Escrevi um artigo, no ano passado, a este respeito. Este aqui (mas o artigo no Estadão é um pouco diferente):
2625. “A Magna Carta completa 800 anos: alguma lição para o
Brasil?”, Hartford, 8 julho 2014, 2 p. Considerações sobre o significado da
Magna Carta para o Brasil. Blog Diplomatizzando
(link: http://diplomatizzando.blogspot.com/2014/07/magna-carta-800-anos-de-afirmacao-de.html).
Publicado em 10/07/2014 no site do Instituto Millenium (link: http://www.imil.org.br/artigos/magna-carta-completa-800-anos-alguma-lio-para-brasil/)
e no Dom Total (link: http://domtotal.com/colunas/detalhes.php?artId=4340).
Ampliado e publicado no jornal O Estado
de S. Paulo sob o título de “Os 800 anos da Magna Carta” (14/07/2014; link:
http://opiniao.estadao.com.br/noticias/geral,os-800-anos-da-magna-carta-imp-,1528314).
Relação de Publicados n. 1135.
A Magna Carta aos 800 anos de
sua elaboração:
Alguma lição para o
Brasil?
Paulo Roberto de Almeida
Postado no blog Diplomatizzando
(link: http://diplomatizzando.blogspot.com/2014/07/magna-carta-800-anos-de-afirmacao-de.html)
Dentro de pouco menos de um ano (mais ou menos,
levando em conta as diferenças de calendário, desde o século 13), a Magna Carta
completará 800 anos.
Ela constitui, sem dúvida alguma, a base de todas as
liberdades modernas, do próprio princípio democrático, do governo pelo consentimento
dos governados, da taxação com representação e do devido processo legal.
Pretendo escrever alguma coisa a esse respeito,
focando, obviamente, no caso brasileiro, onde ainda não chegamos, exatamente, à
aplicação plena dos princípios da Carta.
Os barões da Inglaterra medieval estavam se revoltando
contra um rei ladrão, João Sem Terras. No nosso caso é um pouco diferente, o
que complica as coisas.
Quando os nossos barões -- que por enquanto são só
ladrões -- se revoltarem contra a prepotência do Estado, contra as exações
do(a) soberano(a), contra a falta de representação real no corpo parlamentar,
contra as deformações da democracia, contra a corrupção (que eles mesmos
patrocinam, ao comprar parlamentares, ao sustentar lobistas, ao subsidiar partidos
mafiosos), contra as políticas especiais de puxadinhos e improvisações (que
eles mesmos também pedem ao Estado todo poderoso), quando esses barões
capitalistas conseguirem conduzir uma fronda empresarial contra o Estado,
contra os corruptos que eles mesmos colocaram no poder, então, talvez,
poderemos nos aproximar pelo menos um pouco dos valores e princípios da Carta
de 1215.
Estamos um pouco atrasados, como vocês podem
constatar.
Os franceses também, pois eles só foram conduzir uma
fronda aristocrática depois que os mesmos ingleses já tinham decapitado um rei,
que abusava justamente de seus poderes. Os ingleses consentiram no início de um outro
reinado, depois de breve experiência republicana, sob Cromwell -- um pouco sangrenta, para
qualquer padrão -- mas resolveram tirar esse mesmo rei, desta vez
pacificamente (1688), depois que o mesmo resolveu se meter a besta, pretendendo
retomar os antigos hábitos absolutistas da sua família. Aí os ingleses
simplesmente importaram uma nova dinastia do continente, aprovaram um Bill of
Rights que limitava sensivelmente -- na verdade podava totalmente -- os poderes
do novo soberano, e desde então vivem pacificamente com os seus soberanos de
teatro (mais comedia dell'arte do que
tragédias shakespeareanas). Em todo caso, eles são a mais velha democracia do
mundo, em funcionamento contínuo desde 1688.
Foram seguidos depois, mas no formato republicano,
ainda que absorvendo todas as bondades da Magna Carta e do Bill of Rights,
pelos seus expatriados da Nova Inglaterra e das demais colônias, que se
revoltaram justamente quando os ingleses, ou melhor o seu rei, empreendeu uma
tosquia muito forte nos seus rendimentos, aumentando taxas e cobrando outros
impostos.
