Magna Carta: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
→Clauses in force in other countries: Adjusted source |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Short description|English charter of freedoms made in 1215}} |
|||
:''"The Magna Carta" redirects here. This article follows the usual academic style and uses "Magna Carta" with no "The".'' |
|||
{{about|the English charter of 1215}} |
|||
{{otheruses}} |
|||
{{pp-move}} |
|||
{{pp-semi-indef|small=yes}} |
|||
{{bots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} |
|||
{{Use shortened footnotes|date=June 2023}} |
|||
{{Use dmy dates|date=November 2014}} |
|||
{{good article}} |
|||
{{Infobox document |
|||
| document_name = Magna Carta |
|||
| image = [[File:Magna Carta (British Library Cotton MS Augustus II.106).jpg|frameless|240px]] |
|||
| image_alt = A large piece of old parchment, mostly covered in densely-packed handwritten text. |
|||
| image_caption = ''[[Cotton MS. Augustus]] II. 106'', one of four surviving [[Exemplified copy|exemplifications]] of the 1215 text |
|||
| date_created = {{start date and age|1215}} |
|||
| date_ratified = |
|||
| location_of_document = Two at the [[British Library]]; one each in [[Lincoln Castle]] and in [[Salisbury Cathedral]] |
|||
| writer = {{plainlist| |
|||
* [[John, King of England]] |
|||
* His barons |
|||
* [[Stephen Langton]], [[Archbishop of Canterbury]] |
|||
}} |
|||
| signers = |
|||
| purpose = [[Peace treaty]] |
|||
|wikisource = Magna Carta |
|||
}} |
|||
{{Monarchism}} |
|||
<!--No citations are required in the article lead per [[MOS:LEADCITE]], as long as the content is cited in the article body, as it should be. Do not add missing-citation tags like {{cn}} to the lead. If necessary, {{not verified in body}} can be used, or the content removed.--> |
|||
'''{{Lang|la-x-medieval|Magna Carta Libertatum}}''' ([[Medieval Latin]] for "Great Charter of Freedoms"), commonly called '''Magna Carta''' or sometimes '''Magna Charta''' ("Great Charter"),{{Efn|The document's Latin name is spelled either {{lang|la|Magna Carta}} or {{lang|la|Magna Charta}} (the pronunciation is the same), and may appear in English with or without the definite article "the", though it is more usual for the article to be omitted.<ref>{{OED|Magna Carta}} "Usually without article."</ref> Latin does not have a definite article equivalent to "the".{{pb}}The spelling {{lang|la|Charta}} originates in the 18th century, as a restoration of [[classical Latin]] {{lang|la|[[:wikt:charta|charta]]}} for the [[Medieval Latin]] spelling {{lang|la|carta}}.<ref>[[Glossarium ad scriptores mediae et infimae latinitatis|Du Cange]] s.v. [http://ducange.enc.sorbonne.fr/charta#CHARTA1 1 carta]</ref> While "Charta" remains an acceptable variant spelling, it never became prevalent in English usage.<ref>{{cite book|last1=Garner|first1=Bryan A.|title=A Dictionary of Modern Legal Usage|date=1995|publisher=Oxford University Press|isbn=978-0195142365|page=541|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=35dZpfMmxqsC&pg=PA541}} "The usual—and the better—form is ''Magna Carta''. [...] ''Magna Carta'' does not take a definite article".{{pb}}''Magna Charta'' is the recommended spelling in German-language literature. ([http://www.duden.de/rechtschreibung/Magna_Charta Duden online])</ref>}} is a [[royal charter]]<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.bl.uk/collection-items/magna-carta-1215|title=Magna Carta 1215|publisher=[[British Library]]|access-date=3 February 2019}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|url=https://www.historyireland.com/volume-23/exporting-magna-carta-exclusionary-liberties-in-ireland-and-the-world/|title=Exporting Magna Carta: exclusionary liberties in Ireland and the world|journal=[[History Ireland]]|volume=23|issue= 4 |date=July 2015|author=Peter Crooks}}</ref> of [[rights]] agreed to by [[King John of England]] at [[Runnymede]], near [[Windsor, Berkshire|Windsor]], on 15 June 1215.{{Efn|Within this article, dates before 14 September 1752 are in the Julian calendar. Later dates are in the Gregorian calendar. In the Gregorian calendar, however, the date would have been 22 June 1215.}} First drafted by the [[Archbishop of Canterbury]], Cardinal [[Stephen Langton]], to make peace between the unpopular king and a group of rebel [[baron]]s who demanded that the King confirm the [[Charter of Liberties]], it promised the protection of church rights, protection for the barons from illegal imprisonment, access to swift and impartial justice, and limitations on [[feudal]] payments to [[the Crown]], to be implemented through a council of 25 barons. Neither side stood by their commitments, and the charter was annulled by [[Pope Innocent III]], leading to the [[First Barons' War]]. |
|||
After John's death, the regency government of his young son, [[Henry III of England|Henry III]], reissued the document in 1216, stripped of some of its more radical content, in an unsuccessful bid to build political support for their cause. At the end of the war in 1217, it formed part of the [[Treaty of Lambeth|peace treaty agreed at Lambeth]], where the document acquired the name "Magna Carta", to distinguish it from the smaller [[Charter of the Forest]], which was issued at the same time. Short of funds, Henry reissued the charter again in 1225 in exchange for a grant of new taxes. His son, [[Edward I]], repeated the exercise in 1297, this time confirming it as part of England's [[Statutory law|statute law]]. However, the Magna Carta was not unique; other legal documents of its time, both in England and beyond, made broadly similar statements of rights and limitations on the powers of the Crown. The charter became part of English political life and was typically renewed by each monarch in turn, although as time went by and the fledgling [[Parliament of England]] passed new laws, it lost some of its practical significance. |
|||
[[Image:Magna_Carta.jpg|thumb|Magna Carta]] |
|||
'''Magna Carta''' ([[Latin]] for "Great Charter", literally "Great Paper"), also called '''Magna Carta Libertatum''' ("Great Charter of Freedoms"), is an [[Kingdom of England|orical process that led to the rule of [[constitutional law]] today. Magna Carta influenced many [[common law]] and other documents, such as the [[United States Constitution]] and [[United States Bill of Rights|Bill of Rights]], and is considered one of the most important legal documents in the [[history of democracy]]. |
|||
At the end of the 16th century, there was an upsurge in interest in Magna Carta. Lawyers and historians at the time believed that there was an ancient English constitution, going back to the days of the [[Anglo-Saxons]], that protected individual English freedoms. They argued that the [[Norman conquest of England|Norman invasion of 1066]] had overthrown these rights and that Magna Carta had been a popular attempt to restore them, making the charter an essential foundation for the contemporary powers of Parliament and legal principles such as ''[[habeas corpus]]''. Although this historical account was badly flawed, jurists such as Sir [[Edward Coke]] used Magna Carta extensively in the early 17th century, arguing against the [[divine right of kings]]. Both [[James VI and I|James I]] and his son [[Charles I of England|Charles I]] attempted to suppress the discussion of Magna Carta. The political myth of Magna Carta and its protection of ancient personal liberties persisted after the [[Glorious Revolution]] of 1688 until well into the 19th century. It influenced the early American colonists in the [[Thirteen Colonies]] and the formation of the [[United States Constitution]], which became the supreme law of the land in the new republic of the United States. |
|||
Magna Carta was originally written because of disagreements between [[Pope Innocent III]], [[John of England|King John]] and his [[List of Baronies in the Peerage of England|English barons]] about the [[right]]s of the [[British monarchy|King]]. Magna Carta required the king to renounce certain rights, respect certain [[legal procedure]]s and accept that the [[Will (philosophy)|will]] of the king could be [[rule of law|bound by the law]]. It explicitly protected certain rights of the King's subjects - whether free or unfree - most notably the right of [[Habeas Corpus]]. Many clauses were renewed throughout the Middle Ages, and further during the [[House of Tudor|Tudor]] and [[House of Stuart|Stuart]] periods, and the 17th and 18th centuries. By the early 19th century most clauses in their original form had been [[repeal]]ed from [[English law]]. |
|||
Research by [[Victorian era|Victorian]] historians showed that the original 1215 charter had concerned the medieval relationship between the monarch and the barons, rather than the rights of ordinary people. The majority of historians now see the interpretation of the charter as a unique and early charter of universal legal rights as a myth that was created centuries later. Despite the changes in views of historians, the charter has remained a powerful, iconic document, even after almost all of its content was repealed from the statute books in the 19th and 20th centuries. Magna Carta still forms an important symbol of liberty today, often cited by politicians and campaigners, and is held in great respect by the British and American legal communities, [[Alfred Denning, Baron Denning|Lord Denning]] describing it in 1956 as "the greatest constitutional document of all {{not a typo|times}}—the foundation of the freedom of the individual against the arbitrary authority of the despot". In the 21st century, four [[Exemplified copy|exemplifications]] of the original 1215 charter remain in existence, two at the [[British Library]], one at [[Lincoln Castle]] and one at [[Salisbury Cathedral]]. There are also a handful of the subsequent charters in public and private ownership, including copies of the 1297 charter in both the United States and Australia. The 800th anniversary of Magna Carta in 2015 included extensive celebrations and discussions, and the four original 1215 charters were displayed together at the British Library. None of the original 1215 Magna Carta is currently in force since it has been repealed; however, four clauses of the original charter are enshrined in the 1297 reissued Magna Carta and do still remain in force in England and Wales.{{efn|These were 1 (part), 13, 39, and 40 of the 1215 charter, being clauses 1, 9, and 29 of the 1297 statute. Although scholars refer to the 63 numbered "clauses" of Magna Carta, this is a modern system of numbering, introduced by Sir [[William Blackstone]] in 1759; the original charter formed a single, long unbroken text.}} |
|||
There are a number of popular misconceptions about Magna Carta, such as that it was the first document to limit the power of an English king by law (it was not the first, and was partly based on the [[Charter of Liberties]]); that it in practice limited the power of the king (it mostly did not in the [[Middle Ages]]); and that it is a single static document (it is a variety of documents referred to under a common name). |
|||
==History== |
|||
==Events leading to Magna Carta== |
|||
[[Image:Magcarta.JPG|thumb|right|One of the certified copies of Magna Carta made in 1215.]] |
|||
After the [[Norman conquest of England]] in [[1066]] and advances in the [[12th century]], the English king had by [[1199]] become the most powerful [[monarch]] in Europe. This was due to a number of factors including the sophisticated centralised government created by the procedures of the new [[Normans|Anglo-Saxon]] systems of governance, and extensive [[Anglo-Norman]] land holdings in [[Normandy]]. But after King [[John of England]] was crowned in the early 13th century, a series of stunning failures on his part led the English [[baron]]s to revolt and place checks on the king's power. |
|||
=== |
===13th century=== |
||
King John's actions in France were a major cause of discontent in the realm. At the time of his accession to the throne after [[Richard I of England|Richard's]] death, there were no set rules to define the line of succession. King John, as Richard's younger brother, was crowned over Richard's nephew, [[Arthur of Brittany]]. As Arthur still had a claim over the [[Anjou]] empire, however, John needed the approval of the French king, [[Philip Augustus]]. To get it, John gave to Philip vast tracts of the French-speaking Anjou territories. |
|||
====Background==== |
|||
When John later married [[Isabella of Angoulême]], her previous fiancé ([[Hugh IX of Lusignan]], one of John's [[vassal]]s) appealed to Philip, who then declared [[forfeit]] all of John's French lands, including the rich Normandy. Philip declared Arthur as the true ruler of the Anjou throne and invaded John's French holdings in mid-1202 to give it to him. John had to act to save face, but his eventual actions did not achieve this—he ended up killing Arthur in suspicious circumstances, thus losing the little support he had from his French barons. |
|||
{{Main|John, King of England}} |
|||
[[File:King John from De Rege Johanne.jpg|thumb|alt=An illuminated picture of King John riding a white horse and accompanied by four hounds. The King is chasing a stag, and several rabbits can be seen at the bottom of the picture.|King [[John, King of England|John]] on a [[Deer hunting|stag hunt]]]] |
|||
Magna Carta originated as an unsuccessful attempt to achieve peace between royalist and rebel factions in 1215, as part of the events leading to the outbreak of the [[First Barons' War]]. England was ruled by King [[John, King of England|John]], the third of the [[Angevin kings of England|Angevin kings]]. Although the kingdom had a robust administrative system, the nature of government under the Angevin monarchs was ill-defined and uncertain.{{sfn|Carpenter|1990|p=8}}{{sfn|Turner|2009|p=149}} John and his predecessors had ruled using the principle of {{lang|la|vis et voluntas}}, or "force and will", taking executive and sometimes arbitrary decisions, often justified on the basis that a king was above the law.{{sfn|Turner|2009|p=149}} Many contemporary writers believed that monarchs should rule in accordance with the custom and the law, with the counsel of the leading members of the realm, but there was no model for what should happen if a king refused to do so.{{sfn|Turner|2009|p=149}} |
|||
John had lost most of his ancestral lands in France to King [[Philip II of France|Philip II]] in 1204 and had struggled to regain them for many years, raising extensive taxes on the barons to accumulate money to fight a war which ended in expensive failure in 1214.{{sfn|Carpenter|1990|p=7}} Following the defeat of his allies at the [[Battle of Bouvines]], John had to [[Suing for peace|sue for peace]] and pay compensation.{{sfn|Danziger|Gillingham|2004|p=168}} John was already personally unpopular with many of the barons, many of whom owed money to the Crown, and little trust existed between the two sides.{{sfn|Turner|2009|p=139}}{{sfn|Warren|1990|p=181}}{{sfn|Carpenter|1990|pp=6–7}} A triumph would have strengthened his position, but in the face of his defeat, within a few months after his return from France, John found that rebel barons in the north and east of England were organising resistance to his rule.{{sfn|Carpenter|1990|p=9}}{{sfn|Turner|2009|p=174}} |
|||
After the defeat of John's allies at the [[Battle of Bouvines]], Philip retained all of John's northern French territories, including Normandy (although [[Aquitaine]] remained in English hands for a time). As a result, John was revealed as a weak military leader, and one who lost to the French a major source of income, neither of which made him popular at home. Worse, to recoup his expenses, John had to further tax the already unhappy barons. |
|||
The rebels took an oath that they would "stand fast for the liberty of the church and the realm", and demanded that the King confirm the [[Charter of Liberties]] that had been declared by King [[Henry I of England|Henry I]] in the previous century, and which was perceived by the barons to protect their rights.{{sfn|Turner|2009|p=174}}{{sfn|Danziger|Gillingham|2004|pp=256–258}}{{sfn|McGlynn|2013|pp=131–132}} The rebel leadership was unimpressive by the standards of the time, even disreputable, but were united by their hatred of John;{{sfn|McGlynn|2013|p=130}} [[Robert Fitzwalter]], later elected leader of the rebel barons, claimed publicly that John had attempted to rape his daughter,{{sfn|Danziger|Gillingham|2004|p=104}} and was implicated in a plot to assassinate John in 1212.{{sfn|Danziger|Gillingham|2004|p=165}} |
|||
===The Church=== |
|||
At the time of John’s reign there was still a great deal of controversy as to how the [[Archbishop of Canterbury]] was to be elected, although it had become traditional that the monarch would appoint a candidate with the approval of the monks of Canterbury. |
|||
[[File:Innozenz3.jpg|thumb|A mural of [[Pope Innocent III]], {{Circa|1219}}]] |
|||
But in the early 13th century, the [[bishop]]s began to want a say. To retain control, the monks elected one of their number to the role. But John, incensed at his lack of involvement in the proceedings, sent the [[Bishop of Norwich]] to Rome as his choice. [[Pope Innocent III]] declared both choices as invalid and persuaded the monks to elect [[Stephen Langton]], who in fact was probably the best choice. But John refused to accept this choice and exiled the monks from the realm. Infuriated, Innocent ordered an [[interdict]] (prevention of public worship - mass, marriages, the ringing of church bells, etc.) in England in 1208, [[excommunication|excommunicated]] John in 1209, and backed Philip to invade England in 1212. |
|||
{{anchor|Unknown Charter of Liberties}}<!--[[Unknown Charter of Liberties]] redirects here-->John held a council in London in January 1215 to discuss potential reforms, and sponsored discussions in [[Oxford]] between his agents and the rebels during the spring.{{sfn|Turner|2009|p=178}} Both sides appealed to [[Pope Innocent III]] for assistance in the dispute.{{sfn|McGlynn|2013|p=132}} During the negotiations, the rebellious barons produced an initial document, which historians have termed "the Unknown Charter of Liberties", which drew on Henry I's Charter of Liberties for much of its language; seven articles from that document later appeared in the "Articles of the Barons" and the subsequent charter.{{sfn|Holt|1992a|p=115}}{{sfn|Poole|1993|pp=471–472}}{{sfn|Vincent|2012|pp=59–60}} |
|||
It was John's hope that the Pope would give him valuable legal and moral support, and accordingly John played for time; the King had declared himself to be a papal vassal in 1213 and correctly believed he could count on the Pope for help.{{sfn|McGlynn|2013|p=132}}{{sfn|Turner|2009|p=179}} John also began recruiting mercenary forces from France, although some were later sent back to avoid giving the impression that the King was escalating the conflict.{{sfn|Turner|2009|p=178}} In a further move to shore up his support, John took an oath to become a [[crusades|crusader]], a move which gave him additional political protection under church law, even though many felt the promise was insincere.{{sfn|Warren|1990|p=233}}{{sfn|Danziger|Gillingham|2004|pp=258–2}} |
|||
John finally backed down and agreed to endorse Langton and allow the exiles to return, and to completely placate the pope, he gave England and [[Ireland]] as papal territories and rented them back as a [[fiefdom]] for 1,000 marks per annum. This further enraged the barons as it meant that they had even less [[autonomy]] in their own lands. |
|||
Letters backing John arrived from the Pope in April, but by then the rebel barons had organised into a military faction. They congregated at [[Northampton]] in May and renounced their feudal ties to John, marching on [[London]], [[Lincoln, England|Lincoln]], and [[Exeter]].{{sfn|Turner|2009|pp=174, 179–180}} John's efforts to appear moderate and conciliatory had been largely successful, but once the rebels held London, they attracted a fresh wave of defectors from the royalists.{{sfn|Turner|2009|p=180}} The King offered to submit the problem to a committee of arbitration with the Pope as the supreme arbiter, but this was not attractive to the rebels.{{sfn|Holt|1992a|p=112}} [[Stephen Langton]], the [[archbishop of Canterbury]], had been working with the rebel barons on their demands, and after the suggestion of papal arbitration failed, John instructed Langton to organise peace talks.{{sfn|Turner|2009|p=180}}{{sfn|McGlynn|2013|p=137}} |
|||
===Taxes=== |
|||
Despite all of this, England's government could not function without a strong king. The efficient [[civil service]], established by the powerful King [[Henry II of England|Henry II]], had run England throughout the reign of [[Richard I of England|Richard I]]. But the government of King John needed money for armies, for during this period of prosperity [[mercenary]] soldiers cost nearly twice as much as before. The loss of the French territories, especially Normandy, greatly reduced the state income and a huge tax would have to be raised in order to attempt to reclaim these territories. Yet it was difficult to raise taxes due to the tradition of keeping them at the same level. |
|||
====Great Charter of 1215==== |
|||
Novel forms of income included a Forest law, a set of regulations about the king’s forest which were easily broken and severely punished. John also increased the pre-existing [[scutage]] (feudal payment to an overlord replacing direct military service) eleven times in his seventeen years as king, as compared to eleven times in twice that period covering three monarchs before him. The last two of these increases were double the increase of their predecessors. He also imposed the first income tax which raised to what was, at the time, the extortionate sum of £60,000. |
|||
[[File:Article-barons-add-ms-4838.jpg|thumb|upright|The Articles of the Barons, 1215, held by the [[British Library]]]] |
|||
John met the rebel leaders at [[Runnymede]], a [[water-meadow]] on the south bank of the [[River Thames]], on 10 June 1215. Runnymede was a traditional place for assemblies, but it was also located on neutral ground between the royal fortress of [[Windsor Castle]] and the rebel base at [[Staines-upon-Thames|Staines]], and offered both sides the security of a rendezvous where they were unlikely to find themselves at a military disadvantage.{{sfn|Tatton-Brown|2015|p=36}}{{sfn|Holt|2015|p=219}} Here the rebels presented John with their draft demands for reform, the 'Articles of the Barons'.{{sfn|Turner|2009|p=180}}{{sfn|McGlynn|2013|p=137}}{{sfn|Warren|1990|p=236}} Stephen Langton's pragmatic efforts at mediation over the next ten days turned these incomplete demands into a charter capturing the proposed peace agreement; a few years later, this agreement was renamed Magna Carta, meaning "Great Charter".{{sfn|McGlynn|2013|p=137}}{{sfn|Warren|1990|p=236}}{{sfn|Turner|2009|pp=180, 182}} By 15 June, general agreement had been made on a text, and on 19 June, the rebels renewed their oaths of loyalty to John and copies of the charter were formally issued.{{sfn|McGlynn|2013|p=137}}{{sfn|Warren|1990|p=236}} |
|||
Although, as the historian [[David Carpenter (historian)|David Carpenter]] has noted, the charter "wasted no time on political theory", it went beyond simply addressing individual baronial complaints, and formed a wider proposal for political reform.{{sfn|Turner|2009|p=180}}{{sfn|Turner|2009|p=182}} It promised the protection of church rights, protection from illegal imprisonment, access to swift justice, and, most importantly, limitations on taxation and other feudal payments to the Crown, with certain forms of feudal taxation requiring baronial consent.{{sfn|Carpenter|1990|p=9}}{{sfn|Turner|2009|pp=184–185}} It focused on the rights of free men—in particular, the barons.{{sfn|Turner|2009|p=182}} The rights of [[serf]]s were included in articles 16, 20 and 28.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.bl.uk/magna-carta/articles/magna-carta-english-translation |
|||
===Rebellion and civil war=== |
|||
|title=Magna Carta|publisher=British Library|access-date=16 March 2016}}</ref>{{efn|The Runnymede Charter of Liberties did not apply to [[Chester]], which at the time was a [[Earl of Chester|separate feudal domain]]. [[Ranulf de Blondeville, 6th Earl of Chester|Earl Ranulf]] granted his own [[Magna Carta of Chester]].{{sfn|Hewit|1929|p=9}} Some of its articles were similar to the Runnymede Charter.{{sfn|Holt|1992b|pp=379–380}}}} Its style and content reflected Henry I's Charter of Liberties, as well as a wider body of legal traditions, including the royal charters issued to towns, the operations of the Church and baronial courts and European charters such as the Statute of Pamiers.{{sfn|Vincent|2012|pp=61–63}}{{sfn|Carpenter|2004|pp=293–294}} The Magna Carta reflected other legal documents of its time, in England and beyond, which made broadly similar statements of rights and limitations on the powers of the Crown.<ref>{{harvnb|Helmholz|2016|p=869}} "First, the formulation of Magna Carta in England was not an isolated event. It was not unique. The results of the meeting at Runnymede coincided with many similar statements of law on the Continent."</ref><ref>{{harvnb|Holt|2015|pp=50–51}}: "Magna Carta was far from unique, either in content or in form"</ref><ref>{{harvnb|Blick|2015|p=39}}: "It was one of a number of such sets of concessions issued by kings, setting out limits on their powers, around this time, though it had its own special character, and subsequently it has become the most celebrated and influential of them all."</ref> <!--this point about contemporary comparisons could be expanded on --> |
|||
[[Image:King John of England signs the Magna Carta - Illustration from Cassell's History of England - Century Edition - published circa 1902.jpg|thumbnail|250px|right|'''John of England signs Magna Carta'''—illustration from ''Cassell's History of England'' (1902)]] |
|||
Under what historians later labelled "clause 61", or the "security clause", a council of 25 barons would be created to monitor and ensure John's future adherence to the charter.{{sfn|Turner|2009|p=189}} If John did not conform to the charter within 40 days of being notified of a transgression by the council, the 25 barons were empowered by clause 61 to seize John's castles and lands until, in their judgement, amends had been made.{{sfn|Danziger|Gillingham|2004|pp=261–262}} Men were to be compelled to swear an oath to assist the council in controlling the King, but once redress had been made for any breaches, the King would continue to rule as before.{{sfn|Goodman|1995|pp=260–261}} |
|||
By 1215, some of the barons of England banded together and took [[London]] by force on [[June 10]], [[1215]]. They, and many of the fence-sitting moderates not in overt rebellion, forced King John to agree to the "Articles of the Barons", to which his [[Great Seal of the Realm|Great Seal]] was attached in the meadow at [[Runnymede]] on [[June 15]], [[1215]]. In return, the barons renewed their oaths of [[fealty]] to King John on [[June 19]], [[1215]]. A formal document to record the agreement was created by the royal [[Lord Chancellor|chancery]] on [[July 15]]: this was the original Magna Carta. An unknown number of copies of it were sent out to officials, such as royal [[sheriff]]s and bishops. |
|||
{{Politics of the United Kingdom}} |
|||
The most significant clause for King John at the time was clause 61, known as the "security clause", the longest portion of the document. This established a committee of 25 barons who could at any time meet and over-rule the will of the King, through force by seizing his castles and possessions if needed. This was based on a medieval legal practice known as ''[[distraint]]'', which was commonly done, but it was the first time it had been applied to a monarch. In addition, the King was to take an oath of loyalty to the committee. |
|||
In one sense this was not unprecedented. Other kings had previously conceded the right of individual resistance to their subjects if the King did not uphold his obligations. Magna Carta was novel in that it set up a formally recognised means of collectively coercing the King.{{sfn|Goodman|1995|pp=260–261}} The historian [[W. L. Warren|Wilfred Warren]] argues that it was almost inevitable that the clause would result in civil war, as it "was crude in its methods and disturbing in its implications".{{sfn|Warren|1990|pp=239–240}} The barons were trying to force John to keep to the charter, but clause 61 was so heavily weighted against the King that this version of the charter could not survive.{{sfn|Danziger|Gillingham|2004|pp=261–262}} |
|||
King John had no intention to honour Magna Carta, as it was sealed under extortion by force, and clause 61 essentially neutered his power as a monarch, making him King in name only. He renounced it as soon as the barons left London, plunging England into a [[civil war]], called the [[First Barons' War]]. Pope Innocent III also annulled the "shameful and demeaning agreement, forced upon the king by violence and fear." He rejected any call for rights, saying it impaired King John's dignity. He saw it as an affront to the Church's authority over the king and released John from his oath to obey it. |
|||
John and the rebel barons did not trust each other, and neither side seriously attempted to implement the peace accord.{{sfn|Turner|2009|p=189}}{{sfn|Poole|1993|p=479}} The 25 barons selected for the new council were all rebels, chosen by the more extremist barons, and many among the rebels found excuses to keep their forces mobilised.{{sfn|Turner|2009|pp=189–191}}{{sfn|Danziger|Gillingham|2004|p=262}}{{sfn|Warren|1990|pp=239, 242}} Disputes began to emerge between the royalist faction and those rebels who had expected the charter to return lands that had been confiscated.{{sfn|Carpenter|1990|p=12}} |
|||
===Magna Carta re-issued=== |
|||
John died during the war, from [[dysentery]], on [[October 18]], [[1216]], and this quickly changed the nature of the war. His nine-year-old son, [[Henry III of England|Henry III]], was next in line for the throne. The royalists believed the rebel barons would find the idea of loyalty to the child Henry more palatable, so the boy was swiftly crowned in late October 1216 and the war ended. |
|||
Clause 61 of Magna Carta contained a commitment from John that he would "seek to obtain nothing from anyone, in our own person or through someone else, whereby any of these grants or liberties may be revoked or diminished".{{sfn|Carpenter|1996|p=13}}<ref name="All clauses"/> Despite this, the King appealed to Pope Innocent for help in July, arguing that the charter compromised the Pope's rights as John's feudal lord.{{sfn|Carpenter|1990|p=12}}{{sfn|Turner|2009|p=190–191}} As part of the June peace deal, the barons were supposed to surrender London by 15 August, but this they refused to do.{{sfn|Turner|2009|p=190}} Meanwhile, instructions from the Pope arrived in August, written before the peace accord, with the result that papal commissioners [[excommunicated]] the rebel barons and suspended Langton from office in early September.{{sfn|Warren|1990|pp=244–245}} |
|||
Henry's [[regent]]s reissued Magna Carta in his name on [[November 12]], [[1216]], omitting some clauses, such as clause 61, and again in [[1217]]. When he turned 18 in [[1225]], Henry III himself reissued Magna Carta again, this time in a shorter version with only 37 articles. |
|||
Once aware of the charter, the Pope responded in detail: in a letter dated 24 August and arriving in late September, he declared the charter to be "not only shameful and demeaning but also illegal and unjust" since John had been "forced to accept" it, and accordingly the charter was "null, and void of all validity for ever"; under threat of excommunication, the King was not to observe the charter, nor the barons try to enforce it.{{sfn|Carpenter|1990|p=12}}{{sfn|Turner|2009|p=190}}{{sfn|Rothwell|1975|pp=324–226}}{{sfn|Warren|1990|pp=245–246}} |
|||
Henry III ruled for 56 years (the longest reign of an [[King of England|English Monarch]] in the [[Medieval]] period) so that by the time of his death in [[1272]], Magna Carta had become a settled part of English legal precedent, and more difficult for a future monarch to annul as King John had attempted nearly three generations earlier. |
|||
By then, violence had broken out between the two sides. Less than three months after it had been agreed, John and the loyalist barons firmly repudiated the failed charter: the First Barons' War erupted.{{sfn|Carpenter|1990|p=12}}{{sfn|Holt|1992a|p=1}}{{sfn|Crouch|1996|p=114}} The rebel barons concluded that peace with John was impossible, and turned to Philip II's son, the future [[Louis VIII of France|Louis VIII]], for help, offering him the English throne.{{sfn|Carpenter|1990|p=12}}{{sfn|Carpenter|2004|pp=264–267}}{{efn|Louis's claim to the English throne, described as "debatable" by the historian David Carpenter, derived from his wife, [[Blanche of Castile]], who was the granddaughter of King [[Henry II of England]]. Louis argued that since John had been legitimately deposed, the barons could then legally appoint him king over the claims of John's son Henry.{{sfn|Carpenter|1990|p=12}}}} The war soon settled into a stalemate. The King became ill and died on the night of 18 October 1216, leaving the nine-year-old [[Henry III of England|Henry III]] as his heir.<ref>{{harvnb|Warren|1990|pp=254–255}}</ref> |
|||
Henry III's son and heir [[Edward I of England|Edward I]]'s [[Parliament of England|Parliament]] reissued Magna Carta for the final time on [[12 October]], [[1297]] as part of a [[statute]] called ''Confirmatio cartarum'' (25 Edw. I), reconfirming Henry III's shorter version of Magna Carta from 1225. |
|||
== |
===== Charters of the Welsh Princes ===== |
||
Magna Carta was the first document in which reference is made to English and Welsh law alongside one another, including the principle of the common acceptance of the lawful judgement of peers. |
|||
[[Image:Sealjohn.JPG|thumb|right|[[Great Seal of the Realm|Seal]] of [[John of England|King John]] on original Magna Carta.]] |
|||
The Magna Carta was originally written in Latin. A large part of Magna Carta was copied, nearly word for word, from the [[Charter of Liberties]] of [[Henry I of England|Henry I]], issued when Henry I ascended to the throne in 1100, which bound the king to certain laws regarding the treatment of church officials and nobles, effectively granting certain civil liberties to the church and the English nobility. |
|||
<u>Chapter 56:</u> The return of lands and liberties to Welshmen if those lands and liberties had been taken by English (and vice versa) without a law abiding judgement of their peers. |
|||
===Rights still in force today=== |
|||
<u>Chapter 57:</u> The return of [[Gruffudd ap Llywelyn ap Iorwerth]], illegitimate son of [[Llywelyn ap Iorwerth]] (Llywelyn the Great) along with other Welsh hostages which were originally taken for "peace" and "good".<ref name="auto">{{Cite web|url=https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/evolutionofparliament/2015-parliament-in-the-making/2015-historic-anniversaries/magna-carta/magna-carta---wales-scotland-and-ireland/|title=Magna Carta: Wales, Scotland and Ireland|access-date=19 October 2022}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Smith |first1=J. Beverley |title=Magna Carta and the Charters of the Welsh Princes |journal=The English Historical Review |date=1984 |volume=XCIX |issue=CCCXCI |pages=344–362 |doi=10.1093/ehr/XCIX.CCCXCI.344 |issn = 0013-8266}}</ref> |
|||
For modern times, the most enduring legacy of the Magna Carta is considered the right of [[Habeas Corpus]]. This right arises from what we now call Clauses 36, 38, 39, and 40 of the 1215 Magna Carta. |
|||
{{hidden begin|title={{center|Lists of participants in 1215|style=border:solid 1px #aaa}}}} |
|||
The impact of the Magna Carta is great in its influence, for example, on U.S. law. The following material refers to UK law and stands apart from a broader appreciation of the impact of the Magna Carta. |
|||
======Counsellors named in Magna Carta====== |
|||
The preamble to Magna Carta includes the names of the following 27 ecclesiastical and secular magnates who had counselled John to accept its terms. The names include some of the moderate reformers, notably Archbishop [[Stephen Langton]], and some of John's loyal supporters, such as [[William Marshal, 1st Earl of Pembroke|William Marshal, Earl of Pembroke]]. They are listed here in the order in which they appear in the charter itself:<ref>{{cite web|title=Preface|url=http://magnacartaresearch.org/read/magna_carta_1215/Preface|publisher=Magna Carta Project|access-date=17 May 2015}}</ref> |
|||
{{div col|colwidth=22em}} |
|||
* [[Stephen Langton]], [[Archbishop of Canterbury]] and [[Cardinal (Catholicism)|Cardinal]] |
|||
* [[Henry de Loundres]], [[Archbishop of Dublin]] |
|||
* [[William of Sainte-Mère-Église]], [[Bishop of London]] |
|||
* [[Peter des Roches]], [[Bishop of Winchester]] |
|||
* [[Jocelin of Wells]], [[Bishop of Bath and Wells|Bishop of Bath and Glastonbury]] |
|||
* [[Hugh of Wells]], [[Bishop of Lincoln]] |
|||
* [[Walter de Gray]], [[Bishop of Worcester]] |
|||
* [[William de Cornhill]], [[Bishop of Coventry]] |
|||
* [[Benedict of Sausetun]], [[Bishop of Rochester]] |
|||
* [[Pandulf Verraccio]], subdeacon and [[papal legate]] to England |
|||
* Aimery de Sainte-Maure, Master of the [[Knights Templar]] in England |
|||
* [[William Marshal, 1st Earl of Pembroke|William Marshal, Earl of Pembroke]] |
|||
* [[William Longespée, 3rd Earl of Salisbury|William Longespée, Earl of Salisbury]] |
|||
* [[William de Warenne, 5th Earl of Surrey|William de Warenne, Earl of Surrey]] |
|||
* [[William d'Aubigny, 3rd Earl of Arundel|William d'Aubigny, Earl of Arundel]] |
|||
* [[Alan of Galloway]], [[Lord High Constable of Scotland|Constable of Scotland]] |
|||
* [[Warin FitzGerold]] |
|||
* [[Peter FitzHerbert]] |
|||
* [[Hubert de Burgh, 1st Earl of Kent|Hubert de Burgh]], [[Seneschal]] of [[Poitou]] |
|||
* [[Hugh de Neville]] |
|||
* [[Matthew FitzHerbert]] |
|||
* [[Thomas Basset (died 1220)|Thomas Basset]] |
|||
* [[Alan Basset]] |
|||
* [[Philip d'Aubigny]] |
|||
* [[Robert of Ropsley]] |
|||
* [[John Marshal (Magna Carta counsellor)|John Marshal]] |
|||
* [[John FitzHugh]] |
|||
{{div col end}} |
|||
======The Council of Twenty-Five Barons====== |
|||
Three clauses of Magna Carta (1297 version) remain in force in current English law, and can be viewed on the [http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/legResults.aspx?activeTextDocId=1517519 UK Statute Law Database]. |
|||
The names of the Twenty-Five Barons appointed under clause 61 to monitor John's future conduct are not given in the charter itself, but do appear in four early sources, all seemingly based on a contemporary listing: a late-13th-century collection of law tracts and statutes, a [[Reading Abbey]] manuscript now in [[Lambeth Palace Library]], and the {{lang|la|[[Chronica Majora]]}} and {{lang|la|Liber Additamentorum}} of [[Matthew Paris]].{{sfn|Holt|1992b|pp=478–480|ps=:the list in the collection of law tracts is at [[British Library]], [[Harleian Collection|Harley]] MS 746, fol. 64; the Reading Abbey list is at Lambeth Palace Library, MS 371, fol. 56v.}}<ref>{{cite web|title=Profiles of Magna Carta Sureties and Other Supporters |url=http://www.magnacharta.com/bomc/profiles-of-magna-charta-sureties-and-other-supporters/|publisher=Baronial Order of Magna Charta|access-date=17 May 2015}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=The Magna Charta Barons at Runnymede|url=http://www.brookfieldpublishing.com/Barons/magna_charta_barons_at_runnymede.htm|publisher=Brookfield Ancestor Project|access-date=4 November 2014}}</ref> The process of appointment is not known, but the names were drawn almost exclusively from among John's more active opponents.<ref>{{ODNBweb |first=Matthew |last=Strickland |title=Enforcers of Magna Carta (act. 1215–1216) |year=2005 |edition=online |id=93691 }}</ref> They are listed here in the order in which they appear in the original sources: |
|||
{{div col|colwidth=22em}} |
|||
* [[Richard de Clare, 3rd Earl of Hertford|Richard de Clare]], [[Marquess of Hertford|Earl of Hertford]] |
|||
* [[William de Forz, 3rd Earl of Albemarle|William de Forz]], [[Earl of Albemarle]] |
|||
* [[Geoffrey FitzGeoffrey de Mandeville, 2nd Earl of Essex|Geoffrey de Mandeville]], [[Earl of Essex]] and [[Earl of Gloucester|Gloucester]] |
|||
* [[Saer de Quincy, 1st Earl of Winchester|Saer de Quincy]], [[Earl of Winchester]] |
|||
* [[Henry de Bohun, 1st Earl of Hereford|Henry de Bohun]], [[Earl of Hereford]] |
|||
* [[Roger Bigod, 2nd Earl of Norfolk|Roger Bigod]], [[Earl of Norfolk]] and [[Earl of Suffolk|Suffolk]] |
|||
* [[Robert de Vere, 3rd Earl of Oxford|Robert de Vere]], [[Earl of Oxford]] |
|||
* [[William Marshal, 2nd Earl of Pembroke|William Marshal junior]] |
|||
* [[Robert Fitzwalter]], baron of [[Little Dunmow]] |
|||
* [[Gilbert de Clare, 5th Earl of Gloucester|Gilbert de Clare]], heir to the [[Marquess of Hertford|earldom of Hertford]] |
|||
* [[Eustace de Vesci]], Lord of [[Alnwick Castle]] |
|||
* [[Hugh Bigod, 3rd Earl of Norfolk|Hugh Bigod]], heir to the Earldoms of [[Earl of Norfolk|Norfolk]] and [[Earl of Suffolk|Suffolk]] |
|||
* [[William de Mowbray]], Lord of [[Isle of Axholme|Axholme]] Castle |
|||
* [[William Hardell]], [[List of Lord Mayors of London|Mayor]] of the [[City of London]] |
|||
* [[William de Lanvallei]], Lord of [[Walkern]] |
|||
* [[Robert de Ros (died 1227)|Robert de Ros]], Baron of [[Helmsley Castle|Helmsley]] |
|||
* [[John de Lacy, 2nd Earl of Lincoln|John de Lacy]], Constable of [[Chester]] and Lord of [[Pontefract Castle]] |
|||
* [[Richard de Percy]] |
|||
* [[John FitzRobert]] de Clavering, Lord of [[Warkworth Castle]] |
|||
* [[William Malet (Magna Carta baron)|William Malet]] |
|||
* [[Geoffrey de Saye]] |
|||
* [[Roger de Montbegon]], Lord of [[Hornby Castle, Lancashire]]{{efn|Roger de Montbegon is named in only one of the four early sources (BL, Harley MS 746, fol. 64); whereas the others name [[Roger de Mowbray (d. c. 1218)|Roger de Mowbray]]. However, Holt believes the Harley listing to be "the best", and the de Mowbray entries to be an error.}} |
|||
* [[William of Huntingfield]], [[Sheriff of Norfolk and Suffolk]] |
|||
* [[Richard de Montfichet]] |
|||
* [[William d'Aubigny (rebel)|William d'Aubigny]], Lord of [[Belvoir Castle|Belvoir]] |
|||
{{div col end}} |
|||
======Excommunicated rebels====== |
|||
Clause 1 of Magna Carta (the original 1215 edition) guarantees the freedom of the English Church. Although this originally meant freedom from the King, later in history it was used for different purposes (see below). Clause 13 guarantees the “ancient liberties” of the city of London. Clause 29 gives a right to due process. |
|||
In September 1215, the papal commissioners in England—[[Pandulf Verraccio|Subdeacon Pandulf]], [[Peter des Roches]], [[Bishop of Winchester]], and Simon, Abbot of [[Reading Abbey|Reading]]—excommunicated the rebels, acting on instructions earlier received from Rome. A letter sent by the commissioners from [[Dover]] on 5 September to Archbishop Langton explicitly names nine senior rebel barons (all members of the Council of Twenty-Five), and six clerics numbered among the rebel ranks:{{sfn|Powicke|1929}} |
|||
'''Barons''' |
|||
In 1828 the passing of the first [[(Offences Against the Person Consolidation) Act 1828|Offences Against the Person Act]] was the first time a clause of Magna Carta was repealed, namely Clause 36. With the document's perceived protected status broken, in one hundred and fifty years nearly the whole charter was repealed, leaving just Clauses 1, 39, and 40 still in force after the [[Statute Law (Repeals) Act 1969|Statute Law (Repeals) Act]] was passed in 1969 as an estimate. |
|||
{{div col|colwidth=22em}} |
|||
* [[Robert Fitzwalter]] |
|||
* [[Saer de Quincy, 1st Earl of Winchester|Saer de Quincy]], [[Earl of Winchester]] |
