2005-12-06 10:13:55 UTC
5th December 2005
The Act of Settlement is a constitutional document governing the succession
to the English Crown. It was passed in 1701 to amend the English Bill of
Rights, following the death of the last child of the then Princess Anne. It
provides that only Protestants who have not married a Roman Catholic can
succeed to the English Crown. In addition, the Act specifies that it is for
Parliament to determine who should succeed to the throne, not the monarch.
This act was, in many ways, the major factor leading to the union of
Scotland with England to form the Kingdom of Great Britain in the Act of
Union 1707, and by virtue of Article II of the Treaty of Union, which
defined the succession to the British Crown, the Act of Settlement became,
in effect, part of Scottish law. Therefore the whole basis of the British
state as it is today is based on this Act.
The act itself states " That after the said limitation shall take effect as
aforesaid, no person born out of the Kingdoms of England, Scotland, or
Ireland, or the dominions thereunto belonging (although he be naturalized or
made a denizen, except such as are born of English parents) shall be capable
to be of the Privy Council, or a member of either House of Parliament, or to
enjoy any office or place of trust, either civil or military, or to have any
grant of lands, tenements or hereditaments from the Crown, to himself or to
any other or others in trust for him".
Citizenship of immigrants unlawful since 1701
This provision as regards hereditaments within the Act of Settlement 1701 is
of immense constitutional significance for it expressly prohibits all and
any immigrants from having British Citizenship and naturalised British
Citizenship status being awarded to them from 1701 onwards. In effect, this
provision reveals that all immigrants to Britain who do not ethnically
derive from the indigenous peoples Kingdom of England, Scotland , Wales or
Ireland as defined by Jus Sanguinus at the time of the 1701 act, are from
1701 onwards, incapable in law of being awarded the hereditament of British
Of Hereditaments there are two types ; Corporeal Hereditaments and
Incorporeal Hereditaments. The Act of Settlement 1701 specifies
'Hereditaments' in the provision on British Citizenship which is a clear
statement based on both the Golden Rule and Literal Rules of statutory
interpretation that the Act of Settlement applies to both forms of
hereditaments and that the Act of Settlement was enacted to ensure that
immigrants entering Britain could not be awarded British Citizenship after
In Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England Book the Second -
Chapter the Third : Of Incorporeal Hereditaments it declares ; " VII.
Franchises are a Seventh species. Franchise and liberty are used as
synonymous terms: and their definition is, a royal privilege, or branch of
the king's prerogative, subsisting in the hands of a subject. Being
therefore derived from the crown, they must arise from the king's grant; or,
in some cafes, may be held by prescription, which, as has been frequently
said, presupposes a grant. The kinds of them are various, and almost
Blackstone therefore affirms that an award of Naturalised Citizenship to
immigrants by Parliament using the Crowns prerogative is an actual
hereditament. This means that all Nationality and Naturalisation acts passed
by Parliament since 1701 that have awarded the hereditament of British
Citizenship to immigrants who have not derived from indigenous British stock
are in fact unlawful and that such immigrants given the hereditament of
British Citizenship since 1701 are not British Citizens. All the Nationality
Acts passed since 1701 have in fact all been Ultra Vires as Parliament has
never had the power to pass such laws awarding citizenship status to
Metric Martyr precedent
This was also re-affirmed in the case of Thoburn vs City of Sunderland, the
decision commonly referred to as the "Metric Martyrs" Judgment. This was
handed down in the Divisional Court (18th February 2002) by Lord Justice
Laws and Mr Justice Crane:
62."We should recognise a hierarchy of Acts of Parliament: as it were
'ordinary' statutes and 'constitutional statutes.' The special status of
constitutional statutes follows the special status of constitutional rights.
Examples are the ... Bill of Rights 1689 ...
63. Ordinary statutes may be impliedly repealed. Constitutional statutes may
This was upheld by Lords Bingham, Scott and Steyn in an appeal which went to
the House of Lords on Monday, July 15 2002
Paragraph 62 ;
We should recognise a hierarchy of Acts of Parliament: as it were "ordinary"
statutes and "constitutional" statutes. The two categories must be
distinguished on a principled basis. In my opinion a constitutional statute
is one which (a) conditions the legal relationship between citizen and State
in some general, overarching manner, or (b) enlarges or diminishes the scope
of what we would now regard as fundamental constitutional rights. (a) and
(b) are of necessity closely related: it is difficult to think of an
instance of (a) that is not also an instance of (b). The special status of
constitutional statutes follows the special status of constitutional rights.
