Magna Carta Day

802 years ago, King John was forced to do a deal with rebel barons on the meadows of Runnymede. They had become exasperated with his abuse of executive power - and demanded a halt.

I|n doing so they forced him to concede a principle which is central to the modern British Constitution - that the Executive must operate within the bounds of its legal authority.

It was a start - and although John sought to renege on it (and provoked a civil war which ended with his death)"., the principle remains. It has been developed further.But today we can rightly celebrate what happened on those Surrey meadows over eight centuries ago.

https://www.bl.uk/magna-carta

The Rule of Law

Another key concept in UK Constitutional Law!

Beware of treating this as a wishy-washy general idea about acceptable legal behaviour. There are some very specific meanings to the phrase.

Dicey proposed three aspects

(1) No person is punishable except for a distinct breach of law established in the ordinary legal manner before the ordinary courts of the land - therefore there should be no 'arbitrary' justice - behaviour should be prohibited in advance - not after the event - people we think might have mischievous intent shouldn't be locked up because they might commit a crime (despite the exasperation of certain Home Secretaries that the Courts are reluctant to deport or intern people who aren't convicted of anything, but are clearly evil.)

(2) No person is above the law - the ordinary law of the land applies to everyone, and as Barnett comments, "there must not only exist a system of courts available locally but the cost of having recourse to the courts must be such that there is real - rather than symbolic - access to the courts. For the law to be attainable, adequate legal advice and assistance must be provided at a cost affordable by all." (Once upon a time....)

(3) the general principles of the constitution are the result of ordinary cases in which rights have been determined. - Dicey meant that in the UK we don't have special courts for Administrative Law, but the ordinary courts applied the same approach whether they were dealing with bureaucrats or ordinary citizens involved in disputes with other citizens. (Perhaps a bit quaint in this era of judicial review and multi-national corporations.)

NOTE - I've tried to be deliberately provocative - how who you respond to such opinions in an exam question?

Reasoned evaluation is the key - and examiners look for it. You can practice by looking at newspaper headlines in the coming week - apply the "Rule of Law" to what the editor or the politician is arguing.

There are some useful cases to reflect upon - Prohibitions del Roy (1607); Entick v Carrington (1765) R v IRC ex parte Rossminster Ltd; R v Horseferry Road Magistrates Court ex parte Bennett; Phillips v Eyre; In re M (1993) - worth making brief casenotes on!

There are also some useful questions to consider as you revise. Do reflect on how the concept of the Rule of Law relates to other constitutional principles. There's an excellent book on the Rule of Law and related subjects by the late Lord Bingham.

The Relevance of History

My apologies if you have already read this on one of my other blogs - I have 4 blogs (jdm_progressive, Washminster, jdmeducafe, and JDM's history explorer) - each with its own purpose. This blog is designed for those with an interest in the working of U.K., US & European Politics). The others deal with Progressive Politics, History; and 'learning'. Please feel free to explore all or any - though today, I'm publishing this post in all of them)

I'm writing this whilst taking a cup of tea in the British Museum. It's a wonderful building full of  items of great historical interest from around the world. Though it was built up during the period of the British Empire - when some people had some very stupid ideas about the superiority of certain races - it is an excellent antidote to such idiotic ideas. Think the West is superior to the Islamic world? - visit the wonders in Room 34; worried that the future has been ceded to the Chinese? (Thanks President Trump), then see how great China has been over the centuries. Discover the many heritages that have been  combined to make the United Kingdom.

It is particularly important that we don't forget the lessons of history. At the moment we would do well to recall the consequences of aggressive nationalism - and how quickly some turn to scapegoating others. We need to face up to the worst of our history - as well as be encouraged by the best.

Today is 30th January - a significant day in British history. Back in 1215 (The Magna Carta - Runnymede) - the principle was established that no one - NOT even the King - was above the Law. Charles I forgot that. He hoped for a passive Parliament - and when he didn't get that - he tried to live without calling Parliament - and when that failed - he tried to intimidate parliamentarians (his attempt to arrest five MPs in the chamber have led to a ban on any monarch entering the chamber of the House of Commons) - eventually he went to Nottingham and declared war on his own country.

On this day in 1649, after a trial in Westminster Hall (which he refused to recognise - since he believed himself to be above the law) - he was executed outside the Banqueting Hall in Whitehall.

So remember this day, that important principle, which lies at the heart of British (and American) History and current law.

NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW.

Human Rights

Back in the early 1980s I was a law student in Sheffield. One of my "legal heroes" then was a solicitor for the National Council for Civil Liberties, who had won an important case - Harman v United Kingdom. Now she is the acting Leader of the Labour Party, in office until a new permanent leader is elected.

This week she made a very important speech about Human rights. I've spoken to people who were there when she delivered it - they were very impressed by what she said. I've read the transcript - and would invite you to do the same. In this week of the anniversary of the Magna Carta - it makes some very important points.

Yesterday we celebrated the anniversary of Magna Carta which laid the foundations for our democracy, human rights and the rule of law in this country and throughout the world. Today we are determined to defend our Human Rights Act.

Labour values are about social and economic rights. And they are also about the civil and political rights embodied in the Human Rights Act. British values – evolved over centuries.
But these are not just Labour values – they are British values and universal human values.
The horrors of the Second World War inevitably made people think afresh about the rights to which every human person is entitled by virtue of their humanity - and how those rights could be protected.

An international endeavour - including Britons - set out a Charter which aimed at nothing less than establishing the norms of international decency, which would apply everywhere and protect everyone.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights – adopted in 1948 – and the European Convention on Human Rights agreed in 1950, and which we ratified in 1951, embodies those efforts.
Simple but powerful, enshrining:
• The right to life, liberty and security
• The right to a fair trial
• Protection from torture
• Freedom of thought, conscience, religion, speech and assembly
• The right to free elections
• The right not to be discriminated against

The Human Rights Act inherits and embodies those universal values, and people around the world are still fighting for the rights it contains and we enjoy today. It has done an immeasurable amount to raise standards across European countries who suffered so much in WW2 which was its aim.

The impact of the Human Rights Act has been profound.
It gives individuals rights which they can enforce here, in our courts, without having to traipse to Europe and wait years. But its impact has been much more far-reaching than the giving to individuals litigable rights - important though that is. It has precipitated good cultural and organisational change. It has changed the way public authorities reach decisions – both in respect of policies and individuals. It requires them to think not just about their own organisational exigencies but also about the rights of the individuals and communities affected by what they do.

When difficult judgements have to be made The Human Rights Act sets the framework for what has to be taken into account. The competing rights which have to be weighed in the balance. Like balancing the right of an individual to privacy against the right of freedom of the press.
Or when considering the qualification of those rights. Where there is a right but it is not absolute – such as the right to family life which is protected except where it is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security public safety or the economic wellbeing of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime for the protection of health or morals or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.  