|||
* [[Richard de Clare, 3rd Earl of Hertford|Richard de Clare]], [[Marquess of Hertford|Earl of Hertford]] |
|||
* [[Geoffrey FitzGeoffrey de Mandeville, 2nd Earl of Essex|Geoffrey de Mandeville]], [[Earl of Essex]] and [[Earl of Gloucester|Gloucester]] |
|||
* [[Eustace de Vesci]] |
|||
* [[Richard de Percy]] |
|||
* [[John de Lacy, 2nd Earl of Lincoln|John de Lacy]], Constable of [[Chester]] |
|||
* [[William d'Aubigny (rebel)|William d'Aubigny]] |
|||
* [[William de Mowbray]] |
|||
{{div col end}} |
|||
'''Clerics''' |
|||
{{div col|colwidth=22em}} |
|||
* [[Giles de Braose]], [[Bishop of Hereford]] |
|||
* William, [[Archdeacon of Hereford]] |
|||
* Alexander the clerk (possibly Alexander of [[St Albans]]) |
|||
* Osbert de [[River Somme|Samara]] |
|||
* John de Fereby |
|||
* Robert, chaplain to Robert Fitzwalter |
|||
{{div col end}} |
|||
{{hidden end}} |
|||
=== |
====Great Charter of 1216==== |
||
Although the Charter of 1215 was a failure as a peace treaty, it was resurrected under the new government of the young Henry III as a way of drawing support away from the rebel faction. On his deathbed, King John appointed a council of thirteen executors to help Henry reclaim the kingdom, and requested that his son be placed into the guardianship of [[William Marshal, 1st Earl of Pembroke|William Marshal]], one of the most famous knights in England.{{sfn|Carpenter|1990|pp=14–15}} William knighted the boy, and Cardinal [[Guala Bicchieri]], the [[papal legate]] to England, then oversaw his coronation at [[Gloucester Cathedral]] on 28 October.{{sfn|Carpenter|1990|p=13}}{{sfn|McGlynn|2013|p=189}}{{sfn|Ridgeway|2010}} |
|||
These clauses were present in the 1225 charter but are no longer in force, and would have no real place in the post-feudal world. Clauses 2 to 7 refer to the feudal death duties; defining the amounts and what to do if an heir to a fiefdom is underage or is a widow. Clause 23 provides no town or person should be forced to build a bridge across a river. Clause 33 demands the removal of all fish weirs. Clause 43 gives special provision for tax on reverted estates and Clause 44 states that forest law should only apply to those in the King’s forest. |
|||
The young King inherited a difficult situation, with over half of England occupied by the rebels.{{sfn|Weiler|2012|p=1}}{{sfn|Carpenter|1990|p=1}} He had substantial support though from Guala, who intended to win the civil war for Henry and punish the rebels.{{sfn|Mayr-Harting|2011|pp=259–260}} Guala set about strengthening the ties between England and the Papacy, starting with the coronation itself, during which Henry gave [[Homage (feudal)|homage]] to the Papacy, recognising the Pope as his feudal lord.{{sfn|Carpenter|1990|p=13}}{{sfn|Mayr-Harting|2011|p=260}} [[Pope Honorius III]] declared that Henry was the Pope's [[vassal]] and [[Ward (law)|ward]], and that the legate had complete authority to protect Henry and his kingdom.{{sfn|Carpenter|1990|p=13}} As an additional measure, Henry took the cross, declaring himself a crusader and thereby entitled to special protection from Rome.{{sfn|Carpenter|1990|p=13}} |
|||
===Feudal rights not in the 1225 charter=== |
|||
These provisions have no bearing in the world today, as they are feudal rights, and were not even included in the 1225 charter. Clauses 9 to 12, 14 to 16, and 25 to 26 deal with debt and taxes and Clause 27 with [[intestacy]]. |
|||
The war was not going well for the loyalists, but Prince Louis and the rebel barons were also finding it difficult to make further progress.{{sfn|Carpenter|2004|p=301}}{{sfn|Carpenter|1990|pp=19–21}} John's death had defused some of the rebel concerns, and the royal castles were still holding out in the occupied parts of the country.{{sfn|Carpenter|1990|pp=19–21}}{{sfn|Aurell|2003|p=30}} Henry's government encouraged the rebel barons to come back to his cause in exchange for the return of their lands, and reissued a version of the 1215 Charter, albeit having first removed some of the clauses, including those unfavourable to the Papacy and clause 61, which had set up the council of barons.{{sfn|Carpenter|1990|pp=21–22, 24–25}}{{sfn|Powicke|1963|p=5}} The move was not successful, and opposition to Henry's new government hardened.{{sfn|Carpenter|1990|p=25}} |
|||
The other clauses state that no one may seize land in debt except as a last resort, that underage heirs and widows should not pay interest on inherited loans, that county rents will stay at their ancient amounts and that the crown may only seize the value owed in payment of a debt, that aid (taxes for warfare or other emergency) must be reasonable, and that scutage (literally, shield-payment, payment in lieu of actual military service used to finance warfare) may only be sought with the consent of the kingdom. |
|||
====Great Charter of 1217==== |
|||
These clauses were not present in the 1225 document, but still this led to the first parliament. Clause 14 provided that the common consent of the kingdom was to be sought from a council of the archbishops, bishops, earls and greater Barons. This later became the great council (see below). |
|||
{{see also|First Barons' War|Charter of the Forest|English land law}} |
|||
[[File:Forest-charter-1225-C13550-78.jpg|thumb|upright=1.2|The [[Charter of the Forest]] re-issued in 1225, held by the [[British Library]]]] |
|||
In February 1217, Louis set sail for France to gather reinforcements.{{sfn|Carpenter|1990|p=27}} In his absence, arguments broke out between Louis' French and English followers, and Cardinal Guala declared that Henry's war against the rebels was the equivalent of a religious crusade.{{sfn|Carpenter|1990|pp=28–29}} This declaration resulted in a series of defections from the rebel movement, and the tide of the conflict swung in Henry's favour.{{sfn|Carpenter|1990|pp=127–28}} Louis returned at the end of April, but his northern forces were defeated by William Marshal at the [[Battle of Lincoln (1217)|Battle of Lincoln]] in May.{{sfn|Carpenter|1990|pp=36–40}}{{sfn|McGlynn|2013|p=216}} |
|||
Meanwhile, support for Louis' campaign was diminishing in France, and he concluded that the war in England was lost.{{sfn|Hallam|Everard|2001|p=173}} He negotiated terms with Cardinal Guala, under which Louis would renounce his claim to the English throne. In return, his followers would be given back their lands, any sentences of excommunication would be lifted, and Henry's government would promise to enforce the charter of the previous year.{{sfn|Carpenter|1990|pp=41–42}} The proposed agreement soon began to unravel amid claims from some loyalists that it was too generous towards the rebels, particularly the clergy who had joined the rebellion.{{sfn|Carpenter|1990|p=42}} |
|||
===Judicial rights (also in 1225 Charter)=== |
|||
These rights were the beginning of English judicial rights. Clauses 17 to 22 allowed for a fixed law court, which became the chancellery, and defines the scope and frequency of county assizes. They also said that fines should be proportionate to the offence, that they should not be influenced by ecclesiastical property in clergy trials, and that people should be tried by their peers. Many think that this gave rise to jury and magistrate trial, but its only manifestation in today’s world is the right of a Lord to trial in the House of Lords at first instance. |
|||
In the absence of a settlement, Louis stayed in London with his remaining forces, hoping for the arrival of reinforcements from France.{{sfn|Carpenter|1990|p=42}} When the expected fleet arrived in August, it was intercepted and defeated by loyalists at the [[Battle of Sandwich (1217)|Battle of Sandwich]].{{sfn|Carpenter|1990|p=44}} Louis entered into fresh peace negotiations. The factions came to agreement on the final [[Treaty of Lambeth]], also known as the Treaty of Kingston, on 12 and 13 September 1217.{{sfn|Carpenter|1990|p=44}} |
|||
Clause 24 states that crown officials (such as sheriffs) may not try a crime in place of a judge. Clause 34 forbids repossession without a [[writ]] precipe. Clauses 36 to 38 state that writs for loss of life or limb are to be free, that someone may use reasonable force to secure their own land and that no one can be tried on their own testimony alone. |
|||
The treaty was similar to the first peace offer, but excluded the rebel clergy, whose lands and appointments remained forfeit. It included a promise that Louis' followers would be allowed to enjoy their traditional liberties and customs, referring back to the Charter of 1216.{{sfn|Carpenter|1990|pp=41, 44–45}} Louis left England as agreed. He joined the [[Albigensian Crusade]] in the south of France, bringing the war to an end.{{sfn|Hallam|Everard|2001|p=173}} |
|||
Clauses 36, 38, 39 and 40 collectively defined the right of [[Habeas Corpus]]. Clause 36 required courts to make inquiries as to the whereabouts of a prisoner, and to do so without charging any fee. |
|||
Clause 38 required more than the mere word of an official, before any person could be put on trial. Clause 39 gave the courts exclusive rights to punish anyone. Clause 40 disallowed the selling or the delay of justice. Clauses 36 and 38 were removed from the 1225 version, but were reinstated in later versions. The right of [[Habeas Corpus]] as such, was first invoked in court in the year 1305. |
|||
A [[Magnum Concilium|great council]] was called in October and November to take stock of the post-war situation. This council is thought to have formulated and issued the Charter of 1217.{{sfn|Carpenter|1990|p=60}} The charter resembled that of 1216, although some additional clauses were added to protect the rights of the barons over their feudal subjects, and the restrictions on the Crown's ability to levy taxation were watered down.{{sfn|Carpenter|1990|pp=60–61}} There remained a range of disagreements about the management of the royal forests, which involved a special legal system that had resulted in a source of considerable royal revenue. Complaints existed over both the implementation of these courts, and the geographic boundaries of the royal forests.{{sfn|Carpenter|1990|pp=61–62}} |
|||
Clause 54 says that no man may be imprisoned on the testimony of a woman except on the death of her husband. |
|||
A complementary charter, the [[Charter of the Forest]], was created, pardoning existing forest offences, imposing new controls over the forest courts, and establishing a review of the forest boundaries.{{sfn|Carpenter|1990|pp=61–62}} To distinguish the two charters, the term {{lang|la|'magna carta libertatum'}} ("the great charter of liberties") was used by the scribes to refer to the larger document, which in time became known simply as Magna Carta.{{sfn|White|1915|pp=472–475}}{{sfn|White|1917|pp=545–555}} |
|||
===Anti-corruption and fair trade (also in 1225 Charter)=== |
|||
Clauses 28 to 32 say that no royal officer may take any commodity such as corn, wood or transport without payment or consent or force a knight to pay for something the knight could do himself and that the king must return any lands confiscated from a felon within a year and a day. |
|||
====Great Charter of 1225==== |
|||
Clause 25 sets out a list of standard measures and Clauses 41 and 42 guarantee the safety and right of entry and exit of foreign merchants. |
|||
[[File:Magna Carta (1225 version with seal).jpg|thumb|upright|1225 version of Magna Carta issued by [[Henry III of England|Henry III]], held in the [[The National Archives (United Kingdom)|National Archives]]]] |
|||
Magna Carta became increasingly embedded into English political life during Henry III's [[Minor (law)|minority]].{{sfn|Carpenter|1990|p=402}} As the King grew older, his government slowly began to recover from the civil war, regaining control of the counties and beginning to raise revenue once again, taking care not to overstep the terms of the charters.{{sfn|Carpenter|1990|pp=333–335, 382–383}} Henry remained a minor and his government's legal ability to make permanently binding decisions on his behalf was limited. In 1223, the tensions over the status of the charters became clear in the [[Court (royal)|royal court]], when Henry's government attempted to reassert its rights over its properties and revenues in the counties, facing resistance from many communities that argued—if sometimes incorrectly—that the charters protected the new arrangements.{{sfn|Carpenter|1990|pp=295–296}}{{sfn|Jobson|2012|p=6}} |
|||
This resistance resulted in an argument between Archbishop Langton and [[William Brewer (justice)|William Brewer]] over whether the King had any duty to fulfil the terms of the charters, given that he had been forced to agree to them.{{sfn|Carpenter|1990|pp=296–297}} On this occasion, Henry gave oral assurances that he considered himself bound by the charters, enabling a royal inquiry into the situation in the counties to progress.{{sfn|Carpenter|1990|p=297}} |
|||
Clause 45 says that the king should only appoint royal officers where they are suitable for the post. |
|||
In 1225, the question of Henry's commitment to the charters re-emerged, when Louis VIII of France invaded Henry's remaining provinces in France, [[Poitou]] and [[Gascony]].{{sfn|Hallam|Everard|2001|p=176}}{{sfn|Weiler|2012|p=20}} Henry's army in Poitou was under-resourced, and the province quickly fell.{{sfn|Carpenter|1990|pp=371–373}} It became clear that Gascony would also fall unless reinforcements were sent from England.{{sfn|Carpenter|1990|pp=374–375}} In early 1225, a great council approved a tax of £40,000 to dispatch an army, which quickly retook Gascony.{{sfn|Carpenter|1990|pp=376, 378}}{{sfn|Hallam|Everard|2001|pp=176–177}} In exchange for agreeing to support Henry, the barons demanded that the King reissue Magna Carta and the Charter of the Forest.{{sfn|Carpenter|1990|p=379}}{{sfn|Carpenter|2004|p=307}} The content was almost identical to the 1217 versions, but in the new versions, the King declared that the charters were issued of his own "spontaneous and free will" and confirmed them with the royal seal, giving the new Great Charter and the Charter of the Forest of 1225 much more authority than the previous versions.{{sfn|Carpenter|2004|p=307}}{{sfn|Carpenter|1990|p=383}} |
|||
Clause 46 provides for the guardianship of monasteries. |
|||
The barons anticipated that the King would act in accordance with these charters, subject to the law and moderated by the advice of the nobility.<ref>{{harvnb|Carpenter|1990|pp=2–3, 383, 386}}</ref><ref>{{harvnb|Carpenter|2004|p=307}}</ref> Uncertainty continued, and in 1227, when he was declared of age and able to rule independently, Henry announced that future charters had to be issued under his own seal.{{sfn|Clanchy|1997|p=147}}{{sfn|Davis|2013|p=71}} This brought into question the validity of the previous charters issued during his minority, and Henry actively threatened to overturn the Charter of the Forest unless the taxes promised in return for it were actually paid.{{sfn|Clanchy|1997|p=147}}{{sfn|Davis|2013|p=71}} In 1253, Henry confirmed the charters once again in exchange for taxation.{{sfn|Davis|2013|p=174}} |
|||
===Temporary provisions=== |
|||
These provisions were for immediate effect, and were not in any later charter. Clauses 47 and 48 abolish most of Forest Law. Clauses 49, 52 to 53 and 55 to 59 provide for the return of hostages, land and fines taken in John’s reign. |
|||
Henry placed a symbolic emphasis on rebuilding royal authority, but his rule was relatively circumscribed by Magna Carta.{{sfn|Ridgeway|2010}}{{sfn|Carpenter|1996|pp=76, 99}} He generally acted within the terms of the charters, which prevented the Crown from taking extrajudicial action against the barons, including the fines and expropriations that had been common under his father, John.{{sfn|Ridgeway|2010}}{{sfn|Carpenter|1996|pp=76, 99}} The charters did not address the sensitive issues of the appointment of royal advisers and the distribution of patronage, and they lacked any means of enforcement if the King chose to ignore them.{{sfn|Carpenter|1990|p=3}} The inconsistency with which he applied the charters over the course of his rule alienated many barons, even those within his own faction.{{sfn|Ridgeway|2010}} |
|||
Article 50 says that no member of the D’Athèe family may be a royal officer. Article 51 called for all foreign knights and mercenaries to leave the realm. |
|||
Despite the various charters, the provision of royal justice was inconsistent and driven by the needs of immediate politics: sometimes action would be taken to address a legitimate baronial complaint, while on other occasions the problem would simply be ignored.{{sfn|Carpenter|1996|pp=26, 29, 37, 43}} The royal courts, which toured the country to provide justice at the local level, typically for lesser barons and the gentry claiming grievances against major lords, had little power, allowing the major barons to dominate the local justice system.{{sfn|Carpenter|1996|p=105}} Henry's rule became lax and careless, resulting in a reduction in royal authority in the provinces and, ultimately, the collapse of his authority at court.{{sfn|Ridgeway|2010}}{{sfn|Carpenter|1996|p=105}} |
|||
Articles 60, 62 and 63 provide for the application and observation of the Charter and say that the Charter is binding on the Kings and his heirs forever, but this was soon deemed to be dependent on each succeeding King reaffirming the Charter under his own seal. |
|||
In 1258, a group of barons seized power from Henry in a ''[[coup d'état]]'', citing the need to strictly enforce Magna Carta and the Charter of the Forest, creating a new baronial-led government to advance reform through the [[Provisions of Oxford]].{{sfn|Davis|2013|pp=195–197}} The barons were not militarily powerful enough to win a decisive victory, and instead appealed to [[Louis IX of France]] in 1263–1264 to arbitrate on their proposed reforms. The reformist barons argued their case based on Magna Carta, suggesting that it was inviolable under English law and that the King had broken its terms.{{sfn|Jobson|2012|p=104}} |
|||
==1226–1495== |
|||
The document commonly known as Magna Carta today is not the 1215 charter, but a later charter of 1225, and is usually shown in the form of The Charter of 1297 when it was confirmed by Edward I. At the time of the 1215 charter many of the provisions were not meant to make long term changes but simply to right the immediate wrongs, and therefore The Charter was reissued three times in the reign of Henry III (1216, 1217 and 1225) in order to provide for an updated version. After this each individual king for the next two hundred years (until [[Henry V of England|Henry V]] in 1416) personally confirmed the 1225 charter in their own charter. |
|||
Louis came down firmly in favour of Henry, but the French arbitration failed to achieve peace as the rebellious barons refused to accept the verdict. England slipped back into the [[Second Barons' War]], which was won by Henry's son, [[Edward I of England|the Lord Edward]]. Edward also invoked Magna Carta in advancing his cause, arguing that the reformers had taken matters too far and were themselves acting against Magna Carta.{{sfn|Davis|2013|p=224}} In a conciliatory gesture after the barons had been defeated, in 1267 Henry issued the [[Statute of Marlborough]], which included a fresh commitment to observe the terms of Magna Carta.{{sfn|Jobson|2012|p=163}} |
|||
Magna Carta had little effect on subsequent development of parliament until the Tudor period. Knights and county representatives attended the Great Council ([[Simon de Montfort]]’s Parliament), and the council became far more representative under the model parliament of [[Edward I of England|Edward I]] which included two knights from each county, two burgesses from each borough and two citizens from each city. The commons separated from the Lords in 1341. The right of commons to exclusively sanction taxes (based on a withdrawn provision of Magna Carta) was re-asserted in 1407, although it was not in force in this period. The power vested in the Great Council by, albeit withdrawn, Clause 14 of Magna Carta became vested in the [[British House of Commons|House of Commons]] but Magna Carta was all but forgotten for about a century, until the Tudors. |
|||
=== |
=====Witnesses in 1225===== |
||
{{hidden begin|title={{center|Witnesses to the 1225 charter|style=border:solid 1px #aaa}}}} |
|||
The first long-term constitutional effect arose from Clauses 14 and 61, which permitted a Council comprised of the most powerful men in the country, to exist for the benefit of the state rather than in allegiance to the monarch. Members of the Council were also allowed to renounce their oath of allegiance to the king in pressing circumstances, and to pledge allegiance to the Council and not to the king in certain instances. The common council was responsible for taxation and, although it was not representative, its members were bound by decisions made in their absence. The common council, later called the Great Council, was England's proto-[[parliament]]. |
|||
The following 65 individuals were witnesses to the 1225 issue of Magna Carta, named in the order in which they appear in the charter itself:{{sfn|Holt|1992b|pp=510–11}} |
|||
{{div col|colwidth=18em}} |
|||
* [[Stephen Langton]], [[Archbishop of Canterbury]] and [[Cardinal (Catholicism)|Cardinal]] |
|||
* [[Eustace of Fauconberg]], [[Bishop of London]] |
|||
* [[Jocelin of Wells]], [[Bishop of Bath and Wells|Bishop of Bath]] |
|||
* [[Peter des Roches]], [[Bishop of Winchester]] |
|||
* [[Hugh of Wells]], [[Bishop of Lincoln]] |
|||
* [[Richard Poore]], [[Bishop of Salisbury]] |
|||
* [[Benedict of Sausetun]], [[Bishop of Rochester]] |
|||
* [[William de Blois (bishop of Worcester)|William de Blois]], [[Bishop of Worcester]] |
|||
* [[John of Fountains]], [[Bishop of Ely]] |
|||
* [[Hugh Foliot]], [[Bishop of Hereford]] |
|||
* [[Ralph Neville]], [[Bishop of Chichester]] |
|||
* [[William Briwere]], [[Bishop of Exeter]] |
|||
* William of Trumpington, [[Abbot of St Albans]] |
|||
* [[Hugh of Northwold]], Abbot of [[Bury St Edmunds Abbey|Bury St Edmunds]] |
|||
* Richard, [[Abbot of Battle]] |
|||
* the Abbot of [[St Augustine's Abbey|St Augustine's, Canterbury]] |
|||
* [[Randulf of Evesham]], Abbot of [[Evesham Abbey|Evesham]] |
|||
* Richard of Barking, [[Abbot of Westminster]] |
|||
* Alexander of Holderness, [[Abbot of Peterborough]] |
|||
* Simon, Abbot of [[Reading Abbey|Reading]] |
|||
* Robert of Hendred, [[Abbot of Abingdon]] |
|||
* John Walsh, Abbot of [[Malmesbury Abbey|Malmesbury]] |
|||
* the Abbot of [[Winchcombe Abbey|Winchcombe]] |
|||
* the Abbot of [[Hyde Abbey|Hyde]] |
|||
* the Abbot of [[Chertsey Abbey|Chertsey]] |
|||
* the Abbot of [[Sherborne Abbey|Sherborne]] |
|||
* the Abbot of [[Cerne Abbey|Cerne]] |
|||
* the Abbot of [[Abbotsbury Abbey|Abbotsbury]] |
|||
* the Abbot of [[Milton Abbey School|Milton]] |
|||
* the Abbot of [[Selby Abbey|Selby]] |
|||
* the Abbot of [[Whitby Abbey|Whitby]] |
|||
* the Abbot of [[Cirencester Abbey|Cirencester]] |
|||
* [[Hubert de Burgh, 1st Earl of Kent|Hubert de Burgh]], [[Justiciar]] of England and Ireland |
|||
* [[Ranulf de Blondeville, 6th Earl of Chester|Ranulf, Earl of Chester and Lincoln]] |
|||
* [[William Longespée, 3rd Earl of Salisbury|William Longespée, Earl of Salisbury]] |
|||
* [[William de Warenne, 5th Earl of Surrey|William de Warenne, Earl of Surrey]] |
|||
* [[Gilbert de Clare, 5th Earl of Gloucester|Gilbert de Clare, Earl of Gloucester and Hertford]] |
|||
* [[William de Ferrers, 4th Earl of Derby|William de Ferrers, Earl of Derby]] |
|||
* [[William FitzGeoffrey de Mandeville, 3rd Earl of Essex|William de Mandeville, Earl of Essex]] |
|||
* [[Hugh Bigod, 3rd Earl of Norfolk|Hugh Bigod, Earl of Norfolk]] |
|||
* [[William de Forz, 3rd Earl of Albemarle|William de Forz]], [[Earl of Albemarle]] |
|||
* [[Humphrey de Bohun, 2nd Earl of Hereford|Humphrey de Bohun, Earl of Hereford]] |
|||
* [[John de Lacy, 2nd Earl of Lincoln|John de Lacy]], Constable of [[Chester]] |
|||
* [[Robert de Ros (died 1227)|Robert de Ros]] |
|||
* [[Robert Fitzwalter]] |
|||
* [[Robert de Vieuxpont]] |
|||
* [[William Brewer (justice)|William Brewer]] |
|||
* [[Richard de Montfichet]] |
|||
* [[Peter FitzHerbert]] |
|||
* [[Matthew FitzHerbert]] |
|||
* [[William d'Aubigny (fl. 1225)|William d'Aubigny]] |
|||
* [[Robert Gresley]] |
|||
* [[Reginald de Braose]] |
|||
* [[John of Monmouth]] |
|||
* [[John Fitzalan, Lord of Oswestry|John FitzAlan]] |
|||
* [[Hugh de Mortimer (fl. 1225)|Hugh de Mortimer]] |
|||
* [[William de Beauchamp (1185)|William de Beauchamp]] |
|||
* [[William de St John]] |
|||
* [[Peter de Maulay]] |
|||
* [[Brian de Lisle]] |
|||
* [[Thomas of Moulton]] |
|||
* [[Richard de Argentan]] |
|||
* [[Geoffrey de Neville (died 1225)|Geoffrey de Neville]] |
|||
* [[William de Maudit]] |
|||
* [[John de Baalun]] |
|||
{{div col end}} |
|||
{{hidden end}} |
|||
====Great Charter of 1297: statute==== |
|||
The Great Council only existed to give input on the opinion of the kingdom as a whole, and only had power to control scutage until 1258 when Henry III got into debt fighting in [[Sicily]] for the pope. The Barons agreed to a tax in exchange for reform, leading to the [[Provisions of Oxford]]. But Henry got a [[papal bull]] allowing him to set aside the provisions and in 1262 told royal officers to ignore the provisions and only to obey Magna Carta. The Barons revolted and seized the [[Tower of London]], the [[Cinque ports]] and [[Gloucester]]. Initially the king surrendered, but when [[Louis IX of France|Louis IX]] (of France) arbitrated in favor of Henry, Henry crushed the rebellion. Later he ceded somewhat, passing the [[Statute of Marlborough]] in 1267 which allowed writs for breaches of Magna Carta to be free of charge, enabling anyone to have standing to apply the Charter. |
|||
{{Infobox UK legislation |
|||
| short_title = Magna Carta (1297) |
|||
| type = Act |
|||
| parliament = Parliament of England |
|||
| long_title = |
|||
| year = 1297 |
|||
| citation = [[25 Edw. 1]] |
|||
| introduced_commons = |
|||
| introduced_lords = |
|||
| territorial_extent = |
|||
| royal_assent = 1297 |
|||
| commencement = |
|||
| expiry_date = |
|||
| repeal_date = |
|||
| amends = |
|||
| replaces = |
|||
| amendments ={{ubli|[[Criminal Statutes Repeal Act 1827]]|[[Offences Against the Person Act 1828]]|[[Criminal Law (India) Act 1828]]|[[Offences Against the Person (Ireland) Act 1829]]|[[Statute Law Revision Act 1863]]|[[Statute Law Revision (Ireland) Act 1872]]|[[Civil Procedure Acts Repeal Act 1879]]|[[Sheriffs Act 1887]]|[[Statute Law Revision Act 1887]]|[[Statute Law Revision Act 1892]]|[[Statute Law Revision Act 1894]]|[[Administration of Estates Act 1925]]|[[Crown Proceedings Act 1947]]|[[Statute Law Revision Act 1948]]|[[Northern Ireland (Crown Proceedings) Order 1949]]|[[Administration of Estates Act (Northern Ireland) 1955]]|[[Criminal Law Act 1967]]|[[Criminal Law Act (Northern Ireland) 1967]]|[[Statute Law (Repeals) Act 1969]]}} |
|||
| repealing_legislation = |
|||
| related_legislation =[[Charter of the Forest]], [[Confirmation of the Charters (1297)]], [[A Statute Concerning Tallage (1297)]] |
|||
| status = Amended |
|||
| legislation_history = |
|||
| theyworkforyou = |
|||
| millbankhansard = |
|||
| original_text = |
|||
| revised_text = |
|||
| use_new_UK-LEG = yes |
|||
| UK-LEG_title = Magna Carta (1297) |
|||
| collapsed = |
|||
}} |
|||
[[File:Magna Carta (1297 version with seal, owned by David M Rubenstein).png|thumb|upright|1297 version of the Great Charter, on display in the [[National Archives Building]] in [[Washington, D.C.]]]] |
|||
This secured the position of the Council forever, but its powers were still very limited. The Council originally only met three times a year, and so was subservient to the king’s council, [[Curia Regis|Curiae Regis]], who, unlike the Great Council, followed the king wherever he went. |
|||
King [[Edward I of England|Edward I]] reissued the Charters of 1225 in 1297 in return for a new tax.{{sfn|Prestwich|1997|p=427}} It is this version which remains in [[statute]] today, although with most articles now repealed.<ref name=natarch>{{cite web|title=Magna Carta (1297)|publisher=The National Archive|url=http://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/Edw1cc1929/25/9/contents|access-date=29 July 2010}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/Edw1cc1929/25/9/contents|title=Magna Carta (1297)|publisher=Statutelaw.gov.uk|access-date=13 June 2015}}</ref>{{anchor|Confirmatio}} |
|||
Still, in some senses the council was an early form of parliament. It had the power to meet outside the authority of the king, and was not appointed by him. While executive government descends from the Curiae Regis, parliament descends from the Great Council which was later called ''the parliamentum''. Still, the Great Council was very different from modern parliament. There were no knights, let alone commons, and it was composed of the most powerful men, rather than elected. |
|||
{{Infobox UK legislation |
|||
==The Tudors== |
|||
| short_title = Confirmation of the Charters (1297) |
|||
The Magna Carta was the first entry on the statute books, but after 1472, it was not mentioned for a period of nearly 100 years. There was much ignorance about the document. The few who did know about the document spoke of a good king being forced by an unstable pope and rebellious Barons “to attaine the shadow of seeming liberties” and that it was a product of a wrongful rebellion against the one true authority, the king. The original Magna Carta was seen as an ancient document with shadowy origins, and as having no bearing on the Tudor world. [[William Shakespeare|Shakespeare]]’s ''King John'' makes no mention of the Charter at all, but focuses on the murder of Arthur. The Charter in the statute books was thought to have arisen from the reign of Henry III. |
|||
| type = Act |
|||
| parliament = Parliament of England |
|||
| long_title = |
|||
| year = 1297 |
|||
| citation = [[25 Edw. 1]] |
|||
| introduced_commons = |
|||
| introduced_lords = |
|||
| territorial_extent = |
|||
| royal_assent = 1297 |
|||
| commencement = |
|||
| expiry_date = |
|||
| repeal_date = |
|||
| amends = |
|||
| replaces = |
|||
| amendments ={{ubli|[[Statute Law Revision Act 1887]]|[[Statute Law Revision Act 1948]]|[[Statute Law (Repeals) Act 1969]]|[[Wild Creatures and Forest Laws Act 1971]]}} |
|||
| repealing_legislation = |
|||
| related_legislation = {{ubli|[[Magna Carta (1297)]]|[[Charter of the Forest]]|[[A Statute Concerning Tallage (1297)]]}} |
|||
| status = Amended |
|||
| legislation_history = |
|||
| theyworkforyou = |
|||
| millbankhansard = |
|||
| original_text = |
|||
| revised_text = |
|||
| use_new_UK-LEG = yes |
|||
| UK-LEG_title = Confirmation of the Charters (1297) |
|||
| collapsed = |
|||
}} |
|||
The {{lang|la|Confirmatio Cartarum}} (''Confirmation of Charters'') was issued in [[Norman language|Norman French]] by Edward I in 1297.{{sfn|Edwards|1943}} Edward, needing money, had taxed the nobility, and they had armed themselves against him, forcing Edward to issue his confirmation of Magna Carta and the Forest Charter to avoid civil war.<ref name="EB">{{cite web|url=http://www.britannia.com/history/docs/cartarum.html|title=Confirmatio Cartarum|access-date=30 November 2007|publisher=britannia.com}}</ref> The nobles had sought to add another document, the {{lang|la|De Tallagio}}, to Magna Carta. Edward I's government was not prepared to concede this, they agreed to the issuing of the {{lang|la|Confirmatio}}, confirming the previous charters and confirming the principle that taxation should be by consent,{{sfn|Prestwich|1997|p=427}} although the precise manner of that consent was not laid down.{{sfn|Prestwich|1997|p=434}} |
|||
===First uses of the charter as a bill of rights=== |
|||
This statute was used widely in the reign of [[Henry VIII of England|Henry VIII]], but apparently it was seen as no more special than any other statute, and could be amended and removed. But later in the reign, the [[Lord High Treasurer|Lord Treasurer]] stated in the [[Star Chamber]] that many had lost their lives in the Baronial wars fighting for the liberties, which were guaranteed by the Charter, and therefore it should not so easily be overlooked as a simple and regular statute. |
|||
A passage mandates that copies shall be distributed in "cathedral churches throughout our realm, there to remain, and shall be read before the people two times by the year",{{sfn|Cobbett|Howell|Howell|Jardine|1810|p=980}} hence the permanent installation of a copy in [[Salisbury Cathedral]].<ref>{{cite web|title=Magna Carta|url=http://www.salisburycathedral.org.uk/magna-carta|publisher=Salisbury Cathedral|access-date=25 January 2015}}</ref> In the Confirmation's second article, it is confirmed that: |
|||
The church often attempted to invoke the first clause of the Charter to protect itself from the attacks by Henry, but this claim was given no credence. [[Francis Bacon]] was the first to try to use Clause 39 to guarantee due process in a trial. |
|||
{{blockquote|...if any judgement be given from henceforth contrary to the points of the charters aforesaid by the justices, or by any other our ministers that hold plea before them against the points of the charters, it shall be undone, and holden for nought.<ref>{{cite book|title=The Statutes at Large Passed in the Parliaments held in Ireland from The Third Year of Edward the Second A.D. 1310 to the First Year of George the Third, A.D. 1761 Inclusive|date=1763|publisher=Boulter Grierson|page=132|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=tKZFAAAAcAAJ&q=if+any+judgement+be+given+from+henceforth+contrary+to+the+points+of+the+charters+aforesaid+by+the+justices%2C+or+by+any+other+our+ministers+that+hold+plea+before+them+against+the+points+of+the+charters%2C+it+shall+be+undone%2C+and+holden+for+nought&pg=PA132}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=Confirmatio Cartarum [26] October 10, 1297|url=http://www.1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/cartarum.htm|publisher=1215.org|access-date=19 January 2015}}</ref>}} |
|||
Although the early Tudor period saw a re-awakening of the use of Magna Carta in common law, it was not seen, as it was later, as an entrenched set of liberties guaranteed for the people against the Crown and Government. Rather, it was a normal statute which gave a certain level of liberties, most of which could not be relied on, least of all against the King. Therefore the Charter had little effect on the governance of the early Tudor period. Although lay parliament evolved from the Charter, by this stage the powers of parliament had managed to exceed those humble beginnings. The Charter had no real effect until the [[Elizabethan era|Elizabethan age]]. |
|||
{{anchor|Articuli super Cartas}} |
|||
===Reintepretation of the charter=== |
|||
With the reconfirmation of the charters in 1300, an additional document was granted, the {{lang|la|Articuli super Cartas}} (''The Articles upon the Charters'').{{sfn|Holt|2008|p=62}} It was composed of 17 articles and sought in part to deal with the problem of enforcing the charters. Magna Carta and the Forest Charter were to be issued to the [[sheriff]] of each county, and should be read four times a year at the meetings of the county courts. Each county should have a committee of three men who could hear complaints about violations of the Charters.{{sfn|Fritze|Robison|2002|pp=34–35}} |
|||
In the Elizabethan age, England was becoming the most powerful force in Europe and so pride became a primary force in academia; thus earnest - but futile - attempts were made to prove that Parliament had [[Rome|Roman]] origins. The events at Runnymede were "re-discovered" in 1215, allowing a possibility to show the antiquity of Parliament, and Magna Carta became synonymous with the idea of an ancient house with origins in Roman government. |
|||
[[Pope Clement V]] continued the papal policy of supporting monarchs (who ruled by divine grace) against any claims in Magna Carta which challenged the King's rights, and annulled the {{lang|la|Confirmatio Cartarum}} in 1305. Edward I interpreted Clement V's [[papal bull]] annulling the {{lang|la|Confirmatio Cartarum}} as effectively applying to the {{lang|la|Articuli super Cartas}}, although the latter was not specifically mentioned.{{sfn|Prestwich|1997|pp=547–548}} In 1306 Edward I took the opportunity given by the Pope's backing to reassert forest law over large areas which had been "disafforested". Both Edward and the Pope were accused by some contemporary chroniclers of "perjury", and it was suggested by Robert McNair Scott that [[Robert the Bruce]] refused to make peace with Edward I's son, [[Edward II of England|Edward II]], in 1312 with the justification: "How shall the king of England keep faith with me, since he does not observe the sworn promises made to his liege men ...".{{sfn|Menache|2003|pp=253–255}}{{sfn|Scott|2014}} |
|||
The Charter was interpreted as an attempt to return to a pre-[[Normans|Norman]] state of things. The Tudors saw the Charter as proof that their state of governance had existed since time immemorial and the Normans had been a brief break from this liberty and democracy. This claim is disputed in certain circles, but explains how Magna Carta came to be regarded as such an important document. |
|||
====Magna Carta's influence on English medieval law==== |
|||
Magna Carta again occupied legal minds, and it again began to shape how that government was run. Soon the Charter was seen as an immutable entity. In the trial of [[Arthur Hall]] for questioning the antiquity of the house, one of his alleged crimes was an attack on Magna Carta. |
|||
The Great Charter was referred to in legal cases throughout the medieval period. For example, in 1226, the knights of [[Lincolnshire]] argued that their local sheriff was changing customary practice regarding the local courts, "contrary to their liberty which they ought to have by the charter of the lord king".{{sfn|Holt|2008|pp=44–45}} In practice, cases were not brought against the King for breach of Magna Carta and the Forest Charter, but it was possible to bring a case against the King's officers, such as his sheriffs, using the argument that the King's officers were acting contrary to liberties granted by the King in the charters.{{sfn|Holt|2008|pp=45–46}} |
|||
In addition, medieval cases referred to the clauses in Magna Carta which dealt with specific issues such as wardship and dower, debt collection, and keeping rivers free for navigation.{{sfn|Holt|2008|p=56}} Even in the 13th century, some clauses of Magna Carta rarely appeared in legal cases, either because the issues concerned were no longer relevant, or because Magna Carta had been superseded by more relevant legislation. By 1350 half the clauses of Magna Carta were no longer actively used.{{sfn|Holt|2008|pp=56–57}} |
|||
===Edward Coke’s opinions=== |
|||
[[Image:Coke.JPG|thumb|right|[[Jurist]] [[Edward Coke]] interpreted Magna Carta to apply not only to the protection of nobles but to all subjects of the crown equally. He famously asserted: "Magna Carta is such a fellow, that he will have no sovereign."]] |
|||
===14th–15th centuries=== |
|||
One of the first respected jurists to write seriously about the great charter was [[Edward Coke]] (1552 - 1634), who had a great deal to say on the subject and was hugely influential in the way Magna Carta was perceived throughout the Tudor and [[Jacobean era|Stuart]] periods, although his opinions changed across time and his writing in the Stuart period was more influential; that will be discussed below. In the Elizabethan period Coke wrote of Parliament evolving alongside the monarchy and not existing due to any allowance on the part of the monarch. However he was still fiercely loyal to Elizabeth and the monarchy still judged the Charter in the same light it always had, an evil document forced out of their forefathers by brute force; he therefore prevented a re-affirmation of the charter from passing the House, and although he spoke highly of the charter, he did not speak out against imprisonments without due process — actions which came back to haunt him later, when he moved for a reaffirmation of the charter himself. |
|||
[[File:Magna charta cum statutis angliae p1.jpg|upright|thumb|{{lang|la|Magna carta cum statutis angliae}} (''"Great Charter with English Statutes"''), early 14th century]] |
|||
During the reign of King [[Edward III of England|Edward III]] six measures, later known as the ''Six Statutes'', were passed between 1331 and 1369. They sought to clarify certain parts of the Charters. In particular the third statute, in 1354, redefined clause 29, with "free man" becoming "no man, of whatever [[Estates of the realm|estate]] or condition he may be", and introduced the phrase "[[Due process|due process of law]]" for "lawful judgement of his peers or the law of the land".{{sfn|Turner|2003b|p=123}} |
|||
Between the 13th and 15th centuries Magna Carta was reconfirmed 32 times according to Sir [[Edward Coke]], and possibly as many as 45 times.{{sfn|Thompson|1948|pp=9–10}}{{sfn|Turner|2003a}} Often the first item of parliamentary business was a public reading and reaffirmation of the Charter, and, as in the previous century, parliaments often exacted confirmation of it from the monarch.{{sfn|Turner|2003a}} The Charter was confirmed in 1423 by King [[Henry VI of England|Henry VI]].<ref>{{cite web|title=800th anniversary of Magna Carta|url=https://www.churchofengland.org/media/1910459/gs%201945b%20-%20background%20note%20from%20mpa.pdf|publisher=Church of England General Synod|access-date=4 November 2014}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=Magna Carta|url=http://www.britroyals.com/magnacarta.htm|publisher=Royal Family History|access-date=4 November 2014}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|last1=Johnson|first1=Ben|title=The Origins of the Magna Carta|url=http://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofEngland/The-Origins-of-the-Magna-Carta/|publisher=Historic UK|access-date=4 November 2014}}</ref> |
|||
Coke’s opinions were so confused because the people in that era were confused about how to treat the charter. The [[Petition of Right, 1628|Petition of Right]] in 1628 was meant as a reaffirmation of the charter, but was defeated by the [[Attorney General]]. He stated that the petition claimed it was a mere codification of existing law stemming from Magna Carta, but, he claimed, there was no precedent shown as to these laws existing in such as a way as they bound the present king; there was a definite feeling that the king could not be bound by law and therefore Clause 39 and all others did not apply to him. The charter was seen as important as a statement as to the antiquity of Parliament; not, as could rightfully be claimed, because it was the catalyst to the genesis of Parliament but instead of Parliament being pre-Norman. Again, this latter point is disputed by certain modern critics. The Charter was seen in part as entrenched law due to Coke's opinon and no one would dare deny it, but it most certainly was not seen as binding on the king. Such suggestions were impermissible until the Stuart period. |
|||
By the mid-15th century, Magna Carta ceased to occupy a central role in English political life, as monarchs reasserted authority and powers which had been challenged in the 100 years after Edward I's reign.{{sfn|Turner|2003b|p=132}} The Great Charter remained a text for lawyers, particularly as a protector of property rights, and became more widely read than ever as printed versions circulated and levels of literacy increased.{{sfn|Turner|2003b|p=133}} |
|||
==Magna Carta’s role in the lead-up to the Civil War== |
|||