Examples are the Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights 1689, the Act of Union, the
Reform Acts which distributed and enlarged the franchise, the HRA, the
Scotland Act 1998 and the Government of Wales Act 1998. The ECA clearly
belongs in this family. It incorporated the whole corpus of substantive
Community rights and obligations, and gave overriding domestic effect to the
judicial and administrative machinery of Community law. It may be there has
never been a statute having such profound effects on so many dimensions of
our daily lives. The ECA is, by force of the common law, a constitutional
63; Ordinary statutes may be impliedly repealed. Constitutional statutes may
not. For the repeal of a constitutional Act or the abrogation of a
fundamental right to be effected by statute, the court would apply this
test: is it shown that the legislature's actual - not imputed, constructive
or presumed - intention was to effect the repeal or abrogation? I think the
test could only be met by express words in the later statute, or by words so
specific that the inference of an actual determination to effect the result
contended for was irresistible. The ordinary rule of implied repeal does not
satisfy this test. Accordingly, it has no application to constitutional
Nationality Acts unlawful
This case states that no law has been passed expressly repealing the terms
of the Act of Settlement 1701, and nor could such a law be passed as to do
would destroy the constitutional foundation of the whole structure of
British law, Parliament and the British state, and this means that the
provisions of the Act of Settlement 1701 are still in force and that all
Nationality Acts passed since 1701 are unlawful.
In 1913 in the case of Bowles v Bank of England it was ruled that the Bill
of Rights still stood, and the Crown could not justify any infringement of
As no doubt many constitutional experts will be aware, on 21 July 1993, the
Speaker of The House of Commons issued a reminder to the courts. Betty
Boothroyd said: 'There has of course been no amendment to The Bill of
Rights.the house is entitled to expect that The Bill of Rights will be fully
respected by all those appearing before the courts.'
This further reinforced the status of constitutional statutes. From time to
time there has been debate over removing the clause in the Act of Settlement
1701 that stops Roman Catholics or those those who marry Catholics from
ascending to the throne. Proponents argue that the clause is a an
anachronism. Opponents feel that repeal could lead to a Catholic assuming
the throne, and could lead to the disestablishment of the Church of England
as the state religion. They also point to the issue that the monarch must
swear to defend the faith and be a member of the Anglican Communion and that
a Catholic monarch would, like all Catholics, owe allegiance to the Pope
which would amount to a loss of sovereignity.
There are significant difficulties where the Act of Settlement regulates the
succession of all the Commonwealth Realms of which the Queen is Sovereign
and a change in the United Kingdom would not automatically apply elsewhere -
where the Act would be unchanged. This could easily result in the succession
being different in certain countries, and a division of the Crown could
result. The Act of Settlement is also the Constitutional treaty that ensures
the independence of the Judiciary through the provision that Judges and can
only be dismissed by both Houses of Parliament reinforces the status of the
Foundation of our constitution
The Act of Settlement 1701 is the foundation of the British constitutional
structure. The Act is the basis of the right of succession of the Crown and
therefore is the legal basis of the power of Parliament itself. As
Parliament derives its power from the Crown , to change in any way any
sections of the constitutional rules in the Act is to undermine the
legitimacy of the Crown, Parliament and the rule of law itself. The Act of
Settlement stands wholly as it is, or the whole constitutional structure of
the British state falls.
Therefore under Constitutional Law rules then the Act of Settlement is still
in force and negates all awards of citizenship to all foreigners since 1701.
This status of the Constitutional laws as still being in force was clarified
by Betty Boothroyd in 1993. The fact that the ratio decidendi in the case of
Metric Martyrs case was stated by Lords Bingham, Scott and Steyn in the
House of Lords, the highest court in the land, means that under Common Law
rules, as well as Constitutional Rules, then the Judges should apply both
Common Law and Constitutional law and strike down the basis of all
citizenship status of foreigners in Britain. The Courts have no choice in
this matter, for them to refuse to rule that the Citizenship status of
immigrants is unlawful means they are in breach of the rule of law itself.
Constitutional Law is also above that of ordinary Parliamentary Acts and
therefore the Constitutional Rule takes precedence over any acts of
Parliament such as any Nationality Acts.
The fact that legal rights enshrined in various United Nations treaties on
the rights of minorities such as the indigenous English, Welsh, Scottish and
Irish peoples within the British State to create their own ethnic political,
cultural, economic and community structures for self government have been
denied by the British state since 1701 and 1707 also brings in an
international law element.
Under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties the United Kingdom
government have a duty in international law to give effect to those
international rights such as Framework Convention for the Protection of
National Minorities, (ETS No. 157), entered into force January 2, 1998.
1. The Parties undertake to guarantee to persons belonging to national
minorities the right of equality before the law and of equal protection of
the law. In this respect, any discrimination based on belonging to a
national minority shall be prohibited.
2. The Parties undertake to adopt, where necessary, adequate measures in
order to promote, in all areas of economic, social, political and cultural
life, full and effective equality between persons belonging to a national
minority and those belonging to the majority. In this respect, they shall
take due account of the specific conditions of the persons belonging to
1. The Parties undertake to promote the conditions necessary for persons
belonging to national minorities to maintain and develop their culture, and
to preserve the essential elements of their identity, namely their religion,
language, traditions and cultural heritage.
2. Without prejudice to measures taken in pursuance of their general
integration policy, the Parties shall refrain from policies or practices
aimed at assimilation of persons belonging to national minorities against
their will and shall protect these persons from any action aimed at such
Article 5 ( 2 ) of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National
Minorities, (ETS No. 157), entered into force January 2, 1998 clearly states
that any laws that are passed by a signatory to the treaty that force the
people of a national minority to assimilate with other groups are unlawful
and is therefore further confirmation of the illegality of successive
British government immigration policy since 1701. The United Kingdom
government has a clear legal duty to give effect to the rights of the
indigenous British people and begin the repatriation of all those who have
been awarded citizenship status unlawfully since 1701.
