The Magna Carta.

Great Debates
1

Something I have wondered for some time now. Is the Magna Carta, signed by King John June 15, 1215 at Runnymede, really the foundation of rights, in all English-speaking nations?

I actually was discussing this this very matter with our probate lawyer, about 15 years ago. He said basically yes, especially after English common law was introduced to the United States, in the 19th century.

But you know, he may have been generalizing. He wasn’t dispensing important legal advice. We were just having an informational discussion. And again, he was a probate lawyer.

What do the rest of you think:)?

:slight_smile: :slight_smile: :slight_smile:

2

I would say that it’s a foundation rather than the foundation. I think there isn’t a single foundation for such a broad thing.

The Magna Carta itself has foundations. It wasn’t entirely a completely new thing with no precedent, nor did it only grant rights that hadn’t previously existed.

A random example - one clause of the Magna Carta deals with how marriage affected the property rights of women, closing a loophole that could have been exploited to reduce their property rights. The Magna Carta didn’t grant property rights to women - they already had them and the Magna Carta assumed them as a given.

A foundation. An extremely important foundation. Arguably the most important foundation. But not the only foundation.

3

We are now entering the era of the MAGA Charter. Get ready folks!

4

In my understanding – I enjoyed reading about the history of law while in law school, even buying and partially reading a copy of Blackstone’s Commentaries in my free time – the Magna Carta was an important milestone, but only that, in the development of modern political systems. In essence, the Magna Carta marked the end of absolute power being vested in the monarch, replaced by something that eventually became “we the people.” The larger trend in political theory here is that the concepts of justice and righteousness shifted away from the fiat of individuals and toward ideals that all people, including leaders, are held accountable to. Today’s “no person is above the law” expresses a similar sentiment. The important thing about the Magna Carta was not that it reflected society’s changing views on these matters but that the king (and others after him) consented to limitations on the crown’s authority, thus reconciling conflicting views on the first source of authority and resolving a substantial civil crisis.

So, we’re not exactly being precise here. English common law was introduced to the Americas before there was a United States, so definitely in the U.S. before the 19[sup]th[/sup] century. Along those lax lines, I’d agree that the Magna Carta set in motion events that still resonate at the core of all common-law-descendant nations.

5

Just a tiny niggle regarding precision:

King John didn’t sign the Magna Carta. That’s not how it was done in those days. He formally gave his approval by attaching his seal to the documents (there were copies so that they could be distributed), not by signing them.

It could also reasonably be argued that it wasn’t valid because he was forced to do so and that the true implementation of the Magna Carta was when a later king put the royal seal on it without being forced to do so at swordpoint. I think that was in 1296, but I’m by no means sure.

6

A foundation, not the foundation, as has already been mentioned above.

It should also be noted that the famous 1215 version was repealed mere months after being agreed. What’s currently law in England is the 1297 version.

Secondly, most of that Magna Carta was repealed in England from the 1830s on.

The only parts that remain in force are:

a) The Church of England shall be free.
b) London’s ancient rights and liberties are confirmed.
c) no man may be imprisoned or punished without due process.
d) justice may not be sold, denied or delayed.

Fundamentally Magna Carta has far less to do with the rights of ordinary people and is much more accurately described as an attempt to regulate the relationship between the King and his Barons. Ordinary people got occasional crumbs tossed their way in the Charter, such as articles regulating trade on the river Thames and so on, and there was also the Forest Charter agreed roundabouts the same time.

7

The preamble is very clear in specifying that the charter applies to all free people of England. While a lot of the details of specific rights regarding the use of resources and obligations to the crown were about the church and nobility (and mostly irrelevant by the 1830s), I think that the right to due process, a fair trial, a fair punishment if found guilty and suchlike are far more than “occasional crumbs”.

8

It was the first time a monarch’s power was limited by law, the first inkling that everyone is equal under the law. No, the Roman Republic doesn’t count - they were a republic, not a monarchy. The foundations of rights go back to Hammurabi and before. So a foundation, but not the foundation.

Or, on preview, what Jon in PDX said.

9

This is tangential, but it seems to me I usually hear Americans and Canadians referring to “the” Magna Carta while Brits tend to drop the definite article. Does anyone know why that might be? Is it a matter of Latin not employing a definite article and more classically educated individuals following that pattern?

10

Do they say this when they are in hospital or in the hospital?

11

Bear in mind that Magna Carta, like most charters of the day, were intended to regulate interaction between the King and nobles. There was still the oppressive system of feudalism in place, which meant that probably 95% of the subjects wouldn’t have noticed a change at all.

