Recent from talks
Nothing was collected or created yet.
Magna Carta
View on Wikipedia
| Magna Carta | |
|---|---|
Cotton MS. Augustus II. 106, one of four surviving exemplifications of the 1215 text | |
| Created | 1215 |
| Location | Two at the British Library; one each in Lincoln Castle and in Salisbury Cathedral |
| Authors | |
| Purpose | Peace treaty |
| Full text | |
| Part of the Politics series |
| Monarchy |
|---|
|
|
Magna Carta (Medieval Latin for "Great Charter"), sometimes spelled Magna Charta,[a] is a royal charter[4][5] of rights sealed 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, 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. 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 of 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 invoked 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 that it dealt with the 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, and not ordinary subjects. 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. These are recognised by UNESCO on its Memory of the World international register. 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, three 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
[edit]13th century
[edit]Background
[edit]
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
[edit]
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] 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 |
|---|
|
|
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
[edit]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
[edit]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
[edit]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
[edit]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
[edit]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
[edit]
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
[edit]
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
[edit]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
[edit]
King Edward I reissued the Charters of 1225 in 1297 in return for a new tax.[132] It is this version which remains on the statute book today, although with most articles now repealed.[133][134]
| Act of Parliament | |
| Citation | 25 Edw. 1 |
|---|---|
| Territorial extent | |
| Dates | |
| Royal assent | 1297 |
| Other legislation | |
| Amended by | |
| Relates to | |
Status: Amended | |
| Text of statute as originally enacted | |
| Revised text of statute as 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]
Great Charter of 1300
[edit]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
[edit]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
[edit]
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
[edit]
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
[edit]Political tensions
[edit]
With the accession of James VI of Scotland of the House of Stuart to the English throne in 1603, when Elizabeth I of England died childless ending the Tudor dynasty, he became James of England, ruling each kingdom separately in a composite monarchy. There were separate parliaments in each kingdom and separate legal traditions. James believed in the divine right of kings and had ruled Scotland without limits on his power. In England under the Stuart kings, 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
[edit]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 contended that the liberties of the Charter were limited and argued that the liberties were the grant of the monarch. By putting Magna Carta in historical context, he cast doubt on its contemporary political relevance. [204] Brady's historical interpretation did not survive the Glorious Revolution, which ousted the Stuart monarch James II. According to the historian J. G. A. Pocock, that "marked a setback for the course of English historiography."[205]
In the Whig interpretation of history, the Glorious Revolution was an example of reclaiming 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 writer Henry Care (d. 1688) was a polemical and influential work that was much-reprinted, in the American colonies as well as Britain. It placed 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 was challenged by Granville Sharp, who 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, citing Magna Carta throughout.[211] Lord Camden denounced the treatment of Wilkes as a contravention of Magna Carta.[212] Thomas Paine, whose 1776 pamphlet Common Sense had played an important role in the American Revolution, disregarded Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights in his Rights of Man, arguing that they were not a written constitution devised by elected representatives.[213]
Use in the Thirteen Colonies and the United States
[edit]
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
[edit]Interpretation
[edit]
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
[edit]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
[edit]
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
[edit]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),[263] which was shown at the British Library between May and July 2015.[264] 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.[265]
On 15 June 2015, a commemoration ceremony was conducted in Runnymede at the National Trust park, attended by British and American dignitaries.[266] On the same day, Google celebrated the anniversary with a Google Doodle.[267]
The copy held by Lincoln Cathedral was exhibited in the Library of Congress in Washington, D.C., from November 2014 until January 2015.[268] A new visitor centre at Lincoln Castle was opened for the anniversary.[269] The Royal Mint released two commemorative two-pound coins.[270][271]
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.[272]
Copies
[edit]Physical format
[edit]Numerous copies, known as exemplifications, were made of the various charters, and many of them still survive.[273] 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.[274][275] They were sealed with the royal great seal by an official called the spigurnel, equipped with a special seal press, using beeswax and resin.[275][276] There were no signatures on the charter of 1215, and the barons present did not attach their own seals to it.[277] 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
[edit]1215 exemplifications
[edit]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.[278] Slight variations exist between the surviving copies, and there was probably no single "master copy".[279] 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.[280] Each of these versions is slightly different in size and text, and each is considered by historians to be equally authoritative.[281]

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.[282] 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.[283] 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,[284] 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.[285][286][287] 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.[288][289] This is the only surviving 1215 copy still to have its great seal attached.[290][291]
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.[280][292] 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.[293] 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.[294][295]
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.[293][294][296][297] It was put on display in 1976 in the cathedral's medieval library.[292] 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.[292][298][299] In 2009 it returned to New York to be displayed at the Fraunces Tavern Museum.[300] 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.[301][302]
The fourth copy, held by Salisbury Cathedral, was first given in 1215 to its predecessor, Old Sarum Cathedral.[303] Rediscovered by the cathedral in 1812, it has remained in Salisbury throughout its history, except when being taken off-site for restoration work.[304][305] 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.[305][306][307] 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.[273][304]
In 2009, UNESCO added these four surviving exemplars to the Memory of the World international register, recognising them as documentary heritage of global importance.[308][309]
Later exemplifications
[edit]
Other early versions of the charters survive today. Only one exemplification of the 1216 charter survives, held in Durham Cathedral.[310] Four copies of the 1217 charter exist; three of these are held by the Bodleian Library in Oxford and one by Hereford Cathedral.[310][311] 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.[312] One of the Bodleian's copies was displayed at San Francisco's California Palace of the Legion of Honor in 2011.[313]
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.[311][314][315] The fourth exemplification of 1225 was held by the museum of the Public Record Office, and is now held by The National Archives.[316][317] 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.[318]

Four exemplifications of the 1297 charter also survive, of which two are held outside England. One was purchased in 1952 by the Australian Government for £12,500 from King's School, Bruton, England.[319] Restored in 2024, this copy is now on display in the Members' Hall of Parliament House, Canberra.[320][321] 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.[322][323][324] 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.[325][326] Of the other two surviving 1297 exemplifications,[327] one is held in the UK's National Archives,[328] and the other in the Guildhall, London.[327]
Eight exemplifications of the 1300 confirmation by Edward I survive,[327][329] in Faversham,[330] Oriel College, Oxford, the Bodleian Library, Durham Cathedral, Westminster Abbey, the City of London (held in the archives at the London Guildhall),[331] Sandwich (held in the Sandwich Guildhall Museum)[332] and Cambridge, Massachusetts (held at Harvard Law School).[333] The Sandwich copy was rediscovered in early 2015 in a Victorian scrapbook in the town archives of Sandwich, Kent, one of the Cinque Ports.[329] In the case of the Sandwich and Oriel College exemplifications, the copies of the Charter of the Forest originally issued with them also survive.[334] The Harvard copy, previously thought to be an unofficial secondary copy, was identified as an original exemplification in 2025.[333][335][336]
Clauses
[edit]
Most of the 1215 charter and later versions sought to govern the feudal rights of the Crown over the barons.[337] 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.[337]
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.[338] 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.[337]
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.[339]
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.[339] 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.[340]

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.[341][342] 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".[341] The size of the forests had expanded under the Angevin kings, an unpopular development.[343]
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.[344] 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.[344]
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.[345] 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.[346] 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.[344]
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.[347] 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.[348][349]
These changes brought the customary rights of lay rulers such as John over ecclesiastical appointments into question.[348] 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.[337] 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.[337]
Clauses in detail
[edit]
|
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.[352] |
| 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.[352] |
| 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.[352] |
| 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.[352] |
| 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.[352] |
| 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.[352] |
| 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.[352] |
| 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.[352] |
| 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.[352] |
| 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.[352] |
| 18 | Defined the authority and frequency of county courts. | Y | Repealed by Civil Procedure Acts Repeal Act 1879.[352] |
| 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.[352] |
| 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.[352] |
| 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.[352] |
| 23 | Limited the right of feudal lords to demand assistance in building bridges across rivers. | Y | Repealed by Statute Law (Repeals) Act 1969.[352] |
| 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.[352] |
| 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.[352] |
| 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.[352] |
| 29 | Regulated the exercise of castle-guard duty. | Y | Repealed by Statute Law Revision Act 1863 and Statute Law Revision (Ireland) Act 1872.[352] |
| 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.[352] |
| 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.[352] |
| 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.[352] |
| 33 | Ordered the removal of all fish weirs from rivers. | Y | Repealed by Statute Law (Repeals) Act 1969.[352] |
| 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.[352] |
| 35 | Ordered the establishment of standard measures for wine, ale, corn, and cloth. | Y | Repealed by Statute Law Revision Act 1948.[352] |
| 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.[352] |
| 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.[352] |
| 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.[352] |
| 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.[353] | 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.[352] |
| 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.[352] |
| 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.[352] |
| 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".[354] | 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.[352] |
| 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.[352] |
| 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.[355][56] |
| 63 | Stated that the charter was binding on King John and his heirs. | N | Sometimes considered a subclause, "Suffix B", of clause 61.[355][56] |
Clauses remaining in English law
[edit]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] Using the numbering system from the 1297 statute, these clauses state that:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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][353]
Clauses in force in other countries
[edit]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,[356] Victoria,[357] Queensland[358] and the Australian Capital Territory.[359] 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.[360]
See also
[edit]- 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
[edit]- ^ 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".The spelling Charta originates in the 18th century, as a restoration of classical Latin charta for the Medieval Latin spelling carta.[1] While "Charta" remains an acceptable variant spelling, it never became prevalent in English usage.[2] The article is more commonly omitted.[3] Latin does not have a definite article equivalent to "the".