A fronda dos americanos foi uma revolução, como eles
chamam, mas com isso criaram a primeira democracia moderna da história, e que
se mantém até hoje com a mesma constituição original e algumas poucas
emendas.
Por favor, não comparem com as nossas sete cartas
constitucionais -- e dois ou três grandes remendos no curso de nossa história
conturbada -- e as dezenas e dezenas, talvez já 80, emendas e de emendinhas.
Tem uma até que regula trabalho de domésticas: alguma outra constituição abriga
uma excrescência desse tipo? Nada aqui contra trabalhadores domésticos, mas não
creio que isso deva figurar numa constituição.
Enfim, os nossos barões, que também são extorquidos
pelos príncipes que nos governam não parecem ter muita disposição para mudar o
cenário, menos ainda para decapitar um ou outro daqueles. Talvez quando a carga
fiscal passar de 40% -- o que significa duas derramas, de um quinto cada,
contra as quais se revoltou Tiradentes e outros intelectuais -- eles resolvam
fazer a fronda. Posso explicar como fazer, se for preciso alguma assessoria
técnica...
Por enquanto fiquem com este resumo do documento no
site do National Archives and Records Administration, que tem uma cópia em sua
sede de Washington.
Na postagem é possível acessar um texto em inglês
modernizado desse documento essencial do itinerário democrático que começou 800
anos atrás.
Paulo Roberto de Almeida
Hartford, 8 de Junho de 2014
===========
Magna Carta and Its American Legacy
Before penning the Declaration of Independence--the first of
the American Charters of Freedom--in 1776, the Founding Fathers searched for a
historical precedent for asserting their rightful liberties from King George
III and the English Parliament. They found it in a gathering that took place
561 years earlier on the plains of Runnymede, not far from where Windsor Castle
stands today. There, on June 15, 1215, an assembly of barons confronted a
despotic and cash-strapped King John and demanded that traditional rights be
recognized, written down, confirmed with the royal seal, and sent to each of
the counties to be read to all freemen. The result was Magna Carta--a momentous
achievement for the English barons and, nearly six centuries later, an
inspiration for angry American colonists.
Magna Carta was the result of the Angevin king's disastrous
foreign policy and overzealous financial administration. John had suffered a
staggering blow the previous year, having lost an important battle to King
Philip II at Bouvines and with it all hope of regaining the French lands he had
inherited. When the defeated John returned from the Continent, he attempted to
rebuild his coffers by demanding scutage (a fee paid in lieu of military
service) from the barons who had not joined his war with Philip. The barons in
question, predominantly lords of northern estates, protested, condemning John's
policies and insisting on a reconfirmation of Henry I's Coronation Oath (1100),
which would, in theory, limit the king's ability to obtain funds. (As even
Henry ignored the provisions of this charter, however, a reconfirmation would
not necessarily guarantee fewer taxes.) But John refused to withdraw his
demands, and by spring most baronial families began to take sides. The
rebelling barons soon faltered before John's superior resources, but with the
unexpected capture of London, they earned a substantial bargaining chip. John
agreed to grant a charter.
The document conceded by John and set with his seal in 1215,
however, was not what we know today as Magna Carta but rather a set of baronial
stipulations, now lost, known as the "Articles of the barons." After
John and his barons agreed on the final provisions and additional wording
changes, they issued a formal version on June 19, and it is this document that
came to be known as Magna Carta. Of great significance to future generations
was a minor wording change, the replacement of the term "any baron"
with "any freeman" in stipulating to whom the provisions applied.
Over time, it would help justify the application of the Charter's provisions to
a greater part of the population. While freemen were a minority in 13th-century
England, the term would eventually include all English, just as "We the
People" would come to apply to all Americans in this century.
