________________________________________________________________________________

3 November 2003

 <<See Appendix for Individual Addressees>>,

Parliament Buildings,

Wellington.

Re:      Privy Council

Dear Member of Parliament,

We note that the Members of Parliament are subject to British Law both as a consequence of a letter previously forwarded to our Treaty partner some years ago and in our view as a direct consequence of existing legislation.  With these thoughts in mind we ask that you carefully reflect on the implications of the following:

INTRODUCTION

The circumstances of most of the nations around us are readily able to be seen:  Vietnam, Indonesia,  Papua New Guinea, Malaysia, Brazil, Argentina, Bolivia, Ecuador, Colombia, Venezuelan, Mexico, Angola, Zaire, Sudan, Algeria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, India, Pakistan, Thailand, China, Russia, the list goes on ….

We most often like to compare ourselves with those nations which are the most highly developed (by Western standards) such is the United States, Germany and Great Britain.  Sadly however the number of countries developed to this standard are few on the world stage.

With these thoughts in mind we ask that you carefully reflect on the following and remember that it has been as a consequence of the British influence in New Zealand brought about as a result of the Te Tiriti o Waitangi between the British Crown and the Confederation of Chiefs that the infrastructure we see about us today has been able to be painstakingly built up over generations.

IMPORTANT PRINCIPLES

Commerce is the basis upon which knowledge within our society is made relevant to the people.  If people are able to earn a living by utilising their knowledge then that aspect of learning is emphasised/reinforced in our capitalist/(money orientated) society.

Therefore anything which impedes the evolution of commerce (or alters in a fundamental manner the mechanisms responsible for determining the human rights which of necessity form the basis of tradeable/enforceable human rights or commerce) poses a fundamental, clear and ever present danger to the maintenance of our society as we know it today.

To similar effect:

NZ Herald,

October 9, 2003

Legal landscape loses landmarks

COMMENT: The consistency and credibility vital in a modern economy will go

JIM EAGLES business editor

Why should anyone care whether it is the Privy Council in London or the new Supreme Court in Wellington which stands at the pinnacle of our judicial system?

Simple. Because that court will have the power to make decisions which change the nature of our society.

If you don't believe that, consider the recent Court of Appeal ruling on the foreshore.

For at least 40 years our courts have ruled that the law says Maori cannot bring a claim to ownership of the foreshore.

Suddenly the courts have ruled that the law says Maori can bring a claim.

Yet the law has not changed. All that has changed is that today's judges have decided to give greater weight to international opinion on native title.

The question is not whether you agree or disagree with Maori being able to claim the foreshore. It is who should make our laws.

If our judges believe society has changed its views on some subject - native land rights for instance - should they feel free to reinterpret existing law in that light?

Or should it be up to Parliament to decide whether it is appropriate to change the law to reflect those new attitudes?

This is not a new issue. The business community and commercial lawyers have long been disturbed by the fickleness of our courts. Maori, local government and the legal profession itself have had similar concerns.

But they have always had the Privy Council as a backstop which could be relied on to provide the consistency and credibility so vital in a modern economy. Now -despite the vigorous opposition of the groups which from time to time have turned to that backstop - it is to be removed.

To make matters worse, it will be replaced by a Supreme Court dominated by the judges who produced the foreshore decision and with a constitution seemingly designed to encourage even more judicial lawmaking.

The legislation establishing the new court clearly envisages it branching out in new directions, taking into account New Zealand's history and traditions and, of course, the Treaty of Waitangi.

All of this greatly increases the likelihood of more decisions which abruptly overturn 40 years of legal precedent, making the law less predictable and the legal system a less reliable place to turn to.

That has worrying implications for us all.

The Privy Council, established in about 900 AD by King Alfred as a group of highly educated advisers to the reigning Monarch, facilitated the evolution of both society and more generally commerce throughout the Commonwealth through the progressive and obviously carefully planned evolution of our legal system.  A common legal system with a common court of last resort inevitably brought a degree of international predictability to the outcome of litigation based upon local Statute and such predictability facilitated on a large-scale the processes of foreign investment both internally and externally:

NZ Herald,

April 12, 2000

Does Comrade Clark want us all the same?

