CHAPTER XIII THE MAGNA CHARTA HE next great landmark in the development of the English government, after the completion of the administrative system of Henry II. was the signing of Magna Charta. It is not an easy matter to read Magna Charta or any other ancient law with true historical circumspection. It is well known that Mr. Freeman was wont to criticise the historical work of lawyers. But historians who cannot be convicted of any of the lawyer's bias are not themselves agreed in the adjustment of ancient laws to their historical relations. There is a strong probability that lawyers and historians alike, as well as laymen of every class, are very commonly the victims of erroneous theories in their interpretations of ancient laws. No attempt is here made to give to Magna Charta its true historical setting. The task undertaken is simply that of showing very briefly how the contests connected with the Charter changed the relative positions of the dominant classes in England. Weighty evidence may be adduced to prove that laws usually contain much that is controversial in its nature. Even in the most settled governments of modern times many laws indicate a striving rather than an attainment. If the United States should be blotted out of existence, and if a thousand years from now the volumes containing the state and federal constitutions should be recovered as a sole relic, it would appear that the southern states were conspicuous in their opposition to duelling, because in their constitutions are found most numerous restrictions upon that crime. It would also appear that the eleven southern states which formed the Confederacy were conspicuous opponents of the doctrine of the right of secession, because in the constitutions of those states alone is found explicit denial of the right of a state to secede from the Union. If these things can be justly said of the settled governments of to-day, it is not unreasonable to suppose that the laws of the Middle Ages contained much that was controversial; much that expressed a hope rather than an attainment; much that was intended to deceive and outwit the ignorant and the helpless; much that at the time was in appearance a treaty of peace when it was in reality intended as a basis for war. Magna Charta has certainly the appearance of a treaty of peace; but upon closer study evidence appears that it was at the time intended as a basis of war. It should be borne in mind that the Charter was signed after ten years of earnest strife during which time John had incurred the enmity and the distrust of all classes in his kingdom. After the defeat of the barons in the time of Henry II. they had come to realize that a contest against the King was hopeless so long as he had the loyal support of the trained English soldiers; and there is much reason to believe that they had learned to appreciate the necessity of winning for themselves the favour of the people. Early in John's reign he had been driven from France by the French king, and his French possessions had been seized. This had the effect still further to impress upon the barons the importance of making peace with the ruling powers in England. If any were disposed to contend for their French possessions, they could do so only at the cost of imperilling their possessions in He England. John was as bad a king as could well be. had, moreover, the faculty of impressing all classes with the belief that he was a thoroughly dangerous man. The contest which resulted in the Charter began with the Church. The Archbishop of Canterbury died in 1205, and the younger monks of the cathedral secretly elected a successor, whom they sent abroad to receive the badge of office from the Pope. When this became known, the elder monks, in alarm, reported the matter to the King, and he ordered them to elect in his presence an archbishop who was at once invested with the temporalities of the office, while a statement of what had been done was sent to the Pope. Then the bishops, who had been denied their customary share in the selection of the primate, appealed to the Pope to vindicate their right. There thus appeared before the Pope three parties: first, the younger monks with their nominee; second, the elder monks who had at the command of the King selected his nominee; third, the bishops of the province, who claimed the right of nomination. The Pope, having a plan of his own, decided that the elder monks had the right to nominate, but that their first action was irregular. He therefore ordered the monks who were present in Rome then and there to name Stephen Langton as Archbishop of Canterbury. Stephen was thus chosen, and was at once consecrated by the Pope to the office. John was in a rage at what was done, and wreaked his vengeance upon the monks. The Pope placed the land under an interdict, and John took vengeance upon the bishops who published the Pope's decree, driving them out of the land and seizing their estates. The barons could look on with equanimity while they saw their old enemies the bishops being stripped of their possessions, but John did not limit his attacks to any class. Upon one pretext and another he seized the estates of the barons as well. The Pope, following the course of events in England, in due time excommunicated John. In 1211 he threatened to depose him, and appointed Philip of France as the executor of the edict. John, finding that he could rely upon no class in England, hastened to make his peace with the Pope. Stephen Langton was acknowledged as Archbishop, and John yielded to all the papal demands, even to surrendering his crown and receiving it back as the Pope's vassal. His intention was to use the power of the Pope in enabling him to triumph over his enemies in England and France. In England those enemies were all classes of the English people. Stephen Langton and the clergy made common cause with the barons, the lesser nobility, and all those who had influence in towns, cities, counties, hundreds, and parishes, to restrain the action of the King. In 1213 a meeting of the Council was held at St. Albans attended by representatives from the townships on the royal estates. These were called to act as a jury to assess certain damages which the King had agreed to pay to the bishops. At this meeting were formulated measures of reform to be demanded of the King. In the same year, at a meeting of barons and clergy held in St. Paul's Church, in London, Stephen Langton presented a copy of the charter of Henry I., which was accepted as the basis of the demands to be made upon the King. A year now intervened, during which time the King was engaged in an unsuccessful war against the King of France. In June, 1215, the King's situation had become desperate. He was threatened with an invasion by the King of France. The barons, backed by an army of determined Englishmen, had openly defied him. Archbishop Langton had threatened to excommunicate any baron who should take part with the King in opposition to the nobles. of London had received the army of the barons. M The city was left for John but to surrender or be conquered. A meeting was arranged for the King with his army, and the barons with their army, on the plains of Runnymede, to agree upon the terms of the surrender. The terms agreed upon are preserved in Magna Charta. By the signing of the Charter, John escaped personal violence for the time. His enemies could not have foreseen that he would die soon after that act. There is no reason to believe, or rather there are the best of reasons for not believing, that the barons expected this treaty to relieve them from the duty of fighting against the King. They all knew that the signing of the Charter would not make John trustworthy. The naming of twenty-five of their members, of whom the mayor of London was one, to make war upon the King and compel him to observe the Charter, was by no means a mere form. More probably this expressed their immediate expectation. The Charter would but make the grounds of warfare a little more definite. If a constitution has for its chief object the prevention of encroachments and the harmonizing of governmental institutions, Magna Charta answers to that description, at least in part. It was certainly intended to harmonize for the time being the greater and the lesser nobility, the clergy, and the influential classes among the English people. For a hundred and fifty years these classes had been jealous of each other. Kings good and bad had been able to play one class against another, and thus to shield themselves and to increase their power at the expense of others. The Charter was evidently designed to secure greater harmony between the three classes, the clergy, the nobility, and the people, who were traditionally jealous and hostile, and it could do this only by conveying the idea that encroachments upon their privileges were to be prevented. But was the Charter intended to harmonize the Crown with the other agencies of government? This |