By the time of the Stuarts, Magna Carta had attained an almost mythical status for its admirers and was seen as representing a ‘golden age’ of English liberties extant prior to the Norman invasion. Whether or not this 'golden age' ever truly existed is open to debate; regardless, proponents of its application to English law saw themselves as leading England back to a pre-Norman state of affairs. What is true, however is that this age existed in the hearts and minds of the people of the time. Magna Carta was not important because of the liberties it bestowed, but simply as ‘proof’ of what had come before; many great minds influentially exalted the Charter; by the Seventeenth Century, Coke was talking of the Charter as an indispensable method of limiting the powers of the Crown, a popular principle in the Stuart period where the kings were proclaiming their divine right and were looking, in the minds of their subjects at least, towards becoming absolute monarchs. |
|||
===16th century=== |
|||
It was not the content of the Charter which has made it so important in the history of England, but far more how it has been perceived in the popular mind. This is something which certainly started in the Stuart period, as The Charter represented many things which are not to be found in the Charter itself, firstly that it could be used to claim liberties against the Government in general rather than just the Crown and the officers of the crown as discussed above, secondly that it represented that the laws and liberties of England, specifically Parliament, dated back to a time immemorial and thirdly, that it was not only just but right to usurp a King who disobeyed the law. |
|||
[[File:Magna Carta confirmed by Henry III.jpg|thumb|A version of the Charter of 1217, produced between 1437 and {{circa|1450}}]] |
|||
During the 16th century, the interpretation of Magna Carta and the First Barons' War shifted.{{sfn|Hindley|1990|pp=185–187}} [[Henry VII of England|Henry VII]] took power at the end of the turbulent [[Wars of the Roses]], followed by [[Henry VIII of England|Henry VIII]], and extensive propaganda under both rulers promoted the legitimacy of the regime, the illegitimacy of any sort of rebellion against royal power, and the priority of supporting the Crown in its arguments with the Papacy.{{sfn|Hindley|1990|pp=185–186}} |
|||
Tudor historians rediscovered the [[Barnwell chronicler]], who was more favourable to King John than other 13th-century texts, and, as historian Ralph Turner describes, they "viewed King John in a positive light as a hero struggling against the papacy", showing "little sympathy for the Great Charter or the rebel barons".{{sfn|Turner|2003b|p=138}} Pro-Catholic demonstrations during the [[Pilgrimage of Grace|1536 uprising]] cited Magna Carta, accusing the King of not giving it sufficient respect.{{sfn|Hindley|1990|p=188}} |
|||
For the last of these reasons Magna Carta began to represent a danger to the Monarchy; [[Elizabeth_I_of_England|Elizabeth]] ordered that [[John_Coke|Coke]] stop a bill from going through Parliament, which would have reaffirmed the validity of the Charter and [[Charles I]] ordered the suppression of a book which Coke intended to write on Magna Carta. By this stage, the powers of Parliament were growing, and on Coke’s death parliament ordered his house to be searched; the manuscripts were recovered and the book was published in 1642 (at the end of [[Charles I]]'s [[Eleven Years Tyranny]]). Parliament began to see Magna Carta as its best way of claiming supremacy over the crown, and began to preach that they were the sworn defenders of the liberties - fundamental and immemorial - which were to be found in the Charter. |
|||
The first mechanically printed edition of Magna Carta was probably the {{lang|la|Magna Carta cum aliis Antiquis Statutis}} of 1508 by [[Richard Pynson]], although the early printed versions of the 16th century incorrectly attributed the origins of Magna Carta to Henry III and 1225, rather than to John and 1215, and accordingly worked from the later text.{{sfn|Thompson|1948|p=146}}{{sfn|Warren|1990|p=324}}{{sfn|Hindley|1990|p=187}} An abridged English-language edition was published by [[John Rastell]] in 1527. |
|||
In the four centuries since the Charter had originally catered for their creation, Parliament’s power had increased greatly from their original level where they existed only for the purpose that the king had to seek their permission in order to raise [[scutage]]. Now they were the only body allowed to raise tax, a right, which although descended from the 1215 Great Charter was no longer guaranteed by it, as it was removed from the 1225 edition. Parliament had now got so powerful that the Charter was at that time being used for two purposes with Parliament as a new organ of the Crown by those wishing to limit Parliament’s power, and as a set of principles Parliament was sworn to defend against the King by those wishing to rival the power of the king with Parliament’s power. When it became obvious that people wished to limit the power of Parliament by claiming it to be tantamount to the crown, Parliament claimed they had the sole right of interpretation of the Charter. |
|||
[[Thomas Berthelet]], Pynson's successor as the royal printer during 1530–1547, printed an edition of the text along with other "ancient statutes" in 1531 and 1540.<ref> |
|||
''Magna Carta, cum aliis antiquis statutis'' ... London: Thomas Berthelet, 1531 [https://web.archive.org/web/20150922120510/http://digitalspecialcollections.law.umn.edu/magnacarta/1531_s9.php Beale S9; STC 9271]. |
|||
Magna carta cvm aliis antiqvis statvtis, qvorvm catalogvm, in fine operis reperies. London: Thomas Berthelet, 1540. |
|||
[http://digitalspecialcollections.law.umn.edu/magnacarta/1540_s12_s22.php Beale S12; STC 9274] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170112000833/http://digitalspecialcollections.law.umn.edu/magnacarta/1540_s12_s22.php |date=12 January 2017 }}. |
|||
revised edition by Thomas Marshe (1556), ''Magna Carta et cetera antiqua statuta nunc nouiter per diuersa exemplaria examinata et summa diligentia castigata et correcta cui adiecta est noua tabula valde necessaria.''</ref> |
|||
In 1534, [[George Ferrers]] published the first unabridged English-language edition of Magna Carta, dividing the Charter into 37 numbered clauses.{{sfn|Thompson|1948|pp=147–149}} |
|||
This was a hugely important step, for the first time Parliament was claiming itself a body as above the law; whereas one of the fundamental principles in English law was that all were held by the law; Parliament, the monarch and the church, albeit to very different extents. Parliament here were claiming exactly what Magna Carta wanted to prevent the King from claiming, a claim of not being subject to any higher form of power. This was not claimed until ten years after the death of Lord Coke, but he most certainly would not have agreed with this, as he claimed in the [[British Constitution|English Constitution]] the law was supreme and all bodies of government were subservient to the supreme law; the common law, embodied in the Great Charter. These early discussions of Parliament sovereignty seemed to only involve the Charter as the entrenched law, and the discussions were simply about whether or not Parliament had enough power to repeal the document or not. This debate was not as important as it may seem, for although it was important for Parliament to be able to claim a great deal of power, as they could foresee that war was brewing and that very soon they have to claim themselves as more powerful than the King himself, this very provision was provided for by the Charter itself. Clause 61 of The Charter enables people to swear allegiance to what became the Great Council and later Parliament and therefore to renounce allegiance to the King. Moreover, Clause 61 allowed for the seizing of the kingdom by the body which was later to become Parliament if Magna Carta was not respected by the King or Lord Chief Justice. In which case there was no need to show any novel level of power in order to overthrow the King; it had already been set out in Magna Carta nearly half a millennium before hand. However, Parliament was not simply seeking for a justification to overthrow the monarch, they were seeking to establish themselves as the true and sovereign government of the United Kingdom and for this they need to show they could overrule Magna Carta. However Parliament was not ready to repeal the Charter yet, they would need it in order to war against the King, and in fact was cited as the reason why ship-money was illegal, which was the first time Parliament overruled the king; the start of the rebellion. |
|||
[[File:Sir Rowland Hill, Hawkstone - geograph.org.uk - 1245475.jpg|alt=a stone statue of a man in Tudor clothes and down and cap and cahins off office holding a rolled up copy of maga carter|thumb|Magna Carta held by Sir Rowland Hill in his monument in Shropshire: his 16th Century funerary monument in London also showed him holding the document]] |
|||
The mid-sixteenth century funerary monument [[Rowland Hill (MP)|Sir Rowland Hill]] of [[Soulton Hall|Soulton]], placed in [[St Stephen Walbrook|St Stephens Wallbroke]], included a full statue<ref>{{Cite book |last=Brayley |first=Edward Wedlake |url=https:/upwiki/wikipedia/commons/1/18/The_Beauties_of_England_and_Wales%2C_or%2C_Delineations%2C_topographical%2C_historical%2C_and_descriptive%2C_of_each_county_%28IA_beautiesofenglan1301brit%29.pdf |title=The Beauties of England and Wales, or original delineations, topographical, historical and descriptive of each county}}</ref> of the Tudor statesman and judge holding a copy of Magna Carta.<ref>{{Cite book |author=T. Rodenhurst |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=vEcGAAAAQAAJ&q=magna&pg=PA46 |title=A Description of Hawkstone, the Seat of Sir R. Hill, Bart M.P.: With Brief Notices of the Antiquities of Bury Walls and of Red Castle, an Account of the Column, in Shrewsbury and of Lord Hill's Military Actions |date=1840 |publisher=Printed at the Chronicle Office, and sold by J. Watton |language=en}}</ref> Hill was a [[Worshipful Company of Mercers|Mercer]] and a [[Lord Mayor of London]]; both of these statuses were shared with [[Serlo le Mercer|Serlo the Mercer]] who was a negotiator and enforcer of Magna Carta.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://magnacarta800th.com/schools/biographies/the-25-barons-of-magna-carta/william-hardel/ |title=William Hardel |website=Magna Carta Trust 800th Anniversary |first1=Nigel |last1=Saul |date=23 April 2014 |access-date=24 April 2016}}</ref> The original monument was lost in the [[Great Fire of London]], but it was restated on a 110 foot tall column on his family's estates in Shropshire.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Obelisk, Hawkstone Park, Weston Under Redcastle, Shropshire {{!}} Educational Images |url=https://historicengland.org.uk/services-skills/education/educational-images/obelisk-hawkstone-park-weston-under-redcastle-9719 |access-date=2023-04-11 |website=Historic England |language=en |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230411213058/https://historicengland.org.uk/services-skills/education/educational-images/obelisk-hawkstone-park-weston-under-redcastle-9719 |archive-date=2023-04-11 }}</ref> |
|||
At the end of the 16th century, there was an upsurge in antiquarian interest in Magna Carta in England.{{sfn|Hindley|1990|p=188}} Legal historians concluded that there was a set of ancient English customs and laws which had been temporarily overthrown by the [[Norman conquest of England|Norman invasion of 1066]], and been recovered in 1215 and recorded in Magna Carta, which in turn gave authority to important 16th-century legal principles.{{sfn|Hindley|1990|p=188}}{{sfn|Turner|2003b|p=140}}{{sfn|Danziger|Gillingham|2004|p=280}} Modern historians regard this narrative as fundamentally incorrect, and many refer to it as a "[[Political myth|myth]]".{{sfn|Danziger|Gillingham|2004|p=280}}{{efn|Among the historians to have discussed the "myth" of Magna Carta and the ancient English constitution are [[Claire Breay]], Geoffrey Hindley, [[J. C. Holt|James Holt]], [[J. G. A. Pocock|John Pocock]], Danny Danziger, and [[John Gillingham]].{{sfn|Danziger|Gillingham|2004|p=280}}{{sfn|Hindley|1990|p=183}}{{sfn|Breay|2010|p=46}}{{sfn|Pocock|1987|p=124}}{{sfn|Holt|1992b|p=9}}}} |
|||
====Trial of Archbishop Laud==== |
|||
Further proof of the significance of Magna Carta is shown in the trial of Archbishop Laud in 1645. Laud was tried with attempting to subvert the laws of England including writing a condemnation of Magna Carta claiming that as the Charter came about due to rebellion it was not valid, a widely held opinion less than a century before; when the ‘true’ Magna Carta was thought to be the 1225 edition and the 1215 edition was overlooked for this very reason. However Laud was not trying to say that Magna Carta was evil, merely stating the truth about its origins, as he used the document in his defence. He claimed his trial was against the right of the freedom of the church (as the Bishops were voted out of Parliament in order to allow for parliamentary condemnation of him) and, rightfully, that he was not given the benefit of due process contrary to Clauses 1 and 39 of the Charter. By this stage Magna Carta had passed a great distance beyond the original intentions for the document, and the Great Council had evolved beyond a body merely ensuring the application of the Charter. It had got to the stage where the Great Council or Parliament was inseparable from the ideas of the Crown as described in the Charter and therefore it was not just the King that was potentially bound by the Charter, but Parliament also. |
|||
The antiquarian [[William Lambarde]] published what he believed were the Anglo-Saxon and Norman law codes, tracing the origins of the 16th-century English Parliament back to this period, but he misinterpreted the dates of many documents concerned.{{sfn|Turner|2003b|p=140}} [[Francis Bacon]] argued that clause 39 of Magna Carta was the basis of the 16th-century jury system and judicial processes.{{sfn|Eele|2013|p=20}} Antiquarians [[Robert Beale (diplomat)|Robert Beale]], [[James Morice]] and [[Richard Cosin]] argued that Magna Carta was a statement of liberty and a fundamental, supreme law empowering English government.{{sfn|Thompson|1948|pp=216–230}} Those who questioned these conclusions, including the Member of Parliament [[Arthur Hall (English politician)|Arthur Hall]], faced sanctions.{{sfn|Pocock|1987|p=154}}{{sfn|Wright|1919|p=72}} |
|||
==Civil War and interregnum== |
|||
After 7 years of civil war the King surrendered and was executed; it seemed Magna Carta no longer applied, as there was no King. [[Oliver Cromwell]] was accused of destroying Magna Carta and many thought he should be crowned just so that it would apply. Cromwell himself had much disdain for the Magna Carta, at one point describing it as "Magna Farta" to a defendant who sought to rely on it<ref>http://www.dca.gov.uk/judicial/speeches/lcj150605.htm</ref>. |
|||
===17th–18th centuries=== |
|||
In this time of foment, there were many theorists who were enjoining the revolutionary atmosphere of the age, and many based their theories, at least initially on Magna Carta in the misguided belief that Magna Carta guaranteed liberty and equality for all. |
|||
=== |
====Political tensions==== |
||
[[File:Edward coke.jpg|thumb|upright=1.1|The [[jurist]] [[Edward Coke]] made extensive political use of Magna Carta.]] |
|||
The [[Levellers]] believed that all should be equal and free without distinction of class or status. They believed that Magna Carta was the ‘political bible’, which should be prized above any other law and that it could not be repealed. They prized it so highly that they believed all (such as Archbishop Laud) who “trod Magna Carta…under their feet” deserved to be attacked at all levels. The original idea was to achieve this through Parliament but there was little support, because at the time the Parliament was seeking to impose itself as above Magna Carta. The Levellers claimed Magna Carta was above any branch of government, and this led to the upper echelons of the Leveller movement denouncing Parliament. They claimed that Parliament’s primary purpose was not to rule the people directly but to protect the people from the extremes of the King and that this was adequately done by Magna Carta and therefore Parliament should be subservient to it. |
|||
In the early 17th century, Magna Carta became increasingly important as a political document in arguments over the authority of the English monarchy.{{sfn|Hindley|1990|pp=188–189}} [[James VI and I|James I]] and [[Charles I of England|Charles I]] both propounded greater authority for the Crown, justified by the doctrine of the [[divine right of kings]], and Magna Carta was cited extensively by their opponents to challenge the monarchy.{{sfn|Breay|2010|p=46}} |
|||
Magna Carta, it was argued, recognised and protected the liberty of individual Englishmen, made the King subject to the [[common law]] of the land, formed the origin of the trial by jury system, and acknowledged the ancient origins of Parliament: because of Magna Carta and this [[ancient constitution]], an English monarch was unable to alter these long-standing English customs.{{sfn|Breay|2010|p=46}}{{sfn|Hindley|1990|pp=188–189}}{{sfn|Pocock|1987|p=300}}{{sfn|Greenberg|2006|p=148}} Although the arguments based on Magna Carta were historically inaccurate, they nonetheless carried symbolic power, as the charter had immense significance during this period; antiquarians such as Sir [[Henry Spelman]] described it as "the most majestic and a sacrosanct anchor to English Liberties".{{sfn|Danziger|Gillingham|2004|p=280}}{{sfn|Breay|2010|p=46}}{{sfn|Hindley|1990|pp=188–189}} |
|||
After the Civil War Cromwell refused to support the Levellers and was denounced as a traitor to Magna Carta. The importance of Magna Carta was greatly magnified in the eyes of the Levellers, and Lilburne, one of the leaders of the movement, was known for his great advocacy of the Charter and was often known to explain its purpose to lay people and to expose the misspeaking against it in the popular press of the time. He was quoted as saying ''the ground and foundation of my freedome<!--this is a direct quote--> I build upon the grand charter of England''. However as it became apparent that Magna Carta did not grant anywhere near the level of liberty demanded by the Levellers, the movement reduced its advocacy of it. Welwyn, another leader of the movement, advocated natural law and other doctrines as the primary principles of the movement. This was mainly because the obvious intention of Magna Carta was to grant rights only to the Barons and the episcopacy, and not the general and equalitarian rights the Levellers were claiming. Also influential, however, was Spelman’s rediscovery of the existence of the feudal system at the time of Magna Carta, which seemed to have less and less effect on the world of the time. The only right which the Levellers could trace back to 1215, possibly prized over all others, was the right to due process granted by Clause 39. One thing the Levellers did agree on with the popular beliefs of the time was that Magna Carta was an attempt to return to the (disputed) pre-Norman ‘golden age’. |
|||
Sir Edward Coke was a leader in using Magna Carta as a political tool during this period. Still working from the 1225 version of the text – the first printed copy of the 1215 charter only emerged in 1610 – Coke spoke and wrote about Magna Carta repeatedly.{{sfn|Danziger|Gillingham|2004|p=280}} His work was challenged at the time by [[Thomas Egerton, 1st Viscount Brackley|Lord Ellesmere]], and modern historians such as Ralph Turner and [[Claire Breay]] have critiqued Coke as "misconstruing" the original charter "anachronistically and uncritically", and taking a "very selective" approach to his analysis.{{sfn|Breay|2010|p=46}}{{sfn|Turner|2003b|p=148}} More sympathetically, [[J. C. Holt]] noted that the history of the charters had already become "distorted" by the time Coke was carrying out his work.{{sfn|Holt|1992b|pp=20–21}} |
|||
===''The Diggers''=== |
|||
However, not all such groups advocated Magna Carta. [[The Diggers]] were a very early socialistic group who called for all land to be available to all for farming and the like. Winstanley, the leader of the group, despised Magna Carta as a show of the hypocrisy of the post-Norman law, as Parliament and the courts advocated Magna Carta and yet did not even follow it themselves. The Diggers did, however, believe in the pre-Norman golden age and also wished to return to it and called for the abolition of all Norman and post-Norman law. |
|||
[[File:John Lilburne.jpg|thumb|upright=1|The [[Levellers|Leveller]] [[John Lilburne]] criticised Magna Carta as an inadequate definition of English liberties.]] |
|||
==Charles II== |
|||
The Commonwealth was relatively short lived however, and when Charles II took the throne in 1660 the struggle between the Monarchy and Parliament died down as both roles were clearly defined for the time being; Parliament was established as the everyday government of Britain independent of but not yet more powerful than the King. However, the struggles based on the Charter were far from over but now took on the form of the struggle for supremacy between the Houses of Parliament. Also in 1660 Charles II vowed to respect both the common law and the Charter; it seems that the influence of Magna Carta would, for now, fall on the houses. |
|||
In 1621, a bill was presented to Parliament to renew Magna Carta; although this bill failed, lawyer [[John Selden]] argued during [[Darnell's Case]] in 1627 that the right of ''habeas corpus'' was backed by Magna Carta.{{sfn|Turner|2003b|p=156}}{{sfn|Hindley|1990|p=189}} Coke supported the [[Petition of Right]] in 1628, which cited Magna Carta in its preamble, attempting to extend the provisions, and to make them binding on the judiciary.{{sfn|Hindley|1990|pp=189–190}}{{sfn|Turner|2003b|p=157}} The monarchy responded by arguing that the historical legal situation was much less clear-cut than was being claimed, restricted the activities of antiquarians, arrested Coke for treason, and suppressed his proposed book on Magna Carta.{{sfn|Hindley|1990|p=189}}{{sfn|Danziger|Gillingham|2004|pp=280–281}} Charles initially did not agree to the Petition of Right, and refused to confirm Magna Carta in any way that would reduce his independence as King.{{sfn|Russell|1990|p=41}}{{sfn|Hindley|1990|p=190}} |
|||
===In Parliament=== |
|||
In 1664 the British navy seized Dutch lands in both Africa and America leading to full-scale war with Holland in 1665. The [[Lord Chancellor]], [[Edward Hyde, 1st Earl of Clarendon|Edward Lord Clarendon]], resisted an alliance with the Spanish and Swedes in favour of maintaining a relationship with the French, who were unfortunately also the allies of the Dutch. This lack of any real policy led to the [[Second Anglo-Dutch War]] (1665-67), with the Dutch burning a number of ships in the docks at Chatham, and the blame was placed on the shoulders of Clarendon. The Commons demanded that Clarendon be indicted before the Lords, but the Lords refused, citing the due process requirements of The Charter giving Clarendon the time to escape to Europe. A very similar set of events followed in 1678 when the Commons asked the Lords to indict [[Thomas Osborne, 1st Duke of Leeds|Thomas Lord Danby]] on a charge of fraternising with the French. As with Clarendon the Lords refused, again citing Magna Carta and their own supremacy as the upper house. Before the quarrel could be resolved Charles dissolved the Parliament. When Parliament was re-seated in 1681 again the Commons attempted to force an indictment in the Lords. This time [[Edward Fitzharris]] who was accused of writing libellously that the King was involved in a [[Popish Plot|papist plot]] with the French (including the overthrowing of Magna Carta). However, the Lords doubted the veracity of the claim and refused to try Fitzharris saying Magna Carta stated that everyone must be subject to due process and therefore he must be tried in a lower court first. This time the Commons retorted that it was the Lords who were denying justice under Clause 39 and that it was the Commons who were right to cite the Charter as their precedent. Again before any true conclusions could be drawn Charles dissolved the Parliament, although more to serve his own ends and to rid himself of a predominantly [[British Whig Party|Whig]] Parliament, and Fitzharris was tried in a regular court (the King’s Bench) and executed for treason. Here the Charter, once again, was used far beyond the content of its provisions, and simply being used as a representation of justice. Here both houses were struggling for supremacy in a state which was now open for the taking. Each house was claiming its supremacy was supported by the Charter under Clause 39, but the power of the King was still too great for either house to come out fully as the more powerful. |
|||
England descended into [[English Civil War|civil war]] in the 1640s, resulting in Charles I's execution in 1649. Under the [[Commonwealth of England|republic]] that followed, some questioned whether Magna Carta, an agreement with a monarch, was still relevant.{{sfn|Danziger|Gillingham|2004|p=271}} An anti-[[Cromwellian]] pamphlet published in 1660, ''The English devil'', said that the nation had been "compelled to submit to this Tyrant Nol or be cut off by him; nothing but a word and a blow, his Will was his Law; tell him of Magna Carta, he would lay his hand on his sword and cry Magna Farta".{{sfn|Woolwrych|2003|p=95}} In a 2005 speech the [[Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales]], [[Harry Woolf, Baron Woolf|Lord Woolf]], repeated the claim that Cromwell had referred to Magna Carta as "Magna Farta".<ref name=woolfspeech/> |
|||
===Outside Parliament=== |
|||
The squabble also continued outside the Palace of Westminster. In 1667 the [[Lord Chief Justice]] and important member of the House of Lords, Lord Keating, forced a grand Jury of Middlesex to return a verdict of murder when they wanted to return one of manslaughter. However, his biggest crime was that, when they objected on the grounds of Magna Carta, he scoffed and exclaimed “Magna Carta, what ado with this have we?”. The Commons were incensed at this abuse of the Charter and accused him of “endangering the liberties of the people”. However, the Lords claimed he was just referring to the inappropriateness of the Charter in this context, but Keating apologised anyway. In 1681 the next Lord Chief Justice, Lord Scroggs, was condemned by the Commons first for being too severe in the so-called ‘papist plot trials’ and second for dismissing another Middlesex grand jury in order to secure against the indictment of the Duke of York, the Catholic younger brother of the King later to become [[James II of England|James II]]. Charles again dissolved Parliament before the Commons could impeach Scroggs and removed him from office on a good pension. Once again just as it seemed that the Commons might be able to impose their supremacy over the Lords, the King intervened and proved he was still the most powerful force in the government. However, it was certainly beginning to become established that the Commons were the most powerful branch of Government and they used the Charter as much as they could in order to achieve this end. |
|||
The radical groups that flourished during this period held differing opinions of Magna Carta. The [[Levellers]] rejected history and law as presented by their contemporaries, holding instead to an "anti-Normanism" viewpoint.{{sfn|Pocock|1987|p=127}} [[John Lilburne]], for example, argued that Magna Carta contained only some of the freedoms that had supposedly existed under the Anglo-Saxons before being crushed by the [[Norman yoke]].{{sfn|Kewes|2006|p=279}} The Leveller [[Richard Overton (Leveller)|Richard Overton]] described the charter as "a beggarly thing containing many marks of intolerable bondage".{{sfn|Kewes|2006|p=226}} |
|||
===The supremacy of the Commons=== |
|||
This was not the end of the struggle however, and in 1679 the Commons passed the [[Habeas Corpus Act 1679|Habeas Corpus Act of 1679]], which greatly reduced the powers of the Crown and almost certainly established the Commons as the more powerful house. The act passed through the Lords by a small majority, almost as an acquiescence of the Commons being more powerful. This was the first time since the importance of the Charter had been so magnified that the Government had admitted that the liberties granted by the Charter were inadequate; however, this did not completely oust the position of the Charter as an entrenched signification of the law of the ‘golden age’ and the basis of common law. It did not take long however before the questioning of the Charter really took off and [[Sir Matthew Hale]] soon afterwards introduced a new doctrine of common law based on the principle that the Crown (including the cabinet in that definition) made all law and could only be bound by the law of God, and showed that the 1215 charter was effectively overruled by the 1225 charter, which made any claims of entrenchment very difficult to back up. This added further credence to the principle that the Commons were a supreme branch of Government. Some completely denied the relevance of the 1215 Charter as it was forced upon the king by rebellion (although no-one seemed to worry that the 1225 charter was forced on a boy by his guardians) or that the Charter was nothing more than a relaxation of the rigid feudal laws and therefore had no meaning outside of that application. |
|||
Both saw Magna Carta as a useful declaration of liberties that could be used against governments they disagreed with.{{sfn|Danziger|Gillingham|2004|pp=281–282}} [[Gerrard Winstanley]], the leader of the more extreme [[Diggers]], stated "the best lawes that England hath, [viz., Magna Carta] were got by our Forefathers importunate petitioning unto the kings that still were their Task-masters; and yet these best laws are yoaks and manicles, tying one sort of people to be slaves to another; Clergy and Gentry have got their freedom, but the common people still are, and have been left servants to work for them."{{sfn|Hill|2006|pp=111–122}}{{sfn|Linebaugh|2009|p=85}} |
|||
===The Glorious Revolution=== |
|||
The danger posed by the fact that [[Charles II of England|Charles II]] had no legitimate child was becoming more and more real; as this meant that the heir apparent was the Duke of York, a Catholic and firm believer in the divine right of kings. This could well mean that all the Commons' work establishing itself as the most powerful arm of government could all too soon be undone. Parliament did all it could to prevent James’ succession but was prevented when Charles dissolved the Parliament, and danger realised itself in February 1685 when Charles died of a stroke and James II assumed the throne of the United Kingdom. Almost straight away James attempted to impose Catholicism as the religion of the country and to regain the royal prerogative now vested in the Parliament. All this was bad enough, but Parliament was slightly placated when James’ four-year-old son died in 1677 and it seemed his Protestant daughter Mary would take his throne. However when James' second wife, [[Mary of Modena]], gave birth to a male heir in 1688 Parliament could not take the risk that this would be another Catholic monarch would assume the throne and take away their power, which they had managed to attain, and in 1688 the Convention Parliament declared that James had broken the contract of Magna Carta and nullified his claim to the throne. This once and for all proved that Parliament was the major power in the British Government; [[Mary II of England|Mary]], James II's eldest daughter was invited to take the throne with her husband [[William III of England|William of Orange]]. Many thought that, with bringing in a new monarch, it would be prudent to define what powers this monarch should have; hence the [[Bill of Rights]]. The Bill of Rights went far beyond what the Magna Carta had ever achieved. It stated that the crown could not make law without Parliament and although specifically mentioned the raising of taxes did not limit itself to such, as Magna Carta did. However, one important thing to note is that the writers of the bill did not seem to think that included any new provisions of law; all the powers it ‘removes’ from the crown it refers to as ‘pretended’ powers, insinuating that the rights of Parliament listed in the Bill already existed under a different authority, which one assumes is Magna Carta. Therefore the importance of Magna Carta did not extinguish at this point if, albeit it diminished somewhat. |
|||
====Glorious Revolution==== |
|||
==The eighteenth century== |
|||
The first attempt at a proper [[historiography]] was undertaken by [[Robert Brady (writer)|Robert Brady]],{{sfn|Pocock|1987|pp=182–228}} who refuted the supposed antiquity of Parliament and belief in the immutable continuity of the law. Brady realised that the liberties of the Charter were limited and argued that the liberties were the grant of the King. By putting Magna Carta in historical context, he cast doubt on its contemporary political relevance;{{sfn|Turner|2003b|p=165}} his historical understanding did not survive the [[Glorious Revolution]], which, according to the historian [[J. G. A. Pocock]], "marked a setback for the course of English historiography."{{sfn|Pocock|1987|p=228}} |
|||
The myth of Magna Carta was still continuing into the 18th century; in 1700 [[Samuel Johnson]] talked of Magna Carta being “born with a grey beard” referring to the belief that the liberties set out in the Charter harked back to the Golden Age and the time immemorial. However ideas about the nature of law in general were beginning to change; in 1716 the [[Septennial Act]] was passed, which had a number of consequences; firstly, it showed that Parliament no longer considered its previous statutes entrenched as this act provided that the parliamentary term was to be seven years, whereas fewer than twenty-five years beforehand they had passed the [[Triennial Act]] (1694), which provided that a parliamentary term was to be three years. It also greatly extended the powers of Parliament; before, all legislation that passed in a parliamentary session was listed in the election manifesto, so, effectively, the electorate was consulted on all issues which were to be brought before Parliament. However, with a seven-year term, it was unlikely, if not impossible, that even half the legislation passed would be discussed at the election. In effect, this gave Parliament the power to legislate as it liked, but not in the same way as we understand [[Parliamentary sovereignty]] today, as Parliament still considered itself bound by the higher law, such as Magna Carta - it simply felt it could overrule its own statutes. Arguments for Parliamentary sovereignty were not new; however, even its proponents would not have expected Parliament to be as powerful as it is today. For example, in the previous century, Coke had discussed how Parliament might well have the power to repeal the common law and Magna Carta, but they were, in practice, prohibited from doing so, as the common law and Magna Carta were so important in the constitution that it would be dangerous to the continuing existence of the constitution to repeal them to any extent. |
|||
According to the [[Whig interpretation of history]], the Glorious Revolution was an example of the reclaiming of ancient liberties. Reinforced with [[Lockean]] concepts, the [[Whigs (British political party)|Whigs]] believed England's constitution to be a [[social contract]], based on documents such as Magna Carta, the Petition of Right, and the [[Bill of Rights 1689|Bill of Rights]].{{sfn|Turner|2003b|pp=169–170}} The ''English Liberties'' (1680, in later versions often ''British Liberties'') by the Whig propagandist [[Henry Care]] (d. 1688) was a cheap polemical book that was influential and much-reprinted, in the American colonies as well as Britain, and made Magna Carta central to the history and the contemporary legitimacy of its subject.{{sfn|Breay|Harrison|2015|pp=110–111, 134}} |
|||
===The extent of the Commons' powers=== |
|||
In 1722 the [[Bishop of Rochester]] ([[Francis Atterbury]], a Stuart Jacobite), who sat in the Lords, was accused of treason; in response the Commons brought a bill intending to remove him from his post and send him into exile; and meanwhile locked him in the Tower of London. This, once again, brought up the subject of which was the more powerful house, and exactly how far that power went, as Atterbury claimed, and many agreed, that the Commons had no dominion over the Lords. Although many influential people disagreed; the [[Bishop of Salisbury]] (also seated in the Lords) for example was of the strong opinion that the powers of Parliament, mainly vested in the Commons, were sovereign and unlimited and therefore there could be no such thing as entrenched law and no limit on these powers at all, including the freedom of the upper house from the dominion of the lower. Many intellectuals also agreed; [[Jonathan Swift]] for example went as far to say that Parliament’s powers extended so far as to be able to alter or repeal Magna Carta; a claim which would still have caused many a room to fall silent. This argument incensed the Tories and Bolingbroke spoke of the day when “liberty is restored and the radiant volume of Magna Carta is returned to its former position of Glory” and he advocated the age-old beliefs of the immemorial Parliament. This belief was anchored in the relatively new theory that when [[William the Conqueror]] invaded England he only conquered the throne, not the land, and he therefore assumed the same position in law as the Saxon rulers before him; the Charter was a recapitulation or codification of these laws rather than as previously believed an attempt to reinstate these laws after the tyrannical Norman Kings, therefore these rights had existed constantly from the ‘golden age immemorial’ and could never be removed by any government. This belief was still widely subscribed to, although some level of sovereignty had been established it was not what one would recognise as sovereignty today. The Whigs on the other hand claimed, rightfully, that the Charter only benefited the nobility and the church and granted nowhere near the liberty they had come to expect. So although they attacked the content of the Charter, they did not actually attack the myth of the ‘golden age’ or attempt to say that the Charter could be repealed, and the myth remained as immutable as ever. |
|||
Ideas about the nature of law in general were beginning to change. In 1716, the [[Septennial Act 1716|Septennial Act]] was passed, which had a number of consequences. First, it showed that Parliament no longer considered its previous statutes unassailable, as it provided for a maximum parliamentary term of seven years, whereas the [[Triennial Acts|Triennial Act]] (1694) (enacted less than a quarter of a century previously) had provided for a maximum term of three years.{{sfn|Linebaugh|2009|pp=113–14}} |
|||
===America=== |
|||
By 1765 the taxes paid by the American colonists no longer covered the expenses of the garrisons protecting them and therefore the government of the time extended the stamp duty which had been in force on home territory since 1694 to cover the American colonies as well in the [[Stamp Act]] 1765. However the colonists despised this as they were not represented in Parliament and refused to see how a body, which did not represent them, could tax them. The cry ‘[[no taxation without representation]]’ rang throughout the colonies. It did not seem an option to give representation to both America and Manchester. The debate was certainly a complicated one with the ‘representationalists’ quoting Magna Carta as precedent{{Fact|date=February 2007}} although there is absolutely nothing in that document which provides for a representative Parliament at all: when the Great Council was approving taxation in the fourteenth century, it was certainly not representative of all those who were paying that tax. This is a further example of how the idea of the liberties of Magna Carta went far beyond its content. Magna Carta did not prohibit the raising of tax from those who were not represented. |
|||
It also greatly extended the powers of Parliament. Under this new constitution, monarchical [[Absolute monarchy|absolutism]] was replaced by [[Parliamentary sovereignty|parliamentary supremacy]]. It was quickly realised that Magna Carta stood in the same relation to the King-in-Parliament as it had to the King without Parliament. This supremacy would be challenged by the likes of [[Granville Sharp]]. Sharp regarded Magna Carta as a fundamental part of the constitution, and maintained that it would be treason to repeal any part of it. He also held that the Charter prohibited [[slavery]].{{sfn|Linebaugh|2009|pp=113–114}} |
|||
The influence of Magna Carta can be clearly seen in the U.S. [[Bill of Rights]], which enumerates various rights of the people and restrictions on government power, such as: |
|||
Sir [[William Blackstone]] published a critical edition of the 1215 Charter in 1759, and gave it the numbering system still used today.{{sfn|Turner|2003b|pp=67–68}} In 1763, Member of Parliament [[John Wilkes]] was arrested for writing an inflammatory pamphlet, ''No. 45, 23 April 1763''; he cited Magna Carta continually.{{sfn|Fryde|2001|p=207}} [[Charles Pratt, 1st Earl Camden#John Wilkes MP|Lord Camden]] denounced the treatment of Wilkes as a contravention of Magna Carta.<ref>{{cite web|last1=Goodrich|first1=Chauncey A.|title=The Speeches of Lord Chatham|url=http://www.classicpersuasion.org/cbo/chatham/chat09.htm|publisher=Classic Persuasion}}</ref> [[Thomas Paine]], in his ''[[Rights of Man]]'', would disregard Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights on the grounds that they were not a written constitution devised by elected representatives.<ref>{{cite web|title=Lord Irvine of Lairg 'The Spirit of Magna Carta Continues to Resonate in Modern Law'|url=http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Senate/Research_and_Education/pops/pop39/lairg|publisher=Parliament of Australia|access-date=7 November 2014|date=December 2002|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141106070809/http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Senate/Research_and_Education/pops/pop39/lairg|archive-date=6 November 2014|df=dmy-all}}</ref> |
|||
<blockquote>''No person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without [[due process]] of law.''</blockquote> |
|||
====Use in the Thirteen Colonies and the United States==== |
|||
Article 21 from the Declaration of Rights in the [[Maryland Constitution of 1776]] reads: |
|||
[[File:Magna Carta replica and display in the rotunda of the United States Capitol, Washington, DC - 20070517.jpg|thumb|Magna Carta replica and display in the rotunda of the [[United States Capitol]], Washington, D.C.]] |
|||
<blockquote>''That no freeman ought to be taken, or imprisoned, or disseized of his freehold, liberties, or privileges, or outlawed, or exiled, or in any manner destroyed, or deprived of his life, liberty, or property, but by the judgment of his peers, or by the law of the land.''</blockquote> |
|||
When English colonists left for the New World, they brought royal charters that established the colonies. The [[Massachusetts Bay Colony|Massachusetts Bay Company]] charter, for example, stated that the colonists would "have and enjoy all liberties and immunities of free and natural subjects."<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Brink|first1=Robert J.|title=History on display: one lawyer's musings on Magna Carta|journal=Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly|date=18 August 2014|url=http://masslawyersweekly.com/reprints/history-on-display-one-lawyers-musings-on-the-magna-carta/|access-date=20 November 2014}}</ref> The [[Virginia Company|Virginia Charter]] of 1606, which was largely drafted by Sir Edward Coke, stated that the colonists would have the same "liberties, franchises and immunities" as people born in England.{{sfn|Howard|2008|p=28}} The [[Massachusetts Body of Liberties]] contained similarities to clause 29 of Magna Carta; when drafting it, the [[Massachusetts General Court]] viewed Magna Carta as the chief embodiment of English common law.{{sfn|Hazeltine|1917|p=194}} The other colonies would follow their example. In 1638, [[Province of Maryland|Maryland]] sought to recognise Magna Carta as part of the law of the province, but the request was denied by Charles I.{{sfn|Hazeltine|1917|p=195}} |