Often there is no easy right or wrong decision. But The Human Rights Act makes the thought process right. That thought process is important for the individual but it is also a reassurance for institutions who make desperately difficult decisions because it allows them to demonstrate, that in making a decision, they did give proper weight and consideration to the relevant rights.

Believing in those rights is one thing. But their application is quite another. It’s hard. What those founding signatories knew – and what remains true today – is that defence of those rights has to be uncompromising. Defence of those rights will not always be popular. And sometimes will be deeply unpopular. As US Chief Justice Frankfurter observed as long ago as 1950:
“The safeguards of liberty have frequently been forged in controversies involving not very nice people”

We must defend the rights of every individual - those we don’t agree with or approve of, as well as those we do agree with and approve of. We have to protect the minority from the majority.
And we have to protect the individual from the state when it gets it wrong. I’ve experienced this myself when I was the individual whose rights were trampled by the state.

In 1981 when I was legal officer at Liberty, acting for a prisoner in a case against the Home Office, the government prosecuted me for contempt for allowing a Guardian journalist, David Leigh, to come to my office to look at Home Office documents which had previously been secret but been read out in open court as part of our case. Despite the fact that they’d been read out and were therefore in the public domain, the Home Office were so keen to suppress what they showed that they used the power of government to throw everything at me.  I didn’t think I’d done anything wrong as the documents had been read out in court. But at that time Liberty was loathed by the establishment – not least for our strong stand against internment in Northern Ireland.  So my solicitor told me frankly that there was no chance I’d get off. He said, “who do you think the courts will prefer – you or the Home Office?” He was right. The High Court found me guilty of contempt. My appeal to the Court of Appeal was turned down by Lord Denning. And it was only when my case was heard in The European Court of Human Rights seven years later – that I won and was totally vindicated.

The moral of my case is that if we’d had the Human Rights Act then I don’t think they would even have taken the case against me. And if they had, I’d have won in the British courts because the judges would have had to take my Convention Rights into account.

But it’s also the case that if we’d not been part of the ECHR – which is what the government now seems to want – I’d never have been able to clear my name in Europe.
 
I know what it’s like to be an individual at the mercy of an overbearing state as a young lawyer, who’d done nothing wrong but with my whole career and reputation threatened. But I can understand why it’s easy to criticize the Human Rights Act and why people can feel uncomfortable about it. I know what it’s like from the other side too.

I’ve been a Cabinet Minister and I know that The Human Rights Act is always going to be a nuisance to those in power because you want to get on and do things.
But it’s right that as a government minister that you should have to look over your shoulder and that your power is constrained by other people’s rights.

And it is challenging because we believe in the sovereignty of parliament - and human rights law tempers parliamentary thinking. But it should. Its right that the question is always asked - and the answer certified - “this proposal is compliant with our commitments to human rights.”
But remember that unlike other Bills of Rights in other parts of the world, the Human Rights Act does not allow judges to strike down Acts of Parliament. It creates a conversation between the judiciary and legislature, parliamentary sovereignty is preserved.

Sometimes we all know that defending the Human Rights Act can feel challenging because it can involve European judges protecting the rights of an unpopular individual from an elected authority, or protecting the rights of an unpopular minority from a popular majority.
But it is the right thing to do. As Supreme Court Judge Brenda Hale said:
“Democracy values everyone equally even if the majority does not”
 
We have to recognise that there is an inherent susceptibility for those who have power to extend it, to over-reach, and ultimately abuse it. And that is irrespective of how legitimate that power is and how they acquired that power and how strongly they believe they are doing the right thing.
So we do need to have our executive and our legislature set within a framework of human rights.
And, individuals do need to be able to court to directly enforce their convention rights.
And we do need to have an international framework for our own judiciary. Our judiciary is independent and uncorrupt. It is admired around the world. But it is not infallible and it does get pressurized by government.

Having judicial oversight from a group of judges from outside our country is a check on them but also an important bulwark for our judiciary against the temptation of any government to tamper with them. Each individual jurisdiction benefits from the constant dialogue between the national and the international judiciary.

We here understand that there can never be any complacency - there has to be eternal vigilance in defending these rights. No country should ever feel so confident that it can regard itself to be in a “post-human-rights era.” Compliance with basic norms of human rights is not a state that you reach, and then you don’t need anymore. It requires constant vigilance for the rights of individuals, constant guarding of the rights of minorities, constant restraint on those who have power.

The government can’t “amend” some of the convention rights but still keep our place in the Convention. And leaving the convention would have serious and far reaching consequences.
As I’ve said, I think it’s important - for our own sake - that our human rights framework is set within an international system. But it’s also important for the human rights of those in other countries.

Our commitment to human rights has to operate here at home. But our commitment is equally to human rights for people in the rest of the world. If we were to walk away from our international human rights treaty obligations, we would deprive ourselves of the ability to press other countries to accept high levels of human rights compliance. And we cannot say to others in Europe - particularly Eastern Europe - that they should stay within a European framework but we have somehow outgrown it, or don’t need it anymore.

One of the most important aspects of the international framework of human rights law is precisely so that governments can’t have their own definition of human rights. In seeking to do this, our government will be giving the green light to countries who abuse human rights to do the same.
The European Convention on Human Rights is just one of a network of treaties we have entered into enshrining the same rights such as the UN convention against Torture and the UN Convention on the rights of the child. To leave the European Convention raises questions about our willingness to comply with those other commitments on human rights.
But standing up for human rights goes beyond our moral authority abroad. It’s about our character and identity as a country. Do we really want our country to no longer consider it necessary to adhere to and shape common norms of decency and justice abroad. I would say no.

We are here today not only because we care about human rights but because we feel they are under threat. The Government has signaled that they want to fundamentally undermine the Human Rights Act. This is what lies behind the announcement in the Queens Speech that they would be consulting on a “British Bill of Rights”. We think that even the consultation is the start of a slippery slope.

You can’t be a bit in favour of human rights and a bit against it. You have to be clear and resolute about it.

The Prime Minister has already indicated that their plans will be delayed – so no bill in the Queen’s Speech but a promise of a consultation paper in the Autumn. No doubt this delay is not just because they have a slim majority and know there’s a lot of opposition to their plans. It’s also because their plans are incoherent. As I’ve said, they can’t opt out of some human rights but still be in the European Convention.

They are also politically and constitutionally destabilising. The complete incorporation of the European Convention is written into the Good Friday Agreement and The Human Rights Act is written into the devolution settlement for Scotland. Amending the Human Rights Act would destabilise those settlements and have serious constitutional consequences undermining the Good Friday Agreement in Northern Ireland and the devolution settlement in Scotland.

We will protect human rights. We are determined
• that human rights legislation should not be watered down,
• that its limits should not be narrowed,
• there should not be any circumstances where there should be a “opt out” from some of the human rights contained in the European Convention
• and that we should remain within the framework of the European Convention on Human Rights

There is a broad alliance of people and organisations in this country who will defend human rights. We will be part of that but we will work with those of other political parties because support for the Human Rights Act is not just the preserve of the Labour Party. There are those in the Tory party who believe in this just as strongly as we do and articulate it clearly – as did William Hague when he said

“The belief in political and economic freedom, in human rights and in the rule of law, are part of our national DNA.  Where human rights abuses are seen to go unchecked, our security and our prosperity suffer as well. And how we are seen to uphold our own values is a crucial component in our influence in the world.”

