King John's Rule Of Magna Carte In England

-------------------------------------------------
“Magna Carta promised a lot but delivered little in England”. Critically evaluate this claim
-------------------------------------------------
Word Count = 2195

Introduction
The year was 1215 AD, a time of much unrest and uncertainty. King John, England’s first resident King of the Norman-Angevin line ruled medieval England. History labels John as a tyrant and oppressive leader, whose abuse of power, exorbitant demands, extortionate taxes and his unpredictable administration of justice, were fuelling a revolt by his local Barons, whom had become increasingly dissatisfied with their king. The Barons using their military leverage over John secularized and established a national urge
for revolution by pressuring John into signing the Article of Barons, later to become Magna Carta, also referred to as the Great Charter, or simply the Charter. Born of these turbulent times, and ostensibly based on Henry I coronation oath the Charter of Liberties, many authoritarians believe the Magna Carta, promised a lot but delivered little in England. The aim therefore of this discussion is to critically evaluate this statement and in doing so, will demonstrate the alternative hypothesis; that is, the Magna Carta promised little, but delivered a lot in England.

Baronial Rebellion
Before 1215, there existed in England a complex feudal system. The relationship between the King, his Barons and Vassals (commoners) had become volatile due to, among other things, the high cost of feudal arrangements. The Vassals had no right to the land, nor were they able to move about the lands freely. The King had lawful possession of the whole of England and extension of tenure to Barons and Vassals was ostensibly contractual and paid by way of military service or a ‘fee’ (feudum) known as scutage. The levying of this fee was enforceable only by the King onto his Barons, whom in turn enforced the fee onto their Vassals. However, John’s two immediate predecessors military attacks throughout their reign of the 11th century, combined with his own unsuccessful military crusades and greed, saw him demand enormous scutages and aids’ from his subjects, which outraged his Barons. Desperate for a way to control their King in lieu of overthrowing him, the Barons conspired a motus operandi whilst the King was out of the country on yet another futile military endeavour.

John, on returning to England, defeated and broke having lost the battle to regain his inherited French lands, began to demand scutage of his northern Barons whom had refused to join him in the battle. The Barons did not support John’s policies of exorbitant demands, extortionate taxes, ruthless reprisals against defectors and capricious administration of justice and as such they seized the opportunity to collectively take action. Therefore, on the fields of Runnymede, June 1215, the Barons, their Knights and Vassals insisted that John agree to the terms contained in the drafted Charter that established their liberties and protected them against further erratic behaviour on behalf of the king, in exchange the Barons would swear allegiance to the King and join him in his battle against France. After much compromise the terms of the Charter were agreed to and John affixed to the document his royal seal, thus it is believed, adverting at the time a civil war.

Original Intent of the Document
Signing of the Magna Carta for the Barons was said to be “no more than an acknowledgement of their immediate grievances for which a remedy had been found”. For the King however, it was a short-term advantageous way to buy him time and advert a civil war. Other authoritarians argue that the Barons were already at war, that they had taken up arms against the King having marched into, and taken London by force, holding it at ransom with the demand that John meet with them in what today would be considered “alternative dispute resolution”. The dispute was in essence, the rights, freedom and liberties of all men across the nation, and the Barons said to be representatives of such men, had forced the King to sign the document allegedly under duress, thus to some authoritarians making the Charter illegal and subject to papal annulment. McKechnie however considers that the Charter was not a national document as the majority of the concessions within it were made to the Barons and their feudal vassals, rather than all men. Looking to this analysis, it may be conferred that the Charter was nothing more than a baronial manifesto seeking to recompense their private injustices and thus mostly self-regarding in motive. In contrast, Stubbs, Coke and others refer to the Charter as the Great Charter” a national document that secures and maintains the rights of the people; in that “clause by clause the rights of the commoners are provided for as well as the nobles” furthermore, “the Great Charter is the first great public act of the nation…”. Regardless of their motive, the Barons on principle had won, as now John shared rule with twenty five surety Barons, twenty two of whom were in some way related to the King by either blood or marriage, which begs the question, just how successful were they really?

