OP-ED Magna Carta and the Law that Governs Government

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/06/magna_carta_and_the_law_that_governs_government.html

June 15, 2015

Magna Carta and the Law that Governs Government

By Mark J. Fitzgibbons

It was a time of abuse of power by the state, high taxes, foreign wars against aggressive, violent Muslims, cronyism, and unrest over civil, commercial and religious rights. Certain similarities between 1215 England and 2015 America are, as our British cousins might say, “delicious.”

Magna Carta is celebrated on June 15, 800 years after its first rendition was forced upon King John at Runnymede. It was John’s brother Richard the Lionheart who raised taxes to pay for the wars. Richard’s brother-successor King John ruled with arrogance, and never achieved the popularity of his brother.

Shortly after affixing his seal to the “Great Charter,” John asked Pope Innocent III to nullify it for being affirmed under duress. The Pope obliged, and in retrospect we should be grateful. Consent is not legitimate when given under duress. The civil war that prompted the Charter ensued. John soon died of excesses, and was succeeded by his nine-year old son Henry.

Magna Carta subsequently became law under young King Henry III, guided by his regent William Marshal,1st Earl of Pembroke, an eminence grise who served both Richard and John, and after legitimate adoption by the Parliament. It has been the touchstone of the common law these 800 years, yet references, relies on, and reclaims the “ancient” law. Portions of the common law date back to before William the Conqueror and before the “Time of Memory,” as chronicled by Sir Matthew Hale in his History of the Common Law of England from 1713.

Magna Carta is celebrated as a great charter of liberty. Its influence in the founding of America is profound because Magna Carta did something that is essential to liberty, namely, it placed law over government. The Great Charter did not merely say that Englishmen have this or that right. It set forth certain things that government may not do. Its greatness comes from protecting freedom by placing government itself under the rule of law.

Magna Carta, like its American cousin the Constitution, is not a mere compact but is law over government. The English law over government, however, has been in the form of statutes and courts decisions. As Hale writes:

Those that are now extant, are commonly bound together in the old Book of Magna Charta. By those Statutes, great Alterations and Amendments were made in the Common Law; and by those that are now extant, we may reasonably guess, that there were considerable Alterations and Amendments made by those that are not extant, which possibly may be the real, tho' sudden Means of the great Advance and Alteration of the Laws of England in this King's Reign, over what they were in the Time of his Predecessors.

Those celebrating Magna Carta may overlook that it is a document of freedom precisely because it places government under the rule of law. Its major contributions to American law over government such as due process and jury trials are fairly well recognized.

Lesser known are its early guarantees of the separation of powers (“No sheriff, constable, coroner or any other of our bailiffs is to hold [“hear”] pleas of our crown.”), restrictions on asset forfeiture (“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 . . .”), freedom of commerce (“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 . . .”), and religious liberty (“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.”).

With the Constitution, however, the Founders added something special to the rule of law over government. The Constitution is, by its very terms, supreme law. Chief Justice John Marshall described it in Marbury v. Madison as our “fundamental and paramount law.”

Its nature is not always understood or appreciated. The Constitution did not merely create, form and “constitute” American government. It is law governing what the legislature, the executive, the courts, and even the states may or may not do. Unlike the English political institutions, American institutions may not alter or amend our Constitution without following that paramount law itself. Violations of this paramount law are not mere overreach or lawlessness; they are “illegal.”

The Constitution is not simply the rule of law over government; it truly governs government. The Constitution is intended to protect against arbitrary power through the trampling of rights by whims of the majority and their representatives, or the aggressions of the executive. Deference of the judiciary to government’s unconstitutional acts is neglect of its own legal duty.

Magna Carta and the Constitution are laws of a political nature. It is a fundamental tenet of law that its violations have remedies.

The Declaration of Independence was a remedy to the “lawbreaking” of King George III, and was in part written in the format of an indictment. James Madison describes two remedies under the Constitution: amendments after powers have been usurped (Federalist 49), and replacing elected officials with ones more “faithful” to the Constitution (Federalist 44). “Throwing out the bums” is obviously more peaceful than revolution, giving the Constitution greater stability and sustainability than the common law.

The other remedy has had a checkered history. It is the authority -- nay, the duty -- of the judiciary to say no to acts of the other two branches when they violate the law that governs government.

A political law over government, Magna Carta’s purposes were nevertheless more profound than mere politics. It was self-described as written for the “salvation” of those whose rights were violated by King John’s lawbreaking. Magna Carta was therefore in the spirit of Paul’s letter to the Galatians: “You, my brothers and sisters, were called to be free.”

Jesuit political scholar Fr. James Schall recently wrote about the erosion of the spirit of Magna Carta:

At the 800th anniversary of the signing of the Magna Carta we cannot but be concerned by how much its spirit of limiting rule and providing freedoms and immunities has been eroded. Often this erosion came by using the very words of its provisions, especially those of “rights,” to increase the power of government over citizens, to limit freedom of religion and speech, and to subject citizens to laws and customs much more regimenting than most people in the feudal order might have imagined possible. Any significant relation between natural and common law has been ignored. A written constitution is no longer a real limit on the will of the state. Much of this “development” has been occasioned by legal and intellectual authorities finding what they wanted to find in documents meant to prevent such arbitrary use of power. In many ways, the Magna Carta stands not as a foundation of free government, but as a witness to what happens when its spirit and provisions are ignored or interpreted out of existence.

From 1215 to 2015, we see the nature of government power to violate rights by violating the rule of law. Long live Magna Carta and the law that governs government.


Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/33110890

Guide: What is the Magna Carta?

1 hour ago

Today marks the 800th anniversary of the sealing of Magna Carta.

They were documents that set out a list of basic rules about how the country would be run.

But why is it so important? Here's Newsround's guide to Magna Carta.

What is it?

The Magna Carta was written, or 'drawn up' in 1215, in Runnymede on the banks of the river Thames.

At the time the king of England, King John, was fighting with other powerful landowners.

The landowners, called barons, were unhappy with the way the king was running the country and the amount of money he was taxing them.

Magna Carta means 'great treaty', and it was written to make the barons happy and to stop the fighting.

It set out a list of basic rules about how the country would be run.
How many Magna Cartas?

There are only 4 remaining copies of the original Magna Carta
2 are kept in the British Library
1 copy is from Lincoln Cathedral
1 copy is from Salisbury Cathedral
Soon after the originals, 250 copies were made
Only 17 of these still exist

One of the most important, was that no one was above the law - including the king.

King John signed it (he actually put his seal on it) which meant that the clauses named would apply to everyone.

Once the original copy was made, it was then copied about 250 times and taken around the country so it would apply everywhere.
Why is it so important?

It's often referred to as one of the most important documents in history.

That's because it set out a list of rules that applied across England for the first time.