He articulates how human rights are part of, not at variance with, our British values and matter for our place in the world.

There are MPs in all parties who support human rights. There are peers of all parties and who are in no party who will defend the Human Rights Act.
In my role as interim leader of the Labour Party I give you my assurance that we are going to be clear with the Prime Minister that he must not go ahead with this. I’ve today written to the Prime Minister demanding that he drops these plans and I’d like to invite you to co-sign the letter.

Together we can send a strong signal that he mustn’t publish the consultation paper, he mustn’t publish a draft bill, he mustn’t entertain the idea of leaving the ECHR.

What an irony that yesterday the Prime Minister was presiding over the celebration of Magna Carta at the same time he’s planning to undermine the Human Rights Act. No wonder that though he mentioned human rights in South Africa – and preyed in aid Nelson Mandela – and mentioned human rights in India – and preyed in aid Ghandi – he could not bring himself to mention Europe and our Convention.

But we believe that, together, we can prevent the government eroding human rights. Their policy is intellectually incoherent and, worse, it’s wrong in principle.

Though Labour is in opposition, not in government, we believe that in this case, on an issue of such profound importance, they can and should be held back.

Magna Carta - 800 years!

Today we will be celebrating the 800th anniversary of events that occurred in a meadow by the River Thames. Historians tell us that they actually took place over a few days - and the exact sequence is unclear - but today's date is the one that has gone down in history.

There are some excellent websites with great resources - I list a few (with hyperlinks)

* British Library
* Previous Washminster Posts: 2007, 2009, 2010, 2011, Feb 2015,
* US - National Archives and Records Administration
* Lincoln Cathedral
* Salisbury Cathedral
* BBC - Taking Liberties (note - some content may only be available in the UK)
* CBC News


"No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled . nor will we proceed with force against him . except by the lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land. To no one will we sell, to no one deny or delay right or justice."

The road to Runnymede goes through Milton Keynes!

I've been using some of the (small) amount of free time I have at the moment, to read up about the events leading up to the meeting at Runnymede. Using my modern atlas of France, I've been able to plot (approximately) his itinerary during the disastrous campaign of 1214.

By 800 years ago this week King John had moved into the Midlands (much of the time in previous months he had been in London or southern England). After a few days in Woodstock (just to the north of Oxford - and close to the site of Blenheim Palace - in fact, after Woodstock Palace was destroyed during the Civil War of the 17th Century - stones from it were used to construct Blenheim) - he moved to Silverstone (now the centre for motor racing). From there he travelled to Northampton, spending a night in Blisworth. Northampton had a grand castle - reputedly his father's favourite castle in England. Sadly little now remains - but the station, built on much of the site, is still known as Castle Station.

Then - 800 years ago today - he left Northampton to join the main route from the Midlands to London. He came to Stony Stratford - now part of Milton Keynes. It is an ancient town (though of medieval origin rather than Roman). In Roman times, there may have been some settlement across the Great Ouse river in what is now known as Old Stratford, but the Roman Road (Watling Street) ran through countryside in what is now Stony. (I am writing this from home - in Furzton, which adjoins Watling Street - it was countryside until only 30 years ago).

Stony, because of its strategic position on a major river crossing on this ancient, but continuously important road, has had many royal visitors. It was there that the boy king Edward V was met and taken into 'protective custody' by his uncle, the future Richard III. 

If I have time, I may well pop up to Stratford sometime today - and after popping to my favourite bakers (Woodstocks - by coincidence) - I'll drive home on exactly the route King John took, exactly 800 years previously.

The Road to Runnymede

After years of complaining that while Americans celebrate "Magna Carta", we Brits seem happy to ignore it - there is a host of material now available for reflection on the significance; application - and history of that tremendous document. The BBC is doing us proud with its output. I'm not a great David Starkey fan - but thoroughly enjoyed watching his programme on Magna Carta.

It's worth visiting BBC iPlayer and the "Taking Liberties" website for more information about the feast of materialnow available. My apologies to non-UK readers - but there are some blocks on access to BBC material outside the UK.

There are also some excellent books out. A selection are linked to below

The Glorious Revolution

A century before the American and French revolutions that will be celebrated this month, we in Britain had our own - very British - revolution. To paraphrase - James II got too big for his boots and tried, like his father, to push Parliament around. He was run out of town. William and Mary were invited to become the new monarchs - but with strictly limited powers. If there had been any doubt before, it was expressly resolved - that the Sovereign [the ultimate source of power within the State] was no longer the monarch, but Parliament.

The "Bill of Rights" 1689 is not a charter of individual rights (as the first 10 amendments to the US Constitution are), but a clear statement of the rights of Parliament. Like the Magna Carta, it is an important statute within UK Constitutional Law.

It can be read here and its significance explained here.

Magna Carta

"The Great Charter" is the name (in Latin), given to the document agreed to by King John at Runnymede. It's a document worth reading every so often.- - the foundation of our liberties.

The principle of proportionality can be found - "For a trivial offence, a free man shall be fined only in proportion to the degree of his offence, and for a serious offence correspondingly, but not so heavily as to deprive him of his livelihood..... in proportion to the gravity of their offence."

+ (39) No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land.

+ (40) To no one will we sell, to no one deny or delay right or justice.

(these two sections remain the law of the land)

This blog has frequently revisited the subject of "Magna Carta" - just type the phrase in the search engine on the right of this page.

Legal Aid and Magna Carta

England is justifiably proud of the 'Magna Carta', the charter that King John was forced to grant (he did not sign it, but attached the Royal Seal) by his barons at Runnymede 798 years ago this June. A paper on the University of Lincoln's website states -

"For Whipps (2008) Magna Carta is a document that has changed the world. This iconic manuscript,  drawn up originally in the 13th century to contain the power of an English  king, is seen by many commentators today as representing the cornerstone of civil liberties around the globe (West 2008). Its famous clause 39, that no one man shall be imprisoned without judgement of peers, or by the law of the land, is often quoted in contemporary political and legal debates about civil liberties (Bennett et al 2007)."

One of its most important provisions states -

"No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled . nor will we proceed with force against him . except by the lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land. To no one will we sell, to no one deny or delay right or justice."

It is in the light of the final sentence that I invite you to reflect upon the coming into force of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 last week. Further restrictions are set to be announced this week. The Legal Action Group say "Good quality, accessible publicly funded legal services are essential to ensuring access to justice. "Is 'justice' now out of the reach of the very people who need it most?

Details of the changes can be found on the websites of
The Guardian
The Law Society

What do you think?

I've always been a big fan of the US Constitution - and the US Congress - yet today I am thoroughly ashamed of the House of Representatives.