Historians confer that royal subjects viewed the Charter as a document that expressed certain fundamental laws by which the King should govern. Within the forthcoming months however, Pope Innocent III would intervene and condemn the Charter, declaring it invalid. Innocent III saw this as an affront to the Church’s authority over the ruling monarch and its papal territories, stating that the Charter was “a shameful and demeaning agreement forced upon the King by violence and fear”. It is not surprising then that the enactment of the 1215 version was effectual for only three months, but even then its terms were never properly executed. John, pleased with the Pope’s rebuttal, would refuse to honour his commitments, forcing the Barons to look to France for support in overthrowing the King, an act that culminated in France declaring war on England. Thus Magna Carta of 1215 had failed in preventing war.

Man, Church and King: Evolution of Law and Liberties
The Magna Carta of 1215 consisted of sixty-three articles (paragraphs), with the final article being that which states the Charter can be effected by force by the Surety Barons. It is this clause that established a serious challenge to the Kings authority, and the primary reason Innocent III annulled the Charter; the other being that it favoured the Church of England by granting it “shall be free, and shall have its rights undiminished, and its liberties unimpaired” placing at risk Rome’s relationship with the monarch. Whilst the historical and legal milieus are distinguishable, the consequences are certainly more convoluted.

There were several amendments made to the Charter following the death of King John and these occurred in 1216, 1217, 1225 and 1297, however, it is the later version, confirmed by Edward I that modern commentators generally refer too, is that which is legally significant, and still binds the Crown today. The various amendments of the Magna Carta abstruse its original goal, that is, besides freedom of liberties, a ‘formal act of legislation and common law’ that shall be ‘kept in every point without breach’. Most certainly, Magna Carta was said to be propagated in a commune concilium with the assent of Archbishops, Bishops, Abbots, Earls, and Crown Tenants, all of whom claim political authority in the making of laws, and thus entitles the Charter to rank as a statute as it was later so accepted in the 1297 edition. Lord Irvine described Magna Carta as “the rock upon which the constitution would gradually be built…”.

There is however a school of thought against Magna Carta being an act of legislation, citing technical informalities as the precursor.
According to these authoritarians, there was no formal writ of summons issued and therefore the meeting and subsequent outcomes of that which took place in the fields of Runnymede in 1215 were not properly constituted. Furthermore, as the Barons had assembled in military force “compelling the King to agree to their terms, modern jurisprudence, if appealed to, would reject the claim of the Charter to be enrolled as an ordinary statute”. Lord Irvine suggests “it may be argued that Magna Carta, while something less than law, is also something more. A law made by a King in one national assembly might be repealed by a King in another…The Great Charter however, was intended by the Barons to be unchangeable. It was granted to them and their heirs forever…”.

Many authoritarians have written on Magna Carta, one of the most prominent being 17th century justice and parliamentarian, Sir Edward Coke. According to Coke, “Magna Carta saved England from the rule of tyrants, consecrated basic civil and political rights, and germinated English constitutional government”. Coke and others believed for the first time a monarch was acknowledging that no man was above the law and that the Charter had become law. Irvine however, tells us that Coke was wrong and he had gone too far, however he also concedes that he [Coke] may very well have been much closer than
his critics.

Historical Analysis and Interpretation: the real significance of Magna Carta
Whilst Coke would take the lead in reinterpreting Magna Carta others with the same ideological theories would follow, each with the rule of analysis and or commentary used in a way so as to define and extract purpose from the original.
It was during the time of the Tudors of England (15th – 16th century) that scholars began to practice the rules of statutory interpretation and literary analysis and apply the methodology much in the way that Coke, Stubbs, McKechnie and others would later interpret Magna Carta; starting literally, expanding through a purposive approach whereas avoiding incongruities, . The outcome of such an interpretation allows for the expansion of meaning in the direction of contemporary applicability and relevance. Whilst Magna Carta’s original declarations maybe somewhat diminished by its many reiterations, there is no question its original purpose, to enact the rights and freedom of all men, has been replaced by contemporary interpretations, that most certainly demonstrate Magna Carta promised little, but delivered a
lot.

