms, ultimately resolved in the 1688 Glorious Revolution. Following a series of disputes with Parliament over granting taxes, in 1627 Charles I imposed "forced loans", and imprisoned those who refused to pay, without trial. This was followed in 1628 by the use of martial law, forcing private citizens to feed, clothe and accommodate soldiers and sailors.
Introduction
Petition of Right
Petition of Right | Introduction
It is an English constitutional document setting out specific individual protections against the state. An English constitutional document setting out specific individual protections against the state. It is an English constitutional document setting out specific individual protections against the state, reportedly of equal value to Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights 1689. An English constitutional document setting out specific individual protections against the state, reportedly of equal value to Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights 1689.
what was one of the provisions of the petition of right (1628)
user
No person should be forced to provide a gift, loan or tax without an Act of Parliament.
assistant
what does the term "petition of right" refer to?
user
The Petition of Right, passed on 7 June 1628, is an English constitutional document setting out specific individual protections against the state, reportedly of equal value to Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights 1689. It was part of a wider conflict between Parliament and the Stuart monarchy that led to the 1638 to 1651 Wars of the Three Kingdoms, ultimately resolved in the 1688 Glorious Revolution. Following a series of disputes with Parliament over granting taxes, in 1627 Charles I imposed "forced loans", and imprisoned those who refused to pay, without trial. This was followed in 1628 by the use of martial law, forcing private citizens to feed, clothe and accommodate soldiers and sailors.
Petition of Right | Introduction
An established element of Parliamentary procedure, this had not been expressly prohibited by Charles, allowing them to evade his restrictions, but avoid direct opposition. The Committee redrafted the content as a 'Petition', which was accepted by the Commons on 8 May, and presented the same day to the Lords by Coke, with a bill approving subsidies to encourage acceptance. After several days of debate, they approved it, but attempted to "sweeten" the wording; they then received a message from Charles, claiming he must retain the right to decide whether to detain someone.
Petition of Right | Passage
The Petitions of Right Act 1860 (23 & 24 Vict., c. 34) was an Act of Parliament passed by the Parliament of the United Kingdom that codified and simplified the process of obtaining a petition of right.
Petitions of Right Act 1860 | Introduction
After setting out a list of individual grievances and statutes that had been broken, the Petition of Right declares that Englishmen have various "rights and liberties", and provides that no person should be forced to provide a gift, loan or tax without an Act of Parliament, that no free individual should be imprisoned or detained unless a cause has been shown, and that soldiers or members of the Royal Navy should not be billeted in private houses without the free consent of the owner. In relation to martial law, the Petition first repeated the due process chapter of "Magna Carta", and then provided that: This clause was directly addressed to the various commissions issued by Charles and his military commanders, restricting the use of martial law except in war or direct rebellion and prohibiting the formation of commissions.
Petition of Right | Provisions
In English law, a petition of right was a remedy available to subjects to recover property from the Crown. Before the Crown Proceedings Act 1947, the British Crown could not be sued in contract. However, as it was seen to be desirable that Crown contractors could obtain redress, lest they be inhibited from taking on such work, the petition of right came to be used in such situations, especially after the Petitions of Right Act 1860 simplified the process. Before the petition could be heard by the courts, it had to be endorsed with the words "fiat justitia" on the advice of the Home Secretary and Attorney-General.
Petition of right | Introduction
These implied the king, or state, could deprive any individual of property, or freedom, without needing to justify it. It united opposition at all levels of society, particularly those elements the monarchy depended on for financial support, collecting taxes, administering justice etc, since wealth simply increased vulnerability.
Petition of Right | Introduction
Even worse, he made little attempt to hide this; as in the crisis of 1640 to 1642, foreign ambassadors were told any concessions were temporary, and Charles expected to regain them by force if needed. No sooner had Parliament adjourned than Charles once again resumed his previous policies, imposing unauthorised taxes, then imprisoning those who resisted using the non-jury Star Chamber. When Parliament and the normal courts quoted the Petition in support of objections to the tax, and the detention of Selden and Sir John Eliot, Charles responded it was not a legal document. Although confirmed as a legal statute in 1641 by the Long Parliament, debate over who was right continues; however, "it seems impossible to establish conclusively which interpretation (is) correct".
Petition of Right | Aftermath
The subsequent proceedings, including those as to disclosing relevant documents followed as far as possible those in an ordinary action. A judgment in favour of the applicant was equivalent to a judgment of amoveas manus ouster le main. Costs were payable to and by the Crown. A petition of right was usually tried in the Chancery or King's Bench divisions but where the subject-matter of the petition arose out of the exercise of belligerent rights on behalf of the Crown, or would be heard in a prize court if the matter were in dispute between private persons, the applicant could at his option start his petition in the Admiralty Court.
Petitions of Right Act 1860 | Procedure
The law as to petitions of right applied to Ireland but not to Scotland, and a right to present such a petition was also thought to exist in colonies whose law was based on the common law of England. Ultimately, in many colonies legislation was passed with respect to claims against the government which made it unnecessary to resort to a petition of right.
Petition of right | Scotland and Ireland
The Lord Chancellor could direct the hearing of petitions of right in that court even when not started there.
Petitions of Right Act 1860 | Procedure
The Act preserved the right to proceed at common law, but gave an alternative remedy. The procedure was regulated by the 1860 Act, and in England also by rules made under the Act on 1 February 1862. The petition was left with the Home Secretary "for the consideration of His Majesty", who if he thought fit granted his "fiat" that right be done. The "fiat" was sealed in the Home Office and issued to the applicant who filed it in the central office of the High Court of Justice, and a sealed copy was served on the Treasury Solicitor, with a demand for a response on behalf of the Crown.