- ^ Within this article, dates before 14 September 1752 are in the Julian calendar. Later dates are in the Gregorian calendar.
- ^ 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
[edit]- ^ 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". Oxford English Dictionary (Online ed.). Oxford University Press. (Subscription or participating institution membership required.) "Usually without article."
- ^ "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, Wikipedia Library access 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.
- ^ Cole, Ina, ed. (2021). "From the Sculptor's Studio", conversation with Cornelia Parker, held in 2008 and 2020. Laurence King Publishing Ltd. pp. 174–187. ISBN 9781913947590. OCLC 1420954826.
- ^ "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". Salisbury Cathedral. 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". Salisbury Cathedral. Retrieved 13 November 2014.
- ^ "Magna Carta, issued in 1215". UNESCO Memory of the World Programme. Archived from the original on 1 July 2024. Retrieved 21 May 2025.
- ^ "Surviving Magna Carta copies granted UN World Heritage status". The Telegraph. 31 July 2009. Retrieved 21 May 2025.
- ^ 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.
- ^ a b Castle, Stephen (15 May 2025). "Harvard Law Paid $27 for a Copy of Magna Carta. Surprise! It's an Original". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 15 May 2025.
- ^ 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.
- ^ Lee, Olivia (15 May 2025). "Harvard's unofficial copy of Magna Carta is actually an original, experts say". The Guardian. Retrieved 15 May 2025.
- ^ "Harvard Law School's 'copy' of Magna Carta revealed as original". Harvard Law Today. Harvard Law School. 15 May 2025. Retrieved 15 May 2025.
- ^ 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
[edit]- 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.
{{cite book}}: ISBN / Date incompatibility (help) - 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.
{{cite book}}: ISBN / Date incompatibility (help) - 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. hdl:10023/9444. 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.
{{cite book}}: ISBN / Date incompatibility (help) - 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, Wikipedia Library access 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.
{{cite book}}: ISBN / Date incompatibility (help) - 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.
{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: publisher location (link) - 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
[edit]- 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
[edit]Government websites
[edit]Academic websites
[edit]- The Magna Carta Project
- Digital Bodleian: Charters and Seals (high-resolution scans of three 1217 exemplifcations)
Texts
[edit]- 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
View on GrokipediaHistorical Context and Origins
Angevin Monarchy and Fiscal Pressures
The Angevin monarchy, ruling England from 1154 under Henry II, operated within a fiscal framework inherited from the Norman Conquest of 1066, which overlaid continental feudal hierarchies onto Anglo-Saxon land tenure and administrative practices. This fusion imposed strict obligations on tenants-in-chief, who held lands directly from the crown in exchange for knight-service, scutage (monetary commutation of military duties), and feudal aids for events like the king's ransom or eldest son's knighting, creating cascading financial burdens as barons extracted similar payments from sub-tenants to meet royal demands. Such layered exactions, without equivalent Anglo-Saxon communal assemblies for consent, amplified strains during periods of royal military ambition, as lords balanced continental inheritances with English revenues.[9][10] Henry II's legal and administrative reforms intensified these pressures by expanding royal jurisdiction and revenue streams. Through assizes like the Assize of Clarendon in 1166, which mandated presentments by local juries for royal eyre circuits, the crown gained oversight of criminal and possessory actions previously handled in baronial or ecclesiastical courts, yielding fines, amercements, and reliefs from land inheritances. Scutage collections rose accordingly, with levies in 1156, 1159, 1161, 1163, 1167, and 1172 at rates of 2 marks per knight's fee, funding campaigns in Wales, Scotland, and France while eroding baronial liquidity amid disputed successions like the 1173–1174 revolt. These measures, while stabilizing royal authority post-Anarchy, prioritized fiscal extraction over feudal reciprocity, as barons faced heightened costs without proportional gains in protection or autonomy.[11][12] Richard I's reign from 1189 further depleted resources through crusade financing and captivity ransom. Pre-departure, the 1188 Saladin tithe extracted a tenth of clerics' and twentieth of lay movable goods, totaling around 100,000 marks, to support the Third Crusade, while ongoing French wars demanded additional scutages and aids. Captured in December 1192 near Vienna, Richard's release in February 1194 required 150,000 marks paid to Holy Roman Emperor Henry VI, equivalent to roughly two years' royal income, raised via tallages on demesne lands, a carucage (plough-tax) in 1198 yielding 25,000 marks, and clerical contributions including plate seizures. These exactions, totaling over 100,000 pounds of silver beyond crusade costs estimated at 100,000–150,000 marks, left the treasury near bankruptcy by Richard's 1199 death at Chalus, compelling successors to innovate amid inherited debts exceeding £100,000.[13][14] John's 1199 accession inherited this fiscal exhaustion, with Normandy's 1204 loss severing customs revenues of £20,000 annually and necessitating heavier domestic levies to sustain Angevin continental claims. Tallages on royal demesne and boroughs escalated, generating £17,000 in 1207 alone, while expanded royal forests—covering about 25% of England by 1200—incurred fines for assarts, purprestures, and hunting violations, often arbitrarily assessed to yield £10,000–15,000 yearly. Pipe roll data reveal John's ordinary revenues climbing from £22,000 in 1199–1200 to peaks of £60,000 by 1211 through such non-feudal sources, breaching customary limits on aids and triggering baronial perceptions of overreach, as royal demands outpaced reciprocal obligations under feudal contract principles.[15][16]King John's Abuses and Baronial Grievances
The capitulation of Normandy to Philip II of France in June 1204 represented a catastrophic blow to John's Angevin holdings, stripping the English crown of its wealthiest continental possession and necessitating aggressive revenue extraction from England to sustain ongoing military efforts.[17] In the ensuing years, John imposed scutage eleven times between 1199 and 1214—contrasting sharply with the four levies under his brother Richard I—escalating rates to as high as three marks per knight's fee to fund futile reconquests, such as the 1206 expedition to Poitou.[18] These demands, recorded in Exchequer pipe rolls as yields exceeding £20,000 annually by 1205, deviated from customary feudal obligations, compelling barons to commute military service into cash payments under threat of seizure, thereby eroding their financial autonomy and igniting perceptions of royal rapacity.[19] John's administration compounded fiscal pressures with systemic judicial manipulations, particularly through the commercialization of wardships and heiress dispositions, transforming feudal safeguards into instruments of personal enrichment. Upon a baron's death leaving minor heirs, the crown assumed wardship, which John auctioned to the highest bidders or exploited by granting lands to cronies while extracting exorbitant relief fines—often multiples of the heir's annual income—from families seeking restoration.[20] Heiresses faced coerced unions with lowborn favorites or punitive ransoms to avoid them, as in documented cases where baronial estates were alienated to royal allies, with pipe rolls evidencing over £10,000 in such feudal incidents by 1210, prioritizing crown coffers over hereditary continuity. This arbitrary justice, devoid of consistent legal recourse, alienated magnates who viewed it as a perversion of Angevin legal traditions established under Henry II. The crown's rupture with Rome intensified baronial alienation, as Pope Innocent III's interdict from March 1208 to May 1213 halted sacraments across England, a sanction John met by confiscating church revenues estimated at £100,000, further straining lay elites dependent on ecclesiastical networks.[21] John's excommunication in 1209, compounded by threats of deposition, framed him as spiritually illegitimate, prompting barons to question obedience amid moral upheaval and lost tithes that indirectly burdened their domains. Submission to the pope in 1213, yielding England as a papal fief, underscored John's desperation but failed to assuage noble distrust, as renewed exactions post-reconciliation signaled unrelenting fiscal aggression. Baronial countermeasures crystallized in ad hoc assemblies from 1212, evolving into coordinated resistance by 1214–1215, wherein northern and eastern magnates formed proto-committees to catalog abuses, emphasizing restitution of feudal privileges like capped reliefs and scutage limits over abstract liberties.[22] These efforts, driven by self-preservation against John's post-Normandy penury rather than ideological innovation, leveraged collective leverage from tenants-in-chief holding over half of England's knight's fees, positioning grievances as defenses of inherited status against monarchical overextension.[23]Prelude to Runnymede: Negotiations and Revolt