And whilst not many of these rules still exist - they created the idea that a law should be in place.

Some of them are things that we take for granted today.

The idea that the law should still apply to the king or queen, that everyone should have a fair trial, and that people shouldn't be taxed too much were all created in the Magna Carta.

What happened next?

The Magna Carta was meant to stop the fighting in England - but it didn't.

Just weeks after is was written, King John said he didn't like it - and so it didn't count.

But after King John died, his successor Henry III thought it was a good idea and brought it back.
How has it affected life today?

Some historians think it was the start of the freedoms and political rights people in the UK, and other parts of the world, have today.

They think that is was a huge moment in history - that led to society becoming more equal eventually.

But others disagree and don't think it was that important.

The rules, or clauses, it brought in only applied to less that half of the population at the time.

And out of the 63 rules included, only 3 are still part of the law today.

What does it look like?

There are only four copies of the original document remaining.

Each copy had to be hand written, which took time and lots of skill and patience.

Because it was such an important work, you might expect them to be beautifully decorated as many documents were at the time.

But it's actually quite plain looking.

Experts say that's because it was meant to be a working document, and needed to be used so people could look at the new rules regularly.

 

[Housecarl]

Hummm.....

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Ha...ay_Government_Law_Magna-Carta-150614-907.html

OpEdNews Op Eds 6/14/2015 at 23:45:40
Happy Birthday Magna Carta
By Paul Craig Roberts (about the author) Permalink (Page 1 of 2 pages)
Related Topic(s): Birthday; Government; Law; Magna Carta, Add Tags Add to My Group(s)

View Ratings | Rate It
opednews.com Headlined to H2 6/14/15

Reprinted from Paul Craig Roberts Website

Monday, June 15, 2015, is the 800th anniversary of Magna Carta. In his book, Magna Carta, J.C. Holt, professor of medieval history, University of Cambridge, notes that three of the chapters of this ancient document still stand on the English Stature Book and that so much of what survives of the Great Charter is "concerned with individual liberty," which "is a reflexion of the quality of the original act of 1215."

In the 17th century Sir Edward Coke used the Great Charter of the Liberties to establish the supremacy of Parliament, the representative of the people, as the origin of law.

A number of legal scholars have made the irrelevant point that the Magna Carter protected rights of the Church, nobles, and free men who were not enserfed, a small percentage of the population in the early 13th century. We hear the same about the US Constitution -- it was something the rich did for themselves. I have no sympathy for debunking human achievements that, in the end, gave ordinary people liberty.

At Runnymede in 1215, no one but the armed barons had the power and audacity to make King John submit to law. The rule of law, not the rule of the sovereign or of the executive branch in Washington acceded to by a cowardly and corrupt Congress and Supreme Court, is a human achievement that grew out of the Magna Carta over the centuries, with ups and downs of course.

Blackstone's Commentaries in 1759 fed into the American Revolution and gave us the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

The Geneva Conventions extended the rule of law to the international arena.

Beginning with the Clinton Administration and rapidly accelerating with the George W. Bush and Obama regimes and Tony Blair in England, the US and UK governments have run roughshod over their accountability to law.

Both the US and UK in the 21st century have gone to numerous wars illegally under the Nuremberg Standard established by the US and UK following Germany's defeat in WWII and used to execute Germans for war crimes. The US and UK claim that, unlike Germany, they are immune to the very international law that they themselves established in order to punish the defeated Germans. Washington and London can bomb and murder at will, but not Germany.

Both governments illegally and unconstitutionally (the UK Constitution is unwritten) spy on their citizens, and the Bush and Obama executive branches have eviscerated, with the complicity of Congress and the federal courts, the entirety of the US Constitution except for the Second Amendment, which is protected by the strong lobby of the National Rifle Association. If the gun control "progressives" have their way, nothing will be left of the US Constitution.

Washington and its European satellites have subordinated law to a political and economic hegemonic agenda. Just as under the heyday of colonialism when the West looted the non-white world, today the West loots its own. Greece is being looted as was Ireland, and Italy and Spain will not escape looting unless they renege on their debts and leave the EU.

Western capitalism is a looting mechanism. It loots labor. It loots the environment, and with the transpacific and transatlantic "partnerships" it will loot the sovereign law of countries. For example, France's laws against GMOs become "restraints on trade" and subjects France to punitive lawsuits by Monsanto. If France doesn't pay Monsanto the damages Monsanto claims, France is subject to punitive sanctions like Washington applies to Russia when Russia doesn't do what Washington wants.

A new slave existence is being created in front of our eyes as law ceases to be a shield of peoples and becomes a weapon in the hands of government. Eight hundred years of reform is being overturned as Washington and its vassals invade, bomb, and overthrow governments that are out of step with Washington's agenda. Formerly self-sufficient agricultural communities are becoming wage slaves for international agribusiness corporations. Everywhere privilege is rising above law and justice is being lost.

The concentration of wealth and power is reminiscent of the aristocratic era and of Rome under the Caesars. The demise of the rule of law has stripped ordinary people of security and dignity. Peoples of the world must protect themselves by acting in defense of the Great Charter's principle that governments are accountable to law. Governments unaccountable to law are tyrannies whatever they might call themselves, no matter how exceptional and indispensable they declare themselves to be.

Monday in Westminster in London, the International Tribunal for Natural Justice is forming. If my understanding of this work of Humanitad is correct, we have a cause for hope. Perhaps the Tribunal will try the criminals of our time, almost all of which are "leaders" of Western governments, on the Internet with juries and prosecutors so that populations everywhere can witness the evil that every Western government represents.

Once the West is perceived as the evil force that it is, it will have to reform and again embrace Edward Coke's vision of the Great Charter or become an unimportant backwater while the rest of the world goes on to better things. The world is saved once the world ceases to bow down to the American Caesar.

http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/
Dr. Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury for Economic Policy in the Reagan Administration. He was associate editor and columnist with the Wall Street Journal, columnist for Business Week and the Scripps Howard News Service. He is a contributing editor to Gerald Celente's Trends Journal. He has had numerous university appointments. His book, The Failure of Laissez Faire Capitalism and Economic Dissolution of the West is available here. His latest book, How America Was Lost, has just been released and can be ordered here.

 

[Housecarl]

Hummm.....

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/15/opinion/stop-revering-magna-carta.html?_r=1

The Opinion Pages | Op-Ed Contributor

Stop Revering Magna Carta

By TOM GINSBURG
JUNE 14, 2015
Comments 58

MAGNA CARTA, on which King John placed his seal 800 years ago today, is synonymous in the English-speaking world with fundamental rights and the rule of law. It’s been celebrated, and appropriated, by everyone from Tea Party members to Jay Z, who called his latest album “Magna Carta Holy Grail.”