Magna Carta wasn’t the first contract between King and nobility. There had been a charter of liberties proposed by Henry I in 1100. However, it is generally accepted that most of the monarchs after Henry I paid little regard for the charter as an actual binding agreement. English monarchs were increasingly concerned with maintaining their power over both England and Norman France. They had to raise taxes to pay for their war efforts.

King John Lackland is oft described (perhaps in biased terms by his contemporaries) as cruel and barbaric. What records seem to suggest, however, is that John was a particularly good tax collector. He needed cash for his wars, and he set up an administration that was effective at not only levying but making barony pay up.

The problem for John was that while he was good at collecting taxes, his armies were less successful in terms of waging war and establishing decisive victories. In fact England and Normandy were permanently separated around 1214 or 1215 IIRC. The nobility had seen enough of King John’s shit. Bad enough they were paying taxes, but he could have at least won his fucking battles with their hard-earned money.

After John’s death, successors and nobility (and the church) negotiated the terms of the Magna Carta, which was reissued and agreed to by the monarch in exchange for agreed-upon taxation. Over time, this ‘contract’ was renewed, with nobility gradually forming what became the first parliament.

12

Bricker or other legal experts are welcome to correct me, but if I have my facts straight, common law traditions were brought over during colonial times, which predate the 19th Century. It wasn’t something that was just introduced in the 19th Century. Colonies, which began as extensions of European powers such as Holland, England, France, and Spain, would have used the laws of their own countries, or at least have been influenced greatly to that end.

13

Well played, Sir.

14

That’s with hindsight, though. Those things were principally inserted because John made a habit of abusing the judicial system and holding nobles hostage in order to exact money from their relatives. There were relatively few ‘free’ people in England at the time, and a not insignificant portion of local justice was still administered by nobles.

Magna Carta became a potent symbol of the rights of ordinary folk much later, through gross misunderstandings of the Charter’s origins and purpose.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

15

While the Magna Carta was an important “foundational document” was it really a key turning point of history? English barons had rights long before 1215; the Tudor Monarchs were more autocratic than John.

For reference, here are some of the (mostly shorter) clauses in a Magna Carta translation (including some clauses omitted in reissues).

JOHN, by the grace of God King of England, Lord of Ireland, Duke of Normandy and Aquitaine, and Count of Anjou, to his archbishops, bishops, abbots, earls, barons, justices, foresters, sheriffs, stewards, servants, and to all his officials and loyal subjects, Greeting.

(6) Heirs may be given in marriage, but not to someone of lower social standing. Before a marriage takes place, it shall be made known to the heir’s next-of-kin.

(8) No widow shall be compelled to marry, so long as she wishes to remain without a husband. But she must give security that she will not marry without royal consent, if she holds her lands of the Crown, or without the consent of whatever other lord she may hold them of.

(9) Neither we nor our officials will seize any land or rent in payment of a debt, so long as the debtor has movable goods sufficient to discharge the debt…

(10) If anyone who has borrowed a sum of money from Jews dies before the debt has been repaid, his heir shall pay no interest on the debt for so long as he remains under age, irrespective of whom he holds his lands. If such a debt falls into the hands of the Crown, it will take nothing except the principal sum specified in the bond.

(12) No ‘scutage’ or ‘aid’ may be levied in our kingdom without its general consent, unless it is for the ransom of our person, to make our eldest son a knight, and (once) to marry our eldest daughter. For these purposes only a reasonable ‘aid’ may be levied. ‘Aids’ from the city of London are to be treated similarly.

(13) The city of London shall enjoy all its ancient liberties and free customs, both by land and by water. We also will and grant that all other cities, boroughs, towns, and ports shall enjoy all their liberties and free customs.

(15) In future we will allow no one to levy an ‘aid’ from his free men, except to ransom his person, to make his eldest son a knight, and (once) to marry his eldest daughter. For these purposes only a reasonable ‘aid’ may be levied.

(17) Ordinary lawsuits shall not follow the royal court around, but shall be held in a fixed place.

(20) For a trivial offence, a free man shall be fined only in proportion to the degree of his offence, and for a serious offence correspondingly, but not so heavily as to deprive him of his livelihood. In the same way, a merchant shall be spared his merchandise, and a villein the implements of his husbandry, if they fall upon the mercy of a royal court. None of these fines shall be imposed except by the assessment on oath of reputable men of the neighbourhood.

(21) Earls and barons shall be fined only by their equals, and in proportion to the gravity of their offence.

