ARTICLE 29/39 OF THE MAGNA CARTA IN THE PUBLIC CONTROVERSY OF THE LATE 16TH CENTURY

Abstract

The article is devoted to the reception life of Article 29/39 of the Magna Carta in the political and right-wing controversy of England at the end of the 16th century. It is shown that the Magna Carta, which fell out of use in the late Middle Ages, returned to the political and right-wing space in the Elizabethan era. It was customary to use the Magna Carta in the 1225 edition, otherwise the edition of Henry III, which was confirmed more than 30 times and was perceived as an act of parliament. An analysis of the treatises of common law jurists William Fleetwood and Robert Snape led to the conclusion that the Magna Carta was considered a document that restored the ancient best and just right, trampled by the Norman invasion, and ensured continuity with the beyond the memory of British antiquity. Article 29 was considered the core and quintessence of the liberties and rights of subjects. A study of the controversy between common law lawyers James Maurice, Robert Beale and civilist Richard Coisin around the judicial powers of the High Commission, its ex officio inquisition procedure and specific incidents of persecution of nonconformist priests led to the conclusion that these common law lawyers insisted on the fundamental nature of Article 29, on the unlawfulness of the prosecutions, the inability of the commission to issue criminal sentences and to use the ex officio inquisition oath. They argued that the royal authority did not have the prerogative to create commissions in violation of Article 29. Civilist Richard Coisin objected that ecclesiastical jurisdiction is an independent branch of law and is not subject to Magna Carta.