In early 1215, a coalition of northern and eastern barons, led by figures such as Robert Fitzwalter, escalated their grievances against King John by forming an armed association to enforce reforms, culminating in the seizure of London on May 17, 1215, which provided critical leverage by depriving the king of his economic base and forcing him toward negotiations.[24][25] Archbishop Stephen Langton, appointed by Pope Innocent III despite John's opposition and mediator between the factions, played a pivotal role by drawing on historical precedents like Henry I's Coronation Charter of 1100, which he had publicly read to the barons on August 25, 1214, at St. Paul's Cathedral to rally support for limiting royal overreach through feudal customs.[26] Langton's undisclosed draft articles, influenced by these earlier oaths promising just governance and relief from arbitrary taxation, emphasized restoring baronial rights eroded under John's fiscal exactions from campaigns like the failed 1214 invasion of France.[27] Negotiations intensified in late May and early June 1215, with John relocating his court to Windsor and the barons encamped nearby, leading to a truce site at Runnymede meadow between Staines and Windsor on June 10–15, selected for its neutral, open terrain conducive to armed parley rather than ideological debate, as chronicled by Roger of Wendover who described the barons' demands compelling John's provisional concessions.[28][1] On June 15, 1215, John affixed his great seal to the resulting charter as a temporary feudal settlement to avert immediate civil war, while simultaneously dispatching envoys to Pope Innocent III with appeals framing the barons' actions as rebellion against papal overlordship, seeking annulment on grounds that it undermined his divinely sanctioned authority.[29][30] This dual strategy underscored the accord's fragility, rooted in raw power imbalances rather than mutual commitment, with John's secret papal correspondence revealing his intent to void it once militarily viable.[29]The Charter of 1215
Drafting Process and Key Figures
The drafting of Magna Carta in 1215 arose from negotiations between King John and rebel barons at Runnymede, following the barons' capture of London on 17 May 1215. The barons, led by figures such as Robert Fitzwalter, presented a preliminary document known as the Articles of the Barons—comprising 49 demands—on or around 10 June, which John conceded that day.[31] [32] Over the subsequent days, these articles were expanded and formalized into the full charter containing 63 clauses, sealed by the king on 15 June 1215.[1] The process reflected ad hoc responses to John's fiscal and administrative abuses, drawing on feudal customs and earlier royal grants like Henry I's Coronation Charter of 1100 for precedents.[6] Archbishop Stephen Langton of Canterbury served as the primary mediator and contributor to the drafting, transforming the barons' incomplete demands into a cohesive legal document while aligning it with ecclesiastical principles of limited royal authority.[33] [34] Historians regard Langton as instrumental, though debate persists on whether he was the chief architect or mainly a facilitator; his scholarly background and suspension by John in 1208 positioned him sympathetically toward baronial grievances.[34] The baronial council, comprising northern and eastern magnates like Eustace de Vesci and Geoffrey de Mandeville, dominated the content, prioritizing protections for their estates and privileges against arbitrary royal seizures.[31] Notably absent from the drafting were representatives of commoners, merchants, or lower clergy, underscoring the charter's aristocratic orientation focused on peer-level feudal rights rather than broader societal liberties.[33] The final text evolved through iterative revisions during the Runnymede talks, incorporating security mechanisms like the committee of 25 barons to enforce compliance. Four contemporary manuscripts survive, exhibiting minor textual variants—such as phrasing differences in clause order or dating formulas—authenticated via paleographic script analysis and contextual historical corroboration confirming their 1215 issuance.[35][36]Core Provisions Limiting Royal Power
The 1215 Magna Carta included several provisions designed as practical feudal mechanisms to constrain King John's exercise of arbitrary authority, primarily addressing baronial grievances over fiscal exploitation and personal security rather than establishing broad principles of governance. These clauses functioned as targeted safeguards within the existing hierarchical structure, limiting the crown's ability to impose unpredictable demands on tenants-in-chief and their heirs, thereby stabilizing feudal obligations and reducing incentives for royal overreach. Clause 1 affirmed the liberties of the English Church, granting it freedom from royal interference in elections and possessions, which served to align ecclesiastical support with baronial objectives while subordinating broader church interests to the charter's enforcement against the king.[1][37] Clauses 2 through 8 imposed fixed limits on reliefs, wards, and related feudal payments, capping the sums the king could extract upon inheritance or during minority to prevent extortionate demands that had escalated under John. For instance, Clause 2 specified that an heir to an earldom's barony pay £100 in relief, a baron's £100 marks, a knight's 100 shillings, thereby tying fees to historical norms and curbing the crown's practice of inflating them based on estate value or political leverage.[1][38] Clauses 3 to 7 further regulated wardships, prohibiting the king from exploiting minors' estates through mismanagement or forced marriages, and Clause 8 protected widows from compulsory remarriage, collectively addressing causal drivers of baronial resentment by standardizing succession costs and preserving family tenures.[1] Clause 39 provided a procedural check against arbitrary detention, stipulating that no free man could be arrested, imprisoned, disseised, outlawed, exiled, or harmed except by the lawful judgment of his peers or the law of the land, effectively requiring judgment by equals for the landholding elite rather than royal fiat. This applied narrowly to freemen—constituting roughly the top 5-10% of the population, mainly barons and knights—and served as an empirical restraint on the king's capricious seizures, which had fueled the 1215 revolt, without extending to villeins or universal application.[1][39][40] The most innovative yet ephemeral limit appeared in Clause 61, which empowered a committee of twenty-five barons, elected by their peers, to monitor compliance and, upon any violation by the king or his officials, authorize collective distraint—including seizure of castles and lands—until rectification, with the barons immune from royal reprisal during enforcement. This security mechanism represented a radical inversion of feudal accountability, allowing armed coercion against the sovereign as a causal deterrent to breaches, but its confrontational nature led to its omission in subsequent reissues, underscoring the charter's origins as a temporary baronial bulwark rather than enduring constitutional architecture.[1][38][41]Immediate Aftermath: Papal Annulment and First Barons' War
Pope Innocent III declared Magna Carta null and void in a papal bull issued on 24 August 1215, arguing that the charter had been extorted from King John through force and fear, rendering his consent invalid and the document legally ineffective.[5] The pope, who had previously accepted John's feudal submission to the Holy See in 1213, condemned the charter as "shameful and demeaning" to royal dignity and excommunicated the rebel barons, thereby absolving John of his obligations under it.[42] This annulment, prompted by John's envoys to Rome, provided the king with ecclesiastical backing to repudiate the agreement and resume hostilities against the barons who had enforced it at Runnymede.[5] The papal support emboldened John to launch a military campaign in September 1215, targeting eastern England where rebel strongholds concentrated; his forces systematically recaptured castles such as Lincoln and Norwich through sieges involving innovative but destructive tactics, including the use of heated pig fat to undermine Rochester Castle's bridge in November 1215.[43] John's strategy incorporated scorched-earth elements, as his army marched destructively across baronial lands, burning crops and villages to deny resources to opponents and punish defiance, which eroded support even among neutrals by exacerbating economic hardship.[43] By early 1216, royalist advances had neutralized much of the baronial heartland, rendering Magna Carta's enforcement mechanisms—such as the 25 barons' committee—practically inoperative amid the chaos of the First Barons' War.[44] In response to John's resurgence, the barons sought foreign aid, inviting Prince Louis of France—who claimed the English throne through his wife Blanche of Castile's descent from Henry's line—to invade; Louis landed at Thanet on 21 May 1216 with an army, swiftly capturing London and Winchester, which temporarily bolstered rebel positions.[45] John countered by ravaging the southwest, but his campaign ended abruptly with his death from dysentery on 19 October 1216 near Newark, leaving the kingdom divided and the original charter's provisions nullified in practice until the minority regime of his son Henry III.[46] The war's empirical outcomes—baronial fragmentation, foreign intervention's mixed results, and John's tactical successes despite personal demise—highlighted the charter's initial dependence on sustained baronial unity, which papal intervention and royalist momentum had shattered.[47]Reissues and Legal Embedment
Minority of Henry III: 1216 and 1217 Charters