|||
In 1687, [[William Penn]] published ''The Excellent Privilege of Liberty and Property: being the birth-right of the Free-Born Subjects of England'', which contained the first copy of Magna Carta printed on American soil. Penn's comments reflected Coke's, indicating a belief that Magna Carta was a [[Fundamental Laws of England|fundamental law]].{{sfn|Turner|2003b|p=210}} The colonists drew on English law books, leading them to an anachronistic interpretation of Magna Carta, believing that it guaranteed trial by jury and ''habeas corpus''.{{sfn|Turner|2003b|p=211}} |
|||
===Parliamentary sovereignty=== |
|||
The doctrine of parliamentary supremacy if not parliamentary sovereignty had all but emerged by the regency; [[William Blackstone]] argued strongly for sovereignty in his Commentaries on the English Law in 1765. He essentially argued that absolute supremacy must exist in one of the arms of Government and he certainly thought it resided in Parliament as Parliament could legislate on anything and potentially could even legislate the impossible as valid law if not practical policy. The debate over whether or not Parliament could limit or overrule the supposed rights granted by Magna Carta was to prove to be the basis for the discussion over parliamentary sovereignty, however Blackstone preached that Parliament should respect Magna Carta as a show of law from time immemorial and the other great legal mind of the time, [[Jeremy Bentham]] used the Charter to attack the legal abuses of his time. |
|||
The development of parliamentary supremacy in the British Isles did not constitutionally affect the [[Thirteen Colonies]], which retained an adherence to [[English common law]], but it directly affected the relationship between Britain and the colonies.{{sfn|Hazeltine|1917|pp=183–184}} When American colonists fought against Britain, they were fighting not so much for new freedom, but to preserve liberties and rights that they believed to be enshrined in Magna Carta.<ref name="NARA-legacy">{{cite web|title=Magna Carta and Its American Legacy|url=https://www.archives.gov/exhibits/featured_documents/magna_carta/legacy.html|publisher=[[National Archives and Records Administration]]|access-date=30 January 2015}}</ref> |
|||
====John Wilkes==== |
|||
In 1763 [[John Wilkes]], an MP, was arrested for writing an inflammatory pamphlet, No. 45, [[23 April]] [[1763]]. In his defence he cited Magna Carta incessantly, and the weight that Magna Carta held at the time meant Parliament was wary of continuing the charge and he was released and awarded damages for the wrongful seizure of his papers as the general warrant under which he was arrested was deemed illegal. He was still expelled from Parliament after spending a week in the Tower of London. |
|||
In the late 18th century, the [[United States Constitution]] became the [[Supremacy Clause|supreme law of the land]], recalling the manner in which Magna Carta had come to be regarded as fundamental law.<ref name="NARA-legacy"/> The Constitution's [[Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Fifth Amendment]] guarantees that "no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law", a phrase that was derived from Magna Carta.<ref name="NARA-Magna Carta">{{cite web|title=The Magna Carta|url=https://www.archives.gov/exhibits/featured_documents/magna_carta/|publisher=National Archives and Records Administration|access-date=20 November 2014}}</ref> In addition, the Constitution included a similar writ in the [[Denied powers|Suspension Clause]], Article 1, Section 9: "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it."<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Logal |first1=W.A. |title=Federal Habeas in the Information Age |journal=Minnesota Law Review |date=2000 |volume=85 |page=147}}</ref> |
|||
He spent a number of years abroad until 1768 when he returned and failed to be elected as the MP for London. Unperturbed he stood again for Middlesex but he was expelled again on the basis of the earlier offence the next year. He stood again and was elected but the Commons ruled that he was ineligible to sit. At the next three re-elections Wilkes again was the champion, but the House did not relent and his opponent, Lutteral, was announced the winner. |
|||
Each of these proclaim that no person may be imprisoned or detained without evidence that he or she committed a crime. The [[Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Ninth Amendment]] states that "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." The writers of the U.S. Constitution wished to ensure that the rights they already held, such as those that they believed were provided by Magna Carta, would be preserved unless explicitly curtailed.{{sfn|Stimson|2004|p=124}}{{sfn|Black|1999|p=10}} |
|||
The treatment of Wilkes caused a furore in Parliament, with Lord Camden denouncing the action as a contravention of Magna Carta. Wilkes made the issue a national one and the issue was taken up by the populace. All over the country there were very popular prints of him being arrested whilst teaching his son about Magna Carta and he had the support of the Corporation of London, which had long sought to establish its supremacy over Parliament based on The Charter. The fight for the Charter was misplaced and it was merely the idea of the liberties which were supposedly enshrined in the Charter that people were fighting for. |
|||
The [[U.S. Supreme Court]] has explicitly referenced Edward Coke's analysis of Magna Carta as an antecedent of the [[Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Sixth Amendment]]'s right to a speedy trial.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=386&invol=213 |title='Klopfer v. North Carolina', 386 U.S. 213 (1967) |work=FindLaw |access-date=2 May 2010}}</ref> |
|||
It is no coincidence that those who supported Wilkes would have little or no knowledge of the actual content of the Charter, or if they did were looking to protect their own position based on it. Wilkes re-entered the House in 1774 but he had talked of Magna Carta as he knew it would capture public support to achieve his aims. But he had begun the cause for a reform movement to ‘restore the constitution’ through a more representative, less powerful, and shorter termed Parliament. |
|||
=== |
===19th–21st centuries=== |
||
One of the principal reformists was [[Granville Sharp]]. He was a philanthropist who supported, among other causes, the Society for the Abolition of Slavery and the Society for the Conversion of the Jews. Sharp called for the reform of Parliament based on Magna Carta, and to back this up he devised the doctrine of accumulative authority. This doctrine stated that because almost innumerable parliaments had approved Magna Carta it would take the same number of Parliaments to repeal it. Like many others, Sharp accepted the supremacy of Parliament as an institution, but did not believe that this power was without restraint, namely that Parliament could not repeal Magna Carta. Many reformists agreed that the Charter was a statement of the liberties of the mythical and immemorial golden age, but there was a popular movement to have a holiday to commemorate the signing of The Charter in a similar way to the American 4th of July holiday; however, very few went as far as Sharp. |
|||
==== |
====Interpretation==== |
||
[[File:A Chronicle of England - Page 226 - John Signs the Great Charter.jpg|thumb|A romanticised 19th-century recreation of King John signing Magna Carta. Rather than signing in writing, the document would have been authenticated with the [[Great Seal of the Realm|Great Seal]] and applied by officials rather than John himself.<ref>{{citation |url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-magazine-monitor-30879124 |title=Did King John actually 'sign' Magna Carta? |publisher=BBC |date=19 January 2015 |access-date=14 April 2020}}</ref>]] |
|||
Although there was a popular movement to resist the sovereignty of Parliament based on The Charter, a great number of people still thought that the Charter was over-rated. Cartwright pointed out in 1774 that Magna Carta could not possibly have existed unless there was a firm constitution beforehand to facilitate its use. He went even further later and claimed that the Charter was not even part of the constitution but merely a codification of what the constitution was at the time. Cartwright suggested that there should be a new Magna Carta based on equality and rights for all, not just for landed persons. |
|||
Initially, the Whig interpretation of Magna Carta and its role in constitutional history remained dominant during the 19th century. The historian [[William Stubbs]]'s ''Constitutional History of England'', published in the 1870s, formed the high-water mark of this view.{{sfn|Turner|2003b|pp=199–200}} Stubbs argued that Magna Carta had been a major step in the shaping of the English nation, and he believed that the barons at Runnymede in 1215 were not just representing the nobility, but the people of England as a whole, standing up to a tyrannical ruler in the form of King John.{{sfn|Turner|2003b|pp=199–200}}{{sfn|Fryde|2001|p=1}} |
|||
This view of Magna Carta began to recede. The late-Victorian jurist and historian [[Frederic William Maitland]] provided an alternative academic history in 1899, which began to return Magna Carta to its historical roots.{{sfn|Simmons|1998|pp=69–83}} In 1904, [[Edward Jenks]] published an article entitled "The Myth of Magna Carta", which undermined the previously accepted view of Magna Carta.{{sfn|Galef|1998|pp=78–79}} Historians such as [[Albert Pollard]] agreed with Jenks in concluding that Edward Coke had largely "invented" the myth of Magna Carta in the 17th century; these historians argued that the 1215 charter had not referred to liberty for the people at large, but rather to the protection of baronial rights.{{sfn|Pollard|1912|pp=31–32}} |
|||
The work of people like Cartwright was fast showing that the rights granted by the Charter were out of pace with the developments which followed in the next six centuries. There were certain provisions, such as Clauses 23 and 39, which were not only still valid then but still form the basis of important rights in the present English law. Undeniably, though, the importance of Magna Carta was diminishing and the arguments for having a fully sovereign Parliament were increasingly accepted. Many in the House still supported The Charter, such as Sir Francis Burdett who in 1809 called for a return to the constitution of Magna Carta and denounced the house for taking proceedings against the radical John Gale Jones, who had denounced the house for acting in contravention of Magna Carta. Burdett was largely ignored as by this stage Magna Carta had largely lost its appeal, but he continued, claiming that the [[Long Parliament]] (1640-60) had usurped all the power then enjoyed by the Parliament of the time. He stated that Parliament was constantly contravening Magna Carta (although he was referring to its judicial not legislative practice) which it did not have the right to do. He received popular support and there were riots across London when he was arrested for these claims. Again, a popular print circulated of him being arrested while teaching his son about Magna Carta |
|||
This view also became popular in wider circles, and in 1930 [[Sellar and Yeatman]] published their parody on English history, ''[[1066 and All That]]'', in which they mocked the supposed importance of Magna Carta and its promises of universal liberty: "Magna Charter was therefore the chief cause of Democracy in England, and thus a ''Good Thing'' for everyone (except the Common People)".{{sfn|Barnes|2008|p=23}}{{sfn|Danziger|Gillingham|2004|p=283}} |
|||
====The Compromise==== |
|||
The major breakthrough occurred in 1828 with the passing of the first [[Offences Against the Person (England) Act 1828|Offences Against the Person Act]], which for the first time repealed a clause of Magna Carta, namely Clause 36. With the myth broken, in one hundred and fifty years nearly the whole charter was repealed leaving just Clauses 1, 13, 39, and 63 still in force today after the Statute Laws (Repeals) Act was passed (although interestingly at the same time as the moon landings, possibly to distract public attention for repealing The Charter). |
|||
In many literary representations of the medieval past, however, Magna Carta remained a foundation of English national identity. Some authors used the medieval roots of the document as an argument to preserve the social status quo, while others pointed to Magna Carta to challenge perceived economic injustices.{{sfn|Simmons|1998|pp=69–83}} The Baronial Order of Magna Charta was formed in 1898 to promote the ancient principles and values felt to be displayed in Magna Carta.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.magnacharta.com/|title=Home|publisher=The Baronial Order of Magna Charta|access-date=19 November 2014}}</ref> The legal profession in England and the United States continued to hold Magna Carta in high esteem; they were instrumental in forming the Magna Carta Society in 1922 to protect the meadows at Runnymede from development in the 1920s, and in 1957, the [[American Bar Association]] erected the [[Magna Carta Memorial]] at Runnymede.<ref name="NARA-Magna Carta"/>{{sfn|Wright|1990|p=167}}{{sfn|Holt|1992b|pp=2–3}} The prominent lawyer [[Lord Denning]] described Magna Carta in 1956 as "the greatest constitutional document of all times<!-- [sic]; see note above -->—the foundation of the freedom of the individual against the arbitrary authority of the despot".{{sfn|Danziger|Gillingham|2004|p=278}} |
|||
With the popular movements being in favour of the liberties of The Charter, and Parliament trying to establish their own sovereignty there needed to be some sort of action in order to swing the balance in favour of one or the other. However all that occurred was the Reform Act 1832 which was such a compromise that it ended up pleasing no one. Due to their disappointment in the [[Reform Act|Reform Act 1832]] a group was founded calling itself the Chartists; they called for a return to the constitution of Magna Carta and eventually culminated in a codification of what they saw as the existing rights of the People; the [[People's Charter]]. At a rally for the Chartists in 1838 the Reverend Raynor demanded a return to the constitution of the Charter; freedom of speech worship and congress. This is a perfect example of how the idea of the Charter went so far beyond its actual content: it depicted for many people the idea of total liberty whereas the actual liberties granted by the Charter were very limited and not at all intended to be applied to all. It was this over-exaggeration of the Charter that eventually led to its downfall. The more people expected to get from the Charter, the less Parliament was willing to attempt to cater to this expectation, and eventually writers such as [[Tom Paine]] refuted the claims of those such as the Chartists; this meant that the educated were no longer supporting any of these claims, and therefore the myth gradually faded into obscurity. The final claim against sovereignty of Parliament was erased, and the road was open for establishing this doctrine. |
|||
====Repeal of articles and constitutional influence==== |
|||
==Influences on later constitutions== |
|||
Radicals such as Sir [[Francis Burdett]] believed that Magna Carta could not be repealed,{{sfn|Burdett|1810|p=41}} but in the 19th century clauses which were obsolete or had been superseded began to be repealed. The repeal of clause 26 in 1829, by the [[Offences Against the Person Act 1828]] ([[9 Geo. 4]]. c. 31 s. 1){{efn|I.e., section 1 of the 31st statute issued in the 9th year of George IV; "nor will We not" in clause 29 is correctly quoted from this source.}}<ref name=UKStatute/> was the first time a clause of Magna Carta was repealed. Over the next 140 years, nearly the whole of Magna Carta (1297) as statute was repealed,<ref>{{cite web|title=Magna Carta|url=http://www.sagamoreinstitute.org/library-article/magna-carta/|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141105004655/http://www.sagamoreinstitute.org/library-article/magna-carta/|url-status=dead|archive-date=5 November 2014|publisher=Segamore Institute|access-date=4 November 2014}}</ref> leaving just clauses 1, 9 and 29 still in force (in England and Wales) after 1969.<ref>{{Cite web |title=The contents of Magna Carta |url=https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/evolutionofparliament/originsofparliament/birthofparliament/overview/magnacarta/magnacartaclauses/#:~:text=Only%20four%20of%20the%2063,%2C%2013%2C%2039%20and%2040. |url-status=live |access-date=2022-08-28 |website=[[UK Parliament]]|archive-date=2022-08-28|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220828101448/https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/evolutionofparliament/originsofparliament/birthofparliament/overview/magnacarta/magnacartaclauses/}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=Magna Carta 1297 at Legislation.gov.uk|url=https://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/Edw1cc1929/25/9/section/I |access-date=2022-12-08 |website=[[Legislation.gov.uk]]}}</ref> Most of the clauses were repealed in England and Wales by the [[Statute Law Revision Act 1863]], and in modern [[Northern Ireland]] and also in the modern [[Republic of Ireland]] by the [[Statute Law Revision (Ireland) Act 1872]].<ref name=UKStatute/> |
|||
{{section-stub}} |
|||
Many later attempts to draft constitutional forms of government, including the United States Constitution, trace their lineage back to this source document. The United States Supreme Court has explicitly referenced Lord Coke's analysis of Magna Carta as an antecedent of the Sixth Amendment's guarantee of a speedy trial.<ref>[http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=386&invol=213 KLOPFER v. NORTH CAROLINA, 386 U.S. 213 (1967)]</ref> |
|||
Many later attempts to draft constitutional forms of government trace their lineage back to Magna Carta. The British dominions, Australia and New Zealand,{{sfn|Clark|2000}} Canada{{sfn|Kennedy|1922|p=228}} (except [[Quebec]]), and formerly the [[Union of South Africa]] and [[Southern Rhodesia]], reflected the influence of Magna Carta in their laws, and the Charter's effects can be seen in the laws of other states that evolved from the [[British Empire]].{{sfn|Drew|2004|pp=pxvi–pxxiii}} |
|||
Magna Carta has influenced [[international law]] as well: [[Eleanor Roosevelt]] referred to the [[Universal Declaration of Human Rights]] as "a Magna Carta for all mankind". |
|||
====Modern legacy==== |
|||
==Magna Carta and the Jews in England== |
|||
[[File:ABA-wyrdlight-815935.jpg|thumb|upright=1.35|The [[Magna Carta Memorial]] at Runnymede, designed by Sir [[Edward Maufe]] and erected by the [[American Bar Association]] in 1957. The memorial stands in the meadow known historically as Long Mede: it is likely that the actual site of the sealing of Magna Carta lay further east, towards [[Egham]] and [[Staines-upon-Thames|Staines]].{{sfn|Tatton-Brown|2015|p=36}}]] |
|||
Magna Carta continues to have a powerful iconic status in British society, being cited by politicians and lawyers in support of constitutional positions.{{sfn|Danziger|Gillingham|2004|p=278}}{{sfn|Breay|2010|p=48}} Its perceived guarantee of trial by jury and other civil liberties, for example, led to [[Tony Benn]]'s reference to the debate in 2008 over whether to increase the maximum time terrorism suspects could be [[Remand (detention)|held without charge]] from 28 to 42 days as "the day Magna Carta was repealed".<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/so-will-the-revolution-start-in-haltemprice-and-howden-846938.html|title=So will the revolution start in Haltemprice and Howden?|work=The Independent|location=UK|date=14 June 2008|access-date=16 June 2008}}</ref> Although rarely invoked in court in the modern era, in 2012 the [[Occupy London]] protestors attempted to use Magna Carta in resisting their eviction from [[St. Paul's Churchyard]] by the [[City of London]]. In his judgment the [[Master of the Rolls]] gave this short shrift, noting somewhat drily that although clause 29 was considered by many the foundation of the rule of law in England, he did not consider it directly relevant to the case, and that the two other surviving clauses ironically concerned the rights of the Church and the City of London and could not help the defendants.<ref>{{cite web|last1=Green|first1=David Allen|url=http://blogs.ft.com/david-allen-green/2014/06/16/the-myth-of-magna-carta/|title=The myth of Magna Carta |date=16 June 2014|access-date=21 January 2015|author-link=David Allen Green|work=Financial Times|quote=The sarcasm of the Master of the Rolls was plain|url-access=subscription }}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/160.html|title=The Mayor Commonalty and Citizens of London v Samede|date=22 February 2012|access-date=21 January 2015}}</ref> |
|||
Magna Carta contained two articles related to money lending and [[History of the Jews in England|Jews in England]]. Jewish involvement with money lending caused Christian resentment, because the Church forbade the lending of money at interest (known at the time as [[usury]]); it was seen as [[vice]] (such as gambling, an un-Christian way to profit at others' expense) and was punishable by [[excommunication]], although Jews, as non-Christians, could not be excommunicated and were thus in a legal grey area. Secular leaders, unlike the Church, tolerated the practice of Jewish usury because it gave the leaders opportunity for personal enrichment. This resulted in a complicated legal situation: debtors were frequently trying to bring their Jewish creditors before Church courts, where debts would be absolved as illegal, while the Jews were trying to get their debtors tried in secular courts, where they would be able to collect plus interest. The relations between the debtors and creditors would often become very nasty. There were many attempts over centuries to resolve this problem, and Magna Carta contains one example of the legal code of the time on this issue: |
|||
Magna Carta carries little legal weight in modern Britain, as most of its clauses have been repealed and relevant rights ensured by other statutes, but the historian James Holt remarks that the survival of the 1215 charter in national life is a "reflexion of the continuous development of English law and administration" and symbolic of the many struggles between authority and the law over the centuries.{{sfn|Holt|1992b|p=2}} The historian W. L. Warren has observed that "many who knew little and cared less about the content of the Charter have, in nearly all ages, invoked its name, and with good cause, for it meant more than it said".{{sfn|Warren|1990|p=240}} |
|||
:''If one who has borrowed from the Jews any sum, great or small, die before that loan be repaid, the debt shall not bear interest while the heir is under age, of whomsoever he may hold; and if the debt fall into our hands, we will not take anything except the principal sum contained in the bond. And if anyone die indebted to the Jews, his wife shall have her dower and pay nothing of that debt; and if any children of the deceased are left under age, necessaries shall be provided for them in keeping with the holding of the deceased; and out of the residue the debt shall be paid, reserving, however, service due to feudal lords; in like manner let it be done touching debts due to others than Jews.'' |
|||
It also remains a topic of great interest to historians; [[Natalie Fryde]] characterised the charter as "one of the holiest of cows in English medieval history", with the debates over its interpretation and meaning unlikely to end.{{sfn|Fryde|2001|p=1}} The majority of contemporary historians however see the interpretation of the charter as a unique and early charter of legal rights as a myth that was created centuries later.<ref>{{harvnb|Helmholz|2014|p=1475}} "The latter, a negative opinion that a majority of professional historians seem to share, regards Magna Carta’s exalted reputation as a myth. In its origins, historians say, the Charter did little or nothing to promote good government. Nor, they add, did it serve to protect the legal rights of the great majority of English men and women. It served only the baronial class. Its glorification was a later invention, attributable to myth-making lawyers like Edward Coke in the seventeenth century and William Blackstone in the eighteenth."</ref><ref>{{harvnb|Baker|2017|p=missing}}</ref><ref>{{harvnb|Radin|1947|p=missing}}</ref> <!--section on current historians' views could do with being expanded --> |
|||
After the Pope annulled Magna Carta, future versions contained no mention of Jews. Jews were seen by the Church as a threat to their authority, and the welfare of Christians, because of their special relationship to Kings as moneylenders. "Jews are the sponges of kings," wrote the [[theology|theologian]] William de Montibus, "they are [[leech|bloodsucker]]s of Christian purses, by whose robbery kings dispoil and deprive poor men of their goods." Thus the anti-semitic wording as seen in Magna Carta originated in part because of Christian nobles who permitted the otherwise illegal activity of usury, a symptom of the larger ongoing [[Separation of church and state (medieval)|power struggle between Church and State]] during the Middle Ages. |
|||
In many ways still a "sacred text", Magna Carta is generally considered part of the [[uncodified constitution]] [[Constitution of the United Kingdom|of the United Kingdom]]; in a 2005 speech, the [[Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales]], [[Lord Woolf]], described it as the "first of a series of instruments that now are recognised as having a special constitutional status".<ref name=woolfspeech>{{cite web|url=http://magnacarta800th.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Precedent_Recent_Constitutional_Change.pdf|title=Magna Carta: a precedent for recent constitutional change|work=Judiciary of England and Wales Speeches|date=15 June 2005|access-date=4 November 2014}}</ref>{{sfn|Holt|1992b|p=21}} Magna Carta was reprinted in [[New Zealand]] in 1881 as one of the Imperial Acts in force there.<ref>{{cite web|url= http://www.nzlii.org/nz/legis/imp_act_1881/mc25ei84/ |title= Magna Carta (25 Ed I) |publisher= New Zealand Law online }}</ref> Clause 29 of the document remains in force as part of New Zealand law.<ref name=":1">{{Cite web |date=28 March 1297 |title=Magna Carta 1297 s 29 |url=http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/imperial/1297/0029/latest/whole.html#DLM10926 |website=New Zealand Legislation |language=en-NZ}}</ref> |
|||
==Popular perceptions== |
|||
[[File:CAC CC 001 18 9 0000 0840.jpg|thumb|The ceremony in the Capitol rotunda honouring the arrival of Magna Carta in 1976]] |
|||
[[Image:Detail_of_Magna_Carta_monument.JPG|thumb|270px|In [[1957]] the [[American Bar Association]] acknowledged the debt American law and constitutionalism had to Magna Carta by erecting a monument at [[Runnymede]].]] |
|||
The document also continues to be honoured in the United States as an antecedent of the [[United States Constitution]] and [[United States Bill of Rights|Bill of Rights]].<ref name=ChartersOfFreedom>{{cite web|url=https://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_q_and_a.html|title=United States Constitution Q + A|work=The Charters of Freedom|publisher=National Archives and Records Administration|access-date=4 November 2014}}</ref> In 1976, the UK lent one of four surviving originals of the 1215 Magna Carta to the United States for their bicentennial celebrations and also donated an ornate display case for it. The original was returned after one year, but a replica and the case are still on display in the [[United States Capitol]] Crypt in [[Washington, D.C.]]<ref>{{cite web|title=Magna Carta Replica and Display|url=http://www.aoc.gov/capitol-hill/other/magna-carta-replica-and-display|publisher=[[Architect of the Capitol]]|access-date=20 November 2014}}</ref> |
|||
Magna Carta is often a symbol for the first time the citizens of [[England]] were granted rights against an absolute king. However, in practice the Commons could not enforce Magna Carta in the very rare situations where it affected them, so its reach was limited. Also, a large part of Magna Carta was copied, nearly word for word, from the Charter of Liberties of [[Henry I of England|Henry I]], issued when Henry I rose to the throne in 1100, which bound the king to laws which effectively granted certain civil liberties to the church and the English nobility. |
|||
====Celebration of the 800th anniversary==== |
|||
The document commonly known as Magna Carta today is not the 1215 charter, but a later charter of 1225, and is usually shown in the form of The Charter of 1297 when it was confirmed by Edward I. At the time of the 1215 charter many of the provisions were not meant to make long-term changes but simply to right some immediate wrongs; therefore The Charter was reissued three times in the reign of Henry III (1216, 1217 and 1225). After this, each king for the next two hundred years (until [[Henry V of England|Henry V]] in 1416) personally confirmed the 1225 charter in their own charter, so one must not think of it as one document but a variety of documents coming together to form one Magna Carta in the same way many treaties such as the treaties of Rome and Nice come together to form the Treaties of the [[European Union]] and the [[European Community]]. |
|||
[[File:Four surviving Magna Carta to be brought together for the first time in history.webm|thumb|The plan for four surviving original copies of Magna Carta to be brought together in 2015, at the [[British Library]] in collaboration with [[Lincoln Cathedral]] and [[Salisbury Cathedral]] and supported by the law firm [[Linklaters]]]] |
|||
Popular perception is that King John and the barons signed the Magna Carta, however there were no signatures on the original document, only a single seal by the king. The words of the charter-''Data per manum nostram''-signify that the document was personally given by the king's hand. By placing his seal on the document, the King and the barons followed common law that a seal was sufficient to authenticate a deed, though it had to be done in front of witnesses. John's seal was the only one, he did not sign it, nor did any of the barons sign or attach their seal to it.<ref>[[Charles Henry Browining]] (1898). [http://books.google.com/books?vid=0XPZLx6VcMoY1KO0KO&id=hTUfAAAAMAAJ ''The Magna Charta Barons and Their American Descendants...'']. [http://books.google.com/books?vid=0XPZLx6VcMoY1KO0KO&id=hTUfAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA50&lpg=PA50&dq=king+john+did+not+sign+magna+carta&as_brr=1&ie=ISO-8859-1 Page 50].</ref> |
|||
The 800th anniversary of the original charter occurred on 15 June 2015, and organisations and institutions planned celebratory events.<ref name=doward>{{cite news|last1=Doward|first1=Jamie|title=Magna Carta 800 years on: recognition at last for 'England's greatest export'|url=https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2014/nov/01/magna-carta-800-celebrates-anniversary|access-date=7 November 2014|work=The Observer|date=1 November 2014}}</ref> The [[British Library]] brought together the four existing copies of the 1215 manuscript in February 2015 for a special exhibition.<ref>{{cite web|title=Celebrating 800 years of Magna Carta|url=http://www.bl.uk/magna-carta/800th-anniversary-programme|publisher=British Library|access-date=7 November 2014}}</ref> British artist [[Cornelia Parker]] was commissioned to create a new artwork, ''[[Magna Carta (An Embroidery)]]'', which was shown at the British Library between May and July 2015.<ref>{{cite web|title=Magna Carta: Law, Liberty, Legacy|url=http://www.bl.uk/events/magna-carta--law-liberty-legacy|publisher=British Library|access-date=7 November 2014}}</ref> The artwork is a copy of the [[Wikipedia]] article about Magna Carta (as it appeared on the document's 799th anniversary, 15 June 2014), hand-embroidered by over 200 people.<ref name=Embroidery>{{cite news |last1=Jones |first1=Jonathan |title=Kings and needles: the Magna Carta gets an embroidery update |url=https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/jonathanjonesblog/2015/may/14/magna-carta-an-embroidery-cornelia-parker-british-library-wikipedia-prisoners-jarvis-cocker |access-date=14 May 2015 |work=The Guardian |date=14 May 2015}}</ref> |
|||
On 15 June 2015, a commemoration ceremony was conducted in Runnymede at the National Trust park, attended by British and American dignitaries.<ref>{{Cite news|title = Magna Carta: leaders celebrate 800th anniversary of the Great Charter|url = https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jun/15/magna-carta-leaders-celebrate-800th-anniversary-runnymede|newspaper = The Guardian|access-date = 2015-06-20|first = Caroline|last = Davies|date = 2015-06-15}}</ref> On the same day, [[Google]] celebrated the anniversary with a [[Google Doodle]].<ref>{{cite web|url=https://doodles.google/doodle/800th-anniversary-of-the-magna-carta/|title=800th Anniversary of the Magna Carta|website=Google|date=15 June 2015}}</ref> |
|||
The document is also honored in America as some view it as an antecedent of the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights. The United States has contributed the Runnymede Memorial and [[Lincoln Cathedral]] offers a Magna Carta USA week [http://www.lincolncathedral.com/]. The UK lent one of the four remaining copies of Magna Carta to the U.S. for its bicentennial celebrations and donated a gold copy which is displayed in the U.S. Capital Rotunda.<ref>MAGNA CARTA -- (Senate - June 15, 2000), http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?r106:S15JN0-0011:, Robert Byrd, Congressional Record, accessed September 24, 2006</ref> |
|||
The copy held by [[Lincoln Cathedral]] was exhibited in the [[Library of Congress]] in Washington, D.C., from November 2014 until January 2015.<ref>{{cite web|title=Magna Carta: Muse and Mentor|url=https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/magna-carta-muse-and-mentor|publisher=Library of Congress|access-date=30 January 2015|date=2014-11-06}}</ref> A new visitor centre at [[Lincoln Castle]] was opened for the anniversary.<ref>{{cite web|title=Magna Carta 800|url=http://www.visitlincoln.com/magnacarta|publisher=Visit Lincoln|access-date=7 November 2014}}</ref> The [[Royal Mint]] released two commemorative [[Two pounds (British coin)|two-pound coins]].<ref>{{cite web|title=800th Anniversary of Magna Carta 2015 UK £2 BU Coin|url=http://www.royalmint.com/shop/800th_Anniversary_of_Magna_Carta_2015_UK_2_pound_BU_Coin|publisher=[[Royal Mint]]|access-date=27 December 2014}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|title = Magna Carta 800th Anniversary 2015 UK £2 Silver Piedfort Coin {{!}} The Royal Mint|url = http://www.royalmint.com/shop/Magna_Carta_800th_Anniversary_2015_UK_2_pound_Silver_Piedfort_Coin?tab=detail#productdetails|website = The Royal Mint|access-date = 2015-11-24|url-status=dead|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20151125052803/http://www.royalmint.com/shop/Magna_Carta_800th_Anniversary_2015_UK_2_pound_Silver_Piedfort_Coin?tab=detail#productdetails|archive-date = 25 November 2015|df = dmy-all}}</ref> |
|||
In 2006, [[BBC History (magazine)|BBC History Magazine]] held a poll to recommend a date for a proposed "Britain Day". [[June 15]], as the date of the signing of the original 1215 Magna Carta, received most votes, above other suggestions such as [[Battle of Normandy|D-Day]], [[VE Day]], and [[Remembrance Day]]. The outcome was not binding, although [[Chancellor of the Exchequer|Chancellor]] [[Gordon Brown]] had previously given his support to the idea of a new national day to celebrate British identity. <ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5028496.stm BBC News - Magna Carta tops British day poll]</ref> |
|||
In 2014, [[Bury St Edmunds]] in [[Suffolk]] celebrated the 800th anniversary of the barons' Charter of Liberties, said to have been secretly agreed there in November 1214.<ref>{{cite web|title=Bury St Edmunds Magna Carta 800|url=http://magnacarta800.org.uk|publisher=The Bury Society|location=[[Bury St Edmunds]]|access-date=28 December 2014}}</ref> |
|||
==Usage and spelling== |
|||
Since there is no direct, consistent correlate of the [[English language|English]] [[definite article]] in Latin, the usual academic convention is to refer to the document in English without the article as "Magna Carta" rather than "'''the''' Magna Carta". According to the [[Oxford English Dictionary]], the first written appearance of the term was in [[1218]]: ''"Concesserimus libertates quasdam scriptas in '''Magna Carta''' nostra de libertatibus."'' (Latin: "We concede the certain liberties here written in our '''great charter''' of liberties.") However, "'''the''' Magna Carta" is also frequently used. In the past, the document has also been referred to as "Magna Charta". |
|||
==Copies== |
==Copies== |
||
Numerous copies were made each time it was issued, so all of the participants would each have one - in the case of the 1215 copy, one for the royal archives, one for the [[Cinque Ports]], and one for each of the then 40 counties. Several of those still exist and some are on permanent display. If there ever was one single '[[master copy]]' or original version of Magna Carta sealed by King John in 1215, it has not survived. Four contemporaneous copies (known as "exemplifications") remain, all of which are located in the UK: |
|||
*The 'burnt copy', which was found in the records of [[Dover Castle]] in the 17th century and so is assumed to be the copy that was sent to the [[Cinque Ports]]. It was subsequently involved at a house fire at its owner's property, making it all but illegible. It is the only one of the four to have its seal surviving, although this too was melted out of shape in the fire. It is currently held by the [[British Library]] |
|||
*Another supposedly original, but possibly amended version of the Magna Carta is on show just outside of the chamber of the [[House of Lords]] situated in [[Westminster Palace]]. |
|||
*one owned by [[Lincoln Cathedral]] - normally on display at [[Lincoln Castle]]. It has an unbroken attested history at Lincoln since 1216. We hear of it in 1800 when the Chapter Clerk of the Cathedral reported that he held it in the Common Chamber and then silence again until 1846 when the Chapter Clerk of that time moved from within the Cathedral to a property just outside it and in 1848 Magna Carta was shown to a visiting group who reported it as “hanging on the wall in an oak frame in beautiful preservation”. It went to the [[1939 New York World's Fair|New York World Fair]] in 1939 and so had to be held in [[Fort Knox]], next to the original of the US Constitution, until the end of the Second World War. Having returned to Lincoln, it has been back to America on various occasions since then. [http://www.magnacharta.org/DeanofLincolnsRemarks2004.htm] It is not at present on display because it is undergoing conservation in preparation for its next visit to America. It will be exhibited at the Contemporary Art Center of Virginia from March 30 2007 to June 18 2007 in recognition of the [[Jamestown, Virginia|Jamestown]] quadricentennial, [http://www.cacv.org/MagnaCarta.asp]with its anticipated return to Lincoln Castle being some time during July of 2007. |
|||
*one owned by and displayed at [[Salisbury Cathedral]]. |
|||
===Physical format=== |
|||
Thirteen other versions of Magna Carta dating to 1297 or earlier survive, including four from 1297. [[Durham Cathedral]] possesses 1216, 1217, and 1225 copies. |
|||
Numerous copies, known as [[Exemplified copy|exemplifications]], were made of the various charters, and many of them still survive.{{sfn|Breay|2010|p=37}} The documents were written in heavily abbreviated medieval Latin in clear handwriting, using [[quill]] pens on sheets of [[parchment]] made from sheep skin, approximately {{convert|15|by|20|in}} across.{{sfn|Breay|2010|pp=37–38}}{{sfn|Hindley|1990|p=143}} They were sealed with the [[Great Seal of the Realm|royal great seal]] by an official called the spigurnel, equipped with a special seal press, using beeswax and resin.{{sfn|Hindley|1990|p=143}}{{sfn|Breay|2010|pp=38–39}} There were no signatures on the charter of 1215, and the barons present did not attach their own [[Seal (emblem)|seals]] to it.{{sfn|Browning|1898|p=50}} The text was not divided into paragraphs or numbered clauses: the numbering system used today was introduced by the jurist Sir [[William Blackstone]] in 1759.{{sfn|Turner|2003b|pp=67–68}} |
|||
===Exemplifications=== |
|||
[[Image:AU_Magna_Carta_Place.jpg|Magna Carta Place, Canberra, Australia|thumb|right|''Magna Carta Place'', within [[Canberra]], [[Australia]]'s [[Parliamentary Triangle]] opened on [[24 May]] [[2003]].]] |
|||
In [[1952]] the Australian Government purchased a [[1297]] copy of Magna Carta for £12,500. This copy is now on display in the Members' Hall of [[Parliament House, Canberra|Parliament House]], Canberra. In January [[2006]], it was announced by the Department of Parliamentary Services that the document had been revalued down from A$40m to A$15m. |
|||
====1215 exemplifications==== |
|||
In September [[1984]], The Perot Foundation purchased another copy of the 1297 issue of Magna Carta. This copy is on indefinite loan to the [[National Archives and Records Administration]] in Washington, D.C. |
|||
At least thirteen original copies of the charter of 1215 were issued by the royal [[Chancery (medieval office)|chancery]] during that year, seven in the first tranche distributed on 24 June and another six later; they were sent to county sheriffs and bishops, who were probably charged for the privilege.{{sfn|Breay|2010|pp=34–35}} Slight variations exist between the surviving copies, and there was probably no single "master copy".{{sfn|Breay|2010|p=34}} Of these documents, only four survive, all held in England: two now at the [[British Library]], one at [[Salisbury Cathedral]], and one, the property of [[Lincoln Cathedral]], on permanent loan to [[Lincoln Castle]].{{sfn|Breay|2010|p=35}} Each of these versions is slightly different in size and text, and each is considered by historians to be equally authoritative.{{sfn|Breay|2010|pp=34–36}} |
|||
[[File:Magna Carta - John Pine engraving 1733.jpg|thumb|upright|1733 engraving by [[John Pine]] of the 1215 charter (''Cotton Charter XIII.31A'')]] |
|||
==Participant list== |
|||
