Evaluation of the Strategy of Magna Carta - Essay Example

MAGNA CARTA: Promised a lot but delivered little in England. Critically evaluate this claim. The Magna Carta may have been one of England’s most celebrated documents, but its true contribution to the country’s legal and constitutional history remains to be largely obscured by modern interpretations. For one, the iconic Magna Carta was never intended to be an enduring document of legal principle. In fact, the document was abandoned for most centuries, only to be valued later by English lawyers and historians as a “palladium of English liberties”1. Is Magna Carta really worthy of reverence by representing the core principles of English Constitution? Or did the Great Charter simply promise more than it could deliver? To fetch answers to these questions, it is important to contextualize the usefulness of the document among different sectors in society during the early 13th century. For the Church, which was part of the English landowning system, the Magna Carta meant the King’s recognition of its duty between lord and man. To the barons, the document did not only mean limiting the powers of the monarch, but it also meant enjoying feudal privileges which, at that time, were only accorded to them free men. For King John, signing the Magna Carta was meant to be a momentary solution to suppress the revolt of the nobles. In short, the Great Charter simply aimed at solving a practical problem in society during that period. However, over time, the reinterpretation made by lawyers and politicians has elevated the document’s status as the legal foundation to the establishment of the rule of law in England. Since then, it had been widely cited not only for its historical background, but also for the purpose to protect national liberties. The Magna Carta was claimed to have founded the parliament and helped develop the written constitution. Although it is widely celebrated to be the first document to challenge the King’s power, it was also revered because of its supposed warranting of the rights of habeas corpus, trial by jury, and the formation of the concept of citizen’s rights. As a result, these entitlements to the charter have become the favorite mantra, a rallying cry among lawyers and politicians whenever they feel that the issues on rights and liberty are threatened and subdued. In reality however, the entire 63 sections in the Magna Carta contained very few statements about legal principles. In fact, majority of the document’s clauses dealt more with feudal rights and customs which are now irrelevant in today’s society and have long been repealed and considered obsolete. Instead, the provisions in the charter were mostly directed to the local issues of the early 13th century England which were about the struggles between the King’s unrestrained power and his fragile cooperation with powerful barons. Despite these, there still remained three relevant clauses from the 1297 document which were widely celebrated because of their relevance and similarities to modern ideas of rights, liberty, and justice. These clauses were Clause 1 or the freedom of the English Church, Clause 9 or the "ancient liberties" of the City of London and Clause 29 or the right to due process. A close examination of these clauses will shed answers significance if indeed the Great Charter as legal foundation for the establishment of English liberties. Clause 29 - the right to due process Perhaps the most highly emphasized clause in law books was contained in clause 29 which lawyers and politicians habitually emphasized to set the foundation of the right to due process as it specifically states that: “No freeman is to be taken or imprisoned or disseized of his free tenement or of his liberties or free customs, or outlawed or exiled or in any way ruined, nor will we go against such a man or send against him save by lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land. To no-one will we sell or deny of delay right or justice.” [Clause 29, Magna Carta, 1215] By casual reading, one would assume that the clause guarantees a full and speedy trial by jury to every Englishman. However, if we examine the historical development behind this clause, it should be noted that the provision found in the Magna Carta did not serve English citizens. Instead, it referred to the so-called “freeman” in the privileged class in the feudal system. So while the barons ensured to subject the King to the law, they also secured their right to be judged “by lawful judgment of his peers” or to be tried simply by those who are within their rank. Over time however, lawyers and leaders continued to reinterpret and refer to the passage as the foundation of our modern liberties which are the right to trial by jury, writ of habeas corpus, and the right not to be disseised. What was overlooked is the fact that clause 29 of the Magna Carta evolved from protecting the right of upper classes in the feudal system to eventually applying it to all groups of people in society. But even if the clause is taken out of its original context, there are still lapses on how it is applied in modern day trials. For instance, the so-called rights that evolved from the Magna Carta were clearly violated in Guantanamo Bay when several prisoners were denied trial by jury because they were neither within the jurisdiction of U.S. courts nor under the jurisdiction of the laws and customs of war2. The right for trial procedure was denied to prisoners of Guantanamo, even