Lord Irvine’s suggests, “Magna Carta is a defining document in the emergence of the rule of law…it proclaims the fundamental nature of individual liberties”. McKechnie similarly considers its importance introducing four values of the Charter:
1) Value of Individual Provisions, whereby the importance is placed on the rights of women, of life including beasts of the forest, reliefs and the restoration of seigniorial jurisdiction.
2) Its Legal Value, that is, valuing the Charter as a whole and encompassing all of its provisions, but more importantly that it enunciated a definite body of law recognised by its claim to be above the Kings will.
3) Its Value for the Future Development of the constitution, without a doubt the Charter was the beginning of a new set of political forces in England as freemen, Barons and the Church form an alliance against the Crown which involved the adoption of a baronial policy.
4) Its Moral or Sentimental Value, as in the case of many governments, sentiment can play a critical part in its value. This is most certainly the case when, as McKechnie states, “the tie that binds the British colonies to the mother country is largely one of sentiment”. One only need turn to the history of our world wars to understand that the ties that bind the colonies is strong and an injustice or denial of liberties to one meets with disapproval from the other. Modern literature discusses four ubiquitous parables associated with Magna Carta, those being; the right to trial by jury, the creation of English parliament, parliamentary consent to collect or increase taxes and a means to challenge the Crown. Despite arguments by aforementioned authoritarians, each parable can be recognised in some way among the laws of the British colonies. An 1863 revision of statutes in England repealed the majority of the Magna Carta followed by subsequent revisions revoking all but three articles, 1, 9 and 29. In Australia, Magna Carta remains an active law despite the belief by some Justices that “antiquated” laws should be repealed. Irrespective, there remains a body of evidence that Magna Carta remains fundamental to the common law system, even if, as Cohen and Corey note, as a historic anchor.

This discussion as set out to do, has analysed and established Magna Carta as a document that promised little to the England, but delivered a lot; and whilst its original purpose has become abstruse the Charter remains significant, a symbolic representation of the English legal system. Furthermore, the legal and philosophical precedent that has developed over the past 796 years has allowed for the comparative indifference of legislative context in judicial interpretation. Finally, whilst the constitutions of England and its British colonies are distinct they share the same roots as Magna Carta and represent the sturdiest and the oldest of constitutional legacies. Lord Irvine sums up the significance of the Magna Carta in stating, “we are not clinging to a constitutional relic…its terms continue to underpin key constitutional doctrines; its flame continues to burn in the torches of modern human rights instruments; and its spirit continues to resonate throughout the law”.

Bibliography Articles – Books - Reports
Baker, J. H., An introduction to English legal history (Butterworths, 4th ed, 2002)

Barak-Erez, D, 'The Institutional Aspects of Comparitive Law ' [2009] (2009) 15 Columbia Journal of European Law 492

Calvert, Peter, Revolution (Macmillan, 1970)

Cohen, Nick, Who killed Magna Carta? NewStatesman <http://www.newstatesman.com/200001240010>

Corey, R, The day Magna Carta Died A Tangled Web < <http://atangledweb.typepad.com/weblog/2006/09/the_day_magna_c.html%3E>

Encyclopedia, Britannica, Brittanica Online <http://www.briannica.com/EBchecked/topic/530299/scutage>

Evans, Michael, Sources of English legal and Consitutional History (Butterworth-Heinemann, 1st ed, 1984)

Holt, J C, Magna Carta (Cambridge University Press, 1965) (first pubished 1965)

Info, History of Law., Magna Carta History (2011) History of Law.Info <http://www.historyoflaw.info/magna-carta-history-a.d.-1215.html>

Irvine of Lairg, Alexander Andrew Mackay Irvine, Human rights, constitutional law and the development of the English legal system : selected essays (Hart, 2003)