This story in CQ Roll Call's Daily Briefing is what has upset me:

The House voted this morning that all terrorism suspects — even American citizens captured on American soil — should be subject to indefinite detention without any trial, either in a military tribunal or a federal court.

A solid majority was in favor of abrogating constitutional rights in this essentially unprecedented way — a clear sign that anxiety about the terrorist threat remains a more pressing political force a decade after Sept. 11 than the need to protect the voters’ civil rights. The 238-182 vote rejected the impassioned arguments from both of the libertarian ends of the ideological spectrum, in which both liberal Democrats and tea party GOP conservatives warned that current law already gives the government way too much power to enter people’s homes, arrest them and hold them indefinitely — and that the defense authorization bill the House is on the cusp of passing would make matters worse. These lawmakers note that, under the bill, American citizens could be jailed indefinitely for even a one-time contribution to a humanitarian group that’s later linked to terrorism.

The vote turned back an amendment by the top Armed Services Democrat, Adam Smith of Washington, to strip out much of the language on detainees that Republicans had added to the bill; he and Republican Justin Amash of Michigan pressed ahead with their efforts even though, late last night, the handwriting for their defeat went on the wall when the House voted (with a 78-vote spread) that detainee trials should as always be held in Guantánamo Bay and never in the United States.
 
Today's photo is of the monument erected by the American Bar Association at Runnymede - the site of the signing of the Magna Carta in 1215.

Writing Constitutions

Having just finished marking the first eTMA on the Open University’s W201 course, I’ve read the phrase “unwritten constitution” many, many times in the last few days. It’s one of the key characheristics of the UK Constitution – but the term only appears in the second half of the Nineteenth Century. The first occurrence in Hansard (the almost verbatim report of what was said in Parliament) is in the 1850s, and it is rare until the 1870s. It was then that the idea of an unwritten constitution became popular (Bagehot has a lot to answer for!)


This was one of the nuggets contained in the lecture “Liberties and Empires: Writing Constitutions in the Atlantic World 1776-1848” given by Professor Linda Colley. She highlighted how popular writing constitutions had become after the Americans and French had excited peoples’ interest. London, a popular destination for political exiles from around the world, saw an incredible exchange of ideas.

Professor Colley is currently writing a book on the subject. She’s a historian – but her lecture was full of interest for those with an interest in Constitutions – and as I come to the subject as an academic in both the legal and political science fields, I found it fascinating. She described the work of people like John Cartwright and Jeremy Bentham, and traced the interest in the Magna Carta. There was an explosion in constitution writing as the idea spread that Government could be “simple, accountable and broadly based”. Perhaps it’s time for us in Britain to return to those interests of the late 18th and early 19th Century?

The City of Milton Keynes

Andrew Pakes reported in a tweet yesterday "Cabinet Office say #MiltonKeynes has missed out on city status. Good campaign bringing the city together. Disappointing result."

I may be a radical, but I was irritated by the campaign to plead with the Queen for her to "honour" Milton Keynes with city status. [As with most things, although the decision is made in the name of the Monarch - in practice it is a government decision - for my students - see 'Royal Prerogative'].

Milton Keynes is already a city. It is not the gift of the State or a Monarch. A city is made by its citizens. This is recognised in the United States. For 20 years I lived in the ancient settlement of Northampton. It was Henry II's favourite place in England (I think Chinon was his favourite place - I understand why) - and Parliaments have met there. But it has consistently been refused city status. In 1264 the town rebelled against the King - the scholars who had set up a university there were kicked out (imagine, it could have been Oxford and Northampton - but Oxhampton doesn't sound as right as Oxbridge) - and so local stories say the King swore that Northampton would never have a university or be a city. Well it has its own University now (2005). But unlike the much smaller Northampton in Massachusetts, it remains a mere borough.

It's about time British people asserted their rights. Let's be honest, there is a strong tradition. In 1215 the King was forced to sign the Magna Carta. The claim to the divine right of Kings and to tax without the consent of the people was resisted and Charles I lost his crown (and his head). British people have rioted to win the rights we now enjoy.

My passport now describes me as a "British Citizen", not a subject. I like my status as a citizen - both of the UK and of Milton Keynes. The local council is a unitary authority - having the same powers and responsibilities as 'cities' such as Birmingham, Leicester and Coventry. The only thing stopping Milton Keynes being a city is a bunch of bureaucrats who seem to have decided to award the 'honour' to another place in the name of the Queen.

If you want to get rid of wasteful bureaucracy - get rid of them. Let's stop pretending that we can only be citizens if we plead with the Crown to give us a 'gift', and she graciously bestows it upon the place. It is not an honour, but our right.

So I will continue to call the city where I live, the City of Milton Keynes - and recognise the right of my neighbours in Northampton to enjoy the same status as their younger, smaller, namesake in Massachusetts.

Back to Bury

Last week I spent a couple of days in, what is becoming, my favourite town in England (with the exception of course of Milton Keynes, of course). Usually past at speed on the A14, it doesn't look very attractive from that highway. The sugar factory is not a great delight (visually or by smell). However the centre of the town is delightful - and full of history. I made this short video while I was there.

Magna Carta

The Great Charter was the subject of a lively, informative and sometimes amusing exchange in the House of Lords last week. Here is the transcript from Hansard.

To ask Her Majesty's Government what plans they have to celebrate the 800th anniversary of the signing of the Magna Carta in June 2015.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally): My Lords, plans to celebrate the 800th anniversary of the signing of the Magna Carta in June 2015 are being co-ordinated by the Magna Carta Trust, an independent organisation chaired by Sir Robert Worcester. I am keeping in close contact with the trust and I hope that as many people as possible will join in the commemorative activities and events that are being planned for the run-up to 2015 and on the anniversary itself.

Lord Lea of Crondall: I thank the Minister for that reply. There are of course very special reasons to commemorate in this House what happened at Runnymede in June 1215 and, indeed, the evolution of our constitutional arrangements between the Lords and the Commons over many centuries since. Does the noble Lord agree that in addition to weighty documents being published and speeches being made, there could be something of a more popular nature? For example, the pageant that preceded the tournament in 1215 was itself preceded by a ceremonial exchange of hostages between England and Scotland. What does the noble Lord think about a replay of that? Other events might also intrude, such as an inconclusive outcome of the general election. In those circumstances, would one way forward be a series of ceremonial jousts between the parties in which the noble Lord himself might be called upon to participate?

Lord McNally: What excellent ideas. It is strange how the same thoughts go through our minds. Just as the noble Lord was speaking, I was looking at the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, and thinking what a perfect hostage he would make in the circumstances. Not long ago, I went to a ceremony at Runnymede and pointed out something that may surprise some Members of this House in view of my views about reform-that at Runnymede, the Barons did very well.

Lord Cormack: My Lords, does my noble friend think that the Barons who look down upon us daily from their plinths above this Chamber would be best pleased if, a month after the next general election, they looked down upon a hybrid Assembly with a group of senators in it?