…

The Privy Council, which was created 1100 years ago by King Alfred, today consists largely of politicians and judges. On a population basis, there are more New Zealand members than British. ...

…

Noel Cox is vice-chairman of the Monarchist League.

By way of an illustration and within our own collective personal experience related to a proposal to establish a company in Malaysia.  It was found that the Articles of Association and Memorandum of a company in Malaysia were virtually identical to those of a similar company in New Zealand.  The ease of integration and understanding was thereby greatly enhanced by this old British influence.

Likewise, the experience available to a court such as the Privy Council able to access the combined skills (and experiences across a broad range of fields) of something approaching 1,000 million people within the Commonwealth (alone) inevitably renders any scheme to institute a Supreme Court within New Zealand totally irrational and ill-conceived.

Having said that there can be no doubt that in more recent years the mechanisms of the Privy Council have fallen into disrepair (it’s composition inevitably reflecting it’s predisposition toward expediency and by implication a consequent lack of principle).  The failure of police to prosecute and maintain the very highest standards of justice in the past attributed to this old institution of Government is also noted as is the fact that the maintenance of these institutions is and must be a team effort.

The temporary failure of this institution does not however give legitimacy to the current proposal to remove it as a court of last resort.

LEGAL DEFINITION: REMOVAL OF A ROYAL PEROGATIVE

WITHOUT ROYAL ASSENT– A TREASON

Would the removal of the Privy Council (being the current court of last resort for NZ) being promoted by the Labour Government (Attorney General Margret Wilson) have the effect of removing prerogative [1] powers from the reigning Monarch in judicial decisions (especially in the circumstances of the oath below attached):

Tuesday, 19 May, 1998, 21:28 GMT 22:28 UK

Privy Councillor's Oath

This is the oath taken on becoming a member of the Privy Council. It has remained unchanged since about 1250.

"You will, in all things to be moved, treated and debated in Council, faithfully and truly declare your Mind and Opinion, according to your Heart and Conscience; and will keep secret all Matters committed and revealed unto you, or that shall be treated of secretly in Council. And if any of the said Treaties or Counsels shall touch any of the Counsellors, you will not reveal it unto him but will keep the same until such time as, by the consent of His (Her) Majesty, or the Council, Publication shall be made thereof."

Copyright BBC News

We conclude that it does have (including influence in Judicial Decisions issued under the seal of Buckingham Palace) the effect of removing prerogative powers from the reigning Monarch!

The clear evidence of the impact on the prerogative powers is again highlighted in the following article:

Govt Plans Constitutional Change
09/04/2003 07:21 AM - Jenni McManus - The Independent

As it prepares legislation to scrap the Privy Council and establish a court of final appeal in New Zealand, the government is planning yet another fundamental constitutional change.

Moves are afoot to alter the way in which the royal prerogative operates - specifically, the prerogative relating to the power of Governor-General Dame Silvia Cartwright to pardon those convicted of criminal offences, or to order matters back to the Court of Appeal for a rehearing.

As with the government's move to abolish the Privy Council, those close to the issue say the public is unlikely to get the chance to vote on the planned changes, despite their constitutional importance.

At present, the Governor-General, acting on the advice of her ministers, can issue a pardon without reference to the courts if the government believes this is warranted, as happened with Arthur Allan Thomas - the man convicted in the early 1970s of murdering Jeanette and Harvey Crew on their Pukekawa farm in 1970. Alternatively, the matter can be referred back to the Court of Appeal under the Crimes Act, as happened recently with Peter Ellis, David Dougherty and David Bain.

The government's legwork is done by senior Justice Department officials, who make recommendations to their minister.

…

At present, Karam says, the Justice Department officials do not do full-scale investigations; nor is it proposed that the new committee will have investigatory powers. As Karam sees it, this means they will not necessarily get to the truth.

"At the moment, they just write to the parties and get a response. They don't determine the issues. If the petitioner is innocent, it means there is something seriously wrong with the system. If that happens the parties will always try to deny it," he says.

