Great Bull of 1811

The Great Bull of 1811 was an act proclaimed by Niall V, Apostolic King of Urcea in 1811. The Great Bull, one of the last issued by an Apostolic King, deals with the civil rights of Urceans. The Bull both codified existing long-held rights as well as introduced new guarantees as part of Niall's overall liberalizing reform efforts. The Great Bull is considered one of the fundamental texts of the Constitution of Urcea. It is often referred to as the "Urcean Bill of Rights".

Text and analysis

The Great Bull of 1811 consists of a preamble which establishes its historical context. It also includes a discourse on Urcean views on the role of government within the context of Catholic social teaching and expressing a general set of principles that have been described as both organic and crown liberal in nature. The preamble is followed by nine "that" clauses, known as the ten "statements", each of which guarantees a different civil liberty. The final "that" clause binds the Apostolic King of Urcea and his descendants to the contents and guarantees of the Bull. Besides the preamble and tenth statement, the nine central statements of the Great Bull each deal with a different social or political right.

The Great Bull was intended to have the effect of establishing a set of paramount rights within Urcean society. Accordingly, many of the rights enumerated under the Great Bull were previous existing legal protections. Many others, like the sixth and ninth statements, were functionally already cornerstones of Urcean society but restated as specific paramount rights. In this sense, the Great Bull also worked to modernize and restate extant traditions with respect to the function of the Government of Urcea, clarifying ancient traditions with clear language. For this reason, and due to the principles established in its preamble, it is considered the primary single document of the Constitution of Urcea.

Preamble

As God has invested authority and His Divine Trust in the Apostolic King of Urcea, Niall the fifth, of the House de Weluta, Elector of Canaery, et cetera, We, as King, have determined that the following be true: that this authority is of granted stewardship and not inherited ownership; that God has placed Us on this throne as a subject of his Emperor and his Pope for the benefit and protection of the lands in the Apostolic Kingdom to protect said lands granted to mankind as a whole since the dawn of time and to our ancestors, some of which inhabited the land granted to him since before the life of our Divine Lord; that the people of the Apostolic Kingdom, though subject to Us, our ancestors, and our descendants, are fundamentally participants in the Freedom of Christ and have an inherent dignity as human persons that no King, no Earthly authority, may abrogate, and; as King, though We have Earthly authority over the Kingdom and its subjects, have an obligation as a steward of God to defend and recognize the dignities of Our people and respect the boundaries of their rights as created beings of God. With these ideas affirmed and understood, We, therefore, solemnly resolve and decree this binding declaration for Ourselves and for Our descendants until the end of time:

First Statement

THAT the subjects of the Apostolic Kingdom reserve the ability to all commentary in the public and private sphere even beyond the confines of that which is considered to be tasteful, including blasphemy, though the latter rightfully and shall be discouraged by whatever means of law necessary though under no pain of death or imprisonment;

The First Statement deals with the right to free speech in Urcea. Prior to the Bull's promulgation, most speech was free in Urcea, and this statement is largely recognized as a codification of existing practice in most parts of the country. The middle part of the statement has been noted to be worded in a confusing manner, reading that the subjects of the Kingdom "reserve the ability to all commentary...including blaesphemy, though (it) shall be discouraged". The remaining part of the statement was a contemporary political concern regarding the harshness of the Imperial Inquisition and local jurisdictions in enforcing death on blasphemers. Despite the odd phrasing, courts have generally upheld the ability of the government - and the Censor specifically - to regulate blasphemous language in public. Courts have also upheld the ability of the Censor to charge individuals with a crime for disobeying a lawful order of the Censor, a crime which includes a term of imprisonment; in this case, the term of imprisonment is not for the speech but for disobeying a lawful order.