Petitions of Right Act 1860 | Procedure
Charles instructed the House of Lords to reject the bill, and adjourned Parliament on 11 July, but needing money for the war, recalled it on 1 August. However, the Commons began investigating Charles' favourite and military commander, the Duke of Buckingham, notorious for inefficiency and extravagance. When they demanded his impeachment in return for approving taxes, Charles dissolved his first Parliament on 12 August 1625.
Petition of Right | Background
1628: English Petition of Rights By the laws of England, subjects should not be compelled to contribute to any tax, tallage, aid, or any like charge not set by common consent in parliament. 1683: New York Charter of Liberties and Privileges Noe aid, Tax, Tallage, Assessment, Custome, Loane, Benevolence or Imposicion whatsoever shall be laid assessed imposed or levyed on any of his Majestyes Subjects … or their Estates … but by the act and Consent of the Governour Councell and Representatives of the people in Generall Assembly … 1689: English Bill of Rights … levying money for or to the use of the crown by pretense of prerogative, without grant of parliament … is illegal.
1768 Petition, Memorial, and Remonstrance | Formal Assertions of "No Taxation without Representation"
The resulting debate led to some MPs being unable to speak due to their fear that the King was threatening them with the destruction of Parliament. Coke, despite the fear in Parliament, stood and spoke, citing historical precedents supporting the principle that members of the Commons could, within Parliament, say whatever they wished – something now codified as Parliamentary privilege. The Petition of Right was affirmed by the Commons and sent to the Lords, who approved it on 17 May 1628; the document's publication was met with bonfires and the ringing of church bells throughout England. As well as laying out a long list of statutes which had been broken, it proclaimed various "rights and liberties" of free Englishmen, including a freedom from taxation without Parliamentary approval, the right of "habeas corpus", a prohibition on soldiers being billeted in houses without the owner's will, and a prohibition on imposing martial law on civilians.
Edward Coke | Petition of Right
The Tumultuous Petitioning Act 1661 (13 Car 2 Stat. 1 c. 5) was an Act of the Parliament of England. Its long title was "An Act against Tumults and Disorders upon pretence of preparing or presenting publick Peticions or other Addresses to His Majesty or the Parliament". Petitions to either the House of Commons or House of Lords seem to have been later in origin than petitions to the Crown. They are not referred to in the Bill of Rights (1688 or 1689), but the right of petition is a convention of the constitution. Petitions to the Lords or the whole Parliament can be traced back to Henry III.
Tumultuous Petitioning Act 1661 | Introduction
This Latin phrase was normally translated as "Let right be done". One of the most famous "causes célèbres" in English law, the Archer-Shee case, arose out of proceedings on a petition of right.
Petition of right | Introduction
A petition of right was available: Where the Crown was in possession of the property of the applicant, and the title of the Crown appeared by record, as by inquest of office, the remedy was somewhat different and was called monstrans de droit. Petition of right was not available in respect of engagements in the naval, military or civil service, which, were not generally considered as contracts of employment but as appointments enjoyed "during the pleasure" of the Crown. This relationship based on the royal prerogative only ended in 1996. Nor was the action available for breach of public duty, "e.g." a failure to perform treaty obligations, nor for trespass or negligence or other torts by Crown servants.
Petition of right | Claims allowed
The Act applied only to England and Wales but was extended to Ireland by the Petitions of Right (Ireland) Act 1873
Petitions of Right Act 1860 | Territorial extent
The declarations of acceptance were deposited by Robert Boothby MP with the Secretary General of the Council of Europe on 14 January 1966.
Human rights in the United Kingdom | Right of petition
At common law the petition went through its earliest stages in Chancery. The petition suggested a right disputing the title of the Crown, and the Crown endorsed the petition soit droit fait la partie. Then a commission was issued to inquire into the truth of the suggestion. After the return to the commission, the Attorney-General filed a response and the merits were determined as in any "inter partes" action. If the right was determined against the Crown, judgment of amoveas manes was given in favour of the applicant.
Petition of right | Common law
He was now at variance with the Parliamentary Party on two great subjects of policy, disapproving both of the intention of Parliament to take the powers of the executive and also of its inclination towards Puritanism. When once the breach was made it naturally grew wider, partly from the energy each party put into its work, and partly from the personal animosities which arose.
Thomas Wentworth, 1st Earl of Strafford | The Petition of Right and its aftermath
While these are commonly referred to as a "petition" they are forms of civil action against the government that may result in the courts issuing a writ directing the government to act, or refrain from acting, in a specified manner.
Right to petition in the United States | Restrictions
Where such acts were wrongful the remedy was still by action against the official as an individual and not in his official capacity.
Petition of right | Claims allowed
Once assembled, the Commons indicated that it would vote the King five subsidies in return for his acceptance of a Petition of Right, confirming the rights of the individual as against the divine right of the King. After much debate, prevarication and delay, the King finally backed down and gave his assent to the petition in such a way it could be considered law. The Subsidy Bill passed through its final stage in the House of Lords by 17 June 1628.
3rd Parliament of King Charles I | Introduction
It was later passed into formal law by the Long Parliament in 1641 and became one of the three constitutional documents of English civil liberties, along with the "Magna Carta" and the Bill of Rights 1689.
Edward Coke | Petition of Right
1768: Petition to the King … ancient and inestimable right of being governed by such Laws only, respecting their internal Polity and Taxation, as are derived from their own Consent with the approbation of their Sovereign … … Memorial to the House of Lords … no Power on Earth has a Right to impose Taxes upon the People … without their Consent, given by their Representatives in Parliament … … Remonstrance to the House of Commons … the common unquestionable Rights of British Subjects, who, by a fundamental and vital Principle of their Constitution, cannot be subjected to any Kind of Taxation … without their Consent given by their Representatives in Parliament … 1774: Jefferson's … Rights of British America … Still less let it be proposed that our properties within our own territories shall be taxed or regulated by any power on earth but our own.