"There has often been so much claim and counter-claim over so many years that probably the only way to unmuddy the waters is to put people on the stand and examine them under oath. The key thing is to have the power to get to the bottom of matters of fact."

According to the Trendle's paper, applications under this part of the royal prerogative are increasing. "So a more robust and transparent process is needed," Karam says.

The royal prerogative - what remains of the power of the king under the medieval constitution - is a bundle of miscellaneous rights or powers exercised by the executive arm of government.

It includes the prerogative to declare war and control the disposition of the armed forces, the prerogative to confer honours, to enter into treaties and to take emergency action at times of civil strife.

Along with the power to pardon, the prerogative of mercy includes the power to grant a respite in executing a sentence and the power to remit a sentence or penalty.

In conclusion, the proposal to remove the Privy Council without the consent of the reigning Monarch constitutes High Treason under British Law.

INSTRUCTIONS FROM HM THE QUEEN

By way of despatch from Earl Grey to Governor Grey from Downing Street, dated May 3rd, 1848, Governor Grey was instructed:

"... Her Majesty, who has commanded me to express the satisfaction with which she has received this loyal and dutiful address, and to assure them that there is not the slightest foundation for rumours to which they allude and it never was intended that the Treaty of Waitangi should be violated by dispossessing the tribes which are parties to it, of any portion of the land secured to them by the Treaty without their consent.  On the contrary Her Majesty has always directed that the Treaty should be most scrupulously and religiously observed. ..."

We have no record of any instructions to the contrary and therefore understand that these instructions remain current.

TREATY OF WAITANGI

Te Tiriti o Waitangi is an agreement between 2 Treaty partners.  Their relevance to New Zealand society is evidenced by the evolution that we see around us today in contrast to that of the rest of the world.  A Monarch (including Queen Elizabeth II), or a learned person, either has their influence increased or diminished as a consequence of others seeking their learned advice (often in the context of historical knowledge pertaining to the mistakes and triumphs of the past).

The Treaty of Waitangi (Maori version) or Te Tiriti o Waitangi as it is properly called was the only Treaty signed by the Confederation of Chiefs and made no disposition or grant of sovereignty.  What was granted was instead a right to govern as constrained by a specific reference to sovereignty and its retention (consistent with the previously ratified provisions of the Declaration of Independence 1835 (solemnly recognised by King William IV and ratified by the British House of Commons)).

Should you be in any doubt as to the rights of the Confederation of Chiefs enshrined in Te Tiriti o Waitangi and the Declaration of Independence 1835 ratified by the British we expect, given the potential consequences both to this nation and yourself, that you will contact Queen Elizabeth II (the Treaty partner) to determine the accuracy or otherwise (and the appropriateness) of the content of this letter and we indeed demand that you do so in the interests of the nation.

REFLECTION ON TREATY OF WAITANGI CELEBRATIONS

In this context we have reflected carefully on the problems facing New Zealand whilst attending the service in the Treaty House at Waitangi on the 6^th February 2003:

The following thoughts may be helpful:

Society requires direction or leadership - the enlightened would say the promotion of a moral code which facilitates (or permits) the aggregation of human effort across the broad spectrum of society.

Some would say that Government (in the absence of an essentially hereditary (or element associated with life-long learning) and highly experienced House of Lords) being essentially a House of Commons and elected in the short-term (3-year) is typically orientated toward expediency (getting things done with the political term of 3 years) and lacking in the critical aspects inherent in long-term accountability and life-long learning.  Consequently such a body is not competent in the longer term to provide such critical guidance to society on matters pertaining to justice.

Fundamental to widespread co-operation and the lives of all are the principles of: thou shalt not lie – particularly as regards its impact on the processes of education - and thou shalt not steal (which we contrast with the Government’s: statements made relating to the Treaty; and the, improper confiscation of lands on an enormous scale).

Likewise the protection of the less advantaged (and sometimes minorities) from forces which often are almost irresistable (perhaps as a consequence of size) is the basis of human rights and an absense of slavery in society.

In consequence Justice in an increasingly sophisticated society cannot distinguish between 3/4 Maori and 3/4 Pakeha.