Second Statement

THAT peaceable assembly of the subjects of the Kingdom is permitted by an authority higher than Our own and shall not be abrogated except to defend against heresy;

The Second Statement establishes the right of assembly in Urcea. A relatively new concept, the Great Bull fully created legal protection for assembly under the law for the first time in Urcea. The statement includes an exception to protected assembly in the form of allowed prohibitions on assembly "to defend against heresy". Scholars are greatly dividied on this clause, with some believing that this phrase was intended to deal with insurrection by Protestants rather than to abridge the ability of Protestants to gather and worship openly. The majority consensus of historians, however, believes the ability to break up an assembly "to defend against heresy" was explicitly intended to give the authorities the ability to break up these proceedings as needed. However, nearly all historians agree this phrase was not a mandate to do so, only an option for public authorities to protect public morality. Thus, the courts have upheld the ability of the authorities to dispel religious assemblies in Urcea; after around 1830, every case relating to this part of the Statement referred to groups recognized as cults.

Third Statement

THAT the subjects of the Apostolic Kingdom shall have no obligation to quarter the armies of His Imperial Majesty and that We and Our descendants shall take every measure to prevent such occurrence, and that no soldier in Our service shall be quartered in the home of a subject of the Apostolic Kingdom except in times of domestic war;

The Third Statement prohibits the practice of quartering, or the requirement of private citizens to provide home and shelter to military personnel. It specifically prohibits every instance of the army of the Emperor of the Levantines from quartering in Urcea, and also provides that soldiers of the Royal Army will not be quartered except during insurrection and civil war. This statement was issued within the context of the Second Caroline War, during which time Urcean nationals were forced to quarter Imperial soldiers in parts of the country occupied by Imperial forces. The major exception provided under this statement - allowing quartering "in times of domestic war" - was used extensively during the '97 Rising. This statement has little relevance today, but the phrasing of the statement has provided a major legal quandry that has yet to be tried before the courts: the issue of whether or not quartering Imperial troops is permissible if the Emperor is also the Apostolic King of Urcea. The statement's post-Second Caroline War context assumed that House de Weluta would never again assume the throne of the Emperor of the Levantines, but the title is now permanently fused to that of the Apostolic King of Urcea, calling into question the legitimacy of the exception provided under the statement.

Fourth Statement

THAT the teaching of the Church and tradition of the Empire be affirmed that no subject of the Kingdom may be held in slavery to another, and that no subject of the Kingdom, in territories foreign or domestic, within the Empire or without, may hold another man as a slave as it is incongruent with the dignity of the human person;

The Fourth Statement deals with the legality of slavery, which it prohibits. In the Holy Levantine Empire of which Urcea was a part, slavery had been banned in large part since the early medieval period with the exception of galley slavery. Slavery was not legally prohibited abroad, however, prior to the promulgation of the Great Bull, and it was legally permisible to keep non-Christians in bondage in some circumstances. When the Bull was promulgated, it had the effect of banning slavery in New Archduchy, Urcea's only overseas possession where slavery was used by 1811. Courts have generally held that this Statement refers to both indentured servitude, chattel slavery, and other types of property-based bondage specifically and does not relate to the use of prison labor.

Fifth Statement

THAT We, as much as practicable, shall resolve to, whenever possible, respect the subsidiary order of society and make no measure to impose on the subjects of the Kingdom whatever is unnecessary relative to their own ability and capacity for enterprise and industry, and that such resolution will be respected to the best of Our knowledge and Our ability and that of Our descendants until the end of time;

The Fifth Statement commits the Apostolic King of Urcea specifically and Urcean state generally to the principle of subsidiarity. Scholars have noted that this statement offers the least in the way of concrete rights and privileges, and this is accordingly one of the least tried portions of the Great Bull. This statement instead serves as a statement of priorities and one of the underpinnings of federalism in modern Urcea. It is explicitly referenced in the Administrative Reorganization Act of 1892, the legislation that created Urcea's modern federal structure.

Sixth Statement

THAT the Holy Catholic Church shall never be attacked, abrogated, or otherwise molested in any capacity, affirming the vow We took upon coronation and the obligation of Our position as Defender of the Faith, and that the Kingdom, to the best of its ability, shall work to enhance the position of the Faith within the Kingdom, within the Empire, and throughout the world, and that We and our descendants shall endeavor to further the Faith of our people through charity, good works, construction of churches and church schools, and any other measure necessary;

The Sixth Statement commits Urcea to the furtherance of the Catholic Church and provides the Church certain rights against the state. Catholicism had been the official religion of Urcea since its inception, and this statement reiterates and codifies its historic commitment as well as a general obligation of the state to provide for the needs of the Church. The last part of the statement, which states that Urcea "shall endeavor...any other measure necessary", forms the basis of the work of the Ministry for the Church in Urcea, which specifically cites the Sixth Statement as its mission statement.

