Magna Carta: A Commentary on the Great Charter of King John: With an Historical IntroductionMcKechnie, William Sharp
History
Magna Carta: A Commentary on the Great Charter of King John: With an Historical Introduction
McKechnie, William Sharp
Constitutional history -- England -- Sources; Law -- England -- History; Law -- England -- Sources; Magna Carta
I. _The rights of the National Church._ A general promise that the
English church should be free was accompanied by a special confirmation
of the separate charter recently granted guaranteeing freedom of
canonical election. (1) _Quod Anglicana ecclesia libera sit._ This
emphatic, if vague declaration, which has no counterpart in the Articles
of the Barons, is repeated twice in Magna Carta, each time in a
prominent position, at the beginning and the end respectively. If the
work of the barons showed no special tenderness for churchmen’s
privileges, Stephen Langton and his bishops were careful to have that
defect remedied in the formal document by which John expressed his final
consent. In extorting this promise of a “free” English church, the
prelates seem to have been satisfied that they need ask for nothing
more; the other particulars in which the Charter differs from its draft
show no trace of clerical bias. The phrase used, indeed, was deplorably
vague and elastic; it scarcely needed stretching to cover the widest
encroachments of clerical arrogance. Yet the formula was by no means a
new one; Henry I. and Stephen had successively confirmed the claim of
holy church to its freedom.[338]
-----
Footnote 338:
See these charters in Appendix.
Henry II. was careful to avoid making any such promises: his whole reign
was an effort, not unsuccessful in spite of the terrible disadvantage at
which he was placed by the murder of Becket, to deprive the church of
what her leaders considered her legitimate “freedom.” John in 1215,
however, receded from the ground occupied by his father, confirming by
the Great Charter the promise given by the weakest of his Norman
predecessors, in a phrase repeated in all subsequent confirmations.
It by no means follows that “freedom of the church,” as promised by
Stephen, meant exactly the same thing as “freedom of the church”
promised by John and his successors.[339] The value to be attached to
such assurances varied in inverse ratio to the strength of the kings who
made them, and this is well illustrated by a comparison of the charters
of Henry I., Stephen, and John. Henry qualifies the phrase by words
which illustrate if they do not limit its application. God’s holy church
was to be free “_so that_ I shall neither sell nor let to farm, nor on
the death of archbishop, bishop, or abbot, accept anything from the
demesne of the church or from its tenants, until his successor has
entered into possession.”[340] This suggests a somewhat narrow
interpretation of the church’s freedom—exemption mainly from the
iniquities of Rufus. Stephen’s charter, on the contrary, explains or
supplements the same phrase by definite declarations that the bishops
should have sole jurisdiction over churchmen and their goods, and that
all rights of wardship over church lands were renounced, thus making it
a “large and dangerous promise.”[341]
-----
Footnote 339:
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account