But its fame rests on several myths. First, it wasn’t effective. In fact, it was a failure. John was a weak king who had squandered the royal fortune on a fruitless war with France. Continually raising taxes to pay for his European adventures, he provoked a revolt by his barons, who forced him to sign the charter. But John repudiated the document immediately, and the barons sought to replace him. John avoided that fate by dying.

The next year, his young son reissued Magna Carta, without some of the clauses. It was reissued several times more in the 13th century — the 1297 version is the one on display in the National Archives and embodied in English law. But the original version hardly constrained the monarch.

A second myth is that it was the first document of its type. Writing in 1908, Woodrow Wilson called it the beginning of constitutional government. But in fact, it was only one of many documents from the period, in England and elsewhere, codifying limitations on government power.

A third myth is that the document was a ringing endorsement of liberty. Even a cursory reading reveals a number of oddities. One clause prevents Jews from charging interest on a debt held by an underage heir. Another limits women’s ability to bear witness to certain homicides. A third requires the removal of fish traps from the Thames.

Why, then, is Magna Carta so revered? The story begins in the early 17th century, when members of Parliament and the famous jurist Sir Edward Coke revived the document in their struggle with the Stuart monarchs. They argued that free Englishmen had enjoyed a set of rights and privileges until they were disrupted by the Norman Conquest of 1066. Magna Carta embodied these rights, so it was held up as a model of a glorious past and part of an “ancient constitution.”

In reality, Magna Carta was a result of an intra-elite struggle, in which the nobles were chiefly concerned with their own privileges. When they referred to the judgment of one’s peers, for example, they were not thinking about a jury trial. Indeed, in 1215, the jury trial as we know it did not exist; guilt was often determined by seeing how suspects reacted to physical ordeal. The reference to one’s peers meant that nobles could not be tried by commoners, who might include judges appointed by the king.

Throughout the tumultuous 17th century, Magna Carta was invoked by opponents of whoever was in power, leading Oliver Cromwell to famously refer to the document as “Magna Farta.” In the 18th century, parliamentary sovereignty replaced monarchical absolutism, but Magna Carta continued to be invoked by reformers, now focused on Parliament rather than the king.

Through Coke’s treatises, Magna Carta traveled across the Atlantic. William Penn published an edition in 1687, and in the 17th century several colonies enacted Magna Carta as part of their law. With the Stamp Act of 1765, the imagery of a tyrannical government impinging on ancient rights proved useful to both John Adams and Benjamin Franklin, who invoked different provisions of Magna Carta in calling for repeal. The founding fathers thought they were drawing on the document in drafting the Constitution, for example, in the clause “due process of law” — though that phrase was added to Magna Carta in English law only in the 14th century.

Since then, Americans have paid much more attention to the document than have the British. In his third Inaugural Address, Franklin D. Roosevelt cited the charter as embodying “democratic aspiration.” To win public support for America’s entry into the Second World War, Winston Churchill offered to give us an original copy, only to learn that it was not, in fact, owned by the British government. It was the American Bar Association, not the English, that in 1957 dedicated the Magna Carta monument at Runnymede, the field where the original was sealed. (The British, however, are making up for lost time this year with a hyped-up series of celebrations, including a visit by Queen Elizabeth II to the field today, and a merchandising blitz that includes a rubber duckie called Magna Quacka.)

Magna Carta has everything going for it to be venerated in the United States: It is old, it is English and, because no one has actually read the text, it is easy to invoke to fit current needs. A century ago, Samuel Gompers referred to the Clayton Act as a Magna Carta for labor; more recently the National Environmental Protection Act has been called an “environmental Magna Carta.” Judges, too, cite Magna Carta with increasing frequency, in cases ranging from Paula Jones’s suit against Bill Clinton to the pleas of Guantánamo detainees. Tea Party websites regularly invoke it in the battle against Obamacare.

Americans aren’t alone in revering Magna Carta. Mohandas K. Gandhi cited it in arguing for racial equality in South Africa. Nelson Mandela invoked it at the trial that sent him to prison for 27 years. We are not the only ones, it seems, willing to stretch old legal texts beyond their original meaning. Like the Holy Grail, the myth of Magna Carta seems to matter more than the reality.

Tom Ginsburg is a professor of international law and political science at the University of Chicago.

 

[Dozdoats]

Nothing governs governments any more.

Not even fear.

And that's our problem.

 

[pinkelsteinsmom]

The Magna Carta was the beginning of a polite society, dictated to by Christianity. It was and is the basis for all liberty producing documents and especially the founding fathers documents creating a free America.

This one document alone proves that Christianity was the corner stone for all liberty producing documents going forward and of course all of America's and England's judicial system.

I believe there where several copies that where changed or inaccurate trying to disparage the document.

Sadly, it matters not now for words no longer have any meaning and these documents offer no freedom to any people who will not fight to uphold it and I mean fight literally for freedom isn't free.

People today really don't care about the Constitution or this document, most have never even read the Constitution. Others are so PC correct and or debauched they will walk a big circle around this discussion for they cannot deny that Christianity was the basis for the document.

 

[Rastech]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/06/magna_carta_and_the_law_that_governs_government.html

June 15, 2015

Magna Carta and the Law that Governs Government

By Mark J. Fitzgibbons

It was a time of abuse of power by the state, high taxes, foreign wars against aggressive, violent Muslims, cronyism, and unrest over civil, commercial and religious rights. Certain similarities between 1215 England and 2015 America are, as our British cousins might say, “delicious.” . . . . . . . . . . . .

Shortly after affixing his seal to the “Great Charter,” John asked Pope Innocent III to nullify it for being affirmed under duress. The Pope obliged, and in retrospect we should be grateful. Consent is not legitimate when given under duress.

I can't believe this tosh being rolled out (it's been in a few articles about Magna Carta).

It was a PEACE TREATY between the Crown and the People! Of course the 'loser' was under 'duress' ALL losers in Peace Treaties, are under duress!

OF COURSE PEACE TREATIES ARE LEGITIMATE!

What on Earth are they trying to promote with such fictions?

 

[Dozdoats]

What on Earth are they trying to promote with such fictions?

The Divine Right of Kings Governments.

 

[TerryK]

An English translation of the Latin.


