THE MYTH OF MAGNA CARTA

Dominion, Volume 14, Issue 68, 14 December 1920, Page 7

THE MYTH OF MAGNA CARTA

SOME COMMON ERRORS REPUTED. No document in English- history has been moro misunderstood that jlagna Carta, writes Professor Ernest ■ Scott in the Melbourne "Argus." The halo of superstition has gathered' around it. Too commonly it has been supposed to ho illie foundation of British liberties and to contain the principles of the Habeas Corpus Act, trial by jury .uo taxation without representation, and many other important, things. In fact, in embodies no allusion to any of these developments. There is nothing in Magna Carta that was not sound law generations earlier, and nothing was inserted in it which can be regarded as the origin of any British institution. Much of what is 'popularly believed abouO it is puro myth. The truth is tfiit the entire Charter was a formal guarantee of tho rights and privileges of the baronial aristocracy, the knightb, the- "freemen," and the merchants, all of whom were, as the cant phrase goes, "class conscious." It did nothing to protect tho peasantry, except to the extent fihat they were assets of the estates of their lords; nor did it protect those artisans of the towns who were not "freemen" in the medieval reuse of isic word. ■ Magna Carta was, in short, a statement of baronial privileges, with the addition of some provisions for tho benefit of persons of lesser rank, but of none for those who had not emerged from the condition of villeinage, the most numerous clnss in tlig coumlry. It was not, even in a remote degree, a democratic. instrument. If any villein in' the thirteenth century had ventured to assert such principles as the Labour movement is now supposed to represent, his fate, ill all probability, would not have been a happy one. Another common error concerning Magna Carta is illustrated by a statement of Senator Gardiner in the Jerger debate He described tho misgovern-: ment of King John as having brought "an organisation into existence which drafted quite an exemplary charter of liberty." This organisation "was so powerful that it was able to force the King to sign that charter." Well, King John did not "sign that charter". There are no signatures upon it. Anyone who has seen the two original copies at the British Museum, or the facsimilo at the Melbourne Public Library, will recognise that it is utterly erroneous to speak of the "signing" .of Magna Carta. It was sealed, not signed. Some text books of history in use in schools make this mistake, and artists who have essayed to represent the scene at llunnymede almost , invariably show King John with his crown on his head and a vicious expression on his face, dashing off his signature with a large quill pen. I have one gorgeous picture—all blue and scarlet and gold—which shows the King writing his namo with what looks like a fountain pon but may bo a wooden one— in any case it is absurd. John used no pen; he.signified his assent, and the Royal seal was affixed to the parchment by his direction. (See on this point the recent correspondence in "The Times," which brought out tho interesting fact that there is not in existence- any signature of an English King earlier than Edward III.).

Much of the glamour which has contributed to the creation of the .Magna Carta myth arises from its name. It was not known as the Great Charter to contemporaries any more than- Domesday Book was known under that name to William I and his chancellary officials. It was known as the Carta Baronum, or sometimes as the Carta Libertatum. Not till the reign of Henry 111 did the name which it now bears como into use, and then tliero is good reason to 'believo "Magna" was applied to it, not because its contents were supposed to be particularly impprtaut, but to distinguish it from a smaller charter—"parvn carta"— which -had been granted by Henry 111. If this theory of the name be correct, "Magna" was descriptive of tho size of the charter of King John, in comparison with that of Ilenry 111, and had no relation to its contents.

Nor, indeed, was there any particular reason why contemporaries should regard the charter as "Magna" in any other sense. .It contained nothing that was new. It was 1 very important that John's barons obtained the King's formal assent to a plain statement of old law, from which he had departed, but the barons were not innovators. They were not making new law, but compelling the observance by a refractory king of sound English custom. It granted 110 fresh liberties. to anybody. It was essentially a feudal instrument, forced at the swords point upon a king who had gnovously offended the baronial class.