Lord Strathclyde: Progress.

Lord McNally: Indeed. I am sure that the Barons would be as revolutionary in 2015 as they were in 1215, but I defer to my noble friend because, sometimes when listening to him, I think he must have been at Runnymede for the signing.

The Lord Bishop of Chichester: My Lords, the then Archbishop of Canterbury, Stephen Langton, played a decisive and formative role in the formulation of Magna Carta, and that was not the first or the last occasion in our history when the Church has, so to speak, helped to keep the feet of the powers-that-be to the fire in matters of constitutional freedoms. Will the Minister take the opportunity to acknowledge the continuing contribution that people of faith are still making today in defending human dignity that transcends temporary political arrangements, and will he further let us know whether he is prepared to advise the independent commission to which he referred to invite the Church of England to play a particular role in the 2015 celebrations?

Lord McNally: I would certainly hope so. As the right reverend Prelate pointed out, Archbishop Langton played an important part at that time. I shall draw the idea to Sir Bob Worcester's attention. I believe that this is an opportunity for us to celebrate a significant part of our history. I know that historical purists will cavil at the importance of the Magna Carta, but I always remember Eleanor Roosevelt, when she published the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, saying that it was a Magna Carta for all mankind. Nobody needed to translate what she meant by that. Magna Carta carries a resonance that has come down to us through the ages.

Lord Elystan-Morgan: My Lords, may I invite the Minister graciously to disabuse himself and all others who fall prey to the misconception that Magna Carta was ever signed? It never was. As a charter, and as the name implies, it was sealed by the royal seal of King John, as the facsimile mounted in the Contents Lobby makes very clear. May I apologise for making such a pettifogging legal point?

Lord McNally: Not at all. I have long considered the noble Lord a master of the pettifogging legal point, but his question gives me the opportunity to put on the record, for noble Lords who want to get involved in the build-up to the Magna Carta celebrations, that my honourable friend Eleanor Laing in the other place is chairing an All-Party Magna Carta Group. I am sure that it would benefit from membership from this House.

Baroness Benjamin: My Lords-

Lord Howarth of Newport: My Lords-

Noble Lords: Order!

Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, there has not been a question from the Liberal Democrat Benches.

Baroness Benjamin: Thank you, my Lords. A favourite expression often used by British citizens is, "It's a free country". Thankfully, so it is, but many are not aware that our freedoms are the greatest legacy of the Magna Carta. What are the Government doing to ensure that children and young people use and appreciate this precious gift of freedom with respect and responsibility? Perhaps they could do so by establishing an annual Magna Carta day to raise awareness and celebrating on the underused Parliament Square, as suggested by the Hansard Society.

Lord McNally: Again, I am delighted by the enthusiasm with which the House is approaching this and I shall feed that idea back to Sir Robert.

Lord Howarth of Newport: Will the Minister confirm that Clause 29 of Magna Carta, which enshrines the right to due process, remains part of the law of England and Wales, but that it is under attack by the Government? Would it not be seemly if the Government were to celebrate the 800th anniversary of Magna Carta by withdrawing Part 1 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill, which removes legal aid from people on low incomes who are in dispute about their benefits entitlement or with their employer or with their landlord? If the Government should be less than gracious about this, will it not still be for the Barons to insist on the ancient constitutional principle that:

"To no man will we sell, or deny, or delay right or justice"?

Lord McNally: The noble Lord once again confirms that one should never take that final question.

* I would also note that Sir Robert Worcester is a native of Kansas. While I'm thrilled that Americans honour this important development in British History - I wish that the English would do more themselves to celebrate Magna Carta. The monument at Runnymede was of course paid and built by the AMERICAN Bar Association *

Prelude to the Magna Carta

On Tuesday I was able to spend a day in the beautiful and historic Bury St Edmunds. If you are in the area, it is well worth a visit. It has that lovely "olde Englishe towne" feel (plus a Starbucks!).

On November 20th 1214 (according to Roger of Wendover), a number of the Barons met in the Abbey Church and swore an oath to force King John to sign a charter of Liberties - which they did a few months later on the banks of the River Thames at Runnymede. An oath was taken at the High Altar next to the shrine of St Edmund (who was at the time recognised as the patron saint of England - he was replaced by St George less than 6 years later). Archbishop Stephen Langton (Archbishop of Canterbury) administered the oath.

The Abbey and the many monastic houses that surrounded it are now in ruins - but they can be visited in the Abbey Gardens adjacent to the current Cathedral. Historical details can be found here.

A map of historic Bury St Edmunds can be accessed here and a virtual tour of the town is here.

Yesterday in Parliament

I spent many hours yesterday watching proceedings in the House of Lords from the public gallery. Before we were admitted the Lord Speaker's Ceremony took place where she was escorted from her rooms at the southern end of the Palace through Princes' Chamber; along the "Not Content" Lobby (Votes are taken in what is normally a corridor) into the Peers Lobby and finally into the Chamber where she took her seat. Visitors were then escorted from the Peers Lobby upstairs - but we were not admitted until prayers had been completed. In the Westminster Parliament, only Members and certain officials are allowed in while prayers are in progress. Finally we were allowed into the gallery - and Question Time began.

In the Commons questions are directed at Ministers from a specific Government Department. In the Lords they are to "the Government". Thirty minutes are set aside for oral questions. Four Members get to put a question which has been submitted in advance. The Minister's initial reply must be in less than 75 words. Then supplementaries begin - first from the person who had put down the initial question - then from others. After seven or eight minutes (or less if there are no further Peers wishing to ask a supplementary) the next question is taken.

There was a small amount to business to be dealt with before the big debate of the day began. Yesterday it was the Second Reading of the Legal Aid; Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill. My post of last Wednesday has the background to this controversial bill.

It is well worth watching or reading the debate - particularly if you are a law student - but also if you are a citizen. There are many important issues involved - and at its heart, the importance of the ability to enforce rights. Magna Carta was quoted (and in the chamber statues of the Barons who forced King John to sign that groundbreaking document, look down upon proceedings). Many references were made to Lord Bingham's excellent book - "The Rule of Law".

The committee stage of the Bill will start soon - and I'll be reporting from it for Washminster.

Magna Carta Day

Yesterday Eleanor Laing was given leave to introduce a Bill which would make 15th June 2015 a national holiday. It would celebrate the 800th anniversary of the signing of the Magna Carta.

The procedure used was that of a "ten minute rule bill". This is covered by Standing Order 23. On Tuesdays and Wednesdays a member is given 10 minutes (the SO actually speaks of "the Speaker, after permitting, if he thinks fit, a brief explanatory statement...) to give reasons why the House should grant leave to bring in the bill. Actually leave is not needed to bring in a bill - SO 57 says "A member may, after notice, present a bill without previously obtaining leave from the House to bring in the same". This happens very early in the day's business - and can pass almost unnoticed - and that is the point about the 10 minute rule bill procedure. It is rarely used for serious legislating - instead it gives the member an opportunity for "prime time" coverage of the issue he or she wishes to raise. It occurs straight after Questions - and of course on a Wednesday, straight after PMQs (Prime Minister' Question Time). Many 10 minute rule bills get national publicity earlier in the day.