John, by the grace of God, king of England, lord of Ireland, duke of Normandy and Aquitaine, and count of Anjou, to the archbishops, bishops, abbots, earls, barons, justiciars, foresters, sheriffs, stewards, servants, and to all his bailiffs and faithful subjects, greeting. Know that, having regard to God and for the salvation of our soul, and those of all our ancestors and heirs, and unto the honour of God and the advancement of the holy Church, and for the reform of our realm, by advice of our venerable fathers, Stephen archbishop of Canterbury, primate of all England and cardinal of the holy Roman church, Henry archbishop of Dublin, William of London, Peter of Winchester, Jocelyn of Bath and Glastonbury, Hugh of Lincoln, Walter of Worcester, William of Coventry, Benedict of Rochester, bishops; of master Pandulf, subdeacon and member of the household of our lord the Pope, of brother Aymeric (master of the Knights of the Temple in England), and of the illustrious men William Marshall earl of Pembroke, William earl of Salisbury, William earl of Warenne, William earl of Arundel, Alan of Galloway (constable of Scotland), Waren Fitz Gerald, Peter Fits Herbert, Hubert de Burgh (seneschal of Poitou), Hugh de Neville, Matthew Fitz Herbert, Thomas Basset, Alan Basset, Philip d’Aubigny, Robert of Roppesley, John Marshall, John Fitz Hugh, and of other faithful subjects.

1. In the first place we have conceded to God, and by this our present charter confirmed for us and our heirs for ever that the English church shall be free, and shall have her rights entire, and her liberties inviolate; and we wish that it be thus observed. This is apparent from the fact that we, of our pure and unconstrained will, did grant the freedom of elections, which is reckoned most important and very essential to the English church, and did by our charter confirm and did obtain the ratification of the same from our lord, Pope Innocent III., before the quarrel arose between us and our barons. This freedom we will observe, and our will is that it be observed in good faith by our heirs for ever.
   
   We have also granted to all freemen of our kingdom, for us and our heirs for ever, all the underwritten liberties, to be had and held by them and their heirs, of us and our heirs for ever.
2. If any of our earls or barons, or others holding of us in chief by military service shall have died, and at the time of his death his heir shall be of full age and owe relief he shall have his inheritance on payment of the ancient relief, namely the heir or heirs of an earl, 100 pounds for a whole earl’s barony; the heir or heirs of a baron, 100 pounds for a whole barony; the heir or heirs of a knight, 100 shillings at most for a whole knight’s fee; and whoever owes less let him give less, according to the ancient custom of fiefs.
3. If, however, the heir of any of the aforesaid has been under age and in wardship, let him have his inheritance without relief and without fine when he comes of age.
4. The guardian of the land of an heir who is thus under age, shall take from the land of the heir nothing but reasonable produce, reasonable customs, and reasonable services, and that without destruction or waste of men or goods; and if we have committed the wardship of the lands of any such minor to the sheriff, or to any other who is responsible to us for its issues, and he has made destruction or waste of what he holds in wardship, we will take of him amends, and the land shall be committed to two lawful and discreet men of that fief, who shall be responsible for the issues to us or to him to whom we shall assign them; and if we have given or sold the wardship of any such land to anyone and he has therein made destruction or waste, he shall lose that wardship, and it shall be transferred to two lawful and discreet men of that fief, who shall be responsible to us in like manner as aforesaid.
5. The guardian moreover, so long as he has the wardship of the land, shall maintain the houses, parks, fish ponds, stanks, mills, and other things pertaining to the land, out of the revenues of that land; and he shall restore to the heir, when he has come to full age, all his land, stocked with ploughs and waynage, according as the season of husbandry requires, and the revenues from the land can reasonably support.
6. Heirs shall be married without disparagement. However, before a marriage takes place, it shall be made known to the heir’s next-of-kin.
7. A widow, after the death of her husband, shall forthwith and without difficulty have her marriage portion and inheritance. She shall not give anything for her dower, or for her marriage portion, or for the inheritance which her husband and she held on the day of the death of that husband. She may remain in the house of her husband for forty days after his death, within which time her dower shall be assigned to her.
8. No widow shall be compelled to marry, so long as she prefers to remain without a husband, always provided that she gives assurance not to marry without our consent, if she holds her lands from us, or else without the consent of whatever other lord she from whom she holds her lands.
9. Neither we nor our bailiffs shall seize for any debt any land or rent, so long as the chattels of the debtor are sufficient to repay the debt. Nor shall those that pledged sureties for the debtor be distrained so long as the principal debtor himself is able to satisfy the debt. If the principal debtor fails to pay the debt, having nothing wherewith to pay it, then the sureties shall answer for the debt. They shall have the lands and rents of the debtor, if they desire them, until they are reimbursed for the debt which they have paid for him, unless the principal debtor can show proof that he has discharged his obligations to them.
10. If one who has borrowed from the Jews any sum, great or small, dies before that loan can be repaid, his heir shall pay no interest on the debt for so long as he remains under age, irrespective from whom he holds his lands. If such a debt falls into our hands, we will take nothing except the principal sum mentioned in the bond.
11. And if any one die indebted to the Jews, his wife shall have her dower and pay nothing of that debt; and if any children of the deceased are left underage, necessaries shall be provided for them in keeping with the holding of the deceased. The debt shall be paid out of the residue, save the service due to feudal lords. Let debts due to others than Jews be dealt with in similar manner.
12. 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 marrying our eldest daughter one time. For these, only a reasonable aid should be levied. In like manner it shall be done concerning aids from the city of London.
13. And the city of London shall have all its ancient liberties and free customs, by land as well as by water. Furthermore, we decree and grant that all other cities, boroughs, towns, and ports shall have all their liberties and free customs.
14. And for obtaining the common consent of the kingdom concerning the assessment of an aid (other than in the three cases specified above) or of a scutage, we will cause to be summoned the archbishops, bishops, abbots, earls, and greater barons, individually through our letters. Moreover, all others who are our direct tenants, we will cause a general summons to be made by our sheriffs and bailiffs, for a fixed date (namely, after the expiry of at least forty days) and at a fixed place. In all such letters of summons we will specify the reason of the summons. And when the summons has thus been made, the business shall proceed on the day appointed, according to the counsel of such as are present, although not all who were summoned have come.
15. In future, we not grant to anyone license to take an aid from his own free men, unless to ransom his person, to make his eldest son a knight, and once to marry his eldest daughter. And on each of these occasions, only a reasonable aid shall be levied.
16. No man shall be compelled to do more service for a knight’s fee, or for any other land free-holding, than is due from it.
17. Common pleas shall not follow our court about, but shall be held in some fixed place.
18. Inquests of novel disseisin, mort d’ancestor, and darrein presentiment shall only be held in their own county courts, in the following manner. We or, should we be out of the kingdom, our chief justice will send two justices to each county four times a year who, along with four knights of each county chosen by that county, shall hold the assize in the county, and on the day and in the meeting place of the county court.
19. If any of the said assizes cannot be held on the day of the county court, let there remain as many of the knights and freeholders, who were present at the county court on that day, as are necessary for the efficient making of judgments, according to whether the business is more or less.
20. A freeman shall only be amerced for a trivial offence in accordance with the seriousness of the offence. For a grave offence, he shall be fined correspondingly, leaving him his contenement. A merchant will be fined similarly, leaving him his “merchandise”; and a villein shall be amerced in the same way, leaving him his wainage—if they have fallen into our mercy. These amercements shall only be imposed by the assessment on oath of reputable local men.
21. Earls and barons shall be amerced only by their peers, and only in proportion with the degree of the offence.
22. A clerk in holy orders shall not be amerced in respect of his lay holding except as previously described; further, his ecclesiastical benefice shall not be taken into account.
23. No vill or person shall be compelled to make bridges at river-banks, except those who from of old were legally bound to do so.
24. No sheriff, constable, coroner, or other royal bailiff, shall hold lawsuits meant be held by the royal justices.
25. All counties, hundreds, wapentakes, and trithings shall remain at old rents, and without any increase, except our demesne manors.
26. If any one holding a lay fief from the Crown dies, and our sheriff or bailiff produces royal letters patent of summons for a debt owed to the Crown, it shall be lawful for our sheriff or bailiff to seize and catalogue chattels found in the lay fief of the deceased, to the value of that debt, as assessed by law-worthy men. Nothing at all shall be removed from there until the debt is fully paid. The residue shall be left to the executors to fulfil the will of the deceased. If there is no debt due to the Crown, all the chattels shall go to the estate of the deceased, except reasonable shares for his wife and children.
27. If any freeman dies intestate, his chattels shall be distributed by his nearest kinsfolk and his friends, under supervision of the church, except that the rights of his debtors shall be maintained.
28. No constable or other royal bailiff shall take corn or other provisions from any man without an immediate cash payment, unless the seller permits postponement of this.
29. No constable shall compel any knight to give money instead of castle-guard, if the knight is willing to undertake the guard himself, or to supply another responsible man to do it, if he cannot do it himself for any reasonable cause. Further, a knight taken or sent on military service shall be excused castle-guard in proportion to the time he was on this service.
30. No sheriff or royal bailiff, or other person, shall take the horses or carts of any freeman for transport duty, except with agreement from the said freeman.