While Magna Carta would one day become a basic document of the
British Constitution, democracy and universal protection of ancient liberties
were not among the barons' goals. The Charter was a feudal document and meant
to protect the rights and property of the few powerful families that topped the
rigidly structured feudal system. In fact, the majority of the population, the
thousands of unfree laborers, are only mentioned once, in a clause concerning
the use of court-set fines to punish minor offenses. Magna Carta's primary
purpose was restorative: to force King John to recognize the supremacy of
ancient liberties, to limit his ability to raise funds, and to reassert the
principle of "due process." Only a final clause, which created an
enforcement council of tenants-in-chief and clergymen, would have severely
limited the king's power and introduced something new to English law: the
principle of "majority rule." But majority rule was an idea whose
time had not yet come; in September, at John's urging, Pope Innocent II
annulled the "shameful and demeaning agreement, forced upon the king by
violence and fear." The civil war that followed ended only with John's
death in October 1216.
A 1297 version of Magna Carta, presented courtesy of David
M. Rubenstein, is on display in the new David M. Rubenstein Gallery at the
National Archives.
To gain support for the new monarch--John's 9-year-old son, Henry
III--the young king's regents reissued the charter in 1217. Neither this
version nor that issued by Henry when he assumed personal control of the throne
in 1225 were exact duplicates of John's charter; both lacked some provisions,
including that providing for the enforcement council, found in the original.
With the 1225 issuance, however, the evolution of the document ended. While
English monarchs, including Henry, confirmed Magna Carta several times after
this, each subsequent issue followed the form of this "final"
version. With each confirmation, copies of the document were made and sent to
the counties so that everyone would know their rights and obligations. Of these
original issues of Magna Carta, 17 survive: 4 from the reign of John; 8 from
that of Henry III; and 5 from Edward I, including the version now on display at
the National Archives.
Although tradition and interpretation would one day make Magna
Carta a document of great importance to both England and the American colonies,
it originally granted concessions to few but the powerful baronial families. It
did include concessions to the Church, merchants, townsmen, and the lower
aristocracy for their aid in the rebellion, but the majority of the English
population would remain without an active voice in government for another 700
years.
Despite its historical significance, however, Magna Carta may have
remained legally inconsequential had it not been resurrected and reinterpreted
by Sir Edward Coke in the early 17th century. Coke, Attorney General for
Elizabeth, Chief Justice during the reign of James, and a leader in Parliament
in opposition to Charles I, used Magna Carta as a weapon against the oppressive
tactics of the Stuart kings. Coke argued that even kings must comply to common
law. As he proclaimed to Parliament in 1628, "Magna Carta . . . will have
no sovereign."
Lord Coke's view of the law was particularly relevant to the
American experience for it was during this period that the charters for the
colonies were written. Each included the guarantee that those sailing for the
New World and their heirs would have "all the rights and immunities of free
and natural subjects." As our forefathers developed legal codes for the
colonies, many incorporated liberties guaranteed by Magna Carta and the 1689
English Bill of Rights directly into their own statutes. Although few colonists
could afford legal training in England, they remained remarkably familiar with
English common law. During one parliamentary debate in the late 18th century,
Edmund Burke observed, "In no country, perhaps in the world, is law so
general a study." Through Coke, whose four-volume Institutes of the Laws
of England was widely read by American law students, young colonists such as
John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison learned of the spirit of the
charter and the common law--or at least Coke's interpretation of them. Later, Jefferson
would write to Madison of Coke: "a sounder whig never wrote, nor of
profounder learning in the orthodox doctrines of the British constitution, or
in what were called English liberties." It is no wonder then that as the
colonists prepared for war they would look to Coke and Magna Carta for
justification.
By the 1760s the colonists had come to believe that in America
they were creating a place that adopted the best of the English system but
adapted it to new circumstances; a place where a person could rise by merit,
not birth; a place where men could voice their opinions and actively share in
self-government. But these beliefs were soon tested. Following the costly Seven
Years' War, Great Britain was burdened with substantial debts and the
continuing expense of keeping troops on American soil. Parliament thought the
colonies should finance much of their own defense and levied the first direct
tax, the Stamp Act, in 1765. As a result, virtually every document--newspapers,
licenses, insurance policies, legal writs, even playing cards--would have to
carry a stamp showing that required taxes had been paid. The colonists rebelled
against such control over their daily affairs. Their own elected legislative
bodies had not been asked to consent to the Stamp Act. The colonists argued
that without either this local consent or direct representation in Parliament,
the act was "taxation without representation." They also objected to
the law's provision that those who disobeyed could be tried in admiralty courts
without a jury of their peers. Coke's influence on Americans showed clearly
when the Massachusetts Assembly reacted by declaring the Stamp Act
"against the Magna Carta and the natural rights of Englishmen, and
therefore, according to Lord Coke, null and void."
