How the English Constitution Still Shapes England Today

How the English Constitution Still Shapes England Today

People are told “we don’t have a written constitution” and left with the impression there are no clear rules at all. In reality, England built up its own constitutional order over centuries: charters, statutes and court decisions that set limits on power and recognised certain basic protections for ordinary people.

Those rules did not disappear when England was folded into Great Britain in 1707. Many of them still shape how you are policed, how you are tried, what you can say in public, and who gets to make the laws you live under. This page sets out, in plain language, what those rules are, how they developed, and how they operate in England today – with a focus on things you can feel directly, like freedom of expression and trial by jury.

1. England’s constitutional inheritance before 1707

Before the Acts of Union, England was a separate kingdom with its own Parliament and its own constitutional landmarks.

Some of the key texts and ideas were:

Magna Carta – first granted by King John in 1215 and reissued in later reigns, it included the famous clause that no free man was to be imprisoned, stripped of his rights or exiled “except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land”. Later generations treated this as a basic statement of due process and a foundation for trial by peers.
The “ancient constitution” and fundamental laws – early modern writers spoke of an “ancient constitution” and “fundamental laws of England”, meaning long‑standing principles limiting royal power and protecting subjects’ rights. Magna Carta and later statutes were often described in this way.
The Bill of Rights 1689 – passed after the Glorious Revolution, it declared that suspending or dispensing with laws by royal authority alone was illegal, that elections of MPs “ought to be free”, that “freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament”, and that punishments should not be cruel or unusual.
Act of Settlement 1701 – among other things, it regulated succession to the Crown and set conditions on judges’ tenure, tying the monarchy more tightly to parliamentary control.

By the early 1700s, England therefore had its own Parliament and a recognised body of constitutional law and principle, much of it described as fundamental or “ancient”, even though it was not all written in one document.

2. Union and the move to a British Parliament

The Acts of Union 1707 joined the Kingdom of England (which already legally included Wales) and the Kingdom of Scotland into a new Kingdom of Great Britain. One Act was passed by the Parliament of England and one by the Parliament of Scotland to give effect to the Treaty of Union.

Key points:

The separate Parliaments of England and Scotland were abolished and replaced by a single Parliament of Great Britain at Westminster.
English and Scottish law and institutions did not simply vanish. The Union settlement preserved key differences – for example, Scotland kept its own legal system and church – while creating a common Parliament to legislate for the new state.
Later, the Acts of Union 1800 created the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, again through statutory union, with a Parliament of the United Kingdom.

From 1707 onwards, legislation for what had been England was made by the Parliament of Great Britain (and after 1800, the Parliament of the United Kingdom). Modern constitutional writing treats many pre‑Union English measures – such as Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights – as part of the wider UK constitutional inheritance.

3. Parliamentary sovereignty and what can be changed

Modern UK public law usually starts from the principle of parliamentary sovereignty. In short:

Parliament can legislate on any subject.
No Parliament can legally bind a future Parliament; a later Act can amend or repeal an earlier one.
Courts can interpret Acts of Parliament but do not have a general power to strike them down as invalid.

This means that even statutes with clear constitutional content – such as the Bill of Rights 1689, the Acts of Union, or later measures on devolution and human rights – are, in law, subject to later Acts passed by Parliament.

At the same time, judges and commentators often group certain laws together as “constitutional statutes” – Acts dealing with fundamental rights or the distribution of powers, which are not normally treated as impliedly repealed and which are politically more difficult to alter. Examples include the Bill of Rights, the Act of Union, the European Communities Act (before its repeal), the Human Rights Act, and the devolution Acts.

The result is a system where older English constitutional texts still matter and are cited, but where Parliament retains wide legal power to change rules that past generations presented as fundamental.

4. Freedom of expression: from Parliament to the street

There is no single, domestic “free speech clause” for all purposes in one English or UK constitutional document. Instead, freedom of expression today is chiefly protected through a combination of common‑law principles and the Human Rights Act 1998.

Historic roots

Earlier English constitutional texts focused mainly on Parliament:

The Bill of Rights 1689 states that “the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament”. This protects what MPs say in Parliament itself.

Over time, courts also recognised a wider common‑law principle that there should be a strong presumption in favour of free communication on matters of public concern, particularly political speech, subject to clear legal limits.

Modern protection: Article 10

Today, freedom of expression for everyone is chiefly anchored in Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, given effect in UK law by the Human Rights Act.