Justice and communication through proper (educated and specialised) channels in a specialised and technologically sophisticated society are logically required if perspectives are to be understood and disputes are not to escalate toward progressively more entrenched positions and ultimately (in the circumstances of large-scale injustice) to war and consequent societal chaos. The dependence of all on the same basic principles of justice and delivery of human rights is and must be emphasised if we are to preclude slavery (by definition an absence of human rights).

The failure of the New Zealand Government & the Crown to negotiate in good faith and with the proper and internationally recognised Treaty Partner, given the scale of injustice highlighted by the Waitangi Tribunal reports, associated with the ongoing denial of justice to recover that which is improperly been taken must have and has:

(i)                  created an environment of slavery for Maori; and,

(ii)                proven the existing and long-term corruption of the NZ Judicial system.

In conclusion the breaches of Te Tiriti o Waitangi (justice) need to be addressed not through Government appointed Trust Boards and Government appointed Rununga but through the well educated signatory to Te Tiriti o Waitangi, the Confederation of Chiefs (the acknowledged sovereign of New Zealand) if a perception of justice is to be restored to New Zealand.

IMPORTANCE OF JUSTICE TO SOCIETY

It is worthy of record that it is the mechanisms of life-long learning and accountability inherent in the office of the central figure of the Monarchy and the more disbursed hereditary/long-term House of Lords which is fundamental in the long-term to the stability (absence of war and conflict) and evolution of our society.

Today’s society is built upon co-operation from all walks of life and from people of all geographical regions.

In these multicultural societies of today (and particularly that of the United States, Great Britain and more generally the Western World) and with the population of the Arab nations in and around the State of Israel being something approaching 340 million people, more than the population of the United States, there are obvious dangers inherent in undertaking unjust (murderous) acts which distort the social fabric of the Arab world and which polarise the Arab world against the central protagonists of Western ideology.  The central consequence of such unjust acts is to endanger the more sophisticated and consequently vulnerable societial infrastructure seen in the United States (and in the wider context the Commonwealth itself) as a consequence of:

(i)                  active subversion; and,

(ii)                the consequential breakdown in the widely held perception of the British/American set of values (morals) being generally regarded as offering a better way of life, holding out values which are to be ascribed to/sought after - and including the concept of justice in the land of the free.  This breakdown occurring not only in the foreign perception of such moral code but also occurring within the perceptions of the resident population of those nations themselves.

The lack of emphasis placed on the House of Lords under the Blair Government has resulted in both gross incompetence and the obvious lack of moral principle highlighted below:

NZ Herald,

September 25, 2003

Blair aide wanted key phrase cut

THE KELLY CASE

BRITAIN: Inquiry hears fresh evidence linking Downing St to changes in Iraq weapons dossier

The British intelligence chief responsible for a pre-war dossier on Iraq's weapons dropped a key sentence from it days before' publication after prompting from Downing St, an inquiry heard yesterday.

He did it at the suggestion of Jonathan Powell, chief of staff to Prime Minister Tony Blair, the inquiry heard.

The offending sentence stated that former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein was prepared to use chemical and biological weapons "if he believes his regime is under threat".

Powell argued that phrase suggested Iraq was only a threat if attacked.

The revelation that Powell ordered the sentence to be omitted raises fresh doubts over the intervention of Blair's office in the compilation of the September dossier.

The justification Blair gave for war Iraq's weapons of mass destruction - has come under intense scrutiny at the inquiry into the suicide of Iraq weapons expert David Kelly.

Kelly killed himself in July shortly after being named as the source of a BBC radio report that claimed the dossier had been "sexed up" at the last minute at the behest of Blair's Downing St office.

In an email to John Scarlett, chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee, Powell noted that the sentence "backs up the argument that there is no CBW (chemical, biological weapons) threat and we will only create one if we attack him. I think you should redraft that para." …

And:

NZ Herald,

September 13-14, 2003

• BRITAIN

Blair's Iraqi war aim discredited

TONY BLAIR'S justification for war on Iraq was blown apart on Thursday when it emerged that intelligence chiefs had warned that deposing Saddam Hussein would increase the risk of terror attacks on Britain.