1. Neither we nor our bailiffs shall take, for our castles or for any other of our works, wood which is not ours, except with agreement from the owner of that timber.
2. We will not hold the lands of those who have been convicted of felony beyond one year and one day. Then, the lands shall be returned to the lords of those fiefs.
3. Henceforth, all kiddles shall be removed from the Thames, the Medway and throughout all England, except along the sea coast.
4. The writ called praecipe, in the future, shall not be issued to any one regarding any tenement whereby a freeman might lose the right of trial in his own lord’s court.
5. There shall be one measure of wine, of ale and of corn (namely, “the London quarter”) throughout our whole realm. There shall also be one width of cloth (whether dyed, russet, or halberget): that is, two ells within the selvages. Let weights also be standardised similarly.
6. Nothing shall be paid or taken in future for a writ of inquisition of life or limbs.[2] Instead, it shall be given free of charge, and not denied.
7. If a man holds Crown land by fee-farm, by socage, or by burgage, and also holds land of another lord for knight’s service, we will not have (by reason of that fee-farm, socage, or burgage) the wardship of his heir or of such land he holds of the other lord’s fief . Nor shall we have wardship of that fee-farm, socage, or burgage, unless the fee-farm owes knight’s service. We will not have the wardship of a man’s heir, nor of land that the man holds through knight’s service to someone else, because of any small serjeanty that he may hold from the Crown for the service of providing to us knives, arrows, or the like.
8. In future, no bailiff shall place a man on trial upon his own unsupported words, without credible witnesses being produced to support his word.
9. No freeman shall be arrested or imprisoned or disseised or outlawed or exiled or in any other way harmed. Nor will we [the king] proceed against him, or send others to do so, except according to the lawful sentence of his peers and according to the Common Law.[3]
10. To no one will we sell, to no one will we refuse or delay, right or justice.
11. All merchants may leave or enter England in safety and security. They may stay and travel throughout England by road or by water, free from all illegal tolls, in order to buy and sell according to the ancient and rightful customs. This is except, in time of war, those merchants who are from the land at war with us. And if such merchants are found in our land at the beginning of the war, they shall be detained, without injury to their bodies or goods, until information is received by us (or by our chief justiciar) about in what way are treated our merchants, thence found in the land at war with us . If our men are safe there, the others shall be safe in our land.
12. It shall be lawful in future for any one, keeping loyalty to the Crown, to leave our kingdom and to return safely and securely, by land and by water. This is except in time of war, when men may go, only in the public interest, for some short period. (This excludes, always, those imprisoned or outlawed in accordance with the law of the realm, natives of any country at war with us, and merchants, who shall be treated as previously stated).
13. If any one holding of some escheat (such as the honour of Wallingford, Nottingham, Boulogne, Lancaster, or of other escheats which are in our hands and are baronies) dies, his heir shall give only the relief and service to us that he would have done to the baron, if that barony had been in the baron’s hands. We shall hold the escheat in the same manner in which the baron held it.
14. Men who dwell outside the forest henceforth need not come before our justiciars of the forest following a general summons, unless they are named in a plea or are sureties for any person or persons arrested for forest offences.
15. We will appoint as justices, constables, sheriffs, or bailiffs only those who know the law of the realm and who wish to observe it well.
16. All barons who have founded abbeys, for which they hold charters from the kings of England, or for which they have long-standing possession, shall have the custody of them when vacant, as they should have.
17. All forests that have been created in our reign shall forthwith be disafforested, and similar course shall be followed for river-banks that we have made preserves during our reign.
18. All evil customs relating to forests and warrens, foresters, warreners, sheriffs and their officers, river-banks and their wardens, shall immediately be investigated in each county by twelve sworn knights of the same county, chosen by the honest men of the county. The evil customs shall, within forty days of the said inquest, be completely and irrevocably abolished. This is provided always that we first informed, or our justiciar, if we should not be in England[4].
19. We will immediately restore all hostages and charters, which were delivered to us by Englishmen as security for peace or for faithful service.

