The identity of a people often shapes the nature and trajectory of their government. In England, a deep-rooted belief in individual liberty has profoundly influenced the nation’s legal and cultural institutions, shaping English society from the early Middle Ages through the Industrial Revolution. This identity—forged through centuries of struggle and self-definition—established a legacy of individual rights, due process, and a balanced approach to law and order. The Magna Carta of 1215, for instance, set a groundbreaking precedent by binding even the king to the rule of law and affirming that Englishmen were “free-born.” This commitment was further solidified by the development of English common law, which emphasized justice and protection for all citizens, regardless of rank, including the monarch.
In 1707, however, a significant shift occurred with the Act of Union, which joined England and Scotland under a single British identity. This transformation required England’s traditions of liberty and local governance to adapt to a centralized imperial authority, reconfiguring individual freedoms within a larger imperial framework. Although these ideals persisted, they began to reflect the needs of an expanding empire, aligning liberty with broader, centralized control.
The legacy of English liberty stands at a precarious threshold. The recent UK government advisory, “Think before you post,” cloaked in public welfare, quietly undermines the freedoms that once defined English identity. Once a steadfast guardian of individual rights, the government now leans toward surveillance and constraint, drifting alarmingly from its founding principles of liberty and due process. This subtle shift suggests a future where the very freedoms that shaped English society are at risk of being quietly surrendered.
Evolving Traditions of English Liberty
The Magna Carta was originally a series of rebellious victories that compelled the English monarchy to state rights formally that had previously been assumed. First issued in 1215 by King John under pressure from rebellious barons, the document marked a significant shift by formally acknowledging several protections like the right to fair trial and justice. Although annulled shortly after by Pope Innocent III, it was reissued in 1216, 1217, and 1225 under King Henry III, each version reinforcing the principle that the monarchy was bound by law and individual rights were inviolable. Over time, the Magna Carta became a lasting symbol of accountable governance and the protection of fundamental rights, invoked repeatedly by the English against tyranny.
The Levellers adopted and expanded upon the ideas of natural law in England during the Wars of Three Kingdoms (1639 -1653), Lilburne particularly argued that government must be based on a contract with the people, one that exists to protect the “freeborn rights” of every individual. John Lilburne, a prominent Leveller, asserted that “every man by nature was born with as much freedom as any other man.” Furthermore, Richard Overton, another key Leveller, linked the concept of freeborn rights to the ancient liberties of England, arguing that these liberties were the birthright of every Englishman and were to be upheld by the rational law of nature. He argued that every person should be judged by the law of nature or rule of reason. He advocated for the inherent rights of self-ownership and freedom from aggression, which he believed belonged to all individuals by their humanity.
The Levellers’ manifesto, An Agreement of the People, advocated for constitutional reforms to establish a government that truly represented and protected citizens’ rights, including freedom of religion, the press, and conscience. It called for equality before the law, the rule of law, protection of private property, and a democratically-elected parliament. It inspired the Radical Whigs and, subsequently, the Liberal Party. In the 19th century, the Whigs and the Liberal Party championed these principles, promoting greater suffrage, the removal of trade barriers, and the elimination of price and wage controls to foster economic freedom and market competition.
The Levellers’ vision resonated with common law’s principles of due process, reason, and communal judgment. Due process mandated transparency and adherence to procedures, safeguarding against arbitrary rule. Trial by jury empowered peers to judge, highlighting fairness and public accountability. Guided by precedent, common law ensured consistency and restrained the whims of those in power, emphasizing rational adjudication and judicial independence to ground justice in enduring principles over fleeting policies.
In the early 17th century, Sir Edward Coke’s interpretation of common law reshaped English legal principles by establishing a framework of liberty that bound even the monarch. His ruling in Dr. Bonham’s Case (1610) argued that “the common law will control Acts of Parliament, and sometimes adjudge them utterly void” if they contravene basic principles of “common right and reason.” This marked a foundational assertion that courts could nullify laws infringing on individual rights, prefiguring the principle of judicial review that would later become central to constitutional law.
Coke’s landmark work, The Institutes of the Lawes of England, expanded on this philosophy, asserting that “the king himself ought not to be under man, but under God and the law.” This statement directly opposed the doctrine of the divine right of kings, asserting that the monarch was also bound by common law, a revolutionary stance in his era. Coke’s interpretation insisted that law was supreme over all authority, positioning the judiciary as a crucial check on both royal and parliamentary overreach.
