Anyone with even a rudimentary knowledge of British history is familiar with the Magna Carta. First signed by King John in 1215, it is the birth of constitutionalism in England. However, there is another equally important document that receives much less attention, both from general society and from our schools.
Although it failed to respect the inherent right of Catholics to worship as they saw fit, it was a strong message in forcing monarchs to accept that they were not divinely chosen and could therefore not act executively without the consent of Parliament. Its relatives? The Magna Carta, the Provisions of Oxford and the far more famous US Bill of Rights. The document is the English Bill of Rights.
The English Bill of Rights was presented to William and Mary at their coronation, after King James II, the previous King, was forced to abdicate the throne after the Glorious Revolution. The document addressed their grievances with the former monarch and clearly outlined that the civil liberties of the subjects would not be infringed upon. The overriding message from the Bill was that the king could not enact any major change without the approval of Parliament. This was in reaction to what some believed to be tyrannical displays of power by James II; the Act begins in the following manner:
We must acknowledge that the parliamentarians description of Catholics as papists was gross discrimination; however, the remainder of the Act outlines multiple civil liberties that it is illegal for the monarch to infringe upon. The English Bill of Rights stood against:
Although it failed to respect the inherent right of Catholics to worship as they saw fit, it was a strong message in forcing monarchs to accept that they were not divinely chosen and could therefore not act executively without the consent of Parliament. Its relatives? The Magna Carta, the Provisions of Oxford and the far more famous US Bill of Rights. The document is the English Bill of Rights.
The English Bill of Rights was presented to William and Mary at their coronation, after King James II, the previous King, was forced to abdicate the throne after the Glorious Revolution. The document addressed their grievances with the former monarch and clearly outlined that the civil liberties of the subjects would not be infringed upon. The overriding message from the Bill was that the king could not enact any major change without the approval of Parliament. This was in reaction to what some believed to be tyrannical displays of power by James II; the Act begins in the following manner:
Whereas the late King James the Second, by the assistance of divers evil counsellors, judges and ministers employed by him, did endeavour to subvert and extirpate the Protestant religion and the laws and liberties of this kingdom...The writers of this Act make their motives clear; they are unabashed Protestants with a love of parliamentary supremacy. They also have a strong dislike for Catholics, or "papists" as they are referred to in the Act. They understand the importance of an armed population; the Act reads, "By causing several good subjects being Protestants to be disarmed at the same time when papists were both armed and employed contrary to law...". This sentence illustrates that they understood the dire consequences of tyrannical individuals disarming sections of the population. They were afraid that England might descend into a Protestant-Catholic Civil War in which one side was observedly incapable of defending themselves.
We must acknowledge that the parliamentarians description of Catholics as papists was gross discrimination; however, the remainder of the Act outlines multiple civil liberties that it is illegal for the monarch to infringe upon. The English Bill of Rights stood against:
- courts of state religions,
- illegal and cruel punishments,
- punishment before judgment,
- disallowing certain MPs from serving in public
- lying about the use of tax money,
- excessive bail
- quartering soldiers without the consent of Parliament
- having a standing army in peacetime without Parliament, and
- unqualified jurors
The English Bill of Rights was the long-awaited marriage between two concepts: no one is above the law (Magna Carta) and leaders must be held accountable (Provisions of Oxford). It is incredibly important in that it has influenced Western political philosophy, whether or not we know about it. James Madison did not conceive the US Bill of Rights in a vacuum; the Founding Fathers were assured that they had natural rights because they were accustomed to such ideas under the British legal tradition. Note that the 17th century English Bill of Rights remarks upon many freedoms guaranteed under the 18th century US Bill of Rights, namely excessive bail and cruel punishment (Amendment VIII); quartering soldiers in private homes (Amendment III); due process (Amendment V). The 1689 bill also, to some extent, spoke against state religious courts, though this was likely merely an attack on Catholicism.
Furthermore, the Act of Parliament sent a strong message, at the time, to the new king and queen, William and Mary: disrespect the liberties of your citizens and you will bear the consequences of exile, just as their predecessor (James II) was. This was consequential in that it held monarchs accountable to the people and made Parliament ultimately supreme. Both Britons and Americans owe a lot to the English Bill of Rights in that it influenced Western thought as to allow for societies in which liberty was the dominant narrative. It is a shame that this event is seldom covered school curricula, given its relevance to our system of government. If we wish to respect the traditions that built the Western world, we should bring the teaching of the English Bill of Rights back into our schools.
Comments
Post a Comment