Similarities Between Magna Carta And English Bill Of Rights

The Magna Carta and the English Bill of Rights were both essential documents in the establishment of human liberties. The Magna Carta, which was signed in 1215 was an agreement between the King of England and the three great estates. These estates included the Church of England, the aristocracy, and the people of new wealth. The agreement was signed to make peace between the King and the estates, as the estates felt the King was abusing his powers. The document entails 63 clauses that dealt with grievances the estates had with the King. These clauses introduced a multitude of fundamental rights that have helped create and shape the democracies many of us live in today. The English Bill of Rights was signed in 1689 after the Glorious Revolution. It was signed by William and Mary, who obtained dual crown ship after

signing the document. The English Bill of Rights was intended to limit some of the power of the monarchy and set forth rights for the people. These documents were the cornerstone for many democratic policies and laws seen to this day. The founders of the United States and other nations used the ideas and principles of these documents to create the foundation for the governments they were creating. Documents such as the United States Constitution include many democratic ideas that were first declared in these two documents.
The first clause of the Magna Carta stated that the monarchy would have no influence or power over the Church and its affairs. This clause implied that the monarchy could not influence any policy of the Church of England or influence the elections held within the church. The clause also mentions the idea of a separate court system for the Church of England. This allowed the church to deal with its own affairs and ensured that the government had no way to influence the church through the bartering of convicted church officials. The English Bill of Rights does not contain any articles pertaining to the separation of church and state. It does however mention the misdeed of the King James II for creating a court that punished bishops of the Church of England. This mention concludes that the idea of separation of church and state was still evident, but it was not something the creators of the document felt needed to be addressed. These two documents contain the idea of a separation of religion from our government. This idea was first meant to keep government out of religion, but has now become a way to have a government free from the less democratic systems of most religions. The founders of the United States witnessed the power religion had on dividing Great Britain between Catholics and Protestants. They understood that a democracy could not be successful if religious fighting plagued the system. That is why the founders included the following line of “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”(Madison 12) in article VI of the Constitution. More prominently, the First Amendment adamantly expresses the idea of a separation of church and state by saying “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” (Madison 1). The line in Article VI and the Amendment insured that the government would not be run by a particular religion or sect and therefore insured that the United States would not be plagued by the largely undemocratic practices of a religious state.
In a democratic system, people are the essential piece of the government. The ideas and beliefs the people have influence where the country goes. The idea that people are essential to society makes the worth and respect for the person become an essential issue in that society. The respect is not only for the person’s ideas, but also for their property as well. The issue of respect for an individual’s property is addressed in the Magna Carta. Clause 32 of the Magna Carta states “We will not keep the lands of people convicted of felony in our hand for longer than a year and a day, after which they shall be returned to the lords of the `fees' concerned” (King John 5). This clause guarantees that property cannot be taken indefinably for committing a crime. It ensures that a major piece of a person’s worth, and sometimes self-worth, cannot be seized for a long period of time. This idea also helps to disparage the idea of false imprisonment. It does this by erasing the incentive of false imprisonment for the gain of property. The 4th Amendment states “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated” (Madison 1). This Amendment takes the ideas of the Magna Carta and extends it to other types of property other than land. The Amendment ensures that people’s property is safe from being taken away by the government. It later states that it can be searched and seized with a warrant, but the warrant ensures that a person’s property is not being searched or seized in an unlawful or illiberal way. The 4th Amendment has no guarantee on recovery, but ensures that people’s belonging and rights will not be impeded upon without a vital reason.
For a democratic system the idea of a standing army in times of peace is something that could undermine a democracy. Many countries have experienced military coups in their country due to a general using a standing army to forcefully overthrow the government. To combat an army infringing on the government or its people, the English Bill of Rights had a provision stating “That the raising or keeping a standing army within the kingdom in time of peace, unless it be with consent of Parliament, is against law” (“English Bill of Rights” 2). This provision made sure that an army or its generals were not influencing the government in any way. It gave parliament a major check on the military powers of England. Many of the founders did not want a standing army, but Washington knew the state militias were almost completely ineffective. The founders compromised and in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution it states “To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years” (CITE). This clause ensures that the military gets checked every two years and ensures that the government controls its army and no vice versa. Militaries are, beyond comprehension, more mobilized than the founders could have ever envisioned. It would be impossible for the United States to not have a standing army, but that does not mean the founders ideas of keeping the military in check do not apply today.
The idea of the military impeding on the citizens was an event the founders of the United States feared. The citizens of the colonies had gone through the occupation of British troops and many had been forced to quarter troops within their homes. The founders knew how impeding the quartering of troops was on the people and included the 3rd Amendment in the Bill of Rights, which states “No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law” (Madison 1).This Amendment was also heavily influenced by the English Bill of Rights. That document included grievances that the parliament and the people had towards King James II. One of the grievances stated “quartering soldiers contrary to law” (“English Bill of Rights” 1). This grievance was stated because the King was impeding on the citizens by quartering troops within their homes. Having troops stay within a household without consent is a violation of a person’s right of privacy. It not only makes people feel uncomfortable in their own home, but it can suppress their freedom of speech as well. It does not matter if it is the 17th century or the 21st century, the founders knew it was something that no person should have to endure.
The easiest way for a government to oppress the people is to fear them. Governments use threats of imprisonment and torture to subdue the voices of those against them. To combat tyranny, the three estates included the clause “For a trivial offence, a free man shall be fined only in proportion to the degree of his offence, and for a serious offence correspondingly, but not so heavily as to deprive him of his livelihood” (King John 3).This clause ensures that the monarchy would not use the fear of imprisonment or death to oppress the people or the three estates. This clause was a major influence on the 8th Amendment. This Amendment states “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted” (Madison 2). The 8th Amendment ensures that the government cannot oppress the people with the fear of losing money or being treated in an inhumane way. This ensures that the people are still the leading voice in the democracy and the government cannot influence the people out of fear.
King Charles I of England dismissed his parliament twice during his rule.

The second dismissal was based on the comments the parliament made to him. This second dismissal was a key factor that led to his execution and the rump parliament. That parliament ultimately led to the glorious revolution and the signing of the English Bill of Rights. To ensure that the cycle would not repeat and the parliament could give there honest opinion, the clause “That the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament” (“English Bill of Rights” 3) was included in the document. The English government of the 17th century was based mostly on the voice of the monarchy and the parliament. In democracies today, the leading voice is the people. To ensure the people had the leading voice in our nation, the founders made the clear statement “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech” (Madison 1). This statement within the Bill of Rights ensured that the people were free to express where their country would go and to eliminate any further tyranny with their collective

voice.
The Magna Carta and the English Bill of Rights were documents created many centuries ago. They were written to make major changes in a monarchy thousands of miles away, but they influenced many of the democracies we see today. The founding fathers and creators of the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights were heavily influenced by the democratic ideas with these two documents. They took many of the ideas from these documents and used them to shape the democracy we live in today. This nation, and this world, would be far less democratic without the creation and influence of these two documents.