1. We will entirely remove from their bailiwicks the kinsmen of Gerard de Athée, so that in future they shall have no office in England. The people concerned are Engelard de Cigogné, Peter, Guy, and Andrew de Chanceaux, Guy de Cigogné, Geoffrey de Martigny and his brothers, Philip Mark, his brothers and his nephew Geoffrey, and all their brood.
2. As soon as peace is restored, we will banish from the kingdom all foreign-born knights, cross-bowmen, their attendants, and mercenaries who have come with horses and arms, to the kingdom’s detriment.
3. If, without the lawful judgement of his peers, a man has been dispossessed of his lands, castles, franchises or his rights, or had them removed by us, we will at once restore these to him. If a dispute arises over this, the dispute shall be decided by the judgement of the twenty-five barons referred to below in the clause for securing the peace. Moreover, in all cases where possessions have been disseised or removed from anyone without the lawful judgement of his peers, by our father King Henry or our brother King Richard, and which are retained by us (or which are held by others under our warranty), we will have the usual respite period allowed to crusaders, unless a lawsuit has been started or we had ordered an enquiry before we took the cross [as a Crusader]. However, as soon as we return from our expedition, or if by chance we abandon it, we shall immediately grant full justice.
4. We shall have the same respite (and the same manner in rendering justice [4]) concerning the disafforestation or retention of those forests [4]) which Henry our father and Richard our brother afforested, and concerning guardianship of lands under the fief of another (that is, the guardianships we had up to now because of a knight’s fee someone else held from us), and with abbeys founded in fiefs other than our own, in which the lord of the fief claims to have a right. When we return from our expedition, or if we abandon it, we will at once grant full justice to complaints about these things.
5. No one shall be arrested or imprisoned on the appeal of a woman, for the death of anyone except her husband.
6. All fines rendered to us unjustly and against the law of the land, and all amercements made unjustly and against the law of the land, shall be entirely remitted or else the matter settled by the decision of an majority of the five-and-twenty barons (or all of them) mentioned below in the clause for securing the peace. This decision shall be made together with Stephen, archbishop of Canterbury, if he can be present, and such others as he may wish to bring with him. If the archbishop cannot be present, business shall nevertheless proceed without him. This is provided always that, if any one or more of the twenty-five barons are involved in a similar action, they are removed for this particular judgement and are replaced by others. The replacements will be sworn in as a substitute only for this business, after being selected by the rest of the twenty-five.
7. If we have disseised or removed Welshmen from lands or liberties, or other things, without the lawful judgement of their peers (in England or in Wales), these shall be immediately restored to them. If a dispute arises over this, it shall be determined in the Marches by the judgement of their peers. English law shall apply to land holdings in England, Welsh law to those in Wales, and the law of the Marches to those in the Marches. Welshmen shall the same to us and ours.
8. Further, where a Welshman was deprived or dispossessed of anything, without the lawful judgement of his peers (in England or in Wales [5]), by our father King Henry or our brother King Richard, and which is retained by us (or which is held by others under our warranty), we will have the usual respite period allowed to crusaders, unless a lawsuit has been started or we had ordered an enquiry before we took the cross [as a Crusader]. However, as soon as we return from our expedition, or if by chance we abandon it, we shall immediately grant full justice according to the laws of Wales and the said regions.
9. We will immediately return the son of Llywelyn and all the hostages of Wales, and the charters handed over to us as security for peace.
10. We will return of the sisters and hostages of Alexander, king of Scotland, his liberties and his rights, in the same manner as we shall do towards our other barons of England, unless it ought to be otherwise according to the charters that we hold from his father William, formerly king of Scotland. This matter shall be determined by the judgement of his peers in our court.
11. Moreover, all these previously described customs and liberties which we have granted shall be maintained in our kingdom as far as it concerns our own relations toward our men. Let these customs and liberties be observed similarly by all of our kingdom, by clergy as well as by laymen, in their relations towards their men.
12. Since for God, for the improvement of our kingdom, and to better allay the discord arisen between us and our barons, we have granted all these concessions, and wishing that the concessions be enjoyed in their entirety with firm endurance (for ever [5]), we give and grant to the barons the following security:
    
    Namely, that the barons choose any twenty-five barons of the kingdom they wish, who must with all their might observe and hold, and cause to be observed, the peace and liberties we have granted and confirmed to them by this our present Charter. Then, if we, our chief justiciar, our bailiffs or any of our officials, offend in any respect against any man, or break any of the articles of the peace or of this security, and the offence is notified to four of the said twenty-five barons, the four shall come to us—or to our chief justicicar if we are absent from the kingdom—to declare the transgression and petition that we make amends without delay.
    
    And if we, or in our absence abroad the chief justice, have not corrected the transgression within forty days, reckoned from the day on which the offence was declared to us (or to the chief justice if we are out of the realm), the four barons mentioned before shall refer the matter to the rest of the twenty-five barons. Together with the community of the whole land, they shall then distrain and distress us in every way possible, namely by seizing castles, lands, possessions and in any other they can (saving only our own person and those of the queen and our children), until redress has been obtain in their opinion. And when amends have been made, they shall obey us as before.
    
    Whoever in the country wants to, may take an oath to obey the orders of the twenty-five barons for the execution of all the previously mentioned matters and, with the barons, to distress us to the utmost of his power. We publicly and freely give permission to every one who wishes to take this oath, and we shall never forbid any one from taking it. Indeed, all those in the land who are unwilling to this oath, we shall by our command compel them to swear to it.
    
    If any one of the twenty-five barons dies or leaves the country, or is in any other manner incapacitated so the previously mentioned provisions cannot be undertaken, the remaining barons of the twenty-five shall choose another in his place as they think fit, who shall be duly sworn in like the rest.
    
    If there is any disagreement amongst the twenty-five barons on any matter presented to them, or if some of them are unwilling or unable to be present, what the majority of those present ordain or command shall be held as fixed and established, exactly as if all twenty-five had consented in this.
    
    The said twenty-five barons shall swear to faithfully observe all the aforesaid articles and will do all they can to ensure that the articles are observed by others.
    
    And we shall procure nothing from any one, either personally or indirectly, whereby any part of these concessions and liberties might be revoked or diminished; and if any such thing has been procured, let it be void and null, and we shall never make use of it ourselves or through someone else.
13. And all the ill-will, hatreds, and bitterness that have arisen between us and our people, clergy and laity, from the date of the quarrel, we have completely forgiven and pardoned to everyone. Moreover, we have fully forgiven and, as far as it concerns us, pardoned all transgressions occasioned by the said quarrel, between Easter in the sixteenth year of our reign [1215] and the restoration of peace, to all, both clergy and laymen, and completely forgiven, as far as this applies to us.
    
    Additionally, we have had letters patent drawn up for the barons, over the seals of lord Stephen, archbishop of Canterbury, of the lord Henry, archbishop of Dublin, of the bishops mentioned before, and of Master Pandulf. The letters patent concern this security and the concessions previously stated.
14. Thus, we wish and we firmly ordain that the English church shall be free, and that men in our kingdom shall have and keep all these previously determined liberties, rights, and concessions, well and in peace, freely and quietly, in their fullness and integrity, for themselves and their heirs, from us and our heirs, in all things and all places for ever, as is previously described here.

An oath has been sworn, on the one hand by us and on the other by the barons, that all the aforesaid provisions shall be observed in good faith and without evil intent.
Given under our hand—the above-named and many others being witnesses—in the meadow which is called Runnymede, between Windsor and Staines, on the fifteenth day of June, in the seventeenth year of our reign.
[That is 1215—the new regnal year began on 28 May.]


