English Constitutional Law & Treason At Maastricht

This article about the Treason of Her Majesty's Government is, at least fairly authoritative, which makes it rather better than my little essay [ Treason At Maastricht ] on the same subject. John Major, Hurd & Maude are fingered as Traitors.

http://www.freenations.freeuk.com/news-treason.html good run down










Treaty on the European Union and English Constitutional Law Or Treason at Maastricht

The Following has been written by a barrister & checked over by a solicitor with the intention of building a prima facie case for treason





All the links on this page refer to PDF files many of which are on scanned documents. The index files may take some time to download but the page links throughout the Treason Allegation should not take more than 30 seconds.

Please note:

All pages numbers in italics (with links) refer to the pages in this document.


Treason Allegation


1. The Treaty on European Union ( Official Journal C 191, 29 July 1992 ) ( item 1 ) was an international treaty signed by the High Contracting Parties, which included Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The Treaty stated that it:

“Resolved to mark a new stage in the process of European Integration undertaken with the establishment of the European Communities.”

and it: “Resolved to establish a citizenship common to nationals of their countries." Article 8 expanded on these resolutions. Under the heading "Citizenship of the Union" article 8 said: "

1 Citizenship of the Union is hereby established. Every person holding the nationality of a member State shall be a citizen of the Union.

2 Citizens of the Union shall enjoy the rights conferred by this Treaty and shall be subject to the duties imposed thereby."

This Treaty was later made a part of UK and Northern Ireland domestic law by an Act of Parliament namely the European Communities (amendment) Act 1993 (c32).

John Major was Prime Minister during the time of the negotiations on the Treaty were being conducted and he was the minister responsible for advising Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II to sign the Treaty. When he came back from the negotiations in Maastricht he said that Her Majesty the Queen was now a citizen of Europe. In view of Article 8 of the Treaty and the words in the recitals, quoted above, this is an accurate statement of the Treaty's legal effect. There were two plenipotentiaries designated by Her Majesty the Queen in the Treaty-these were the Rt Hon, Douglas Hurd, secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and the Hon Francis Maud, Financial Secretary to the Treasury. They were recoded as having agreed to Article 8.

2. The question for the police is whether the signing of the Treaty was one which was legal under the English Constitution?

That England does have a very ancient Constitution is clear. It goes back at least to the days of King Alfred (b. 841) who recorded the laws and customs of all the old Kingdoms over which he ruled in a book he called the Dome' (taken from Doom meaning punishment). Each of Alfred's laws was based on the teachings of Holy Scripture. Alfred showed this book of law to the Witan (councillors of a Saxon King) who agreed it was good law. It was issued throughout Alfred's Kingdom as the Kings law.

This forms the basis of our modern English Constitution. It has been argued that it no longer applied after the Norman Conquest. However, it is most apparent from the Doomsday book compiled by William the Conqueror in 1086 that the former Alfred's laws were still on force see Government of England p8 para (2) item (3) and Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England p191(item 4). Page 29.

From the time of King Alfred there has been tradition of refusal to accept foreign interference in England's Affairs. During the reign of King Alfred, Alfred decided on a suitable candidate for Archbishop, but the Pope had other ideas and sent an Archbishop from Rome. Alfred returned the Popes choice but the Pope sent back a message that he the Pope appointed every King in the world and if Alfred did not accept his choice he would appoint a new King, despite this Alfred sent the Archbishop back to the Pope with the message that he Alfred would only ever do what was in the best interests of his subjects who elected him King.

This theme in Constitutional Law was subsequently developed. King John in 1213 was having a great deal of trouble from the Barons and the population generally. He had been using foreign mercenaries to suppress the population because our own soldiers reed to dfuso so. He enraged the Barons by taking advantage of their wives. Fearing for his own safety and needing a powerful allie he surrendered England to Archbishop Pandolf the Papal Legate at Dover renting it back as a vassal King to the Pope for 1000 marks a year 700 for England 300 for Irelands. John's concession of England to the Pope is and the Oath of Fealty he took are p38-39 of English Constitutional Documents found on Page 15. This is also mentioned at page 26.

King John died in 1216 his son Henry III was only 9 years of age when he came to the throne, the Earl of Pembroke one of those who had assisted King John to surrender England to the Pope was appointed as his guardian, (it must be said that the majority of the Barons objected and did not support this surrender of England). The rent was paid during his minority but on coming of age to rule in his own right, he informed the Pope he Henry was answerable for all things to do with the church in England only to God. Henry stopped paying the rent and placed those Barons who had assisted his father to surrender England to the Pope on trial for treason. It must be said the majority of the Barons refused to accept the Popes authority. Page 16-17 English Constitutional Documents, see also the Prerogatives of the King Page 26 -27.