Jenks, Edward, 'The Myth of Magna Carta ' [1904] [4] Independent Law Review 260

Lyons, Bryce, A Constitutional and Legal History of Medieval England (WW Norton & Company, 2nd ed, 1980)

McKechnie, William Sharp, 'Magna Carta a commentary on the Great Charter of King John : with an historical introduction ' J. Maclehose and Sons, <http://www.lib.uts.edu.au/sso/goto.php?url=http://www.heinonline.org/HOL/Index?index=beal/mckechnie&collection=beal>

Network, Australian Law Postgraduate, Statutory Interpretation ALPN <http://www.alpn.edu.au/node/72>

Online, Brittania, Magna Carta: the Great Charter of English Liberty Brittania History <http://www.britannia.com/history/docs/magna2.html>

Stoner, James R, 'The Timeliness and Timelessness of Magna Carta ' [2009] (2011) InterCollegiate Review

Unknown, Magna Carta (27 September 2011) Wikipedia <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_Carta>

Unknown, The Magna Carta: so where did history go astray? <http://www.1215.org/lawnotes/work-in-progress/magnahistory.htm>

Woolf, Lord, 'Magna Carta: a precedent for recent constitutional change ' (Speech delivered at the Judges, Tribunals and Magistrates, 15/06/2005) <http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/media/speeches/2005/magna-carta-precedent-recent-constitutional-change >

Cases

Prisoners A-XX Inclusive v State of Nsew South Wales (1995) [1995] 38 NSWLR 622 (Toohey J)

Speeches

J, Allsop, 'Statutes: Some Comment on Context and Meaning ' (Speech delivered at the NSW Bar Association, NSW, 18 March 2005) <http://www.fedcourt.gov.au/aboutct/judges_papers/speeches_allsop3.rtf>

Lairg, Lord Irvine of, 'The Spirit of Magna Carta Continues to Resonate in Modern Law ' (Speech delivered at the Inaurgural Magna Carta Lecture, Great Hall of Parliment House, Canberra, 14 October 2002) <http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/pubs/pops/pop39/lairg.htm>