1768 Petition, Memorial, and Remonstrance | Formal Assertions of "No Taxation without Representation"
The Crown Proceedings Act 1947 ultimately allowed claims to be brought against the Crown as against any other party and throughout the UK, rendering the Act and process obsolete.
Petitions of Right Act 1860 | Repeal
The right to petition government for redress of grievances is the right to make a complaint to, or seek the assistance of, one's government, without fear of punishment or reprisals. In Europe, Article 44 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union ensures the right to petition to the European Parliament. Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany guarantees the right of petition to "competent authorities and to the legislature". The right to petition in the United States is granted by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution (1791).
Right to petition | Introduction
After the first representative English parliament in 1265, the emergence of petitioning in the 13th century is some of the earliest evidence of parliament being used as a forum to address the general grievances of ordinary people. During the early 17th century, the Petition of Right 1628 reasserted the values of the Magna Carta against King Charles I. The idea of freely debating rights to political representation took form during the Putney Debates of 1647. After the English Civil War the Bill of Rights 1689 in England and Wales, and the Claim of Rights Act 1689 in Scotland, enshrined principles of representative democracy, no tax without Parliament, freedom of speech in Parliament, and no "cruel and unusual punishment".
Human rights in the United Kingdom | History
Corbet was returned to parliament again in 1628. The parliament assembled on 17 March. On 4 April the House of Commons voted for five subsidies towards the cost of the war. Corbet voted against the fifth and said: "as the case standeth with us, four subsidies is enough". Parliament then moved on to introduce the Petition of Right, specifically forbidding many of the abuses that had taken place in the preceding period. The petition was accepted by the House of Lords but Charles then tried to silence further debate in the Commons, ordering an end to attacks on his ministers.
Andrew Corbet | The parliament of 1628–1629
The Conservative government elected in 1951 ratified the First Protocol to the ECHR in 1953 relating to the rights to property, education and free elections, but resisted the right of petition on the grounds that the common law would come under scrutiny by an international court. Labour's election in 1964 led to reconsideration of the issue and this time the only senior dissenting voice was that of the Home Secretary, Frank Soskice. Although willing to accept the right of petition, he objected to the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court on the basis that it would deprive the United Kingdom of a degree of flexibility in dealing with petitions and could lead to political embarrassment.
Human rights in the United Kingdom | Right of petition
King Charles I prorogued the Parliament of England in 1628, after the Petition of Right; this development preceded the era of Charles' Personal Rule.
Prorogation in the United Kingdom | After Petition of Right (1628)
Your Petitioner humbly prayeth that he may be restored to the possession of the said lands enjoyed by his predecessor, and kept in the same, till the said Sir Edward Bagshaw shall show reason to the contrary to this Board."
Fartrin | History
The Petition of Right 1628 reversed the effect of the decision by preventing the power of arbitrary committal by the King. The Habeas Corpus Act 1640 restored the right to petition the courts for being let free against the wishes of the King and his Council. John Selden acted as counsel for one of the defendants, Edmund Hampden, in this case; he was a Member of Parliament and claimed afterwards that there was an effort made by the King and Robert Heath, the Attorney General, to tamper with the rulings of the case. While historians have generally agreed with Selden's assertions, Mark Kishlansky has disputed them.
Darnell's Case | Significance
Despite being unanimously accepted by the Commons on 3 April, the Resolutions had no legal power and were rejected by Charles. He presented an alternative; a bill confirming "Magna Carta" and six other liberty-related statutes, on condition it contained "no enlargement of former bills". The Commons refused, since Charles was only confirming established rights, which he had already shown willing to ignore, while it would still allow him to decide what was legal. After conferring with his supporters, Charles announced Parliament would be prorogued on 13 May, but was now out-manoeuvred by his opponents. Since he refused a public bill, Coke suggested the Commons and Lords pass the resolutions as a Petition of Right, and then have it "exemplified under the great seal".
Petition of Right | Passage
In Blackstone's "Commentaries, Americans in the Thirteen Colonies read that "the right of petitioning the king, or either house of parliament, for the redress of grievances" was a "right appertaining to every individual". In 1776, the Declaration of Independence cited King George's failure to redress the grievances listed in colonial petitions, such as the Olive Branch Petition of 1775, as a justification to declare independence: In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Right to petition in the United States | Historic roots
No petition to the Commons has been found earlier than Richard II; but from the time of Henry IV petitions to the Commons have been freely made. The political importance of petitioning dates from about the reign of Charles I. The development of the practice of petitioning had proceeded so far in the reign of Charles II as to lead to the passing in 1662 of an Act against "tumultuous petitioning". It provides that no petition or address shall be presented to the king or either house of Parliament by more than ten persons; nor shall any one procure above twenty persons to consent or set their hands to any petition for alteration of matters established by law in church or state, unless with the previous order of three justices of the county, or the major part of the grand jury.
Tumultuous Petitioning Act 1661 | Introduction
The petition was rejected by the party registration committee.
Secular Right | History
Charles' acceptance was greeted with widespread public celebrations, including ringing of church bells and lighting of bonfires throughout the country. However, in August, Buckingham was assassinated by a disgruntled former soldier, while the surrender of La Rochelle in October effectively ended the war, and Charles' need for taxes. It 1629, he dissolved Parliament, ushering in eleven years of Personal Rule, in which he attempted to regain all the ground lost. The process and tactics employed by Charles remained consistent for the rest of his reign; refusing to negotiate until forced, then making concessions with little or no intention of keeping them.