The British Prime Minister told Parliament this year that the West had to act against Baghdad to prevent chemical and biological weapons from falling into the hands of terrorists.

But a committee of MPs revealed the Prime Minister had been told that the threat from Osama bin Laden "would be heightened by military action against Iraq". …

And with a very high level of predictability:

U.S. Inspector: No Evidence Yet of Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction

The Associated Press

W A S H I N G T O N, Oct. 2 [2003]— Chief U.S. weapons searcher David Kay reported today he has uncovered no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and only limited evidence of secret programs to develop weapons, drawing fresh congressional complaints about the Bush administration's prewar assertions of a serious threat from Saddam Hussein.

Kay, in a report to Congress, described evidence of a possible small-scale Iraqi biological weapons effort and said searchers had substantial evidence of an Iraqi push to boost the range of its ballistic missiles beyond prohibited ranges.

But his team had found only limited evidence of any chemical weapons effort, he said. And there was almost no sign that a significant nuclear weapons project was under way. …

© ABCNews.com

The obvious danger is that as a consequence of these unjust acts the Commonwealth (and indeed the United States) cannot maintain the level of widespread co-operation necessary to maintain it’s vulnerable infrastructure (including fundamental relationships with other nations – eg. the withdrawal of American Airforce personnel from Saudi Arabia recently is but one illustration; the closure of the Naval base in the Phillipines another) and thereby imperils in the long-term it’s ability to survive.

Evidence of that longer-term trend of decreasing foreign support is evidenced by:

NZ Herald,

April 18, 2001

Spy PIane skirmish in bigger battle

The crew is home but America faces a new era of confrontation with China.

…

The US Pacific Fleet, by contrast, has been halved since the Cold War ended and the US has lost its key bases, Subic Bay and Clark Field, in the Philippines.

In Pentagon war games set 15 years into the future, America's carrier fleet and remaining bases are routinely wiped out by Chinese missile attack.

In two books published in 1998 and 2000, military expert Michael PilIsbury translated writings by Chinese strategists showing the People's Liberation Army expects to achieve at least local superiority over US forces in Southern Asia and the Western Pacific by 2020 or 2030.

…  - NEWSWEEK

Likewise the anti-nuclear policies of:

(i)                  New Zealand; and,

(ii)                Chile

Are noted, precluding as they do the passage of nuclear powered (Naval) vessels through their waters.

And to similar effect and more recently:

From: Samuel Keolamauloa Kaluna, Jr.
Regent, Prime Minister
P.O. Box 359
96-3148 Pikake Street
Pahala-Kau, Kingdom of Hawaii 96777
For further information contact: Samuel Kaluna, Jr. at (808) 928-6188.
For a copy of the Declaration of Independence Email: newsdesk@kingdomofhawaii.org


PRESS RELEASE JULY 15, 2003

The Sovereign Kingdom of Hawaii Announces Independence from all Foreign Powers

A Declaration of Independence, authored by His Majesty Edmund Kelii Silva, Jr. and signed by Prime Minister and Regent Samuel Keolamauloa Kaluna, Jr. and the Hawaiian House of Nobles, proclaims the Kingdom restored and states the intent of the Kingdom of Hawaii to purchase back its lands and govern them under an independent constitutional monarchy.

The Declaration calls upon the United Nations to supervise the transfer of power and monitor the attendant transactions under international law.

On January 17, 1893, armed forces of the United States overthrew the Hawaiian government. Since the taking of our beloved islands, the indigenous Hawaiian people have experienced the vicissitude of adverse foreign occupation and suffered a genocidal decline in population. Today we are but a mere fraction of our former numbers.

…

The United States State Department responded quickly to the Declaration and contacted His Royal Majesty Silva and Prime Minister Kaluna to schedule talks. Response from the community of nations has been favorable. …

And evidencing a similar decline in international co-operation:

(i)         Friday, 21 September, 2001, 13:36 GMT 14:36 UK

UK foreign secretary to visit Iran

…

Jim Muir

BBC correspondent

The BBC's Teheran correspondent Jim Muir said: "As the crisis intensifies Britain has emerged as a channel of communication between the United States and Iran which is desperately trying to avert what it fears will be a calamity, perhaps even greater than that inflicted on New York and Washington."