Following the death of King John on 19 October 1216, his nine-year-old son Henry III acceded amid the First Barons' War and invasion by Prince Louis of France, with William Marshal, Earl of Pembroke, acting as regent.[48] To attract support from wavering barons and stabilize royalist forces, the regency reissued a modified Magna Carta in November 1216, presenting it as a concession in exchange for homage and fealty.[49] This version omitted the 1215 charter's security clause (clause 61), which had authorized baronial committees to seize royal castles and assets for enforcement, thereby removing its most radical element to appease moderates and avoid further alienating potential allies.[49] Reduced to 42 clauses from the original 63, it retained core provisions on liberties and justice while functioning primarily as propaganda to rally loyalty during the conflict rather than an immediately enforceable code.[49] On 23 June 1217, sheriffs received orders to proclaim the charter publicly in county courts, aiming to induce rebel barons to defect and reaffirm allegiance to Henry III by highlighting royal adherence to its terms.[50] Empirical records, including the sole surviving engrossment at Durham Cathedral, indicate limited dissemination and adherence, as ongoing military threats prioritized survival over systematic implementation.[49] Royalist successes, such as the Battle of Lincoln on 19 May 1217 and a naval victory on 24 August 1217, paved the way for the Treaty of Lambeth, signed on 12 September 1217, which ended Louis's claim to the throne and integrated Magna Carta into peace terms alongside payments and property restorations.[48] The charter was reissued on 6 November 1217, with forest clauses (addressing encroachments, hunting rights, and assarts from prior versions) extracted into a separate Charter of the Forest, narrowing the main document's focus while embedding both in the settlement to address baronial grievances without overburdening the core text.[48] This pragmatic adaptation marked a causal transition: from a rebel-imposed restraint on royal power to a regency instrument for post-war reconciliation and governance stabilization, though enforcement stayed constrained by residual French influences and factional tensions.[48]1225 Confirmation and Quasi-Constitutional Status
In February 1225, King Henry III, nearing the end of his minority, reissued Magna Carta as a strategic concession to secure baronial and ecclesiastical support amid fiscal pressures for military campaigns in France. This version, dated 11 February at Westminster, was granted in exchange for the barons' consent to a substantial tax levy, assessed as a fifteenth on movable goods, yielding approximately £40,000 to fund the recovery of lost territories like Poitou.[51][52] The reissue transformed the charter from a wartime expedient into a foundational grant, embedding it within the realm's legal framework through this quid pro quo, as the great council's approval lent it the weight of consensual governance rather than coerced extraction. Pope Honorius III's declaration in 1223 that Henry had attained sufficient maturity to issue binding royal grants facilitated this reissue, effectively ratifying the king's capacity to confer lasting concessions and linking the charter's validity to Henry's assumption of full regal authority.[53] Unlike the 1215 original, the 1225 text omitted the contentious security clause establishing a committee of 25 barons to enforce compliance, rendering it a unilateral royal promise reliant on the monarch's adherence rather than institutionalized oversight. This alteration underscored the charter's dependence on royal goodwill, yet its issuance under Henry's personal seal—witnessed by key magnates and prelates—elevated its perceived permanence, positioning it as a voluntary affirmation of limits on arbitrary power. The 1225 Magna Carta retained 37 core clauses from the 1215 version, focusing on feudal rights, judicial protections, and economic regulations while excising time-bound wartime provisions and the enforcement mechanism. Comparative analysis of surviving manuscripts confirms this selective preservation, with clauses addressing amercements, inheritance, and church liberties intact, ensuring continuity of the original's substantive limits on royal fiscal and judicial overreach.[1] By tying observance to the tax grant's reciprocity, the reissue fostered baronial acquiescence, granting the charter quasi-constitutional stature as a bargained statute antecedent to parliamentary enactments, though its enforceability remained precarious absent coercive teeth.[54]Edward I's 1297 Enactment and Subsequent Reaffirmations
In 1297, amid military campaigns in Wales and demands for financial support from barons and clergy strained by heavy taxation, King Edward I confirmed Magna Carta and the Charter of the Forest as statutes of the realm.[55] This enactment, dated to the 25th year of his reign, integrated the charters into English statute law for the first time, responding to parliamentary pressures for guarantees against arbitrary levies.[56] The confirmation preserved the core provisions without new clauses added to Magna Carta itself, though Edward negotiated separate assurances.[55] Closely linked was the Confirmatio Cartarum of October 10, 1297, issued first by Edward's son as lieutenant and reaffirmed by the king on November 5, which extended Magna Carta's principles by prohibiting taxation without common assent of the realm.[57] [58] This document, while confirming the charters, introduced additional liberties such as parliamentary consent for extraordinary taxes, reflecting baronial leverage during Edward's absences abroad.[59] Edward I issued another confirmation in 1300, the final full reissue of Magna Carta's text, again amid fiscal demands tied to ongoing conflicts.[4] Subsequent medieval reaffirmations, numbering over thirty by the 15th century, occurred sporadically during crises like Edward III's continental wars, where kings traded reconfirmations for parliamentary grants.[60] Examples include petitions in the 1350s linking charter observance to war funding.[61] Over time, Magna Carta's direct enforcement waned as common law principles evolved independently through judicial practice, rendering many clauses obsolete or redundant by the late medieval period.[62] Its role shifted toward symbolism, invoked more in political rhetoric than routine litigation, though select provisions like those on due process retained influence.[25]Content and Provisions
Feudal and Economic Clauses
Clause 2 regulated feudal reliefs upon the death of tenants-in-chief, stipulating fixed payments based on customary rates: £100 for a barony, £200 for an earldom, and the assessed value of a knight's fee for lesser holdings, thereby curbing King John's practice of demanding arbitrary sums far exceeding tradition to fund his wars and ransom payments. Clause 3 protected widows from forced remarriage, granting them rights to remain in their marital homes and receive dower portions without paying excessive fines, while Clause 4 governed wardships during heirs' minorities, requiring guardians to maintain lands without waste or sale and to surrender them intact upon majority, except for reasonable upkeep costs. These provisions reflected baronial grievances over John's exploitation of feudal incidents for revenue, such as inflating wardship fees and seizing estates prematurely, but preserved the reciprocal structure of feudal tenure where vassals owed military service and loyalty in exchange for regulated inheritance rights.[63] Economic clauses addressed debts, taxation, and trade to stabilize feudal revenues without undermining the king's fiscal needs. Clause 11 shielded heirs of debtors to Jews—often royal wards taxed for crown profit—from interest accrual on loans during their minority if the debt reverted to royal hands, limiting usurious practices while ensuring principal repayment and protecting John's Jewish lending network as a state monopoly. Clause 12 prohibited levying scutage (commuted knight service) or extraordinary aids without the "common counsel of the realm," responding to John's frequent impositions, like the 1214 shield tax of three marks per knight's fee to finance his failed Poitou campaign, though this consent requirement applied mainly to feudal levies rather than all taxation.[1] Clause 41 guaranteed merchants safe passage and freedom to trade across England and abroad, exempt from arbitrary tolls except during declared war and per ancient customs, facilitating commerce vital to baronial estates and urban growth amid John's blockades and confiscations that had disrupted wool and cloth exports. Clauses 47 and 48 targeted forest law abuses, mandating the immediate disafforestation of all woods newly afforested during John's reign (estimated to have expanded royal forests to over a quarter of southern England for hunting preserves and fines) and the abolition of "evil customs" like arbitrary assarts, chases, and river enclosures that restricted arable conversion, fishing, and pasturage.[64][65] These easements addressed economic grievances from John's revenue-driven expansions, which multiplied forest jurisdictions under officials like Hugh de Neville to impose amercements for poaching or unauthorized clearance, but implementation was partial, with many forests retained or reimposed post-1215, underscoring the charter's role as negotiated feudal recalibration rather than absolute deregulation.[48] Overall, these clauses prioritized practical limits on royal opportunism within the feudal economy, enforcing mutual obligations where barons conceded standardized dues in return for protections against fiscal predation, without establishing unilateral privileges or broader egalitarian principles.[66]Judicial and Liberty Guarantees
