cal and conservative character. rate, practi- ter no declaration of abstract principles of government, but merely a practical assertion of rights as between the Crown and the subject, and, as a natural corollary under a system of feudal tenures, between mesne lords and their sub-vassals. Its language is simple, brief, generai without being abstract, and expressed in terms of authority, not of argument, yet commonly so reasonable as to carry with it. the intrinsic evidence of its own fitness. It was understood by the simplest of the unlettered age for whom it was intended. It was remembered by them, and, although they did not perceive the extensive consequences which might be derived from it, their feelings were, however unconsciously, elevated by its generality and grandeur.'1 It is based on the charter of Henry I. and the law the Con fessor. Sir Edward Coke has remarked that the Charter was for the most part declaratory of the principal grounds of the fundamental laws of England.' It was in fact founded on of Eadward precedent. Its bases were the Charter of Henry I., and the law as administered in the time of good King Eadward. The law of the Confessor had been renewed by William the Conquerer, and again expressly confirmed by Henry I. in his Charter. A copy of this Charter, produced to the barons by the Archbishop, Stephen Langton, in 1213, formed the groundwork of their demands. In this way the Great Charter may be regarded as the lineal representative of the laws of King Eadward, which from this time ceased to form the popular cry of good government.3 The key. stone of English liberty. The importance of Magna Charta can hardly be exaggerated. It has been well characterized by Hallam as the 'key-stone of English liberty,' to which all that has 1 Sir J. Mackintosh, Hist. of Eng. v. I. Coke, 2nd Inst. Proeme. 3 According to Matthew Paris, (p. 240, Select Chart. 250) Archbishop Langton, at the meeting at St. Paul's, on the 25th August, 1213, assured the barons that before absolving John from the excommunication he had compelled him to swear to restore the laws of King Eadward: Audistis, inquit, quomodo ipse apud Wintoniam Regem absolvi, et ipsum jurare compulerim quod leges iniquas destrueret et leges bonas, videlicet leges Eadwardi revocaret et in regno faceret ab omnibus servari. Inventa est quoque nunc carta quaedam Henrici primi regis Angliae per quam, si volueritis, libertates diu amissas poteritis ad statum pristinum revocare.' འ! 1 since been added is 'little more than confirmation or com- which led to of the mandy from Several causes worked together to bring about the state Events of of affairs which compelled John to grant the Great John's reign Charter. Foremost among these was the fortunate loss the granting of Normandy. The barons, confined within the limits of charter. England, concentrated their attention upon its affairs. Separation They became thoroughly English in interests and sym- of Nor pathies, and united with the people against the tyranny England, of the King. Moreover, a great part of the baronage .. 1203. now consisted of the new ministerial families raised up by the policy of Henry I. and Henry II. These were far less closely connected with Normandy than the baronage of the Conquest, and their sympathies were national rather than feudal. feudalism. The loss of Normandy was itself in a great measure Decay of due to the decay of Feudalism, the result of Henry II.'s policy. John, who was not altogether destitute of energy and courage, made some efforts to recover Normandy, but the barons, especially in the north of England, where The barons the possessions of the new families chiefly lay, refused to follow the follow the King, alleging that they were not bound to king on military service abroad. 1 Mackintosh, Hist. Eng. v. I. 2 The talents and even the virtues of England's first six French kings were a curse to her. The follies and vices of the seventh were her salvation. . . John was driven from Normandy. The Norman nobles were compelled to make their election between the island and the continent. Shut up by the sea with the people whom they had hitherto oppressed and despised, they gradually came to regard England as their country, and the English as their countrymen. The two races so long hostile soon found that they had common interests and common enemies. Both were alike aggrieved by the tyranny of a bad king. Both were alike indignant at the favour shown by the court to the natives of Poitou and Aquitaine. The great-grandsons of those who had fought under William and the great-grandsons of those who had fought under Harold began to draw near to each other in friendship; and the first pledge of reconciliation was the Great Charter, won by their united exertions and framed for their common benefit.'-Macaulay, Hist. Eng. i. 15. The Channel Islands-the only Norman territory not lost-still continue attached, as a separate dependency, to the English crown. refuse to foreign service. sonal character. Effect of the Intimately connected with this refusal, and with the exaction of the Charter, was the personal character of the King, which inspired utter distrust and aversion in all classes of his subjects. In disposition and character John was an oriental despot, a tyrant of the worst sort. Under Henry II. and the ministers of Richard I., the nation had become accustomed to the rule of law; John set at defiance all laws, human and divine. Supported in his tyranny by bands of foreign mercenaries, he not only taxed and fined his subjects of every degree with an open disregard of all legal restraints, but was guilty of acts of cruelty rivalling those of Nero. The Church, the baronage and the people, united by common oppresssion in a common hatred of the tyrant, were compelled to make a stand not so much for constitutional government as for personal liberty. Church, baronage. and people united against the king. Struggle with the Papacy. In his struggle with the papacy, arising out of the disputed election of a successor to Hubert Walter in the archiepiscopal see of Canterbury, John had to deal with a man of consummate ability, who had carried to the highest point, both in theory and practice, the doctrine of the paramount suzerainty of the Pope. As a matter of fact, Ecclesiasti- freedom of election to the higher ecclesiastical benefices, cal elections however it might accord with canonical requirements, had never been practically recognized by the English kings. Prior to the Norman Conquest, the appointments had been made in the Witenagemôt, and afterwards by the King in the Curia Regis or Great Council of the Realm. The only nominally free. Quosdam absque judicio parium suorum exhaeredebat, nonnullos morte durissima condemnabat. Uxores filiasque eorum violabat; et ita pro lege ei erat tyrannica voluntas.'