The two 1215 charters held by the British Library, known as ''Cotton MS. Augustus II.106'' and ''Cotton Charter XIII.31A'', were acquired by the antiquarian [[Sir Robert Cotton, 1st Baronet, of Connington|Sir Robert Cotton]] in the 17th century.{{sfn|Breay|2010|pp=35–36}} The first had been found by Humphrey Wyems, a London lawyer, who may have discovered it in a tailor's shop, and who gave it to Cotton in January 1629.{{sfn|Breay|2010|p=36}} The second was found in [[Dover Castle]] in 1630 by [[Sir Edward Dering, 1st Baronet|Sir Edward Dering]]. The Dering charter was traditionally thought to be the copy sent in 1215 to the [[Cinque Ports]],{{sfn|Turner|2003b|p=65}} but in 2015 the historian [[David Carpenter (historian)|David Carpenter]] argued that it was more probably that sent to [[Canterbury Cathedral]], as its text was identical to a transcription made from the Cathedral's copy of the 1215 charter in the 1290s.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.canterbury.ac.uk/news/newsRelease.asp?newsPk=2372|title=Canterbury's Magna Carta rediscovered in time for 800th anniversary|publisher=Canterbury Christ Church University|access-date=31 January 2015|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150123005702/http://www.canterbury.ac.uk/news/newsRelease.asp?newsPk=2372|archive-date=23 January 2015|df=dmy-all}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.kentnews.co.uk/news/remarkable_discovery_says_copy_of_magna_carta_in_british_library_was_canterbury_charter_1_3923530|title=Remarkable discovery says copy of Magna Carta in British Library was 'Canterbury charter'|publisher=kentnews|access-date=31 January 2015|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150123010037/http://www.kentnews.co.uk/news/remarkable_discovery_says_copy_of_magna_carta_in_british_library_was_canterbury_charter_1_3923530|archive-date=23 January 2015|df=dmy-all}}</ref>{{sfn|Breay|Harrison|2015|pp=57, 66}} This copy was damaged in the [[Cotton library#Ashburnham House fire|Cotton library fire]] of 1731, when its seal was badly melted. The parchment was somewhat shrivelled but otherwise relatively unscathed. An engraved [[facsimile]] of the charter was made by [[John Pine]] in 1733. In the 1830s, an ill-judged and bungled attempt at cleaning and [[Conservation and restoration of parchment|conservation]] rendered the manuscript largely illegible to the naked eye.{{sfn|Breay|Harrison|2015|pp=66, 216–219}}<ref>{{cite web |last=Duffy |first=Christina |title=Revealing the secrets of the burnt Magna Carta|url=http://www.bl.uk/magna-carta/articles/revealing-the-secrets-of-the-burnt-magna-carta |publisher=British Library|access-date=8 June 2016}}</ref> This is the only surviving 1215 copy still to have its great seal attached.{{sfn|Breay|2010|pp=36–37}}{{sfn|Davis|1963|p=36}} |
|||
Barons, Bishops and Abbots who were party to Magna Carta.<ref>[http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/featured_documents/magna_carta/translation.html Magna Charta translation], [http://www.infokey.com/hon/magna.htm Magna Charta Surety Baron Listing], [http://www.magnacharta.com/articles/article09.htm Magna Charta Period Feudal Estates]</ref> |
|||
Lincoln Cathedral's copy has been held by the county since 1215. It was displayed in the Common Chamber in the cathedral, before being moved to another building in 1846.{{sfn|Breay|2010|p=35}}<ref name=NationalSocietyMagna>{{cite web|url=http://www.magnacharta.org/DeanofLincolnsRemarks2004.htm|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20040821184913/http://www.magnacharta.org/DeanofLincolnsRemarks2004.htm |archive-date=21 August 2004 |publisher=National Society Magna Charta Dames and Barons|title=Magna Charta: Our Heritage and Yours|last=Knight|first=Alec|date=17 April 2004|access-date=2 September 2007}}</ref> Between 1939 and 1940 it was displayed in the British Pavilion at the [[1939 New York World's Fair|1939 World Fair]] in [[New York City]], and at the [[Library of Congress]].<ref name=":0"/> When the Second World War broke out, [[Winston Churchill]] wanted to give the charter to the American people, hoping that this would encourage the United States, then neutral, to enter the war against the [[Axis powers]], but the cathedral was unwilling, and the plans were dropped.{{sfn|Vincent|2012|p=107}}<ref>{{Cite web|title=Proposed Gift of Magna Carta to America, 1941|quote=May we give you – at least as a token of our feelings – something of no intrinsic value whatever: a bit of parchment, more than seven hundred years old, rather the worse for wear.|url=https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/resources/magna-carta/magna-has-no-intrinsic-value/|access-date=2022-01-29|website=The National Archives|language=en-GB}}</ref> |
|||
===Barons=== |
|||
After December 1941, the copy was stored in [[United States Bullion Depository|Fort Knox]], [[Kentucky]], for safety, before being put on display again in 1944 and returned to Lincoln Cathedral in early 1946.<ref name=":0">{{Cite web|url=https://loc.gov/exhibits/magna-carta-muse-and-mentor/magna-carta-comes-to-america.html|title=Magna Carta: Muse and Mentor Magna Carta Comes to America|website=[[Library of Congress]]|date=2014-11-06}}</ref>{{sfn|Vincent|2012|p=107}}<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.britishpathe.com/video/magna-carta-as-exhibit-for-new-york-world-fair|title=Magna Carta As Exhibit For New York World Fair|website=British Pathé|access-date=2016-09-15}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=http://blogs.loc.gov/law/2014/04/magna-carta-in-the-us-part-i-the-british-pavilion-of-the-1939-new-york-worlds-fair/|title=Magna Carta in the US, Part I: The British Pavilion of the 1939 New York World's Fair|date=2014-04-30}}</ref> It was put on display in 1976 in the cathedral's [[Lincoln Cathedral Library|medieval library]].<ref name=NationalSocietyMagna/> It was displayed in San Francisco, and was taken out of display for a time to undergo conservation in preparation for another visit to the United States, where it was exhibited in 2007 at the [[Virginia Museum of Contemporary Art|Contemporary Art Center of Virginia]] and the [[National Constitution Center]] in Philadelphia.<ref name=NationalSocietyMagna/><ref>{{cite press release |url=http://www.constitutioncenter.org/PressRoom/PressReleases/2007_05_30_17687.shtml |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070927032707/http://www.constitutioncenter.org/PressRoom/PressReleases/2007_05_30_17687.shtml |archive-date=27 September 2007|publisher=[[National Constitution Center]]|title=Magna Carta on Display Beginning 4 July|date=30 May 2007|access-date=2 September 2007}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.virginiamoca.org/magna-carta-four-foundations-freedom|title=Magna Carta & Four Foundations of Freedom|publisher=Contemporary Art Center of Virginia|year=2007|access-date=4 November 2014}}</ref> In 2009 it returned to New York to be displayed at the [[Fraunces Tavern]] Museum.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/14/nyregion/14magna.html|title=Copy of Magna Carta Travels to New York in Style|author=Kahn, Eve M|work=[[The New York Times]]|date=13 September 2009|access-date=4 January 2015}}</ref> It is currently on permanent loan to the [[David Ross (businessman)|David P. J. Ross]] Vault at [[Lincoln Castle]], along with an original copy of the 1217 [[Charter of the Forest]].<ref>{{cite web|title=Magna Carta|url=https://www.lincolncastle.com/content/magna-carta|website=Lincoln Castle|access-date=11 April 2018|date=2015-02-12}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=Magna Carta|url=https://lincolncathedral.com/education-learning/magna-carta/|website=Lincoln Cathedral|access-date=11 April 2018}}</ref> |
|||
Surety [[baron|Barons]] for the enforcement of Magna Carta: |
|||
The fourth copy, held by Salisbury Cathedral, was first given in 1215 to its predecessor, [[Old Sarum Cathedral]].<ref>{{cite web|author=Salisbury Cathedral|title=The Salisbury Connection|url=http://www.salisburycathedral.org.uk/magna-carta-how-did-magna-carta-come-about/salisbury-connection|access-date=13 November 2014|date=2013}}</ref> Rediscovered by the cathedral in 1812, it has remained in Salisbury throughout its history, except when being taken off-site for restoration work.{{sfn|Vincent|2012|p=104}}<ref name="Salisbury Cathedral 2013">{{cite web|author=Salisbury Cathedral|title=The Document|url=http://www.salisburycathedral.org.uk/magna-carta-what-magna-carta/document|access-date=13 November 2014|date=2013}}</ref> It is possibly the best preserved of the four, although small pin holes can be seen in the parchment from where it was once pinned up.<ref name="Salisbury Cathedral 2013"/><ref>{{cite news|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/wiltshire/8182987.stm|title=Award for cathedral Magna Carta|work=[[BBC News Online]]|date=4 August 2009|access-date=4 January 2015}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|author=Salisbury Cathedral|title=Visiting Magna Carta|url=http://www.salisburycathedral.org.uk/magna-carta/visiting-magna-carta|access-date=13 November 2014|date=2013}}</ref> The handwriting on this version is different from that of the other three, suggesting that it was not written by a royal scribe but rather by a member of the cathedral staff, who then had it exemplified by the royal court.{{sfn|Breay|2010|p=37}}{{sfn|Vincent|2012|p=104}} |
|||
*[[William d'Aubigny (d.1236)|William d'Albini]], Lord of [[Belvoir Castle]]. |
|||
*[[Roger Bigod, 2nd Earl of Norfolk|Roger Bigod]], [[Earl of Norfolk]] and [[Earl of Suffolk|Suffolk]]. |
|||
*[[Hugh Bigod, 3rd Earl of Norfolk|Hugh Bigod]], Heir to the Earldoms of [[Earl of Norfolk|Norfolk]] and [[Earl of Suffolk|Suffolk]]. |
|||
*[[Henry de Bohun, 1st Earl of Hereford|Henry de Bohun]], [[Earl of Hereford]]. |
|||
*[[Richard de Clare, 4th Earl of Hertford|Richard de Clare]], [[Earl of Hertford]]. |
|||
*[[Gilbert de Clare, 5th Earl of Hertford|Gilbert de Clare]], heir to the earldom of Hertford. |
|||
*[[John FitzRobert]], Lord of [[Warkworth Castle]]. |
|||
*[[Robert Fitzwalter]], Lord of [[Dunmow Castle]]. |
|||
*[[William de Forz, 3rd Earl of Albemarle|William de Fortibus]], [[Earl of Albemarle]]. |
|||
*[[William Hardell]], **[[List of Lord Mayors of London|Mayor]] of the [[City of London]]. |
|||
*[[William de Huntingfield]], [[Sheriff of Norfolk and Suffolk]]. |
|||
*[[John de Lacy, 1st Earl of Lincoln|John de Lacie]], Lord of [[Pontefract Castle]]. |
|||
*[[William de Lanvallei]], Lord of [[Standway Castle]]. |
|||
*[[William Malet (Magna Carta)|William Malet]], Sheriff of [[Somerset]] and [[Dorset]]. |
|||
*[[Geoffrey FitzGeoffrey de Mandeville, 2nd Earl of Essex|Geoffrey de Mandeville]], [[Earl of Essex]] and [[Earl of Gloucester|Gloucester]]. |
|||
*[[William Marshal, 2nd Earl of Pembroke|William Marshall jr, heir to the earldom of Pembroke]]. |
|||
*[[Roger de Montbegon]], Lord of [[Hornby Castle, Lancashire]]. |
|||
*[[Richard de Montfichet]], Baron. |
|||
*[[Mowbray|William de Mowbray]], Lord of [[Axholme Castle]]. |
|||
*[[Richard de Percy]], Baron. |
|||
*[[Saer de Quincy, 1st Earl of Winchester|Saire/Saher de Quincey]], [[Earl of Winchester]]. |
|||
*[[Robert de Ros|Robert de Roos]], Lord of [[Hamlake Castle]]. |
|||
*[[Geoffrey de Saye]], Baron. |
|||
*[[Robert de Vere, 3rd Earl of Oxford|Robert de Vere]], heir to the [[Earl of Oxford|earldom of Oxford]]. |
|||
*[[Eustace de Vesci]], Lord of [[Alnwick Castle]]. |
|||
====Later exemplifications==== |
|||
===Bishops=== |
|||
[[File:Magna-carta-1225-C6257-03.jpg|thumb|upright|1225 charter, held in the British Library, with the [[Great Seal of the Realm|royal great seal]] attached]] |
|||
Other early versions of the charters survive today. Only one exemplification of the 1216 charter survives, held in [[Durham Cathedral]].{{sfn|Vincent|2012|p=106}} Four copies of the 1217 charter exist; three of these are held by the Bodleian Library in Oxford and one by [[Hereford Cathedral]].{{sfn|Vincent|2012|p=106}}<ref name="Magna Carta pulls in the crowds">{{cite web|title=Magna Carta pulls in the crowds|url=http://www.bodleian.ox.ac.uk/news/2008/2007_dec_19|website=Bodleian Libraries|publisher=University of Oxford|access-date=13 June 2015}}</ref> Hereford's copy is occasionally displayed alongside the [[Hereford Mappa Mundi|Mappa Mundi]] in the cathedral's [[chained library]] and has survived along with a small document called the {{lang|la|Articuli super Cartas}} that was sent along with the charter, telling the sheriff of the county how to observe the conditions outlined in the document.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/herefordandworcester/content/articles/2009/06/15/magna_carta_3108_event_feature.shtml|title=Magna Carta at Hereford Cathedral|publisher=BBC|access-date=4 November 2014}}</ref> One of the Bodleian's copies was displayed at San Francisco's [[California Palace of the Legion of Honor]] in 2011.<ref>{{cite web|title=The Magna Carta|url=http://www.famsf.org/press-room/magna-carta|publisher=Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco|access-date=4 January 2015|date=2011-04-05}}</ref> |
|||
Four exemplifications of the 1225 charter survive: the British Library holds one, which was preserved at [[Lacock Abbey]] until 1945; Durham Cathedral also holds a copy, with the Bodleian Library holding a third.<ref name="Magna Carta pulls in the crowds"/><ref>{{cite web|title=Magna Carta, 1225|url=http://www.bl.uk/collection-items/magna-carta-1225|publisher=British Library|access-date=22 November 2014}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|last1=Campbell|first1=Sophie|title=Magna Carta: On the trail of the Great Charter|url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/destinations/europe/uk/11098674/Magna-Carta-On-the-trail-of-the-Great-Charter.html |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20220110/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/destinations/europe/uk/11098674/Magna-Carta-On-the-trail-of-the-Great-Charter.html |archive-date=10 January 2022 |url-access=subscription |url-status=live|access-date=4 November 2014|work=Telegraph|date=16 September 2014}}{{cbignore}}</ref> The fourth copy of the 1225 exemplification was held by the museum of the [[Public Record Office]] and is now held by [[The National Archives (United Kingdom)|The National Archives]].{{sfn|Lewis|1987|p=494}}<ref>{{cite web|title=Magna Carta|url=http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C3540504|publisher=The National Archives|access-date=19 January 2015}}</ref> The [[Society of Antiquaries of London|Society of Antiquaries]] also holds a draft of the 1215 charter (discovered in 2013 in a late-13th-century register from [[Peterborough Abbey]]), a copy of the 1225 third re-issue (within an early-14th-century collection of statutes) and a roll copy of the 1225 reissue.<ref>{{cite web|last1=Moss|first1=Richard|title=Society of Antiquaries to restore and display Magna Carta for 800th anniversary|url=http://www.culture24.org.uk/history-and-heritage/art485564-Society-of-Anitiquaries-to-restore-and-display-its-copies-of-the-Magna-Carta-for-800th-anniversary|publisher=Culture 24|access-date=13 June 2015}}</ref> |
|||
These bishops being witnesses (mentioned by the King as his advisers in the decision to sign the Charter): |
|||
[[File:Magna Carta (1297 version, Parliament House, Canberra, Australia) - 20080416.jpg|thumb|left|A 1297 copy of Magna Carta, owned by the Australian Government and on display in the Members' Hall of [[Parliament House, Canberra]]]] |
|||
*[[Stephen Langton]], [[Archbishop of Canterbury]], [[Cardinal (Catholicism)|Cardinal of the Holy Roman Church]], |
|||
Only two exemplifications of Magna Carta are held outside England, both from 1297. One of these was purchased in 1952 by the Australian Government for £12,500 from [[King's School, Bruton]], England.<ref>{{cite web |last=Evans |first=Harry |author-link=Harry Evans (Australian Senate clerk) |date=June 1998 |title=Bad King John and the Australian Constitution: Commemorating the 700th Anniversary of the 1297 Issue of Magna Carta |url=http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Senate/Research_and_Education/~/~/link.aspx?_id=8DC4A294677941F3806E20CFFF4D3053&_z=z |website=[[Parliament of Australia]] |series=Papers on Parliament No. 31 |publisher=}}</ref> Restored in 2024, this copy is now on display in the Members' Hall of [[Parliament House, Canberra|Parliament House]], Canberra.<ref>{{Cite web |last= |first= |date=2024-12-04 |title=Magna Carta |url=https://www.aph.gov.au/Visit_Parliament/Art/Icons/Magna_Carta |access-date= |website=[[Parliament of Australia]] |language=en-AU}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last= |first= |date=2024-12-04 |title=Conservation of the Magna Carta |url=https://www.aph.gov.au/Visit_Parliament/Art/Icons/Conservation_of_the_Magna_Carta |access-date= |website=[[Parliament of Australia]] |language=en-AU}}</ref> The second was originally held by the [[Earl of Cardigan|Brudenell family]], earls of [[Cardigan, Ceredigion|Cardigan]], before they sold it in 1984 to the [[Perot Foundation]] in the United States, which in 2007 sold it to U.S. businessman [[David Rubenstein]] for US$21.3 million.<ref>{{Cite news|work=The New York Times|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/25/nyregion/25magna.html|title=Magna Carta is going on the auction block|date=25 September 2007|access-date=19 December 2007| first=James| last=Barron}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|work=Sydney Morning Herald|url=http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/magna-carta-copy-fetches-24m/2007/12/19/1197740327098.html|title=Magna Carta copy fetches $24m|date=19 December 2007|access-date=19 December 2007 }}</ref><ref>{{cite news|last1=Edgers|first1=Geoff|title=Two Magna Cartas in D.C.|date=31 October 2014|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/entertainment/museums/two-magna-cartas-in-dc/2014/10/30/a24d2853-79ac-47cb-84c0-e200ba6591f7_story.html|newspaper=The Washington Post|access-date=4 November 2014}}</ref> Rubenstein commented "I have always believed that this was an important document to our country, even though it wasn't drafted in our country. I think it was the basis for the Declaration of Independence and the basis for the Constitution". This exemplification is now on permanent loan to the [[National Archives and Records Administration|National Archives]] in Washington, D.C.{{sfn|Vincent|2015|p=160}}<ref>{{cite news|last1=Hossack|first1=James|title=Magna Carta Sold at Auction for $21.3 Million|url=http://www.smh.com.au/world/magna-carta-sold-for-213-million-at-new-york-auction-20071219-1i1k.html|access-date=14 June 2015|work=The Sydney Morning Herald|date=19 December 2007}}</ref> Only two other 1297 exemplifications survive,<ref name="magnacartacanada.ca">{{cite web|last1=Harris|first1=Carolyn|title=Where is Magna Carta Today?|url=http://www.magnacartacanada.ca/883/|publisher=Magna Carta 2015 Canada|access-date=13 June 2015}}</ref> one of which is held in the UK's National Archives,<ref>{{cite web|title=Magna Carta|url=http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C3540630|publisher=National Archives|access-date=13 June 2015|year=1297}}</ref> the other in the [[Guildhall, London]].<ref name="magnacartacanada.ca"/> |
|||
* Henry, [[Archbishop of Dublin]] |
|||
*E. [[Bishop of London]], |
|||
*J. [[Bishop of Bath and Wells|Bishop of Bath]], |
|||
*P. [[Bishop of Winchester]], |
|||
*H. [[Bishop of Lincoln]], |
|||
*R. [[Bishop of Salisbury]], |
|||
*W. [[Bishop of Rochester]], |
|||
*W. [[Bishop of Worcester]], |
|||
*J. [[Bishop of Ely]], |
|||
*H. [[Bishop of Hereford]], |
|||
*R. [[Bishop of Chichester]], |
|||
*W. [[Bishop of Exeter]]. |
|||
Seven copies of the 1300 exemplification by Edward I survive,<ref name="magnacartacanada.ca"/><ref name="bbc.co.uk">{{cite news|title=Magna Carta edition found in Sandwich archive scrapbook|url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-31242433|access-date=13 June 2015|work=BBC|date=8 February 2015}}</ref> in [[Faversham]],<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.canterburytimes.co.uk/Faversham-gets-ready-celebrate-Magna-Carta/story-22936779-detail/story.html|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150212202659/http://www.canterburytimes.co.uk/Faversham-gets-ready-celebrate-Magna-Carta/story-22936779-detail/story.html|url-status=dead|archive-date=12 February 2015|title=Faversham gets ready to celebrate its Magna Carta artefact|access-date=13 June 2015|work=Faversham Times|date=17 September 2014}}</ref> [[Oriel College, Oxford]], the [[Bodleian Library]], [[Durham Cathedral]], [[Westminster Abbey]], the [[City of London]] (held in the archives at the [[London Guildhall]]<ref>{{cite web|title=New City of London Heritage Gallery to open at the Guildhall|date=27 August 2014 |url=http://advisor.museumsandheritage.com/features/new-city-of-london-heritage-gallery-to-open-at-the-guildhall/|publisher=Museums and Heritage Advisor|access-date=13 June 2015}}</ref>) and [[Sandwich, Kent|Sandwich]] (held in the [[Sandwich Guildhall|Sandwich Guildhall Museum]]).<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.sandwichguildhallmuseum.co.uk/home |title=About us|publisher= Sandwich Guildhall Museum| access-date=13 September 2023}}</ref> The Sandwich copy was rediscovered in early 2015 in a Victorian scrapbook in the town archives of [[Sandwich, Kent]], one of the [[Cinque Ports]].<ref name="bbc.co.uk"/> In the case of the Sandwich and Oriel College exemplifications, the copies of the [[Charter of the Forest]] originally issued with them also survive.<ref>{{cite news|newspaper=[[The Guardian]]|title=£10m Magna Carta found in council archives. Expert says discovery of 1300 edition of historic document raises hopes that there are more than the 24 copies currently known about in existence|author=Press Association|authorlink= PA Media |date=8 Feb 2015|url= https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2015/feb/08/10m-magna-carta-found-in-council-archives}}</ref> |
|||
===Abbots=== |
|||
These [[abbot]]s being witnesses: |
|||
== Clauses == |
|||
*the Abbot of [[Bury St. Edmunds Abbey|St. Edmunds]] |
|||
[[File:John penny.jpg|thumb|alt=A photograph of the "heads" side of a silver King John penny|upright|A [[silver]] King John [[penny]]. Much of Magna Carta concerned how royal revenues were raised.]] |
|||
*the Abbot of [[St Albans Cathedral|St. Albans]] |
|||
Most of the 1215 charter and later versions sought to govern the feudal rights of the Crown over the barons.{{sfn|Breay|2010|p=28}} Under the Angevin kings, and in particular during John's reign, the rights of the King had frequently been used inconsistently, often in an attempt to maximise the royal income from the barons. [[Feudal relief]] was one way that a king could demand money, and clauses 2 and 3 fixed the fees payable when an heir inherited an estate or when a minor came of age and took possession of his lands.{{sfn|Breay|2010|p=28}} |
|||
*the Abbot of [[Beaulieu Abbey|Bello]] |
|||
*the Abbot of [[St. Augustine's Abbey, Canterbury|St. Augustines in Canterbury]] |
|||
*the Abbot of [[Evesham Abbey|Evesham]] |
|||
*the Abbot of [[Westminster Abbey|Westminster]] |
|||
*the Abbot of [[Peterborough]] |
|||
*the Abbot of [[Reading Abbey|Reading]] |
|||
*the Abbot of [[Abingdon Abbey|Abingdon]] |
|||
*the Abbot of [[Malmesbury Abbey]] |
|||
*the Abbot of [[Winchcombe Abbey|Winchcomb]] |
|||
*the Abbot of [[Hyde Abbey, Winchester|Hyde]] |
|||
*the Abbot of [[Chertsey Abbey|Certesey]] |
|||
*the Abbot of [[Sherborne Abbey|Sherborne]] |
|||
*the Abbot of [[Cerne Abbey|Cerne]] |
|||
*the Abbot of [[Abbotsbury Abbey|Abbotebir]] |
|||
*the Abbot of [[Middleton]] |
|||
*the Abbot of [[Selby Abbey|Selby]] |
|||
*the Abbot of [[Cirencester Abbey|Cirencester]] |
|||
*the Abbot of [[Harstary Abbey|Hartstary]] |
|||
[[Scutage]] was a form of medieval taxation. All knights and nobles owed military service to the Crown in return for their lands, which theoretically belonged to the King. Many preferred to avoid this service and offer money instead. The Crown often used the cash to pay for mercenaries.{{sfn|Poole|1993|pp=16–17}} The rate of scutage that should be payable, and the circumstances under which it was appropriate for the King to demand it, was uncertain and controversial. Clauses 12 and 14 addressed the management of the process.{{sfn|Breay|2010|p=28}} |
|||
===Others=== |
|||
The English judicial system had altered considerably over the previous century, with the royal judges playing a larger role in delivering justice across the country. John had used his royal discretion to extort large sums of money from the barons, effectively taking payment to offer justice in particular cases, and the role of the Crown in delivering justice had become politically sensitive among the barons. Clauses 39 and 40 demanded due process be applied in the royal justice system, while clause 45 required that the King appoint knowledgeable royal officials to the relevant roles.{{sfn|Breay|2010|p=29}} |
|||
* Master Pandulff, subdeacon and member of the Papal Household |
|||
* Brother Aymeric, Master of the [[Knights Templar]] in England |
|||
Although these clauses did not have any special significance in the original charter, this part of Magna Carta became singled out as particularly important in later centuries.{{sfn|Breay|2010|p=29}} In the United States, for example, the [[Supreme Court of California]] interpreted clause 45 in 1974 as establishing a requirement in common law that a defendant faced with the potential of incarceration be entitled to a trial overseen by a legally trained judge.<ref>''Gordon v. Justice Court'', [http://online.ceb.com/calcases/C3/12C3d323.htm 12 Cal. 3d 323] (1974).</ref> |
|||
==Notes== |
|||
{{reflist|2}} |
|||
<div class="references-small"> |
|||
</div> |
|||
[[File:John of England (John Lackland).jpg|thumb|upright|[[John, King of England|King John]] holding a church, painted {{Circa|1250–1259}} by [[Matthew Paris]]]] |
|||
==References== |
|||
[[Royal forest]]s were economically important in medieval England and were both protected and exploited by the Crown, supplying the King with hunting grounds, raw materials, and money.{{sfn|Huscroft|2005|p=97}}{{sfn|Poole|1993|pp=29–30}} They were subject to special royal jurisdiction and the resulting forest law was, according to the historian Richard Huscroft, "harsh and arbitrary, a matter purely for the King's will".{{sfn|Huscroft|2005|p=97}} The size of the forests had expanded under the Angevin kings, an unpopular development.{{sfn|Poole|1993|p=29}} |
|||
*[http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9050003/Magna-Carta "Magna Carta"]. In ''[[Encyclopedia Britannica]]'' Online. |
|||
*[http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/pubs/occa_lect/flyers/171097.htm Article from Australia's Parliament House about the relevance of Magna Carta] |
|||
The 1215 charter had several clauses relating to the royal forests. Clauses 47 and 48 promised to deforest the lands added to the forests under John and investigate the use of royal rights in this area, but notably did not address the forestation of the previous kings, while clause 53 promised some form of redress for those affected by the recent changes, and clause 44 promised some relief from the operation of the forest courts.{{sfn|Breay|2010|p=32}} Neither Magna Carta nor the subsequent Charter of the Forest proved entirely satisfactory as a way of managing the political tensions arising in the operation of the royal forests.{{sfn|Breay|2010|p=32}} |
|||
*{{cite book | author=[[J. C. Holt]] | title=Magna Carta | location=Cambridge | publisher=Cambridge University Press | year=1992 |id=ISBN 0-521-27778-7}} |
|||
*Jennings: ''Magna Carta and its influence in the world today'' |
|||
Some of the clauses addressed wider economic issues. The concerns of the barons over the treatment of their debts to Jewish moneylenders, who occupied a special position in medieval England and were by tradition under the King's protection, were addressed by clauses 10 and 11.{{sfn|Poole|1993|pp=353, 474}} The charter concluded this section with the phrase "debts owing to other than Jews shall be dealt with likewise", so it is debatable to what extent the Jews were being singled out by these clauses.{{sfn|Hillaby|Hillaby|2013|p=23}} Some issues were relatively specific, such as clause 33 which ordered the removal of all [[fishing weir]]s—an important and growing source of revenue at the time—from England's rivers.{{sfn|Breay|2010|p=32}} |
|||
*H. Butterfield; ''Magna Carta in the Historiography of the 16th and 17th Centuries'' |
|||
*G.R.C. Davis; ''Magna Carta'' |
|||
The role of the English Church had been a matter for great debate in the years prior to the 1215 charter. The Norman and Angevin kings had traditionally exercised a great deal of power over the church within their territories. From the 1040s onwards successive popes had emphasised the importance of the church being governed more effectively from Rome, and had established an independent judicial system and hierarchical chain of authority.{{sfn|Huscroft|2005|p=190}} After the 1140s, these principles had been largely accepted within the English church, even if accompanied by an element of concern about centralising authority in Rome.{{sfn|Huscroft|2005|p=189}}{{sfn|Turner|2009|p=121}} |
|||
*J. C. Dickinson; ''The Great Charter'' |
|||
*G. B. Adams; ''Constitutional History of England'' |
|||
[[Investiture Controversy|These changes]] brought the customary rights of lay rulers such as John over ecclesiastical appointments into question.{{sfn|Huscroft|2005|p=189}} As described above, John had come to a compromise with Pope Innocent III in exchange for his political support for the King, and clause 1 of Magna Carta prominently displayed this arrangement, promising the freedoms and liberties of the church.{{sfn|Breay|2010|p=28}} The importance of this clause may also reflect the role of Archbishop Langton in the negotiations: Langton had taken a strong line on this issue during his career.{{sfn|Breay|2010|p=28}} |
|||
*A. Pallister; ''Magna Carta the Legacy of Liberty'' |
|||
*A. Lyon; ''Constitutional History of the United Kingdom'' |
|||
=== Clauses in detail === |
|||
*G. Williams and J. Ramsden; ''Ruling Britannia, A Political History of Britain 1688-1988'' |
|||
{{hidden begin|title={{center|Magna Carta clauses in the 1215 and later charters}}|style=border:solid 1px #aaa}} |
|||
*Royal letter promulgating the text of Magna Carta (1215), [http://libraries.theeuropeanlibrary.org/UnitedKingdom/treasures_en.xml treasure 3] of the [[British Library]] displayed via [[The European Library]] |
|||
{| class="wikitable sortable" style="width:100%;" |
|||
! scope="col" | {{ubl|1215 clause|{{sfn|Breay|2010|pp=49–54}}}} |
|||
! scope="col" | {{ubl|Description|{{sfn|Breay|2010|pp=49–54}}<ref name="All clauses">{{cite web|title=All clauses|url=http://magnacarta.cmp.uea.ac.uk/read/magna_carta_1215/!all|website=The Magna Carta Project|publisher=University of East Anglia|access-date=9 November 2014}}</ref>}} |
|||
! scope="col" | {{ubl|Included in later charters|{{sfn|Breay|2010|pp=49–54}}<ref name=sharples>{{harvnb|Thomson|2011}}</ref>}} |
|||
! scope="col" | Notes |
|||
|- |
|||
! scope="row" |1 |
|||
|Guaranteed the freedom of the English Church. |
|||
| Y |
|||
| Still in UK (England and Wales) law as clause 1 in the 1297 statute. |
|||
|- |
|||
! scope="row" |2 |
|||
| Regulated the operation of [[feudal relief]] upon the death of a baron. |
|||
| Y |
|||
|Repealed by [[Statute Law Revision Act 1863]] and [[Statute Law Revision (Ireland) Act 1872]].<ref name=natarchives>{{harvnb|UK Government|1297}}</ref> |
|||
|- |
|||
! scope="row" |3 |
|||
| Regulated the operation of feudal relief and minors' coming of age. |
|||
| Y |
|||
| Repealed by [[Statute Law Revision Act 1863]] and [[Statute Law Revision (Ireland) Act 1872]].<ref name=natarchives/> |
|||
|- |
|||
! scope="row" |4 |
|||
| Regulated the process of [[Ward (law)|wardship]], and the role of the guardian. |
|||
| Y |
|||
| Repealed by [[Statute Law Revision Act 1863]] and [[Statute Law Revision (Ireland) Act 1872]].<ref name=natarchives/> |
|||
|- |
|||
! scope="row" |5 |
|||
| Forbade the exploitation of a ward's property by his guardian. |
|||
| Y |
|||
| Repealed by [[Statute Law Revision Act 1863]] and [[Statute Law Revision (Ireland) Act 1872]].<ref name=natarchives/> |
|||
|- |
|||
! scope="row" |6 |
|||
| Forbade guardians from marrying a ward to a partner of lower social standing. |
|||
| Y |
|||
| Repealed by [[Statute Law Revision Act 1863]] and [[Statute Law Revision (Ireland) Act 1872]].<ref name=natarchives/> |
|||
|- |
|||
! scope="row" |7 |
|||
| Referred to the rights of a [[widow]] to receive promptly her [[dowry]] and inheritance. |
|||
| Y |
|||
|Repealed by [[Statute Law Revision Act 1863]] and [[Statute Law Revision (Ireland) Act 1872]].<ref name=natarchives/> |
|||
|- |
|||
! scope="row" |8 |
|||
| Forbade the forcible remarrying of widows and confirmed the royal veto over baronial marriages. |
|||
| Y |
|||
| Repealed by [[Administration of Estates Act 1925]], [[Administration of Estates Act (Northern Ireland) 1955]] and [[Statute Law (Repeals) Act 1969]].<ref name=natarchives/> |
|||
|- |
|||
! scope="row" |9 |
|||
| Established protection for debtors, confirming that a debtor should not have his lands seized as long as he had other means to pay the debt. |
|||
| Y |
|||
| Repealed by [[Statute Law (Repeals) Act 1969]].<ref name=natarchives/> |
|||
|- |
|||
! scope="row" |10 |
|||
| Regulated Jewish money lending, stating that children would not pay interest on a debt they had inherited while they were under age. |
|||
| N |
|||
| |
|||
|- |
|||
! scope="row" |11 |
|||
| Further addressed Jewish money lending, stating that a widow and children should be provided for before paying an inherited debt. |
|||
| N |
|||
| |
|||
|- |
|||
! scope="row" |12 |
|||
| Determined that [[scutage]] or aid, forms of medieval taxation, could be levied and assessed only by the common consent of the realm. |
|||
| N |
|||
| Some exceptions to this general rule were given, such as for the payment of ransoms. |
|||
|- |
|||
! scope="row" |13 |
|||
| Confirmed the liberties and customs of the [[City of London]] and other boroughs. |
|||
| Y |
|||
| Still in UK (England and Wales) law as clause 9 in the 1297 statute. |
|||
|- |
|||
! scope="row" |14 |
|||
| Described how senior churchmen and barons would be summoned to give consent for scutage and aid. |
|||
| N |
|||
| |
|||
|- |
|||
! scope="row" |15 |
|||
| Prohibited anyone from levying aid on their free men. |
|||
| N |
|||
| Some exceptions to this general rule were given, such as for the payment of ransoms. |
|||
|- |
|||
! scope="row" |16 |
|||
| Placed limits on the level of service required for a [[knight's fee]]. |
|||
| Y |
|||
| Repealed by [[Statute Law Revision Act 1948]].<ref name=natarchives/> |
|||
|- |
|||
! scope="row" |17 |
|||
| Established a fixed law court rather than one which followed the movements of the King. |
|||
| Y |
|||
| Repealed by [[Civil Procedure Acts Repeal Act 1879]].<ref name=natarchives/> |
|||
|- |
|||
! scope="row" |18 |
|||
| Defined the authority and frequency of county courts. |
|||
| Y |
|||
| Repealed by [[Civil Procedure Acts Repeal Act 1879]].<ref name=natarchives/> |
|||
|- |
|||
! scope="row" |19 |
|||
| Determined how excess business of a county court should be dealt with. |
|||
| Y |
|||
| |
|||
|- |
|||
! scope="row" |20 |
|||
| Stated that an amercement, a type of medieval fine, should be proportionate to the offence, but even for a serious offence the fine should not be so heavy as to deprive a man of his livelihood. Fines should be imposed only through local assessment. |
|||
| Y |
|||
|Repealed by [[Statute Law Revision Act 1863]] and [[Statute Law Revision (Ireland) Act 1872]].<ref name=natarchives/> |
|||
|- |
|||
! scope="row" |21 |
|||
| Determined that earls and barons should be fined only by other earls and barons. |
|||
| Y |
|||
| Repealed by [[Statute Law Revision Act 1863]] and [[Statute Law Revision (Ireland) Act 1872]].<ref name=natarchives/> |
|||
|- |
|||
! scope="row" |22 |
|||
| Determined that the size of a fine on a member of the clergy should be independent of the ecclesiastical wealth held by the individual churchman. |
|||
| Y |
|||
|Repealed by [[Statute Law Revision Act 1863]] and [[Statute Law Revision (Ireland) Act 1872]].<ref name=natarchives/> |
|||
|- |
|||
! scope="row" |23 |
|||
| Limited the right of feudal lords to demand assistance in building bridges across rivers. |
|||
| Y |
|||
| Repealed by [[Statute Law (Repeals) Act 1969]].<ref name=natarchives/> |
|||
|- |
|||
! scope="row" |24 |
|||
| Prohibited royal officials, such as sheriffs, from trying a crime as an alternative to a royal judge. |
|||
| Y |
|||
| Repealed by [[Statute Law (Repeals) Act 1969]].<ref name=natarchives/> |
|||
|- |
|||
! scope="row" |25 |
|||
| Fixed the royal rents on lands, with the exception of royal demesne manors. |
|||
| N |
|||
| |
|||
|- |
|||
! scope="row" |26 |
|||
| Established a process for dealing with the death of those owing debts to the Crown. |
|||
| Y |
|||
| Repealed by [[Crown Proceedings Act 1947]].<ref name=natarchives/> |
|||
|- |
|||
! scope="row" |27 |
|||
| Laid out the process for dealing with [[intestacy]]. |
|||
| N |
|||
|- |
|||
! scope="row" |28 |
|||
| Determined that a royal officer requisitioning goods must offer immediate payment to their owner. |
|||
| Y |
|||
| Repealed by [[Statute Law Revision Act 1863]] and [[Statute Law Revision (Ireland) Act 1872]].<ref name=natarchives/> |
|||
|- |
|||
! scope="row" |29 |
|||
| Regulated the exercise of [[castle-guard]] duty. |
|||
| Y |
|||
| Repealed by [[Statute Law Revision Act 1863]] and [[Statute Law Revision (Ireland) Act 1872]].<ref name=natarchives/> |
|||
|- |
|||
! scope="row" |30 |
|||
| Prevented royal officials from requisitioning horses or carts without the owner's consent. |
|||
| Y |
|||
| Repealed by [[Statute Law Revision Act 1863]] and [[Statute Law Revision (Ireland) Act 1872]].<ref name=natarchives/> |
|||
|- |
|||
! scope="row" |31 |
|||
| Prevented royal officials from requisitioning timber without the owner's consent. |
|||
| Y |
|||
| Repealed by [[Statute Law Revision Act 1863]] and [[Statute Law Revision (Ireland) Act 1872]].<ref name=natarchives/> |
|||
|- |
|||
! scope="row" |32 |
|||
| Prevented the Crown from confiscating the lands of felons for longer than a year and a day, after which they were to be returned to the relevant feudal lord. |
|||
| Y |
|||
| Repealed by [[Statute Law Revision Act 1948]].<ref name=natarchives/> |
|||
|- |
|||
! scope="row" |33 |
|||
| Ordered the removal of all [[fishing weir|fish weirs]] from rivers. |
|||
| Y |
|||
| Repealed by [[Statute Law (Repeals) Act 1969]].<ref name=natarchives/> |
|||
|- |
|||
! scope="row" |34 |
|||
| Forbade the issuing of [[writ]] ''precipes'' if doing so would undermine the right of trial in a local feudal court. |
|||
| Y |
|||
| Repealed by [[Statute Law Revision Act 1863]] and [[Statute Law Revision (Ireland) Act 1872]].<ref name=natarchives/> |
|||
|- |
|||
! scope="row" |35 |
|||
| Ordered the establishment of standard measures for wine, ale, corn, and cloth. |
|||
| Y |
|||
| Repealed by [[Statute Law Revision Act 1948]].<ref name=natarchives/> |
|||
|- |
|||
! scope="row" |36 |
|||
| Determined that writs for loss of life or limb were to be freely given without charge. |
|||
| Y |
|||
| Repealed by [[Offences Against the Person Act 1828]] and [[Offences Against the Person (Ireland) Act 1829]].<ref name=natarchives/> |
|||
|- |
|||
! scope="row" |37 |
|||
| Regulated the inheritance of Crown lands held by "fee-farm". |
|||
| Y |
|||
| Repealed by [[Statute Law Revision Act 1863]] and [[Statute Law Revision (Ireland) Act 1872]].<ref name=natarchives/> |
|||
|- |
|||
! scope="row" |38 |
|||
| Stated that no one should be put on trial based solely on the unsupported word of a royal official. |
|||
| Y |
|||
|Repealed by [[Statute Law Revision Act 1863]] and [[Statute Law Revision (Ireland) Act 1872]].<ref name=natarchives/> |
|||
|- |
|||
! scope="row" |39 |
|||
| Stated that no free man could be imprisoned or stripped of his rights or possessions without [[due process]] being legally applied. |
|||
| Y |
|||
| Still in UK (England and Wales) law as part of clause 29 in the 1297 statute. |
|||
|- |
|||
! scope="row" |40 |
|||
| Forbade the selling of justice, or its denial or delay.<ref name="PAMadisonDPC">{{cite web|last=Madison|first=P. A.|title=Historical Analysis of the first of the 14th Amendment's First Section|url=http://www.federalistblog.us/mt/articles/14th_dummy_guide.htm#equal|publisher=The Federalist Blog|access-date=19 January 2013|date=2 August 2010|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191118145152/http://www.federalistblog.us/mt/articles/14th_dummy_guide.htm#equal|archive-date=November 18, 2019|quote="The words "We will sell to no man" were intended to abolish the fines demanded by King John in order to obtain justice. "Will not deny" referred to the stopping of suits and the denial of writs. "Delay to any man" meant the delays caused either by the counter-fines of defendants, or by the prerogative of the King."}}</ref> |
|||
| Y |
|||
| Still in UK (England and Wales) law as part of clause 29 in the 1297 statute. |
|||
|- |
|||
! scope="row" |41 |
|||
| Guaranteed the safety and the right of entry and exit of foreign merchants. |
|||
| Y |
|||
| Repealed by [[Statute Law (Repeals) Act 1969]].<ref name=natarchives/> |
|||
|- |
|||
! scope="row" |42 |
|||
| Permitted men to leave England for short periods without prejudicing their allegiance to the King, with the exceptions for outlaws and wartime. |
|||
| N |
|||
| |
|||
|- |
|||
! scope="row" |43 |
|||
| Established special provisions for taxes due on estates temporarily held by the Crown. |
|||
| Y |
|||
| Repealed by [[Statute Law Revision Act 1863]] and [[Statute Law Revision (Ireland) Act 1872]].<ref name=natarchives/> |
|||
|- |
|||
! scope="row" |44 |
|||
| Limited the need for people to attend forest courts, unless they were actually involved in the proceedings. |
|||
| Y |
|||
| |
|||
|- |
|||
! scope="row" |45 |
|||
| Stated that the King should appoint only justices, constables, sheriffs, or bailiffs who knew and would enforce the law. |
|||
| N |
|||
| |
|||
|- |
|||
! scope="row" |46 |
|||
| Permitted barons to take guardianship of monasteries in the absence of an abbot. |
|||
| Y |
|||
| Repealed by [[Statute Law Revision Act 1863]] and [[Statute Law Revision (Ireland) Act 1872]].<ref name=natarchives/> |
|||
|- |
|||
! scope="row" |47 |
|||
| Abolished those royal forests newly created under King John's reign. |
|||
| Y |
|||
| |
|||
|- |
|||
! scope="row" |48 |
|||
| Established an investigation of "evil customs" associated with royal forests, with an intent to abolishing them. |
|||
| N |
|||
| |
|||
|- |
|||
! scope="row" |49 |
|||
| Ordered the return of hostages held by the King. |
|||
| N |
|||
| |
|||
|- |
|||
! scope="row" |50 |
|||
| Forbade any member of the [[Gérard d'Athée|d'Athée family]] from serving as a royal officer. |
|||
| N |
|||
| |
|||
|- |
|||
! scope="row" |51 |
|||
| Ordered that all foreign knights and mercenaries leave England once peace was restored. |
|||
| N |
|||
| |
|||
|- |
|||
! scope="row" |52 |
|||
| Established a process for giving restitution to those who had been unlawfully dispossessed of their "lands, castles, liberties, or of his right".<ref>{{cite web|title=The 1215 Magna Carta: Clause 52|url=http://magnacarta.cmp.uea.ac.uk/read/magna_carta_1215/Clause_52|website=The Magna Carta Project|publisher=University of East Anglia|access-date=22 July 2021}}</ref> |
|||
| N |
|||
| |
|||
|- |
|||
! scope="row" |53 |
|||
| Established a process for giving restitution to those who had been mistreated by forest law. |
|||
| N |
|||
| |
|||
|- |
|||
! scope="row" |54 |
|||
| Prevented men from being arrested or imprisoned on the testimony of a woman, unless the case involved the death of her husband. |
|||
| Y |
|||
| Repealed by [[Statute Law Revision Act 1863]] and [[Statute Law Revision (Ireland) Act 1872]].<ref name=natarchives/> |
|||
|- |
|||
! scope="row" |55 |
|||
| Established a process for remitting any unjust fines imposed by the King. |
|||
| N |
|||
| Repealed by [[Statute Law Revision Act 1863]] and [[Statute Law Revision (Ireland) Act 1872]].<ref name=natarchives/> |
|||
|- |
|||
! scope="row" |56 |
|||
| Established a process for dealing with Welshmen who had been unlawfully dispossessed of their property or rights. |
|||
| Y |
|||
| |
|||
|- |
|||
! scope="row" |57 |
|||
| Established a process for returning the possessions of Welshmen who had been unlawfully dispossessed. |
|||
| N |
|||
| |
|||
|- |
|||
! scope="row" |58 |
|||
| Ordered the return of Welsh hostages, including [[Llywelyn the Great|Prince Llywelyn]]'s [[Gruffydd ap Llywelyn Fawr|son]]. |