The Magna Carta of 1215 included several clauses aimed at restraining the arbitrary exercise of royal judicial authority, particularly through protections against unlawful imprisonment, excessive punishments, and procedural abuses that had enabled King John's extortion of the nobility. Clause 39 established that no free man could be arrested, imprisoned, disseised of his property, outlawed, exiled, or otherwise destroyed except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land, introducing a procedural safeguard against the king's unchecked use of prerogative courts and summary seizures.[1] This provision targeted specific grievances, such as John's practice of detaining barons without trial to extract ransoms or concessions, while preserving the hierarchical feudal order by limiting its scope to freemen—estimated at roughly 10-25% of England's male population, predominantly tenants-in-chief and sub-tenants rather than the broader populace of villeins bound by customary servile tenure.[39] Empirically, its initial application focused on baronial litigants, as evidenced by contemporary records of disputes where peers' judgments were invoked to check royal overreach, underscoring its role as a targeted curb on abuses rather than a universal right.[67] Complementary clauses addressed punitive mechanisms prone to royal manipulation. Clause 20 restricted amercements—fines for offenses—on earls, barons, and other tenants-in-chief to assessments by their peers and proportionate to the offense's gravity, with similar limits for clerks based on their lay holdings, directly countering John's inflation of penalties to fund wars and personal debts, which had exceeded customary feudal scales by factors of ten or more in documented cases.[1] Clause 54 prohibited arrests or imprisonments based on a woman's appeal for felony except in cases of her husband's death, effectively banning the extension of private prosecutions that could force defendants into trials by combat or ordeal without evidentiary basis, a practice John had exploited to implicate rivals through coerced testimonies or fabricated appeals. These measures reflected a causal recognition that unchecked royal influence over judicial processes enabled constructive treason charges—post-hoc criminalization of disloyalty without prior law—by embedding peer review and evidentiary thresholds.[67] Additional guarantees preserved familial and proprietary rights within the nobility's sphere. Clause 7 ensured that a widow could immediately access her marriage portion, inheritance, and dower without payment or delay, and remain in her late husband's residence for forty days pending assignment, mitigating the crown's historical demands for relief fees upon inheritance or forced remarriages to loyalists, which had stripped noble widows of up to half their estates in John's reign.[1] However, these provisions lacked mechanisms for appeal or enforcement accessible to non-freemen, such as unfree tenants who comprised the majority of the population and remained subject to manorial courts without recourse to "law of the land" standards, highlighting the charter's class-bound limitations in curbing only elite-targeted extortions while leaving servile justice intact.Security and Enforcement Mechanisms
The Magna Carta of 1215 included Clause 61, which established a council of twenty-five leading barons tasked with monitoring and enforcing the king's adherence to the charter's terms.[1] This mechanism required the barons to warn the king or his officials of any violation, allowing forty days for remedy; failure to comply authorized the council to "distrain and distress" the king by seizing his movable goods, castles, and other possessions until restitution occurred, with the council empowered to convene other barons and communities for support.[1] Such provisions represented an unprecedented attempt to subject royal authority to peer oversight, drawing on feudal distraint practices typically applied to lesser lords or debtors rather than the sovereign himself.[41] Clause 62 complemented these enforcement efforts by mandating the public proclamation of the charter in cathedral churches across England following the restoration of peace, alongside the dispatch of letters to sheriffs and royal officials to annul hostile actions and ensure dissemination of copies for local enforcement.[1] This dissemination aimed to foster widespread awareness and collective pressure for compliance, yet it proved insufficient to compel adherence amid immediate royal repudiation.[41] In practice, Clause 61's mechanisms were never invoked after June 15, 1215, due to Pope Innocent III's annulment of the charter on August 24, 1215, which framed it as coerced and invalid, sparking the First Barons' War and rendering enforcement untenable.[41] Subsequent reissues under Henry III in 1216, 1217, and 1225—issued to secure baronial loyalty during his minority—explicitly omitted Clause 61, as did Edward I's 1297 confirmation, signaling persistent royal and papal resistance to institutionalized external checks on monarchical power.[41] The clause's failure stemmed causally from feudal structures, where barons' homage oaths to the crown prioritized personal fealty over collective distraint, making sustained rebellion against the sovereign self-defeating absent total military dominance.[68]Medieval Enforcement and Evolution
13th-14th Century Applications and Limitations
In the decades following its reissues under Henry III, Magna Carta saw limited invocation in legal scholarship, notably in Henry de Bracton's De Legibus et Consuetudinibus Angliae (c. 1235–1256), where the jurist referenced clauses 39 and 40 to underpin principles of due process and judgment by peers, framing the king as subject to law rather than above it.[69][70] However, judicial applications remained sporadic, with royal courts under Henry III and Edward I favoring evolving common law customs over direct enforcement of the charter's feudal provisions, as evidenced by year book records showing Magna Carta treated as one statute among many rather than a paramount authority.[71] By the early 14th century, broader political events loosely drew on its principles without explicit citation; the deposition of Edward II in 1327, orchestrated by barons and clergy, justified the king's removal on grounds of tyranny and failure to uphold justice, echoing clause 39's prohibition on arbitrary imprisonment but relying on feudal oaths of fealty and parliamentary consent rather than the charter itself as legal basis.[72][73] Enforcement of Magna Carta's guarantees thus hinged causally on baronial military and political leverage against the crown, as seen in the 1258 Provisions of Oxford where magnates compelled Henry III to observe it amid fiscal disputes, rather than any intrinsic judicial supremacy or widespread popular adherence.[66] Limitations emerged prominently by the 1300s, with most of the charter's 63 clauses rendered obsolete through statutory evolution; for instance, the Statute of Westminster I (1275) and II (1285) under Edward I overlaid and superseded feudal tenure rules, scutage payments, and wardship abuses addressed in clauses 2–8 and 12, integrating select protections into a modernizing common law framework while diminishing the charter's standalone relevance.[61] Courts prioritized these enactments and case precedents, treating Magna Carta as a historical relic for symbolic appeals in baronial grievances rather than routine litigation, underscoring its underuse absent sustained elite pressure.[74]15th-16th Century Decline in Relevance
During the 15th century, Magna Carta received infrequent legal citations, appearing only about 120 times in the Year Books from 1268 to 1535, often vaguely as "the statute" rather than by name, primarily in private litigation over practical clauses like those on assizes rather than broader liberties.[74] In the political turmoil of the Wars of the Roses (1455–1487), involving Lancastrian and Yorkist factions, the charter played no notable role in disputes, with records showing no invocations amid the focus on dynastic claims; instead, parliamentary petitions and ad hoc statutes dominated redress, underscoring its marginalization.[74] The absence of centenary commemorations in 1315 or 1415 further evidenced waning symbolic import, and parliamentary confirmations ceased after 1416, treating it increasingly as an ordinary statute rather than a foundational pact.[74] Under early Tudor rule, particularly Henry VII (r. 1485–1509), the charter's fiscal provisions—such as those on scutage and feudal aids (clauses 12 and 14)—had become obsolete amid shifting economic structures, rendering them effectively defunct without formal repeal, while any residual acknowledgments were ceremonial and devoid of enforcement.[74] Jurist Sir John Fortescue (c. 1394–c. 1479), in De Laudibus Legum Angliae (c. 1470s), referenced Magna Carta as a statutory remedy for common law defects, amendable under human legislation and integrated into England's practical legal framework, but not as an enduring constitutional barrier to royal discretion.[75] This obscurity stemmed causally from institutional shifts toward royal centralization, exemplified by Henry VII's revival of the Court of Star Chamber around 1487, which asserted exclusive jurisdiction over noble disorders and bypassed common law juries—echoing Magna Carta's guarantees of judgment by peers (clause 39/29)—thus eroding feudal accountability mechanisms in favor of discretionary privy council oversight.[76][77] Such courts prioritized monarchical stability over baronial checks, aligning with absolutist trends that diminished the charter's operative force until later revivals.[74]Tudor Reinterpretations Amid Absolutist Trends