But regardless of whether the charter forbade taxation
without representation or if this was merely implied by the "spirit,"
the colonists used this "misinterpretation" to condemn the Stamp Act.
To defend their objections, they turned to a 1609 or 1610 defense argument used
by Coke: superiority of the common law over acts of Parliament. Coke claimed
"When an act of parliament is against common right or reason, or
repugnant, or impossible to be performed, the common law will control it and
adjudge such an act void. Because the Stamp Act seemed to tread on the concept
of consensual taxation, the colonists believed it, "according to Lord
Coke," invalid.
The colonists were enraged. Benjamin Franklin and others in
England eloquently argued the American case, and Parliament quickly rescinded
the bill. But the damage was done; the political climate was changing. As John
Adams later wrote to Thomas Jefferson, "The Revolution was in the minds of
the people, and this was effected, from 1760 to 1775, in the course of 15 years
before a drop of blood was shed at Lexington."
Relations between Great Britain and the colonies continued to
deteriorate. The more Parliament tried to raise revenue and suppress the
growing unrest, the more the colonists demanded the charter rights they had
brought with them a century and a half earlier. At the height of the Stamp Act
crisis, William Pitt proclaimed in Parliament, "The Americans are the sons
not the bastards of England." Parliament and the Crown, however, appeared
to believe otherwise. But the Americans would have their rights, and they would
fight for them. The seal adopted by Massachusetts on the eve of the Revolution
summed up the mood--a militiaman with sword in one hand and Magna Carta in the
other.
Armed resistance broke out in April 1775. Fifteen months later,
the final break was made with the immortal words of the Declaration of
Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all Men are
created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,
that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness." Although
the colonies had finally and irrevocably articulated their goal, Independence
did not come swiftly. Not until the surrender of British forces at Yorktown in
1781 was the military struggle won. The constitutional battle, however, was
just beginning.
In the war's aftermath, many Americans recognized that the rather
loose confederation of states would have to be strengthened if the new nation
were to survive. James Madison expressed these concerns in a call for a
convention at Philadelphia in 1787 to revise the Articles of Confederation:
"The good people of America are to decide the solemn question, whether
they will by wise and magnanimous efforts reap the just fruits of that Independence
which they so gloriously acquired . . . or whether by giving way to unmanly
jealousies and prejudices, or to partial and transitory interests, they will
renounce the auspicious blessings prepared for them by the Revolution."
The representatives of the states listened to Madison and drew heavily from his
ideas. Instead of revising the Articles, they created a new form of government,
embodied in the Constitution of the United States. Authority emanated directly
from the people, not from any governmental body. And the Constitution would be
"the supreme Law of the Land"--just as Magna Carta had been deemed
superior to other statutes.
In 1215, when King John confirmed Magna Carta with his seal, he
was acknowledging the now firmly embedded concept that no man--not even the
king--is above the law. That was a milestone in constitutional thought for the
13th century and for centuries to come. In 1779 John Adams expressed it this
way: "A government of laws, and not of men." Further, the charter established
important individual rights that have a direct legacy in the American Bill of
Rights. And during the United States' history, these rights have been expanded.
The U.S. Constitution is not a static document. Like Magna Carta, it has been
interpreted and reinterpreted throughout the years. This has allowed the
Constitution to become the longest-lasting constitution in the world and a
model for those penned by other nations. Through judicial review and amendment,
it has evolved so that today Americans--regardless of gender, race, or
creed--can enjoy the liberties and protection it guarantees. Just as Magna
Carta stood as a bulwark against tyranny in England, the U.S. Constitution and
Bill of Rights today serve similar roles, protecting the individual freedoms of
all Americans against arbitrary and capricious rule.