|||
| N |
|||
| |
|||
|- |
|||
! scope="row" |59 |
|||
| Established a process for the return of Scottish hostages, including [[Alexander II of Scotland|King Alexander]]'s sisters. |
|||
| N |
|||
| |
|||
|- |
|||
! scope="row" |60 |
|||
| Encouraged others in England to deal with their own subjects as the King dealt with his. |
|||
| Y |
|||
| |
|||
|- |
|||
! scope="row" |61 |
|||
| Provided for the application and observation of the charter by twenty-five of the barons. |
|||
| N |
|||
| |
|||
|- |
|||
! scope="row" |62 |
|||
| Pardoned those who had rebelled against the King. |
|||
| N |
|||
| Sometimes considered a subclause, "Suffix A", of clause 61.{{sfn|Hindley|1990|p=201}}<ref name="All clauses"/> |
|||
|- |
|||
! scope="row" |63 |
|||
| Stated that the charter was binding on King John and his heirs. |
|||
| N |
|||
| Sometimes considered a subclause, "Suffix B", of clause 61.{{sfn|Hindley|1990|p=201}}<ref name="All clauses"/> |
|||
|} |
|||
{{hidden end}} |
|||
=== Clauses remaining in English law === |
|||
Only three clauses of Magna Carta still remain on statute in England and Wales.{{sfn|Breay|2010|p=48}} These clauses concern 1) the freedom of the English Church, 2) the "ancient liberties" of the City of London (clause 13 in the 1215 charter, clause 9 in the 1297 statute), and 3) a right to due legal process (clauses 39 and 40 in the 1215 charter, clause 29 in the 1297 statute).{{sfn|Breay|2010|p=48}} In detail, these clauses (using the numbering system from the 1297 statute) state that: |
|||
{{blockquote| |
|||
* I. FIRST, We have granted to God, and by this our present Charter have confirmed, for Us and our Heirs for ever, that the Church of England shall be free, and shall have all her whole Rights and Liberties inviolable. We have granted also, and given to all the Freemen of our Realm, for Us and our Heirs for ever, these Liberties under-written, to have and to hold to them and their Heirs, of Us and our Heirs for ever. |
|||
* IX. THE [[City of London]] shall have all the old Liberties and Customs which it hath been used to have. Moreover We will and grant, that all other Cities, Boroughs, Towns, and the Barons of the [[Cinque Ports|Five Ports]], and all other Ports, shall have all their Liberties and free Customs. |
|||
* XXIX. NO Freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or be disseised of his Freehold, or Liberties, or free Customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any other wise destroyed; nor will We not pass upon him, nor condemn him, but by lawful judgment of his Peers, or by the [[Law of the land]]. We will sell to no man, we will not deny or defer to any man either Justice or Right.<ref name=UKStatute>{{cite web|url=http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?activeTextDocId=1517519 |title=(Magna Carta) (1297) (c. 9) |work=UK Statute Law Database |access-date=2 September 2007 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070905014018/http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?activeTextDocId=1517519 |archive-date=5 September 2007 }}</ref><ref name="PAMadisonDPC"/> |
|||
}} |
|||
=== Clauses in force in other countries ===<!-- The status of Magna Carta in other former British colonies could also be added. --> |
|||
Clauses of Magna Carta also remain in force in several countries that were formerly British colonies. British colonies received the common and statutory law in force at a particular time in England, often through specific [[Reception statute|reception statutes]] or by adoption into local law. As a result chapter 29 of the 1297 Magna Carta remains in force in [[New Zealand]]<ref name=":1" /> and the [[Australia|Australian]] states of [[New South Wales]],<ref>{{Cite web |title=Imperial Acts Application Act 1969 (NSW) s 6 |url=https://legislation.nsw.gov.au/view/html/inforce/current/act-1969-030#sec.6 |website=NSW Legislation}}</ref> [[Victoria (state)|Victoria]],<ref>{{Cite Legislation AU|Vic|act|iaaa1980240|Imperial Acts Application Act 1980}}</ref> [[Queensland]]<ref>{{Cite web |title=Imperial Acts Application Act 1984 (Qld) sch 1 |url=https://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/view/whole/html/inforce/current/act-1984-070#sch.1 |website=Queensland Legislation}}</ref> and the [[Australian Capital Territory]].<ref>{{Cite web |title=Magna Carta (1297) 25 Edw 1 c 29 |url=https://www.legislation.act.gov.au/a/db_1781/ |website=ACT Legislation Register}}</ref> The entirety of Magna Carta apart from chapter 26 remains in force in the Australian states of [[Western Australia]], [[Tasmania]], [[South Australia]] and the [[Northern Territory]].{{Sfn|Clark|2000|page=866}} |
|||
==See also== |
==See also== |
||
{{Portal|United Kingdom|Law}} |
|||
*[[Fundamental Laws of England]] |
|||
* [[Civil liberties in the United Kingdom]] |
|||
*[[History of democracy]] |
|||
*[[ |
* [[Charter of Liberties]] |
||
* [[Charter of the Forest]] |
|||
* [[Fundamental Laws of England]] |
|||
* [[Haandfæstning]] |
|||
* [[History of democracy]] |
|||
* [[History of human rights]] |
|||
* [[List of most expensive books and manuscripts]] |
|||
* ''[[Magna Carta (An Embroidery)]]'', 2015 artwork |
|||
* {{lang|la|[[Magna Carta Hiberniae]]}} – an issue of the English Magna Carta, or Great Charter of Liberties in Ireland |
|||
* [[Ordinances of 1311]] |
|||
* [[Statutes of Mortmain]] |
|||
== Explanatory notes == |
|||
{{Notelist|notes=|30em}} |
|||
==References== |
|||
{{Reflist|21em}} |
|||
==Sources== |
|||
{{refbegin|30em}} |
|||
* {{cite book | last = Aurell | first = Martin | year = 2003 | title = L'Empire de Plantagenêt, 1154–1224 | publisher = Tempus | location= Paris | isbn = 978-2262022822 |language=fr}} |
|||
*{{cite book|first1=John|last1=Baker|title=The Reinvention of Magna Carta 1216–1616|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=gsXeDQAAQBAJ|publisher=Cambridge University Press|date=2017|isbn=978-1-316-94973-3|via=Google Books|doi=10.1017/9781316940990}} |
|||
* {{cite book|last1=Barnes|first1=Thomas Garden|title=Shaping the Common Law: From Glanvill to Hale, 1188–1688|date=2008|publisher=Stanford University Press|isbn=978-0804779593|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=hJ6MPXP6MwMC&q=Magna+Charter+was+therefore+the+chief+cause+of+Democracy+in+England%2C+and+thus+a+Good+Thing+for+everyone+%28except+the+Common+People%29&pg=PA23}} |
|||
* {{cite book|last1=Black|first1=Charles|author-link=Charles Black (professor)|title=A New Birth of Freedom: Human Rights, Named and Unnamed|date=1999|publisher=Yale University Press|location=New Haven, CN|isbn=978-0300077346}} |
|||
* {{cite book |last=Blick |first=Andrew |title=Beyond Magna Carta: A Constitution for the United Kingdom |publisher=Bloomsbury |year=2015 |location=Oxford |isbn=978-1-84946-309-6}} |
|||
* {{cite book |last=Breay |first=Claire |author-link=Claire Breay |year=2010 |title=Magna Carta: Manuscripts and Myths |publisher=The British Library |location=London |isbn=978-0712358330 }} |
|||
* {{cite book |editor1-last=Breay |editor1-first=Claire |editor1-link=Claire Breay |editor2-last=Harrison |editor2-first=Julian |title=Magna Carta: Law, Liberty, Legacy |publisher=The British Library |location=London |year=2015 |isbn=978-0712357647 }} |
|||
* {{Cite book| first=Charles Henry|last=Browning|year=1898|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=hTUfAAAAMAAJ|title=The Magna Charta Barons and Their American Descendants with the Pedigrees of the Founders of the Order of Runnemede Deduced from the Sureties for the Enforcement of the Statutes of the Magna Charta of King John|oclc=9378577|location=Philadelphia|chapter=The Magna Charta Described|chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=hTUfAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA501}} |
|||
* {{cite book|last1=Burdett|first1=Francis|author-link=Francis Burdett|title=Sir Francis Burdett to His Constituents|date=1810|publisher=R. Bradshaw|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=S90zAQAAMAAJ&q=Francis+Burdett+Magna+Carta+repeal&pg=PA41}} |
|||
* {{cite book|last1=Carpenter|first1=David A.|author-link=David Carpenter (historian)|title=The Minority of Henry III|date=1990|publisher=University of California Press|location=Berkeley and Los Angeles|isbn=978-0413623607}} |
|||
* {{cite book | last = Carpenter | first = David | year = 1996 | title = The Reign of Henry III | publisher = Hambledon Press | location= London | isbn = 978-1852851378}} |
|||
* {{cite book|last1=Carpenter|first1=David A.|author-link=David Carpenter (historian)|title=Struggle for Mastery: The Penguin History of Britain 1066–1284|date=2004|publisher=Penguin|location=London|isbn=978-0140148244}} |
|||
* {{cite book|last1=Clanchy|first1=Michael T.|author-link=Michael Clanchy|title=Early Medieval England|date=1997|publisher=The Folio Society}} |
|||
* {{cite journal|last1=Clark|first1=David|title=The Icon of Liberty: The Status and Role of Magna Carta in Australian and New Zealand Law|journal=Melbourne University Law Review|date=2000|volume=24|issue=3|url=http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/MULR/2000/34.html}} |
|||
* {{cite book|last1=Cobbett|first1=William|last2=Howell|first2=Thomas Bayly|last3=Howell|first3=Th.J.|last4=Jardine|first4=William|title=Cobbett's Complete Collection of State Trials and Proceedings for High Treason and Other Crimes and Misdemeanors from the Earliest Period to the Present Time|date=1810|publisher=Bagshaw|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=DbVCAAAAcAAJ&q=cathedral+churches+throughout+our+realm%2C+there+to+remain%2C+and+shall+be+read&pg=PT501}} |
|||
* {{cite book|last1=Crouch|first1=David|title=William Marshal: Court, Career and Chivalry in the Angevin Empire 1147–1219|date=1996|publisher=Longman|isbn=978-0582037861}} |
|||
* {{cite book|last1=Danziger|first1=Danny|last2=Gillingham|first2=John|title=1215: The Year of Magna Carta|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=av1pjnpVRNAC&q=Cromwell+Magna+Carta&pg=PA271|date=2004|publisher=Hodder Paperbacks|isbn=978-0340824757}} |
|||
* {{cite book|last1=Davis|first1=G.R.C.|title=Magna Carta|date=1963|publisher=The British Library Publishing Division|isbn=978-0712300148}} |
|||
* {{cite book | last = Davis | first = John Paul | year = 2013 | title = The Gothic King: A Biography of Henry III | publisher = Peter Owen | location= London | isbn = 978-0720614800 }} |
|||
* {{cite book|last1=Drew|first1=Katherine F.|title=Magna Carta|date=2004|publisher=Greenwood Press|isbn=978-0313325908}} |
|||
* {{cite journal|last1=Edwards|first1=J.G.|title=Confirmatio Cartarum and Baronial Grievances in 1297|journal=The English Historical Review|date=1943|volume=58|issue=231|pages=273–300|jstor=554340|doi=10.1093/ehr/lviii.ccxxxi.273}} |
|||
* {{Cite thesis |last=Eele |first=Caroline |title=Perceptions of Magna Carta: Why has it been seen as significant? |url=http://magnacarta800th.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Perceptions-of-Magna-Carta-C-Eele-Dissertation.pdf |year=2013 |publisher=2014 Magna Carta 2015 Committee |access-date=18 November 2014 }} |
|||
* {{cite book|last1=Fryde|first1=Natalie|author-link=Natalie Fryde|title=Why Magna Carta? Angevin England Revisited|date=2001|publisher=LiT|location=Munster, Germany|isbn=978-3825856571}} |
|||
* {{cite book|last1=Fritze|first1=Ronald|last2=Robison|first2=William|title=Historical Dictionary of Late Medieval England 1272–1485|date=2002|publisher=Greenwood Press|isbn=978-0313291241}} |
|||
* {{cite book|last1=Galef|first1=David|author-link=David Galef|title=Second Thoughts: Focus on Rereading|date=1998|publisher=Wayne State University Press|location=Detroit, MI|isbn=978-0814326473}} |
|||
* {{cite book|last1=Goodman|first1=Ellen|title=The Origins of the Western Legal Tradition: From Thales to the Tudors|date=1995|publisher=Federation Press|isbn=978-1862871816|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=bB_0M9oviBQC&pg=PA260}} |
|||
* {{cite book|last1=Greenberg|first1=Janelle|title=The Radical Face of the Ancient Constitution: St Edward's 'Laws' in Early Modern Political Thought|date=2006|publisher=Cambridge University Press|location=Cambridge|isbn=978-0521024884}} |
|||
* {{cite book | last1 = Hallam | first1 = Elizabeth M. | last2 = Everard | first2 = Judith A. | edition = 2nd | year = 2001 | title = Capetian France, 987–1328 | publisher = Longman | location= Harlow, UK | isbn = 978-0582404281 }} |
|||
* {{cite book|last1=Hazeltine|first1=H.D.|chapter=The Influence of Magna Carta on American Constitutional Development|editor-last=Malden|editor-first=Henry Elliot|title=Magna Carta commemoration essays |date=1917|publisher=BiblioBazaar|isbn=978-1116447477}} |
|||
* {{cite journal|first1=R. H. |last1=Helmholz |title=The Myth of Magna Carta Revisited |journal=North Carolina Law Review |url=https://scholarship.law.unc.edu/nclr/vol94/iss5/5 |date=2014|pages=1475–1493|volume=94|issue=5 }} |
|||
* {{cite journal|first1=R. H.|last1=Helmholz|title=Magna Carta and the Law of Nature|url=https://law.loyno.edu/sites/law.loyno.edu/files/file_attach/Helmholz-Proof%20-1_30_17.pdf|journal=Loyola Law Review|date= 2016|pages=869–886|volume=62}} |
|||
* {{cite book|last1=Hewit|first1=H.J.|title=Mediaeval Cheshire|date=1929|publisher=Manchester University Press|location=Manchester, UK}} |
|||
* {{cite book|last1=Hill|first1=Christopher|author-link=Christopher Hill (historian)|title=Winstanley 'The Law of Freedom' and Other Writings|date=2006|publisher=Cambridge University Press|isbn=978-0521031608|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=_cnrjlrzUE4C&q=An+appeal+to+the+house+of+commons+Winstanley&pg=PA109}} |
|||
* {{cite book|last1=Hillaby|first1=Joe|last2=Hillaby|first2=Caroline|title=The Palgrave Dictionary of Medieval Anglo-Jewish History|date=2013|publisher=Palgrave Macmillan|isbn=978-1137308153|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Zb8hAQAAQBAJ&q=Magna+Carta+Debts+owing+to+other+than+Jews+shall+be+dealt+with+likewise&pg=PA23}} |
|||
* {{cite book|last1=Hindley|first1=Geoffrey|title=The Book of Magna Carta|date=1990|publisher=Constable|location=London|isbn=978-0094682405}} |
|||
* {{cite book|last1=Holt|first1=James C.|title=The Northerners: A Study in the Reign of King John|year=1992a|publisher=Oxford University Press|location= Oxford|isbn=978-0198203094|author-link=J. C. Holt}} |
|||
* {{Cite book|last1=Holt|first1=James C.|title=Magna Carta|location=Cambridge|publisher=Cambridge University Press|year=1992b |isbn=978-0521277785|author-link=J. C. Holt}} |
|||
* {{Cite book|last1=Holt|first1=James C.|title=Magna Carta|edition=3rd|location=Cambridge|publisher=Cambridge University Press|year=2015 |isbn=978-1107093164 |doi=10.1017/CBO9781316144596}} |
|||
* {{Cite book|last1=Holt|first1=James C.|title=The Ancient Constitution in Medieval England|publisher=Liberty Fund|year=2008|url=http://lf-oll.s3.amazonaws.com/titles/2180/Sandoz1470_LFeBk.pdf|orig-date=1993|isbn=978-0865977099|author-link=J. C. Holt}} |
|||
* {{cite journal|last1=Howard|first1=A.E. Dick|title=Magna Carta Comes To America|journal=Fourscore|date=2008|volume=58|issue=4}} |
|||
* {{cite book|last1=Huscroft|first1=Richard|title=Ruling England, 1042–1217|year=2005|publisher=Pearson|location= Harlow, UK|isbn=978-0582848825}} |
|||
* {{cite book | last = Jobson |first = Adrian | year = 2012 | title = The First English Revolution: Simon de Montfort, Henry III and the Barons' War | publisher = Bloomsbury | location= London | isbn = 978-1847252265 }} |
|||
* {{cite book|last1=Kennedy|first1=William Paul McClure|title=The Constitution of Canada|date=1922|publisher=Oxford University Press|location= Oxford}} |
|||
* {{cite book|last1=Kewes|first1=Paulina|title=The Uses of History in Early Modern England|date=2006|publisher=University of California Press|location=Berkeley|isbn=978-0873282192}} |
|||
* {{cite book|last1=Lewis|first1=Suzanne|title=The Art of Matthew Paris in the Chronica Majora|date=1987|publisher=University of California Press|isbn=978-0520049819|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=sXBdNsDxJ_cC&q=Four+exemplifications+1225+charter&pg=PA494}} |
|||
* {{cite book|last1=Linebaugh|first1=Peter|author-link=Peter Linebaugh|title=The Magna Carta Manifesto: Liberties and Commons for All|date=2009|publisher=University of California Press|location=Berkeley|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=2kx7KiTEZCsC&q=An+appeal+to+the+house+of+commons+Winstanley&pg=PA85|isbn=978-0520260009}} |
|||
* {{cite book|last = Mayr-Harting|first=Henry|author-link=Henry Mayr-Harting|year=2011|title=Religion, Politics and Society in Britain, 1066–1272|publisher=Longman|location= Harlow, UK|isbn=978-0582414136}} |
|||
* {{cite book|last1=McGlynn|first1=Sean|title=Blood Cries Afar: The Forgotten Invasion of England, 1216|date=2013|publisher=Spellmount|location=London|isbn=978-0752488318}} |
|||
* {{cite book|last1=Menache|first1=Sophia|title=Clement V|date=2003|publisher=Cambridge University Press|location=Cambridge|isbn=978-0521521987}} |
|||
* {{cite book|last1=Pocock|first1=J.G.A.|author-link=J. G. A. Pocock|title=The Ancient Constitution and the Feudal Law: A Study of English Historical Thought in the Seventeenth Century|date=1987|publisher=Cambridge University Press|location=Cambridge|isbn=978-0521316439}} |
|||
* {{cite book|last1=Pollard|first1=Albert Frederick|author-link=Albert Pollard|title=The history of England; a study in political evolution|date=1912|publisher=H. Holt|url=https://archive.org/details/historyenglanda00pollgoog}} |
|||
* {{cite book|last1=Poole|first1=Austin Lane|author-link=Austin Lane Poole|title=From Domesday Book to Magna Carta 1087–1216|date=1993|edition=2nd|orig-date=1951|publisher=Oxford University Press|location= Oxford}} |
|||
* {{cite journal |first=F.M. |last=Powicke |author-link=F. M. Powicke |title=The Bull 'Miramur Plurimum' and a Letter to Archbishop Stephen Langton, 5 September 1215 |journal=[[English Historical Review]] |volume=44 |year=1929 |pages=87–93 |doi=10.1093/ehr/xliv.clxxiii.87}} |
|||
* {{cite book|last1=Powicke|first1=Frederick Maurice|author-link=F. M. Powicke|title=The Thirteenth Century 1216–1307|date=1963|publisher=Oxford University Press|location= Oxford|isbn=978-0198217084}} |
|||
* {{cite book|last1=Prestwich|first1=Michael|author-link=Michael Prestwich|title=Edward I|date=1997|publisher=Yale University Press|location=New Haven, CN|isbn=978-0300071573}} |
|||
* {{ODNBweb |first=H. W. |last=Ridgeway |title=Henry III (1207–1272) |year=2010 |origyear=2004 |edition=online |id=12950 }} |
|||
* {{cite journal|first1=Max|last1=Radin|title=The Myth of Magna Carta|url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/1335742|journal=Harvard Law Review|date=1947|issn=0017-811X|pages=1060–1091|volume=60|issue=7|doi=10.2307/1335742|jstor=1335742 }} |
|||
* {{cite book|last=Rothwell|first=Harry|title=English Historical Documents 1189–1327|date=1975|publisher=Eyre & Spottiswoode|location=London|isbn=978-0413233004}} |
|||
* {{cite book|last1=Russell|first1=Conrad|author-link=Conrad Russell, 5th Earl Russell|title=Unrevolutionary England, 1603–1642|date=1990|publisher=Continnuum-3PL|isbn=978-1852850258}} |
|||
* {{cite book|last1=Scott|first1=Robert McNair|title=Robert The Bruce: King Of Scots|date=2014|publisher=Canongate Books|isbn=978-1847677464|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=ivEhAwAAQBAJ&q=How+shall+the+king+of+England+keep+faith+with+me&pg=PT155}} |
|||
* {{cite book|last1=Simmons|first1=Clare A.|chapter=Absent Presence: The Romantic-Era Magna Charta and the English Constitution|editor1-last=Shippey|editor1-first=Richard|editor2-last=Utz|editor2-first=Tom |title=Medievalism in the Modern World. Essays in Honour of Leslie J. Workman|publisher=Brepols Publishers|date=1998}} |
|||
* {{cite book|last1=Stimson|first1=Frederick Jessup|author-link=Frederic Jesup Stimson|title=The Law Of The Federal And State Constitutions Of The United States|date=2004|publisher=Lawbook Exchange Ltd|isbn=978-1584773696}} |
|||
* {{cite journal |first=Tim |last=Tatton-Brown |title=Magna Carta at 800: Uncovering its Landscape Archaeology |journal=Current Archaeology |issue=304 |date=July 2015 |pages=34–37}} |
|||
* {{cite book|last1=Thompson|first1=Faith|title=Magna Carta – Its Role In The Making Of The English Constitution 1300–1629|date=1948|publisher=University of Minnesota Press|location=Minneapolis|isbn=978-1299948686}} |
|||
* {{cite book|editor-last1=Sharples|editor-first1=Barry|chapter=Magna Carta Liberatum (The Great Charter of Liberties) The First Great Charter of King Edward The First Granted October 12th 1297|url=http://www.bsswebsite.me.uk/History/MagnaCarta/magnacarta-1297.doc|access-date=13 November 2014| last1=Thomson |first1=Richard |title=An Historical Essay on the Magna Charta of King John |date=2011 |orig-date=1829}} |
|||
* {{cite journal|last1=Turner|first1=Ralph V.|title=The Meaning of Magna Carta since 1215|journal=History Today|date=2003a|volume=53|issue=9|url=http://www.historytoday.com/ralph-v-turner/meaning-magna-carta-1215}} |
|||
* {{cite book|last1=Turner|first1=Ralph|title=Magna Carta: Through the Ages|date=2003b|publisher=Routledge|isbn=978-0582438262}} |
|||
* {{cite book|last1=Turner|first1=Ralph|title= King John: England's Evil King?|date=2009|publisher=History Press|location=Stroud, UK|isbn=978-0752448503}} |
|||
* {{cite web|title=Magna Carta (1297)|url=http://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/Edw1cc1929/25/9|publisher=UK Government|access-date=15 November 2014|ref = {{harvid|UK Government|1297}}}} |
|||
* {{cite book|last1=Vincent|first1=Nicholas|title=Magna Carta: A Very Short Introduction|date=2012|publisher=Oxford University Press|location=Oxford|isbn=978-0199582877}} |
|||
* {{cite book|last1=Vincent|first1=Nicholas|editor-last1=Vincent|editor-first1=Nicholas|title=Magna Carta: The Foundation of Freedom, 1215–2015|chapter=From World War to World Heritage: Magna Carta in the Twentieth Century|pages=154–169|date=2015|publisher=Third Millennium Publishing|location=London|isbn=978-1908990488}} |
|||
* {{cite book|last1=Warren|first1=W. Lewis|author-link=W. L. Warren|title= King John|date=1990|publisher=Methuen|location=London|isbn=978-0413455208}} |
|||
* {{cite book | last = Weiler | first = Björn K.U. | year = 2012 | title = Henry III of England and the Staufen Empire, 1216–1272 | publisher = Royal Historical Society: Boydell Press | location= Paris | isbn = 978-0861933198 }} |
|||
* {{cite journal|last1=White|first1=Albert Beebe|title=The Name Magna Carta|journal=The English Historical Review|date=1915|volume=XXX|issue=CXIX|pages=472–475|doi=10.1093/ehr/XXX.CXIX.472}} |
|||
* {{cite journal|last1=White|first1=Albert Beebe|title=Note on the Name Magna Carta|journal=The English Historical Review|date=1917|volume=XXXII|issue=CXXVIII|pages=545–555|doi=10.1093/ehr/XXXII.CXXVIII.554}} |
|||
* {{cite book|last1=Woolwrych|first1=Austin Herbert|author-link=Austin Herbert Woolrych|editor-last=Smith|editor-first=David Lee|title=Cromwell and Interregnum: The Essential Readings|date=2003|publisher=Wiley-Blackwell |isbn=978-0631227250|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=sW8ycm-sC9cC}} |
|||
* {{cite book|last1=Wright|first1=Herbert G.|title=The Life And Works Of Arthur Hall Of Grantham, Member Of Parliament, Courtier And First Translator Of Homer Into English|date=1919|publisher=Book on Demand}} |
|||
* {{cite book|last1=Wright|first1=Patrick|title=The River: A Thames Journey|date=1990|publisher=BBC Books|location=London|isbn=978-0563384786}} |
|||
{{refend}} |
|||
==Further reading== |
|||
* {{cite journal|journal=English Historical Review|first=S. T. |last=Ambler |author-link=Sophie T. Ambler |title=Magna Carta: Its Confirmation at Simon de Montfort's Parliament of 1265|date=August 2015|volume=CXXX|number=545|pages=801–830|doi=10.1093/ehr/cev202}} |
|||
* {{cite encyclopedia |last=Davies|first=Stephen |author-link= |editor-first=Ronald |editor-last=Hamowy |editor-link=Ronald Hamowy |title=The Encyclopedia of Libertarianism |chapter=Magna Carta|chapter-url=https://sk.sagepub.com/reference/libertarianism/n188.xml|url= https://books.google.com/books?id=yxNgXs3TkJYC |doi=10.4135/9781412965811.n188 |year=2008 |publisher= [[SAGE Publishing|Sage]]; [[Cato Institute]] |location= Thousand Oaks, CA |isbn= 978-1412965804 |oclc=750831024| <!-- lccn = 2008009151 | -->pages=313–314 }} |
|||
* {{cite book|last1=McKechnie|first1=William Sharp|title= Magna Carta: A Commentary on the Great Charter of King John with an Historical Introduction|location=Glasgow, UK|publisher=James Maclehose and Sons|year=1914|url=http://lf-oll.s3.amazonaws.com/titles/338/0032_Bk.pdf|author-link=William Sharp McKechnie}} |
|||
==External links== |
==External links== |
||
{{Wikisource|1=Source_Problems_in_English_History/Appendix/Magna_Carta._1215|2=Magna Carta}} |
|||
{{wikiquote}} |
|||
{{Wikisourcelang|la|Magna Carta}} |
|||
{{wikisource}} |
|||
{{Commons category|Magna Carta}} |
|||
*[http://www.bl.uk/collections/treasures/magna.html "Treasures in Full: Magna Carta"], two copies from 1215 from the [[British Library]] in multi-media format. |
|||
{{Wikiquote}} |
|||
*[http://www.magnacharta.com/articles/magna.htm magnacharta.com] |
|||
*[http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/featured_documents/magna_carta/legacy.html The influence of Magna Carta] on the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights |
|||
*[http://www.historicaldocuments.com/MagnaCarta.htm historicaldocuments.com] |
|||
*[http://www.aph.gov.au Parliament House, Canberra, Australia] |
|||
*[http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/magnacarta.html Text of Magna Carta] with introductory historical note. From the [[Internet Medieval Sourcebook]]. |
|||
*[http://www.constitution.org/eng/magnacar.htm Notes prepared by Nancy Troutman] |
|||
*[http://www.magnacartaplus.org/magnacarta/definitions.htm Magna Carta glossary] |
|||
{{Law}} |
|||
===Government websites=== |
|||
[[Category:1215 in law]] |
|||
* [http://www.bl.uk/magna-carta British Library] |
|||
* [http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/medieval/magna-carta/ National Archives UK] |
|||
* [http://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/evolutionofparliament/originsofparliament/birthofparliament/overview/magnacarta/ British Parliament] |
|||
===Academic websites=== |
|||
*[https://magnacartaresearch.org/ The Magna Carta Project] |
|||
===Texts=== |
|||
* {{UK-LEG|title=Magna Carta 1297|norig=yes|path=aep/Edw1cc1929/25/9/contents}} |
|||
* [http://www.orbilat.com/Languages/Latin/Texts/06_Medieval_period/Legal_Documents/Magna_Carta.html ''Magna Carta Libertatum''] Latin and English text of the 1215 charter |
|||
* [https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/source/magnacarta.asp Text of Magna Carta] English translation, with introductory historical note. From the [[Internet Medieval Sourcebook]]. |
|||
* {{librivox book | title=Magna Carta | author=Unknown}} |
|||
{{UK legislation}} |
|||
{{Authority control}} |
|||
[[Category:Magna Carta| ]] |
|||
[[Category:1215 in England]] |
|||
[[Category:1210s in law]] |
|||
[[Category:1215 works]] |
|||
[[Category:13th-century manuscripts]] |
|||
[[Category:Articles containing video clips]] |
|||
[[Category:Barons' Wars]] |
[[Category:Barons' Wars]] |
||
[[Category:Civil rights and liberties in the United Kingdom]] |
|||
[[Category:Civil rights and liberties legislation]] |
|||
[[Category:Constitutional laws of England]] |
[[Category:Constitutional laws of England]] |
||
[[Category: |
[[Category:Cotton Library]] |
||
[[Category: |
[[Category:History of human rights]] |
||
[[Category: |
[[Category:Medieval charters and cartularies of England]] |
||
[[Category: |
[[Category:Medieval English law]] |
||
[[Category:Memory of the World Register]] |
|||
[[Category:Political charters]] |
|||
[[af:Magna Carta]] |
|||
[[Category:Political history of medieval England]] |
|||
[[an:Carta Magna]] |
|||
[[Category:Democratization]] |
|||
[[ast:Carta Magna]] |
|||
[[bs:Magna Karta]] |
|||
[[bg:Велика харта на свободите]] |
|||
[[cs:Magna charta libertatum]] |
|||
[[da:Magna Carta]] |
|||
[[de:Magna Carta]] |
|||
[[et:Magna Carta]] |
|||
[[es:Carta Magna]] |
|||
[[eo:Magna Carta]] |
|||
[[fr:Magna Carta]] |
|||
[[ko:마그나 카르타]] |
|||
[[hr:Magna charta libertatum]] |
|||
[[id:Magna Carta]] |
|||
[[is:Magna Carta]] |
|||
[[it:Magna Carta]] |
|||
[[he:מגנה כרטה]] |
|||
[[ka:მაგნა კარტა]] |
|||
[[la:Magna Carta]] |
|||
[[lt:Magna Carta]] |
|||
[[mk:Магна Карта]] |
|||
[[nl:Magna Charta]] |
|||
[[ja:マグナ・カルタ]] |
|||
[[no:Magna Carta]] |
|||
[[nn:Magna Carta]] |
|||
[[pl:Magna Charta Libertatum]] |
|||
[[pt:Magna Carta]] |
|||
[[ru:Великая хартия вольностей]] |
|||
[[simple:Magna Carta]] |
|||
[[sk:Magna charta]] |
|||
[[sl:Velika listina svoboščin]] |
|||
[[sr:Магна Карта]] |
|||
[[fi:Magna Carta]] |
|||
[[sv:Magna Charta]] |
|||
[[th:มหากฎบัตร]] |
|||
[[tr:Magna Carta]] |
|||
[[uk:Магна Карта]] |
|||
[[ur:میگنا کارٹا]] |
|||
[[zh:大憲章]] |
Latest revision as of 06:47, 8 December 2024
Magna Carta | |
---|---|
Created | 1215 |
Location | Two at the British Library; one each in Lincoln Castle and in Salisbury Cathedral |
Author(s) | |
Purpose | Peace treaty |
Full text | |
Magna Carta at Wikisource |
Part of the Politics series |
Monarchy |
---|
Politics portal |
Magna Carta Libertatum (Medieval Latin for "Great Charter of Freedoms"), commonly called Magna Carta or sometimes Magna Charta ("Great Charter"),[a] is a royal charter[4][5] of rights agreed to by King John of England at Runnymede, near Windsor, on 15 June 1215.[b] First drafted by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Cardinal Stephen Langton, to make peace between the unpopular king and a group of rebel barons who demanded that the King confirm the Charter of Liberties, it promised the protection of church rights, protection for the barons from illegal imprisonment, access to swift and impartial justice, and limitations on feudal payments to the Crown, to be implemented through a council of 25 barons. Neither side stood by their commitments, and the charter was annulled by Pope Innocent III, leading to the First Barons' War.
After John's death, the regency government of his young son, Henry III, reissued the document in 1216, stripped of some of its more radical content, in an unsuccessful bid to build political support for their cause. At the end of the war in 1217, it formed part of the peace treaty agreed at Lambeth, where the document acquired the name "Magna Carta", to distinguish it from the smaller Charter of the Forest, which was issued at the same time. Short of funds, Henry reissued the charter again in 1225 in exchange for a grant of new taxes. His son, Edward I, repeated the exercise in 1297, this time confirming it as part of England's statute law. However, the Magna Carta was not unique; other legal documents of its time, both in England and beyond, made broadly similar statements of rights and limitations on the powers of the Crown. The charter became part of English political life and was typically renewed by each monarch in turn, although as time went by and the fledgling Parliament of England passed new laws, it lost some of its practical significance.
At the end of the 16th century, there was an upsurge in interest in Magna Carta. Lawyers and historians at the time believed that there was an ancient English constitution, going back to the days of the Anglo-Saxons, that protected individual English freedoms. They argued that the Norman invasion of 1066 had overthrown these rights and that Magna Carta had been a popular attempt to restore them, making the charter an essential foundation for the contemporary powers of Parliament and legal principles such as habeas corpus. Although this historical account was badly flawed, jurists such as Sir Edward Coke used Magna Carta extensively in the early 17th century, arguing against the divine right of kings. Both James I and his son Charles I attempted to suppress the discussion of Magna Carta. The political myth of Magna Carta and its protection of ancient personal liberties persisted after the Glorious Revolution of 1688 until well into the 19th century. It influenced the early American colonists in the Thirteen Colonies and the formation of the United States Constitution, which became the supreme law of the land in the new republic of the United States.
Research by Victorian historians showed that the original 1215 charter had concerned the medieval relationship between the monarch and the barons, rather than the rights of ordinary people. The majority of historians now see the interpretation of the charter as a unique and early charter of universal legal rights as a myth that was created centuries later. Despite the changes in views of historians, the charter has remained a powerful, iconic document, even after almost all of its content was repealed from the statute books in the 19th and 20th centuries. Magna Carta still forms an important symbol of liberty today, often cited by politicians and campaigners, and is held in great respect by the British and American legal communities, Lord Denning describing it in 1956 as "the greatest constitutional document of all times—the foundation of the freedom of the individual against the arbitrary authority of the despot". In the 21st century, four exemplifications of the original 1215 charter remain in existence, two at the British Library, one at Lincoln Castle and one at Salisbury Cathedral. There are also a handful of the subsequent charters in public and private ownership, including copies of the 1297 charter in both the United States and Australia. The 800th anniversary of Magna Carta in 2015 included extensive celebrations and discussions, and the four original 1215 charters were displayed together at the British Library. None of the original 1215 Magna Carta is currently in force since it has been repealed; however, four clauses of the original charter are enshrined in the 1297 reissued Magna Carta and do still remain in force in England and Wales.[c]
History
13th century
Background
Magna Carta originated as an unsuccessful attempt to achieve peace between royalist and rebel factions in 1215, as part of the events leading to the outbreak of the First Barons' War. England was ruled by King John, the third of the Angevin kings. Although the kingdom had a robust administrative system, the nature of government under the Angevin monarchs was ill-defined and uncertain.[6][7] John and his predecessors had ruled using the principle of vis et voluntas, or "force and will", taking executive and sometimes arbitrary decisions, often justified on the basis that a king was above the law.[7] Many contemporary writers believed that monarchs should rule in accordance with the custom and the law, with the counsel of the leading members of the realm, but there was no model for what should happen if a king refused to do so.[7]
John had lost most of his ancestral lands in France to King Philip II in 1204 and had struggled to regain them for many years, raising extensive taxes on the barons to accumulate money to fight a war which ended in expensive failure in 1214.[8] Following the defeat of his allies at the Battle of Bouvines, John had to sue for peace and pay compensation.[9] John was already personally unpopular with many of the barons, many of whom owed money to the Crown, and little trust existed between the two sides.[10][11][12] A triumph would have strengthened his position, but in the face of his defeat, within a few months after his return from France, John found that rebel barons in the north and east of England were organising resistance to his rule.[13][14]
The rebels took an oath that they would "stand fast for the liberty of the church and the realm", and demanded that the King confirm the Charter of Liberties that had been declared by King Henry I in the previous century, and which was perceived by the barons to protect their rights.[14][15][16] The rebel leadership was unimpressive by the standards of the time, even disreputable, but were united by their hatred of John;[17] Robert Fitzwalter, later elected leader of the rebel barons, claimed publicly that John had attempted to rape his daughter,[18] and was implicated in a plot to assassinate John in 1212.[19]
John held a council in London in January 1215 to discuss potential reforms, and sponsored discussions in Oxford between his agents and the rebels during the spring.[20] Both sides appealed to Pope Innocent III for assistance in the dispute.[21] During the negotiations, the rebellious barons produced an initial document, which historians have termed "the Unknown Charter of Liberties", which drew on Henry I's Charter of Liberties for much of its language; seven articles from that document later appeared in the "Articles of the Barons" and the subsequent charter.[22][23][24]
It was John's hope that the Pope would give him valuable legal and moral support, and accordingly John played for time; the King had declared himself to be a papal vassal in 1213 and correctly believed he could count on the Pope for help.[21][25] John also began recruiting mercenary forces from France, although some were later sent back to avoid giving the impression that the King was escalating the conflict.[20] In a further move to shore up his support, John took an oath to become a crusader, a move which gave him additional political protection under church law, even though many felt the promise was insincere.[26][27]
Letters backing John arrived from the Pope in April, but by then the rebel barons had organised into a military faction. They congregated at Northampton in May and renounced their feudal ties to John, marching on London, Lincoln, and Exeter.[28] John's efforts to appear moderate and conciliatory had been largely successful, but once the rebels held London, they attracted a fresh wave of defectors from the royalists.[29] The King offered to submit the problem to a committee of arbitration with the Pope as the supreme arbiter, but this was not attractive to the rebels.[30] Stephen Langton, the archbishop of Canterbury, had been working with the rebel barons on their demands, and after the suggestion of papal arbitration failed, John instructed Langton to organise peace talks.[29][31]
Great Charter of 1215
John met the rebel leaders at Runnymede, a water-meadow on the south bank of the River Thames, on 10 June 1215. Runnymede was a traditional place for assemblies, but it was also located on neutral ground between the royal fortress of Windsor Castle and the rebel base at Staines, and offered both sides the security of a rendezvous where they were unlikely to find themselves at a military disadvantage.[32][33] Here the rebels presented John with their draft demands for reform, the 'Articles of the Barons'.[29][31][34] Stephen Langton's pragmatic efforts at mediation over the next ten days turned these incomplete demands into a charter capturing the proposed peace agreement; a few years later, this agreement was renamed Magna Carta, meaning "Great Charter".[31][34][35] By 15 June, general agreement had been made on a text, and on 19 June, the rebels renewed their oaths of loyalty to John and copies of the charter were formally issued.[31][34]
Although, as the historian David Carpenter has noted, the charter "wasted no time on political theory", it went beyond simply addressing individual baronial complaints, and formed a wider proposal for political reform.[29][36] It promised the protection of church rights, protection from illegal imprisonment, access to swift justice, and, most importantly, limitations on taxation and other feudal payments to the Crown, with certain forms of feudal taxation requiring baronial consent.[13][37] It focused on the rights of free men—in particular, the barons.[36] The rights of serfs were included in articles 16, 20 and 28.[38][d] Its style and content reflected Henry I's Charter of Liberties, as well as a wider body of legal traditions, including the royal charters issued to towns, the operations of the Church and baronial courts and European charters such as the Statute of Pamiers.[41][42] The Magna Carta reflected other legal documents of its time, in England and beyond, which made broadly similar statements of rights and limitations on the powers of the Crown.[43][44][45]
Under what historians later labelled "clause 61", or the "security clause", a council of 25 barons would be created to monitor and ensure John's future adherence to the charter.[46] If John did not conform to the charter within 40 days of being notified of a transgression by the council, the 25 barons were empowered by clause 61 to seize John's castles and lands until, in their judgement, amends had been made.[47] Men were to be compelled to swear an oath to assist the council in controlling the King, but once redress had been made for any breaches, the King would continue to rule as before.[48]
This article is part of a series on |
Politics of the United Kingdom |
---|
United Kingdom portal |
In one sense this was not unprecedented. Other kings had previously conceded the right of individual resistance to their subjects if the King did not uphold his obligations. Magna Carta was novel in that it set up a formally recognised means of collectively coercing the King.[48] The historian Wilfred Warren argues that it was almost inevitable that the clause would result in civil war, as it "was crude in its methods and disturbing in its implications".[49] The barons were trying to force John to keep to the charter, but clause 61 was so heavily weighted against the King that this version of the charter could not survive.[47]
John and the rebel barons did not trust each other, and neither side seriously attempted to implement the peace accord.[46][50] The 25 barons selected for the new council were all rebels, chosen by the more extremist barons, and many among the rebels found excuses to keep their forces mobilised.[51][52][53] Disputes began to emerge between the royalist faction and those rebels who had expected the charter to return lands that had been confiscated.[54]
Clause 61 of Magna Carta contained a commitment from John that he would "seek to obtain nothing from anyone, in our own person or through someone else, whereby any of these grants or liberties may be revoked or diminished".[55][56] Despite this, the King appealed to Pope Innocent for help in July, arguing that the charter compromised the Pope's rights as John's feudal lord.[54][57] As part of the June peace deal, the barons were supposed to surrender London by 15 August, but this they refused to do.[58] Meanwhile, instructions from the Pope arrived in August, written before the peace accord, with the result that papal commissioners excommunicated the rebel barons and suspended Langton from office in early September.[59]
Once aware of the charter, the Pope responded in detail: in a letter dated 24 August and arriving in late September, he declared the charter to be "not only shameful and demeaning but also illegal and unjust" since John had been "forced to accept" it, and accordingly the charter was "null, and void of all validity for ever"; under threat of excommunication, the King was not to observe the charter, nor the barons try to enforce it.[54][58][60][61]
By then, violence had broken out between the two sides. Less than three months after it had been agreed, John and the loyalist barons firmly repudiated the failed charter: the First Barons' War erupted.[54][62][63] The rebel barons concluded that peace with John was impossible, and turned to Philip II's son, the future Louis VIII, for help, offering him the English throne.[54][64][e] The war soon settled into a stalemate. The King became ill and died on the night of 18 October 1216, leaving the nine-year-old Henry III as his heir.[65]
Charters of the Welsh Princes
Magna Carta was the first document in which reference is made to English and Welsh law alongside one another, including the principle of the common acceptance of the lawful judgement of peers.
Chapter 56: The return of lands and liberties to Welshmen if those lands and liberties had been taken by English (and vice versa) without a law abiding judgement of their peers.