During the Tudor period (1485–1603), Magna Carta's practical influence waned as monarchs consolidated authority by suppressing noble independence and enhancing royal prerogative through parliamentary statutes, rendering the charter's feudal constraints largely obsolete.[78] It was treated as an amendable ancient statute (statuta antiqua) in legal education, with discussions in Inns of Court lectures centering on chapter 29's due process guarantees, yet subordinated to newer laws aligned with reason and divine order.[75] Early in the era, the charter saw brief invocation to legitimize royal efforts against ecclesiastical autonomy, reframing King John's concessions as steps toward centralized control during the Reformation.[78] Under Elizabeth I, the charter was occasionally cited in challenges to perceived overreach, such as by Puritan lawyers James Morice and Robert Beale in 1591–1593, who appealed to chapter 29's "law of the land" to contest the Court of High Commission's use of the ex officio oath, which compelled self-incrimination without indictment.[79][75] These arguments, emphasizing procedural safeguards, were dismissed, underscoring the charter's limited check on institutions enforcing religious conformity. Similarly, clauses on inheritance and reliefs (e.g., chapters 2–3, 15) persisted in common law property disputes, affirming baronial tenurial rights amid ongoing feudal tenancies, though royal interventions via attainder often prevailed.[1] The Court of Star Chamber, revitalized under Henry VII in 1487 and expanded by later Tudors, exemplified the charter's empirical marginalization by adjudicating cases—often involving property or sedition—through privy councilors without juries or full common law formalities, effectively circumventing chapter 29's intent for judgment by peers or established law.[80][81] Emerging legal thought, including early notes by figures like Edward Coke from the 1590s, began positing Magna Carta as a cornerstone of an "ancient constitution" preserving liberties, yet these views accommodated absolutist trends by yielding to Reformation-era statutes like the Act of Supremacy (1534), which prioritized royal sovereignty over reciprocal feudal oaths.[75] This subordination highlighted how Tudor governance eroded the charter's original causal balance of mutual obligations between crown and subjects, favoring unilateral prerogative.[78]Rediscovery and Political Weaponization
17th-Century Revival in Parliamentary Struggles
During the early Stuart period, Magna Carta experienced a significant revival as a legal and symbolic bulwark against perceived royal absolutism, particularly in parliamentary opposition to Charles I's policies. Common lawyers, led by Sir Edward Coke, repurposed its provisions to argue for constraints on arbitrary executive power, framing the charter as part of an ancient constitution that predated and limited monarchical prerogative. Coke's Institutes of the Laws of England (published 1628–1644) highlighted clauses 39 and 40—guaranteeing no freeman's deprivation of liberty except by lawful judgment or law of the land, and no sale or denial of justice—as enduring protections against unlawful detention and executive overreach.[82][83] This interpretation directly informed the Petition of Right, drafted in 1628 amid disputes over forced loans, billeting of troops, and martial law declarations. The petition explicitly invoked clauses 39 and 40 to prohibit imprisonment without cause shown, compulsory quartering of soldiers in private homes, and extension of martial law to domestic enforcement, positioning Magna Carta as a remedial statute binding the crown.[84][85] Coke argued that appeals to "reason of state" undermined the charter's force, insisting it remained a living restraint on prerogative actions like those in the Five Knights' Case (1627), where knights were detained without parliamentary consent.[84] Charles I reluctantly assented to the petition on June 7, 1628, after parliamentary pressure delayed his subsidies, though he later evaded its implications.[86] The charter's textual accessibility aided this resurgence, with printed editions proliferating after the 1508 Latin version by Richard Pynson; subsequent 17th-century imprints, including English translations, enabled broader dissemination among lawyers, parliamentarians, and agitators, transforming Magna Carta from an obscure feudal relic into a cited precedent in sovereignty debates.[87][88] During the English Civil War, parliamentarians and radical groups like the Levellers referenced it in forums such as the Putney Debates of October–November 1647, invoking its liberties to advocate representative government, though critics noted its original scope applied primarily to freemen, excluding broader suffrage claims.[89] In the trial of Charles I before the High Court of Justice in January 1649, allusions to Magna Carta surfaced indirectly through arguments on tyrannical breach of fundamental laws, yet the proceedings emphasized parliamentary sovereignty over strict charter adherence, reflecting causal tensions between constitutionalism and revolutionary rupture. This era's invocations, grounded in Coke's common-law exegesis rather than medieval feudalism, marked Magna Carta's shift toward a proto-constitutional emblem in anti-absolutist rhetoric.[90][91]Influence on English Civil War and Restoration
Parliamentarians during the English Civil War invoked Magna Carta to legitimize resistance against Charles I, portraying his policies as akin to the tyrannical exactions of King John in 1215.[92] The document's clauses on unlawful seizure of property and arbitrary imprisonment, particularly clauses 39 and 52, were cited to argue that the king's ship money levies and forced loans violated ancient liberties secured by the charter.[93] This rhetoric framed parliamentary opposition as a defense of inherited feudal rights rather than a push for broad democratic reforms, aligning with the interests of the landed gentry who sought to protect estates from royal fiscal encroachments.[94] The Grand Remonstrance of November 22, 1641, explicitly echoed Magna Carta by enumerating 204 grievances against Charles I's rule, including abuses of prerogative power that paralleled John's violations of baronial privileges.[90] Passed by a narrow margin of 11 votes in the House of Commons, the Remonstrance positioned Parliament as the guardian of constitutional limits on monarchy, drawing on the charter's precedent of collective remonstration to demand reforms like ecclesiastical oversight and financial accountability.[95] However, this invocation was selective, emphasizing property safeguards over the charter's ecclesiastical or feudal specifics, serving primarily as propaganda to rally support among propertied classes amid escalating tensions that erupted into war by August 1642. Under Oliver Cromwell's Protectorate from 1653 to 1658, Magna Carta held negligible practical influence, as military governance supplanted legal precedents in favor of executive fiat.[96] Cromwell reportedly dismissed the charter derisively as the "Magna Farta," reflecting its irrelevance to a regime reliant on army-backed rule rather than parliamentary or baronial constraints.[97] This period underscored the charter's limits as a causal force for liberty, revealing it as a tool invoked opportunistically by elites to curb monarchical overreach, not an enduring bulwark against authoritarianism in the absence of power balances favoring property holders. Following the Restoration of Charles II on May 29, 1660, the monarchy issued placatory declarations reaffirming statutory laws including Magna Carta to assuage parliamentary fears of renewed absolutism, though without novel confirmations specific to the charter.[98] True legislative continuity emerged later with the Habeas Corpus Act of May 27, 1679, which operationalized clause 39's prohibition on arbitrary detention, mandating swift judicial review and penalties for non-compliance to prevent royal circumvention via remote imprisonments.[99] Enacted amid Whig agitation against perceived Stuart encroachments, the Act represented a practical descendant of Magna Carta's due process guarantees, prioritizing gentry security against arbitrary executive power over expansive egalitarian ideals.[100]Glorious Revolution and Bill of Rights Linkage
The Glorious Revolution of 1688–1689 arose from King James II's efforts to expand royal authority and promote Catholic interests, including the issuance of the Declaration of Indulgence in 1687, which suspended penal laws against Catholics and Protestant dissenters, and the birth of his Catholic son in June 1688, which threatened Protestant succession.[101] These actions alienated the Anglican establishment and prompted seven prominent English nobles and bishops to invite William of Orange, James's Protestant son-in-law, to invade in November 1688, leading to James's flight to France without significant bloodshed in England.[102] The resulting Convention Parliament, convened in January 1689, declared James's throne vacant and offered it to William III and Mary II conditional on their acceptance of the Declaration of Rights, which became the Bill of Rights upon receiving royal assent on 16 December 1689.[103] The Bill of Rights explicitly condemned James II's "pretended power of suspending of laws or the execution of laws by regal authority without consent of Parliament" as illegal, directly invoking the principle of governance by "law of the land" rooted in Magna Carta's Clause 39, which prohibited arbitrary deprivation of liberty except through lawful judgment or the land's law. This linkage reinforced Magna Carta's anti-arbitrary traditions against monarchical overreach, framing the revolution not as a radical break but as a restoration of constitutional precedents that limited the crown's prerogative powers, such as taxation without parliamentary consent and maintenance of a standing army in peacetime.[104] John Locke's Two Treatises of Government (1689), written in justification of the events, emphasized government by consent while grounding resistance to tyranny in historical compacts akin to Magna Carta, though his natural rights framework represented an interpretive layer rather than the primary causal driver, which lay in elite defense of Protestant hierarchy.[94] Causally, the revolution functioned as an elite-orchestrated settlement among nobility, gentry, and church leaders to avert absolutist Catholic rule, preserving social and ecclesiastical hierarchies rather than inaugurating broad popular sovereignty or equality; public involvement remained marginal, with William's forces numbering around 15,000 but facing negligible domestic resistance beyond coordinated defections.[105] This empirical continuity critiqued later egalitarian narratives that retroject democratic ideals onto the events, as the Bill of Rights entrenched parliamentary oversight without extending franchise or abolishing feudal distinctions, instead stabilizing a mixed constitution that balanced monarchical, aristocratic, and representative elements against unchecked executive power.[106]Transatlantic and Global Impact