Subsequently in 1366 King Edward III received a letter from the Pope demanding the unpaid money from the time Henry III had stopped paying it. King Edward III spoke to the Bishops then the Barons and they asking for time to consider the matter spoke with the Commons. On the morrow first the Bishops then the Barons then the Commons spoke to the King, they all individually told King Edward III that England did not belong to King John it was not his to give away he broke the law and his surrender of England to the Pope was illegal and did not count. Page 130 in English Constitutional Documents Page 17 in the Bundle and Pages 11-12 in the Prerogatives of the King. Pages 21-22 

It will be noted that King Edward III preyed first the Prelates then the Dukes Earls and Barons for their advice and good council. They asked to take council by themselves and to give answer on the morrow. On the said morrow first the Prelates by themselves and then the Dukes Earls and Barons and the great men answered. They said that neither King John nor any other could put himself nor his realm nor his people in such subjection without their assent and accord, and the Commons having been consulted answered in like manner. Page 130 of English Constitutional Documents Page 17 and pages 11-12 in the Prerogatives of the King Pages 21-22 .

This is a Major Constitutional ruling. It is important to note that King Edward III consulted the Prelates, the Dukes, Earls, Barons and other great men and then the Commons separately. King Edward III attended his Parliaments and this discussion was held in his absence. As such their ruling can only be reversed by a meeting of all the estates of England meeting separately and not by a Parliament.

It is important in this context to understand that the King is not one of the three estates of England but he is head of each of them. But is not one of them. This appears as by many evident instance, so especially to name but two: namely the confirmation of the peace with France sent over by the King to be approved by the three Estates, viz the Lords Spiritual, the Lords Temporal, and the Commons. Rot. Parl. 9 H. 5 (pt 1) n 18 Page 13 in the Government of England Page 23. And in the usurpation of King Richard III the instrument whereof  is sent into Parliament to be confirmed by the three Estates. The King is Sovereign and is head of the three Estates and as every person by his allegiance owes a subjection to the King as his Sovereign, so these three Estates taken apart as three several bodies or taken collectively as making up one body owe their subjection to the King as their head and accordingly profess it see Page 13 of Government of England Page 23. The recognitions of this are in 1 Eliz, cap 3 and 1 Jac. Cap. 1 Page 11 the Prerogatives of the King Page 21.

It should be stated by the custom  and practice of Parliament the King must be present. All our Kings and Queens up to Queen Anne attended Parliament. It was not until King George 1 who spoke no English that the King ceased to attend Parliament and ceased to take part in government. From that date 1st August 1714 the Commons have taken every opportunity to assume the Royal Prerogative, claiming the 1689 Bill of Rights which incorporates the 1689 Declaration of Rights transferred sovereignty to Parliament. It does not do so sovereignty remains with the King or Queen.

This major Constitutional ruling by the three Estates decided that the King only holds England for those who follow on and has no authority to dispose of the Kingdom to anyone. "That the supreme administration of this Monarchy is lodged in the King, and that not only titular, but really". In 26 Henry Cap 1 Page 11 government of England Page 21 It is stated that the King our Sovereign Lord, his heirs and successors Kings of England shall be taken, accepted and reputed the only supreme head of the church of England 1 Eliz. Cap 3  "the three Estates in Parliament of the realm assembled in Parliament, viz the Lords Spiritual, the Lords Temporal and Commons do recognize that the Queen is and in very deed and of the most mere right ought to be by the laws of God and the laws and statutes of this realm" ect. The (supreme administration annexed to the person of the Prince or Monarch is not subjected to any other powers on earth, either without the Kingdom or within it Page 11 the Prerogatives of the King Page 23 . It is also stated at Page 12 of the Prerogatives of the King Page 22. As there is no subjection to any foreign Ecclesiastical power so neither to a foreign temporal power see the example given there.

The King cannot even decide who succeeds him on his death: this is laid down in the Common Law of England. The subject of succession to the Crown is explored in detail in Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, in the third chapter entitled of the King and his title Page 191 - 2 Blackstone's Commentaries of the Laws of England. Page 29 - 30. Blackstone makes the point that the title is in general hereditary and that has been the case since the union of the heptarchy of King Egbert. The importance can be shown by King Henry II who was the undoubted heir of William the Conqueror but he was lineally descended from King Ironside, the last of the race of Saxon hereditary Kings Page 200 - 201 Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England Page 32 - 33 after an interruption during the reign of King John see Page 201 a clear and indisputable title vested in King Henry III and from him to King Richard II the Crown descended in the true hereditary line.

There was a further interruption when Henry Earl of Richmond asserted his title to the Crown and became King Henry VII. However he married Elizabeth of York eldest daughter of King Edward IV and thereby gained his best title to the Crown. Thus King Henry VIII the issue of the marriage succeeded to the Crown by clear indisputable hereditary right. Page 204 - 5 Blackstone's Commentaries of the Laws of England Pages 34 - 35.

