History

The 1689 declarations, and what caused them

From a list of complaints. The Bill of Rights recites what had been done — excessive bail to defeat the liberty of the subject, packed juries, fines granted before conviction — and then declares, clause by clause, that each ought not to happen. The grievances are printed immediately above the remedies.

1688 or 1689, depending on the dating convention · dating disputed · England, and later the statute book of England and Wales.

Where does "cruel and unusual punishment" come from?

Rights provisions are usually read as statements of principle. This one is easier to understand as a reply. The Bill of Rights sets out, at length and in order, what had been done that the framers objected to — and then sets out, in matching order, what ought not to be done. The two lists sit on the same page.

What the sources say

The recitals name the grievances. Among them: that "of late yeares Partiall Corrupt and Unqualifyed Persons have beene returned and served on Juryes in Tryalls", particularly jurors in trials for high treason who were not freeholders; that "excessive Baile hath beene required of Persons committed in Criminall Cases to elude the Benefitt of the Lawes made for the Liberty of the Subjects"; that "excessive Fines have beene imposed"; and that "illegall and cruell Punishments" had been inflicted.

The declarations answer the grievances. Among them: "That excessive Baile ought not to be required nor excessive Fines imposed nor cruell and unusuall Punishments inflicted"; "That Jurors ought to be duely impannelled and returned" — words which follow being repealed, as the revised text records; and "That all Grants and Promises of Fines and Forfeitures of particular persons before Conviction are illegall and void".

The declarations extend beyond criminal procedure to the exercise of power itself: "That the pretended Power of Suspending of Laws or the Execution of Laws by Regall Authority without Consent of Parlyament is illegall", and "That it is the Right of the Subjects to petition the King and all Commitments and Prosecutions for such Petitioning are Illegall".

Why it matters

AnalysisThe phrase "cruel and unusual punishment" is now in constitutions on several continents, and it is usually encountered as a principle with no history. Finding it in a list of answers to recited abuses does not diminish it. It explains what kind of thing it is: a prohibition drafted by people who had watched something specific happen.

This platform records that a similar formulation appears in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which guarantees the right not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment. Recording the resemblance is not asserting descent, and the difference between those two operations is most of what separates history from folklore.

Connections to modern institutions

What a reader will be tempted to connect this to, and what the evidence supports.

Constitutional prohibitions on cruel and unusual punishment — Contested: The phrase "cruell and unusuall Punishments" appears in this text, and similar wording appears in later constitutions — the Canadian Charter, documented elsewhere on this platform, guarantees the right not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment. Whether any later provision descends from this one, or converges on it, requires evidence about each drafting process that this platform has not gathered. The resemblance is recorded; the descent is not asserted.
A bill of rights in the modern sense — No established connection: The declarations are addressed to specific recited abuses of royal power and are framed as assertions of existing rights and liberties rather than as a general enumeration of individual rights against the state. Nothing here establishes it as an early instance of the modern form.

Common belief: The Bill of Rights was passed in 1689.
In practice: It is conventionally cited as 1689 and the statute book titles it 1688, following the old-style calendar. Both are in use and this platform gives both.
Common belief: The declarations are statements of abstract principle.
In practice: Each answers a grievance recited immediately above it — packed juries, excessive bail used to defeat existing laws, excessive fines, illegal and cruel punishments, and grants of fines and forfeitures before conviction.
Common belief: The prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment originated here and spread.
In practice: The phrase appears in this text, and similar wording appears in later instruments including the Canadian Charter. Whether any of them descends from this one is a question about each drafting process, and this platform has not gathered that evidence.
Common belief: Everything declared in 1689 is still on the statute book in that form.
In practice: The revised text records repeals. The words following the declaration that jurors ought to be duly impanelled and returned have been repealed.

What we could not establish

One statute is described, in the spelling in which the statute book prints it. The political events surrounding it are referred to only as the Act itself recites them.
No claim is made about influence on the constitutional texts of any other country. The resemblance to later wording is recorded; the causal question is left open because the evidence to answer it was not gathered.
Which clauses of the Act remain in force today was not comprehensively researched; the page records only the repeal the revised text marks in the passage quoted.