================
Magna Carta Translation
[Preamble] Edward by the
grace of God King of England, lord of Ireland and duke of Aquitaine sends
greetings to all to whom the present letters come. We have inspected the great
charter of the lord Henry, late King of England, our father, concerning the liberties
of England in these words:
Henry by the grace of God
King of England, lord of Ireland, duke of Normandy and Aquitaine and count of
Anjou sends greetings to his archbishops, bishops, abbots, priors, earls,
barons, sheriffs, reeves, ministers and all his bailiffs and faithful men
inspecting the present charter. Know that we, at the prompting of God and for
the health of our soul and the souls of our ancestors and successors, for the
glory of holy Church and the improvement of our realm, freely and out of our
good will have given and granted to the archbishops, bishops, abbots, priors,
earls, barons and all of our realm these liberties written below to hold in our
realm of England in perpetuity.
[1] In the first place we
grant to God and confirm by this our present charter for ourselves and our
heirs in perpetuity that the English Church is to be free and to have all its
rights fully and its liberties entirely. We furthermore grant and give to all
the freemen of our realm for ourselves and our heirs in perpetuity the
liberties written below to have and to hold to them and their heirs from us and
our heirs in perpetuity.
[2] If any of our earls or
barons, or anyone else holding from us in chief by military service should die,
and should his heir be of full age and owe relief, the heir is to have his
inheritance for the ancient relief, namely the heir or heirs of an earl for a
whole county £100, the heir or heirs of a baron for a whole barony 100 marks,
the heir or heirs of a knight for a whole knight’s fee 100 shillings at most,
and he who owes less will give less, according to the ancient custom of
(knights’) fees.
[3] If, however, the heir
of such a person is under age, his lord is not to have custody of him and his
land until he has taken homage from the heir, and after such an heir has been
in custody, when he comes of age, namely at twenty-one years old, he is to have
his inheritance without relief and without fine, saving that if, whilst under
age, he is made a knight, his land will nonetheless remain in the custody of
his lords until the aforesaid term.
[4] The keeper of the land
of such an heir who is under age is only to take reasonable receipts from the
heir’s land and reasonable customs and reasonable services, and this without
destruction or waste of men or things. And if we assign custody of any such
land to a sheriff or to anyone else who should answer to us for the issues, and
such a person should commit destruction or waste, we will take recompense from
him and the land will be assigned to two law-worthy and discreet men of that
fee who will answer to us or to the person to whom we assign such land for the
land’s issues. And if we give or sell to anyone custody of any such land and
that person commits destruction or waste, he is to lose custody and the land is
to be assigned to two law-worthy and discreet men of that fee who similarly
will answer to us as is aforesaid.
[5] The keeper, for as long
as he has the custody of the land of such (an heir), is to maintain the houses,
parks, fishponds, ponds, mills and other things pertaining to that land from
the issues of the same land, and he will restore to the heir, when the heir
comes to full age, all his land stocked with ploughs and all other things in at
least the same condition as when he received it. All these things are to be
observed in the custodies of archbishoprics, bishoprics, abbeys, priories,
churches and vacant offices which pertain to us, save that such custodies ought
not to be sold.
[6] Heirs are to be married
without disparagement.
[7] A widow, after the
death of her husband, is immediately and without any difficulty to have her
marriage portion and her inheritance, nor is she to pay anything for her dower
or her marriage portion or for her inheritance which her husband and she held on
the day of her husband’s death, and she shall remain in the chief dwelling
place of her husband for forty days after her husband’s death, within which
time dower will be assigned her if it has not already been assigned, unless
that house is a castle, and if it is a castle which she leaves, then a suitable
house will immediately be provided for her in which she may properly dwell
until her dower is assigned to her in accordance with what is aforesaid, and in
the meantime she is to have her reasonable necessities (estoverium) from the
common property. As dower she will be assigned the third part of all the lands
of her husband which were his during his lifetime, save when she was dowered
with less at the church door. No widow shall be distrained to marry for so long
as she wishes to live without a husband, provided that she gives surety that
she will not marry without our assent if she holds of us, or without the assent
of her lord, if she holds of another.
[8] Neither we nor our
bailiffs will seize any land or rent for any debt, as long as the existing
chattels of the debtor suffice for the payment of the debt and as long as the
debtor is ready to pay the debt, nor will the debtor’s guarantors be distrained
for so long as the principal debtor is able to pay the debt; and should the
principal debtor default in his payment of the debt, not having the means to
repay it, or should he refuse to pay it despite being able to do so, the
guarantors will answer for the debt and, if they wish, they are to have the
lands and rents of the debtor until they are repaid the debt that previously
they paid on behalf of the debtor, unless the principal debtor can show that he
is quit in respect to these guarantors.
