Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T02:25:46.476Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

With a Little Help from a Friend: Habeas Corpus and the Magna Carta after Runnymede

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 June 2010

Justin J. Wert
Justin J. Wert
Affiliation:
University of Oklahoma
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

At the beginning of the twentieth century, Charles McIlwain observed that the new histories of the Magna Carta were portraying the charter as a “document of reaction” that could only fulfill its purported greatness “when men [were] no longer able to understand its real meaning” (McIlwain 1914, 46). Characteristic of these early-twentieth-century writers was Edward Jenks, who, in his 1904 article “The Myth of Magna Carta,” came to the conclusion that the real beneficiaries of the document—the liber homo of Article 39—were not “the people” we traditionally imagine, but rather an “aristocratic class … who can no more be ranked amongst the people, than the country gentleman of to-day” (Jenks 1904, 269). Although Jenks's position is often criticized as extreme, it is nevertheless the case that virtually all of the Magna Carta's modern commentators recognize vast historical inaccuracies in the Whiggish accounts of the charter's development up until the late nineteenth century (Radin 1946; Reid 1993; Halliday 2010, 15–16). What these new revisionist histories suggested was that the Magna Carta's great provisions—due process and trial by jury—only became great when, forgetting or ignoring the charter's seemingly lackluster beginnings, generations subsequent to 1215 gave them new meaning.

Type
Symposium
Information
PS: Political Science & Politics , Volume 43 , Issue 3 , July 2010 , pp. 475 - 478
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alexander, Hamilton. 2003. Federalist #84. New York: Bantam.Google Scholar
Blackstone, William, and Tucker, St. George. 1803. Blackstone's Commentaries. With Notes of Reference to the Constitution and Laws, of the Federal Government of the United States, and of the Commonwealth of Virginia. 4. Philadelphia: William Young Birch and Abraham Small.Google Scholar
Butterfield, Herbert. 1931. The Whig Interpretation of History. London: G. Bell and Sons.Google Scholar
Chafee, Zechariah Jr. 1952. “The Most Important Human Right in the Constitution.” Boston University Law Review 32: 143.Google Scholar
Cohen, Maxwell. 1938. “Some Considerations on the Origins of Habeas Corpus.” Canadian Bar Review 16: 92.Google Scholar
Corwin, Edward S. 1928. “The Higher Law Background of American Constitutional Law.” Harvard Law Review 42: 149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duker, William F. 1980. A Constitutional History of Habeas Corpus. Westport, CT: Greenwood.Google Scholar
Fay v. Noia. 1963. 372 U.S. 391.Google Scholar
Frank v. Mangum. 1915. 237 U.S. 309.Google Scholar
Halliday, Paul D. 2010. Habeas Corpus: From England to Empire. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Hamilton, Alexander, Madison, James, and Jay, John. 2003. The Federalist Papers. New York: Bantam.Google Scholar
Jenks, Edward. 1904. “The Myth of Magna Carta.” Independent Review 4: 260.Google Scholar
Kelly, Alfred H. 1965. “Clio and the Court: An Illicit Love Affair.” Supreme Court Review 1965: 119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McIlwain, C. H. 1914. “Due Process of Law in Magna Carta.” Columbia Law Review 14: 27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meador, Daniel John. 1966. Habeas Corpus and Magna Carta: Dualism of Power and Liberty. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press.Google Scholar
Morris, Thomas D. 1974. Free Men All: The Personal Liberty Laws of the North, 1780–1861. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Nutting, Helen A. 1960. “The Most Wholesome Law—The Habeas Corpus Act of 1679.” American Historical Review 65 (3): 527–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oaks, Dallin H. 1964. “Habeas Corpus in the States—1776–1865.” University of Chicago Law Review 32: 243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Radin, Max. 1946. “The Myth of Magna Carta.” Harvard Law Review 60: 1060.Google Scholar
Reid, John Phillip. 1993. “The Jurisprudence of Liberty: The Ancient Constitution in the Legal Historiography of the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries.” In The Roots of Liberty: Magna Carta, Ancient Constitution, and the Anglo-American Tradition of Rule of Law, ed. Sandoz, E., 185–308. Columbia: University of Missouri Press.Google Scholar
Stoner, James R. 1992. Common Law and Liberal Theory: Coke, Hobbes, and the Origins of American Constitutionalism. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.Google Scholar