CONSERVATIVE

Magna Carta, Liberty & the Medieval Mind
André P. DeBattista
The word ‘medieval’ is often used pejoratively to
depict something which is uncivilised or primitive. But
as the eminent medievalist George Holmes has stated,
“Western civilisation was created in medieval Europe”.
Although it spanned a millennium of upheaval and
change, it led to a “flowering of new ways of life and
attitudes” revolving around newly founded monasteries,
cathedrals, universities, royal courts, and towns and cities.
The axis of ‘Church, Crown, Commerce, and Country’
provided the perfect mix for the establishment of new
social patterns which still provide continuity and stability
today.
Towering 13th century churches remain a symbol
of a transcendental continuity, while the modern nationstate
can trace its origins to the royal courts in France
and England. The idea of a university was also ignited
during this period as the finest centres of learning were
established in Oxford, Cambridge, Bologna, and Paris.
Given how radically different that age was from
the present, Holmes argues that we have to “balance
the similarities which arise from common humanity
and a constant inheritance of ideas against the acute
distinctions caused by differences of social structure
and intellectual traditions”. The aim is not to identify the
ideas of the present in the past but rather to pinpoint
those ideas of the past which still inform the present.
I’d like to explore the Magna Carta, a document that
was born in these very particular circumstances. Despite
its original limited scope, the Magna Carta has continued
to inform discourses relating to liberty, freedom, and the
rule of law over the centuries. It is now an entrenched
part of the “epic of liberty”—a narrative which seeks
to justify the ancient and continuing tradition of free
institutions and lawful limitations on power.
Juridical & legislative changes
In the Coronation Charters of 1100 and 1135, both
King Henry I and King Stephen declared their intention
to rule according to “custom and law”. New attitudes
towards law and justice created the perfect climate for
legislative and juridical progress which lasted throughout
the 12th and 13th centuries. Charters slowly became the
preferred method of asserting legal rights. (In the 13th
century alone, it is estimated that eight million charters
were created for smallholders and peasants.)
The Crown established two permanent
offices—the chancery and the exchequer—which were
responsible for maintaining written records. The practice
of codifying agreements supplemented oral traditions.
By the late 12th century, centres of higher learning were
established at Oxford and Cambridge, and Oxford in
particular excelled at disciplines such as administration
and legal procedure.
This King’s courts began to allow for new processes
in the administration of justice. Norman Vincent, the
eminent Magna Carta scholar, argues that “England
and England’s kings were entering a new age in which
law and custom were increasingly to be regarded not
as immemorial traditions committed to the memories
of the older and more respectable members of the
community, but as ‘laws’ in the modern sense, issued as
written decrees”. Historians credit these developments
with forming the foundation of English Common Law.
In 1164, King Henry II issued the controversial
Constitutions of Clarendon which sought to restrict
the powers and the privileges of ecclesiastical authority.
The Constitutions provided the pretext for a standoff
between the Crown and the Church. (The murder of St.
Thomas Beckett was a consequence of this clash.)
In the court of Henry II a precedent was set for
written laws which curbed, rather than licenced, the use of
arbitrary power. At the same time, a new legal profession
began to emerge. Eventually the administration of justice
became a significant source of income for the Crown—
but this soon gave way to bribery and speculation.
Two images of royal power soon emerged. First,
that of the King acting on behalf of God, which
Nicholas Vincent says was based on “a sense that
the king himself stood in judgement above the petty
disputes of his subjects”. Second, in contrast, the King
was perceived to be the ultimate sovereign, immune from
justice or prosecution but dependent upon the law for
his income and self-image. Vincent notes that “the more
royal government came to depend upon the law for its
income and self-image, the more the king’s subjects were
likely to resent the king’s own apparent disrespect for the
laws that he claimed to administer”.
The troubled reign of King John
Between 1192 and 1194, Richard I was held for
ransom in Germany. The cost of paying this ransom
had some long-lasting negative effects on the economy.
During Richard’s captivity, John frequently tried to start
revolts and claim the throne for himself.
King Richard I died in 1199 with no legitimate
heirs. Upon his death, different parts of the Angevin
Empire chose different rulers. England and Normandy
opted for John, who inherited a situation which was, at
best, dire.
The figure of King John is somewhat paradoxical.
He took an unprecedented level of interest in daily legal
and governmental matters but was inept at managing the
most powerful elements in his kingdom—the Church
and the aristocracy. As the youngest son of Henry II
(1133-1189), King John was an unlikely king.
However, in terms of policy, there was an element
of continuity throughout the reigns of Henry II and his
two sons, Richard I and John. All landlords held their
estates at the King’s pleasure and were subject to arbitrary
fines, particularly if they caused offence. John, however,
increased the pressure on the landlords by accelerating
the terms of repayment.
12
Summer 2015