Sources

Bill of Rights [1688] (1 Will and Mar Sess 2 c. 2)
The National Archives (legislation.gov.uk) · Legislation · 1689 · link verified 2026-08-26
The digitised text on the statute book, read directly, in the original spelling as printed there. DATING NOTE: legislation.gov.uk titles the Act "Bill of Rights [1688]" while it is conventionally cited as 1689; the discrepancy reflects the old-style calendar and the platform records both rather than choosing one. Supports the GRIEVANCE recitals, which precede the declarations and name what was complained of, including: that partial, corrupt and unqualified persons had been returned and served on juries in trials, particularly jurors in trials for high treason who were not freeholders; that "excessive Baile hath beene required of Persons committed in Criminall Cases to elude the Benefitt of the Lawes made for the Liberty of the Subjects"; that "excessive Fines have beene imposed"; that "illegall and cruell Punishments" had been inflicted; and that grants and promises of fines and forfeitures had been made before any conviction or judgement. Supports the DECLARATORY clauses, including: "That the pretended Power of Suspending of Laws or the Execution of Laws by Regall Authority without Consent of Parlyament is illegall"; "That it is the Right of the Subjects to petition the King and all Commitments and Prosecutions for such Petitioning are Illegall"; "That excessive Baile ought not to be required nor excessive Fines imposed nor cruell and unusuall Punishments inflicted"; "That Jurors ought to be duely impannelled and returned" (the following words being repealed, as the revised text records); and "That all Grants and Promises of Fines and Forfeitures of particular persons before Conviction are illegall and void". Cited for what this text SAYS and for the structural fact that each declaration answers a recited grievance. It establishes no line of descent to any later instrument in any country, and no such claim is made from it.
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Constitution Act, 1982, Part I)
Government of Canada — Justice Laws Website (laws-lois.justice.gc.ca) · Legislation · 1982-04-17 · link verified 2026-07-26
The authoritative text (English; French equally authoritative), read in full. Supports the 'Legal Rights' (ss.7-14): s.7 'Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice'; s.11(d) the right 'to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal'; s.12 'Everyone has the right not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment'. Also s.18(1): the statutes of Parliament are printed in English and French 'and both language versions are equally authoritative' — the equal-authenticity rule. Both versions have legal effect. WAVE 14 ADDITION, read from the same authoritative page: s.14, marginal-noted “Interpreter”, in full — “A party or witness in any proceedings who does not understand or speak the language in which the proceedings are conducted or who is deaf has the right to the assistance of an interpreter.” Note that the provision covers any proceedings rather than criminal proceedings only, extends to witnesses as well as parties, and treats deafness alongside not understanding the language of the proceedings. WAVE 20 ADDITION. Read from the same Justice Laws text of the Charter. Supports Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s. 1 (Constitution Act, 1982, Part I): “The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.”. Supports Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s. 33(1); s. 33(3) ("shall cease to have effect five years after it comes into force"); s. 33(4)-(5) (re-enactment): “shall operate notwithstanding a provision included in section 2 or sections 7 to 15 of this Charter”. IMPORTANT NEGATIVE FINDING, established during adversarial review: Canada has NO domestic derogation mechanism for an emergency. Limitation of Charter rights runs through the ordinary s. 1 test, and a legislature may additionally use the s. 33 declaration, which has its own five-year clock. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is unincorporated in Canadian law; the Emergencies Act preamble directs the Governor in Council to “have regard to” it, which is a direction to consider and not an incorporation. This record supports no claim about any use of s. 33 and no claim about any other country.WAVE 21 ADDITION. Read again from the same Justice Laws text, section by section. Supports s. 1, the general limitation clause, verbatim: the Charter “guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society” — and, as the pages relying on it state, the section enumerates NO factors, which is what distinguishes it from South Africa's s. 36 and Kenya's Art. 24. Supports s. 7 (“Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice”). Supports s. 8 verbatim: “Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure” — a provision containing no warrant requirement, no authorising authority and no procedure. Supports s. 9 (not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned). Supports s. 10 in full: “Everyone has the right on arrest or detention (a) to be informed promptly of the reasons therefor; (b) to retain and instruct counsel without delay and to be informed of that right; and (c) to have the validity of the detention determined by way of habeas corpus and to be released if the detention is not lawful.” Supports the VERIFIED NEGATIVE that s. 10 confers no right to silence and imposes no duty to inform a person of one: the section informs of reasons and of the right to counsel, and stops. Supports s. 11(a)-(i), including (a) to be informed without unreasonable delay of the specific offence, (c) not to be compelled to be a witness in proceedings against that person in respect of the offence, and (d) to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal. Supports s. 13 verbatim: “A witness who testifies in any proceedings has the right not to have any incriminating evidence so given used to incriminate that witness in any other proceedings, except in a prosecution for perjury or for the giving of contradictory evidence” — a use-immunity mechanism, not a right to refuse to testify. Supports s. 14 (interpreter). Supports s. 24(1) and s. 24(2), that evidence obtained in a manner infringing a Charter right “shall be excluded if it is established that, having regard to all the circumstances, the admission of it in the proceedings would bring the administration of justice into disrepute”. Constitutional text only: no decision of the Supreme Court of Canada, and in particular nothing about the Oakes framework, which was NOT researched for this wave.