[9] The city of London is
to have all its ancient liberties and customs. Moreover we wish and grant that
all other cities and boroughs and vills and the barons of the Cinque Ports and
all ports are to have all their liberties and free customs.
[10] No-one is to be
distrained to do more service for a knight’s fee or for any other free tenement
than is due from it.
[11] Common pleas are not
to follow our court but are to be held in a certain fixed place.
[12] Recognisances of novel
disseisin and of mort d’ancestor are not to be taken save in their particular
counties and in the following way. We or, should we be outside the realm, our
chief justiciar, will send our justices once a year to each county, so that,
together with the knights of the counties, that may take the aforesaid assizes
in the counties; and those assizes which cannot be completed in that visitation
of the county by our aforesaid justices assigned to take the said assizes are
to be completed elsewhere by the justices in their visitation; and those which
cannot be completed by them on account of the difficulty of various articles
(of law) are to be referred to our justices of the Bench and completed there.
[13] Assizes of darrein
presentment are always to be taken before our justices of the Bench and are to
be completed there.
[14] A freeman is not to be
amerced for a small offence save in accordance with the manner of the offence,
and for a major offence according to its magnitude, saving his sufficiency
(salvo contenemento suo), and a merchant likewise, saving his merchandise, and
any villain other than one of our own is to be amerced in the same way, saving
his necessity (salvo waynagio) should he fall into our mercy, and none of the
aforesaid amercements is to be imposed save by the oath of honest and
law-worthy men of the neighbourhood. Earls and barons are not to be amerced
save by their peers and only in accordance with the manner of their offence.
[15] No town or free man is
to be distrained to make bridges or bank works save for those that ought to do
so of old and by right.
[16] No bank works of any
sort are to be kept up save for those that were in defense in the time of King
H(enry II) our grandfather and in the same places and on the same terms as was
customary in his time.
[17] No sheriff, constable,
coroner or any other of our bailiffs is to hold pleas of our crown.
[18] If anyone holding a
lay fee from us should die, and our sheriff or bailiff shows our letters patent
containing our summons for a debt that the dead man owed us, our sheriff or
bailiff is permitted to attach and enroll all the goods and chattels of the
dead man found in lay fee, to the value of the said debt, by view of law-worthy
men, so that nothing is to be removed thence until the debt that remains is
paid to us, and the remainder is to be released to the executors to discharge the
will of the dead man, and if nothing is owed to us from such a person, all the
chattels are to pass to the (use of) the dead man, saving to the dead man’s
wife and children their reasonable portion.
[19] No constable or his
bailiff is to take corn or other chattels from anyone who not themselves of a
vill where a castle is built, unless the constable or his bailiff immediately
offers money in payment of obtains a respite by the wish of the seller. If the
person whose corn or chattels are taken is of such a vill, then the constable
or his bailiff is to pay the purchase price within forty days.
[20] No constable is to
distrain any knight to give money for castle guard if the knight is willing to
do such guard in person or by proxy of any other honest man, should the knight
be prevented from doing so by just cause. And if we take or send such a knight
into the army, he is to be quit of (castle) guard in accordance with the length
of time the we have him in the army for the fee for which he has done service in
the army.
[21] No sheriff or bailiff
of ours or of anyone else is to take anyone’s horses or carts to make carriage,
unless he renders the payment customarily due, namely for a two-horse cart ten
pence per day, and for a three-horse cart fourteen pence per day. No demesne
cart belonging to any churchman or knight or any other lady (sic) is to be
taken by our bailiffs, nor will we or our bailiffs or anyone else take someone
else’s timber for a castle or any other of our business save by the will of he
to whom the timber belongs.
[22] We shall not hold the
lands of those convicted of felony save for a year and a day, whereafter such
land is to be restored to the lords of the fees.
[23] All fish weirs
(kidelli) on the Thames and the Medway and throughout England are to be
entirely dismantled, save on the sea coast.
[24] The writ called
‘praecipe’ is not to be issued to anyone in respect to any free tenement in
such a way that a free man might lose his court.