Under the rules of Legal Positivism therefore the Judges have no choice but
to rule that all those awarded Citizenship status since 1701, other than by
ethnic descent from indigenous Britons, are in fact not British citizens.
Multi-culturalism falls apart
This is also confirmation that the ideology of Multi-Culturalism is also
illegal both in theory and practice. As Multi-Culturalism is predicated upon
the introduction of immigrants into Britain then it has no legal basis in
law as to its operation. This also means that all the Race Relations Acts
are also illegal in the United Kingdom as they are predicated upon the
lawful right of such individuals in the UK who come under the act to be here
legally. As the Act of Settlement prohibits them from having British
Citizenship then the Race Relations Acts are Ultra Vires.
In a democracy there are two ways to take power in accord with the rule of
law. The first is for the people to vote those in power out of power. The
second is to destroy the Constitutional basis of the rule of law itself as
claimed by Parliament. The failure by Parliament since 1701 to abide by the
clear rules of the Act of Settlement means that all laws passed since 1701
that conflict with the Act of Settlement are in fact unlawful. An attempt
now by Parliament to annul provisions of the Act of Settlement would
undermine the very basis of the rule of law and the constitutional
foundations of Parliament, the Crown and the British State.
Therefore the whole basis of the rule of law has been undermined by
Parliament since 1701 and a democratic revolution is required to bring the
law back into legality.
Therefore the whole legal basis of the modern British state is unlawful and
all laws that conflict with the Act of Settlement 1701 are unlawful.
The BNP as stated in its manifesto intend to undertake a National Population
Audit, once we come to power, in the name of National Security. There are
more than one million illegal immigrants are hiding in the country; unless
these illegal entrants are removed then we can never be safe in our country.
Illegal immigration is the sea in which the terrorist swims. All the so
called ' security laws ' passed by this government as a response to the July
7th bombings are facile and useless unless the ocean of illegals where the
terrorists hide is drained.
It is our plan to ensure that not a single illegal remains in this country
within five years of a BNP government coming to power. At the same time we
intend to register all legal British citizens within the British Nation so
that illegals will never be able to utilise services paid for by British
All those immigrants who arrived here from British Commonwealth countries
and dependents who have been given citizenship status under the Nationality
Acts due to their Commonwealth nationality status will have their British
Commonwealth Citizenship status enshrined in law. All those immigrants from
non-commonwealth countries with British citizenship awarded under one of the
illegal Nationality Acts will have their cases reviewed on the basis of
service to the British nation e.g. they have been in the armed services,
NHS, police, legal system etc.
All immigrants convicted of any serious crimes such as murder, rape, drug
smuggling, terrorism etc. in the past will forfeit their British Citizenship
rights and be returned with their dependents to their ancestral homelands.
All Guest Workers and their dependents invited into the country in the past
solely to work will be returned to their ancestral homelands. All economic
migrants and dependents given British nationality status in the past will
also be returned to their ancestral homelands.
The population of the UK reached an estimated 60 million in mid-2005 and is
still growing, by more than 250,000 a year. Our numbers have increased
sixfold since 1800 and by a fifth since 1950, and the environmental impacts
of this growth are already clear, especially in the relentless pressures for
development on our finite supply of land. Officially projected to rise by
about 0.35 per cent a year to reach 65.7 million by 2031 - an increase of
6.1 million, our population growth rate rose to 0.5% in 2004 and looked set
to rise even higher in 2005.
This growth in the population of Britain is due solely to the influx of
immigrants. If we are to preserve our national culture, ethnic character,
environment and culture we have to begin the process of returning the
immigrants who have no legal basis for residency in the United Kingdom.
Since 1996 the overall settlement figure of immigrants into Britain has
doubled from 62,000 to 125,000 in 2000, 108,000 in 2001, 118,000 in 2002 and
143,000 in 2003. The total since 1963 is nearly 2.5 million and that figure
does not include the estimated one million plus illegals living in the
Optimum Population Trust researchers have concluded that a population of 30
million may be the largest that the UK can sustain in the 22nd century if it
is to be largely self-sufficient in clean energy, if continuing damage to
local and global environments is to stop, and if its citizens are to enjoy
an acceptable quality of life. Not only do we have a moral duty to return
the immigrants who have no right to be in Britain in order to preserve our
country for future generations, it is now clear we also have a legal duty to
[Ed. Similar problem in Australia as well. The Immigration Restriction Act
(known to leftist subversives as the "White Australia Policy") has never
actually been repealed. Moreover multiculturalism has never been passed as
law, much less given the backing of the people. Yet we keep being told we
are a "multicultural society" with all the legal, political, cultural and
economic organs that go with it/support it. Like the "separation of church
and state" mantra in the United States, it is an undemocratic top-down
edict enacted through the grapevine, not law...]
Union Against Multiculty
"Abolish Multiculty and String Up The Traitors!"