Article 10(1) provides that:

“Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.”

Article 10(2) then sets out the conditions under which that right may be restricted. It allows for “formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties” that are:

prescribed by law, and
necessary in a democratic society for specified aims such as national security, public safety, prevention of disorder or crime, protection of health or morals, protection of the reputation or rights of others, preventing disclosure of confidential information, or maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

Official guidance from bodies like the Equality and Human Rights Commission and Liberty stresses that Article 10 covers a wide range of expression – spoken, written, artistic and online – and protects not only popular speech but also views that can “offend, shock or disturb”, subject to those lawful limits.

In everyday terms, this framework affects:

what can be published about public figures before a court will grant an injunction or award damages;
how far protests, demonstrations and campaigns can be restricted;
which kinds of speech cross the line into criminal offences such as incitement to violence or harassment.

The English constitutional tradition of suspicion towards censorship now operates through these statutory and common‑law rules, rather than through a single textual guarantee.

5. Trial by jury: “judgment of peers” in practice

One of the most tangible inheritances from England’s constitutional history is the jury trial in serious criminal cases.

Origins in English law

Magna Carta’s famous promise that no free man would be punished “except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land” is often cited as an early statement of the principle that a person’s liberty should not depend solely on the will of the ruler or his officials.

The modern jury system developed over centuries, but the idea that guilt in serious cases should be determined by a group of lay people rather than a single judge is long associated with English notions of liberty.

The Bill of Rights 1689 includes provisions about jurors in high treason trials (for example, that they should be freeholders), which shows the importance attached to the status and independence of juries at that time.

Juries in England and Wales today

In England and Wales now:

The great majority of serious criminal offences in the Crown Court are tried before a judge and a jury of twelve citizens.
The right to trial by jury is not absolute. Many criminal offences are tried in magistrates’ courts without a jury, and statute has allowed for non‑jury trials in narrow circumstances, such as where there is a serious danger of jury tampering.

A major review of the criminal courts at the end of the 1990s described the jury as “a central feature” and “hallowed” part of the criminal justice system, while also noting practical pressures and debates about its scope. Later legal analysis has recorded that courts do not treat trial by jury as a right that cannot be modified by Parliament, even though it is historically associated with fundamental liberties.

In everyday terms, the continued use of juries in serious cases means that decisions about guilt and loss of liberty are still, in many instances, taken by ordinary people rather than officials alone – a direct line back to the “judgment of peers” language in Magna Carta.

6. The rule of law and control of power

A constant thread running through England’s constitutional history is the idea that government must act according to law and that there must be mechanisms to challenge unlawful action.

In practice, this shows up in:

Habeas corpus – the long‑standing remedy by which a court can require a detained person to be brought before it so that the legality of their detention can be examined. Habeas corpus statutes and common‑law rules developed in England as safeguards against arbitrary imprisonment.
Judicial review – the modern process by which courts can quash or declare unlawful decisions of ministers, local authorities or other public bodies if they exceed legal powers or breach procedural requirements. This is now a core part of how courts enforce legal limits on executive action.
Open justice – the general principle that court proceedings should be held in public, and that reporting restrictions must be justified, which allows public scrutiny of how laws are applied.

These mechanisms are part of how the English and UK legal systems give effect to the rule‑of‑law idea that no one, including public authorities, is above the law.

7. Everyday situations where this still matters

Although phrases like “Magna Carta” and “Bill of Rights” sound remote, the rules that grew from them still appear in day‑to‑day situations in England. For example:

Speaking about public issues – Article 10 HRA means that if someone is disciplined or restricted by a public authority because of what they have said on a matter of public interest, the authority must be able to justify the restriction as lawful, necessary and proportionate.
Facing a serious criminal charge – a person indicted for a serious offence in the Crown Court will normally be tried by a jury, unless the offence falls into one of the categories tried summarily or there are specific statutory grounds for a non‑jury trial.
Detention and policing – the legality of arrests, detention, and police powers can be challenged in court, reflecting the long‑standing English concern with lawful process and protection against arbitrary imprisonment.
Changes to core rules – Acts of Parliament can and do adjust constitutional arrangements, from human‑rights protections to the distribution of powers between central and devolved governments. These changes are made through legislation, debated and passed at Westminster.

In each case, the underlying pattern is the same: a mixture of historic English constitutional texts and modern UK statutes and case law collectively shapes what can and cannot happen to people in England today.