Chapter 57: The return of Gruffudd ap Llywelyn ap Iorwerth, illegitimate son of Llywelyn ap Iorwerth (Llywelyn the Great) along with other Welsh hostages which were originally taken for "peace" and "good".[66][67]
Counsellors named in Magna Carta
The preamble to Magna Carta includes the names of the following 27 ecclesiastical and secular magnates who had counselled John to accept its terms. The names include some of the moderate reformers, notably Archbishop Stephen Langton, and some of John's loyal supporters, such as William Marshal, Earl of Pembroke. They are listed here in the order in which they appear in the charter itself:[68]
- Stephen Langton, Archbishop of Canterbury and Cardinal
- Henry de Loundres, Archbishop of Dublin
- William of Sainte-Mère-Église, Bishop of London
- Peter des Roches, Bishop of Winchester
- Jocelin of Wells, Bishop of Bath and Glastonbury
- Hugh of Wells, Bishop of Lincoln
- Walter de Gray, Bishop of Worcester
- William de Cornhill, Bishop of Coventry
- Benedict of Sausetun, Bishop of Rochester
- Pandulf Verraccio, subdeacon and papal legate to England
- Aimery de Sainte-Maure, Master of the Knights Templar in England
- William Marshal, Earl of Pembroke
- William Longespée, Earl of Salisbury
- William de Warenne, Earl of Surrey
- William d'Aubigny, Earl of Arundel
- Alan of Galloway, Constable of Scotland
- Warin FitzGerold
- Peter FitzHerbert
- Hubert de Burgh, Seneschal of Poitou
- Hugh de Neville
- Matthew FitzHerbert
- Thomas Basset
- Alan Basset
- Philip d'Aubigny
- Robert of Ropsley
- John Marshal
- John FitzHugh
The Council of Twenty-Five Barons
The names of the Twenty-Five Barons appointed under clause 61 to monitor John's future conduct are not given in the charter itself, but do appear in four early sources, all seemingly based on a contemporary listing: a late-13th-century collection of law tracts and statutes, a Reading Abbey manuscript now in Lambeth Palace Library, and the Chronica Majora and Liber Additamentorum of Matthew Paris.[69][70][71] The process of appointment is not known, but the names were drawn almost exclusively from among John's more active opponents.[72] They are listed here in the order in which they appear in the original sources:
- Richard de Clare, Earl of Hertford
- William de Forz, Earl of Albemarle
- Geoffrey de Mandeville, Earl of Essex and Gloucester
- Saer de Quincy, Earl of Winchester
- Henry de Bohun, Earl of Hereford
- Roger Bigod, Earl of Norfolk and Suffolk
- Robert de Vere, Earl of Oxford
- William Marshal junior
- Robert Fitzwalter, baron of Little Dunmow
- Gilbert de Clare, heir to the earldom of Hertford
- Eustace de Vesci, Lord of Alnwick Castle
- Hugh Bigod, heir to the Earldoms of Norfolk and Suffolk
- William de Mowbray, Lord of Axholme Castle
- William Hardell, Mayor of the City of London
- William de Lanvallei, Lord of Walkern
- Robert de Ros, Baron of Helmsley
- John de Lacy, Constable of Chester and Lord of Pontefract Castle
- Richard de Percy
- John FitzRobert de Clavering, Lord of Warkworth Castle
- William Malet
- Geoffrey de Saye
- Roger de Montbegon, Lord of Hornby Castle, Lancashire[f]
- William of Huntingfield, Sheriff of Norfolk and Suffolk
- Richard de Montfichet
- William d'Aubigny, Lord of Belvoir
Excommunicated rebels
In September 1215, the papal commissioners in England—Subdeacon Pandulf, Peter des Roches, Bishop of Winchester, and Simon, Abbot of Reading—excommunicated the rebels, acting on instructions earlier received from Rome. A letter sent by the commissioners from Dover on 5 September to Archbishop Langton explicitly names nine senior rebel barons (all members of the Council of Twenty-Five), and six clerics numbered among the rebel ranks:[73]
Barons
Clerics
- Giles de Braose, Bishop of Hereford
- William, Archdeacon of Hereford
- Alexander the clerk (possibly Alexander of St Albans)
- Osbert de Samara
- John de Fereby
- Robert, chaplain to Robert Fitzwalter
Great Charter of 1216
Although the Charter of 1215 was a failure as a peace treaty, it was resurrected under the new government of the young Henry III as a way of drawing support away from the rebel faction. On his deathbed, King John appointed a council of thirteen executors to help Henry reclaim the kingdom, and requested that his son be placed into the guardianship of William Marshal, one of the most famous knights in England.[74] William knighted the boy, and Cardinal Guala Bicchieri, the papal legate to England, then oversaw his coronation at Gloucester Cathedral on 28 October.[75][76][77]
The young King inherited a difficult situation, with over half of England occupied by the rebels.[78][79] He had substantial support though from Guala, who intended to win the civil war for Henry and punish the rebels.[80] Guala set about strengthening the ties between England and the Papacy, starting with the coronation itself, during which Henry gave homage to the Papacy, recognising the Pope as his feudal lord.[75][81] Pope Honorius III declared that Henry was the Pope's vassal and ward, and that the legate had complete authority to protect Henry and his kingdom.[75] As an additional measure, Henry took the cross, declaring himself a crusader and thereby entitled to special protection from Rome.[75]
The war was not going well for the loyalists, but Prince Louis and the rebel barons were also finding it difficult to make further progress.[82][83] John's death had defused some of the rebel concerns, and the royal castles were still holding out in the occupied parts of the country.[83][84] Henry's government encouraged the rebel barons to come back to his cause in exchange for the return of their lands, and reissued a version of the 1215 Charter, albeit having first removed some of the clauses, including those unfavourable to the Papacy and clause 61, which had set up the council of barons.[85][86] The move was not successful, and opposition to Henry's new government hardened.[87]
Great Charter of 1217
In February 1217, Louis set sail for France to gather reinforcements.[88] In his absence, arguments broke out between Louis' French and English followers, and Cardinal Guala declared that Henry's war against the rebels was the equivalent of a religious crusade.[89] This declaration resulted in a series of defections from the rebel movement, and the tide of the conflict swung in Henry's favour.[90] Louis returned at the end of April, but his northern forces were defeated by William Marshal at the Battle of Lincoln in May.[91][92]
Meanwhile, support for Louis' campaign was diminishing in France, and he concluded that the war in England was lost.[93] He negotiated terms with Cardinal Guala, under which Louis would renounce his claim to the English throne. In return, his followers would be given back their lands, any sentences of excommunication would be lifted, and Henry's government would promise to enforce the charter of the previous year.[94] The proposed agreement soon began to unravel amid claims from some loyalists that it was too generous towards the rebels, particularly the clergy who had joined the rebellion.[95]
In the absence of a settlement, Louis stayed in London with his remaining forces, hoping for the arrival of reinforcements from France.[95] When the expected fleet arrived in August, it was intercepted and defeated by loyalists at the Battle of Sandwich.[96] Louis entered into fresh peace negotiations. The factions came to agreement on the final Treaty of Lambeth, also known as the Treaty of Kingston, on 12 and 13 September 1217.[96]
The treaty was similar to the first peace offer, but excluded the rebel clergy, whose lands and appointments remained forfeit. It included a promise that Louis' followers would be allowed to enjoy their traditional liberties and customs, referring back to the Charter of 1216.[97] Louis left England as agreed. He joined the Albigensian Crusade in the south of France, bringing the war to an end.[93]
A great council was called in October and November to take stock of the post-war situation. This council is thought to have formulated and issued the Charter of 1217.[98] The charter resembled that of 1216, although some additional clauses were added to protect the rights of the barons over their feudal subjects, and the restrictions on the Crown's ability to levy taxation were watered down.[99] There remained a range of disagreements about the management of the royal forests, which involved a special legal system that had resulted in a source of considerable royal revenue. Complaints existed over both the implementation of these courts, and the geographic boundaries of the royal forests.[100]
A complementary charter, the Charter of the Forest, was created, pardoning existing forest offences, imposing new controls over the forest courts, and establishing a review of the forest boundaries.[100] To distinguish the two charters, the term 'magna carta libertatum' ("the great charter of liberties") was used by the scribes to refer to the larger document, which in time became known simply as Magna Carta.[101][102]
Great Charter of 1225
Magna Carta became increasingly embedded into English political life during Henry III's minority.[103] As the King grew older, his government slowly began to recover from the civil war, regaining control of the counties and beginning to raise revenue once again, taking care not to overstep the terms of the charters.[104] Henry remained a minor and his government's legal ability to make permanently binding decisions on his behalf was limited. In 1223, the tensions over the status of the charters became clear in the royal court, when Henry's government attempted to reassert its rights over its properties and revenues in the counties, facing resistance from many communities that argued—if sometimes incorrectly—that the charters protected the new arrangements.[105][106]
This resistance resulted in an argument between Archbishop Langton and William Brewer over whether the King had any duty to fulfil the terms of the charters, given that he had been forced to agree to them.[107] On this occasion, Henry gave oral assurances that he considered himself bound by the charters, enabling a royal inquiry into the situation in the counties to progress.[108]
In 1225, the question of Henry's commitment to the charters re-emerged, when Louis VIII of France invaded Henry's remaining provinces in France, Poitou and Gascony.[109][110] Henry's army in Poitou was under-resourced, and the province quickly fell.[111] It became clear that Gascony would also fall unless reinforcements were sent from England.[112] In early 1225, a great council approved a tax of £40,000 to dispatch an army, which quickly retook Gascony.[113][114] In exchange for agreeing to support Henry, the barons demanded that the King reissue Magna Carta and the Charter of the Forest.[115][116] The content was almost identical to the 1217 versions, but in the new versions, the King declared that the charters were issued of his own "spontaneous and free will" and confirmed them with the royal seal, giving the new Great Charter and the Charter of the Forest of 1225 much more authority than the previous versions.[116][117]
The barons anticipated that the King would act in accordance with these charters, subject to the law and moderated by the advice of the nobility.[118][119] Uncertainty continued, and in 1227, when he was declared of age and able to rule independently, Henry announced that future charters had to be issued under his own seal.[120][121] This brought into question the validity of the previous charters issued during his minority, and Henry actively threatened to overturn the Charter of the Forest unless the taxes promised in return for it were actually paid.[120][121] In 1253, Henry confirmed the charters once again in exchange for taxation.[122]
Henry placed a symbolic emphasis on rebuilding royal authority, but his rule was relatively circumscribed by Magna Carta.[77][123] He generally acted within the terms of the charters, which prevented the Crown from taking extrajudicial action against the barons, including the fines and expropriations that had been common under his father, John.[77][123] The charters did not address the sensitive issues of the appointment of royal advisers and the distribution of patronage, and they lacked any means of enforcement if the King chose to ignore them.[124] The inconsistency with which he applied the charters over the course of his rule alienated many barons, even those within his own faction.[77]
Despite the various charters, the provision of royal justice was inconsistent and driven by the needs of immediate politics: sometimes action would be taken to address a legitimate baronial complaint, while on other occasions the problem would simply be ignored.[125] The royal courts, which toured the country to provide justice at the local level, typically for lesser barons and the gentry claiming grievances against major lords, had little power, allowing the major barons to dominate the local justice system.[126] Henry's rule became lax and careless, resulting in a reduction in royal authority in the provinces and, ultimately, the collapse of his authority at court.[77][126]
In 1258, a group of barons seized power from Henry in a coup d'état, citing the need to strictly enforce Magna Carta and the Charter of the Forest, creating a new baronial-led government to advance reform through the Provisions of Oxford.[127] The barons were not militarily powerful enough to win a decisive victory, and instead appealed to Louis IX of France in 1263–1264 to arbitrate on their proposed reforms. The reformist barons argued their case based on Magna Carta, suggesting that it was inviolable under English law and that the King had broken its terms.[128]
Louis came down firmly in favour of Henry, but the French arbitration failed to achieve peace as the rebellious barons refused to accept the verdict. England slipped back into the Second Barons' War, which was won by Henry's son, the Lord Edward. Edward also invoked Magna Carta in advancing his cause, arguing that the reformers had taken matters too far and were themselves acting against Magna Carta.[129] In a conciliatory gesture after the barons had been defeated, in 1267 Henry issued the Statute of Marlborough, which included a fresh commitment to observe the terms of Magna Carta.[130]
Witnesses in 1225
The following 65 individuals were witnesses to the 1225 issue of Magna Carta, named in the order in which they appear in the charter itself:[131]
- Stephen Langton, Archbishop of Canterbury and Cardinal
- Eustace of Fauconberg, Bishop of London
- Jocelin of Wells, Bishop of Bath
- Peter des Roches, Bishop of Winchester
- Hugh of Wells, Bishop of Lincoln
- Richard Poore, Bishop of Salisbury
- Benedict of Sausetun, Bishop of Rochester
- William de Blois, Bishop of Worcester
- John of Fountains, Bishop of Ely
- Hugh Foliot, Bishop of Hereford
- Ralph Neville, Bishop of Chichester
- William Briwere, Bishop of Exeter
- William of Trumpington, Abbot of St Albans
- Hugh of Northwold, Abbot of Bury St Edmunds
- Richard, Abbot of Battle
- the Abbot of St Augustine's, Canterbury
- Randulf of Evesham, Abbot of Evesham
- Richard of Barking, Abbot of Westminster
- Alexander of Holderness, Abbot of Peterborough
- Simon, Abbot of Reading
- Robert of Hendred, Abbot of Abingdon
- John Walsh, Abbot of Malmesbury
- the Abbot of Winchcombe
- the Abbot of Hyde
- the Abbot of Chertsey
- the Abbot of Sherborne
- the Abbot of Cerne
- the Abbot of Abbotsbury
- the Abbot of Milton
- the Abbot of Selby
- the Abbot of Whitby
- the Abbot of Cirencester
- Hubert de Burgh, Justiciar of England and Ireland
- Ranulf, Earl of Chester and Lincoln
- William Longespée, Earl of Salisbury
- William de Warenne, Earl of Surrey
- Gilbert de Clare, Earl of Gloucester and Hertford
- William de Ferrers, Earl of Derby
- William de Mandeville, Earl of Essex
- Hugh Bigod, Earl of Norfolk
- William de Forz, Earl of Albemarle
- Humphrey de Bohun, Earl of Hereford
- John de Lacy, Constable of Chester
- Robert de Ros
- Robert Fitzwalter
- Robert de Vieuxpont
- William Brewer
- Richard de Montfichet
- Peter FitzHerbert
- Matthew FitzHerbert
- William d'Aubigny
- Robert Gresley
- Reginald de Braose
- John of Monmouth
- John FitzAlan
- Hugh de Mortimer
- William de Beauchamp
- William de St John
- Peter de Maulay
- Brian de Lisle
- Thomas of Moulton
- Richard de Argentan
- Geoffrey de Neville
- William de Maudit
- John de Baalun
Great Charter of 1297: statute
King Edward I reissued the Charters of 1225 in 1297 in return for a new tax.[132] It is this version which remains in statute today, although with most articles now repealed.[133][134]
Act of Parliament | |
Citation | 25 Edw. 1 |
---|---|
Dates | |
Royal assent | 1297 |
Other legislation | |
Amended by | |
Relates to | |
Status: Amended | |
Text of the Confirmation of the Charters (1297) as in force today (including any amendments) within the United Kingdom, from legislation.gov.uk. |
The Confirmatio Cartarum (Confirmation of Charters) was issued in Norman French by Edward I in 1297.[135] Edward, needing money, had taxed the nobility, and they had armed themselves against him, forcing Edward to issue his confirmation of Magna Carta and the Forest Charter to avoid civil war.[136] The nobles had sought to add another document, the De Tallagio, to Magna Carta. Edward I's government was not prepared to concede this, they agreed to the issuing of the Confirmatio, confirming the previous charters and confirming the principle that taxation should be by consent,[132] although the precise manner of that consent was not laid down.[137]
A passage mandates that copies shall be distributed in "cathedral churches throughout our realm, there to remain, and shall be read before the people two times by the year",[138] hence the permanent installation of a copy in Salisbury Cathedral.[139] In the Confirmation's second article, it is confirmed that:
...if any judgement be given from henceforth contrary to the points of the charters aforesaid by the justices, or by any other our ministers that hold plea before them against the points of the charters, it shall be undone, and holden for nought.[140][141]
With the reconfirmation of the charters in 1300, an additional document was granted, the Articuli super Cartas (The Articles upon the Charters).[142] It was composed of 17 articles and sought in part to deal with the problem of enforcing the charters. Magna Carta and the Forest Charter were to be issued to the sheriff of each county, and should be read four times a year at the meetings of the county courts. Each county should have a committee of three men who could hear complaints about violations of the Charters.[143]
Pope Clement V continued the papal policy of supporting monarchs (who ruled by divine grace) against any claims in Magna Carta which challenged the King's rights, and annulled the Confirmatio Cartarum in 1305. Edward I interpreted Clement V's papal bull annulling the Confirmatio Cartarum as effectively applying to the Articuli super Cartas, although the latter was not specifically mentioned.[144] In 1306 Edward I took the opportunity given by the Pope's backing to reassert forest law over large areas which had been "disafforested". Both Edward and the Pope were accused by some contemporary chroniclers of "perjury", and it was suggested by Robert McNair Scott that Robert the Bruce refused to make peace with Edward I's son, Edward II, in 1312 with the justification: "How shall the king of England keep faith with me, since he does not observe the sworn promises made to his liege men ...".[145][146]
Magna Carta's influence on English medieval law
The Great Charter was referred to in legal cases throughout the medieval period. For example, in 1226, the knights of Lincolnshire argued that their local sheriff was changing customary practice regarding the local courts, "contrary to their liberty which they ought to have by the charter of the lord king".[147] In practice, cases were not brought against the King for breach of Magna Carta and the Forest Charter, but it was possible to bring a case against the King's officers, such as his sheriffs, using the argument that the King's officers were acting contrary to liberties granted by the King in the charters.[148]
In addition, medieval cases referred to the clauses in Magna Carta which dealt with specific issues such as wardship and dower, debt collection, and keeping rivers free for navigation.[149] Even in the 13th century, some clauses of Magna Carta rarely appeared in legal cases, either because the issues concerned were no longer relevant, or because Magna Carta had been superseded by more relevant legislation. By 1350 half the clauses of Magna Carta were no longer actively used.[150]
14th–15th centuries
During the reign of King Edward III six measures, later known as the Six Statutes, were passed between 1331 and 1369. They sought to clarify certain parts of the Charters. In particular the third statute, in 1354, redefined clause 29, with "free man" becoming "no man, of whatever estate or condition he may be", and introduced the phrase "due process of law" for "lawful judgement of his peers or the law of the land".[151]
Between the 13th and 15th centuries Magna Carta was reconfirmed 32 times according to Sir Edward Coke, and possibly as many as 45 times.[152][153] Often the first item of parliamentary business was a public reading and reaffirmation of the Charter, and, as in the previous century, parliaments often exacted confirmation of it from the monarch.[153] The Charter was confirmed in 1423 by King Henry VI.[154][155][156]
By the mid-15th century, Magna Carta ceased to occupy a central role in English political life, as monarchs reasserted authority and powers which had been challenged in the 100 years after Edward I's reign.[157] The Great Charter remained a text for lawyers, particularly as a protector of property rights, and became more widely read than ever as printed versions circulated and levels of literacy increased.[158]
16th century
During the 16th century, the interpretation of Magna Carta and the First Barons' War shifted.[159] Henry VII took power at the end of the turbulent Wars of the Roses, followed by Henry VIII, and extensive propaganda under both rulers promoted the legitimacy of the regime, the illegitimacy of any sort of rebellion against royal power, and the priority of supporting the Crown in its arguments with the Papacy.[160]
Tudor historians rediscovered the Barnwell chronicler, who was more favourable to King John than other 13th-century texts, and, as historian Ralph Turner describes, they "viewed King John in a positive light as a hero struggling against the papacy", showing "little sympathy for the Great Charter or the rebel barons".[161] Pro-Catholic demonstrations during the 1536 uprising cited Magna Carta, accusing the King of not giving it sufficient respect.[162]
The first mechanically printed edition of Magna Carta was probably the Magna Carta cum aliis Antiquis Statutis of 1508 by Richard Pynson, although the early printed versions of the 16th century incorrectly attributed the origins of Magna Carta to Henry III and 1225, rather than to John and 1215, and accordingly worked from the later text.[163][164][165] An abridged English-language edition was published by John Rastell in 1527. Thomas Berthelet, Pynson's successor as the royal printer during 1530–1547, printed an edition of the text along with other "ancient statutes" in 1531 and 1540.[166]
In 1534, George Ferrers published the first unabridged English-language edition of Magna Carta, dividing the Charter into 37 numbered clauses.[167]
The mid-sixteenth century funerary monument Sir Rowland Hill of Soulton, placed in St Stephens Wallbroke, included a full statue[168] of the Tudor statesman and judge holding a copy of Magna Carta.[169] Hill was a Mercer and a Lord Mayor of London; both of these statuses were shared with Serlo the Mercer who was a negotiator and enforcer of Magna Carta.[170] The original monument was lost in the Great Fire of London, but it was restated on a 110 foot tall column on his family's estates in Shropshire.[171]
At the end of the 16th century, there was an upsurge in antiquarian interest in Magna Carta in England.[162] Legal historians concluded that there was a set of ancient English customs and laws which had been temporarily overthrown by the Norman invasion of 1066, and been recovered in 1215 and recorded in Magna Carta, which in turn gave authority to important 16th-century legal principles.[162][172][173] Modern historians regard this narrative as fundamentally incorrect, and many refer to it as a "myth".[173][g]
The antiquarian William Lambarde published what he believed were the Anglo-Saxon and Norman law codes, tracing the origins of the 16th-century English Parliament back to this period, but he misinterpreted the dates of many documents concerned.[172] Francis Bacon argued that clause 39 of Magna Carta was the basis of the 16th-century jury system and judicial processes.[178] Antiquarians Robert Beale, James Morice and Richard Cosin argued that Magna Carta was a statement of liberty and a fundamental, supreme law empowering English government.[179] Those who questioned these conclusions, including the Member of Parliament Arthur Hall, faced sanctions.[180][181]
17th–18th centuries
Political tensions
In the early 17th century, Magna Carta became increasingly important as a political document in arguments over the authority of the English monarchy.[182] James I and Charles I both propounded greater authority for the Crown, justified by the doctrine of the divine right of kings, and Magna Carta was cited extensively by their opponents to challenge the monarchy.[175]
Magna Carta, it was argued, recognised and protected the liberty of individual Englishmen, made the King subject to the common law of the land, formed the origin of the trial by jury system, and acknowledged the ancient origins of Parliament: because of Magna Carta and this ancient constitution, an English monarch was unable to alter these long-standing English customs.[175][182][183][184] Although the arguments based on Magna Carta were historically inaccurate, they nonetheless carried symbolic power, as the charter had immense significance during this period; antiquarians such as Sir Henry Spelman described it as "the most majestic and a sacrosanct anchor to English Liberties".[173][175][182]
Sir Edward Coke was a leader in using Magna Carta as a political tool during this period. Still working from the 1225 version of the text – the first printed copy of the 1215 charter only emerged in 1610 – Coke spoke and wrote about Magna Carta repeatedly.[173] His work was challenged at the time by Lord Ellesmere, and modern historians such as Ralph Turner and Claire Breay have critiqued Coke as "misconstruing" the original charter "anachronistically and uncritically", and taking a "very selective" approach to his analysis.[175][185] More sympathetically, J. C. Holt noted that the history of the charters had already become "distorted" by the time Coke was carrying out his work.[186]
In 1621, a bill was presented to Parliament to renew Magna Carta; although this bill failed, lawyer John Selden argued during Darnell's Case in 1627 that the right of habeas corpus was backed by Magna Carta.[187][188] Coke supported the Petition of Right in 1628, which cited Magna Carta in its preamble, attempting to extend the provisions, and to make them binding on the judiciary.[189][190] The monarchy responded by arguing that the historical legal situation was much less clear-cut than was being claimed, restricted the activities of antiquarians, arrested Coke for treason, and suppressed his proposed book on Magna Carta.[188][191] Charles initially did not agree to the Petition of Right, and refused to confirm Magna Carta in any way that would reduce his independence as King.[192][193]
England descended into civil war in the 1640s, resulting in Charles I's execution in 1649. Under the republic that followed, some questioned whether Magna Carta, an agreement with a monarch, was still relevant.[194] An anti-Cromwellian pamphlet published in 1660, The English devil, said that the nation had been "compelled to submit to this Tyrant Nol or be cut off by him; nothing but a word and a blow, his Will was his Law; tell him of Magna Carta, he would lay his hand on his sword and cry Magna Farta".[195] In a 2005 speech the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales, Lord Woolf, repeated the claim that Cromwell had referred to Magna Carta as "Magna Farta".[196]
The radical groups that flourished during this period held differing opinions of Magna Carta. The Levellers rejected history and law as presented by their contemporaries, holding instead to an "anti-Normanism" viewpoint.[197] John Lilburne, for example, argued that Magna Carta contained only some of the freedoms that had supposedly existed under the Anglo-Saxons before being crushed by the Norman yoke.[198] The Leveller Richard Overton described the charter as "a beggarly thing containing many marks of intolerable bondage".[199]
Both saw Magna Carta as a useful declaration of liberties that could be used against governments they disagreed with.[200] Gerrard Winstanley, the leader of the more extreme Diggers, stated "the best lawes that England hath, [viz., Magna Carta] were got by our Forefathers importunate petitioning unto the kings that still were their Task-masters; and yet these best laws are yoaks and manicles, tying one sort of people to be slaves to another; Clergy and Gentry have got their freedom, but the common people still are, and have been left servants to work for them."[201][202]
Glorious Revolution
The first attempt at a proper historiography was undertaken by Robert Brady,[203] who refuted the supposed antiquity of Parliament and belief in the immutable continuity of the law. Brady realised that the liberties of the Charter were limited and argued that the liberties were the grant of the King. By putting Magna Carta in historical context, he cast doubt on its contemporary political relevance;[204] his historical understanding did not survive the Glorious Revolution, which, according to the historian J. G. A. Pocock, "marked a setback for the course of English historiography."[205]
According to the Whig interpretation of history, the Glorious Revolution was an example of the reclaiming of ancient liberties. Reinforced with Lockean concepts, the Whigs believed England's constitution to be a social contract, based on documents such as Magna Carta, the Petition of Right, and the Bill of Rights.[206] The English Liberties (1680, in later versions often British Liberties) by the Whig propagandist Henry Care (d. 1688) was a cheap polemical book that was influential and much-reprinted, in the American colonies as well as Britain, and made Magna Carta central to the history and the contemporary legitimacy of its subject.[207]
Ideas about the nature of law in general were beginning to change. In 1716, the Septennial Act was passed, which had a number of consequences. First, it showed that Parliament no longer considered its previous statutes unassailable, as it provided for a maximum parliamentary term of seven years, whereas the Triennial Act (1694) (enacted less than a quarter of a century previously) had provided for a maximum term of three years.[208]
It also greatly extended the powers of Parliament. Under this new constitution, monarchical absolutism was replaced by parliamentary supremacy. It was quickly realised that Magna Carta stood in the same relation to the King-in-Parliament as it had to the King without Parliament. This supremacy would be challenged by the likes of Granville Sharp. Sharp regarded Magna Carta as a fundamental part of the constitution, and maintained that it would be treason to repeal any part of it. He also held that the Charter prohibited slavery.[209]
Sir William Blackstone published a critical edition of the 1215 Charter in 1759, and gave it the numbering system still used today.[210] In 1763, Member of Parliament John Wilkes was arrested for writing an inflammatory pamphlet, No. 45, 23 April 1763; he cited Magna Carta continually.[211] Lord Camden denounced the treatment of Wilkes as a contravention of Magna Carta.[212] Thomas Paine, in his Rights of Man, would disregard Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights on the grounds that they were not a written constitution devised by elected representatives.[213]
Use in the Thirteen Colonies and the United States
When English colonists left for the New World, they brought royal charters that established the colonies. The Massachusetts Bay Company charter, for example, stated that the colonists would "have and enjoy all liberties and immunities of free and natural subjects."[214] The Virginia Charter of 1606, which was largely drafted by Sir Edward Coke, stated that the colonists would have the same "liberties, franchises and immunities" as people born in England.[215] The Massachusetts Body of Liberties contained similarities to clause 29 of Magna Carta; when drafting it, the Massachusetts General Court viewed Magna Carta as the chief embodiment of English common law.[216] The other colonies would follow their example. In 1638, Maryland sought to recognise Magna Carta as part of the law of the province, but the request was denied by Charles I.[217]
In 1687, William Penn published The Excellent Privilege of Liberty and Property: being the birth-right of the Free-Born Subjects of England, which contained the first copy of Magna Carta printed on American soil. Penn's comments reflected Coke's, indicating a belief that Magna Carta was a fundamental law.[218] The colonists drew on English law books, leading them to an anachronistic interpretation of Magna Carta, believing that it guaranteed trial by jury and habeas corpus.[219]
The development of parliamentary supremacy in the British Isles did not constitutionally affect the Thirteen Colonies, which retained an adherence to English common law, but it directly affected the relationship between Britain and the colonies.[220] When American colonists fought against Britain, they were fighting not so much for new freedom, but to preserve liberties and rights that they believed to be enshrined in Magna Carta.[221]
In the late 18th century, the United States Constitution became the supreme law of the land, recalling the manner in which Magna Carta had come to be regarded as fundamental law.[221] The Constitution's Fifth Amendment guarantees that "no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law", a phrase that was derived from Magna Carta.[222] In addition, the Constitution included a similar writ in the Suspension Clause, Article 1, Section 9: "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it."[223]
Each of these proclaim that no person may be imprisoned or detained without evidence that he or she committed a crime. The Ninth Amendment states that "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." The writers of the U.S. Constitution wished to ensure that the rights they already held, such as those that they believed were provided by Magna Carta, would be preserved unless explicitly curtailed.[224][225]
The U.S. Supreme Court has explicitly referenced Edward Coke's analysis of Magna Carta as an antecedent of the Sixth Amendment's right to a speedy trial.[226]
19th–21st centuries
Interpretation
Initially, the Whig interpretation of Magna Carta and its role in constitutional history remained dominant during the 19th century. The historian William Stubbs's Constitutional History of England, published in the 1870s, formed the high-water mark of this view.[228] Stubbs argued that Magna Carta had been a major step in the shaping of the English nation, and he believed that the barons at Runnymede in 1215 were not just representing the nobility, but the people of England as a whole, standing up to a tyrannical ruler in the form of King John.[228][229]
This view of Magna Carta began to recede. The late-Victorian jurist and historian Frederic William Maitland provided an alternative academic history in 1899, which began to return Magna Carta to its historical roots.[230] In 1904, Edward Jenks published an article entitled "The Myth of Magna Carta", which undermined the previously accepted view of Magna Carta.[231] Historians such as Albert Pollard agreed with Jenks in concluding that Edward Coke had largely "invented" the myth of Magna Carta in the 17th century; these historians argued that the 1215 charter had not referred to liberty for the people at large, but rather to the protection of baronial rights.[232]
This view also became popular in wider circles, and in 1930 Sellar and Yeatman published their parody on English history, 1066 and All That, in which they mocked the supposed importance of Magna Carta and its promises of universal liberty: "Magna Charter was therefore the chief cause of Democracy in England, and thus a Good Thing for everyone (except the Common People)".[233][234]
In many literary representations of the medieval past, however, Magna Carta remained a foundation of English national identity. Some authors used the medieval roots of the document as an argument to preserve the social status quo, while others pointed to Magna Carta to challenge perceived economic injustices.[230] The Baronial Order of Magna Charta was formed in 1898 to promote the ancient principles and values felt to be displayed in Magna Carta.[235] The legal profession in England and the United States continued to hold Magna Carta in high esteem; they were instrumental in forming the Magna Carta Society in 1922 to protect the meadows at Runnymede from development in the 1920s, and in 1957, the American Bar Association erected the Magna Carta Memorial at Runnymede.[222][236][237] The prominent lawyer Lord Denning described Magna Carta in 1956 as "the greatest constitutional document of all times—the foundation of the freedom of the individual against the arbitrary authority of the despot".[238]
Repeal of articles and constitutional influence
Radicals such as Sir Francis Burdett believed that Magna Carta could not be repealed,[239] but in the 19th century clauses which were obsolete or had been superseded began to be repealed. The repeal of clause 26 in 1829, by the Offences Against the Person Act 1828 (9 Geo. 4. c. 31 s. 1)[h][240] was the first time a clause of Magna Carta was repealed. Over the next 140 years, nearly the whole of Magna Carta (1297) as statute was repealed,[241] leaving just clauses 1, 9 and 29 still in force (in England and Wales) after 1969.[242][243] Most of the clauses were repealed in England and Wales by the Statute Law Revision Act 1863, and in modern Northern Ireland and also in the modern Republic of Ireland by the Statute Law Revision (Ireland) Act 1872.[240]
Many later attempts to draft constitutional forms of government trace their lineage back to Magna Carta. The British dominions, Australia and New Zealand,[244] Canada[245] (except Quebec), and formerly the Union of South Africa and Southern Rhodesia, reflected the influence of Magna Carta in their laws, and the Charter's effects can be seen in the laws of other states that evolved from the British Empire.[246]
Modern legacy
Magna Carta continues to have a powerful iconic status in British society, being cited by politicians and lawyers in support of constitutional positions.[238][247] Its perceived guarantee of trial by jury and other civil liberties, for example, led to Tony Benn's reference to the debate in 2008 over whether to increase the maximum time terrorism suspects could be held without charge from 28 to 42 days as "the day Magna Carta was repealed".[248] Although rarely invoked in court in the modern era, in 2012 the Occupy London protestors attempted to use Magna Carta in resisting their eviction from St. Paul's Churchyard by the City of London. In his judgment the Master of the Rolls gave this short shrift, noting somewhat drily that although clause 29 was considered by many the foundation of the rule of law in England, he did not consider it directly relevant to the case, and that the two other surviving clauses ironically concerned the rights of the Church and the City of London and could not help the defendants.[249][250]
Magna Carta carries little legal weight in modern Britain, as most of its clauses have been repealed and relevant rights ensured by other statutes, but the historian James Holt remarks that the survival of the 1215 charter in national life is a "reflexion of the continuous development of English law and administration" and symbolic of the many struggles between authority and the law over the centuries.[251] The historian W. L. Warren has observed that "many who knew little and cared less about the content of the Charter have, in nearly all ages, invoked its name, and with good cause, for it meant more than it said".[252]
It also remains a topic of great interest to historians; Natalie Fryde characterised the charter as "one of the holiest of cows in English medieval history", with the debates over its interpretation and meaning unlikely to end.[229] The majority of contemporary historians however see the interpretation of the charter as a unique and early charter of legal rights as a myth that was created centuries later.[253][254][255]
In many ways still a "sacred text", Magna Carta is generally considered part of the uncodified constitution of the United Kingdom; in a 2005 speech, the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales, Lord Woolf, described it as the "first of a series of instruments that now are recognised as having a special constitutional status".[196][256] Magna Carta was reprinted in New Zealand in 1881 as one of the Imperial Acts in force there.[257] Clause 29 of the document remains in force as part of New Zealand law.[258]
The document also continues to be honoured in the United States as an antecedent of the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights.[259] In 1976, the UK lent one of four surviving originals of the 1215 Magna Carta to the United States for their bicentennial celebrations and also donated an ornate display case for it. The original was returned after one year, but a replica and the case are still on display in the United States Capitol Crypt in Washington, D.C.[260]
Celebration of the 800th anniversary
The 800th anniversary of the original charter occurred on 15 June 2015, and organisations and institutions planned celebratory events.[261] The British Library brought together the four existing copies of the 1215 manuscript in February 2015 for a special exhibition.[262] British artist Cornelia Parker was commissioned to create a new artwork, Magna Carta (An Embroidery), which was shown at the British Library between May and July 2015.[263] The artwork is a copy of the Wikipedia article about Magna Carta (as it appeared on the document's 799th anniversary, 15 June 2014), hand-embroidered by over 200 people.[264]
On 15 June 2015, a commemoration ceremony was conducted in Runnymede at the National Trust park, attended by British and American dignitaries.[265] On the same day, Google celebrated the anniversary with a Google Doodle.[266]
The copy held by Lincoln Cathedral was exhibited in the Library of Congress in Washington, D.C., from November 2014 until January 2015.[267] A new visitor centre at Lincoln Castle was opened for the anniversary.[268] The Royal Mint released two commemorative two-pound coins.[269][270]
In 2014, Bury St Edmunds in Suffolk celebrated the 800th anniversary of the barons' Charter of Liberties, said to have been secretly agreed there in November 1214.[271]
Copies
Physical format
Numerous copies, known as exemplifications, were made of the various charters, and many of them still survive.[272] The documents were written in heavily abbreviated medieval Latin in clear handwriting, using quill pens on sheets of parchment made from sheep skin, approximately 15 by 20 inches (380 by 510 mm) across.[273][274] They were sealed with the royal great seal by an official called the spigurnel, equipped with a special seal press, using beeswax and resin.[274][275] There were no signatures on the charter of 1215, and the barons present did not attach their own seals to it.[276] The text was not divided into paragraphs or numbered clauses: the numbering system used today was introduced by the jurist Sir William Blackstone in 1759.[210]
Exemplifications
1215 exemplifications
At least thirteen original copies of the charter of 1215 were issued by the royal chancery during that year, seven in the first tranche distributed on 24 June and another six later; they were sent to county sheriffs and bishops, who were probably charged for the privilege.[277] Slight variations exist between the surviving copies, and there was probably no single "master copy".[278] Of these documents, only four survive, all held in England: two now at the British Library, one at Salisbury Cathedral, and one, the property of Lincoln Cathedral, on permanent loan to Lincoln Castle.[279] Each of these versions is slightly different in size and text, and each is considered by historians to be equally authoritative.[280]
The two 1215 charters held by the British Library, known as Cotton MS. Augustus II.106 and Cotton Charter XIII.31A, were acquired by the antiquarian Sir Robert Cotton in the 17th century.[281] The first had been found by Humphrey Wyems, a London lawyer, who may have discovered it in a tailor's shop, and who gave it to Cotton in January 1629.[282] The second was found in Dover Castle in 1630 by Sir Edward Dering. The Dering charter was traditionally thought to be the copy sent in 1215 to the Cinque Ports,[283] but in 2015 the historian David Carpenter argued that it was more probably that sent to Canterbury Cathedral, as its text was identical to a transcription made from the Cathedral's copy of the 1215 charter in the 1290s.[284][285][286] This copy was damaged in the Cotton library fire of 1731, when its seal was badly melted. The parchment was somewhat shrivelled but otherwise relatively unscathed. An engraved facsimile of the charter was made by John Pine in 1733. In the 1830s, an ill-judged and bungled attempt at cleaning and conservation rendered the manuscript largely illegible to the naked eye.[287][288] This is the only surviving 1215 copy still to have its great seal attached.[289][290]
Lincoln Cathedral's copy has been held by the county since 1215. It was displayed in the Common Chamber in the cathedral, before being moved to another building in 1846.[279][291] Between 1939 and 1940 it was displayed in the British Pavilion at the 1939 World Fair in New York City, and at the Library of Congress.[292] When the Second World War broke out, Winston Churchill wanted to give the charter to the American people, hoping that this would encourage the United States, then neutral, to enter the war against the Axis powers, but the cathedral was unwilling, and the plans were dropped.[293][294]
After December 1941, the copy was stored in Fort Knox, Kentucky, for safety, before being put on display again in 1944 and returned to Lincoln Cathedral in early 1946.[292][293][295][296] It was put on display in 1976 in the cathedral's medieval library.[291] It was displayed in San Francisco, and was taken out of display for a time to undergo conservation in preparation for another visit to the United States, where it was exhibited in 2007 at the Contemporary Art Center of Virginia and the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia.[291][297][298] In 2009 it returned to New York to be displayed at the Fraunces Tavern Museum.[299] It is currently on permanent loan to the David P. J. Ross Vault at Lincoln Castle, along with an original copy of the 1217 Charter of the Forest.[300][301]
The fourth copy, held by Salisbury Cathedral, was first given in 1215 to its predecessor, Old Sarum Cathedral.[302] Rediscovered by the cathedral in 1812, it has remained in Salisbury throughout its history, except when being taken off-site for restoration work.[303][304] It is possibly the best preserved of the four, although small pin holes can be seen in the parchment from where it was once pinned up.[304][305][306] The handwriting on this version is different from that of the other three, suggesting that it was not written by a royal scribe but rather by a member of the cathedral staff, who then had it exemplified by the royal court.[272][303]
Later exemplifications
Other early versions of the charters survive today. Only one exemplification of the 1216 charter survives, held in Durham Cathedral.[307] Four copies of the 1217 charter exist; three of these are held by the Bodleian Library in Oxford and one by Hereford Cathedral.[307][308] Hereford's copy is occasionally displayed alongside the Mappa Mundi in the cathedral's chained library and has survived along with a small document called the Articuli super Cartas that was sent along with the charter, telling the sheriff of the county how to observe the conditions outlined in the document.[309] One of the Bodleian's copies was displayed at San Francisco's California Palace of the Legion of Honor in 2011.[310]
Four exemplifications of the 1225 charter survive: the British Library holds one, which was preserved at Lacock Abbey until 1945; Durham Cathedral also holds a copy, with the Bodleian Library holding a third.[308][311][312] The fourth copy of the 1225 exemplification was held by the museum of the Public Record Office and is now held by The National Archives.[313][314] The Society of Antiquaries also holds a draft of the 1215 charter (discovered in 2013 in a late-13th-century register from Peterborough Abbey), a copy of the 1225 third re-issue (within an early-14th-century collection of statutes) and a roll copy of the 1225 reissue.[315]
Only two exemplifications of Magna Carta are held outside England, both from 1297. One of these was purchased in 1952 by the Australian Government for £12,500 from King's School, Bruton, England.[316] Restored in 2024, this copy is now on display in the Members' Hall of Parliament House, Canberra.[317][318] The second was originally held by the Brudenell family, earls of Cardigan, before they sold it in 1984 to the Perot Foundation in the United States, which in 2007 sold it to U.S. businessman David Rubenstein for US$21.3 million.[319][320][321] Rubenstein commented "I have always believed that this was an important document to our country, even though it wasn't drafted in our country. I think it was the basis for the Declaration of Independence and the basis for the Constitution". This exemplification is now on permanent loan to the National Archives in Washington, D.C.[322][323] Only two other 1297 exemplifications survive,[324] one of which is held in the UK's National Archives,[325] the other in the Guildhall, London.[324]
Seven copies of the 1300 exemplification by Edward I survive,[324][326] in Faversham,[327] Oriel College, Oxford, the Bodleian Library, Durham Cathedral, Westminster Abbey, the City of London (held in the archives at the London Guildhall[328]) and Sandwich (held in the Sandwich Guildhall Museum).[329] The Sandwich copy was rediscovered in early 2015 in a Victorian scrapbook in the town archives of Sandwich, Kent, one of the Cinque Ports.[326] In the case of the Sandwich and Oriel College exemplifications, the copies of the Charter of the Forest originally issued with them also survive.[330]
Clauses
Most of the 1215 charter and later versions sought to govern the feudal rights of the Crown over the barons.[331] Under the Angevin kings, and in particular during John's reign, the rights of the King had frequently been used inconsistently, often in an attempt to maximise the royal income from the barons. Feudal relief was one way that a king could demand money, and clauses 2 and 3 fixed the fees payable when an heir inherited an estate or when a minor came of age and took possession of his lands.[331]
Scutage was a form of medieval taxation. All knights and nobles owed military service to the Crown in return for their lands, which theoretically belonged to the King. Many preferred to avoid this service and offer money instead. The Crown often used the cash to pay for mercenaries.[332] The rate of scutage that should be payable, and the circumstances under which it was appropriate for the King to demand it, was uncertain and controversial. Clauses 12 and 14 addressed the management of the process.[331]
The English judicial system had altered considerably over the previous century, with the royal judges playing a larger role in delivering justice across the country. John had used his royal discretion to extort large sums of money from the barons, effectively taking payment to offer justice in particular cases, and the role of the Crown in delivering justice had become politically sensitive among the barons. Clauses 39 and 40 demanded due process be applied in the royal justice system, while clause 45 required that the King appoint knowledgeable royal officials to the relevant roles.[333]
Although these clauses did not have any special significance in the original charter, this part of Magna Carta became singled out as particularly important in later centuries.[333] In the United States, for example, the Supreme Court of California interpreted clause 45 in 1974 as establishing a requirement in common law that a defendant faced with the potential of incarceration be entitled to a trial overseen by a legally trained judge.[334]
Royal forests were economically important in medieval England and were both protected and exploited by the Crown, supplying the King with hunting grounds, raw materials, and money.[335][336] They were subject to special royal jurisdiction and the resulting forest law was, according to the historian Richard Huscroft, "harsh and arbitrary, a matter purely for the King's will".[335] The size of the forests had expanded under the Angevin kings, an unpopular development.[337]
The 1215 charter had several clauses relating to the royal forests. Clauses 47 and 48 promised to deforest the lands added to the forests under John and investigate the use of royal rights in this area, but notably did not address the forestation of the previous kings, while clause 53 promised some form of redress for those affected by the recent changes, and clause 44 promised some relief from the operation of the forest courts.[338] Neither Magna Carta nor the subsequent Charter of the Forest proved entirely satisfactory as a way of managing the political tensions arising in the operation of the royal forests.[338]
Some of the clauses addressed wider economic issues. The concerns of the barons over the treatment of their debts to Jewish moneylenders, who occupied a special position in medieval England and were by tradition under the King's protection, were addressed by clauses 10 and 11.[339] The charter concluded this section with the phrase "debts owing to other than Jews shall be dealt with likewise", so it is debatable to what extent the Jews were being singled out by these clauses.[340] Some issues were relatively specific, such as clause 33 which ordered the removal of all fishing weirs—an important and growing source of revenue at the time—from England's rivers.[338]
The role of the English Church had been a matter for great debate in the years prior to the 1215 charter. The Norman and Angevin kings had traditionally exercised a great deal of power over the church within their territories. From the 1040s onwards successive popes had emphasised the importance of the church being governed more effectively from Rome, and had established an independent judicial system and hierarchical chain of authority.[341] After the 1140s, these principles had been largely accepted within the English church, even if accompanied by an element of concern about centralising authority in Rome.[342][343]
These changes brought the customary rights of lay rulers such as John over ecclesiastical appointments into question.[342] As described above, John had come to a compromise with Pope Innocent III in exchange for his political support for the King, and clause 1 of Magna Carta prominently displayed this arrangement, promising the freedoms and liberties of the church.[331] The importance of this clause may also reflect the role of Archbishop Langton in the negotiations: Langton had taken a strong line on this issue during his career.[331]
Clauses in detail
|
Notes | ||
---|---|---|---|
1 | Guaranteed the freedom of the English Church. | Y | Still in UK (England and Wales) law as clause 1 in the 1297 statute. |
2 | Regulated the operation of feudal relief upon the death of a baron. | Y | Repealed by Statute Law Revision Act 1863 and Statute Law Revision (Ireland) Act 1872.[346] |
3 | Regulated the operation of feudal relief and minors' coming of age. | Y | Repealed by Statute Law Revision Act 1863 and Statute Law Revision (Ireland) Act 1872.[346] |
4 | Regulated the process of wardship, and the role of the guardian. | Y | Repealed by Statute Law Revision Act 1863 and Statute Law Revision (Ireland) Act 1872.[346] |
5 | Forbade the exploitation of a ward's property by his guardian. | Y | Repealed by Statute Law Revision Act 1863 and Statute Law Revision (Ireland) Act 1872.[346] |
6 | Forbade guardians from marrying a ward to a partner of lower social standing. | Y | Repealed by Statute Law Revision Act 1863 and Statute Law Revision (Ireland) Act 1872.[346] |
7 | Referred to the rights of a widow to receive promptly her dowry and inheritance. | Y | Repealed by Statute Law Revision Act 1863 and Statute Law Revision (Ireland) Act 1872.[346] |
8 | Forbade the forcible remarrying of widows and confirmed the royal veto over baronial marriages. | Y | Repealed by Administration of Estates Act 1925, Administration of Estates Act (Northern Ireland) 1955 and Statute Law (Repeals) Act 1969.[346] |
9 | Established protection for debtors, confirming that a debtor should not have his lands seized as long as he had other means to pay the debt. | Y | Repealed by Statute Law (Repeals) Act 1969.[346] |
10 | Regulated Jewish money lending, stating that children would not pay interest on a debt they had inherited while they were under age. | N | |
11 | Further addressed Jewish money lending, stating that a widow and children should be provided for before paying an inherited debt. | N | |
12 | Determined that scutage or aid, forms of medieval taxation, could be levied and assessed only by the common consent of the realm. | N | Some exceptions to this general rule were given, such as for the payment of ransoms. |
13 | Confirmed the liberties and customs of the City of London and other boroughs. | Y | Still in UK (England and Wales) law as clause 9 in the 1297 statute. |
14 | Described how senior churchmen and barons would be summoned to give consent for scutage and aid. | N | |
15 | Prohibited anyone from levying aid on their free men. | N | Some exceptions to this general rule were given, such as for the payment of ransoms. |
16 | Placed limits on the level of service required for a knight's fee. | Y | Repealed by Statute Law Revision Act 1948.[346] |
17 | Established a fixed law court rather than one which followed the movements of the King. | Y | Repealed by Civil Procedure Acts Repeal Act 1879.[346] |
18 | Defined the authority and frequency of county courts. | Y | Repealed by Civil Procedure Acts Repeal Act 1879.[346] |
19 | Determined how excess business of a county court should be dealt with. | Y | |
20 | Stated that an amercement, a type of medieval fine, should be proportionate to the offence, but even for a serious offence the fine should not be so heavy as to deprive a man of his livelihood. Fines should be imposed only through local assessment. | Y | Repealed by Statute Law Revision Act 1863 and Statute Law Revision (Ireland) Act 1872.[346] |
21 | Determined that earls and barons should be fined only by other earls and barons. | Y | Repealed by Statute Law Revision Act 1863 and Statute Law Revision (Ireland) Act 1872.[346] |
22 | Determined that the size of a fine on a member of the clergy should be independent of the ecclesiastical wealth held by the individual churchman. | Y | Repealed by Statute Law Revision Act 1863 and Statute Law Revision (Ireland) Act 1872.[346] |
23 | Limited the right of feudal lords to demand assistance in building bridges across rivers. | Y | Repealed by Statute Law (Repeals) Act 1969.[346] |
24 | Prohibited royal officials, such as sheriffs, from trying a crime as an alternative to a royal judge. | Y | Repealed by Statute Law (Repeals) Act 1969.[346] |
25 | Fixed the royal rents on lands, with the exception of royal demesne manors. | N | |
26 | Established a process for dealing with the death of those owing debts to the Crown. | Y | Repealed by Crown Proceedings Act 1947.[346] |
27 | Laid out the process for dealing with intestacy. | N | |
28 | Determined that a royal officer requisitioning goods must offer immediate payment to their owner. | Y | Repealed by Statute Law Revision Act 1863 and Statute Law Revision (Ireland) Act 1872.[346] |
29 | Regulated the exercise of castle-guard duty. | Y | Repealed by Statute Law Revision Act 1863 and Statute Law Revision (Ireland) Act 1872.[346] |
30 | Prevented royal officials from requisitioning horses or carts without the owner's consent. | Y | Repealed by Statute Law Revision Act 1863 and Statute Law Revision (Ireland) Act 1872.[346] |
31 | Prevented royal officials from requisitioning timber without the owner's consent. | Y | Repealed by Statute Law Revision Act 1863 and Statute Law Revision (Ireland) Act 1872.[346] |
32 | Prevented the Crown from confiscating the lands of felons for longer than a year and a day, after which they were to be returned to the relevant feudal lord. | Y | Repealed by Statute Law Revision Act 1948.[346] |
33 | Ordered the removal of all fish weirs from rivers. | Y | Repealed by Statute Law (Repeals) Act 1969.[346] |
34 | Forbade the issuing of writ precipes if doing so would undermine the right of trial in a local feudal court. | Y | Repealed by Statute Law Revision Act 1863 and Statute Law Revision (Ireland) Act 1872.[346] |
35 | Ordered the establishment of standard measures for wine, ale, corn, and cloth. | Y | Repealed by Statute Law Revision Act 1948.[346] |
36 | Determined that writs for loss of life or limb were to be freely given without charge. | Y | Repealed by Offences Against the Person Act 1828 and Offences Against the Person (Ireland) Act 1829.[346] |
37 | Regulated the inheritance of Crown lands held by "fee-farm". | Y | Repealed by Statute Law Revision Act 1863 and Statute Law Revision (Ireland) Act 1872.[346] |
38 | Stated that no one should be put on trial based solely on the unsupported word of a royal official. | Y | Repealed by Statute Law Revision Act 1863 and Statute Law Revision (Ireland) Act 1872.[346] |
39 | Stated that no free man could be imprisoned or stripped of his rights or possessions without due process being legally applied. | Y | Still in UK (England and Wales) law as part of clause 29 in the 1297 statute. |
40 | Forbade the selling of justice, or its denial or delay.[347] | Y | Still in UK (England and Wales) law as part of clause 29 in the 1297 statute. |
41 | Guaranteed the safety and the right of entry and exit of foreign merchants. | Y | Repealed by Statute Law (Repeals) Act 1969.[346] |
42 | Permitted men to leave England for short periods without prejudicing their allegiance to the King, with the exceptions for outlaws and wartime. | N | |
43 | Established special provisions for taxes due on estates temporarily held by the Crown. | Y | Repealed by Statute Law Revision Act 1863 and Statute Law Revision (Ireland) Act 1872.[346] |
44 | Limited the need for people to attend forest courts, unless they were actually involved in the proceedings. | Y | |
45 | Stated that the King should appoint only justices, constables, sheriffs, or bailiffs who knew and would enforce the law. | N | |
46 | Permitted barons to take guardianship of monasteries in the absence of an abbot. | Y | Repealed by Statute Law Revision Act 1863 and Statute Law Revision (Ireland) Act 1872.[346] |
47 | Abolished those royal forests newly created under King John's reign. | Y | |
48 | Established an investigation of "evil customs" associated with royal forests, with an intent to abolishing them. | N | |
49 | Ordered the return of hostages held by the King. | N | |
50 | Forbade any member of the d'Athée family from serving as a royal officer. | N | |
51 | Ordered that all foreign knights and mercenaries leave England once peace was restored. | N | |
52 | Established a process for giving restitution to those who had been unlawfully dispossessed of their "lands, castles, liberties, or of his right".[348] | N | |
53 | Established a process for giving restitution to those who had been mistreated by forest law. | N | |
54 | Prevented men from being arrested or imprisoned on the testimony of a woman, unless the case involved the death of her husband. | Y | Repealed by Statute Law Revision Act 1863 and Statute Law Revision (Ireland) Act 1872.[346] |
55 | Established a process for remitting any unjust fines imposed by the King. | N | Repealed by Statute Law Revision Act 1863 and Statute Law Revision (Ireland) Act 1872.[346] |
56 | Established a process for dealing with Welshmen who had been unlawfully dispossessed of their property or rights. | Y | |
57 | Established a process for returning the possessions of Welshmen who had been unlawfully dispossessed. | N | |
58 | Ordered the return of Welsh hostages, including Prince Llywelyn's son. | N | |
59 | Established a process for the return of Scottish hostages, including King Alexander's sisters. | N | |
60 | Encouraged others in England to deal with their own subjects as the King dealt with his. | Y | |
61 | Provided for the application and observation of the charter by twenty-five of the barons. | N | |
62 | Pardoned those who had rebelled against the King. | N | Sometimes considered a subclause, "Suffix A", of clause 61.[349][56] |
63 | Stated that the charter was binding on King John and his heirs. | N | Sometimes considered a subclause, "Suffix B", of clause 61.[349][56] |
Clauses remaining in English law
Only three clauses of Magna Carta still remain on statute in England and Wales.[247] These clauses concern 1) the freedom of the English Church, 2) the "ancient liberties" of the City of London (clause 13 in the 1215 charter, clause 9 in the 1297 statute), and 3) a right to due legal process (clauses 39 and 40 in the 1215 charter, clause 29 in the 1297 statute).[247] In detail, these clauses (using the numbering system from the 1297 statute) state that:
- I. FIRST, We have granted to God, and by this our present Charter have confirmed, for Us and our Heirs for ever, that the Church of England shall be free, and shall have all her whole Rights and Liberties inviolable. We have granted also, and given to all the Freemen of our Realm, for Us and our Heirs for ever, these Liberties under-written, to have and to hold to them and their Heirs, of Us and our Heirs for ever.