Petition of Right | Aftermath
Coke undertook the central role in framing and writing the Petition of Right. The ongoing struggles over martial law and civil liberties, along with the rejection of the "Resolutions" seriously concerned the Commons. Accordingly, Coke convinced the Lords to meet with the Commons in April 1628 in order to discuss a petition to the King confirming the rights and liberties of royal subjects. The Commons immediately accepted this, and after a struggle, the Lords agreed to allow a committee chaired by Coke to draft the eventual document. Hearing of this, the King sent a message to Parliament forbidding the Commons from discussing matters of state.
Edward Coke | Petition of Right
The emergence of petitioning during the reign of Edward I of England (1272-1307) contributed to beginnings of legislative power for the Parliament of England. Petitions became a common form of protest and request to the British House of Commons in the 18th and 19th centuries; one million petitions were submitted to the UK's parliament between 1780 and 1918. The largest was the Great/People's Charter, or petition of the Chartists.
Petition | Early history
A petition in Jane's name was sent to Henry VII's first Parliament in December of 1485. The petition probably did not come directly from Jane herself as she was still in her captors' hands. It sought an order that Jane be returned to Morley within six days of the order being made, that the Willoughbys be remanded without bail and tried for the alleged felonies of ravishment and robbery at the next session of the King's Bench, that they receive a felon's sentence if found guilty, and that Jane's right to sue for trespass, false imprisonment, robbery and rape also be preserved.
Jane Statham | Parliamentary petition and legal reform
In the Petition of Right (1628) Parliament argued that the King had flouted Magna Carta by imprisoning people without just cause. The Habeas Corpus Act 1679 states, "A Magistrate shall discharge prisoners from their Imprisonment taking their Recognizance, with one or more Surety or Sureties, in any Sum according to the Magistrate's discretion, unless it shall appear that the Party is committed for such Matter or offences for which by law the Prisoner is not bailable." The English Bill of Rights (1689) states that "excessive bail hath been required of persons committed in criminal cases, to elude the benefit of the laws made for the liberty of the subjects.
Bail | History
Unfortunately for Charles and Buckingham, the relief expedition proved a fiasco (1627), and Parliament, already hostile to Buckingham for his monopoly on royal patronage, opened impeachment proceedings against him. Charles responded by dissolving Parliament. This saved Buckingham but confirmed the impression that Charles wanted to avoid Parliamentary scrutiny of his ministers. Having dissolved Parliament and unable to raise money without it, the king assembled a new one in 1628. (The elected members included Oliver Cromwell, John Hampden, and Edward Coke.) The new Parliament drew up a Petition of Right, which Charles accepted as a concession to obtain his subsidy. The Petition made reference to Magna Carta, but did not grant him the right of tonnage and poundage, which Charles had been collecting without Parliamentary authorisation since 1625.
English Civil War | Parliamentary concerns and the Petition of Right
In 1628 Edward Alford was elected MP for Steyning but it is not clear if this refers to Alford or his son. On 8 May 1628, the House drew up "The Petition of Rights" and sent it to the Upper House for its assent. When the amended bill was returned to the commons on 17 May Alford said "Let us look into the Records and see what they are: what is Sovereign Power? Bodin saith that it is free from any conditions. By this we shall acknowledge a regal, as well as a legal, power. Let us give that to the King the Law gives him, and no more.
Edward Alford (Colchester MP) | Political career
On January 19, 1775, the petition was presented to the House of Commons by Lord North, and was also presented to the House of Lords the following day. Because the petition was intermingled with many other documents, and given the increasing turmoil of the times, little attention was given to the petition by Parliament. Likewise, the King never gave the Colonies a formal reply to their petition.
Petition to the King | Response
The applications being made ex parte, the rights of absent persons, infants and others, had to be protected by the commissioners themselves. The number of petitions filed from October 1849 to 31 August 1857 was 4,413. The lands sold on these petitions were conveyed to the purchasers by means of upwards of eight thousand deeds of conveyance. The gross amount produced by sales of estates was £25,190,389. Hargreave, in reply to a question put by a parliamentary committee, stated that "no mistake of consequence was ever made by the court".
Charles James Hargreave | Life
After lengthy debates, the bill was defeated in August 1641. (Though note that Parliament did determine to exclude the bishops from the House of Lords and passed the Bishops Exclusion Act in December 1641. The Bishops Exclusion Act became effective in February 1642.)
Root and Branch petition | Introduction
Several more active members of the opposition were imprisoned, which caused outrage; one, John Eliot, subsequently died in prison and came to be seen as a martyr for the rights of Parliament.
English Civil War | Parliamentary concerns and the Petition of Right
Pamphlets published at the time referred to pawnbrokers charging 30 percent. The matter was rapidly considered by House of Commons (in Committee of the Whole House) who heard witnesses, several of whom were in prison for debt. The committee reported: A bill was introduced accordingly, but had only been passed by the Commons, when the king prorogued Parliament. on 7 May 1731
Charitable Corporation | Petitions
On the abolition of the short sale system, however, he drew a line, explaining that it was not related to the accident, which involved the sale of stocks that were received in error. 32nd petition answer - a petition calling for the investigation and criminal punishment of all former and incumbent member of the National Assembly for violations of the .
Petitions to Blue House | Answers 31–40
In 1688, the issue arose during the trial of the Seven Bishops—William Sancroft, Archbishop of Canterbury; Sir Jonathan Trelawny, 3rd Baronet, Bishop of Winchester; Thomas Ken, Bishop of Bath and Wells; John Lake, Bishop of Chester; William Lloyd, Bishop of Worcester; Francis Turner, Bishop of Ely and Thomas White, Bishop of Peterborough—by a common jury. The charge was that a petition sent by the Bishops constituted seditious libel; the Bishops argued that they had the right to petition the Sovereign at any time, while the prosecution charged that such a right was only permissible when Parliament was in session (which, at the time of the delivery of the petition, it was not).