(23) No town or person shall be forced to build bridges over rivers except those with an ancient obligation to do so.

(25) Every county, hundred, wapentake, and tithing shall remain at its ancient rent, without increase, except the royal demesne manors.

(27) If a free man dies intestate, his movable goods are to be distributed by his next-of-kin and friends, under the supervision of the Church. The rights of his debtors are to be preserved.

(28) No constable or other royal official shall take corn or other movable goods from any man without immediate payment, unless the seller voluntarily offers postponement of this.

(31) Neither we nor any royal official will take wood for our castle, or for any other purpose, without the consent of the owner.

(32) We will not keep the lands of people convicted of felony in our hand for longer than a year and a day, after which they shall be returned to the lords of the ‘fees’ concerned.

(33) All fish-weirs shall be removed from the Thames, the Medway, and throughout the whole of England, except on the sea coast.

(34) The writ called precipe shall not in future be issued to anyone in respect of any holding of land, if a free man could thereby be deprived of the right of trial in his own lord’s court.

(35) There shall be standard measures of wine, ale, and corn (the London quarter), throughout the kingdom. There shall also be a standard width of dyed cloth, russet, and haberject, namely two ells within the selvedges. Weights are to be standardised similarly.

(36) In future nothing shall be paid or accepted for the issue of a writ of inquisition of life or limbs. It shall be given gratis, and not refused.

(38) In future no official shall place a man on trial upon his own unsupported statement, without producing credible witnesses to the truth of it.

(39) No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgment of his equals or by the law of the land.

(40) To no one will we sell, to no one deny or delay right or justice.

(41) All merchants may enter or leave England unharmed and without fear, and may stay or travel within it, by land or water, for purposes of trade, free from all illegal exactions, in accordance with ancient and lawful customs. This, however, does not apply in time of war to merchants from a country that is at war with us. Any such merchants found in our country at the outbreak of war shall be detained without injury to their persons or property, until we or our chief justice have discovered how our own merchants are being treated in the country at war with us. If our own merchants are safe they shall be safe too.

(44) People who live outside the forest need not in future appear before the royal justices of the forest in answer to general summonses, unless they are actually involved in proceedings or are sureties for someone who has been seized for a forest offence.

(45) We will appoint as justices, constables, sheriffs, or other officials, only men that know the law of the realm and are minded to keep it well.

(47) All forests that have been created in our reign shall at once be disafforested. River-banks that have been enclosed in our reign shall be treated similarly.

(48) All evil customs relating to forests and warrens, foresters, warreners, sheriffs and their servants, or river-banks and their wardens, are at once to be investigated in every county by twelve sworn knights of the county, and within forty days of their enquiry the evil customs are to be abolished completely and irrevocably. But we, or our chief justice if we are not in England, are first to be informed.

(51) As soon as peace is restored, we will remove from the kingdom all the foreign knights, bowmen, their attendants, and the mercenaries that have come to it, to its harm, with horses and arms.

(52) To any man whom we have deprived or dispossessed of lands, castles, liberties, or rights, without the lawful judgment of his equals, we will at once restore these. In cases of dispute the matter shall be resolved by the judgment of the twenty-five barons referred to below …

(54) No one shall be arrested or imprisoned on the appeal of a woman for the death of any person except her husband.

(58) We will at once return the son of Llywelyn, all Welsh hostages, and the charters delivered to us as security for the peace.

(60) All these customs and liberties that we have granted shall be observed in our kingdom in so far as concerns our own relations with our subjects. Let all men of our kingdom, whether clergy or laymen, observe them similarly in their relations with their own men.

(61) SINCE WE HAVE GRANTED ALL THESE THINGS for God, for the better ordering of our kingdom, and to allay the discord that has arisen between us and our barons, and since we desire that they shall be enjoyed in their entirety, with lasting strength, for ever, we give and grant to the barons the following security:

The barons shall elect twenty-five of their number to keep, and cause to be observed with all their might, the peace and liberties granted and confirmed to them by this charter…

Given by our hand in the meadow that is called Runnymede, between Windsor and Staines, on the fifteenth day of June in the seventeenth year of our reign (i.e. 1215: the new regnal year began on 28 May).

16

What Magna Carta was a ‘turning point’ for arguably was its indirect impact on the later foundation of Parliament.

In the 1100s, the King had automatic right to certain specific sources of medieval taxation, but anything else, anything extraordinary, required dire emergencies to justify. John, however, tried to get round this by abusing the old taxes he had right to in unusual ways.