if the scope meaning of the Magna Carta has evolved to provide equal procedural rights to every citizen. This goes to show that even though the Great Charter has inspired lawyers and politicians to ideally protect everyone’s rights, what is happening in reality tells us that the provision still has limitations in its application of rights to every individual. Limiting the King’s Power Surely, legal historians agree that the most expedient achievement of the Magna Carta was to limit the power of royal authority — that is, to place the king under the subject of the law for the first time in British history. However, the document failed to articulate how it can prevent the King from abusing his power. It simply did not present comprehensive sanctions in case the King fails to subject himself in the rule of law. It lacked constitutional machinery to practice the theories and legal ideas stated in the Magna Carta. Instead, the provision provided a tool for politicians, especially the leaders and politicians in the seventeenth century, to challenge the Stewart dynasty for legitimate freedom. The Magna Carta then became not only significant for legal reference but also for political battle as well. It has been the subject of different interpretations whenever there is a need for exposition of English laws. Over time, the clause proved to be handy when it comes to challenging the leader’s use of excessive power, which now becomes a significant achievement of the Great Charter. Formation of the Parliament To ensure that the King uses his power properly and cooperate with the Barons, the Magna Carta subjected the King under a council of 25 members who are tasked to observe and monitor his doings and conduct (Section 21, Magna Carta, 1215). As such, some have attributed this provision to the later formation and growth of the English parliament. But this proved to be a myth considering that the authors of the Magna Carta did not have the concept of what the institution would become3 . In fact, if the provisions in the Great Charter are examined closely, it can rightly be said that the document provided the solution of legalizing rebellion towards an unjust lord. This is because if the King failed to follow the rights and liberties as stated in the charter and if he did not find any solutions to the grievances of the citizens, then “the four barons shall refer the matter to the rest of the twenty-five barons together with the community of the whole land, who shall distrain (seize property) and distress us in any way they can, namely, by seizing castles, lands, possessions, and in such other ways as they can (Clause 61, Magna Carta, 1215). This way of legalizing rebellion created an overwhelming distrust on both sides. Since clause 61 seriously challenged the King’s power to govern his people, he rejected immediately it with the support of Pope Innocent III. As such, the Magna Carta lasted for not more than three months; and the barons never succeeded in transferring and replacing the control of royal power to the groups of barons4. As for the creation of the parliament, its evolution was gradual and unplanned as running government departments had become costly for the state. It needed an assembly of local representatives to discuss royal policies and its implementation. And so, even with the initial development of the common counsel (known as today’s parliament) during Henry III, the King had remained influential and powerful. It was part of the feudal principle that the King needed the permission of common counsel to impose taxes to the people. In reality, the granting of rights by the King was accorded to the people who give monetary payment and not the barons who own land properties. Incidental Value of the Magna Carta As discussed, reinterpretations made by lawyers and politicians of the Magna Carta have distorted the document’s real purpose and worth. Within its context in the early 13th century, the Magna Carta created an almost insignificant impact to the lives of English folks as the King remained to have greater power over its people. After a few revisions, the Great Charter was left forgotten for centuries and was only brought back to the discussion by the jurist Sir Edward Coke. The ideas on rights and liberty were taken out of context to mean that they apply to every individual and not only the ruling elite at that time. These reinterpretations were soon picked up by politicians who used it as a rallying cry to declare liberties against government power. It is fair to say however that because of these distorted views of the Magna Carta, its influence to lawyers and politicians paved way to imparting rights and liberties to every individual. Thus, the Great Charter can only be viewed as an incidental triumph that inspired and influenced the development of constitutional documents in England, the United States, and Australia. The development of the concept of rights coincided with the privileges that the feudal elites in the early13th century want to have. Now, the challenge for modern governments is to implement and apply these highly ideal theories of rights and liberty to each and every citizen. Sources Drew, Katherin Fischer, ‘Magna Carta’ (Greenwood Press, 2004) May, Larry. ‘Magna Carta the Interstices of Procedure and Guantanamo’. (2010) Heinonline Library. William Sharp McKechnie (ED.), ‘Magna Carta: A Commentary on the Great Charter of King John, with Historical Introduction’ (2004) The Online Library of Liberty. Read More