Sparks Commentary: When King John signed the Magna Carta, it was like signing a surrender document …

“No freemen shall be taken or imprisoned or disseised or exiled or in any way destroyed, nor will we go upon him nor send upon him, except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land.”

– The original Magna Carta (1215), Section 39 – using the translation (from the Latin into English) that was offered by Yale Law School's “Avalon Project”

When King John of England signed the Magna Carta in 1215, it was tantamount to signing a surrender document, and was just as humiliating for him. Before, the authority of the king had been almost (if not completely) absolute. Now, it was limited, and his nobles had the king's signature to prove it. Why did the king agree to sign this document in the first place? If he wanted to continue to have absolute power (and he did), why would he agree to such limits upon his power?

King John of England

The short answer for this is that he had no choice – he was forced to sign this document by angry men wielding a sword at him. But how did these noblemen manage to force him to do this at sword-point? How is it that King John lost his grip on absolute power at this time, with his descendants having very little chance of recovering it later on?

The Magna Carta

What do the Robin Hood legends have to do with the Magna Carta?

To answer that, it behooves us to go back to a surprising source, which is the Robin Hood legends. They actually date back to around this time, as it turns out. Like most legends, the story of Robin Hood is not a reliable historical account (in at least some ways); and undoubtedly contains some embellishments, if not some outright fabrications. It may be important to clarify here that there probably wasn't anyone at this time who “stole from the rich to give to the poor,” which is what the Robin Hood legends say. Nonetheless, there really was a king named Richard the Lionheart who was captured while crusading for the church. This king really was held for ransom at this time, and the ransom really was paid. This was despite the efforts of the king's no-good brother “Prince John.” But there was a problem for the English, which was that Richard the Lionheart wasn't likely to live forever (to put it mildly). When he eventually died, he was succeeded on the throne by his own brother “Prince John” – the same man who would later become “King John of England,” and who would sign the Magna Carta in 1215. Whatever else the Robin Hood legends might have gotten wrong, they were correct that King John was a bad ruler, and would eventually become so bad that the barons would revolt against him. Since the barons were the only ones revolting, they would also be the only ones that the original Magna Carta would protect – although some later re-issuings of this document would also protect commoners, by changing phrases like “freemen” to simply “man, of whatever estate or condition he may be” (Source: the third of the Six Statutes, passed 1354).

King Richard the First of England (better known as “Richard the Lionheart”)

The beginnings of Parliament – or at least, the House of Lords – can be traced to this

Some have traced the beginnings of Parliament to the original Magna Carta, and dated it to the day that the document was issued in 1215 – specifically, on the 15th of June. This is because it limited the king's power to tax without the “common counsel of our kingdom” – which has long been interpreted as a sort of primitive parliament. Specifically, it said that “No scutage nor aid shall be imposed on our kingdom, unless by common counsel of our kingdom, except for ransoming our person, for making our eldest son a knight, and for once marrying our eldest daughter; and for these there shall not be levied more than a reasonable aid. In like manner it shall be done concerning aids from the city of London.” (Source: Section 12) I should note that Yale Law School's “Avalon Project” defines a scutage as a “Tax or contribution raised by someone holding lands by knight's service used to furnish the King's army.” (Source: Their page on Magna Carta) Thus, no taxes of this kind are allowed to be laid by the king “unless by common counsel of our kingdom” – the primitive legislature of England at this time. At first, this council consisted only of the barons (or “lords”), but would later include elected commons in a separate house. The beginning was like just having the “House of Lords” represented in the British Parliament without the “House of Commons” part. To remedy this, the “House of Commons” was later added more than a century afterward, and so the rights protected by Magna Carta began to be extended to more groups than just the lords and barons.

Parliament of England

Influence on the Due Process Clauses of the United States Constitution

But the most important part of the document for Americans may have been the same section that I started this post with, which was Section 39. I quote from it now: “No freemen shall be taken or imprisoned or disseised or exiled or in any way destroyed, nor will we go upon him nor send upon him, except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land.” (Source: Section 39) A later English law would change the part about “the lawful judgment of his peers [or] the law of the land” to “due process of law” (Source: the third of the Six Statutes, passed 1354). This same phrase entered the United States Bill of Rights five centuries later, which said that no person shall “be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law” (Source: Fifth Amendment). It was also later applied to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment, which said that “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law” (Source: Section 1 of the amendment).