Surety barons for the enforcement of the Magna Carta [1215]

As specified in Clause 61, this is the list of the twenty-five barons who acted as Sureties, or enforcers, of Magna Carta. These Barons were granted through Clause 61, authority to overrule the will of the King and to seize his castles and other possessions if necessary.

1. William d'Albini, Lord of Belvoir Castle
2. Roger Bigod, Earl of Norfolk and Suffolk
3. Hugh Bigod, Heir to the Earldoms of Norfolk and Suffolk
4. Henry de Bohun, Earl of Hereford
5. Richard de Clare, Earl of Hertford
6. Gilbert de Clare, heir to the earldom of Hertford
7. John FitzRobert, Lord of Warkworth Castle
8. Robert FitzWalter, Lord of Dunmow Castle
9. William de Fortibus, Earl of Albemarle
10. William Hardell, Mayor of the City of London
11. William de Huntingfield, Sheriff of Norfolk and Suffolk
12. John de Lacie, Lord of Pontefract Castle
13. William de Lanvallei, Lord of Standway Castle
14. William Malet, Sheriff of Somerset and Dorset
15. Geoffrey de Mandeville, Earl of Essex and Gloucester
16. William Marshall the younger, heir to the earldom of Pembroke
17. Roger de Montbegon, Lord of Hornby Castle
18. Richard de Montfichet, Baron
19. William de Mowbray, Lord of Axholme Castle
20. Richard de Percy, Baron
21. Saire de Quincey, Earl of Winchester
22. Robert de Roos, Lord of Hamlake Castle
23. Geoffrey de Saye, Baron
24. Robert de Vere, heir to the earldom of Oxford
25. Eustace de Vesci, Lord of Alnwick Castle

 

[Signwatcher]

Nothing governs governments any more.

Not even fear.

And that's our problem.

Greed governs most of the World.

 

[Dozdoats]

Greed governs most of the World.

There's that.

What I meant to imply was that not even fear restricts the conducts of governments any more, or reins them in. The brazenness of governments is amazing.

 

[Dozdoats]

http://jimbovard.com/blog/2015/06/15/king-john-butchered-authors-of-magna-charta/

King John Butchered Authors of Magna Charta

By Jim on June 15, 2015 in Attention Deficit Democracy, Cartoon, Congress, Constitution, Democracy, elective dictatorship, Epigrams, Freedom, Guns, History, leviathan, Nixon, Rule of Law, Sovereign immunity, torture, Tyranny


800th-anniversary-of-the-magna-carta-6274258384715776_2-hp2x
… or at least he tried to butcher them. On this day 800 years ago, King John was compelled to sign Magna Charta, formally accepting a limit to his prerogative to ravage everything in England. But the ink on his signature was barely dry before he brought in foreign forces and tried to wipe out the barons who had compelled him to sign the Charta. The English almost lost their newly-recognized rights within months of the signing because they were not sufficiently suspicious of the King. As David Hume noted in his magisterial History of England, “The ravenous and barbarous mercenaries, incited by a cruel and enraged prince, were let loose against the estates, tenants, manors, houses, parks of the barons, and spread devastation over the face of the kingdom. Nothing was to be seen but the flames of villages and castles reduced to ashes, the consternation and misery of the inhabitants, tortures exercised by the soldiery to make them reveal their concealed treasures…”

Few people recall that Pope Innocent speedily sought to annul the charter and formally absolved King John of any obligation to obey Magna Charta. English liberties received a boost from the death of King John less than a year after Runnymede.

The real lesson of Magna Charta is that solemn pledges do not make tyrants trustworthy. Similarly, American presidents are required to pledge upon taking office that “I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully… preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” At this point, that oath does little more than spur cheers from high school civics teachers. It has been more than 40 years since any president paid a serious price for trampling the law. And presidents have a prerogative to trample constitutional rights as long as they periodically proclaim their devotion to democracy.

In the final realm, Magna Charta was simply a political promise – and it would only be honored insofar as private courage, resolution, and weaponry compelled sovereigns to limit their abuses.

For an excellent analysis of why the heritage of Magna Charta did not prove a panacea in this nation, see Anthony Gregory’s The Power of Habeas Corpus in America (Cambridge, 2013).

magna charta signing CHhWQjxUwAAFs0N

Here’s David Hume’s account of what happened after Magna Charta was signed (copied from the excellent Liberty Fund online version of Hume’s history):

John seemed to submit passively to all these regulations, however injurious to majesty: He sent writs to all the sheriffs, ordering them to constrain every one to swear obedience to the twenty-five barons.s He dismissed all his foreign forces: He pretended, that his government was thenceforth to run in a new tenor, and be more indulgent to the liberty and independance of his people. But he only dissembled, till he should find a favourable opportunity for annulling all his concessions. The injuries and indignities, which he had formerly suffered from the pope and the king of France, as they came from equals or superiors, seemed to make but small impression on him: But the sense of this perpetual and total subjection under his own rebellious vassals, sunk deep in his mind, and he was determined, at all hazards, to throw off so ignominious a slavery.t He grew sullen, silent, and reserved: He shunned the society of his courtiers and nobles: He retired into the Isle of Wight, as if desirous of hiding his shame and confusion; but in this retreat he meditated the most fatal vengeance against all his enemies.u He secretly sent abroad his emissaries to inlist foreign soldiers, and to invite the rapacious Brabançons into his service, by the prospect of sharing the spoils of England, and reaping the forfeitures of so many opulent barons, who had incurred the guilt of rebellion, by rising in arms against him.w And he dispatched a messenger to Rome, in order to lay before the pope the Great Charter, which he had been compelled to sign, and to complain, before that tribunal, of the violence, which had been imposed upon him.

Innocent, considering himself as feudal lord of the kingdom, was incensed at the temerity of the barons, who, though they pretended to appeal to his authority, had dared, without waiting for his consent, to impose such terms on a prince, who, by resigning to the Roman pontiff his crown and independance, had placed himself immediately under the papal protection. He issued, therefore, a bull, in which, from the plenitude of his apostolic power, and from the authority, which God had committed to him, to build and destroy kingdoms, to plant and overthrow, he annulled and abrogated the whole charter, as unjust in itself, as obtained by compulsion, and as derogatory to the dignity of the apostolic see. He prohibited the barons from exacting the observance of it: He even prohibited the king himself from paying any regard to it: He absolved him and his subjects from all oaths, which they had been constrained to take to that purpose: And he pronounced a general sentence of excommunication against every one, who should persevere in maintaining such treasonable and iniquitous pretensions.

