Hype and Hypocrisy – the Magna Carta
- This topic has 21 replies, 7 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 5 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Two of us are going to this meeting in Oxford tomorrow:
Quote:Guest speaker Dr Mike Macnair will speak at this Thursday’s Oxford CCS public meeting on The continuing contemporary irrelevance of Magna Carta, which will be held in the upstairs function room of the Mitre. As usual, there will be a short talk, Q&As, and discussion. The details are:The continuing contemporary irrelevance of Magna CartaSpeaker: Dr Mike Macnair (Associate Professor in Law, University of Oxford)7.30-9.00pmThursday 18 June, The Mitre, corner of High St and Turl St.We won't forget to ask him about the Forest Charter. He should know what he's talking about as he specialises in medieval law. He writes regularly for the Weekly Worker too.
Interesting meeting in Oxford. From which we learned that the Magna Carta really dates from 1217 when it was readopted by King John's successor, Henry III or even 1225 (when it was definitively readopted). Mcnair's argument was that the current celebration of the Charter reflected the Whig interpretation of British history as one of gradual progress towards a constitutional monarchy such as was achieved in 1688, with the Magna Carta as the first step on this road. This contrasted with the "Tory" view that there was nothing special about it, but that it was just one event in mediaeval history, a view which is still being expressed.Mcnair said that the Charter could indeed be seen as a step on the road to the bourgeoisie winning control of political power, even though at the time it was a dispute between barons and their leader. He criticised those (such as Peter Lindeburgh) who see the Forest Charter part of a step towards the recovery of commonly owned land. Mcnair was particularly scathing in his criticism of this view, pointing out that the commons were commonly owned only by commoners in a particular area and that the goal of socialists was not to go back to this but to go forward to the common ownership of the whole world by everybody. No doubt his talk will appear some time in the Weekly Worker.It emerged from the discussion that Cromwell probably never did call it the Magna Farta but that this was something put about by the Royalists when they regained power in 1660. Also, that it really was a dispute between Norman barons and their leader. The proceedings were conducted in French and King John (or should that be King Jean) was a native French-speaking as was his son and successor Henri III. That the words "free men" in the Charter referred only to non-nobles who owned the freehold of the land they worked and so excluded over half the population who were serfs ("villeins") who worked the land for their feudal masters as well as themselves (and that the couple of rights given to women were to widows only of barons and free men). Also, that the Charter certain trading and navigation rights to the merchants of the City of London (the foreunners of the capitalist class)..I've since read a speech by one "Tory" interpreter of the Magna Carta, to which Mcnair referred, Lord Sumption of the Supreme Court (and literally a Tory). It's quite good. I hope that doesn't make me what Mcnair called a "Torified Marxist" (he called Sumption a "Marxified Tory"). The front cover of the June Socialist Standard would certainly seem to be in this tradition. The speech can be found here:https://www.supremecourt.uk/docs/speech-150309.pdf
i was very pleasantly surprised by the simplicity this law lord expressed himself in the article…no legalese mumbo-jumbo but such law references explained in a way to be easily understood.Myths are useful tools and potent weapons but are socialists forbidden from perpetuating some of them for our own advantage. I dare say the history of the labour and socialist movement can be re-written, correcting our emotional attachments but we deign to do so. Takes us back to LBird and his ideology in a way. Is there an objectivity we should be seeking in our case for socialism or can we cherry-pick 'facts' and events to support our position?…Or have we crossed the line between means and ends?
Just read an old SLP pamphlet from 1907 The Development of Socialism in Great Britain which I collected with other pamphlets and books from a comrade who died and before depositing it in HO Library. It has this to say on "villeins" (only mentioned once in 1215 Magna Carta and not at all in the Forest Charter) as distinct from the "free men" (frequently mentioned in both) or "freeholders":
Quote:Chattel slavery was displaced as feudalism became thoroughly established, by the feudal system of villeinage. The villein, unlike the chattel slave, could not be sold in the market. He was tied to the soil, ascriptus glebae—part and parcel of the estate on which he was born. When the land was sold, or otherwise transferred from one owner to another, the villein changed masters as well. In return for the portion of land which he cultivated for his own use, the villein was compelled lo work so many days in the week on the private demesne of the feudal superior. As time went on, the feudal lord found it more profitable to commute this labour for a fixed rent. It is easy to see how this happened. Forced labour, hated by the villein and resisted in every possible fashion was much less productive than labour which could be hired. Consequently during the 14th century the institution of villeinage gradually decayed. The former villein became a "copy-holder" or tenant farmer. Formerly the villein could not depart from the soil; now he became free to come or go as he chose. His superior had also the right to turn him off the land when he chose. An attempt was subsequently made by the barons to revert to the old system. The pestilence called The Black Death which swept over Europe 1347-49, by enormously decreasing the agricultural population, increased the price of labour. When the lords, aided by the lawyers, tried to re-inforce the old villeinage duties, the villeins rose in revolt in 1381 in various counties in the South and East of England under Wat Tyler, Jack Straw, John Ball and other leaders. Although the rising was suppressed, it was found impossible to enforce the old services effectively, and villeinage disappeared at the close of the 14th. century.As far as they were concerned it was a Magna Farta.
Mike Macnair's article on the Magna Carta can be (could have been) found here:http://weeklyworker.co.uk/worker/1051/magna-carta-and-long-history/
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.