Ms Laing's purpose was to draw attention to the campaign for a holiday to celebrate the signing of the Magna Carta. I have to say that I can not be neutral on this issue. I strongly believe that in the UK we should give more attention to this important event and document in British history. I was the co-founder of a Facebook group as far back as 2007 - "Magna Carta Day!" - do please join!

This blog has frequently dealt with the Magna Carta and its significance
May 2011
June 2010
June 2007
Threats to Liberty
The Rule of Law

The request for leave and the subsequent First Reading can be watched at 01:01:30 onwards (you will need to move the slider to that point (although there's quite a bit to see beforehand - including a message from the Queen; PMQs; A point of order; and Introduction of a bill under the Art 57 procedure)

Magna Carta

JOHN, by the grace of God King of England, Lord of Ireland, Duke of Normandy and Aquitaine, and Count of Anjou, to his archbishops, bishops, abbots, earls, barons, justices, foresters, sheriffs, stewards, servants, and to all his officials and loyal subjects, Greeting.

KNOW THAT BEFORE GOD, for the health of our soul and those of our ancestors and heirs, to the honour of God, the exaltation of the holy Church, and the better ordering of our kingdom, at the advice of our reverend fathers Stephen, archbishop of Canterbury, primate of all England, and cardinal of the holy Roman Church, Henry archbishop of Dublin, William bishop of London, Peter bishop of Winchester, Jocelin bishop of Bath and Glastonbury, Hugh bishop of Lincoln, Walter Bishop of Worcester, William bishop of Coventry, Benedict bishop of Rochester, Master Pandulf subdeacon and member of the papal household, Brother Aymeric master of the knighthood of the Temple in England, William Marshal earl of Pembroke, William earl of Salisbury, William earl of Warren, William earl of Arundel, Alan de Galloway constable of Scotland, Warin Fitz Gerald, Peter Fitz Herbert, Hubert de Burgh seneschal of Poitou, Hugh de Neville, Matthew Fitz Herbert, Thomas Basset, Alan Basset, Philip Daubeny, Robert de Roppeley, John Marshal, John Fitz Hugh, and other loyal subjects:

(1) FIRST, THAT WE HAVE GRANTED TO GOD, and by this present charter have confirmed for us and our heirs in perpetuity, that the English Church shall be free, and shall have its rights undiminished, and its liberties unimpaired. That we wish this so to be observed, appears from the fact that of our own free will, before the outbreak of the present dispute between us and our barons, we granted and confirmed by charter the freedom of the Church's elections - a right reckoned to be of the greatest necessity and importance to it - and caused this to be confirmed by Pope Innocent III. This freedom we shall observe ourselves, and desire to be observed in good faith by our heirs in perpetuity.

TO ALL FREE MEN OF OUR KINGDOM we have also granted, for us and our heirs for ever, all the liberties written out below, to have and to keep for them and their heirs, of us and our heirs:

(2) If any earl, baron, or other person that holds lands directly of the Crown, for military service, shall die, and at his death his heir shall be of full age and owe a `relief', the heir shall have his inheritance on payment of the ancient scale of `relief'. That is to say, the heir or heirs of an earl shall pay £100 for the entire earl's barony, the heir or heirs of a knight l00s. at most for the entire knight's `fee', and any man that owes less shall pay less, in accordance with the ancient usage of `fees'

(3) But if the heir of such a person is under age and a ward, when he comes of age he shall have his inheritance without `relief' or fine.

(4) The guardian of the land of an heir who is under age shall take from it only reasonable revenues, customary dues, and feudal services. He shall do this without destruction or damage to men or property. If we have given the guardianship of the land to a sheriff, or to any person answerable to us for the revenues, and he commits destruction or damage, we will exact compensation from him, and the land shall be entrusted to two worthy and prudent men of the same `fee', who shall be answerable to us for the revenues, or to the person to whom we have assigned them. If we have given or sold to anyone the guardianship of such land, and he causes destruction or damage, he shall lose the guardianship of it, and it shall be handed over to two worthy and prudent men of the same `fee', who shall be similarly answerable to us.

(5) For so long as a guardian has guardianship of such land, he shall maintain the houses, parks, fish preserves, ponds, mills, and everything else pertaining to it, from the revenues of the land itself. When the heir comes of age, he shall restore the whole land to him, stocked with plough teams and such implements of husbandry as the season demands and the revenues from the land can reasonably bear.

(6) Heirs may be given in marriage, but not to someone of lower social standing. Before a marriage takes place, it shall be' made known to the heir's next-of-kin.

(7) At her husband's death, a widow may have her marriage portion and inheritance at once and without trouble. She shall pay nothing for her dower, marriage portion, or any inheritance that she and her husband held jointly on the day of his death. She may remain in her husband's house for forty days after his death, and within this period her dower shall be assigned to her.

(8) No widow shall be compelled to marry, so long as she wishes to remain without a husband. But she must give security that she will not marry without royal consent, if she holds her lands of the Crown, or without the consent of whatever other lord she may hold them of.

(9) Neither we nor our officials will seize any land or rent in payment of a debt, so long as the debtor has movable goods sufficient to discharge the debt. A debtor's sureties shall not be distrained upon so long as the debtor himself can discharge his debt. If, for lack of means, the debtor is unable to discharge his debt, his sureties shall be answerable for it. If they so desire, they may have the debtor's lands and rents until they have received satisfaction for the debt that they paid for him, unless the debtor can show that he has settled his obligations to them.

(10) If anyone who has borrowed a sum of money from Jews dies before the debt has been repaid, his heir shall pay no interest on the debt for so long as he remains under age, irrespective of whom he holds his lands. If such a debt falls into the hands of the Crown, it will take nothing except the principal sum specified in the bond.
(11) If a man dies owing money to Jews, his wife may have her dower and pay nothing towards the debt from it. If he leaves children that are under age, their needs may also be provided for on a scale appropriate to the size of his holding of lands. The debt is to be paid out of the residue, reserving the service due to his feudal lords. Debts owed to persons other than Jews are to be dealt with similarly.

(12) No `scutage' or `aid' may be levied in our kingdom without its general consent, unless it is for the ransom of our person, to make our eldest son a knight, and (once) to marry our eldest daughter. For these purposes ouly a reasonable `aid' may be levied. `Aids' from the city of London are to be treated similarly.

(13) The city of London shall enjoy all its ancient liberties and free customs, both by land and by water. We also will and grant that all other cities, boroughs, towns, and ports shall enjoy all their liberties and free customs.

