The Magna Carta

[princessday1]

How did the Magna Carta limit royal power?

[Aaralyn]

Magna Carta intended to bring the King under the law. In the words of J.C. Holt, “kings overrode, ignored and exploited such law as there was to their own convenience.” This ability of the king to remain above the law was not new: Henry I had deprived men of their land for offences against the forest law; according to J.C. Holt, Henry II disseised one who had refused dinner to one of his huntsmen. Where for lesser men the Common Law defended property rights and the fruits of that property for lesser tenants against their lords, the tenant-in-chief was in a much less secure position. He had no access to writs of right because these were directed to the lord of a court, and the king could not direct one to himself. The tenants-in-chief were then reliant on the king’s court for justice. However, the king, for reasons of political initiative, could rarely achieve consistency. Although some disputes were settled easily enough, such as Maurice de Gant who achieved a concord in October 1209 with his opponent and cousin, Gilbert, over the recovery of his inheritance by the use of various writs praecipe, others were less lucky. The king often responded to claims and counterclaims with evasive action. Hence cap. 40 of Magna Carta in which John agreed that “nulli vendemus, nulli negabimus aut differemus rectum aut justiciam[to no one will we sell, to no one will we deny or delay right or justice].” The arbitrary nature of the king’s use of law was also addressed cap.52 in which it is stated that “si quis fuerit disseisitus vel elongates per nos sine legali judicio parium suorum de terries, castellis, libertatibus, vel jure suo, statim ea ei restituemus [if anyone has been disseised or deprived by us without lawful judgement of his peers of lands, castles, liberties or his right we will restore them to him at once]”. Magna Carta was designed then to bring the king under the law. However, the king could not be brought under his own law. Any medieval king had to be a free agent; it was their job to stand above all others and sort out disputes that others could not. This ability of kings to ride roughshod over the law particularly effected the tenants-in-chief. Where for lesser men the Common Law defended property rights and the fruits of that property for lesser tenants against their lords, the tenant-in-chief was in a much less secure position. He had no access to writs of right because these were directed to the lord of a court, and the king could not direct one to himself. The tenants-in-chief were then reliant on the king’s court for justice. However, the king, for reasons of political initiative, could rarely achieve consistency. The security clause providing for twenty-five barons to be put in place to hold the John to the Charter was doomed from the beginning - indeed the entire charter was only legally valid for three months - but shows perhaps more clearly than anything else that Magna Carta was the final recourse of desperate men trying to make enough of a fuss to make John see that he needed to hold to the law voluntarily. Although Magna Carta was to be reissued in 1216 by Henry III and at various other points in his reign, the number of clauses included was dramatically reduced and it made little real difference to royal power as a document. However, the idea of Magna Carta and the lessons the barons had learnt from it - namely in how to organise a list of personal grievances into a list of national grievances - would limit later kings and help lead to other radical developments, such as the Provisions of Oxford in 1258.