Adoption in English Colonies and American Revolution
In the English colonies of North America during the 17th century, Magna Carta served as a foundational reference for establishing legal frameworks that echoed its provisions on liberties and due process. The Massachusetts Body of Liberties, promulgated on December 10, 1641, by the General Court of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, incorporated verbatim elements from Magna Carta, particularly clauses safeguarding personal freedoms against arbitrary authority, and was explicitly compared to the charter by colonial leaders to affirm its alignment with English common law traditions.[107][108] This document, drafted primarily by Nathaniel Ward, positioned itself as a colonial equivalent to Magna Carta, emphasizing protections for freemen against unlawful seizure or punishment without legal judgment.[109] Colonial charters and frames of government further embedded Magna Carta's principles, promising settlers the liberties it enshrined as part of their rights as English subjects. For instance, the 1682 Frame of Government for Pennsylvania explicitly referenced Magna Carta alongside other statutes, ensuring that its clauses on property inheritance, fair trials, and restrictions on royal prerogatives extended to the New World settlements.[108] By the late 17th century, appeals to the charter had become commonplace in colonial disputes, framing local governance as an extension of English constitutional heritage rather than novel inventions, with emphasis on securing baronial-style privileges like secure tenure of lands and estates against capricious dispossession.[110][111] During the American Revolution, colonial rhetoric invoked Magna Carta, particularly Clause 39—which prohibited the arrest or dispossession of freemen except by the lawful judgment of peers or the law of the land—to protest parliamentary overreach on taxation and governance. In response to the Stamp Act of March 1765, which imposed direct taxes on colonial documents and goods to fund British troops, Virginia's House of Burgesses resolved that the measure violated ancient constitutional rights, including those derived from Magna Carta, by denying consent through representation and threatening property without due process.[112][113] Massachusetts similarly declared the act void in May 1765, citing it as an infringement on natural rights rooted in the charter's guarantees against arbitrary exactions.[114] Revolutionary leaders adapted Magna Carta's emphasis on due process and property safeguards to bolster arguments for colonial autonomy, prioritizing legal continuity over feudal hierarchies. Thomas Jefferson's writings reflected indirect influence through William Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England (1765–1769), which interpreted Clause 39 as a bulwark against executive tyranny, informing Jefferson's critiques of British policies as deviations from established English law without positing the charter as a direct blueprint for republican innovation.[115][110] This selective invocation highlighted verifiable protections for estates and procedural fairness—core to the barons' original grievances—rather than expansive democratic ideals, as framers repurposed feudal-era constraints on monarchy for a context rejecting hereditary fealty in favor of elected sovereignty.[112][116]Role in U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights
The influence of Magna Carta on the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights manifested primarily through indirect borrowings in provisions limiting executive and governmental overreach, echoing the barons' 1215 constraints on King John's arbitrary authority. Clause 39 of Magna Carta, which prohibited the seizure or imprisonment of freemen except by "the lawful judgement of his peers or by the law of the land," provided a foundational precedent for due process protections against unchecked state power.[117] This principle filtered into American legal thought via colonial charters and state constitutions, such as Virginia's 1776 Declaration of Rights, before James Madison incorporated "due process of law" into the Fifth Amendment in 1789, ratified in 1791, to safeguard individuals from federal deprivation of life, liberty, or property without legal safeguards. In the Federalist Papers, framers like Madison alluded to Magna Carta's emphasis on balanced powers to argue against monarchical-style executive dominance, drawing parallels to the document's role in curbing royal absolutism through distributed authority. For instance, Madison invoked Clause 40's guarantee of accessible justice—"To no one will we sell, to no one deny or delay right or justice"—to underscore that governmental structure itself, via separation of powers, served as a bulwark against tyranny, rather than relying solely on enumerated rights. These references framed the Constitution's design as an evolution of Magna Carta's causal mechanism: restraining centralized power to prevent the executive from overriding legislative or judicial checks, akin to the barons' defensive reassertion of privileges against John's fiscal and punitive excesses.[118] U.S. Supreme Court jurisprudence has invoked Magna Carta as persuasive historical precedent, particularly in habeas corpus disputes, without treating it as binding law. Early cases, such as those interpreting the Suspension Clause in Article I, Section 9, cited the charter to affirm the writ's ancient roots in protecting against indefinite detention by executive fiat, reinforcing Fifth Amendment applications.[119] In Boumediene v. Bush (2008), the Court referenced Magna Carta's fulfillment through habeas as a liberty-preserving tool against overreaching authority, though justices emphasized its interpretive weight derived from English common law evolution rather than direct enforceability.[120] This usage highlights the document's role in judicial reasoning as a symbol of empirical limits on government, prioritizing individual safeguards over expansive state discretion, much like the original baronial pushback.[121]19th-Century Imperial Spread and Commonwealth Echoes
During the Victorian era, scholars like Bishop William Stubbs reinforced the Magna Carta's status as the cornerstone of an evolutionary constitutional tradition in England, framing it as the origin of continuous liberties rather than a mere feudal accord. In his Constitutional History of England, published in three volumes between 1874 and 1878, Stubbs asserted that "the whole of the constitutional history of England is a commentary on this Charter," emphasizing its role in fostering parliamentary oversight and legal constraints on executive power over subsequent centuries.[122] [123] This interpretation, rooted in Whig teleology, mythologized the charter as a progressive antecedent to modern governance, influencing its projection as a symbol of British constitutional superiority.[124] As the British Empire expanded, this elevated narrative was disseminated to dominions and colonies, where the Magna Carta symbolized the export of accountable rule-of-law principles amid imperial administration. The Indian Councils Act of 1861, enacted on August 1, 1861, introduced non-official members—initially nominated—to central and provincial legislative councils, drawing indirect procedural inspiration from the charter's legacy of curbing arbitrary authority through consultative bodies, though the councils remained largely advisory with veto power retained by the governor-general.[125] In Australia, colonial constitutions granted from 1855 onward incorporated common law tenets traceable to the Magna Carta, such as protections against unlawful imprisonment and demands for lawful judgment, which informed the federative framework culminating in the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act of 1900, effective January 1, 1901.[126] [127] Yet colonial implementations revealed empirical constraints, applying the charter's due process and consent elements selectively to European settlers while sidelining its feudal hierarchies and excluding non-European subjects from equivalent safeguards. In India, for instance, the 1861 Act's limited scope—nominating only six additional members to the central council, all under British dominance—prioritized administrative efficiency over broad representation, contradicting the charter's baronial bargaining model. Australian adoption similarly emphasized jury trials and habeas corpus for British-derived populations, with indigenous land rights and legal parity often disregarded until later reforms. Late-nineteenth-century observers, including colonial reformers, critiqued this disparity as imperial inconsistency, noting that the Magna Carta's invocation justified dominion self-rule for white settler colonies but rationalized autocratic control elsewhere, underscoring a pragmatic rather than universal application of its tenets.[83]Modern Legacy and Interpretations
19th-20th Century Symbolic Elevation