Lords Spiritual | Peers
Two aspects of the Convention gave the United Kingdom's representatives to the Council of Europe cause for concern: the establishment of a European Court of Human Rights and the right of individual petition to the Court. It was thought that the possibility to submit complaints was open to abuse and could be used for political purposes, notably by members of the Communist Party, rather than for genuine grievances. In addition, it was feared that the consequences of accepting individual petition would be to cause instability in the British colonies as Britain's authority could be undermined. Britain's attempts to exclude the provisions relating to these two issues were unsuccessful but it managed to ensure that they were optional.
Human rights in the United Kingdom | Right of petition
In 1628, Wentworth was one of the more vocal supporters of the Petition of Right, which attempted to curb the power of the King. Once Charles had grudgingly accepted the Petition, Wentworth felt it appropriate to support the crown, saying, "The authority of a king is the keystone which closeth up the arch of order and government". He was consequently branded a turncoat. In the parliament of 1628, Wentworth joined the popular leaders in resistance to arbitrary taxation and imprisonment, but tried to obtain his goal without offending the Crown. He led the movement for a bill which would have secured the liberties of the subject as completely as the Petition of Right afterwards did, but in a manner less offensive to the King.
Thomas Wentworth, 1st Earl of Strafford | The Petition of Right and its aftermath
In December 1965, Wilson informed the House of Commons that the right of petition would be recognised for an initial period of three years. At the time the government were concerned that the Burmah Oil Company would take advantage of the new right to contest the legality of the War Damage Act 1965 depriving the company of the right to compensation for damage caused during World War II as recognised by a House of Lords' decision, the acceptance was timed to fall outside the six-month limitation period for challenges to the Act and the United Kingdom's acceptance also explicitly stated that it applied only to claims arising after its effective date.
Human rights in the United Kingdom | Right of petition
That Your Excellency's Petitioner is now old and without property; that he finds it difficult to obtain a livelihood by his labour; that he is above all things desirous to return to his native Country; that His Majesty's Government be graciously pleased to grant him any relief, he wishes it may be by affording him the means to proceed to England and from thence to a Settlement near the Gambia or Senegal Rivers, from whence he could return to Bondu ... York Upper Canada 21st July 1821 His request was denied and instead Pierpoint and several other Coloured Corps veterans, were given land grants in Garafraxa, just outside present-day Fergus.
Richard Pierpoint | Petition
The proposal failed because of both the uncompromising nature of the parliamentary party and Charles's stubborn refusal to make concessions, and the leadership was snatched from Wentworth's hands by John Eliot and Edward Coke. Later in the session he quarrelled with Eliot because Wentworth wanted to come to a compromise with the Lords, so as to leave room for the King to act unchecked in special emergencies. On 22 July 1628, not long after the prorogation, Wentworth was created Baron Wentworth, and received the promise of the presidency of the Council of the North at the next vacancy. This implied no change of principle.
Thomas Wentworth, 1st Earl of Strafford | The Petition of Right and its aftermath
They in themselves were an expression of strong latent support for monarchy and the English traditional constitutional limits on its power, a desire to lose the military overtones of the earlier Protectorate and the increasingly small level of control Cromwell was able to exert due to ill health and frustration with a lack of revolutionary ideology amongst his subjects.
Humble Petition and Advice | Introduction
A petition was put forth to the Secretary of State for Scotland pleading that the sentence be reduced to penal servitude because of her gender and the fact that she was destitute, and husband had abandoned her and was left homeless and penniless. The Secretary, Viscount Novar, rejected that and stated that he would not interfere with the law.
Susan Newell | Petition
In the United States the right to petition is guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which specifically prohibits Congress from abridging "the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances". Although often overlooked in favor of other more famous freedoms, and sometimes taken for granted, many other civil liberties are enforceable against the government only by exercising this basic right. According to the Congressional Research Service, since the Constitution was written,
Right to petition in the United States | Introduction
The Kentish Petition of 1701 was a petition from leading citizens of the County of Kent, presented to the House of Commons of Parliament of England on 8 May 1701. The petition had been circulated at the Kentish quarter sessions held at Maidstone on 29 April, and was signed by the deputy lieutenants, grand jurors, and 23 justices, as well as a number of freeholders. The message was on Whiggish principles, asking that the Tory-dominated House would turn their loyal addresses into bills of supply, to enable the King (William III) to build a standing army and forge alliances to counteract the French threat to the peace of Europe.
Kentish Petition of 1701 | Introduction
On December 21, Benjamin Franklin, Lee, and Bollan were notified by Lord Dartmouth that the petition was "decent and respectful" and that it would be presented as soon as possible to the Houses of Parliament. However, Franklin wrote two days later that the petition could not be presented to Parliament until after the Christmas recess.
Petition to the King | Delivery of the document
The Declaration of Right, or Declaration of Rights, is a document produced by the English Parliament, following the 1688 Glorious Revolution. It set outs the wrongs committed by the exiled James II, the rights of English citizens, and the obligation of their monarch. On 13 February 1689, it was read out to James' daughter, Mary, and her husband, William of Orange, when they were jointly offered the throne, although not made a condition of acceptance. The Declaration itself was a tactical compromise between Whig and Tories; it established grievances, without agreeing their cause, or solution.
Declaration of Right, 1689 | Introduction
Nonetheless, by 1965 a majority of government ministers believed that the Court would not pose a significantly greater threat to national sovereignty or to political survival than the Commission of Human Rights to which the United Kingdom was subject. Further pressure for acceptance came from the British judge and President of the Court, Arnold McNair, 1st Baron McNair, the Secretary General of the Council of Europe Peter Smithers, Terence Higgins MP and various non-governmental organisations. As had been the case for ratification in 1950, the Labour government concluded in 1965 that there was little to be lost from giving in to the pressure to recognise the Court and the right of petition.