United States Bill of Rights

Influence on the Habeas Corpus Clause of the United States Constitution

And finally, the parts of the Magna Carta about being “taken or imprisoned” would also enter the original Constitution via some fancy language from Latin about “habeas corpus.” (Incidentally, the entire Magna Carta was originally written in Latin – but that's a point that one can develop elsewhere.) Specifically, the Constitution said that “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.” (Source: Article 1, Section 9, Paragraph 2 of the United States Constitution) The Latin phrase “habeas corpus” just means that people cannot be arbitrarily imprisoned without being charged with something and brought to trial, which is another legacy of Magna Carta – itself a Latin phrase, I should note here, meaning the “Great Charter.” (I might mention that Latin was a common legal language in the Middle Ages, even though it was already a dead language by this time; so it was not unusual to see it used then for legal documents.) The Habeas Corpus Clause of our Constitution also shows the influence of two famous acts by the English Parliament, which are the Habeas Corpus Acts of 1640 and 1679. Like the Magna Carta itself, both of these were also important documents for the British Constitution. (But that's a subject for another post.)

Constitutional Convention at Philadelphia – United States, 1787

The Magna Carta had more influence on our Bill of Rights than on our original Constitution …

Although Magna Carta did influence the original United States Constitution via this clause (and a few others in the Constitution), its most profound influence may have been on the United States Bill of Rights, and such provisions as the Fifth Amendment. Ironically, many of the Founding Fathers who had helped to write the original Constitution were actually against including a bill of rights within the document at that time. For example, Alexander Hamilton wrote in the Federalist Papers that “It has been several times truly remarked that bills of rights are, in their origin, stipulations between kings and their subjects, abridgements of prerogative in favor of privilege, reservations of rights not surrendered to the prince. Such was MAGNA CHARTA, obtained by the barons, sword in hand, from King John. Such were the subsequent confirmations of that charter by succeeding princes. Such was the PETITION OF RIGHT assented to by Charles I., in the beginning of his reign. Such, also, was the Declaration of Right presented by the Lords and Commons to the Prince of Orange in 1688, and afterwards thrown into the form of an act of parliament called the Bill of Rights.” (Source: Federalist No. 84) I will continue this quote below.

Alexander Hamilton

… as can be shown by a quotation from Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist Papers

Alexander Hamilton continued by saying that “It is evident, therefore, that, according to their primitive signification, they have no application to constitutions professedly founded upon the power of the people, and executed by their immediate representatives and servants. Here, in strictness, the people surrender nothing; and as they retain every thing they have no need of particular reservations. 'WE, THE PEOPLE of the United States, to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ORDAIN and ESTABLISH this Constitution for the United States of America.' Here is a better recognition of popular rights,” Hamilton asserted, “than volumes of those aphorisms which make the principal figure in several of our State bills of rights, and which would sound much better in a treatise of ethics than in a constitution of government.” (Source: Federalist No. 84)

Alexander Hamilton

It would fall to other Founding Fathers to ensure that a federal Bill of Rights was passed

In other words, Hamilton argued, listing our rights in the Constitution would actually be dangerous; because people would construe any right not listed there to be unprotected by the Constitution. (This concern would later be addressed by the Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution.) Thus, it would fall to other Founding Fathers (including James Madison) to ensure that a federal Bill of Rights was passed; and that it would include the protections whose importance Hamilton had so unwisely dismissed here. In saying this, I do not mean to question Hamilton's general wisdom, since I assert only that he was wrong on one particular point. Moreover, since his record on other issues is much better, I do not wish to attack his views generally (or even his writings in the Federalist Papers), since he was an indispensable part of the founding of our country. His input was sorely needed in the final draft of our Constitution, in short; and we would be much worse off without it.

Magna Carta replica and display, in the rotunda of the United States Capitol (Washington, D.C.)

The Magna Carta's influence was felt throughout the English-speaking world later on

Whatever the influence of the Magna Carta on our own Constitution, it is clear that this document would have massive repercussions on the English-speaking world of times to come (including our own time). The Founding Fathers who wrote the Bill of Rights were much influenced by it, and even the Founding Fathers who had opposed the Bill of Rights had been greatly influenced by Magna Carta. In the centuries since its first issuing, Magna Carta has been reissued several times over with subsequent modifications. Furthermore, when the British Empire was later spread throughout the known world, its legacy of constitutional limits upon government was carried with it. Thus, the legacy of the British Empire may not be entirely a bad one, as it is sometimes made out to be today. Not all of the passages stand today as they were originally written, of course, but they nonetheless formed the basis of the British Constitution as it stands today, and for many other constitutions around the world. They paved the way for more popular liberties than there were before, in places half a world away, and in centuries far removed. Our world would be worse off without these things.

Footnote to this blog post:

The Magna Carta's clauses were not numbered as they are today when they were first issued. In fact, they were not numbered at all; and the numbering system that we use today was the legacy of a later century (specifically, the eighteenth).

Specifically, the Magna Carta was divided into 63 clauses by Sir William Blackstone, who would write some influential “Commentaries on the Laws of England” from 1765 to 1769. They are better known today as Blackstone's “Commentaries.”

Sir William Blackstone

Full text of the Magna Carta (translated into English) at Yale Law School's “Avalon Project”

If you liked this post, you might also like:

A review of David Starkey's "Monarchy"

A review of Robert Bartlett's “The Plantagenets” (BBC)