During the 19th century, amid rapid industrialization and expanding political agitation in Britain, Magna Carta was increasingly invoked as a symbolic antecedent to demands for broader liberties, though such appropriations often projected modern egalitarian ideals onto its feudal framework. The Chartist movement, peaking in the 1830s and 1840s, positioned the People's Charter of 1838 as a continuation of the Great Charter's legacy, framing universal male suffrage and electoral reform as fulfillments of its principles against arbitrary rule.[128] Chartists presented petitions in 1839, 1842, and 1848, drawing over three million signatures by 1842, explicitly echoing Magna Carta's resistance to royal overreach to legitimize their push for democratic enfranchisement.[129] However, this application constituted an anachronism, as the 1215 charter addressed baronial privileges and feudal dues rather than popular sovereignty or voting rights for commoners, reflecting pragmatic negotiations among elites rather than proto-democratic intent.[130] In the 20th century, particularly during the World Wars, Magna Carta's symbolism was elevated as a bulwark of the rule of law against totalitarian threats, reinforcing Anglo-American commitments to constitutional restraint. Prime Minister Winston Churchill, in defending British liberties amid Nazi aggression, frequently cited the charter as the foundational "title-deed of liberty," proposing in 1941 to gift a 1215 exemplification to the United States as a gesture to secure Lend-Lease aid and alliance, underscoring its role in propaganda linking historical precedent to contemporary resistance.[131] [132] This wartime symbolism extended to portraying Magna Carta's clauses on due process—such as Clause 39 prohibiting imprisonment without lawful judgment of peers—and impartial justice (Clause 40) as antidotes to arbitrary executive power, though these were originally limited to freemen and not universal rights.[133] Empirical persistence of select provisions further burnished the charter's iconic status into the mid-20th century, with Clauses 1 (church liberties), 39, and 40 remaining operative in English law until partial repeals and statutory updates in the 1960s, such as the removal of obsolete feudal elements via the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989, though core due process tenets endure in modified form.[6] The 1945 United Nations Charter evoked loose parallels in its emphasis on sovereign equality and judicial remedies (Articles 2 and 55), with some contemporaries viewing it as a global extension of limited government ideals traceable to Magna Carta, yet direct causal influence remains overstated, as the UN document drew primarily from post-World War inter-Allied agreements like the 1941 Atlantic Charter rather than medieval precedents.[134] This elevation transformed Magna Carta from a historical artifact into a transatlantic emblem of restrained authority, detached from its original baronial context.Post-WWII Human Rights Associations
Following World War II, advocates for the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on December 10, 1948, invoked Magna Carta symbolically as a foundational precursor to limiting arbitrary power and establishing legal protections.[135][136] Descriptions such as the "international Magna Carta for all humanity" or "Magna Carta of all mankind" emerged in contemporary rhetoric, framing the UDHR as an extension of 1215's resistance to unchecked authority, particularly through clauses prohibiting arbitrary detention without judgment by peers or the law (Clause 39).[136][135] However, no direct textual provisions in the UDHR trace to Magna Carta; the associations rest on interpretive analogies to rule-of-law principles rather than causal lineage, with the UDHR drawing more proximally from Enlightenment documents and wartime atrocities' aftermath.[137] The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), opened for signature on November 4, 1950, by the Council of Europe, similarly drew rhetorical parallels to Magna Carta as "Europe's own Magna Carta," emphasizing protections against arbitrary state action in articles like Article 5 (right to liberty and security) and Article 6 (fair trial).[138] British legal traditions, including Magna Carta's legacy in habeas corpus and due process, informed the ECHR's drafting, yet the convention's structure reflects post-1945 commitments to prevent totalitarianism, not feudal concessions to barons.[139] These links prioritize symbolic continuity over verifiable descent, as Magna Carta addressed elite property and jurisdictional disputes under King John, excluding serfs and unfree tenants who comprised most of the population.[140] Historians such as J.C. Holt have critiqued these overextensions, arguing that Magna Carta's mythic elevation as a universal rights charter ignores its pragmatic feudal context—a temporary peace treaty enforcing customary law against royal overreach, not inventing innate individual liberties.[140][137] Holt's analysis underscores that claims of direct human rights ancestry fabricate continuity, as the charter's core—anti-arbitrariness in judgment and taxation—lacks egalitarian intent and applied narrowly to freemen, not as a blueprint for post-WWII universality.[141] Such reinterpretations, while politically expedient in Cold War human rights advocacy, conflate symbolic inspiration with causal origins, privileging the charter's verifiable emphasis on lawful process over anachronistic democratic or egalitarian glosses.[137][142]21st-Century Commemorations and Critiques (to 2025)
In 2015, the four surviving exemplifications of the 1215 Magna Carta were displayed together for the first time at the British Library in London from February 2 to 4, marking the document's 800th anniversary and focusing on its historical preservation and foundational legal principles rather than contemporary political applications.[143][144] The event drew over 1,200 selected visitors under tight security, underscoring the artifacts' rarity and the charter's enduring symbolic value as a limit on arbitrary power, with no direct invocation of modern partisan issues.[145] Exhibitions emphasized empirical conservation efforts, such as digitization and public access initiatives, over interpretive debates.[146] The 2025 commemoration of the 800th anniversary of the 1225 reissue—the version enacted as statute by Parliament under Henry III and forming the basis of enduring English law—featured lectures and exhibitions highlighting its procedural and statutory origins rather than mythic narratives.[147][148] Organizations like the Magna Carta Trust organized events to reflect on the charter's causal role in establishing parliamentary confirmation of royal grants, with displays at institutions such as the Society of Antiquaries of London from July 23 to September 19.[149] Bodleian Libraries hosted talks on selected dates, focusing on the 1225 text's material and legal authenticity amid ongoing archival preservation.[150] These activities avoided overpoliticization, prioritizing verifiable historical analysis over symbolic inflation. In the context of Brexit and rising populism, some analysts invoked Magna Carta to critique executive overreach, arguing its principles of lawful restraint on power supported parliamentary sovereignty against supranational or administrative excesses, as seen in post-2016 debates over EU withdrawal mechanisms.[151][152] Proponents, including constitutional scholars, framed the charter's legacy as a bulwark for national self-governance, countering claims of populist erosion of rule-of-law norms by emphasizing its empirical origins in feudal bargaining rather than abstract rights.[153] Critiques from rule-of-law advocates, however, noted tensions in populist impatience with judicial checks, tracing back to Magna Carta's habeas corpus echoes without endorsing unsubstantiated democratic anachronisms.[154] No evidence emerged of formal legal revivals invoking the charter in these disputes. Symbolically, Magna Carta has appeared in 21st-century anti-corruption discourses, particularly in transitional states where its rule-of-law archetype underpins archival protections against elite malfeasance, as in Libyan governance critiques linking corruption indices to weak institutional legacies.[155] In scholarly reassessments, such as those on Macedonian legal reforms, the charter's procedural constraints are cited empirically against organized crime and graft, though without causal overclaims beyond historical precedent.[156] These uses remain rhetorical, with no documented instances of direct statutory application in modern anti-corruption enforcement up to 2025.[157]Physical Copies and Artifacts
Surviving 1215 Exemplifications
Four exemplifications of the 1215 Magna Carta survive out of an estimated 13 to 40 originals produced shortly after 15 June 1215 and distributed to sheriffs, bishops, and other officials for proclamation.[2] [158] These documents, each written in Latin on parchment by royal chancery scribes, were authenticated with the great seal of King John, though the seals themselves have largely perished.[2] The exemplars are held as follows:- Lincoln Cathedral (displayed at Lincoln Castle): This copy, endorsed twice on the reverse with "Lincolnia" to denote its destination for the county or diocese of Lincoln, has remained in the cathedral's custody continuously since the 13th century.[159] It features a physical "turn-up" at the bottom for seal attachment and three visible holes for securing the seal tag, aiding in its identification as an original.[2]
- Salisbury Cathedral: Recognized as the finest preserved exemplar, this copy likely arrived via Elias of Dereham, a papal legate and cathedral architect present at Runnymede, and was transferred from the original site at Old Sarum to the new cathedral after 1220.[160] [159] It displays intact text across all 63 clauses without significant damage.
- British Library (Cotton MS Augustus II.106): Acquired for the Cottonian Library by Sir Robert Cotton around 1620 from an uncertain monastic provenance, this exemplar suffered severe charring and text loss in the 1731 Ashburnham House fire but retains enough legible script for verification.[161] [2]
- British Library (second copy): Also originating from the Cotton collection, this less-damaged exemplar shares a similar 17th-century acquisition history but escaped the full extent of the 1731 fire's destruction.[161] [162]