Human rights in the United Kingdom | Right of petition
I have always been forward for Parliament in co. Berks, in the committee for the associated counties, and have had my house and goods plundered, and my eldest son carried from his house prisoner, and most cruelly used, almost to death, and I have 8 children. I beg that if Mr. Henley be adjudged incapable of the office for delinquency, the whole office then being mine by right, you will consider my interest and care, and add something to my 1/12". He bought from the Treason Trustees some houses in Drury Lane forfeited by William Lord Craven, which were discharged from sequestration on 17 March 1646.
Samuel Wightwick | Introduction
In some cases a petition was presented and security for costs was given, but the petitioner applied to withdraw the petition before trial.
List of UK Parliamentary election petitions | Petitions withdrawn before trial
Supporting Bradlaugh were William Ewart Gladstone, T. P. O'Connor and George Bernard Shaw as well as hundreds of thousands of people who signed a public petition. Opposing his right to sit were the Conservative Party, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and other leading figures in the Church of England and Roman Catholic Church.
Charles Bradlaugh | Imprisonment
The first significant exercise and defense of the right to petition within the U.S. was to advocate the end of slavery by petitioning Congress in the mid-1830s, including 130,000 such requests in 1837 and 1838. In 1836, the House of Representatives adopted a gag rule that would table all such anti-slavery petitions. John Quincy Adams and other Representatives eventually achieved the repeal of this rule in 1844 on the basis that it was contrary to the right to petition the government.
Right to petition in the United States | First use
The prohibition of abridgment of the "right to petition" originally referred only to the Congress and the U.S. federal courts. The incorporation doctrine later expanded the protection of the right to its current scope, over all state and federal courts and legislatures, and the executive branches of the state and federal governments.
Right to petition | United States of America
The opening paragraph of the Nineteen Propositions introduces the document as a petition which it is hoped that Charles, in his "princely wisdom," will be "pleased to grant." The propositions follow in nineteen numbered points: It concluded "And these our humble desires being granted by your Majesty, we shall forthwith apply ourselves to regulate your present revenue in such sort as may be for your best advantage; and likewise to settle such an ordinary and constant increase of it, as shall be sufficient to support your royal dignity in honour and plenty, beyond the proportion of any former grants of the subjects of this kingdom to your Majesty's royal predecessors."
Nineteen Propositions | Contents
However, on 4 February the Commons decided to instruct the committee to differentiate between "such of the general heads, as are introductory of new laws, from those that are declaratory of ancient rights". On 7 February the Commons approved this revised Declaration of Right, and on 8 February instructed the committee to put into a single text the Declaration (with the heads which were "introductory of new laws" removed), the resolution of 28 January and the Lords' proposal for a revised oath of allegiance. It passed the Commons without division. On 13 February the clerk of the House of Lords read the Declaration of Right, and the Marquess of Halifax, in the name of all the estates of the realm, asked William and Mary to accept the throne.
Bill of Rights 1689 | Declaration of Right
While the prohibition of abridgment of the right to petition originally referred only to the federal legislature (the Congress) and courts, the incorporation doctrine later expanded the protection of the right to its current scope, over all state and federal courts and legislatures and the executive branches of the state and federal governments. The right to petition includes under its umbrella the legal right to sue the government, and the right of individuals, groups and possibly corporations to lobby the government. Some litigants have contended that the right to petition the government includes a requirement that the government listen to or respond to members of the public.
Right to petition in the United States | Scope
Members of the group were unable to obtain bank loans and contracts. Suharto remarked: "I didn't like what the so-called Petition of Fifty did. I didn't like their methods, even more so because they called themselves patriots".
Petition of Fifty | Government response
The authors acknowledge how the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, with its "paternal solicitude", makes it so that "the poor villager is no longer obliged to grovel before the proud seigneur of his parish; the unfortunate vassal can halt in his tracks the impetuous boar that piteously ravaged his crops; the timid soldier dares to complain when he is run down by the splendid coach of the superb publican; the modest priest can sit down in ease at the table of his most illustrious and most reverend superior; . . . the black African will no longer find himself compared to a stupid animal which, goaded by the prod of a fierce driver, irrigates our furrows with his sweat and blood." However, they were angered that women would be left out of being given rights and being able to partake in the reshaping of their country.
Women's Petition to the National Assembly | The petition
This was the greatest number of petitions to have been submitted by the Commons in the history of parliament. Their requests ranged from confirmation of the acts against the Despensers and those in favour of Thomas of Lancaster, to the reconfirmation of the Magna Carta. There were ecclesiastical petitions, and those from the shires dealt mainly in annulling debts and amercements of both individuals and towns. There were numerous requests for the King's grace, for example, overturning perceived false judgements in local courts and concerns for law and order in the localities generally. Restoring law and order was a priority of the new regime, as Edward II's reign had foundered on his inability to do so, and his failure then used to depose him.
Parliament of 1327 | Recall of parliament
I am not the sponsor of this legislation, nor have I ever endorsed or spoken in favor of it." The Massachusetts Executive Office of Administration and Finance defines a 'free petition' as: "In Massachusetts all citizens have the right to petition the state legislature. This procedure is called the right of free petition. A citizen drafts and files a Petition and accompanying Bill. A legislator sponsors the Bill in the General Court. If a legislator disagrees with the contents of the Bill, he/she may indicate this by placing the phrase 'By request' after his/her name." The text of S787 specifies that it was filed by "Richard J.