He added that Iran was concerned that a major assault on Afghanistan would cause another humanitarian disaster and trigger an anti-western backlash in the Muslim world.

(ii)         U.S. Closes Consulate in Pakistan

U.S. Closes Consulate in Karachi, Pakistan, After Street Deemed Security Threat Is Reopened

The Associated Press

KARACHI, Pakistan Aug. 5 [2002] — The United States has closed its consulate in the city of Karachi after local authorities reopened a street in front that the Americans deemed a security risk, a U.S. official said Monday.

….

Karachi, a sprawling city of 14 million people, has seen extremist violence and anti-Western sentiment following last year's start of U.S. military operations in neighboring Afghanistan. The government of Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf has been a key supporter of the U.S. campaign. …

(iii)        Teletext April 1, 2003 07:09

100 bin Ladens result of war

Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak said on Monday the US-led war on Iraq would produce "one hundred new bin Ladens", driving more Moslems to anti-Western militancy.

"Instead of having one (Osama) bin laden, we will have 100 bin Ladens," he added.

Egypt, a key regional US ally which has cracked down hard on Islamic militants, publicly opposes the war launched by Washington to overthrow President Saddam Hussein.

Noting as we must that neither Canada nor New Zealand participated in the recent invasion of Iraq (involving Britain) a factor also suggestive of increasing conflict within the Commonwealth and evidencing a tangible conflict in values.

In other words, where there is a major departure, perhaps as a consequence of dishonesty or deliberate intended theft by an element within society, from large-scale contractual obligations (or perhaps principles related to a required moral code or aspects of natural justice) to fail to bring those responsible to account is inherently and inevitably to destabilize, undermine and ultimately imperil the institutions of Western (British and American) Government.

The dangers inherent in a degradation of the level of international co-operation must in these circumstances be starkly evident to all.  Thus these actions of the New Zealand Government acting in circumstances where there is no logical or soundly based rationale with respect to, for example, the foundation of Justice (eg. relating to the indigenous peoples’ rights) and the abolition of the Privy Council (in the context of this letter) is to imperil the survival of both the Commonwealth (the United States) and in it’s isolated microcosm New Zealand itself.

CONCLUSION

In all these circumstances, we are reliably advised that:

(i)                  to remove a Royal prerogative without a Royal consent is an act of High Treason; and,

(ii)                to fail to adhere to the instructions of HM The Queen under British Statute and today constitutes the crime of Treason[2]; and,

(iii)               to fail to adhere to the instructions of the Sovereign Council of the Confederation of Chiefs of United Tribes of Aotearoa (NZ) is an attempt to usurp the sovereign jurisdiction of the Council, in a word Treason.

The instruction from the Sovereign of New Zealand, the Confederation of Chiefs of the United Tribes of Aotearoa is that the current court of last resort, the Privy Council is to be retained.  The proposal to replace it with a Supreme Court based here in New Zealand is ill-conceived and dangerous to our society.

By way of cautionary note it is necessary to draw particular attention to the fact that the denial of the most fundamental right retained under Te Tiriti o Waitangi (Treaty of Waitangi – Maori version and the only Treaty signed by the signatory to the Declaration of Independence 1835) of sovereignty must also by definition constitute a Treason against the rights recognised by the Declaration of Independence 1835, ratified by King William and both the British & American Parliaments and subsequently enshrined in Te Tiriti o Waitangi (Treaty of Waitangi – Maori version).

In the circumstances defined above we must and do:

(i)                  charge each member of Parliament responsible for the passage of this Bill into law with Treason and this charge will be taken further and to the highest level – including The Lord Chief Justice and The Queen; and,

(ii)                invite each member of Parliament to state the way which they voted with respect to this Bill and to qualify their respective positions (arguments for and against in the light of the contents herein contained) with respect to the Bill noting as we do the lack of public support for this constitutional change on the part of the general populace of New Zealand.