The king, as his foreign forces arrived along with this bull, now ventured to take off the mask; and, under sanction of the pope’s decree, recalled all the liberties which he had granted to his subjects, and which he had solemnly sworn to observe. But the spiritual weapon was found upon trial to carry less force with it, than he had reason from his own experience to apprehend. The primate refused to obey the pope in publishing the sentence of excommunication against the barons; and though he was cited to Rome, that he might attend a general council, there assembled, and was suspended, on account of his disobedience to the pope, and his secret correspondence with the king’s enemies.z Though a new and particular sentence of excommunication was pronounced by name against the principal barons;a John still found, that his nobility and people, and even his clergy, adhered to the defence of their liberties, and to their combination against him: The sword of his foreign mercenaries was all he had to trust to for restoring his authority.

The barons, after obtaining the Great Charter, seem to have been lulled into a fatal security, and to have taken no rational measures, in case of the introduction of a foreign force, for reassembling their armies. The king was from the first master of the field; and immediately laid siege to the castle of Rochester, which was obstinately defended by William de Albiney, at the head of a hundred and forty knights with their retainers, but was at last reduced by famine.30th Nov. John, irritated with the resistance, intended to have hanged the governor and all the garrison; but on the representation of William de Mauleon, who suggested to him the danger of reprizals, he was content to sacrifice, in this barbarous manner, the inferior prisoners only.b The captivity of William de Albiney, the best officer among the confederated barons, was an irreparable loss to their cause; and no regular opposition was thenceforth made to the progress of the royal arms. The ravenous and barbarous mercenaries, incited by a cruel and enraged prince, were let loose against the estates, tenants, manors, houses, parks of the barons, and spread devastation over the face of the kingdom. Nothing was to be seen but the flames of villages and castles reduced to ashes, the consternation and misery of the inhabitants, tortures exercised by the soldiery to make them reveal their concealed treasures, and reprizals no less barbarous, committed by the barons and their partizans on the royal demesnes, and on the estates of such as still adhered to the crown. The king, marching through the whole extent of England, from Dover to Berwic, laid the provinces waste on each side of him; and considered every state, which was not his immediate property, as entirely hostile and the object of military execution. The nobility of the north in particular, who had shewn greatest violence in the recovery of their liberties, and who, acting in a separate body, had expressed their discontent even at the concessions made by the Great Charter; as they could expect no mercy, fled before him with their wives and families, and purchased the friendship of Alexander, the young king of Scots, by doing homage to him.

The barons, reduced to this desperate extremity, and menaced with the total loss of their liberties, their properties, and their lives, employed a remedy no less desperate; and making applications to the court of France, they offered to acknowledge Lewis, the eldest son of Philip, for their sovereign; on condition, that he would afford them protection from the violence of their enraged prince. Though the sense of the common rights of mankind, the only rights that are entirely indefeasible, might have justified them in the deposition of their king; they declined insisting before Philip, on a pretension, which is commonly so disagreeable to sovereigns, and which sounds harshly in their royal ears. They affirmed, that John was incapable of succeeding to the crown, by reason of the attainder, passed upon him during his brother’s reign; though that attainder had been reversed, and Richard had even, by his last will, declared him his successor. They pretended, that he was already legally deposed by sentence of the peers of France, on account of the murder of his nephew; though that sentence could not possibly regard any thing but his transmarine dominions, which alone he held in vassalage to that crown.1216. On more plausible grounds, they affirmed, that he had already deposed himself by doing homage to the pope, changing the nature of his sovereignty, and resigning an independant crown for a see under a foreign power. And as Blanche of Castile, the wife of Lewis, was descended by her mother from Henry II. they maintained, though many other princes stood before her in the order of succession, that they had not shaken off the royal family, in chusing her husband for their sovereign.

Philip was strongly tempted to lay hold on the rich prize which was offered to him. The legate menaced him with interdicts and excommunications, if he invaded the patrimony of St. Peter, or attacked a prince, who was under the immediate protection of the holy see.c But as Philip was assured of the obedience of his own vassals, his principles were changed with the times, and he now undervalued as much all papal censures, as he formerly pretended to pay respect to them. His chief scruple was with regard to the fidelity, which he might expect from the English barons in their new engagements, and the danger of entrusting his son and heir into the hands of men, who might, on any caprice or necessity, make peace with their native sovereign, by sacrificing a pledge of so much value. He therefore exacted from the barons twenty-five hostages of the most noble birth in the kingdom;d and having obtained this security, he sent over first a small army to the relief of the confederates; then more numerous forces, which arrived with Lewis himself at their head.

The first effect of the young prince’s appearance in England was the desertion of John’s foreign troops, who, being mostly levied in Flanders, and other provinces of France, refused to serve against the heir of their monarchy.e The Gascons and Poictevins alone, who were still John’s subjects, adhered to his cause; but they were too weak to maintain that superiority in the field, which they had hitherto supported against the confederated barons. Many considerable noblemen deserted John’s party, the earls of Salisbury, Arundel, Warrene, Oxford, Albemarle, and William Mareschal the younger: His castles fell daily into the hands of the enemy: Dover was the only place, which, from the valour and fidelity of Hubert de Burgh, the governor, made resistance to the progress of Lewis:f And the barons had the melancholy prospect of finally succeeding in their purpose, and of escaping the tyranny of their own king, by imposing on themselves and the nation a foreign yoke. But this union was of short duration between the French and English nobles; and the imprudence of Lewis, who, on every occasion, showed too visible a preference to the former, encreased that jealousy, which it was so natural for the latter to entertain in their present situation.g The viscount of Melun, too, it is said, one of his courtiers, fell sick at London, and finding the approaches of death, he sent for some of his friends among the English barons, and warning them of their danger, revealed Lewis’s secret intentions of exterminating them and their families as traitors to their prince, and of bestowing their estates and dignities on his native subjects, in whose fidelity he could more reasonably place confidence.h This story, whether true or false, was universally reported and believed; and concurring with other circumstances, which rendered it credible, did great prejudice to the cause of Lewis. The earl of Salisbury and other noblemen deserted again to John’s party;i and as men easily change sides in a civil war, especially where their power is founded on an hereditary and independant authority, and is not derived from the opinion and favour of the people, the French prince had reason to dread a sudden reverse of fortune. The king was assembling a considerable army, with a view of fighting one great battle for his crown; but passing from Lynne to Lincolnshire, his road lay along the sea-shore, which was overflowed at high water; and not chusing the proper time for his journey, he left in the inundation all his carriages, treasure, baggage, and regalia. The affliction for this disaster, and vexation from the distracted state of his affairs, encreased the sickness under which he then laboured; and though he reached the castle of Newark, he was obliged to halt there, and his distemper soon after put an end to his life,17th Octob. Death and character of the king. in the forty-ninth year of his age, and eighteenth of his reign; and freed the nation from the dangers, to which it was equally exposed, by his success or by his misfortunes.