Richard J. Ross | S787 Controversy
Before the Act, the Crown could not be sued in contract. However, as it was seen to be desirable that Crown contractors could obtain redress, they would otherwise be inhibited from taking on such work, so a petition of right came to be used in such situations, especially after the Petitions of Right Act 1860 simplified the process. Before the petition could be heard by the courts, it had to be endorsed with the words "fiat justitia" on the advice of the Home Secretary and Attorney-General. Similarly, the Crown could not be sued in tort. The usual remedy was for the complainant to sue the public servant responsible for the injury.
Crown Proceedings Act 1947 | Background
In 1628, Charles I, having prorogued Parliament in early summer and after his assent to the Petition of Right, proceeded to levy ship money on every county in England without Parliament, issuing writs requiring £173,000 to be returned to the exchequer. This was the first occasion when the demand for ship-money aroused serious opposition, in view of the declaration in the petition that [Y]our subjects have inherited this freedom, that they should not be compelled to contribute to any tax, tallage, aid, or other like charge not set by common consent, in parliament. Charles' requests to sheriffs were rejected by the overburdened inland populations; Lord Northampton, Lord-Lieutenant of Warwickshire, and the Earl of Banbury in Berkshire, refused to assist in collecting the money; and Charles withdrew the writs.
Ship money | Opposition
The speeches of Sir William Meredith and Sir George Savile in favour of the petition were reported by Furneaux from memory. In the course of the debate the remark was made by Lord North, who opposed the petition, that if similar relief were asked by the dissenting clergy there would be no reasonable objection to it. Acting on this hint Furneaux and Pickard called a meeting of nonconformist ministers of the three denominations, who adopted an application to Parliament (prepared by Furneaux) for relief from doctrinal subscription. A relief bill passed the Commons on 3 April 1772 without a division; on 18 May it was rejected in the Lords.
Philip Furneaux | Activist
The Claim was part of a process which led to devolution of powers from the Parliament of the United Kingdom to a new Scottish Parliament in 1999. Its title was a reference to the Claim of Right Act 1689, an Act of the Parliament of Scotland which limited the power of the Scottish monarch (at the time, William III and Mary II) in much the same manner as the English Bill of Rights passed the same year.
Claim of Right 1989 | Introduction
[I]t is expedient that new … regulations should be established for improving the revenue of this Kingdom ... and ... it is just and necessary that a revenue should be raised ... for defraying the expenses of defending, protecting, and securing the same. Sugar Act Preamble, 1764
1768 Petition, Memorial, and Remonstrance | Constitutional Chronology
An election petition is a petition challenging the result of an election to a United Kingdom Parliament constituency. The Parliamentary Elections Act 1868 transferred the jurisdiction for considering petitions from the House of Commons to the High Court of Justice. The following table lists all those petitions which subsequently came to trial.
List of UK Parliamentary election petitions | Introduction
On 27 March 1625, James I died, and was succeeded by his son, Charles I. His most pressing foreign policy issue was the Thirty Years' War, particularly regaining the hereditary lands and titles of the Protestant Frederick V, Elector Palatine, who was married to his sister Elizabeth. The pro-Spanish policy pursued by James prior to 1623 had been unpopular, inefficient, and expensive, and there was widespread support for declaring war. However, money granted by Parliament for this purpose was spent on the royal household, while they also objected to the use of indirect taxes and customs duties. Charles' first Parliament wanted to review the entire system, and as a temporary measure while doing so, the Commons granted Tonnage and Poundage for twelve months, rather than the entire reign, as was customary.
Petition of Right | Background
A state of war automatically activated martial law; as such, the only purpose for commissions, in their view, was to unjustly permit martial law in circumstances that did not require it.
Petition of Right | Provisions
An angry Commons declared the petition ‘scandalous, insolent and seditious; tending to destroy the constitution of Parliaments, and to subvert the established government of the realm’. The five presenters of the petition were ordered into the custody of the serjeant-at-arms, then four of them were sent as prisoners to Gatehouse Prison, where they remained till the end of the session. They were William Colepeper, chairman of the quarter sessions, who had drawn up the petition; David Polhill; Thomas Colepeper (who absconded before the others were sent to the Gatehouse); William Hamilton; and Justinian Champneys. On 14 May Daniel Defoe flanked by a guard of sixteen gentlemen of quality in case of any attempt to arrest him, presented a "Legion's Memorial" (of which he was tacitly understood to be the author) to the Speaker of the House of Commons, Robert Harley.
Kentish Petition of 1701 | Introduction
With the rejection of the Decimation Tax, it was clear that government through the Major-Generals could not continue. In February 1657 Cromwell was offered the crown and a new constitution called the Humble Petition and Advice.
Second Protectorate Parliament | Introduction of the Humble Petition and Advice
In considering the right to appeal, two questions had to be considered: The first question was answered in the affirmative, as the Parliament's jurisdiction over "Bankruptcy and Insolvency" arose from s. 91 of the "British North America Act, 1867". As the Board noted: As the procedure provided under the federal Act was for its own proceedings, and not for those under the provincial Code, such provision did not entrench on the royal prerogative. In addition, Colonial legislatures had in several circumstances already deemed certain judicial decisions to be final and not subject to further appeal. Therefore, the Court of Queen's Bench was correct in stating that it must refuse leave in this matter.
Cushing v Dupuy | The case at hand
Haxey's case (1397) "Rotuli Parliamentorum" (iii) 434, is a UK constitutional law case that established the right to free speech within Parliament.
Haxey's case | Introduction
The petition declared, "We being struken with the sence and horror of so desperate a mischiefe, do hold it high time to declare the sincere and ardent Affection of our hearts, which we are ready to seale with our purest blood, in defence of our Religion, his Sacred Majesty, our deare Country; and that which is the life of our Liberty, the Rights and Priviledges of Parliament." His brother Sir Peter Wroth, whose son was a royalist and fought at the battle of Newbury in 1643, died in 1645 making Sir Thomas his sole executor. In February 1646 Wroth was elected MP for Bridgwater as a recruiter to the Long Parliament.