This matter is to be handled with grave care.

Yours truly,

______________________                                        ______________________

Mohi Manukau                                                             Hema nui a tawhaki Wihongi

Arikinui                                                                         Ariki Tapaieru

(Paramount Chief)                                                          (Paramount Chieftainess)

cc.        HM Queen Elisabeth II

Lord Chief Justice

Sir John Stevens, The Commissioner of Police, New Scotland Yard

Governor General of New Zealand

With the objective of encouraging careful reflection:

PS:

How then does one reinforce the values that are necessary for the survival of New Zealand (and indeed the Crown) and is the delivery of justice one of those values?  Maybe that is a question for the Chief Justice in association with HM the Queen.

And:

Teletext March 06 2003, 19:21

Lawyers want Privy Council kept

The Auckland District Law Society has voted unanimously to endorse the continuation of the Privy Council for appeals.

The government is considering legislation replacing the Privy Council with a Supreme Court as New Zealand's final court of appeal.  The motion was put to the society's annual meeting by Auckland barrister and solicitor John Cox last night, seconded by barrister, Colin Amery.

And:

Given that King Alfred was originally responsible for establishing the Privy Council (or the Star Chamber) and to emphasise the contribution to a more advanced society of the higher learning and proven competence typically associated with these institutions of long-term hereditary style (chiefly) government:

B2 NZ Herald * Friday, October 29, 1999

Grave of King Alfred found in Winchester

LONDON - The grave of Alfred the Great, the Saxon king of Wessex who prevented the Danes from capturing England in the 9th century, has been uncovered between a terrace of Victorian houses and a carpark.

Archaeologists are convinced that they have found Alfred's final resting place after more than 100 hours of excavations at the site of the former Hyde Abbey in Winchester, Hampshire.

The grave is in River Park, a municipal garden. The site stretches under the terrace, carpark and gardens.

Historians knew that Alfred, his wife Queen Ealhswith, their son, Edward the Elder, and at least two grandsons had been buried in the great medieval church, but the abbey was destroyed during the dissolution of the monasteries on orders of King Henry VIII in 1538, and a prison was built on the site in 1788.

Ken Qualmann, head of Winchester's Museums Service, said he was convinced the team had established the precise location of the tombs.

An unlikely monarch known first for his poetry, Alfred found fame with military successes against the Danes, writes ROBERT UHLIG.

"Everything that we have found - the plan of the church, the fragments of stone and human bone - indicate that this is the spot where Alfred was laid to rest. "

The most significant find, a fragment of female pelvis, is believed to belong to Ealhswith,

Archaeologists also found chunks of rock that may have formed part of a column.

The exact location of Alfred's bones remains a mystery. Suggestions that they were ground up and used as fertiliser for the prison governor's garden have not been substantiated.

The archaeologists believe the bones were disturbed when the county jail was built on the site.

'We have found considerable evidence of 18th-century digging, especially in the area of the high altar," Qualmann said.

"This new evidence supports the claims that Alfred's grave was dug up in 1788 when the jail was built on the site."

Reports from the time state "a great stone coffin was found, cased with lead within and without, containing bones and garments. The lead was sold for two guineas; the bones were thrown about and the stone coffin broken into pieces."

Alfred was born in 849, but with four elder brothers was an unlikely king. At first he was more interested in pursuing his love of poetry than royal power, but he eventually became a supreme military tactician. Despite winning many battles, his promotion of learning is regarded as his greatest accomplishment.

A Latin scholar, he translated many books from Latin and directed all young freemen of adequate means to learn to read English.

But it was his 30-year battle against Danish aggression that sealed his reputation. In 865, a Danish force invaded East Anglia and captured Northumbria in 867.

When the following year the Danes attacked Mercia, a kingdom between the Thames and the Humber, Alfred joined his brother Aethelred I to assist Burgred of Mercia against the Danes and a truce was declared.

Soon after, Alfred married Ealhswith, descended from Mercian kings, but in 871 the Danes invaded Wessex. After fighting several battles, Aethelred died and was succeeded by Alfred, who made peace with the Danes after the battle of Wilton.