-Annal. Waverl. 2 A. D. 1205. 'Rex cepit de comitibus, baronibus, militibus et viris religiosis pecuniam infinitam.'-Matt. Paris, p. 212. A.D. 1210. 'Inaestimabilem et incomparabilem fecit pecuniae numeratae cxactionem, nullis viris clericis vel laicis, nulli religioni cujuscunque ordinis parcens.'-Ann. Waverl. (ed. Luard) p. 264. 3 See his treatment of Matilda, the wife of William de Braose, and of their son and daughter-in-law, in Matt. Paris, (ed. Luard) ii. 123, Roger of Wendover, Chron. iii. 235, and Ann. Waverl. p. 265; and of Geoffrey of Norwich, quem incarceratum arctissime in capa plumbea fecit interire apud Notingham.' (Matt. Paris, ii. 126). political power of the bishops, of the archbishop of Canterbury especially, was so great in early and mediaval times, that it would seem to have been a state necessity that their nomination should rest with the supreme civil authority. Although the form of election was conceded. by Henry I., the process, under what was subsequently termed a congé d'élire, was free only in name. At this time, whether from the King's weakness, or from the spread of high ecclesiastical doctrines throughout Europe under the powerful and successful leadership of Innocent III., the monastic chapter of Christ Church, Canterbury, at- Double elec tempted to assert their right of election, and chose their tion to the sub-prior. In the meantime the King directed the suffragan terbury. bishops to elect John de Grey, Bishop of Norwich. The case was carried before Innocent, who set both elections Pope InnoIII. aside and himself nominated Stephen Langton, an English-cent man of the highest character and great reputation for elections learning. In this proceeding the Pope distinctly infringed consecrates upon the rights of the King, of the Chapter of Canterbury, Stephen Langton. and of the English nation; but fortunately for the latter, he made as great a mistake in the person of his nominee. as Henry II. found he had made in nominating Becket. see of Can both aside and receive the nominee. John determined not to submit, and refused to receive John reLangton as archbishop. The Pope then (1208) placed the fuses to kingdom under interdict (which suspended the whole Pope's religious life of the nation). The people were made to suffer in order that they might put pressure on the King. dict. John not proving amenable to vicarious punishment was Excommuniformally excommunicated (1209), and ultimately (in 1212) cation. deposed. The Inter Deposition. mits. Threatened by Philip of France, whom the Pope had John subempowered and directed to take possession of the forfeited Kingdom of England, and feeling no reliance on the support of his alienated people, John at length gave 1 The claim of the bishops to share in the election of the archbishops was enforced on several occasions during the 12th century, but after its rejection by Innocent III. was never advanced again. Stubbs, Const. Hist. iii. 305. in. From the extreme of arrogance and violence he now passed to the extreme of abject submission. He not only accepted Langton as archbishop, and promised restitution of the money extorted from the Church, but Surrenders surrendered his kingdom to Pandulf, the Pope's legate, his kingdom receiving it back as a fief of the Holy See, subject to the to the Pope, 15 May, 1213. annual tribute of one thousand marks. A few months afterwards, the act of submission was renewed to Nicholas, Bishop of Tusculum, with the actual performance of liege homage on the part of the King This submission was undoubtedly a disgrace, although not quite to the same extent as it would be now. It was however a startling falling off from the position which Henry II. had occupied, that one of his sons should do homage to the Emperor and another to the Pope. The surrender of the temporal and spiritual independence of the kingdom completed the alienation of the people from the King, whose misgovernment had brought on this national humiliation. On the other hand, the Pope now, having secured submission, changed his tactics, and The struggle supported the tyranny of his vassal. The barons determined upon resistance, and the National Church, headed by Archbishop Langton, gave the weight of its influence. to the patriotic side. with the barons. It may be convenient briefly to notice the most important events which immediately led up to the grant of It began in the Charter. The open quarrel with the barons began July, 1213, in July, 1213, with the refusal of the northern nobility by their refusing foreign to follow John to France. While the King was vowing vengeance against his recalcitrant vassals, two important councils of the bishops and barons were held, the first Councils at at St. Alban's, on August 4th, the second at St. Paul's, service. St. Alban's See the concession of the kingdom to the Pope, and the form of oath of fealty in Feodera, i. 111, and Select Chart. 276. The 1000 marks were appor. tioned, 700 for England and 300 for Ireland. Ann. Waverl. 277, 278; Select Chart. 269. For a more detailed statement, see Blackstone, Introduction to the Charters, and Stubbs, Const. Hist. i. 524-530. |