Thomas Wroth (died 1672) | Career
The Commons declared on 18 December 1621: The commons now assembled in parliament, being justly occasioned thereunto, concerning sundry liberties, franchises, privileges, and jurisdictions of parliament, amongst others not herein mentioned, do make this protestation following:—That the liberties, franchises, privileges, and jurisdictions of parliament are the ancient and undoubted birthright and inheritance of the subjects of England; and that the arduous and urgent affairs concerning the king, state, and the defence of the realm, and of the church of England, and the making and maintenance of laws, and redress of mischiefs, and grievances which daily happen within this realm, are proper subjects and matter of counsel and debate in parliament; and that in the handling and proceeding of those businesses, every member of the house hath, and of right ought to have, freedom of speech to propound, treat, reason, and bring to conclusion the same: that the commons in parliament have like liberty and freedom to treat of those matters, in such order as in their judgments shall seem fittest: and that every such member of the said house hath like freedom from all impeachment, imprisonment, and molestation (other than, by the censure of the house itself), for or concerning any bill, speaking, reasoning, or declaring of any matter or matters, touching the parliament or parliament business; and that, if any of the said members be complained of, and questioned for any thing said or done in parliament, the same is to be showed to the king, by the advice and assent of all the commons assembled in parliament, before the king give credence to any private information.
Protestation of 1621 | Introduction
It was repealed by section 40(3) of, and Schedule 3 to, the Public Order Act 1986.
Tumultuous Petitioning Act 1661 | Introduction
The Claim of Right is an Act passed by the Parliament of Scotland in April 1689. It is one of the key documents of United Kingdom constitutional law and Scottish constitutional law.
Claim of Right Act 1689 | Introduction
The Root and Branch Petition was a petition presented to the Long Parliament on December 11, 1640. The petition had been signed by 15,000 Londoners and was presented to the English Parliament by a crowd of 1,500. The petition called on Parliament to abolish episcopacy from the 'roots' and in all its 'branches'. The House of Commons was reluctant to act on the Root and Branch Petition, though it did ultimately refer the petition to committee in February 1641. This petition formed the basis of the Root and Branch Bill, which was drawn up by Oliver St John and introduced in Parliament by Henry Vane the Younger and Oliver Cromwell in May 1641.
Root and Branch petition | Introduction
The Protestation of 1621 was a declaration by the House of Commons of England reaffirming their right to freedom of speech in the face of King James' belief that they had no right to debate foreign policy. Many Members of Parliament were unhappy with James' foreign policy. They opposed the Spanish Match (the plan to marry Charles, Prince of Wales to the Spanish Infanta) and wished for a war against Spain. The MPs believed that if they conceded that they had no right to debate matters which displeased the King, Parliament would be obsolete. As William Hakewill MP and historian stated: "The privileges of this House are the flowers of the Crown, and we shall never sit here again if they are not maintained".
Protestation of 1621 | Introduction
Fiat justitia is a Latin phrase, meaning "Let justice be done". Historically in England, a warrant for a writ of error in Parliament or later a petition of right in the courts could be brought only after the king, or on his behalf the Home Secretary, had endorsed "fiat justitia" on a petition for such a warrant. It was a means of granting leave to appeal by exercise of the royal prerogative.
Fiat justitia | Introduction
Both the Statute of Westminster 1275 and Statute of Westminster 1285, with the assistance of Robert Burnell, codified the existing law in England. As the number of petitions being submitted to parliament increased, they came to be dealt with, and often ignored, more and more by ministers of the Crown so as not to block the passage of government business through parliament. However the emergence of petitioning is significant because it is some of the earliest evidence of parliament being used as a forum to address the general grievances of ordinary people. Submitting a petition to parliament is a tradition that continues to this day in the Parliament of the United Kingdom and in most Commonwealth realms.
Parliament of England | Emergence as an institution
If the bishops were only Lords of Parliament, and not peers, their right to petition would be vitiated while Parliament was dissolved. Peers, however, were and still are counsellors of the Sovereign whether Parliament is in session or not; therefore, if the bishops were indeed peers, they would be free to send petitions. Since there was no doubt that the petition was actually sent, while the Court still ruled the bishops not guilty, it appears that it was taken for granted that the bishops were counsellors of the Crown.
Lords Spiritual | Peers
Two accounts are extant of the petition he presented on behalf of his fellow Catholics, at that time severely limited by legislation in the practice of their religion. One is by Peter Penkevel, who was his servant in the Marshalsea at the time of his death. This is printed by John Hungerford Pollen. Peter Penkevel says he came to London about 1584, when Mr. Robert Bellamy and others were prisoners in the Marshalsea: but Robert Bellamy was not committed there till 30 January 1586. So Penkevel must be wrong in his dates, and all that he knows about the petition, which was presented (as he says, to the queen) nearly a year previously, is mere hearsay.
Richard Shelley | The petition
In particular, because the colonies were not directly represented in Parliament, colonists argued that Parliament had no right to levy taxes upon them. After colonists destroyed thousands of pounds of British-taxed tea during the Boston Tea Party, Parliament passed the Coercive Acts in 1774, punishing the colonies for their actions. These punitive Acts were vehemently opposed by the colonists, leading the newly formed Continental Congress to seek redress with King George III, in an attempt to reach a common understanding.
Petition to the King | Political background
This view was rejected by the United States Supreme Court in 1984: Nothing in the First Amendment or in this Court's case law interpreting it suggests that the rights to speak, associate, and petition require government policymakers to listen or respond to communications of members of the public on public issues.
Right to petition in the United States | Scope