Seventh Statement

THAT the subjects of the Apostolic Kingdom shall, except for treason or heresy, be guaranteed a trial either by jury of their peers or by a Royal judge upon their choice, and that such trial shall be as speedy as possible;

The Seventh Statement provides that Urceans are entitled to a right to speedy trial by a jury of their peers. Prior to the Great Bull, this was the usual custom within the Archduchy of Urceopolis but far from uniform practice either in the Archduchy or the Kingdom at large. Especially in times of war or on the Urcean frontier where judges and arbitrators were scarce, individuals were often not afforded a trial and were directly imprisoned, or if they were given a trial it would take years for such trial to be held. The Statement provides two significant exceptions - treason and heresy - which have been the subject to extensive court proceedings in the last two centuries. Courts have upheld the general applicability of the exception for the charge of treasons specifically, noting that 20th century authorities and jurisdictions very rarely, if ever, issued such a charge. Heresy is a more complex issue; many legal scholars argue the intention was to specifically exempt Protestants from a right to trial, an interpretation that courts have diverged from significantly from 1811. Current legal precedent says that "heresy" herein deals with the specific charge of heresy, which has not been brought forward since the 19th century, and accordingly courts afford Protestants the right to a trial. Legal experts have noted that current precedent around this statement is "most divergent" of any of the Great Bull from its original intention.

Eighth Statement

THAT We and our descendants shall never abrogate or otherwise seize the land of a subject of the Kingdom except for treason without compensation or without due process of law, and further that We recognize the fundamental good of ownership and particularly land ownership, and that We and our descendants shall endeavor, on Royal lands, to ensure fair, reasonable, and broad ownership of lands;

The Eighth Statement prohibits takings without compensation or due process, entitling Urceans to a legal hearing in such cases. The statement goes on to make a generally broad commitment in principle to private property and "fair, reasonable, and broad ownership of lands," language which has been frequently tried in courts without definitive precedent as to its meaning and application. Courts have instead primarily argued that the "fair, reasonable, and broad ownership of lands" is a matter of political decisionmaking as its meaning is not clear within the Great Bull. The second part of the statement remained relatively obscure throughout the 20th century, but was revived as a key part of Wittonian Socialism's land policy in the late 20th and early 21st century, resulting in current land and housing practices.

Ninth Statement

THAT the subjects of the Apostolic Kingdom shall have a new tax or taxes imposed on them only by consent of a common council of the people; and

The Ninth Statement prevents the people of Urcea from being taxed without the consent of a council representing them. This statement is a basic reiteration of the historic constitutional role of the Concilium Daoni, which had served as the only body which could authorize a tax since the medieval period. Within its historic context, many members of the Daoni and public were concerned that the Apostolic King of Urcea might institute new taxes during the emergency of the Second Caroline War while the Daoni was in recess. This statement, most scholars agree, was an effort by Niall to express the Crown's commitment to the Daoni's historic rights.

Tenth Statement

THAT We, as Apostolic King of Urcea, and Our descendants, shall bind ourselves to these solemn resolutions in the eyes of God and man, and that We shall endeavor to uphold these God-given and affirmed rights to the best of Our ability, and that We shall not forget these obligations as steward ordained by God.

The Tenth Statement effectively serves as an enacting clause, committing the Apostolic King of Urcea to the provisions of the Bull. Historians and legal scholars have noted that the Bull does not actually explicitly commit the Government of Urcea to its provisions, but courts have ruled that, as the government (and local governments) exercises authority in the King's name or King's stead, it is applicable to the government generally.

Legacy

Legal force

The Great Bull of 1811 remains as unconsolidated law of Urcea, retaining the same legal force as a Great Bull as it had when originally promulgated. Although it does not appear in the Consolidated Laws of HMCM's Kingdom and State, the basic principles and rights provided for under the Bull provide the underlying legal foundation of the Consolidated Laws.