- IX. THE City of London shall have all the old Liberties and Customs which it hath been used to have. Moreover We will and grant, that all other Cities, Boroughs, Towns, and the Barons of the Five Ports, and all other Ports, shall have all their Liberties and free Customs.
- XXIX. NO Freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or be disseised of his Freehold, or Liberties, or free Customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any other wise destroyed; nor will We not pass upon him, nor condemn him, but by lawful judgment of his Peers, or by the Law of the land. We will sell to no man, we will not deny or defer to any man either Justice or Right.[240][347]
Clauses in force in other countries
Clauses of Magna Carta also remain in force in several countries that were formerly British colonies. British colonies received the common and statutory law in force at a particular time in England, often through specific reception statutes or by adoption into local law. As a result chapter 29 of the 1297 Magna Carta remains in force in New Zealand[258] and the Australian states of New South Wales,[350] Victoria,[351] Queensland[352] and the Australian Capital Territory.[353] The entirety of Magna Carta apart from chapter 26 remains in force in the Australian states of Western Australia, Tasmania, South Australia and the Northern Territory.[354]
See also
- Civil liberties in the United Kingdom
- Charter of Liberties
- Charter of the Forest
- Fundamental Laws of England
- Haandfæstning
- History of democracy
- History of human rights
- List of most expensive books and manuscripts
- Magna Carta (An Embroidery), 2015 artwork
- Magna Carta Hiberniae – an issue of the English Magna Carta, or Great Charter of Liberties in Ireland
- Ordinances of 1311
- Statutes of Mortmain
Explanatory notes
- ^ The document's Latin name is spelled either Magna Carta or Magna Charta (the pronunciation is the same), and may appear in English with or without the definite article "the", though it is more usual for the article to be omitted.[1] Latin does not have a definite article equivalent to "the".The spelling Charta originates in the 18th century, as a restoration of classical Latin charta for the Medieval Latin spelling carta.[2] While "Charta" remains an acceptable variant spelling, it never became prevalent in English usage.[3]
- ^ Within this article, dates before 14 September 1752 are in the Julian calendar. Later dates are in the Gregorian calendar. In the Gregorian calendar, however, the date would have been 22 June 1215.
- ^ These were 1 (part), 13, 39, and 40 of the 1215 charter, being clauses 1, 9, and 29 of the 1297 statute. Although scholars refer to the 63 numbered "clauses" of Magna Carta, this is a modern system of numbering, introduced by Sir William Blackstone in 1759; the original charter formed a single, long unbroken text.
- ^ The Runnymede Charter of Liberties did not apply to Chester, which at the time was a separate feudal domain. Earl Ranulf granted his own Magna Carta of Chester.[39] Some of its articles were similar to the Runnymede Charter.[40]
- ^ Louis's claim to the English throne, described as "debatable" by the historian David Carpenter, derived from his wife, Blanche of Castile, who was the granddaughter of King Henry II of England. Louis argued that since John had been legitimately deposed, the barons could then legally appoint him king over the claims of John's son Henry.[54]
- ^ Roger de Montbegon is named in only one of the four early sources (BL, Harley MS 746, fol. 64); whereas the others name Roger de Mowbray. However, Holt believes the Harley listing to be "the best", and the de Mowbray entries to be an error.
- ^ Among the historians to have discussed the "myth" of Magna Carta and the ancient English constitution are Claire Breay, Geoffrey Hindley, James Holt, John Pocock, Danny Danziger, and John Gillingham.[173][174][175][176][177]
- ^ I.e., section 1 of the 31st statute issued in the 9th year of George IV; "nor will We not" in clause 29 is correctly quoted from this source.
References
- ^ "Magna Carta". Oxford English Dictionary (Online ed.). Oxford University Press. (Subscription or participating institution membership required.) "Usually without article."
- ^ Du Cange s.v. 1 carta
- ^ Garner, Bryan A. (1995). A Dictionary of Modern Legal Usage. Oxford University Press. p. 541. ISBN 978-0195142365. "The usual—and the better—form is Magna Carta. [...] Magna Carta does not take a definite article".Magna Charta is the recommended spelling in German-language literature. (Duden online)
- ^ "Magna Carta 1215". British Library. Retrieved 3 February 2019.
- ^ Peter Crooks (July 2015). "Exporting Magna Carta: exclusionary liberties in Ireland and the world". History Ireland. 23 (4).
- ^ Carpenter 1990, p. 8.
- ^ a b c Turner 2009, p. 149.
- ^ Carpenter 1990, p. 7.
- ^ Danziger & Gillingham 2004, p. 168.
- ^ Turner 2009, p. 139.
- ^ Warren 1990, p. 181.
- ^ Carpenter 1990, pp. 6–7.
- ^ a b Carpenter 1990, p. 9.
- ^ a b Turner 2009, p. 174.
- ^ Danziger & Gillingham 2004, pp. 256–258.
- ^ McGlynn 2013, pp. 131–132.
- ^ McGlynn 2013, p. 130.
- ^ Danziger & Gillingham 2004, p. 104.
- ^ Danziger & Gillingham 2004, p. 165.
- ^ a b Turner 2009, p. 178.
- ^ a b McGlynn 2013, p. 132.
- ^ Holt 1992a, p. 115.
- ^ Poole 1993, pp. 471–472.
- ^ Vincent 2012, pp. 59–60.
- ^ Turner 2009, p. 179.
- ^ Warren 1990, p. 233.
- ^ Danziger & Gillingham 2004, pp. 258–2.
- ^ Turner 2009, pp. 174, 179–180.
- ^ a b c d Turner 2009, p. 180.
- ^ Holt 1992a, p. 112.
- ^ a b c d McGlynn 2013, p. 137.
- ^ a b Tatton-Brown 2015, p. 36.
- ^ Holt 2015, p. 219.
- ^ a b c Warren 1990, p. 236.
- ^ Turner 2009, pp. 180, 182.
- ^ a b Turner 2009, p. 182.
- ^ Turner 2009, pp. 184–185.
- ^ "Magna Carta". British Library. Retrieved 16 March 2016.
- ^ Hewit 1929, p. 9.
- ^ Holt 1992b, pp. 379–380.
- ^ Vincent 2012, pp. 61–63.
- ^ Carpenter 2004, pp. 293–294.
- ^ Helmholz 2016, p. 869 "First, the formulation of Magna Carta in England was not an isolated event. It was not unique. The results of the meeting at Runnymede coincided with many similar statements of law on the Continent."
- ^ Holt 2015, pp. 50–51: "Magna Carta was far from unique, either in content or in form"
- ^ Blick 2015, p. 39: "It was one of a number of such sets of concessions issued by kings, setting out limits on their powers, around this time, though it had its own special character, and subsequently it has become the most celebrated and influential of them all."
- ^ a b Turner 2009, p. 189.
- ^ a b Danziger & Gillingham 2004, pp. 261–262.
- ^ a b Goodman 1995, pp. 260–261.
- ^ Warren 1990, pp. 239–240.
- ^ Poole 1993, p. 479.
- ^ Turner 2009, pp. 189–191.
- ^ Danziger & Gillingham 2004, p. 262.
- ^ Warren 1990, pp. 239, 242.
- ^ a b c d e f Carpenter 1990, p. 12.
- ^ Carpenter 1996, p. 13.
- ^ a b c d "All clauses". The Magna Carta Project. University of East Anglia. Retrieved 9 November 2014.
- ^ Turner 2009, p. 190–191.
- ^ a b Turner 2009, p. 190.
- ^ Warren 1990, pp. 244–245.
- ^ Rothwell 1975, pp. 324–226.
- ^ Warren 1990, pp. 245–246.
- ^ Holt 1992a, p. 1.
- ^ Crouch 1996, p. 114.
- ^ Carpenter 2004, pp. 264–267.
- ^ Warren 1990, pp. 254–255
- ^ "Magna Carta: Wales, Scotland and Ireland". Retrieved 19 October 2022.
- ^ Smith, J. Beverley (1984). "Magna Carta and the Charters of the Welsh Princes". The English Historical Review. XCIX (CCCXCI): 344–362. doi:10.1093/ehr/XCIX.CCCXCI.344. ISSN 0013-8266.
- ^ "Preface". Magna Carta Project. Retrieved 17 May 2015.
- ^ Holt 1992b, pp. 478–480:the list in the collection of law tracts is at British Library, Harley MS 746, fol. 64; the Reading Abbey list is at Lambeth Palace Library, MS 371, fol. 56v.
- ^ "Profiles of Magna Carta Sureties and Other Supporters". Baronial Order of Magna Charta. Retrieved 17 May 2015.
- ^ "The Magna Charta Barons at Runnymede". Brookfield Ancestor Project. Retrieved 4 November 2014.
- ^ Strickland, Matthew (2005). "Enforcers of Magna Carta (act. 1215–1216)". Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (online ed.). Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/ref:odnb/93691. (Subscription or UK public library membership required.)
- ^ Powicke 1929.
- ^ Carpenter 1990, pp. 14–15.
- ^ a b c d Carpenter 1990, p. 13.
- ^ McGlynn 2013, p. 189.
- ^ a b c d e Ridgeway 2010.
- ^ Weiler 2012, p. 1.
- ^ Carpenter 1990, p. 1.
- ^ Mayr-Harting 2011, pp. 259–260.
- ^ Mayr-Harting 2011, p. 260.
- ^ Carpenter 2004, p. 301.
- ^ a b Carpenter 1990, pp. 19–21.
- ^ Aurell 2003, p. 30.
- ^ Carpenter 1990, pp. 21–22, 24–25.
- ^ Powicke 1963, p. 5.
- ^ Carpenter 1990, p. 25.
- ^ Carpenter 1990, p. 27.
- ^ Carpenter 1990, pp. 28–29.
- ^ Carpenter 1990, pp. 127–28.
- ^ Carpenter 1990, pp. 36–40.
- ^ McGlynn 2013, p. 216.
- ^ a b Hallam & Everard 2001, p. 173.
- ^ Carpenter 1990, pp. 41–42.
- ^ a b Carpenter 1990, p. 42.
- ^ a b Carpenter 1990, p. 44.
- ^ Carpenter 1990, pp. 41, 44–45.
- ^ Carpenter 1990, p. 60.
- ^ Carpenter 1990, pp. 60–61.
- ^ a b Carpenter 1990, pp. 61–62.
- ^ White 1915, pp. 472–475.
- ^ White 1917, pp. 545–555.
- ^ Carpenter 1990, p. 402.
- ^ Carpenter 1990, pp. 333–335, 382–383.
- ^ Carpenter 1990, pp. 295–296.
- ^ Jobson 2012, p. 6.
- ^ Carpenter 1990, pp. 296–297.
- ^ Carpenter 1990, p. 297.
- ^ Hallam & Everard 2001, p. 176.
- ^ Weiler 2012, p. 20.
- ^ Carpenter 1990, pp. 371–373.
- ^ Carpenter 1990, pp. 374–375.
- ^ Carpenter 1990, pp. 376, 378.
- ^ Hallam & Everard 2001, pp. 176–177.
- ^ Carpenter 1990, p. 379.
- ^ a b Carpenter 2004, p. 307.
- ^ Carpenter 1990, p. 383.
- ^ Carpenter 1990, pp. 2–3, 383, 386
- ^ Carpenter 2004, p. 307
- ^ a b Clanchy 1997, p. 147.
- ^ a b Davis 2013, p. 71.
- ^ Davis 2013, p. 174.
- ^ a b Carpenter 1996, pp. 76, 99.
- ^ Carpenter 1990, p. 3.
- ^ Carpenter 1996, pp. 26, 29, 37, 43.
- ^ a b Carpenter 1996, p. 105.
- ^ Davis 2013, pp. 195–197.
- ^ Jobson 2012, p. 104.
- ^ Davis 2013, p. 224.
- ^ Jobson 2012, p. 163.
- ^ Holt 1992b, pp. 510–11.
- ^ a b Prestwich 1997, p. 427.
- ^ "Magna Carta (1297)". The National Archive. Retrieved 29 July 2010.
- ^ "Magna Carta (1297)". Statutelaw.gov.uk. Retrieved 13 June 2015.
- ^ Edwards 1943.
- ^ "Confirmatio Cartarum". britannia.com. Retrieved 30 November 2007.
- ^ Prestwich 1997, p. 434.
- ^ Cobbett et al. 1810, p. 980.
- ^ "Magna Carta". Salisbury Cathedral. Retrieved 25 January 2015.
- ^ The Statutes at Large Passed in the Parliaments held in Ireland from The Third Year of Edward the Second A.D. 1310 to the First Year of George the Third, A.D. 1761 Inclusive. Boulter Grierson. 1763. p. 132.
- ^ "Confirmatio Cartarum [26] October 10, 1297". 1215.org. Retrieved 19 January 2015.
- ^ Holt 2008, p. 62.
- ^ Fritze & Robison 2002, pp. 34–35.
- ^ Prestwich 1997, pp. 547–548.
- ^ Menache 2003, pp. 253–255.
- ^ Scott 2014.
- ^ Holt 2008, pp. 44–45.
- ^ Holt 2008, pp. 45–46.
- ^ Holt 2008, p. 56.
- ^ Holt 2008, pp. 56–57.
- ^ Turner 2003b, p. 123.
- ^ Thompson 1948, pp. 9–10.
- ^ a b Turner 2003a.
- ^ "800th anniversary of Magna Carta" (PDF). Church of England General Synod. Retrieved 4 November 2014.
- ^ "Magna Carta". Royal Family History. Retrieved 4 November 2014.
- ^ Johnson, Ben. "The Origins of the Magna Carta". Historic UK. Retrieved 4 November 2014.
- ^ Turner 2003b, p. 132.
- ^ Turner 2003b, p. 133.
- ^ Hindley 1990, pp. 185–187.
- ^ Hindley 1990, pp. 185–186.
- ^ Turner 2003b, p. 138.
- ^ a b c Hindley 1990, p. 188.
- ^ Thompson 1948, p. 146.
- ^ Warren 1990, p. 324.
- ^ Hindley 1990, p. 187.
- ^ Magna Carta, cum aliis antiquis statutis ... London: Thomas Berthelet, 1531 Beale S9; STC 9271. Magna carta cvm aliis antiqvis statvtis, qvorvm catalogvm, in fine operis reperies. London: Thomas Berthelet, 1540. Beale S12; STC 9274 Archived 12 January 2017 at the Wayback Machine. revised edition by Thomas Marshe (1556), Magna Carta et cetera antiqua statuta nunc nouiter per diuersa exemplaria examinata et summa diligentia castigata et correcta cui adiecta est noua tabula valde necessaria.
- ^ Thompson 1948, pp. 147–149.
- ^ Brayley, Edward Wedlake. The Beauties of England and Wales, or original delineations, topographical, historical and descriptive of each county (PDF).
- ^ T. Rodenhurst (1840). A Description of Hawkstone, the Seat of Sir R. Hill, Bart M.P.: With Brief Notices of the Antiquities of Bury Walls and of Red Castle, an Account of the Column, in Shrewsbury and of Lord Hill's Military Actions. Printed at the Chronicle Office, and sold by J. Watton.
- ^ Saul, Nigel (23 April 2014). "William Hardel". Magna Carta Trust 800th Anniversary. Retrieved 24 April 2016.
- ^ "Obelisk, Hawkstone Park, Weston Under Redcastle, Shropshire | Educational Images". Historic England. Archived from the original on 11 April 2023. Retrieved 11 April 2023.
- ^ a b Turner 2003b, p. 140.
- ^ a b c d e Danziger & Gillingham 2004, p. 280.
- ^ Hindley 1990, p. 183.
- ^ a b c d e Breay 2010, p. 46.
- ^ Pocock 1987, p. 124.
- ^ Holt 1992b, p. 9.
- ^ Eele 2013, p. 20.
- ^ Thompson 1948, pp. 216–230.
- ^ Pocock 1987, p. 154.
- ^ Wright 1919, p. 72.
- ^ a b c Hindley 1990, pp. 188–189.
- ^ Pocock 1987, p. 300.
- ^ Greenberg 2006, p. 148.
- ^ Turner 2003b, p. 148.
- ^ Holt 1992b, pp. 20–21.
- ^ Turner 2003b, p. 156.
- ^ a b Hindley 1990, p. 189.
- ^ Hindley 1990, pp. 189–190.
- ^ Turner 2003b, p. 157.
- ^ Danziger & Gillingham 2004, pp. 280–281.
- ^ Russell 1990, p. 41.
- ^ Hindley 1990, p. 190.
- ^ Danziger & Gillingham 2004, p. 271.
- ^ Woolwrych 2003, p. 95.
- ^ a b "Magna Carta: a precedent for recent constitutional change" (PDF). Judiciary of England and Wales Speeches. 15 June 2005. Retrieved 4 November 2014.
- ^ Pocock 1987, p. 127.
- ^ Kewes 2006, p. 279.
- ^ Kewes 2006, p. 226.
- ^ Danziger & Gillingham 2004, pp. 281–282.
- ^ Hill 2006, pp. 111–122.
- ^ Linebaugh 2009, p. 85.
- ^ Pocock 1987, pp. 182–228.
- ^ Turner 2003b, p. 165.
- ^ Pocock 1987, p. 228.
- ^ Turner 2003b, pp. 169–170.
- ^ Breay & Harrison 2015, pp. 110–111, 134.
- ^ Linebaugh 2009, pp. 113–14.
- ^ Linebaugh 2009, pp. 113–114.
- ^ a b Turner 2003b, pp. 67–68.
- ^ Fryde 2001, p. 207.
- ^ Goodrich, Chauncey A. "The Speeches of Lord Chatham". Classic Persuasion.
- ^ "Lord Irvine of Lairg 'The Spirit of Magna Carta Continues to Resonate in Modern Law'". Parliament of Australia. December 2002. Archived from the original on 6 November 2014. Retrieved 7 November 2014.
- ^ Brink, Robert J. (18 August 2014). "History on display: one lawyer's musings on Magna Carta". Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly. Retrieved 20 November 2014.
- ^ Howard 2008, p. 28.
- ^ Hazeltine 1917, p. 194.
- ^ Hazeltine 1917, p. 195.
- ^ Turner 2003b, p. 210.
- ^ Turner 2003b, p. 211.
- ^ Hazeltine 1917, pp. 183–184.
- ^ a b "Magna Carta and Its American Legacy". National Archives and Records Administration. Retrieved 30 January 2015.
- ^ a b "The Magna Carta". National Archives and Records Administration. Retrieved 20 November 2014.
- ^ Logal, W.A. (2000). "Federal Habeas in the Information Age". Minnesota Law Review. 85: 147.
- ^ Stimson 2004, p. 124.
- ^ Black 1999, p. 10.
- ^ "'Klopfer v. North Carolina', 386 U.S. 213 (1967)". FindLaw. Retrieved 2 May 2010.
- ^ Did King John actually 'sign' Magna Carta?, BBC, 19 January 2015, retrieved 14 April 2020
- ^ a b Turner 2003b, pp. 199–200.
- ^ a b Fryde 2001, p. 1.
- ^ a b Simmons 1998, pp. 69–83.
- ^ Galef 1998, pp. 78–79.
- ^ Pollard 1912, pp. 31–32.
- ^ Barnes 2008, p. 23.
- ^ Danziger & Gillingham 2004, p. 283.
- ^ "Home". The Baronial Order of Magna Charta. Retrieved 19 November 2014.
- ^ Wright 1990, p. 167.
- ^ Holt 1992b, pp. 2–3.
- ^ a b Danziger & Gillingham 2004, p. 278.
- ^ Burdett 1810, p. 41.
- ^ a b c "(Magna Carta) (1297) (c. 9)". UK Statute Law Database. Archived from the original on 5 September 2007. Retrieved 2 September 2007.
- ^ "Magna Carta". Segamore Institute. Archived from the original on 5 November 2014. Retrieved 4 November 2014.
- ^ "The contents of Magna Carta". UK Parliament. Archived from the original on 28 August 2022. Retrieved 28 August 2022.
- ^ "Magna Carta 1297 at Legislation.gov.uk". Legislation.gov.uk. Retrieved 8 December 2022.
- ^ Clark 2000.
- ^ Kennedy 1922, p. 228.
- ^ Drew 2004, pp. pxvi–pxxiii.
- ^ a b c Breay 2010, p. 48.
- ^ "So will the revolution start in Haltemprice and Howden?". The Independent. UK. 14 June 2008. Retrieved 16 June 2008.
- ^ Green, David Allen (16 June 2014). "The myth of Magna Carta". Financial Times. Retrieved 21 January 2015.
The sarcasm of the Master of the Rolls was plain
- ^ "The Mayor Commonalty and Citizens of London v Samede". 22 February 2012. Retrieved 21 January 2015.
- ^ Holt 1992b, p. 2.
- ^ Warren 1990, p. 240.
- ^ Helmholz 2014, p. 1475 "The latter, a negative opinion that a majority of professional historians seem to share, regards Magna Carta’s exalted reputation as a myth. In its origins, historians say, the Charter did little or nothing to promote good government. Nor, they add, did it serve to protect the legal rights of the great majority of English men and women. It served only the baronial class. Its glorification was a later invention, attributable to myth-making lawyers like Edward Coke in the seventeenth century and William Blackstone in the eighteenth."
- ^ Baker 2017, p. missing
- ^ Radin 1947, p. missing
- ^ Holt 1992b, p. 21.
- ^ "Magna Carta (25 Ed I)". New Zealand Law online.
- ^ a b "Magna Carta 1297 s 29". New Zealand Legislation. 28 March 1297.
- ^ "United States Constitution Q + A". The Charters of Freedom. National Archives and Records Administration. Retrieved 4 November 2014.
- ^ "Magna Carta Replica and Display". Architect of the Capitol. Retrieved 20 November 2014.
- ^ Doward, Jamie (1 November 2014). "Magna Carta 800 years on: recognition at last for 'England's greatest export'". The Observer. Retrieved 7 November 2014.
- ^ "Celebrating 800 years of Magna Carta". British Library. Retrieved 7 November 2014.
- ^ "Magna Carta: Law, Liberty, Legacy". British Library. Retrieved 7 November 2014.
- ^ Jones, Jonathan (14 May 2015). "Kings and needles: the Magna Carta gets an embroidery update". The Guardian. Retrieved 14 May 2015.
- ^ Davies, Caroline (15 June 2015). "Magna Carta: leaders celebrate 800th anniversary of the Great Charter". The Guardian. Retrieved 20 June 2015.
- ^ "800th Anniversary of the Magna Carta". Google. 15 June 2015.
- ^ "Magna Carta: Muse and Mentor". Library of Congress. 6 November 2014. Retrieved 30 January 2015.
- ^ "Magna Carta 800". Visit Lincoln. Retrieved 7 November 2014.
- ^ "800th Anniversary of Magna Carta 2015 UK £2 BU Coin". Royal Mint. Retrieved 27 December 2014.
- ^ "Magna Carta 800th Anniversary 2015 UK £2 Silver Piedfort Coin | The Royal Mint". The Royal Mint. Archived from the original on 25 November 2015. Retrieved 24 November 2015.
- ^ "Bury St Edmunds Magna Carta 800". Bury St Edmunds: The Bury Society. Retrieved 28 December 2014.
- ^ a b Breay 2010, p. 37.
- ^ Breay 2010, pp. 37–38.
- ^ a b Hindley 1990, p. 143.
- ^ Breay 2010, pp. 38–39.
- ^ Browning 1898, p. 50.
- ^ Breay 2010, pp. 34–35.
- ^ Breay 2010, p. 34.
- ^ a b Breay 2010, p. 35.
- ^ Breay 2010, pp. 34–36.
- ^ Breay 2010, pp. 35–36.
- ^ Breay 2010, p. 36.
- ^ Turner 2003b, p. 65.
- ^ "Canterbury's Magna Carta rediscovered in time for 800th anniversary". Canterbury Christ Church University. Archived from the original on 23 January 2015. Retrieved 31 January 2015.
- ^ "Remarkable discovery says copy of Magna Carta in British Library was 'Canterbury charter'". kentnews. Archived from the original on 23 January 2015. Retrieved 31 January 2015.
- ^ Breay & Harrison 2015, pp. 57, 66.
- ^ Breay & Harrison 2015, pp. 66, 216–219.
- ^ Duffy, Christina. "Revealing the secrets of the burnt Magna Carta". British Library. Retrieved 8 June 2016.
- ^ Breay 2010, pp. 36–37.
- ^ Davis 1963, p. 36.
- ^ a b c Knight, Alec (17 April 2004). "Magna Charta: Our Heritage and Yours". National Society Magna Charta Dames and Barons. Archived from the original on 21 August 2004. Retrieved 2 September 2007.
- ^ a b "Magna Carta: Muse and Mentor Magna Carta Comes to America". Library of Congress. 6 November 2014.
- ^ a b Vincent 2012, p. 107.
- ^ "Proposed Gift of Magna Carta to America, 1941". The National Archives. Retrieved 29 January 2022.
May we give you – at least as a token of our feelings – something of no intrinsic value whatever: a bit of parchment, more than seven hundred years old, rather the worse for wear.
- ^ "Magna Carta As Exhibit For New York World Fair". British Pathé. Retrieved 15 September 2016.
- ^ "Magna Carta in the US, Part I: The British Pavilion of the 1939 New York World's Fair". 30 April 2014.
- ^ "Magna Carta on Display Beginning 4 July" (Press release). National Constitution Center. 30 May 2007. Archived from the original on 27 September 2007. Retrieved 2 September 2007.
- ^ "Magna Carta & Four Foundations of Freedom". Contemporary Art Center of Virginia. 2007. Retrieved 4 November 2014.
- ^ Kahn, Eve M (13 September 2009). "Copy of Magna Carta Travels to New York in Style". The New York Times. Retrieved 4 January 2015.
- ^ "Magna Carta". Lincoln Castle. 12 February 2015. Retrieved 11 April 2018.
- ^ "Magna Carta". Lincoln Cathedral. Retrieved 11 April 2018.
- ^ Salisbury Cathedral (2013). "The Salisbury Connection". Retrieved 13 November 2014.
- ^ a b Vincent 2012, p. 104.
- ^ a b Salisbury Cathedral (2013). "The Document". Retrieved 13 November 2014.
- ^ "Award for cathedral Magna Carta". BBC News Online. 4 August 2009. Retrieved 4 January 2015.
- ^ Salisbury Cathedral (2013). "Visiting Magna Carta". Retrieved 13 November 2014.
- ^ a b Vincent 2012, p. 106.
- ^ a b "Magna Carta pulls in the crowds". Bodleian Libraries. University of Oxford. Retrieved 13 June 2015.
- ^ "Magna Carta at Hereford Cathedral". BBC. Retrieved 4 November 2014.
- ^ "The Magna Carta". Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco. 5 April 2011. Retrieved 4 January 2015.
- ^ "Magna Carta, 1225". British Library. Retrieved 22 November 2014.
- ^ Campbell, Sophie (16 September 2014). "Magna Carta: On the trail of the Great Charter". Telegraph. Archived from the original on 10 January 2022. Retrieved 4 November 2014.
- ^ Lewis 1987, p. 494.
- ^ "Magna Carta". The National Archives. Retrieved 19 January 2015.
- ^ Moss, Richard. "Society of Antiquaries to restore and display Magna Carta for 800th anniversary". Culture 24. Retrieved 13 June 2015.
- ^ Evans, Harry (June 1998). "Bad King John and the Australian Constitution: Commemorating the 700th Anniversary of the 1297 Issue of Magna Carta". Parliament of Australia. Papers on Parliament No. 31.
- ^ "Magna Carta". Parliament of Australia. 4 December 2024.
- ^ "Conservation of the Magna Carta". Parliament of Australia. 4 December 2024.
- ^ Barron, James (25 September 2007). "Magna Carta is going on the auction block". The New York Times. Retrieved 19 December 2007.
- ^ "Magna Carta copy fetches $24m". Sydney Morning Herald. 19 December 2007. Retrieved 19 December 2007.
- ^ Edgers, Geoff (31 October 2014). "Two Magna Cartas in D.C." The Washington Post. Retrieved 4 November 2014.
- ^ Vincent 2015, p. 160.
- ^ Hossack, James (19 December 2007). "Magna Carta Sold at Auction for $21.3 Million". The Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved 14 June 2015.
- ^ a b c Harris, Carolyn. "Where is Magna Carta Today?". Magna Carta 2015 Canada. Retrieved 13 June 2015.
- ^ "Magna Carta". National Archives. 1297. Retrieved 13 June 2015.
- ^ a b "Magna Carta edition found in Sandwich archive scrapbook". BBC. 8 February 2015. Retrieved 13 June 2015.
- ^ "Faversham gets ready to celebrate its Magna Carta artefact". Faversham Times. 17 September 2014. Archived from the original on 12 February 2015. Retrieved 13 June 2015.
- ^ "New City of London Heritage Gallery to open at the Guildhall". Museums and Heritage Advisor. 27 August 2014. Retrieved 13 June 2015.
- ^ "About us". Sandwich Guildhall Museum. Retrieved 13 September 2023.
- ^ Press Association (8 February 2015). "£10m Magna Carta found in council archives. Expert says discovery of 1300 edition of historic document raises hopes that there are more than the 24 copies currently known about in existence". The Guardian.
- ^ a b c d e Breay 2010, p. 28.
- ^ Poole 1993, pp. 16–17.
- ^ a b Breay 2010, p. 29.
- ^ Gordon v. Justice Court, 12 Cal. 3d 323 (1974).
- ^ a b Huscroft 2005, p. 97.
- ^ Poole 1993, pp. 29–30.
- ^ Poole 1993, p. 29.
- ^ a b c Breay 2010, p. 32.
- ^ Poole 1993, pp. 353, 474.
- ^ Hillaby & Hillaby 2013, p. 23.
- ^ Huscroft 2005, p. 190.
- ^ a b Huscroft 2005, p. 189.
- ^ Turner 2009, p. 121.
- ^ a b c Breay 2010, pp. 49–54.
- ^ Thomson 2011
- ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z aa ab ac ad ae af ag UK Government 1297
- ^ a b Madison, P. A. (2 August 2010). "Historical Analysis of the first of the 14th Amendment's First Section". The Federalist Blog. Archived from the original on 18 November 2019. Retrieved 19 January 2013.
The words "We will sell to no man" were intended to abolish the fines demanded by King John in order to obtain justice. "Will not deny" referred to the stopping of suits and the denial of writs. "Delay to any man" meant the delays caused either by the counter-fines of defendants, or by the prerogative of the King.
- ^ "The 1215 Magna Carta: Clause 52". The Magna Carta Project. University of East Anglia. Retrieved 22 July 2021.
- ^ a b Hindley 1990, p. 201.
- ^ "Imperial Acts Application Act 1969 (NSW) s 6". NSW Legislation.
- ^ Imperial Acts Application Act 1980 (Vic)
- ^ "Imperial Acts Application Act 1984 (Qld) sch 1". Queensland Legislation.
- ^ "Magna Carta (1297) 25 Edw 1 c 29". ACT Legislation Register.
- ^ Clark 2000, p. 866.
Sources
- Aurell, Martin (2003). L'Empire de Plantagenêt, 1154–1224 (in French). Paris: Tempus. ISBN 978-2262022822.
- Baker, John (2017). The Reinvention of Magna Carta 1216–1616. Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/9781316940990. ISBN 978-1-316-94973-3 – via Google Books.
- Barnes, Thomas Garden (2008). Shaping the Common Law: From Glanvill to Hale, 1188–1688. Stanford University Press. ISBN 978-0804779593.
- Black, Charles (1999). A New Birth of Freedom: Human Rights, Named and Unnamed. New Haven, CN: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0300077346.
- Blick, Andrew (2015). Beyond Magna Carta: A Constitution for the United Kingdom. Oxford: Bloomsbury. ISBN 978-1-84946-309-6.
- Breay, Claire (2010). Magna Carta: Manuscripts and Myths. London: The British Library. ISBN 978-0712358330.
- Breay, Claire; Harrison, Julian, eds. (2015). Magna Carta: Law, Liberty, Legacy. London: The British Library. ISBN 978-0712357647.
- Browning, Charles Henry (1898). "The Magna Charta Described". The Magna Charta Barons and Their American Descendants with the Pedigrees of the Founders of the Order of Runnemede Deduced from the Sureties for the Enforcement of the Statutes of the Magna Charta of King John. Philadelphia. OCLC 9378577.
{{cite book}}
: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link) - Burdett, Francis (1810). Sir Francis Burdett to His Constituents. R. Bradshaw.
- Carpenter, David A. (1990). The Minority of Henry III. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. ISBN 978-0413623607.
- Carpenter, David (1996). The Reign of Henry III. London: Hambledon Press. ISBN 978-1852851378.
- Carpenter, David A. (2004). Struggle for Mastery: The Penguin History of Britain 1066–1284. London: Penguin. ISBN 978-0140148244.
- Clanchy, Michael T. (1997). Early Medieval England. The Folio Society.
- Clark, David (2000). "The Icon of Liberty: The Status and Role of Magna Carta in Australian and New Zealand Law". Melbourne University Law Review. 24 (3).
- Cobbett, William; Howell, Thomas Bayly; Howell, Th.J.; Jardine, William (1810). Cobbett's Complete Collection of State Trials and Proceedings for High Treason and Other Crimes and Misdemeanors from the Earliest Period to the Present Time. Bagshaw.
- Crouch, David (1996). William Marshal: Court, Career and Chivalry in the Angevin Empire 1147–1219. Longman. ISBN 978-0582037861.
- Danziger, Danny; Gillingham, John (2004). 1215: The Year of Magna Carta. Hodder Paperbacks. ISBN 978-0340824757.
- Davis, G.R.C. (1963). Magna Carta. The British Library Publishing Division. ISBN 978-0712300148.
- Davis, John Paul (2013). The Gothic King: A Biography of Henry III. London: Peter Owen. ISBN 978-0720614800.
- Drew, Katherine F. (2004). Magna Carta. Greenwood Press. ISBN 978-0313325908.
- Edwards, J.G. (1943). "Confirmatio Cartarum and Baronial Grievances in 1297". The English Historical Review. 58 (231): 273–300. doi:10.1093/ehr/lviii.ccxxxi.273. JSTOR 554340.
- Eele, Caroline (2013). Perceptions of Magna Carta: Why has it been seen as significant? (PDF) (Thesis). 2014 Magna Carta 2015 Committee. Retrieved 18 November 2014.
- Fryde, Natalie (2001). Why Magna Carta? Angevin England Revisited. Munster, Germany: LiT. ISBN 978-3825856571.
- Fritze, Ronald; Robison, William (2002). Historical Dictionary of Late Medieval England 1272–1485. Greenwood Press. ISBN 978-0313291241.
- Galef, David (1998). Second Thoughts: Focus on Rereading. Detroit, MI: Wayne State University Press. ISBN 978-0814326473.
- Goodman, Ellen (1995). The Origins of the Western Legal Tradition: From Thales to the Tudors. Federation Press. ISBN 978-1862871816.
- Greenberg, Janelle (2006). The Radical Face of the Ancient Constitution: St Edward's 'Laws' in Early Modern Political Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0521024884.
- Hallam, Elizabeth M.; Everard, Judith A. (2001). Capetian France, 987–1328 (2nd ed.). Harlow, UK: Longman. ISBN 978-0582404281.
- Hazeltine, H.D. (1917). "The Influence of Magna Carta on American Constitutional Development". In Malden, Henry Elliot (ed.). Magna Carta commemoration essays. BiblioBazaar. ISBN 978-1116447477.
- Helmholz, R. H. (2014). "The Myth of Magna Carta Revisited". North Carolina Law Review. 94 (5): 1475–1493.
- Helmholz, R. H. (2016). "Magna Carta and the Law of Nature" (PDF). Loyola Law Review. 62: 869–886.
- Hewit, H.J. (1929). Mediaeval Cheshire. Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press.
- Hill, Christopher (2006). Winstanley 'The Law of Freedom' and Other Writings. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0521031608.
- Hillaby, Joe; Hillaby, Caroline (2013). The Palgrave Dictionary of Medieval Anglo-Jewish History. Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 978-1137308153.
- Hindley, Geoffrey (1990). The Book of Magna Carta. London: Constable. ISBN 978-0094682405.
- Holt, James C. (1992a). The Northerners: A Study in the Reign of King John. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0198203094.
- Holt, James C. (1992b). Magna Carta. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0521277785.
- Holt, James C. (2015). Magna Carta (3rd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9781316144596. ISBN 978-1107093164.
- Holt, James C. (2008) [1993]. The Ancient Constitution in Medieval England (PDF). Liberty Fund. ISBN 978-0865977099.
- Howard, A.E. Dick (2008). "Magna Carta Comes To America". Fourscore. 58 (4).
- Huscroft, Richard (2005). Ruling England, 1042–1217. Harlow, UK: Pearson. ISBN 978-0582848825.
- Jobson, Adrian (2012). The First English Revolution: Simon de Montfort, Henry III and the Barons' War. London: Bloomsbury. ISBN 978-1847252265.
- Kennedy, William Paul McClure (1922). The Constitution of Canada. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Kewes, Paulina (2006). The Uses of History in Early Modern England. Berkeley: University of California Press. ISBN 978-0873282192.
- Lewis, Suzanne (1987). The Art of Matthew Paris in the Chronica Majora. University of California Press. ISBN 978-0520049819.
- Linebaugh, Peter (2009). The Magna Carta Manifesto: Liberties and Commons for All. Berkeley: University of California Press. ISBN 978-0520260009.
- Mayr-Harting, Henry (2011). Religion, Politics and Society in Britain, 1066–1272. Harlow, UK: Longman. ISBN 978-0582414136.
- McGlynn, Sean (2013). Blood Cries Afar: The Forgotten Invasion of England, 1216. London: Spellmount. ISBN 978-0752488318.
- Menache, Sophia (2003). Clement V. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0521521987.
- Pocock, J.G.A. (1987). The Ancient Constitution and the Feudal Law: A Study of English Historical Thought in the Seventeenth Century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0521316439.
- Pollard, Albert Frederick (1912). The history of England; a study in political evolution. H. Holt.
- Poole, Austin Lane (1993) [1951]. From Domesday Book to Magna Carta 1087–1216 (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Powicke, F.M. (1929). "The Bull 'Miramur Plurimum' and a Letter to Archbishop Stephen Langton, 5 September 1215". English Historical Review. 44: 87–93. doi:10.1093/ehr/xliv.clxxiii.87.
- Powicke, Frederick Maurice (1963). The Thirteenth Century 1216–1307. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0198217084.
- Prestwich, Michael (1997). Edward I. New Haven, CN: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0300071573.
- Ridgeway, H. W. (2010) [2004]. "Henry III (1207–1272)". Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (online ed.). Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/ref:odnb/12950. (Subscription or UK public library membership required.)
- Radin, Max (1947). "The Myth of Magna Carta". Harvard Law Review. 60 (7): 1060–1091. doi:10.2307/1335742. ISSN 0017-811X. JSTOR 1335742.
- Rothwell, Harry (1975). English Historical Documents 1189–1327. London: Eyre & Spottiswoode. ISBN 978-0413233004.
- Russell, Conrad (1990). Unrevolutionary England, 1603–1642. Continnuum-3PL. ISBN 978-1852850258.
- Scott, Robert McNair (2014). Robert The Bruce: King Of Scots. Canongate Books. ISBN 978-1847677464.
- Simmons, Clare A. (1998). "Absent Presence: The Romantic-Era Magna Charta and the English Constitution". In Shippey, Richard; Utz, Tom (eds.). Medievalism in the Modern World. Essays in Honour of Leslie J. Workman. Brepols Publishers.
- Stimson, Frederick Jessup (2004). The Law Of The Federal And State Constitutions Of The United States. Lawbook Exchange Ltd. ISBN 978-1584773696.
- Tatton-Brown, Tim (July 2015). "Magna Carta at 800: Uncovering its Landscape Archaeology". Current Archaeology (304): 34–37.
- Thompson, Faith (1948). Magna Carta – Its Role In The Making Of The English Constitution 1300–1629. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. ISBN 978-1299948686.
- Thomson, Richard (2011) [1829]. "Magna Carta Liberatum (The Great Charter of Liberties) The First Great Charter of King Edward The First Granted October 12th 1297". In Sharples, Barry (ed.). An Historical Essay on the Magna Charta of King John. Retrieved 13 November 2014.
- Turner, Ralph V. (2003a). "The Meaning of Magna Carta since 1215". History Today. 53 (9).
- Turner, Ralph (2003b). Magna Carta: Through the Ages. Routledge. ISBN 978-0582438262.
- Turner, Ralph (2009). King John: England's Evil King?. Stroud, UK: History Press. ISBN 978-0752448503.
- "Magna Carta (1297)". UK Government. Retrieved 15 November 2014.
- Vincent, Nicholas (2012). Magna Carta: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0199582877.
- Vincent, Nicholas (2015). "From World War to World Heritage: Magna Carta in the Twentieth Century". In Vincent, Nicholas (ed.). Magna Carta: The Foundation of Freedom, 1215–2015. London: Third Millennium Publishing. pp. 154–169. ISBN 978-1908990488.
- Warren, W. Lewis (1990). King John. London: Methuen. ISBN 978-0413455208.
- Weiler, Björn K.U. (2012). Henry III of England and the Staufen Empire, 1216–1272. Paris: Royal Historical Society: Boydell Press. ISBN 978-0861933198.
- White, Albert Beebe (1915). "The Name Magna Carta". The English Historical Review. XXX (CXIX): 472–475. doi:10.1093/ehr/XXX.CXIX.472.
- White, Albert Beebe (1917). "Note on the Name Magna Carta". The English Historical Review. XXXII (CXXVIII): 545–555. doi:10.1093/ehr/XXXII.CXXVIII.554.
- Woolwrych, Austin Herbert (2003). Smith, David Lee (ed.). Cromwell and Interregnum: The Essential Readings. Wiley-Blackwell. ISBN 978-0631227250.
- Wright, Herbert G. (1919). The Life And Works Of Arthur Hall Of Grantham, Member Of Parliament, Courtier And First Translator Of Homer Into English. Book on Demand.
- Wright, Patrick (1990). The River: A Thames Journey. London: BBC Books. ISBN 978-0563384786.
Further reading
- Ambler, S. T. (August 2015). "Magna Carta: Its Confirmation at Simon de Montfort's Parliament of 1265". English Historical Review. CXXX (545): 801–830. doi:10.1093/ehr/cev202.
- Davies, Stephen (2008). "Magna Carta". In Hamowy, Ronald (ed.). The Encyclopedia of Libertarianism. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; Cato Institute. pp. 313–314. doi:10.4135/9781412965811.n188. ISBN 978-1412965804. OCLC 750831024.
- McKechnie, William Sharp (1914). Magna Carta: A Commentary on the Great Charter of King John with an Historical Introduction (PDF). Glasgow, UK: James Maclehose and Sons.
External links
Government websites
Academic websites
Texts
- Text of the Magna Carta 1297 as in force today (including any amendments) within the United Kingdom, from legislation.gov.uk.
- Magna Carta Libertatum Latin and English text of the 1215 charter
- Text of Magna Carta English translation, with introductory historical note. From the Internet Medieval Sourcebook.
- Magna Carta public domain audiobook at LibriVox
- Magna Carta
- 1215 in England
- 1210s in law
- 1215 works
- 13th-century manuscripts
- Barons' Wars
- Civil rights and liberties in the United Kingdom
- Civil rights and liberties legislation
- Constitutional laws of England
- Cotton Library
- History of human rights
- Medieval charters and cartularies of England
- Medieval English law
- Memory of the World Register
- Political charters
- Political history of medieval England
- Democratization