Through his legal writings and judgments, Coke codified the view of common law as a protector of inherent rights and a constraint on sovereign power. His ideas set the stage for modern constitutionalism particularly in the United States and the rest of the world, cementing judicial oversight as a safeguard against the erosion of civil liberties by any governing power.
From English Liberty to Imperial Subject: The Quiet Conquest of England
In his 1899 critique, The Conquest of the United States by Spain, William Graham Sumner warned with biting clarity that while the United States had vanquished Spain militarily, it stood on the precipice of an internal defeat by adopting Spain’s authoritarian practices. Sumner’s words cut to imperialism’s core: in subjugating others, a nation risks eroding its own fundamental values, reshaped by the oppressive systems it enforces abroad. His warning is a clear caution against the lure of empire, where the conqueror risks self-loss in conquest.
As England’s empire expanded in the 17th and 18th centuries, local English identity gave way to an imperial British identity, dismantling centuries-old liberties. Acts like the Navigation Acts (1651), Stamp Act (1765), and Declaratory Act (1766) ravaged colonial rights, restricting trade, undermining due process, and asserting Britain’s absolute control. The 1707 Act of Union suppressed Scottish autonomy, centralizing power for imperial cohesion. This legal onslaught sacrificed the “free-born Englishman” ideal, replacing local justice with exploitation and deepening colonial resentment.
The Stamp Act of 1765 and the Townshend Acts of 1767 imposed taxes without colonial representation, violating the English constitutional principle that taxation required consent—rooted in the Magna Carta and reaffirmed by the 1689 Bill of Rights. These measures sowed resentment that ultimately led to the loss of the American colonies, as they fought to affirm their natural rights. The establishment of Vice-Admiralty Courts in the colonies marked a stark departure from English legal traditions. These courts, operating without juries and presided over by Crown-appointed judges, denied colonists the right to a fair trial—a bedrock of English justice. The Sugar Act of 1764 further empowered these courts to try smuggling cases that, in England, would have been heard in common law courts with juries. This denial of basic legal protections signaled Britain’s disregard for its own principles in favor of enforcing imperial dominance.
The British Empire’s expansion necessitated an increasingly centralized government that directly interfered with local governance, diminishing the English tradition of decentralized authority. The Declaratory Act of 1766, for instance, unequivocally imposed Parliament’s supremacy, stripping colonial assemblies of any legislative power by allowing British lawmakers to legislate for the colonies “in all cases whatsoever.” This act nullified the longstanding colonial self-governance system, effectively rendering local legislative bodies powerless and consolidating control in London.
Moreover, the arbitrary expansion of executive power in both Britain and its colonies severely eroded the rule of law, enabling unchecked governmental authority. The Suspension of Habeas Corpus Act of 1794, enacted in response to perceived revolutionary threats, allowed indefinite detention without trial, a direct violation of the 1679 Habeas Corpus Act that had protected citizens from arbitrary imprisonment. This suspension prioritized state security over individual rights, marking a stark departure from English legal principles. In American colonies, governors wielded vast authority under the King’s commission, bypassing colonial assemblies and enacting laws or raising taxes without local consent, fueling resentment and ultimately rebellion. Such unilateral executive actions highlighted the extent to which the British Empire prioritized imperial control over the adherence to fair governance and legal integrity.
In conclusion, while much of the foundational principles of English liberty has been eroded through imperial expansion and centralized authority, there is hope for a revival—a new renaissance of the ideals that once defined the nation. By reawakening the commitment to individual rights, due process, and accountable governance, society can reclaim its identity rooted in freedom and justice.
Full story here Are you the author?You Might Also Like
Evil? Maybe. Crazy? Don’t Bet On It.
2024-08-30
How States Think: The Rationality of Foreign Policyby John J. Mearsheimer and Sebastian RosatoYale University Press, 2023; 304 pp.In this very useful book, the political scientists John J. Mearsheimer and Sebastian Rosato warn against a logic that leads to war: America is challenged by an evil dictator who will not respond rationally to incentives. Such a person can be dealt with only through overwhelming force and must be eliminated from the scene. Today Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong Un are the world’s irrational dictators, and in past years it was Saddam Hussein.The fallacy in this way of thinking, Mearsheimer and Rosato aver, is that these dictators, however evil we may consider them, and the states they represent are in fact acting in a rational way. This at once raises the question of
Tags: Featured,newsletter