(14) To obtain the general consent of the realm for the assessment of an `aid' - except in the three cases specified above - or a `scutage', we will cause the archbishops, bishops, abbots, earls, and greater barons to be summoned individually by letter. To those who hold lands directly of us we will cause a general summons to be issued, through the sheriffs and other officials, to come together on a fixed day (of which at least forty days notice shall be given) and at a fixed place. In all letters of summons, the cause of the summons will be stated. When a summons has been issued, the business appointed for the day shall go forward in accordance with the resolution of those present, even if not all those who were summoned have appeared.

(15) In future we will allow no one to levy an `aid' from his free men, except to ransom his person, to make his eldest son a knight, and (once) to marry his eldest daughter. For these purposes only a reasonable `aid' may be levied.

(16) No man shall be forced to perform more service for a knight's `fee', or other free holding of land, than is due from it.

(17) Ordinary lawsuits shall not follow the royal court around, but shall be held in a fixed place.

(18) Inquests of novel disseisin, mort d'ancestor, and darrein presentment shall be taken only in their proper county court. We ourselves, or in our absence abroad our chief justice, will send two justices to each county four times a year, and these justices, with four knights of the county elected by the county itself, shall hold the assizes in the county court, on the day and in the place where the court meets.

(19) If any assizes cannot be taken on the day of the county court, as many knights and freeholders shall afterwards remain behind, of those who have attended the court, as will suffice for the administration of justice, having regard to the volume of business to be done.

(20) For a trivial offence, a free man shall be fined only in proportion to the degree of his offence, and for a serious offence correspondingly, but not so heavily as to deprive him of his livelihood. In the same way, a merchant shall be spared his merchandise, and a husbandman the implements of his husbandry, if they fall upon the mercy of a royal court. None of these fines shall be imposed except by the assessment on oath of reputable men of the neighbourhood.

(21) Earls and barons shall be fined only by their equals, and in proportion to the gravity of their offence.

(22) A fine imposed upon the lay property of a clerk in holy orders shall be assessed upon the same principles, without reference to the value of his ecclesiastical benefice.

(23) No town or person shall be forced to build bridges over rivers except those with an ancient obligation to do so.
(24) No sheriff, constable, coroners, or other royal officials are to hold lawsuits that should be held by the royal justices.

(25) Every county, hundred, wapentake, and tithing shall remain at its ancient rent, without increase, except the royal demesne manors.

(26) If at the death of a man who holds a lay `fee' of the Crown, a sheriff or royal official produces royal letters patent of summons for a debt due to the Crown, it shall be lawful for them to seize and list movable goods found in the lay `fee' of the dead man to the value of the debt, as assessed by worthy men. Nothing shall be removed until the whole debt is paid, when the residue shall be given over to the executors to carry out the dead man s will. If no debt is due to the Crown, all the movable goods shall be regarded as the property of the dead man, except the reasonable shares of his wife and children.

(27) If a free man dies intestate, his movable goods are to be distributed by his next-of-kin and friends, under the supervision of the Church. The rights of his debtors are to be preserved.

(28) No constable or other royal official shall take corn or other movable goods from any man without immediate payment, unless the seller voluntarily offers postponement of this.

(29) No constable may compel a knight to pay money for castle-guard if the knight is willing to undertake the guard in person, or with reasonable excuse to supply some other fit man to do it. A knight taken or sent on military service shall be excused from castle-guard for the period of this servlce.

(30) No sheriff, royal official, or other person shall take horses or carts for transport from any free man, without his consent.

(31) Neither we nor any royal official will take wood for our castle, or for any other purpose, without the consent of the owner.

(32) We will not keep the lands of people convicted of felony in our hand for longer than a year and a day, after which they shall be returned to the lords of the `fees' concerned.

(33) All fish-weirs shall be removed from the Thames, the Medway, and throughout the whole of England, except on the sea coast.

(34) The writ called precipe shall not in future be issued to anyone in respect of any holding of land, if a free man could thereby be deprived of the right of trial in his own lord's court.

(35) There shall be standard measures of wine, ale, and corn (the London quarter), throughout the kingdom. There shall also be a standard width of dyed cloth, russett, and haberject, namely two ells within the selvedges. Weights are to be standardised similarly.

(36) In future nothing shall be paid or accepted for the issue of a writ of inquisition of life or limbs. It shall be given gratis, and not refused.

(37) If a man holds land of the Crown by `fee-farm', `socage', or `burgage', and also holds land of someone else for knight's service, we will not have guardianship of his heir, nor of the land that belongs to the other person's `fee', by virtue of the `fee-farm', `socage', or `burgage', unless the `fee-farm' owes knight's service. We will not have the guardianship of a man's heir, or of land that he holds of someone else, by reason of any small property that he may hold of the Crown for a service of knives, arrows, or the like.

(38) In future no official shall place a man on trial upon his own unsupported statement, without producing credible witnesses to the truth of it.

(39) No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land.

(40) To no one will we sell, to no one deny or delay right or justice.

(41) All merchants may enter or leave England unharmed and without fear, and may stay or travel within it, by land or water, for purposes of trade, free from all illegal exactions, in accordance with ancient and lawful customs. This, however, does not apply in time of war to merchants from a country that is at war with us. Any such merchants found in our country at the outbreak of war shall be detained without injury to their persons or property, until we or our chief justice have discovered how our own merchants are being treated in the country at war with us. If our own merchants are safe they shall be safe too.

(42) In future it shall be lawful for any man to leave and return to our kingdom unharmed and without fear, by land or water, preserving his allegiance to us, except in time of war, for some short period, for the common benefit of the realm. People that have been imprisoned or outlawed in accordance with the law of the land, people from a country that is at war with us, and merchants - who shall be dealt with as stated above - are excepted from this provision.

(43) If a man holds lands of any `escheat' such as the `honour' of Wallingford, Nottingham, Boulogne, Lancaster, or of other `escheats' in our hand that are baronies, at his death his heir shall give us only the `relief' and service that he would have made to the baron, had the barony been in the baron's hand. We will hold the `escheat' in the same manner as the baron held it.

(44) People who live outside the forest need not in future appear before the royal justices of the forest in answer to general summonses, unless they are actually involved in proceedings or are sureties for someone who has been seized for a forest offence.

(45) We will appoint as justices, constables, sheriffs, or other officials, only men that know the law of the realm and are minded to keep it well.

(46) All barons who have founded abbeys, and have charters of English kings or ancient tenure as evidence of this, may have guardianship of them when there is no abbot, as is their due.

(47) All forests that have been created in our reign shall at once be disafforested. River-banks that have been enclosed in our reign shall be treated similarly.

(48) All evil customs relating to forests and warrens, foresters, warreners, sheriffs and their servants, or river-banks and their wardens, are at once to be investigated in every county by twelve sworn knights of the county, and within forty days of their enquiry the evil customs are to be abolished completely and irrevocably. But we, or our chief justice if we are not in England, are first to be informed.

(49) We will at once return all hostages and charters delivered up to us by Englishmen as security for peace or for loyal service.

