The lad himself may have been precient*

Does Magna Carta mean nothing to you? Did she die in vain? Brave Hungarian peasant girl who forced King John to sign the pledge at Runnymede and close the boozers at half past ten! Is all this to be forgotton? My friends, it is not John Harrison Peabody who is on trial here today but the fair name of British justice, and I ask you to send that poor boy back to the loving arms of his poor white-haired old mother a free man! I thank you!

Anthony Aloysius St John Hancock

* or Galton and Simpson rather.

Grand words, but completely compatible with everything the Great Blunket is doing. The last few words cover it: "or by the law of the land".

So, if they change the law so that it says "We can imprison anyone we want, and by the way you must all carry ID cards", then that is the law of the land and the condition is satisfied.

No relief there, people.

From 1066 and All That:

"Magna Charter...was invented by the Barons on a desert island in the Thames called Ganymede. By congregating there, armed to the teeth, the Barons compelled John to sign the Magna Charter, which said:

1. That no one should be put to death, save for some reason - (except the Common People).

2. That everyone should be free - (except the Common People).

3. That everything should be of the same weight and measure throughout the realm - (except the Common People).

4. That the Courts should be stationary, instead of following a very tiresome medieval official known as the King's Person all over the country.

5. That 'no person should be fined to his utter ruin' - (except the King's Person).

6. That the Barons should not be tried except by a special jury of other Barons who would understand.

Magna Charter was therefore the chief cause of Democracy in England and was therefore a Good Thing for everyone (except the Common People)."

Indeed. The definition of "person" in the Magna Carta was hardly broad.

Runnymede surely?

Ganymede might have been a bit of a trip.

Eamon

Sorry

Just caught on a bit late.

Must be the heat.

Eamon

Not so fast, Andrew... "The law of the land" in Magna Carta refers to the Common Law rather than statute. So that's not the get-out.

The get-out is that Magna Carta itself is not law, having been superseded by countless statutes. It is a great statement of the principles of limited limited government. But it hasn't applied for a while.

We haven't had limited government since we first had statutes made by King in Parliament that might set aside Magna Carta... So, by my reckoning, not since the reign of John's son Henry III...

But since Magna Carta does set out practical, enforceable freedoms, far clearer and more straightforward than any 18th-century (or 14th-century, or 15th, or 16th....) versions, and all on one side of one piece of vellum card - I think we might stop making fun of it and start taking it seriously.

Common Law is something we can return to. It is to this document the world owes the ideas of:

1) trial by jury; 2) habeus corpus {ie a check on arbitary arrest and being "disappeared" by governments}; 3) innocence until proven guilty; 4) search and arrest only with court warrants.

Above all, innocence until proven guilty. Not bad for 1215. Let's focus on returning to this idea and less of the laughing at what made us free.

Indeed.

We might even try applying some it again.

Fred

Forgive a yank a stupid question:

If you don't have a written constitution, how is the Magna Carter regarded?

It seems like the beginnings of a constitution or a bill of rights?

Is having the Magna Carter one of the reasons you never felt the need for a written constitution? If so, doesn't that kind of make it one?

(Very glad, btw for the Magna Carter. Foundation of US law and freedoms as well)

Thanks to any who answer my question

I'm not mocking it, and indeed there are lots of things in it that have been carried forward into the good bits of later law. Such as jury trial in serious causes.

Chris,

English Law is soaked in history, and that's what Magna Carta is. History. When common law mattered more (before 1998, and back) history was more influential, but Magna Carta itself had long been superseded, its citation in court left to addled, often vexatious, litigants-in-person.

We do have a constitution, and almost all of it is written. The constitution is to be found hiding in the oddest places. It certainly isn't collected in one code you can point to.

But Magna Carta is no longer part of it. You're right that it was. You could count it as a repealed constitutional amendment, if you want to look at things from an American point of view.

Distressingly enough the Human Rights Act 1998 (Year 2 in the Blair Revolutionary Calendar) and the treaties on European Union are probably our key constitutional documents nowadays.

"... or in any way victimised", wish someone could tell that to Peter 'I'm not a terrorist' Hain and his or HMV's plans for implementing higher taxes upon anyone earning more than he does .