Ostensibly John tried to justify his exactions of money from his subjects on the basis of military need - sourced from the old roman legal notion that the Prince had a duty to defend the realm from enemies and the people were obligated to support him by any means he wanted.

That’s fine when the external threat is clear and obvious. But England being an island enjoyed a period of relative peace and security from its near neighbours under Henry II and Richard I.

John ended up losing Normandy to the French, but the nobility, while Norman by descent, had spent the past century becoming increasingly English by identity, and there was little inclination to see reconquering Normandy as a just war to defend England. It was seen as a war for the King’s interests, not the realm’s.

Plus, John abused the principle and sought cash during peace and used it for purposes other than the military. He also abused old medieval taxation systems like scutage and tallage to get money even when there was no war.

What do you do when the King has a right to support when the country is in danger, but only the King has the right to determine whether or not it is in danger? Are the King’s interests synonymous with the realm’s?

There ought to be a body, therefore, that could determine if the need for money was genuine. This notion had already been growing n the decades before Magna Carta and some of the early 13th Century council meetings debated and argued the points very seriously to John’s consternation. They weren’t consenting to tax, they were recognising the King’s claim of necessity as valid, which directly obligated them to render aid to their king.

Magna Carta sought to regulate this by making it clear the King couldn’t exact money without a clear need of national interest. But it was still seen by nobles that they were best placed to determine the national interest - the rest of the realm could leave it to them to keep the King in check.

The King (now Henry III after John died in 1216) sought to bypass this by appealing to the wider realm in his quests for money. Henry would initially invite local knights and burgesses to his Council during his trips around the country, and later adapted it to being knights from the whole country. Not elected, chosen by local sheriffs.

In 1264 another civil war broke out with the Barons over the King’s abuses, and in 1265 the king was defeated in battle and captured. The rebel leader, Simon de Montfort, 3rd Earl of Leicester, found that the last fifty years had changed expectations about what the consent of the realm constituted, and invited representatives from all over the land to discuss pressing issues - the first elected parliament.

Soon after the King escaped, fought another battle, defeated the rebels and had de Montfort executed.

Decades later, his son Edward I found himself desperate for money and the old feudal taxation methods inadequate for the task. Knowing what had happened to his father and grandfather, and the scale of the money he needed, he opted instead to call an elected parliament - the first legally promulgated one - in 1295. This parliament is known as the Model Parliament, and it authorised the king’s call for money.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

17

I swear to God I have no idea why does everybody have this obsession with believing that absolute monarchy has been so much more widespread than it was. I think it may be a form of manicheism, or perhaps the same tendency to oversimplification which leads to examples such as “in autumn, trees lose their leaves…” (not all trees get naked in autumn, and leaves fall throughout the year).

Germanic or Germanic-influenced monarchs were subject to the laws of the land and needed to call Parliament (understood as “a meeting between the monarch and the people”, not these permanent delegations we have nowadays) for big items, generally those linked to taxation and budgetting, before the Magna Carta and independently of anything happening in Albion. Is the Magna Carta important? Yes. Does it have an influence in the politics of many countries other than England and her former colonies? Sure. But it’s not the first time a monarch’s power was limited by law.

18

Indeed. There’s a lot of myth-making about Magna Carta, which has generally been a good thing as the myths have helped push forward the argument for rights and the rule of law. But it wasn’t, at the time, all that it’s now cracked up to be.

This speechby Lord Sumption (who is both a Supreme Court Justice and a medieval historian of note, so well worth listening to on this topic) lays out the historical context of Magna Carta very nicely:

He also points out the astonishing weakness - in theory and in practice - of the famous Clause 39: "No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgment of his equals or by the law of the land.

The bolded bit guts everything that goes before. In pre-Parliamentary times, the law was decreed by the king. So Magna Carta would stop him imprisoning, exiling, or using force against (etc. etc.) any one - unless of course, he decreed that he could do just that. He could decree a general law permitting these actions, or target an individual via Bill of Attainder. In any case, he could show that he had followed the law of the land. The protection afforded by Magna Carta was literally parchment thin.

19

Agreed, Magna Carta didn’t really create new law or principles but it did reinforce those that already existed and were seen as violated. And the Hungarian king had promulgated a similar Charter of liberties years earlier.

It’s generally the same each time - the English Civil War was to defend parliament and the liberties of the subject that already existed from a king perceived as threatening them. And the American Revolution was to defend the Rights of Englishmen from a parliament seen as violating them.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

20

Right now in Hawaii they’re dealing with the Magma Carta.