(50) We will remove completely from their offices the kinsmen of Gerard de Athée, and in future they shall hold no offices in England. The people in question are Engelard de Cigogné', Peter, Guy, and Andrew de Chanceaux, Guy de Cigogné, Geoffrey de Martigny and his brothers, Philip Marc and his brothers, with Geoffrey his nephew, and all their followers.

(51) As soon as peace is restored, we will remove from the kingdom all the foreign knights, bowmen, their attendants, and the mercenaries that have come to it, to its harm, with horses and arms.

(52) To any man whom we have deprived or dispossessed of lands, castles, liberties, or rights, without the lawful judgement of his equals, we will at once restore these. In cases of dispute the matter shall be resolved by the judgement of the twenty-five barons referred to below in the clause for securing the peace (§ 61). In cases, however, where a man was deprived or dispossessed of something without the lawful judgement of his equals by our father King Henry or our brother King Richard, and it remains in our hands or is held by others under our warranty, we shall have respite for the period commonly allowed to Crusaders, unless a lawsuit had been begun, or an enquiry had been made at our order, before we took the Cross as a Crusader. On our return from the Crusade, or if we abandon it, we will at once render justice in full.

(53) We shall have similar respite in rendering justice in connexion with forests that are to be disafforested, or to remain forests, when these were first a-orested by our father Henry or our brother Richard; with the guardianship of lands in another person's `fee', when we have hitherto had this by virtue of a `fee' held of us for knight's service by a third party; and with abbeys founded in another person's `fee', in which the lord of the `fee' claims to own a right. On our return from the Crusade, or if we abandon it, we will at once do full justice to complaints about these matters.

(54) No one shall be arrested or imprisoned on the appeal of a woman for the death of any person except her husband.

(55) All fines that have been given to us unjustiy and against the law of the land, and all fines that we have exacted unjustly, shall be entirely remitted or the matter decided by a majority judgement of the twenty-five barons referred to below in the clause for securing the peace (§ 61) together with Stephen, archbishop of Canterbury, if he can be present, and such others as he wishes to bring with him. If the archbishop cannot be present, proceedings shall continue without him, provided that if any of the twenty-five barons has been involved in a similar suit himself, his judgement shall be set aside, and someone else chosen and sworn in his place, as a substitute for the single occasion, by the rest of the twenty-five.

(56) If we have deprived or dispossessed any Welshmen of lands, liberties, or anything else in England or in Wales, without the lawful judgement of their equals, these are at once to be returned to them. A dispute on this point shall be determined in the Marches by the judgement of equals. English law shall apply to holdings of land in England, Welsh law to those in Wales, and the law of the Marches to those in the Marches. The Welsh shall treat us and ours in the same way

(57) In cases where a Welshman was deprived or dispossessed of anything, without the lawful judgement of his equals, by our father King Henry or our brother King Richard, and it remains in our hands or is held by others under our warranty, we shall have respite for the period commonly allowed to Crusaders, unless a lawsuit had been begun, or an enquiry had been made at our order, before we took the Cross as a Crusader. But on our return from the Crusade, or if we abandon it, we will at once do full justice according to the laws of Wales and the said regions.

(58) We will at once return the son of Llywelyn, all Welsh hostages, and the charters delivered to us as security for the peace.

(59) With regard to the return of the sisters and hostages of Alexander, king of Scotland, his liberties and his rights, we will treat him in the same way as our other barons of England, unless it appears from the charters that we hold from his father William, formerly king of Scotland, that he should be treated otherwise. This matter shall be resolved by the judgement of his equals in our court.

(60) All these customs and liberties that we have granted shall be observed in our kingdom in so far as concerns our own relations with our subjects. Let all men of our kingdom, whether clergy or laymen, observe them similarly in their relations with their own men.

(61) SINCE WE HAVE GRANTED ALL THESE THINGS for God, for the better ordering of our kingdom, and to allay the discord that has arisen between us and our barons, and since we desire that they shall be enjoyed in their entirety, with lasting strength, for ever, we give and grant to the barons the following security:

The barons shall elect twenty-five of their number to keep, and cause to be observed with all their might, the peace and liberties granted and confirmed to them by this charter.

If we, our chief justice, our officials, or any of our servants offend in any respect against any man, or transgress any of the articles of the peace or of this security, and the offence is made known to four of the said twenty-five barons, they shall come to us - or in our absence from the kingdom to the chief justice - to declare it and claim immediate redress. If we, or in our absence abroad the chiefjustice, make no redress within forty days, reckoning from the day on which the offence was declared to us or to him, the four barons shall refer the matter to the rest of the twenty-five barons, who may distrain upon and assail us in every way possible, with the support of the whole community of the land, by seizing our castles, lands, possessions, or anything else saving only our own person and those of the queen and our children, until they have secured such redress as they have determined upon. Having secured the redress, they may then resume their normal obedience to us.

Any man who so desires may take an oath to obey the commands of the twenty-five barons for the achievement of these ends, and to join with them in assailing us to the utmost of his power. We give public and free permission to take this oath to any man who so desires, and at no time will we prohibit any man from taking it. Indeed, we will compel any of our subjects who are unwilling to take it to swear it at our command.

If-one of the twenty-five barons dies or leaves the country, or is prevented in any other way from discharging his duties, the rest of them shall choose another baron in his place, at their discretion, who shall be duly sworn in as they were.

In the event of disagreement among the twenty-five barons on any matter referred to them for decision, the verdict of the majority present shall have the same validity as a unanimous verdict of the whole twenty-five, whether these were all present or some of those summoned were unwilling or unable to appear.

The twenty-five barons shall swear to obey all the above articles faithfully, and shall cause them to be obeyed by others to the best of their power.

We will not seek to procure from anyone, either by our own efforts or those of a third party, anything by which any part of these concessions or liberties might be revoked or diminished. Should such a thing be procured, it shall be null and void and we will at no time make use of it, either ourselves or through a third party.

(62) We have remitted and pardoned fully to all men any ill-will, hurt, or grudges that have arisen between us and our subjects, whether clergy or laymen, since the beginning of the dispute. We have in addition remitted fully, and for our own part have also pardoned, to all clergy and laymen any offences committed as a result of the said dispute between Easter in the sixteenth year of our reign (i.e. 1215) and the restoration of peace.

In addition we have caused letters patent to be made for the barons, bearing witness to this security and to the concessions set out above, over the seals of Stephen archbishop of Canterbury, Henry archbishop of Dublin, the other bishops named above, and Master Pandulf.

(63) IT IS ACCORDINGLY OUR WISH AND COMMAND that the English Church shall be free, and that men in our kingdom shall have and keep all these liberties, rights, and concessions, well and peaceably in their fulness and entirety for them and their heirs, of us and our heirs, in all things and all places for ever.

Both we and the barons have sworn that all this shall be observed in good faith and without deceit. Witness the abovementioned people and many others.

Given by our hand in the meadow that is called Runnymede, between Windsor and Staines, on the fifteenth day of June in the seventeenth year of our reign (i.e. 1215: the new regnal year began on 28 May).