[25] There is to be a
single measure for wine throughout our realm, and a single measure for ale, and
a single measure for Corn, that is to say the London quarter, and a single
breadth for dyed cloth, russets, and haberjects, that is to say two yards
within the lists. And it shall be the same for weights as for measures.
[26] Henceforth there is to
be nothing given for a writ of inquest from the person seeking an inquest of
life or member, but such a writ is to be given freely and is not to be denied.
[27] If any persons hold
from us at fee farm or in socage or burgage, and hold land from another by
knight service, we are not, by virtue of such a fee farm or socage or burgage,
to have custody of the heir or their land which pertains to another’s fee, nor
are we to have custody of such a fee farm or socage or burgage unless this fee
farm owes knight service. We are not to have the custody of an heir or of any
land which is held from another by knight service on the pretext of some small
serjeanty held from us by service of rendering us knives or arrows or suchlike
things.
[28] No bailiff is
henceforth to put any man on his open law or on oath simply by virtue of his
spoken word, without reliable witnesses being produced for the same.
[29] No freeman is to be
taken or imprisoned or disseised 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 judgement of his peers or
by the law of the land. To no-one will we sell or deny of delay right or justice.
[30] All merchants, unless
they have been previously and publicly forbidden, are to have safe and secure
conduct in leaving and coming to England and in staying and going through
England both by land and by water to buy and to sell, without any evil exactions,
according to the ancient and right customs, save in time of war, and if they
should be from a land at war against us and be found in our land at the
beginning of the war, they are to be attached without damage to their bodies or
goods until it is established by us or our chief justiciar in what way the
merchants of our land are treated who at such a time are found in the land that
is at war with us, and if our merchants are safe there, the other merchants are
to be safe in our land.
[31] If anyone dies holding
of any escheat such as the honour of Wallingford, Boulogne, Nottingham,
Lancaster or of other escheats which are in our hands and which are baronies,
his heir is not to give any other relief or render any other service to us that
would not have been rendered to the baron if the barony were still held by a
baron, and we shall hold such things in the same way as the baron held them,
nor, on account of such a barony or escheat, are we to have the escheat or
custody of any of our men unless the man who held the barony or the escheat
held elsewhere from us in chief.
[32] No free man is
henceforth to give or sell any more of his land to anyone, unless the residue
of his land is sufficient to render due service to the lord of the fee as
pertains to that fee.
[33] All patrons of abbeys
which have charters of the kings of England over advowson or ancient tenure or
possession are to have the custody of such abbeys when they fall vacant just as
they ought to have and as is declared above.
[34] No-one is to be taken
or imprisoned on the appeal of woman for the death of anyone save for the death
of that woman’s husband.
[35] No county court is to
be held save from month to month, and where the greater term used to be held,
so will it be in future, nor will any sheriff or his bailiff make his tourn
through the hundred save for twice a year and only in the place that is due and
customary, namely once after Easter and again after Michaelmas, and the view of
frankpledge is to be taken at the Michaelmas term without exception, in such a
way that every man is to have his liberties which he had or used to have in the
time of King H(enry II) my grandfather or which he has acquired since. The view
of frankpledge is to be taken so that our peace be held and so that the tithing
is to be held entire as it used to be, and so that the sheriff does not seek
exceptions but remains content with that which the sheriff used to have in
taking the view in the time of King H(enry) our grandfather.
[36] Nor is it permitted to
anyone to give his land to a religious house in such a way that he receives it
back from such a house to hold, nor is it permitted to any religious house to
accept the land of anyone in such way that the land is restored to the person
from whom it was received to hold. If anyone henceforth gives his land in such
a way to any religious house and is convicted of the same, the gift is to be
entirely quashed and such land is to revert to the lord of that fee.
[37] Scutage furthermore is
to be taken as it used to be in the time of King H(enry) our grandfather, and
all liberties and free customs shall be preserved to archbishops, bishops,
abbots, priors, Templars, Hospitallers, earls, barons and all others, both
ecclesiastical and secular persons, just as they formerly had.