--------------------------------------------
[ 1 ]. Unknown author (2006) The Magna Carta: so where did history go astray?
< http//www.1215.or/lawnotes/work-in-progress/magnahistory.htm > at 10/10/2011
[ 2 ]. Peter Calvert, Revolution (1 ed, 1970) 63-67.
[ 3 ]. Unknown (2011) at 30 September 2011
[ 4 ]. Calvert, above at n 2, 63.
[ 5 ]. This was the relationship between the King and the Nobles, where the King demanded military, and other services in exchange for land. Barons then made the commoners (Villeins/Serfdoms) tenants of the land, who gave dues and services to their Barons as payment for the land): J. H. Baker, An Introduction to English Legal History (4th ed, 2002) 227.
[ 6 ]. Britannica Online Encyclopaedia (2011) at 07/10/2011.
[ 7 ]. Ibid 229.
[ 8 ]. Lord Irvine’s (2002) The Spirit of Magna Carta Continues to Resonate in Modern Law speech presented in the Great Hall of Parliament House, Canberra
[ 9 ]. James R Stoner (2011) The Timeliness and Timelessness of Magna Carta http://wwwfirstprinciplejournal.com/print.aspx?article=1307
[ 10 ]. Lord Woolf, 'Magna Carta: a precedent for recent constitutional change ' (Speech delivered at the Judges, Tribunals and Magistrates, 15/06/2005) .
[ 11 ]. Calvert, above in n 4, 64
[ 12 ]. Lord Irvine, above in n 8, 4
[ 13 ]. Unknown, above n 1, 5
[ 14 ]. Holt JC, Magna Carta (Cambridge University Press, 1965,) ch 6 [174].
[ 15 ]. Lord Woolf, above in 10.
[ 16 ]. Holt, above in 14 [170].
[ 17 ]. McKechnie W S, Magna Carta: a Commentary on the Great Charter of King John (2nd ed, 1914) Burt Franklin 120-129.
[ 18 ]. Ibid 119.
[ 19 ]. Stubbs, cited in Lyons B, A Constitutional and Legal History of Medieval England (2 ed, 1980) WW Norton Company ch XXII [311]
[ 20 ]. Ibid
[ 21 ]. Stubbs, above in n19.
[ 22 ]. The role of the surety Barons was to ensure the King adhered to the terms of Magna Carta, if not then the Barons, as according to paragraph 61 could “distrain and oppress” the Crown by the seizing of its castles, possessions and all its lands. Author unknown (2007) Magna Carta: the Great Charter of English liberty granted (under considerable duress) by King John at Runnymede on June 15, 1215. Britannia History < http://www.britannia.com/history/docs/magna2.html > at 10/10/11.
[ 23 ]. Ibid, 5
[ 24 ]. Lyons , above in n 21, 310.
[ 25 ]. Ibid
[ 26 ]. Unknown, above in n 3, 4.
[ 27 ]. Holt, above in n14, 1.
[ 28 ]. Unknown, above in n 3 4
[ 29 ]. History of Law, Magna Carta history A.D. 1215 (2004) at 29 September 2011.
[ 30 ]. Stoner, above in n 9.
[ 31 ]. Lord Irvine, above in n 8, 2.
[ 32 ]. Taken to be, that the king met with all his subjects of the all the estates of the realm who had any political rights and whom concurred with him in the grant. Above in n 17, 105.
[ 33 ]. Lord Irvine, above in n 12.
[ 34 ]. Lord Irvine, above in n 33, 4.
[ 35 ]. Holt, above in n 27.
[ 36 ]. Lord Irvine, above in n 34.
[ 37 ]. The most notorious and vociferous condemnation was that of Edward Jenks, The Myth of the Magna Carta Independent Review, no 4 (1904) [260].
[ 38 ]. Ibid.
[ 39 ]. Lyon, above in n 24, 315.
[ 40 ]. Lord Irvine, above in n 36, 4.
[ 41 ]. Unknown, above in 26.
[ 42 ]. Allsop J, Statutes: Some Comments on Context and Meaning, with Particular Regard to Enactment and Pre-Enactment History (Paper presented to the NSW Bar Association 18 March 2005).
[ 43 ]. Australian Law Postgraduate Network, Statutory Interpretation (2009) ALPN at 10/10/2011.
[ 44 ]. Lord Irvine, above in n 49, 8.
[ 45 ]. McKechnie, above in n 32, 127.
[ 46 ]. Ibid
[ 47 ]. Ibid
[ 48 ]. McKechnie, above in n 45 128.
[ 49 ]. With the Statute Law Revision Act 1863 (England). In 1872 in Ireland, with Statute Law (Ireland) Revision Act 1872.
[ 50 ]. “that the English church shall be free, and have its rights undiminished”: Michael Evans, Sources of English Legal and Constitutional History (1st ed, 1984) 51.
[ 51 ]. “the city of London is to have all its ancient liberties and free customs”: Ibid. 52.
[ 52 ]. “No free man shall be taken or imprisoned or disseised of his freehold, liberties or free customs, outlawed or exiled or in any way ruined, nor will we go or send against him, except by the lawful judgement of his peers or by the law of the land. To no one will we sell, to no one will we deny or delay right or justice”: Ibid. 54.
[ 53 ]. Toohey J states that there remains “difficulty” in interpreting older statutes in Prisoners A-XX Inclusive v State of New South Wales (1995) 38 NSWLR 622, 634.
[ 54 ]. Cohen N, Who killed Magna Carta? (2000) The New Statesman Essay - The tyranny of the brands at 10/10/2011>.
[ 55 ]. Corey R, The day Magna Carta died (2006) A Tangled Web at 10/10/2011.
[ 56 ]. Barak-Perez D, The institutional aspects of comparative law < http://www.tau.ac.il/law/barakerez/articals/Barak-ErezCJEL15-3.pdf > at 10/10/2011
[ 57 ]. Lord Irvine, above in n 44, 18.