During the reign of King Henry VIII by a statute (28 Hen VIII c 7), the Crown settled on the Kings children by Queen Jane Seymour and his future wives; and in defect of such children such persons as the Kings by letters patent, or last will and testament should limit and appoint the same. This was not a power that would have been valid in any sense unless it was vested in the King by statute. However it was never carried into execution; for by statute 35 Hen. VIII c 1 the Kings two daughters were legitimated again see Page 206 Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England Page 35. and also Page 18 the Prerogatives of the King Page 28. Whilst this might seem to be inconsistent with the ruling of 1366, as it should have been the three Estates meeting separately, it cannot overturn that ruling. That can only be done by the three Estates meeting separately. We submit this power was not valid and in any event was never exercised.

Further details of the hereditary descent of the Crown are contained on Page 208 Blackstone's Commentaries of the Laws of England. Concerning the title of the throne of King James I, who united in his person every possible claim by hereditary right to the English as well as the Scottish Throne, being both the heir of King Egbert and William the Conqueror. This shows that the title to the Throne is not in the Kings own gift, but is down by the Common Law and statute. The present position is that the Crown is limited to the heirs of the body of Princess Sophia, who are protestant members of the Church of England, and married to none but protestants see 12 - 13 WIII c Page 216 Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England. Page 41.

It would be well to deal with what Hale says in the Rights of the Crown in chapter two see Page 15 the prerogatives of the King Page 25. He comments, and as the people cannot take away any of the powers thus settled in the Crown so on the other part the King cannot without the consent of the people transfer the Regal power dignity to another see page 15 the Prerogatives of the King Page 25. He may grant prerogatives of interest privileges and franchises, he may delegate a prorex or custos reign in his absence without assent of Parliament. But to resign his Kingdom or grant the allegiance of his people to another this he cannot do without the consent of his Kingdom" relation is reciprocal. The subject hath an interest in the protection of his Prince, which he may not loose without his consent, and that in Parliament. We believe Hale is wrong on this issue. As set out above it is only the three Estates of England and not a Parliament in session, that can reverse the ruling made in the year 1366 during the reign of King Edward III.

3. This issue can be approached from another direction. King Edward III also claimed the Kingdom of France. Parliament made him sign an undertaking that as King of France King Edward III could have no say in how England was governed. This undertaking is contained at Page 105 English Constitution Documents Page 16 in the Bundle. Which records that " our said realm of England nor the people of the same what estate or condition they be, shall not in any time to come be put into subjection nor in obeisance of us nor of out heirs as Kings of France".

In Government of England Page 10 Page 20 it states:

"It is most certain that the English Government is Monarchical and so hath been time out of mind well before the coming in of William I as since. And this monarchy is of that dignity and antiquity that it gives not place to the Crown of France or Spain.”

The German Emperor has claimed some kind of superintendence over all those territories which were under the imperium orbis Romani, as to make tabellions and notaries. However he never prevailed in England. Page 13 Prerogatives of the King Page 23.

Although before King Henry VIII the Pope did exercise ecclesiastical power in England the King would curb it at his pleasure. The King was careful to ensure that the collection of Peters pence might not be taken not as an arms and not as recognition of subjection. After the Act of Parliament against Provisions in 35 E 1 there ensured a more quick and sharp Act in 27 E 3 St Cap 1 against Provisions from Rome and those that put them in Execution. Page 12 Prerogatives of the King Page 22. This controlled Papal authority in England.

On Page 13 the Prerogatives of the King Page 23. It is then stated that as the monarchical power of our English Monarch hath no dependence upon any foreign state or power, so neither is it subject to the power of the people either distributively, collectively or representatively. The reason is stated: the people have either by express or tacit consent transferred the sovereignty unto the King according to the just intents thereof. Consequently, the people of the three Estates cannot without the concurrence or consent of the King resume the whole regal power or any part thereof. The example given is that of Richard II who was deposed and resigned the Crown and absolved his subjects from their homage - despite this it did not excuse King Henry IV from a usurpation.

4. In those circumstances, we respectfully submit that the strict legal constitutional position is that Queen Elizabeth II has exceeded, by signing the Treaty of Maastricht, her authority, and because she is forbidden the right to give assent to any treaty which transfers sovereignty to a foreign power. Parliament which operates in the Queens name is unable to do what the Queen is forbidden by law from doing. Only the Estates of England, meeting in the same way as in the reign of King Edward III can do this and no such meeting has taken place. This is the case with all EEC/EU treaty's which have been contrary to the Common and Constitutional Laws of England, and constitutes High Treason against the laws and people of England.

5. We would respectfully suggest that it is your duty to open a full criminal investigation for High Treason into John Major who was Prime Minister at the time, who advised  Her Majesty the Queen to sign this Treaty and into Douglas Hurd and Francis Maude who acted as plenipotentiaries in signing the Treaty.

6. I request that a Major Crime book number should be raised and a full criminal investigation started with the intention of putting on trial for High Treason John Major, Douglas Hurd and Francis Maude.

Respectfully Submitted


Full Documents Index


Back to TOP