All these aforesaid customs
and liberties which we have granted to be held in our realm in so far as
pertains to us are to be observed by all of our realm, both clergy and laity,
in so far as pertains to them in respect to their own men. For this gift and grant
of these liberties and of others contained in our charter over the liberties of
the forest, the archbishops, bishops, abbots, priors, earls, barons, knights,
fee holders and all of our realm have given us a fifteenth part of all their
movable goods. Moreover we grant to them for us and our heirs that neither we
nor our heirs will seek anything by which the liberties contained in this
charter might be infringed or damaged, and should anything be obtained from
anyone against this it is to count for nothing and to be held as nothing. With
these witnesses: the lord S(tephen) archbishop of Canterbury, E(ustace) bishop
of London, J(ocelin) bishop of Bath, P(eter) bishop of Winchester, H(ugh)
bishop of Lincoln, R(ichard) bishop of Salisbury, W. bishop of Rochester,
W(illiam) bishop of Worcester, J(ohn) bishop of Ely, H(ugh) bishop of Hereford,
R(anulf) bishop of Chichester, W(illiam) bishop of Exeter, the abbot of (Bury)
St Edmunds, the abbot of St Albans, the abbot of Battle, the abbot of St
Augustine’s Canterbury, the abbot of Evesham, the abbot of Westminster, the
abbot of Peterborough, the abbot of Reading, the abbot of Abingdon, the abbot
of Malmesbury, the abbot of Winchcombe, the abbot of Hyde (Winchester), the
abbot of Chertsey, the abbot of Sherborne, the abbot of Cerne, the abbot of
Abbotsbury, the abbot of Milton (Abbas), the abbot of Selby, the abbot of
Cirencester, H(ubert) de Burgh the justiciar, H. earl of Chester and Lincoln,
W(illiam) earl of Salisbury, W(illiam) earl Warenne, G. de Clare earl of
Gloucester and Hertford, W(illiam) de Ferrers earl of Derby, W(illiam) de
Mandeville earl of Essex, H(ugh) Bigod earl of Norfolk, W(illiam) earl Aumale,
H(umphrey) earl of Hereford, J(ohn) constable of Chester, R(obert) de Ros,
R(obert) fitz Walter, R(obert) de Vieuxpont, W(illiam) Brewer, R(ichard) de
Montfiquet, P(eter) fitz Herbert, W(illiam) de Aubigné, G. Gresley, F. de
Braose, J(ohn) of Monmouth, J(ohn) fitz Alan, H(ugh) de Mortemer, W(illiam) de
Beauchamp, W(illiam) de St John, P(eter) de Maulay, Brian de Lisle, Th(omas) of
Moulton, R(ichard) de Argentan, G(eoffrey) de Neville, W(illiam) Mauduit,
J(ohn) de Baalon and others. Given at Westminster on the eleventh day of
February in the ninth year of our reign.
We, holding these aforesaid
gifts and grants to be right and welcome, conceed and confirm them for
ourselves and our heirs and by the terms of the present (letters) renew them,
wishing and granting for ourselves and our heirs that the aforesaid charter is
to be firmly and inviably observed in all and each of its articles in
perpetuity, including any articles contained in the same charter which by
chance have not to date been observed. In testimony of which we have had made
these our letters patent. Witnessed by Edward our son, at Westminster on the
twelfth day of October in the twenty-fifth year of our reign. (Chancery
warranty by John of) Stowe.
Translation by Professor
Nicholas Vincent, Copyright Sotheby's Inc. 2007
Image Top Right:
A 1297 version of Magna Carta, presented courtesy of David M. Rubenstein, is on display in the West Rotunda Gallery at the National Archives.
A 1297 version of Magna Carta, presented courtesy of David M. Rubenstein, is on display in the West Rotunda Gallery at the National Archives.
Image Middle Left:
Sir Edward Coke's reinterpretation of Magna Carta provided an argument for universal liberty in England and gave American colonists a basis for their condemnation of British colonial policies. (Library of Congress)
Sir Edward Coke's reinterpretation of Magna Carta provided an argument for universal liberty in England and gave American colonists a basis for their condemnation of British colonial policies. (Library of Congress)
Image Bottom Right:
Members of the British government and church mourn the demise of the Stamp Act. (Library of Congress)
Members of the British government and church mourn the demise of the Stamp Act. (Library of Congress)
